Showing posts with label British government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British government. Show all posts
Friday, October 27, 2017
British Government Wants to Criminalize Web Use
Friday, November 06, 2015
Sinai Plane Crash: Bomb Theory Prevails While Probe Still Ongoing
Thursday, July 02, 2015
BBC Provokes Government Fury after Saying It Has to Be Fair to Isil
 |
| Lord Hall, the director general of the BBC, has rejected calls to stop using the term Islamic State |
The BBC has been condemned by the government after claiming that it has to be impartial when reporting on Isil despite the terrorist atrocities in Tunisia.
Lord Hall, the head of the BBC, has rejected calls from a cross-party group of 120 MPs to stop using the name Islamic State and because it "gives the impression of support" for its opponents.
The comments infuriated Chris Grayling, the leader of the Commons, who said that the BBC should treat the terrorist organisation in the same way that it treated Nazi Germany during the Second World War.
Speaking in the Commons, he said: "I have a different view of what impartiality means to the BBC. During the Second World War the BBC was a beacon of fact. It was not expected to be impartial between Britain and Germany.
“Today, it should be a beacon of fact but it’s not expected to be impartial about threats to the security and safety and lives and limbs of people of this nation.” » | Steven Swinford | Thursday, July 2, 2015
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Church Condemns Government as Un-Christian over Stance on Drowning Migrants
The Roman Catholic Church has condemned the British Government as un-Christian over its rejection of rescue missions for refugees drowning in the Mediterranean.
Bishop Patrick Lynch, who speaks for the Church in England and Wales on migration, said the decision not to support a rescue missions was “a misguided abdication of responsibility” to thousands of desperate people feeling war and persecution in the Middle East and Africa.
He said that as Europe’s “leading naval power” the UK has a moral responsibility to step in to save those risking death attempting to reach Europe.
His remarks came as the Home Office reiterated its stance that search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean, where around 3,000 migrants are estimated to have drowned this year alone, were simply acting as a “pull factor for illegal migration”.
It claims that rescuing migrants has led to more deaths. » | John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor | Thursday, October 30, 2014
Saturday, June 29, 2013
MELANIE PHILLIPS: By banning from the country as extremists the American anti-jihadis Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, the Home Secretary Teresa May has not only made herself look ridiculous but has sent the enemies of the United Kingdom the message that they have it on the run.
I do not support the approach taken by either Geller or Spencer to the problem of Islamic extremism. Both have endorsed groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic.
The result has been a serious blow to the credibility of these two writers, with particular damage being done to Spencer whose scholarship in itself is scrupulous. It has also split the defence against Islamic extremism, and handed a potent propaganda weapon to those who seek falsely to portray as bigoted extremists all who are engaged in the defence of the west against the Islamic jihad.
Nevertheless, the decision to ban this duo from Britain is unjustified, oppressive and comes perilously close to lining up the British government alongside those who wish to silence defenders of the west against the jihad, making a total mockery of Britain’s understanding of just who presents a danger to the state.
Neither Geller nor Spencer remotely presents such a danger. They intended to come to Britain to join an EDL rally in Woolwich, in the wake of the barbaric murder there of Drummer Lee Rigby by two Islamists last month. » | Melanie Phillips | Thursday, June 27, 2013
Thursday, May 09, 2013
GATESTONE INSTITUTE: The planning of violent atrocities continues in Britain. The government has still failed to curb the spread of violent agitation, and a necessary, firm and united opposition to radical Islam remains lacking at the official level.
…
The planning of violent atrocities continues in Britain; the government has still failed to curb the spread of radical agitation, and actions like the visit of Baroness Warsi to FOSIS illustrate that a necessary, firm, and united opposition to radical Islam remains lacking at the official level. Nobody in the UK government should ask Muslims to abandon Islam as a religion, but a significant struggle against radicalism is justifiable and necessary. Read the whole article here » | Irfan Al-Alawi | Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Thursday, August 16, 2012
THE GUARDIAN: Ahead of decision on WikiLeaks founder's asylum claim, Quito accuses Britain of threat to trample international law
The diplomatic and political minefield that is the fate of Julian Assange is expected to come a step closer to being traversed when Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, gives his decision on whether his country will grant the WikiLeaks' founder asylum around lunchtime on Thursday.
