Anne Marie Waters contests Batley & Spen by-election
A month after her defeat in a Hartlepool council election Anne Marie Waters, leader of the For Britain Movement, is contesting a parliamentary by-election in the West Yorkshire constituency of Batley & Spen. Nominations closed earlier today and were published a few minutes ago.
Ms Waters is one of sixteen candidates at the by-election. No explicitly racial nationalist parties or individuals are standing, and though there are important policy differences between Ms Waters and most H&D readers, she is clearly the most credible candidate at this particular by-election from our movement (broadly defined). Her campaign unfortunately wasted no time making its first serious error – publicising an endorsement from the thoroughly discredited crook and Israel Firster ‘Tommy Robinson’ – but readers are likely to find that Ms Waters is still the best option on the ballot paper from a pro-White standpoint.
Batley & Spen was held by Labour’s Tracy Brabin until she was elected last month as the first Mayor of West Yorkshire, prompting this by-election. Ms Brabin’s predecessor was the murdered MP Jo Cox.
It seems likely that one campaign issue will be the controversial suspension of a Batley Grammar School teacher for showing pupils a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad.
Ms Waters is likely to be the most credible anti-Islamist candidate, while former MP George Galloway (standing for his new ‘Worker’s Party’) will seek to split the Muslim vote, hitherto mainly loyal to Labour.
There is also a bewildering variety of what might be termed Brexiteer, populist, anti-lockdown, or anti-woke candidates including UKIP; the UKIP splinter Heritage Party; the SDP (once centrist but now a populist, pro-Brexit rump); the English Democrats; Yorkshire Party; and Freedom Alliance.
The money-grabbing scam run by Jim Dowson under the name ‘British Freedom Party’ is still not registered as a party, so its nominal ‘leader’ Jayda Fransen is standing as an Independent. She faces compensation for the ostentatiously pious vote from the Christian Peoples Alliance.
In addition to the pro-Brexit leftist Galloway, a leftwing ecologist party called Alliance for Green Socialism is standing, though the actual Green Party candidate withdrew after a Twitter ‘scandal’. And the list is completed by the three main parties, plus the fanatical Remainers of ‘Rejoin EU’.
The Batley & Spen by-election is on July 1st: results will appear on this website, and the July-August edition of H&D will include analysis of how the result affects the development of a post-Brexit, post-Covid, pro-White movement in the UK.
County council updates
Following his 16% vote in yesterday’s Preston City Council election, H&D editor Mark Cotterill today polled 8.8% in the Lancashire County Council for Preston South-East division.
Due to redrawing of council boundaries, this was always going to be a lower vote for a racial nationalist independent. Preston SE includes a very large Asian community which tends to vote as a block for Labour candidates – even Jewish ones! (Jenny Mein has held the seat for Labour for many years, and was part of an unusual tradition of Jewish female leaders of Lancashire county council, following Louise Ellman and Ruth Henig.)
Many of the White voters in Preston SE are in a very depressed council estate, where turnout is traditionally low (exacerbated by Covid restrictions on polling stations and campaigning).
In the circumstances 8.8% was a respectable result, especially as once again (in line with a nationwide trend this year) pro-Brexit voters leaned towards Boris Johnson’s Conservatives.
We await further results during the day from nationalist candidates nationwide including Dr Jim Lewthwaite of the British Democratic Party, contesting Wyke ward, Bradford.
And of course there will be a full analysis and results service on this site and in the forthcoming May-June edition of H&D.
full result – Preston SE division, Lancashire County Council
Mein (Labour) 67.9%
Walmsley (Conservative) 18.3%
Cotterill (Independent) 8.8%
Duke (Liberal Democrat) 4.9%
Corrupt establishments face nemesis in Scotland and Liverpool
With elections now confirmed for May 6th in most of the UK (despite continuing restrictions associated with the pandemic) a spotlight has fallen on two powerful political establishments: the Labour Party in Liverpool, and the Scottish National Party north of the border.
