IRA supporter becomes Baroness

It’s not often that H&D readers would be likely to agree with the Labour Party leadership, but many will fully support the latest advert from Sir Keir Starmer’s HQ.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has awarded a peerage to Claire Fox, elected last year as an MEP for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, but better known as a notorious IRA supporter during her years of activism for the Revolutionary Communist Party.

H&D documented Ms Fox’s terrorist sympathies in an online article on May 1st 2019. The following day a Brexit Party candidate resigned because she felt unable to remain on the same slate as Ms Fox.

Oldham-born Munira Mirza, daughter of a Pakistani immigrants, was also a Revolutionary Communist Party activist, and is now head of the Downing Street policy unit. However Ms Mirza was too young to have been in the RCP at the time of its support for the IRA.

Ms Fox on the other hand was one of the leading RCP officials throughout the period when it was defending some of the most brutal terrorist acts ever committed in the British Isles, including the murder of 3-year-old Johnathan Ball and 12-year-old Tim Parry in the IRA bombing of Warrington.

Her ennoblement proves that the Conservative Party has abandoned any pretence of traditional principles and his become little more than a Brexit cult. It remains to be seen whether these antics will cost the Tories votes in the so-called ‘red wall’ areas of northern England – constituencies which they won from Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in last year’s general election, in part because of Corbyn’s own record as an IRA apologist.

(A BBC investigation for which H&D provided some background research suggested that the Warrington bombing was probably carried out by far left IRA sympathisers based in England – not Claire Fox’s RCP but their rivals in Red Action, a group that split off from an opposing SWP faction.)

Today’s coup at Westminster: in whose interests?

Dr Julian Lewis

An unprecedented coup at Westminster today saw the blocking of the government’s preferred candidate to chair the super-sensitive Intelligence and Security Committee.

Former minister Chris Grayling was known to be the Prime Minister’s choice, but one Conservative MP on the committee – Dr Julian Lewis – broke ranks, voting alongside Labour and SNP members to instal himself as chairman.

He was immediately expelled from the Conservative parliamentary party for this conspiracy, having “worked with Labour and other opposition MPs for his own advantage.”

The Intelligence and Security Committee scrutinises MI5, MI6, GCHQ and other intelligence and security agencies. It was formed in 1994 as part of a series of reforms, which included the partial opening of historical documents relating to such matters.

While in one sense it is laudable for such a committee to assert its independence from government, Dr Lewis’s appointment might raise eyebrows in some quarters.

H&D readers might remember Dr Lewis best for his public resignation as a life member of the Oxford Union in November 2007, in protest at the Union’s invitation to historian David Irving and then BNP leader Nick Griffin.

In 2017 under the headline “Influential MPs to look out for”, the Jewish Chronicle analysed appointments to Westminster committees in terms of whether they were good news for “supporters of Israel”, highlighting Dr Lewis’s success in becoming chairman of the Commons Defence Committee.

Similarly in 2010 the Jewish Chronicle listed Dr Lewis’s re-election under the sub-heading “pro-Israel wins seal a good day”.

In February this year, Dr Lewis hosted a meeting at Westminster for the hardline Zionist Henry Jackson Society.

Britain’s most pro-Zionist minister faces sack over links to porn baron

Embattled minister Robert Jenrick with his wife, Israeli corporate lawyer Michal Berkner

A few weeks ago, Britain’s leading political journalists would all have assumed that Robert Jenrick was not only safe in his Cabinet job, but probably on the way up.

During last year’s Conservative Party leadership contest, three young stars endorsed Boris Johnson at a critical time in a joint letter to The Times – Rishi Sunak, Oliver Dowden and Robert Jenrick.

Johnson is known to reward such loyalty, and the trio were duly promoted – in Sunak’s case all the way to the dizzy heights of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Oliver Dowden is now in charge of the Digital, Culture, Media & Sport department (facing one of the trickiest tasks in government post-Covid); while Jenrick is Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government.