The decision – if it comes – will mark the end of a turbulent process that on Wednesday night saw Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, raging against perceived threats from Britain to "storm" the embassy and warning that such a "dangerous precedent" would be met with "appropriate responses in accordance with international law".
The dramatic development came two months after Assange suddenly walked into the embassy in a bid to avoid being extradited to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sexual assault.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Patiño released details of a letter he said was delivered through a British embassy official in Quito, the capital of the South American country.
The letter said: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy."
It added: "We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."
On Wednesday night appeals were tweeted for Assange supporters to occupy the embassy to prevent British police from arresting him, and while there was a police presence outside the embassy, Scotland Yard insisted that officers were simply there to "police the embassy like any other embassy".
Patiño said he was "deeply shocked" by the diplomatic letter. Speaking to reporters later, he said: "The government of Ecuador is considering a request for asylum and has carried out diplomatic talks with the governments of the United Kingdom and Sweden. However, today we received from the United Kingdom a written threat that they could attack our embassy in London if Ecuador does not give up Julian Assange. » | Damien Pearse | Thursday, August 16, 2012
Friday, February 04, 2011
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: British authorities refused to close down a charity, despite America claiming it was allegedly funding terrorism in the Middle East.
The documents also show that Treasury officials planned a “surge” against al-Qaeda financiers amid growing American concern over the lack of British intervention.
For several years, American officials repeatedly raised concerns over a charity called Interpal, the Palestinian Relief and Development Fund, which is accused of aiding Hamas. The charity has been blacklisted in the US since 2003. Continue reading and comment >>> Holly Watt | Friday, February 04, 2011
Thursday, November 25, 2010
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: British foreign policy will change to reflect Arab concerns over the Middle East peace process as part of the Coalition's efforts to seal a strategic agreement with the Gulf during the Queen's visit to the region.
Whitehall officials said Foreign Secretary William Hague's decision to reach out to Gulf states in an effort to secure better diplomatic and trade ties meant Britain had to "take on board" Arab foreign policy goals.
Requesting better ties would be a two-way street, not just plea for more defence contracts and exports, they said.
"It will be a six lane highway with movement in both directions," said one diplomat. "We have to respond to what Gulf States want. If we want a long-term partnership on foreign policy, then changes in our stance have to be part of it."
The Queen arrived in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, at the start of a five-day visit that will also take in Oman.
Both countries are long-standing allies, where the royal family also has strong personal ties with local leaders. The United Arab Emirates end of the visit was rearranged after a planned tour last year was cancelled at the last minute.
The visit to Oman is to join the celebrations for the 40th anniversary of Sultan Qaboos's ascension to the throne.
But the visit has taken on a more significant, and unusually political context both with the change of government in Britain and increasing tensions with Iran a short distance away on the other side of the Gulf.
Mr Hague set improving relations with the Gulf and India as his first policy goals, and both David Cameron, the prime minister, and Liam Fox, the defence secretary, visited Abu Dhabi within a month of taking office. >>> Richard Spencer in Abu Dhabi and Damien McElroy | Wednesday, November 24, 2010
This sends out one BIG message: ISLAMIC TERRORISM PAYS! This is disgraceful! To turn our backs on Israel in its hour of need, when the Muslim world is out to destroy it is a craven act indeed. Shame on David Cameron! Shame on Nick Clegg! Shame on the British government! Shame on Whitehall! – © Mark
© Cassandra1963's comment on this development is really worth reading:
So this is the new coalition government in action is it?