Among the many political institutions facing elections in May are the Scottish Parliament, where the SNP seemed until recently likely to extend its dominance; and the City Council and directly-elected Mayoralty in Liverpool, a Labour-dominated city in recent years.
Once mighty political boss Joe Anderson, former city council leader and directly elected Mayor of Liverpool since 2012, had expected easily to win re-election for a third mayoral term, but stood aside in December 2020 after he was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit bribery and witness intimidation.
For legal reasons we cannot comment about the charges against Mayor Anderson – however their immediate impact was to throw the local Labour Party into chaos.
A candidate process involving an all-female shortlist was begun, then abruptly abandoned when it seemed likely to end in victory for a ‘left-wing’ candidate, Anna Rothery.
Joe Anderson himself paid lip-service to fashionable ‘left-wing’ notions such as militant ‘anti-fascism’, but was more an old style city boss (of a type familiar to our American readers) rather than a socialist firebrand. Ms Rothery herself wasn’t (by modern Labour standards) exceptionally far left either, but sufficiently so to embarrass the new party leader Sir Keir Starmer, who has been trying to rebrand Labour for a post-Corbyn era.
The reopened Labour nomination battle seems likely to end with another left wing half-caste woman becoming mayoral candidate – ironically named Joanne Anderson, though unrelated and very hostile to the outgoing Mayor.
This discreditable farce is sure to undermine Liverpool’s tribal loyalty to Labour long-term – although in the short-term it seems likely both that Labour will hold on to power, and that racial/populist nationalism in the city will remain a negligible force.
Meanwhile in Scotland another overmighty and corrupt political establishment – Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP – is also facing nemesis.
Ms Sturgeon’s predecessor Alex Salmond has alleged that the Sturgeon regime colluded in an effort to destroy his reputation through allegations of “sexual harassment” and worse. A sexual misconduct inquiry in 2018 collapsed for legal reasons, and a criminal trial ended with Salmond being acquitted of all charges in 2020.
The entire saga has moved beyond ‘political insider’ circles, and there is now a serious possibility that Sturgeon will be forced to resign as Scotland’s First Minister.
In any event, this scandal and bitter infighting seems to have derailed what until recently seemed unstoppable progress towards a second Scottish independence referendum.
Moving from high political drama to farce, Scottish politics (as in much of the White world) has become obsessed with the issue of “Trans rights”, i.e. whether people who are biologically male can force the rest of society to accept their self-definition as “female” (or vice versa).
This has led to conflict between the “Trans” lobby and radical feminists, who resent the trespassing of people they regard as men.
In common with many left-liberal parties, the Green Party has tended to take the “Trans” side, resulting in the resignation of one of their most prominent MSPs. Andy Wightman quit the Scottish Green Party after he argued that women who were victims of rape or sexual assault should have the right to demand a female doctor for any consequent medical examination.
The Greens – alongside the Liberal Democrats – had taken the line that such women would have to accept a male “trans” doctor as being a woman, if he/she claimed to be so. Mr Wightman voted with the SNP, Labour and Conservatives who accepted that (in this particular circumstance of alleged sexual assault or rape) women should have the right to reject “Trans” demands.
Mr Wightman will now stand as an independent candidate in the Highlands & Islands constituency at the May election. The circus of sexual politics moves on, much to the bemusement of most voters.
Labour councillor resigns after porn charges
A Labour councillor for the Hollinwood ward of Oldham Council has resigned and last week appeared in court facing charges of downloading child pornography.
Martin Judd, 25, entered not guilty pleas at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court to three charges that between February 2018 and Febriary 2020 he had downloaded fifteen Category A (the most serious) images of children, twenty-three Category B, and 48 Category C.
Judd was committed for trial in Manchester next January.
Born in New Zealand, Judd was elected as a Hollinwood ward councillor in 2018. A year earlier he had been elected in Manchester as the youngest every President of a Rotary Club. (He worked for Waitrose in Manchester city centre.)