This makes Jenrick ultimately responsible for all planning decisions, which are taken in the first instance by local council committees but in significant or controversial cases are sometimes ‘called in’ to be decided by the Minister following an inspector’s inquiry.

The ‘Holocaust Memorial’ rejected by Westminster City Council – but ‘called in’ for a final decision by Robert Jenrick

One controversial decision Jenrick was due to make later this year concerned the gigantic ‘Holocaust memorial’ which Jewish lobbyists and others aim to construct in the heart of Westminster. This plan was rejected by Westminster City Council earlier this year, but Jenrick instantly ‘called in’ the application and had given clear signs that he was going to overrule the council and allow the memorial to be built, ignoring the views of local residents and conservationists.

Now Jenrick is almost certain to resign or be sacked, after the latest revelations about his links to Richard Desmond, property developer and former owner of the Daily Express, who made his fortune from the porn industry.

H&D has previously reported on Mr Desmond’s background, and on the manner in which two former leaders of the violent Jewish ‘antifascist’ 62 Group rushed to Desmond’s defence following an earlier scandal.

Richard Desmond (above right) the Zionist porn baron who gave more than £1 million to UKIP in 2015 and returned to back the Tories in time for Robert Jenrick to make a decision that favoured his property interests

In 2015 Mr Desmond gave more than £1 million to UKIP, but has since returned to the Tory fold. Until 2004 he supported Tony Blair’s Labour Party!

This week several newspapers have reported on the curious communications between Mr Desmond and Mr Jenrick before the latter made at least two crucial decisions that potentially saved Mr Desmond more than £100m.

The only question now is whether (as in the case of Dominic Cummings) Boris Johnson’s stubborn loyalty to his friends allows a Minister to remain in office following conduct which in any other case would lead to resignation or dismissal.

Mr Jenrick is married to an Israeli citizen, corporate lawyer Michal Berkner. Their three daughters are being raised in the Jewish faith.

Hindus rising to top of British Government

Priti Patel (above left) at a secret meeting with Israeli politician Yair Lapid in 2017

The highest level of Britain’s Government was rocked by an unprecedented resignation this weekend, after the top civil servant at the Home Office resigned, making extraordinary allegations against Home Secretary Priti Patel.

It had already been alleged a few days earlier that the Security Service MI5 “did not trust” Ms Patel with secret information, despite her being the senior minister responsible for MI5, as well as for counter-terrorism, policing, immigration and many other sensitive issues.

This is the second time in just over a year that Ms Patel has faced unwelcome headlines. In November 2017 she was forced to resign from then Prime Minister Theresa May’s Cabinet after admitting a series of secret meetings with Israeli officials and politicians including Benjamin Netanyahu.

Then and now, Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard was and is one of Ms Patel’s principal defenders.

The Hindu-Zionist axis at the top of UK politics: Priti Patel (above centre) with (left to right) Stuart Polak of Conservative Friends of Israel; Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev; and Lord Pickles, former Conservative Party chairman, now in charge of promoting plans for a vast Holocaust Memorial in Westminster.

Yet according to her Permanent Secretary at the Home Office Sir Philip Rutnam – one of the elite ‘mandarins’ of the British Civil Service usually legendary for their discretion – Ms Patel simply could not be believed and was impossible to work with.

Sir Philip is now beginning a legal action against the Government for ‘constructive dismissal’, ensuring that this damaging saga will continue for many months, just after Prime Minister Boris Johnson had already lost his most senior minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid. This might have led Ms Patel to believe she is unsackable.

While many H&D readers no doubt share the widespread delusion that Muslims are the ethnic minority that wields political influence in Britain, the Patel saga is part of a wider story in which the ruling Conservative Party is seen to have effectively declared war on Muslims in Britain, while promoting a surprising number of Hindus to top positions and developing disturbing ties to the Hindu extremist government in India.

