Wednesday 31 March 2021

The issues surrounding Black Lives Matter (BLM)

The first solidarity protests, in support of BLM, occurred in London on the 28th May last year and although that was nearly a year ago the issues surrounding BLM are far from over. This is especially true with the start of the trial of Derek Chauvin, the policeman, who is being tried for the murder of George Floyd.

I’m not going to comment on the case as I’ll leave it to the jury to reach its verdict once they have heard all the evidence. However, suffice to say, from what I know, I believe there is a lot to come out in the trial that does NOT make it an open-and-shut case.

Anyway, prompted by the rise of the BLM movement I thought I should review the whole subject and to that end I recently read both books by Taleeb Starkes. His first, published in 2013 is titled “The Uncivil War – Blacks vs Niggers” with the subtitle “Confronting the subculture within the African-American Community.” The second, published in 2016 is titled “Black Lives Lies Matter” with the subtitle “Why lies matter to the Race Grievance Industry.”

Taleeb was raised in Philadelphia and spent two decades mentoring at risk, inner city, youth. He is now of course an established author and currently hosts a free speech-based podcast called Taleeb Starkes ‘Safe Space.’

I highly recommend both books and believe that until anyone has read them, who wants to comment on BLM matters and this post in particular, they will never have the breadth of knowledge to be able to contribute to the debate. People need to understand that there are so many, quite frankly, shocking and disturbing aspects to the subculture within some of the African-American communities and without that knowledge their opinions are virtually worthless. What is also pretty clear is that while the situation in parts of the black community is far worse in America, we are facing similar problems in the UK.

There are numerous statistics out there, to show the extent of the problem. Let’s just consider one which is that over 50% of the gun crimes in London were committed by blacks and yet they only make up around 13% of the population of the city. Anyone who tries to down play this statistic is probably related to an ostrich or woke or both.

Taleeb describes the most violent blacks as ‘Urban Terrorists’ and he gives endless examples, with supporting newspaper headlines, of the atrocities they commit on a regular basis like the shooting of the two-year-old Kamiya French who the ‘Urban Terrorist’ shot at point blank range while she was sitting on the porch next to her dad. The ‘Urban Terrorist’ told police it was in retaliation and he wanted Kamiya’s dad to watch her die. This example I can assure you is one of many.

So, what has this all got to do with THA – well the answer is that our government faces similar problems in our inner cities and yet from what one can see it is not treating the situation as seriously as it should and appears too scared and reluctant to call out the issue for what it predominately is – which is black on black violence and black crime. If you need another example of our government’s inability to face up to this type of issue, you only have to consider the exploitation and serial rapes of the girls in towns like Rotherham, by mainly Muslim gangs, to know that our politicians are completely gutless in the face of serious crimes perpetrated within and by some ethnic communities. The excuse given by officialdom is that they do not want to stir up racial hatred but I feel pretty sure that the majority of law-abiding citizens take a different view but are, of course, completely ignored.

Our six demands help address these situations because they give the people, of all colours and creeds, back their inherent sovereignty, that is power, and therefore the ability to hold our politicians to account between elections.

The law-abiding majority are constantly ignored and they really need to wake up and support our agenda for the long term good of the country.

The time for action is now!


Wednesday 24 March 2021

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill 2021.

 I’m a firm believer that existing laws usually simply need enforcing rather than constantly being amended.

So, I’m far from convinced that the government’s current PCSCB is necessary and falls far more under the heading of ‘we must be seen to be doing something’ than anything that is actually needed.

The Home Secretary is keen to say that she has/is consulting the police but what does that really mean because I sense she is just uttering words and platitudes she thinks appropriate – politicians take us for fools a lot of the time and we seem to let them!

On key ‘Law and Order Issues’, like we are currently encountering, any sensible government (when did we last have one?) should not only consult the police but also with other political parties AND importantly the people they serve. The evidence is that governments become isolate from the people and certainly do NOT have the prerogative of knowledge and wisdom and would greatly benefit from the ‘peoples’ input.