Some H&D readers will remember Hollinwood ward from the early 2000s: Oldham BNP organiser Mick Treacy polled 24% in the ward at the 2002 elections.
Since those days of curse Oldham BNP has ceased to exist, and in any case there can be no by-elections for the time being due to Covid-19.
Lib Dems drop mayoral candidate in ‘anti-semitism scandal’
The Liberal Democrats, struggling to hold on to their status as the UK’s third largest political party, have run into a storm over ‘anti-semitism’ as they attempt to select a candidate for next May’s London mayoral election to take on Labour’s Sadiq Khan, arguably the most powerful Muslim politician in the Western world.
London Lib Dem members were set to choose between two potential candidates in a postal ballot this month, but one of those candidates has today been suspended after discovery of a video from more than twenty years ago where she made an ‘anti-semitic’ attack on senior Labour politician Jack Straw.
Straw is an Anglican Christian of partly Jewish ancestry, who served in several prominent roles under Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, most famously as Foreign Secretary during the Iraq war.
At the 1997 general election Geeta Sidhu-Robb was the Conservative candidate against Straw in his Blackburn constituency. Malawi-born Ms Sidhu-Robb tried to stir up Pakistani voters in Blackburn’s Asian ghetto, telling them via megaphone: “Don’t vote for a Jew, Jack Straw is a Jew. If you vote for him, you’re voting for a Jew. Jews are the enemies of Muslims.”
As a committed Europhile, former corporate lawyer Sidhu-Robb later defected from the Tories to the anti-Brexit Lib Dems, and ended up on the shortlist to become London mayoral candidate, until her ‘anti-semitic’ record was discovered this week.
What surprises H&D is that alarm bells hadn’t rung sooner among the Lib Dem leadership. It was reasonably well known during the Straw years that several Blackburn Tories encouraged antisemitic anti-Labour campaigns in Asian areas of Blackburn, and Ms Sidhu-Robb’s remarks were actually broadcast in a Channel 5 documentary more than 20 years ago!
Perhaps the Lib Dems were so pleased to tick three political boxes with Ms Sidhu-Robb – ex-Tory defector, non-White, and female – that they didn’t engage their brains. Moreover some concerned activists, including former mayoral candidate Siobhan Benita, have alleged that Ms Sidhu-Robb was being courted by the party because of her wealthy connections and her role in the anti-Brexit pressure group Open Britain and its new campaign ‘Democracy Unleashed’, formerly known as the ‘People’s Vote’ campaign.
Today Ms Sidhu-Robb issued a grovelling apology in an effort to save her rapidly sinking political career:
“I am deeply ashamed of the ignorant and abusive language I used on one occasion in the 1997 General Election campaign. As shown in the footage, I instantly regretted my appalling behaviour, which I continue to do.
“Those words are entirely inconsistent with my views and values, and though there are no excuses for my actions, there is some context; that is, that I was under a great deal of strain and retaliated to the racial abuse I was receiving in Blackburn ‘like for like’.”
Councils obfuscate Covid-19 statistics
Last week H&D reported detailed statistics behind the headlines about Covid-19 in Oldham, the Lancashire town that is on the brink of lockdown following a renewed surge in cases of the pandemic virus.
It is now clear that as we suggested last week, Oldham council deputy leader Arooj Shah was being disingenuous in suggesting that the virus had spread “in all areas, in all age groups, and in all communities”. (Paradoxically, as we reported last week, Cllr Shah is not on good terms with local Muslim ‘community leaders’ and is a an example of the way the Labour Party is in many areas at war with conservative Islam.)
While it is true that there has been a scattering of Covid-19 in different parts of Oldham, there is a very marked concentration in certain parts of the town with an especially high Asian population. (There is also some slight evidence to suggest that Pakistani areas are seeing more Covid than Bangladeshi areas, but the jury is still out on that.)