Ms Patel (the daughter of ethnic Indian immigrants who came to the UK from Uganda in the 1970s) is one of three Hindus in Boris Johnson’s Cabinet, all in very senior positions. Rishi Sunak is now Chancellor of the Exchequer: his grandparents were originally from the Punjab region of India and immigrated to the UK from Kenya in the 1960s. Mr Sunak (a former hedge fund manager who spent three years with Goldman Sachs) is married to the daughter of an Indian billionaire. He took his parliamentary oath on the Hindu holy book Bhagavad Gita, as did his newly promoted colleague Alok Sharma, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

N.R. Narayana Murthy (above left with former PM David Cameron), Indian billionaire and father-in-law of new Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak.

Mr Sharma was born in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and immigrated to Britain aged 5. His wife is Swedish, but unlike his two Hindu colleagues in the Johnson Cabinet Mr Sharma represents an ethnically diverse constituency (Reading West) in contrast to the very White constituencies in North Yorkshire and Essex represented by Mr Sunak and Ms Patel.

There are no Muslim ministers serving at any level of Johnson’s government, let alone in the cabinet. Johnson’s only Muslim colleague – Nusrat Ghani, a junior transport minister, was sacked in this month’s reshuffle. She is one of only four Muslim Tory MPs, one of whom – the newly elected MP for Wakefield, Imran Ahmad-Khan, is a very atypical Muslim, having been described as “openly gay” in several press releases which have since been corrected!

This is a remarkable over-representation of Hindus, who amount to 1.3% of the UK population yet hold two of the top three ministerial posts in the Johnson Cabinet, the other being Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, whose father was a Czech Jewish immigrant. Muslims are 4.4% of the UK population, yet have no ministers in either the cabinet or more junior roles.

Three Hindus at the top of the British Government: (above left to right) Priti Patel, Rishi Sunak, and Alok Sharma.

British diplomats raised concerns during last year’s general election about explicit links between India’s extremist Hindu government and the Conservative Party campaign.

Another ethnic minority Tory who gained promotion is Buddhist Suella Braverman, now Attorney General, who took her oath of allegiance on the Dhammapada. Ms Braverman (whose family origins are on the formerly Portuguese-controlled Indian island of Goa) has also faced recent media controversy after it was revealed that she belongs to a Buddhist sect whose founder was an alleged sexual predator.

Sir Roger Scruton: 1944-2020

The term ‘conservative’ is now so much abused it has become almost meaningless, but Sir Roger Scruton – who died today aged 75, having suffered from cancer for the last six months – was a true giant of English conservatism.

Just over a month ago in London, Europe’s greatest conservative leader Viktor Orban presented Sir Roger with the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary, saying rightly that he had “foreseen the threats of illegal migration and defended Hungary from unjust criticism.”

Many H&D readers will best remember Roger Scruton for his eighteen years as chief editor and publisher of The Salisbury Review. Within two years of its launch, Scruton’s Review made headlines for publishing a controversial article by Bradford headmaster Ray Honeyford, ‘Education and Race – an alternative view’.

The March-April issue of H&D will include an obituary of Sir Roger Scruton: may he rest in peace and may his example inspire new generations of Englishmen to redefine and reinvigorate conservatism for our times.

The day Thatcher got it right!

Fr Patrick Ryan with fellow IRA godfather Gerry Adams

One highlight of Irish National Archives releases publicised this morning involves Mrs Thatcher’s fury at Belgian PM Wilfried Martens, after the Belgians had refused to extradite the notorious IRA priest Fr Patrick Ryan.

The documents relate to events following Ryan’s arrest in 1988 by Belgian police who found a large quantity of cash and bomb-making equipment in his home.

In a repeat of events more than forty years earlier, when French and Belgian authorities took a similarly soft line with Jewish terrorists involved in anti-British atrocities, the Belgians refused to extradite the terrorist priest to London.

Mrs Thatcher was understandably furious, and the official documents released today record her reaction. Martens went on to be the elder statesman of European conservatism, and the whole affair sheds a cynical light on claims that cooperation with Europe is important on ‘security’ grounds.