Our relations with the Gulf states has always been close and friendly HOWEVER it seems that the UK must now cringe and crawl and change our foreign policies and strategic partnerships to suit islam? What price does the UK have to pay for this new arrangement?
Are we really that desperate for Arab cash that they can now summon our Queen to go barefoot and covered into their mosque and make our fake foreign secretary crawl and creep to beg for money?
The UK is being islamised at an alarming pace now and the coalition are at the centre of it, not for them the dignity and pride of HM governments of old, these Quislings just have to abase themselves and us.
Isnt it funny how WE have to note and address THEIR concerns and adapt OUR policies and alliances and interests to suit THEIRS? Look on this visit with shame and humiliation as our government crawls and creeps and cringes and gives in to demand after demand. The truth is that these states need us more than we need them, they need our support in the face of their own regional threats and we do not need to creep and crawl to them at all.
A friendship that requires one side to change its other alliances or friendships or strategic goals is no friendship at all, a friend that bullies and threatens and demands obedience from the other is not a friend at all. We are either an equal partner where we stand up for our own interests or we are a stooge lackey lickspittle unfit to have a seat at the UN top table. Trade? They either wish to trade with us or they do not, they have NO right to dictate to us about our foreign policies and alliances and how we must change to suit their prejudices and hatreds. If that is the price of a trade deal then they should really go buy their stuff from North Korea or Russia. What would they say to us if we demanded that they change their policies and goals to suit us? Yeah! they would rightly tell us to piss right off and no mistake!
What next? What other national humiliations are going to be heaped upon the the UK by this gang of Quislings? I just cannot bear the shame of what this gang of Quislings are doing to our once great nation. We look on the actions of this coalition and it is looking like the worst government we have ever had, these Quislings are in the pocket of the unelected shadow government, bought and paid for yesmen who have no honour and no shame and no morals and no patriotism in their souls. – [Source: © Cassandra1963, commenting on The Daily Telegraph]
MAIL ONLINE: Shoeless and wearing a beekeeper-style shawl and hat, the Queen walked across the world’s largest carpet last night as she met Islamic students in Abu Dhabi at the start of her five-day state visit to the Gulf.
No sooner had the Queen and Prince Philip stepped off their chartered British Airways flight from London than they were taken straight to the Sheikh Zayed Mosque, the country’s largest.
The floor of its main prayer hall is covered in a 35-ton carpet which took 1,200 Iranian women two years to stitch by hand.
In keeping with tradition, the Queen removed her shoes before entering and padded in in stockinged feet.
While other female members of the party wore a traditional 'abaya' or full-length cloak over their clothes and a 'sheela' or scarf, the Queen wore a gold brocade coat embroidered with Swarovski crystals over her matching dress, both designed by her dresser, Angela Kelly.
She tied a gold lame shawl over her pill box hat to cover her hair. Shoeless Queen dons 'beekeeper' hat as she visits Abu Dhabi mosque >>> Robert Hardman | Thursday, November 25, 2010
*Liberated women everywhere will be proud of you, Ffion, I feel sure!
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Queen's Gulf visit: What the Gulf means to the UK today – The visit has taken on an unusually political flavour both with the change of government in Britain and increasing tensions with Iran a short distance away on the other side of the Gulf. >>> Richard Spencer in Abu Dhabi | Thursday, November 25, 2010
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Queen's Gulf visit: Britain and business in the United Arab Emirates – For most Britons today, thoughts of the United Arab Emirates conjure up images of gaudy hotels and beaches favoured by the new rich. >>> Richard Spencer | Thursday, November 25, 2010
SKY NEWS: Queen Visits Mosque On First Day Of UAE Trip >>> Angela Barnes, Sky News Online | Thursday, November 25, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
THE TELEGRAPH: Americans are questioning why a company was set up in London a week after news broke that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, may be released.
The terraced house just around the corner from the American embassy in London looks like most in the affluent street. Tall and elegant, only the shiny brass plaque gives a clue to what lies beyond the black front door.