For the period 7th-13th August (the most recent detailed statistics) the main Covid hotspot was the Alexandra Park census area with 48 cases (having had 55 the previous week). Local reports suggest that as many as 30 of these cases are from just one extended family and their immediate neighbours. The Manchester Evening News reports this but is too cowardly to state that Alexandra Park is a predominantly Pakistani area, containing the Glodwick ghetto that was at the centre of riots in 2001.
The other main Covid area in Oldham is Werneth, with 34 cases this week and 42 last week. At least 15 cases are understood to involve workers at the Park Cakes factory, a major local employer situated on the main road that separates Werneth and Alexandra Park. There is no suggestion that Park Cakes has been at fault in any respect.
The Salem area which borders Alexandra Park and also contains part of the extended Glodwick ghetto is the third-highest Oldham Covid area with 25 cases this week and 12 last week; while the original Bangladeshi area known as Busk, on the edge of the town centre and close to Oldham Athletic’s football stadium Boundary Park, had 15 cases this week and 12 last week.
While politically correct media have highlighted poverty as a contributory factor, the equally poor or in many cases poorer White areas of central Oldham have seen smaller (and in some cases negligible) rates of Covid. These include Alt with 12 cases; Lime Side & Garden Suburb with 11 cases; Derker with only 3 cases; and Moorside & Sholver with no registered cases at all.
The relatively affluent and White villages comprising Saddleworth to the east of Oldham are divided into four different census areas. Three of these reported three Covid cases each this week, while a fourth had none.
Mossley, a former cotton town turned commuter village on the borders of Oldham and Saddleworth, similarly had no Covid cases; neither did the adjacent Micklehurst & Carrbrook census area.
A smaller-scale version of a similar pattern can be seen in Blackburn (where H&D‘s editor used to be a borough councillor).
In Blackburn the highest incidences of Covid this week were again in the mainly Asian areas: 29 in Little Harwood; 22 in Central Blackburn; 19 in Bastwell; 14 in Roe Lee, Brownhill & Sunnybower; and 13 in Audley.
By contrast the mainly White area Meadowhead, where our editor was elected to Blackburn-with-Darwen Council in 2006, had no reported cases.
Oldham heads for lockdown – are councils hiding the truth about Covid spikes?
This week Oldham is facing full lockdown “within days” due to a surge in Covid-19 cases. Two weeks ago residents were told that they must not meet with others in their homes. The latest statistics show that Oldham’s infection rate has almost doubled in the past week, from 57.8 per 100,000 inhabitants to 107.5.
What we don’t yet know is a precise breakdown of which Oldham areas have seen especially serious outbreaks of the pandemic.
During July it was evident that the virus was rampaging in Pakistani and Bangladeshi areas of the town, as H&D reported at the time, and as Oldham Council’s deputy leader Arooj Shah then admitted.
However Cllr Shah argued today that during the past few weeks the virus has spread “in all areas, in all age groups, and in all communities”.
We shall know on Friday this week to what extent her statement is true. Detailed statistics last week showed that while there was some incidence of the virus in White areas of the town, it remained far more prevalent in Pakistani and Bangladeshi areas.
Official statistics published on Friday each week show a breakdown of that week’s new Covid cases in each ‘Middle Super Output Area’, a census area roughly similar to local council wards.
Last week the worst area of Oldham was Alexandra Park with 55 new cases: this is the longstanding Asian ghetto area known as Glodwick. The second-worst area was Werneth with 42 new cases: decades ago this was mainly White but in recent years it has become another Asian ghetto.
Another area with significant infection registering 12 new cases was Busk, part of the original Bangladeshi area of Oldham near Oldham Athletic’s football ground at Boundary Park.
Salem – a partly White area bordering Glodwick – also had 12 cases.