It’s a sign of our times that today’s report of this in the Daily Mail omits to mention Fr Ryan’s recent gleeful confession to the BBC that Thatcher was “100%” correct to see him as a key player in atrocities such as the Brighton bomb, the IRA’s Libya connection, etc. He boasted of having been personally responsible for devising a foolproof bomb timer, based on a commercially available mini-alarm.

Brexit crisis: will Johnson and Farage bury party differences?

Today’s unanimous verdict by the Supreme Court, ruling that Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in obtaining the prorogation of Parliament, throws the entire Brexit process into doubt.

Johnson no longer controls the House of Commons, which at any time during the run-up to the October 31st deadline could have thrown a spanner in the works, preventing either a “no deal” Brexit or whatever new terms Johnson himself might negotiate.

Neither was he able to seek a fresh mandate at a General Election: since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 makes an early election impossible without the opposition’s consent – and there was no chance of such consent until Brexit had been delayed or frustrated. So Johnson’s team believed they could put Parliament out of action for a few weeks, leaving MPs with insufficient time for Brexit-blocking.

That cunning plan has badly misfired.

Amid the confusion one thing is clear: Brexit will be dead unless Prime Minister Johnson and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage can work together.

Leading government adviser Dominic Cummings is the main block to any deal between Johnson and Farage

Today such cooperation looks unlikely. The PM’s chief aide Dominic Cummings loathes Farage (which is the main reason why there were two rival pro-Brexit campaigns at the 2016 Referendum). That split didn’t matter during the referendum: in fact it might have been an advantage, but it would be fatal at a General Election. Farage reciprocates the loathing: his main reaction to today’s judgment was not to defend the Brexit process but to attack Dominic Cummings.

H&D readers are themselves divided on the merits of Brexit itself. But for Brexiteers the imperative is clear: Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage must not turn on each other, or the entire process will be derailed.

Foreign Secretary dismissed London Holocaust memorial as “preposterous”

Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Carrington, who had won the Military Cross for his bravery during the Second World War, wrote of the original plans for a London Holocaust Memorial: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

Following extensive research at The National Archives, Heritage and Destiny can reveal that the original proposal for a London Holocaust Memorial was strongly opposed by three senior Cabinet ministers and by Britain’s leading diplomats. Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington wrote to colleagues: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

This original memorial was first mooted in the spring of 1979, and was a far more modest proposal than the gigantic project presently being discussed by the planning committee of Westminster City Council.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton has submitted a detailed report to Westminster’s planning committee, revealing the full story behind the original memorial plans, and the reasons for senior ministers’ objections, which are even more valid in relation to the vast project now under consideration.

Leading proponent of the latest Holocaust memorial, Lord Pickles (ex-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel) seen here with former Prime Minister Theresa May

The record also reveals that the Jewish community itself was deeply divided over these plans. Their original proponent Greville Janner (later ennobled as Lord Janner and disgraced in a series of ‘paedophile’ scandals) wrote secretly to Tory ministers attacking his fellow Jewish Labour MP Reg Freeson (a former editor of the ‘anti-fascist’ magazine Searchlight).

Earlier sketchy and inaccurate reports about the original London Holocaust Memorial have mentioned that Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington opposed the plans, but the true story – reflecting a consensus among Britain’s senior diplomats against the plans – can only now be told.

Click here to read H&D‘s report.

“The whole idea is preposterous”: the true story behind London’s Holocaust Memorial

The ‘Holocaust Memorial’ presently being considered by Westminster City Council is on a far vaster scale than anything contemplated in 1980 – but even then the proposals were dismissed as ‘preposterous’ by the British Foreign Secretary.

In April 1980 Michael Heseltine, Environment Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, wrote to his colleague Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary, to consult him about plans that Heseltine had been discussing for the past year with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, “to erect a memorial to those of all faiths who died in the Nazi Holocaust.”

This triggered more than 18 months of strong opposition by Lord Carrington, some of his fellow ministers, and the most senior officials of the Foreign Office to the proposal for a London “Holocaust” Memorial, even though both the Board of Deputies and Heseltine regularly stressed its “modest” scale.