The name reads Dalia Advisory Limited, a company established by Libyan businessmen just a week after the country's officials were told the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was being considered for release on compassionate grounds.
Dalia Advisory is in fact a "front" for the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), a sovereign wealth fund with £80 billion, to invest in Britain and beyond. The Georgian town house, bought for £6 million, is, ironically, only a few yards from the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square.
Senior business sources have told The Sunday Telegraph that had Megrahi died in a British jail, the LIA would have taken its vast sums elsewhere. "If Megrahi had perished in Scotland, we would have become a pariah state as far as the Libyans were concerned," said one source.
Oliver Miles, a former ambassador to Libya and now deputy chairman of the Libyan British Business Council, said: "At the time of his release everyone knew that if he died in a Scottish jail, it would be bad for our relations."
But some 1,500 miles from the LIA's Mayfair headquarters, Megrahi, 58, is clinging defiantly to life despite his terminal cancer – much to the embarrassment of the authorities in Britain.
The former Libyan intelligence officer is living at government expense in a prosperous Tripoli suburb in a two-storey villa surrounded by gardens, where he is looked after by his wife, their five children and a team of medics.
He enjoys superstar status, repeatedly feted as a "much-loved" hero of the Libyan people. According to Megrahi's family, he has received up to 30,000 house guests – a white tent was erected in the garden for visitors – while newborn babies across Libya have been named after him. Gaddafi family members have also made several private visits, friends say.
But he is said to be lower in spirits than when he first arrived home, and does not leave the house – spending much of his time propped up in bed, sedated for the pain.
Prof Karol Sikora, one of the doctors who suggested Megrahi had just three months to live, insists that there is no miraculous recovery. "I am well-informed he is dying; he is just not dying as fast as we predicted," he said. Scottish authorities insist that the study by Prof Sikora and two other doctors, which was paid for by Libya, had not been considered and was not a contributory factor to Megrahi's release.
However long Megrahi now survives, the fact is business between Britain and Libya is currently booming. British exports to Libya are now double what they were a year ago while imports from Libya have risen three fold. In the first two months of this year alone, the UK exported £110 million of goods and services. >>> Robert Mendick, Philip Sherwell in New York and Andrew Alderson | Saturday, July 24, 2010
NZZ am SONNTAG: BP und der kranke Attentäter: Laut Libyen befindet sich Lockerbie-Attentäter im Sterben – Die Ölfirma BP hat sich vor fast einem Jahr für die Begnadigung des todkranken Terroristen al-Megrahi eingesetzt. Nach den Prognosen müsste der Libyer heute längst tot sein. >>> Kristina Bergmann, Kairo | Sonntag, 25. Juli 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: Wearing a burka can be 'empowering ' and 'dignified' for Mulsim [sic] women, one of the Government’s most senior female ministers has said.
The controversial remarks by Caroline Spelman, who as Environment Secretary is the second most powerful woman in the Cabinet, were immediately described as “moronic” and “bizarre”.
She is also likely to face anger from back bench Conservative MPs, some of whom have called for the burka – the covering which some Muslim women adopt in public to hide their face, hair and body – to be banned outside of private homes.
Mrs Spelman made her remarks when asked in an interview what she thought of the recent decision by French MPs to introduce a law outlawing the burka in public.
Critics of the ban, including her fellow ministers, have argued that while they do not like to see women covering their faces, particularly if forced to do so by male relatives, legislation is heavy-handed and contrary to the principle of freedom of expression.
But the Environment Secretary’s suggestion that wearing the burka could in fact be seen as a feminist statement will raise eyebrows.
She said that she held her view “as a woman,” and claimed that her experience of visiting Afghanistan had persuaded her that “the burka confers dignity”.
Her remarks are particularly controversial given that before the Taliban was driven out of large parts of Afghanistan with the help of British troops, millions of women were forced under threat of physical violence to wear the veil in public.
British soldiers still gauge the level of threat from the Taliban in a particular area by assessing whether local women feel the need to cover themselves.