One of the key facets of our agenda is that it would allow the people, via referenda, to make recommendations for legislation and also object to any proposed legislation passing through Westminster.

‘We must be seen to be doing something’ legislation is nearly always bad and as each day now passes the need for our six demands become ever more necessary so that the people have real power over their elected officials to ensure they are no longer ignored.

Wake up people you have more power than you realise to improve the way we are governed and your own lot through a programme of mass peaceful non-cooperation following the principles of Gene Sharp.

If anyone wants to be a' torch bearer' for our reforms get in touch using the 'Contact' button off the website.


Friday 19 March 2021

Our democracy is a sham.

 One of the facts about democracy that I’ve learnt, since my involvement with THA, is that, by the true translation of the Greek word to ‘People Power’, we have never actually had real democracy. Casting our vote at periodic elections is only temporary power and limited to just a few minutes of one day.

Thus, the key aims of to our six demands are that the people regain their inherent sovereignty and that they have the mechanisms to exert that power, as and when necessary, over those who they have elected to form a government.

This week I would like to cover three examples of how democracy is a sham at the local level by showing how local councillors make decisions without real consultation of the rate payers who partly fund them.

The first example concerns my own recent council tax bill for 2021/22 which informs me, in an additional A4 letter, that my council tax will be increasing by 3.1% to maintain the services they provide which they imply, but don’t actually state, have cost more due to the pandemic.

There are two points I would make. One I have not been asked whether I support the rise and two I have not been shown any figures to justify the increase.  

In our pamphlet there are set out three examples of councils who did ask their electorate what level of rate rise they would support being, an amount to keep expenditure as last year, a small increase or a larger increase, and in all cases the majority voted for the increase to keep expenditure the same as the previous year – that, unlike my council, is how real democracy should work.

The second example concerns Somerset County Council plans to become a unitary authority, which would do away with the four Districts, while the Districts have countered with their own proposal to reduce to two Districts.

I have studied both plans in detail and in brief they both take decision making further away from the people they serve. The consultation for both plans has been scant with the ability to comment on- line which I very much doubt many will do and I also feel pretty sure that the decision will finally be made without any attempt to get the views form the majority of Somerset residents.

Such plans, which will cost millions to implement, are exactly the sort of decision that should be put to all the voters of Somerset with the arguments being presented for both plans and also the status quo. Making such a major decision without proper consultation is unacceptable and undemocratic.

The third example, comes from an article in the paper on Monday about the Haringey Council’s plans to rename ‘Black Boy Lane’ in West Green North London prompted by the Black Lives Matter protests last year. It would appear from the council’s website that the consultation was on-line and I wonder if we will ever know what the response was but I read that the council was prepared to offer every household and business £300 for any inconvenienced should the name change go ahead.  The total cost of the change could be as much as £200,000 which, according to the article, includes £50,000 for a support officer to help residents affected and the increasingly common practice, in some areas, of translating the information into 12 other languages.

The issue according to the council is that the term ‘Black Boy’ is now considered derogatory even though the lane shares the name with a nearby pub with the name being attributed to Charles II who apparently had a dark complexion and very dark hair.

The trouble is that the council’s attempts to canvas opinion has been very limited and restricted with, one suspects, the majority being intentionally left out the loop. Our agenda provides people with the mechanism to have their say.

Interestingly the only opinion I’d take account of is from Sharon David,55, a black woman who has live in the lane for 40 years and cannot understand why the council are doing this. This was mentioned in the same article.

Funnily enough the council answer her query on their own website where they go on to explain that they believe “that now, more than ever, we should seek to send out a clear message in support of the diversity of our borough.”  It is simply not right that any council can spend our money largely divorced from the people they serve.

Finally, apparently the Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick is believed to want local authorities to obtain the approval of a ‘super-majority’ of residents which sounds good but I wonder what this or any government will actually do to make that happen?

In conclusion what these three examples show is that local councillors, as with national politicians, only pay lip service to the views of the majority reinforcing the aim of our six demands is to give people real democracy and thus the power to hold our politicians to account, when necessary, between elections.