Understandably, Carrington felt that “any monuments in the area concerned should be of a British national character.” He added: “It is by no means self-evident that Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. In addition, a long time has passed since the events which the proposed Garden would seek to commemorate.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin – who consistently sought to use the ‘Holocaust’ as a diplomatic weapon against Britain – had been boss of the Irgun terror gang that butchered two British sergeants, causing international revulsion in 1947.

Reflecting wider Foreign Office concerns, Carrington also suggested that “some Arabs might see the monument as endorsing Mr Begin’s point that the fate of the European Jews in the ’30s and ’40s should influence British policy on the Arab/Israel question in the ’80s.”

This was a reference to then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former leader of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun, who during the early 1980s persistently used the Holocaust as a diplomatic weapon against British, French and German governments.

Archival records show that Carrington was echoing the views of senior diplomats including the Foreign Office Political Director Julian Bullard (later British Ambassador to West Germany).

Julian Bullard, Political Director of the Foreign Office, was one of the most eloquent and well-informed opponents of the Holocaust Memorial project.

A memo by Bullard (whose father and several other relatives were also senior British diplomats) explained:

“I continue to see no particular reason why Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. The lapse of time (now 35 years) prompts the question why, if a memorial in Britain was desirable, it was not organised at the time, when the memory was greener.
“I continue to suspect that at least some of the sponsors of the project are hoping that, if realised, it would strengthen the idea that Britain has some sort of special responsibility towards Israel on account of the events of 1933 to 1945, and that these events are or should be still a factor in British policy in the Middle East. A perhaps even more unworthy thought is that some of the sponsors may be deliberately throwing down a challenge to anti-semitic elements in this country.”

Bullard’s colleague Sir John Graham, then Deputy Under-Secretary for the Middle East, agreed:
“I fully share Mr Bullard’s doubts. Why should not the Jewish Community buy a site and erect a memorial if they wish? Would we permit a monument to Deir Yassin in a Royal Park? And yet our responsibility for that massacre was as close (or as distant) as for the massacre of the Jews by Hitler.”

In a later memorandum, Sir John (a baronet and career diplomat who later served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to NATO) repeated and amplified this argument:
“The possible followers of the precedent include the Armenians (Turkish massacres), the PLO (Deir Yassin), the supporters of Allende and so on. Of course it is a free country and people may erect monuments, subject to planning permission, but they ought to do it on their own land and at their own expense.”

Senior Foreign Office diplomat David Gladstone compiled a summary of the arguments against a London Holocaust Memorial

A summary of the argument against the memorial was drawn up by David Gladstone, head of the Foreign Office Western European Department. He wrote:
“Mr Begin and other members of his government refer frequently to the Holocaust to justify their current security policies and to demonstrate, in the absence of convincing rational argument, why Europe is necessarily disqualified from any role in peace efforts and is not entitled to challenge Israel’s own view of her security needs. The Israeli Ambassador in London has taken a similar line in two recent speeches here, in which he has also suggested more or less explicitly that the motives for our policy are purely commercial. A memorial in London on government land might prove an irresistible stick with which to go on beating HMG from time to time.”

An aide memoire drawn up for Carrington before a Downing Street meeting on the project read:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”

Julian Bullard once again weighed in: “This incorporates my views, which have strengthened with the passage of time. It cannot be wise to contemplate authorising the proposed memorial at a time when Arab-Israeli problems, and Britain’s attitude to them, is constantly on the front pages. But the Secretary of State will want to be sure that his colleagues support him, given the likelihood of press stories.”

Arguments against the Memorial were “strongly endorsed” by the Permanent Under-Secretary himself – Sir Michael Palliser, Head of the Diplomatic Service.

Two of the senior ministers opposed to the Holocaust Memorial were Home Secretary William Whitelaw (above left) and Minister of Defence Francis Pym (above right), seen here attending the Thanksgiving Service after the Falklands War in 1982. Both Whitelaw and Pym had been awarded the Military Cross for their bravery under fire during the Second World War.