But Mrs Spelman insisted that the burka was “empowering”. She told Sky News: “I take a strong view on this, actually. Caroline Spelman: wearing burka can be ‘empowering’ >>> Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent | Sunday, July 18, 2010
SKY NEWS: A senior female Cabinet minister says Britain should not ban the burka. Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman told Sky News a ban would be "un-British".
THE INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY: The US Senate is determined to uncover the truth behind the early release of the Lockerbie bomber
Alex Salmond has heaped pressure on Tony Blair over his alleged role in the controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber by claiming that the former prime minister should be forced to testify before a US Senate committee investigating the affair.
Amid growing concerns over the potential impact of the forthcoming foreign relations committee hearings, the Scottish First Minister advised senators to question Mr Blair over the infamous "deal in the desert" in 2007, when Mr Blair and the Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi agreed plans to open the country up to foreign trade.
The call came as the Daily Mail claimed Mr Blair was flown to Libya for secret talks with Col Gaddafi last month, days after denying he was an adviser to the dictator.
The committee inquiry, led by Senator John Kerry, will investigate BP's alleged involvement in the release last August, on compassionate grounds, of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. But it threatens to turn into an embarrassing episode for a series of senior British figures. Both David Cameron and Foreign Secretary, William Hague, have said the release was "a mistake". But officials in Washington have confirmed that they want to ask past and present UK ministers to give evidence about their handling of the case – casting a shadow over former justice secretary Jack Straw and the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, the man who authorised the release.
But, in an attempt to deflect criticism from his own administration, Mr Salmond suggested that the senators look elsewhere. "It is important to understand that what the American senators want to inquire about is whether there was a deal in the desert with Col Gaddafi," Mr Salmond said. "The best [way] to answer that would be to call Mr Blair and ask him directly." Continue reading and comment >>> Brian Brady and David Usborne | Sunday, July 18, 2010
Related article here
Friday, July 16, 2010
THE GUARDIAN: Announcement comes as Hillary Clinton says she will investigate claims BP lobbied UK government to release Lockerbie bomber
The new coalition government regards the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie plane bombing as a "mistake", Britain's ambassador to the US has said.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald made the statement as the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she would look into claims by a group of Democrat senators that BP lobbied the British government to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to help it secure an oil deal with Libya.
The US Senate's foreign relations committee is holding a hearing into the release of Megrahi on Thursday 29 July, and BP officials have been asked to give evidence.
Last year, the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds was taken by the Scottish government. At the time, Gordon Brown insisted he was not responsible for what happened, but he did say he "respected" the right of Scottish ministers to take the decision, a phrase that was taken as an endorsement of Megrahi's early release.
But last night, Sheinwald issued a statement that made it clear that the coalition government takes a different view.
"The new British government is clear that Megrahi's release was a mistake," Sheinwald said.
He went on: "The British government deeply regrets the continuing anguish that his release on compassionate grounds has caused the families of Megrahi's victims in the UK, as well as in the US. >>> Andrew Sparrow and agencies | Friday, July 16, 2010
*A BIG bloody mistake, too! Clearly a case of putting commercial interests above principle. This was a shameful decision. – © Mark
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
THE OBSERVER: The establishment is back at the heart of government. It's as if the last 100 years had never happened
As exhausted Labour ministers embraced opposition with an emotion close to relief, the party's equally exhausted staff assumed they could relax. Instead of being allowed to recuperate, however, they were overwhelmed by thousands of angry men and women clamouring to join. The sight of Nick Clegg and David Cameron joshing in the grounds of Downing Street had rammed home a truth about Britain that all the talk of "inclusion" and "diversity" obscures. We live in the most class-ridden society in western Europe, and it is becoming more sclerotic and more hierarchical by the year.
Despite the admirable attempts to combat sexism, racism and homophobia, the life-defining issue for children is not their skin colour, gender or sexuality, still less their intrinsic talent, but how much their parents are prepared to spend on their education, and what friendships they can exploit and contacts they can manipulate on their little darlings' behalf thereafter.
Look at our new government. Satirists caricature Liberals – and I think we can now stop calling them "Liberal Democrats" as their alliance with the right has sundered their links with the social democratic tradition – as muesli-munching, Observer-reading, real-ale-drinking members of the progressive middle class. The events of last week have smashed that caricature into 1,000 pieces. Instead of going with Labour, the leaders of middle-class liberalism went into David Cameron's coalition. Far from adding grit to an administration dominated by the children of the rich, they toffed it up and raised the average cabinet member's net worth by tens of thousands of pounds.
As so often, foreign journalists see Britain more clearly than we do. During the campaign, a puzzled Susanne Gelhard, London correspondent for German radio station ZDF, noticed that the British media talked incessantly about Cameron's privileged background, but never added that Clegg's was no different. "How does he do it?" she asked. "I think he must have very good PR management."
So he does. When you look at his history, you discover that his parents, who now live in some style in a chateau in the south of France, sent him to Westminster, a private school that has never seen itself as second best to Eton. On leaving Cambridge, he behaved in a manner any young Tory on the make would recognise by accepting the patronage of Lord Carrington and Lord Brittan. He married well. His Spanish wife Miriam is not only a successful lawyer bringing in a six-figure salary, but is also a Catholic. Her belief in the supernatural has the advantage of allowing the atheist Clegg to avoid the worst of the state education system and send his children to a faith school. >>> Nick Cohen | Sunday, May 16, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
THE TELEGRAPH: Google was asked by British authorities almost 1,200 times for information about the internet activites of individuals and companies in just six months, the search engine has disclosed.
Britons are among the most spied upon on the web, according to the figures which show only Brazil and the United States asked for more information.
The 1,166 requests for information - which relate to the second half of 2009 - came from agencies such as local and national police, and usually formed part of a criminal investigation. France asked for 846 pieces of information, and Germany for 428.
The search engine also received 59 requests from British government departments and other official sources to remove items from Google's services.
A Google spokesman said that the company regularly gets asked by governments for information relating to users’ emails or on how and where they have logged on. The company added, however, that where broad requests are made it endeavours to release as little information as is necessary by law. It complies with approximately 77 per cent of all British requests for removal.
Google has launched its Government Requests Tool to highlight the extent to which governments are using their legal systems to gather information about citizens or censor the web. However, it admitted it could not provide data for China as Beijing considers such figures as a state secret. >>> Matt Warman, Consumer Technology Editor | Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
THE TELEGRAPH: The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends.
The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.
The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.
The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy.
However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”.
Last night, the Conservatives demanded an independent inquiry into the issue. It was alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism.
Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour. Labour's 'secret plan' to lure migrants >>> Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor | Tuesday, February 09, 2010
MAIL ONLINE: Labour threw open the doors to mass migration in a deliberate policy to change the social make-up of the UK, secret papers suggest.
A draft report from the Cabinet Office shows that ministers wanted to ‘maximise the contribution’ of migrants to their ‘social objectives’.
The number of foreigners allowed in the UK increased by as much as 50 per cent in the wake of the report, written in 2000.
Labour has always justified immigration on economic grounds and denied it was using it to foster multiculturalism.
But suspicions of a secret agenda rose when Andrew Neather, a former government adviser and speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’. >>> James Slack | Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
THE TELEGRAPH: Christians would rather vote for the British National Party than Labour because they are so disillusioned with the Government’s discrimination against them, a pastor has claimed.
Reverend George Hargreaves, who leads the conservative Christian Party, said people were “sick” of “Labour’s anti-Christian, anti-free speech agenda and laws”.
Rev Hargreaves said: “Christians in the past may have voted Labour, but [they] have silenced Christians and their anti-traditional family policies have created a vacuum which Nick Griffin can fill." >>> Andy Bloxham | Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)