Judging from last week’s figures, it was true that there had been a scattering of cases in some Whiter areas of Oldham: eight on the working class Alt estate; three in the more middle-class Springhead & Grasscroft. However other very White areas of Oldham – ranging from the working-class Moorside & Sholver and Derker areas, to the three affluent census areas that make up Saddleworth, registered no cases at all. (Technically this could mean that they had zero, one or two new cases that week, as only census areas with three or more new cases are listed.)
Is Cllr Arooj Shah being disingenuous in pretending that the virus is spreading equally in White and Asian areas of Oldham? We await this week’s detailed statistics with interest and shall inform H&D readers accordingly.
Cllr Shah is in other respects an interesting example of how the Labour Party interacts with Muslim communities. Contrary to the fantasies of some in our movement, the Labour Party is not in the grip of Muslim community leaders, still less is it influenced by ‘radical’ Islam.
What is much more common in 2020 is to see Labour councillors (including senior ones such as Arooj Shah) who are of Muslim origin but who are so ‘modern’ and ‘liberal’ that community leaders and imams would scarcely recognise them as Muslim at all. The Labour Party is just as much at war with traditional Islam as it is with traditional Christianity.
Arooj Shah was first elected as a very young woman in St Mary’s ward, Oldham, in 2012. This ward is in the Glodwick area and at the 2011 census was 49.1% Pakistani and 8.6% Bangladeshi.
Cllr Shah soon came into conflict with more socially conservative Pakistanis, and in 2016 she was defeated by local taxi driver Aftab Hussain standing as an independent. The Labour Party rallied behind the ousted councillor and in a deliberate gesture of contempt for conservative Muslims and ‘community leaders’ they found her a new ward in the more racially diverse Chadderton South ward, which she has represented since 2018.
A similar racial and cultural conflict affected Labour in another Lancashire town earlier this year. The first two Asian women to be elected as Blackburn councillors were both deselected in February. In this case Labour bosses intervened and ordered the selections to be rerun. One of the women won the re-run and remains a councillor, but the other chose to give up the fight.
Whatever the truth of Covid’s viral/racial profile, it seems clear that the Labour Party will continue to confront traditional Muslims, and that such conflicts will be a feature of local politics for at least another decade.
Foreign Secretary dismissed London Holocaust memorial as “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.
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
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.”
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).
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Farage candidate quits after IRA link revealed
In response to the developing scandal over the Brexit Party’s number one candidate in North West England, a fellow candidate today resigned from the party’s slate for this month’s European Parliamentary elections.
As detailed yesterday by H&D, Claire Fox is a lifelong Marxist who was a senior activist in the Revolutionary Communist Party for many years. Together with her sister Fiona she contributed regularly to the bulletin of a pro-IRA front group called the Irish Freedom Movement: see yesterday’s article for details.
In response to these revelations, Claire Fox spoke on the telephone yesterday to Colin Parry, whose 12-year-old son Tim Parry was murdered alongside 3-year-old Johnathan Ball by the IRA in their infamous 1993 bombing of Warrington.
Yet again Claire Fox refused to dissociate herself from her previous statements supporting IRA terrorism: Mr Parry wrote – “the fact that she repeatedly refused to disavow her comments supporting the IRA bombing which took Tim’s and Johnathan’s young lives proves she hasn’t changed her original views.”
Now Ms Fox’s Brexit Party colleague Sally Bate, who was seventh on the Brexit Party’s European Parliamentary slate in the region, has resigned. She technically remains on the ballot paper as it is too late for this to be altered before polling day on May 23rd.
The Claire Fox scandal raises a serious question mark over Nigel Farage’s judgment in selecting an apologist for IRA terrorism to stand for the European Parliament representing his new party. It remains to be seen whether North West voters will desert the Brexit Party over this issue – if so the beneficiaries could be the English Democrats, UKIP, or independent candidate Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, alias Tommy Robinson.
However ‘Robinson’ is himself an apologist for terrorism, in his case supporting the US and Canadian based Zionist terrorist group Jewish Defense League – see H&D‘s exposé here.
