A column with some thoughts by an occasional TBG correspondent and senior member.

by Hogarth

 Once again, having unfurled its Union flags and engaged in its electoral mating ritual with British voters, yet another CONservative Government has thoroughly conned its supporters.

3m Chinese Refugees into Britain

Writing in the Times on 3^rd June, merely six months after his election, the Con-Man in Chief wrote that if the Chinese mainland’s security laws were pursued, “Britain would have no choice but to uphold our profound ties of history and friendship with the people of Hong Kong”.

Johnson continued: “Today about 350,000 people hold British Nationals (Overseas) passports and another 2.5 million people would be eligible to apply for them. At present these passports allow for visa free access for up to six months.  If China imposes its national security law, the British government will change its immigration rules and allow any holder of these passports from Hong Kong to come to the UK for a renewable period of 12 months and be given further immigration rights including the right to work which would place them on the route to citizenship.  This would amount to one of the biggest changes to our visa system in history. If it proves necessary Britain will take this step and take it willingly.”

Where, on this overcrowded island are all these people to be housed?   Where will their children be educated?  From where will the money be found to finance the necessary infrastructure to cope with such an influx of refugees?   What about those likely to be most affected - the professional middle class? How can this be raised after the Government has wrought destruction upon its own economy, as a result of the lock-up of the population, caused by faulty science, erroneous statistics, the employment of psychological conditioning to instil fear and the repeated use of simplistic Stalinist mantras?

More important, when was the electorate consulted?   When did voters provide their consent for the demographic changes already imposed by the CONservative Party and proposed by its current leader?  Who consulted future generations?

Metropolitan Police

Last weekend, thugs from the Metropolitan Police descended to break up a small gathering at Speaker’s Corner, which was held in opposition to the lock-up of the population and the cessation of essential liberties.  What other protest could derive greater legitimacy in an ancient realm founded on personal freedom and democracy? 

By contrast, not far along the road, three other gatherings were taking place.  One was outside 10 Downing Street, where the Police were berated, sworn at and abused.   Thousands also crowded into Trafalgar Square and a march headed towards the American Embassy.  The purpose of each was to protest against the death of George Floyd, in America.  These demonstrations were organised by the militant organisation ‘Black Lives Matter’ (BLM).  This movement generally attracts white liberals and degenerate handwringers, the sort who allow the media to do their thinking for them, and they were also present.  Also joining them were violent Antifa agitators.

These events were inspired by rampages in another country, some 4000 miles distant, which have been characterised by looting, arson and savagery.  What relevance was this to the UK?

The Police looked on benignly.  There were no arrests and no attempts to disperse the participants, who ignored social distancing regulations.

Simultaneously, the BBC, ITV and SKY, all swift to demand the removal of Boris Johnson’s political advisor, Dominic Cummings, for his minor transgression of lock-up restrictions, displayed the utmost adulation for the BLM protestors since the weekend.

When Robert Peel founded the Police, over 170 years ago, he observed that ‘the public are the Police and the Police are the public’.   Policing can only be carried out with public consent.   As former Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption, QC, remarked in an interview on Radio 4 (referring to the lock-up):

‘The tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government’s command.’   

This is what a police state is like. It’s a state in which the Government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers’ wishes.’

The Metropolitan Police are conducting themselves as if they were an occupying force, where they determine the rules and which rules should be obeyed and which ignored.  There is no equality beneath the law.  The Metropolitan Police, in many ways like the Stasi, have become an instrument of oppression against the traditional inhabitants of this nation.

The Government, moreover, is using the Police to enforce the politically-correct society and to intimidate and stamp out dissent.  Otherwise, it would have rooted these elements out of the force.

Within the lifetime of a child born today, the traditional inhabitants of these islands will be reduced to minority status.   This Government and its political police force could not give a damn, not even for their own descendants.