Carrington and his Foreign Office advisers received support from other senior figures. Francis Pym, Minister of Defence, wrote that a Holocaust memorial “would be rather a strange newcomer to a part of London where the existing memorials – whether one thinks of the Cenotaph itself or of the military leaders commemorated in Whitehall or around the Ministry of Defence Main Building – relate very much to the British national tradition and to our own victories and sorrows. Indeed I am afraid that I am still not entirely clear what is the object of the proposed memorial.”

Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister William Whitelaw agreed: “I have strong reservations about the erection in Whitehall of such a memorial. …I am also puzzled about the purpose of the memorial.”

It is worth pointing out that the three senior ministers with reservations or objections had all seen active service during the Second World War, and all three had been awarded the Military Cross, granted for “an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land.” Carrington spent a decade with the Grenadier Guards from 1939 to 1949, eventually with the rank of acting major, and was awarded the MC in March 1945 for his bravery while commanding a tank crossing the Rhine, capturing and holding a bridge at Nijmegen. Pym served in the 9th Lancers in North Africa and Italy, also to the rank of major, and was awarded the MC after being twice mentioned in despatches. Whitelaw was with the Scots Guards, and later the 6th Guards Tank Brigade, commanding tanks during the Battle of Normandy in the summer of 1944. His MC was awarded after the 26-year-old Whitelaw took over from his battalion’s second-in-command who had been killed in front of him.

The future Lord Carrington (centre) with his fellow Grenadier Guards

However on 12th November 1981 Prime Minister Thatcher – for largely political reasons – overrode these objections and a “modest” Holocaust memorial was eventually erected in Hyde Park, officially unveiled in June 1983.

The full story of this memorial, and the planning arguments involved – highly relevant to the present battle within Westminster City Council’s planning committee over whether to approve a far more grandiose memorial – is told in a detailed report submitted to Westminster City Council by H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Click here to read this detailed and fully documented report.

Tories expel ‘Islamophobes’

Baroness Warsi, former chairman of the Conservative Party, has called for an inquiry into ‘Islamophobia’ in Tory ranks

The Conservative Party today expelled fourteen members for alleged ‘Islamophobic’ posts on a Facebook page.

This followed the resignation of Peter Lamb, who had been due to stand as a Conservative candidate in May’s local elections for Harlow Borough Council.

Mr Lamb had made several anti-Muslim posts on Twitter and had become the focus of demands by the party’s former chairman Baroness Warsi (herself Muslim) for an internal inquiry into the extent of Tory ‘Islamophobia’.

Peter Lamb has quit as a Tory council candidate following controversy over his anti-Muslim posts on Twitter

Many of the comments by purported Tory activists are remarkably stupid, but it does look as though Prime Minister Theresa May has seized on this mini-scandal in an effort to contrast her party with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, where Jewish activists claim there has been a reluctance to deal with ‘anti-semitism’.

However like many such unprincipled gestures, it risks tainting the Tories among potential UKIPish, ‘BNP-lite’ voters, while failing to gain them much on the other side, because most committed liberal, obsessive ‘antiracists’ wouldn’t vote Tory at present in any case – unless they are Jews on the liberal left who prioritise defeating Corbyn, in which case they probably don’t care about Islamophobia…

Prof. Rob Ford of Manchester University (co-author of a book about the rise of UKIP) has posted interesting comments about the Tories’ dilemma over multiculturalism. (see series of tweets below)

Many H&D readers will think Prof Ford is too obsessed by the supposed need to modernise the Tories long-term in order to capture liberal/non-white votes. An equally plausible route to power would be to appeal to White social conservatives.

At present one big problem is that many of these, while potentially agreeing with a conservative agenda on immigration and other social issues, profoundly disagree with the Tory (and for that matter UKIP) policies on economic austerity, privatisation of former nationalised industries such as rail and the Post Office, and the worship of the ‘free’ market.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter