Thursday, 23 March 2017

Conference: What Are We Teaching the Children?

When:       Saturday, March 25
Time:        10.00am – 5.00pm
Where:      The Emmanuel Centre, 9-23 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3DW

Cost:          Single ticket                                                          £35
                   Students and non – waged                                  £15
                   Double Discount                                                   £50  
 

Special offer for organisations, schools and churches:

buy ONE ticket and get two more accompanying persons FREE

Of Particular Interest to:  
Head teachers, Teachers, School Governors, Educationalists, Academics, Church leaders.  And of course parents.
 
Come to Voice for Justice UK’s important conference examining the ideological reframing of education, and find out why you should be worried.  Get the tools you need to help shape future policy and safeguard the nation’s young.
 
(Resource pack, including complimentary copy or our latest book, retail price £12, What are they teaching the children?) 
Topics covered will include:
  • What is education? 
  • What, how and why do we teach our young?
  • How has education evolved in different societies, and what are the implications for us today?
  • What is the role of the family in education?
  • How does current education policy fit with the basic human rights of freedom of conscience, belief, and speech?
  • How is education being subjected to ideological pressure?
  • Detailed analysis of the impact of SRE (Sex and Relationship Education) and so-called ‘inclusivity’ on children and young people.
  • CHIPS – education or indoctrination?
  • Should daily worship in schools be mandatory, optional … or abolished?

For more information and to register go to http://www.vfjuk.org.uk/education-conference-2017/ 

TICKETS WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE AT THE DOOR

 
SEE YOU THERE!
 

 

 http://www.vfjuk.org.uk/education-conference-2017/ 

Petition: Remove Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London

The terror attack of 22nd March 2017 proves that Sadiq Khan has failed to protect London.
He has made unacceptable remarks that "terror attacks are just part and parcel of living in a big city" indicating that he condones terrorism and has no will or intention of opposing it.
We demand his removal  - now.

https://www.change.org/p/british-government-impeach-sadiq-khan-as-mayor-of-london


Wednesday, 22 March 2017

Labour keeping up its Tradition of Applauding Terrorism Corbyn and Leftwing Media Mourn Mass Murderer Martin McGuinness

Are you an aspiring terrorist who wants to get into government and be enshrined as politically-correct? Then join the Labour party, they will always be on your side. Jeremy Corbyn writes this week "Martin McGuinness played a huge role in bringing about peace in Northern Ireland. He was a great family man and my thoughts are with them." 
If being a great family man means murdering families, that makes perfect sense.


Labour's so-called peace process brought terrorists to power, gave respectability to mass murderers and rewarded those who rely on violence to attain their ends. McGuinness should have been jailed for his crimes. He never expressed any remorse, regret or contrition. Nor do any of his colleagues, Corbyn's chums.



The whole of our leftwing political establishment is determined to enshrine terrorists and applaud them, whether they are IRA or any other brand of thug. 

Sadiq Khan, Labour Mayor of London, has close links to terrorist groups. Not only has he several times chosen to defend Islamic terrorists in court, but in a letter to the Guardian in 2006 he publicly excused and justified terrorist attacks such as the 7/7 London bombings by blaming them on British government policy.

‘It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad,’ it said.



Khan chose to act as defence lawyer for Zacharias Moussaoui, who later confessed to being a member of Al-Qaeda.


And today's terrible events in Westminster confirm that Khan is a useless Mayor who has failed to protect London from terrorist attack. How soon will he and the rest of the Labour party send their warm greetings to the terrorist?

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/is-it-islamophobic-to-draw-attention-to-sadiq-khans-links-with-extremists/
."https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/67238/londons-first-muslim-mayor-defended-911-terrorists/#1oROowObZ2RvZbOH.97

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4329748/Labour-councillors-helped-create-jihadi-breeding-ground.html#ixzz4c2ad15yp

Begging is a Criminal Offence - But Only if British People Do it

Homeless people who sleep or beg in the streets can be fined £100 by the local council under regulations passed as recently as 2014. 


The offenders can be served with a PSPO
(Public Space Protection Order) because of course it is a crime and a nuisance to be homeless or to beg. Unless of course you come from a distant foreign country in which case you are a "refugee" or "asylum-seeker" and entitled to generous state benefits, and free housing in a hotel with three meals per day and a free mobile phone. 

Most of the people begging in Oxford are begging for the money to stay in a night shelter, but even those are over-crowded and in this freezing weather there are still people sleeping rough. I wonder how this young man I photographed recently in Oxford would pay the £100? Presumably he has to beg in order to pay the fines for begging.


http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/21/people-caught-begging-or-sleeping-rough-face-100-council-fines-6524174/?ito=twitter

Friday, 3 March 2017

It is Time to Abolish the Westminster Drones Club

The silly performance of the House of Lords, messing around with the Brexit bill, has woken up a lot of people to the need for reform.

Why should anybody get paid £300 per day for sleeping? The term of a "life peerage" should be defined as lasting as long as you can stay awake while on the benches. Anyone caught dozing should be stripped of their peerage. Why not? It would happen in any other job. The House of Lords was reformed under Tony Blair but the result was as big a mess as everything else done in the Blair era. The Lords is now just a racket for rewarding retired politicians or donors to political parties who have never even stood for election.
They constantly complain that they don't get enough money when what they can claim in expenses is far above the average salary.
We cannot vote them out, which means that the LibDems are vastly over-represented in proportion to voting patterns, and Brexit supporters are vastly under-represented.

The Lords behaved irresponsibly by passing an amendment in favour of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens working in the UK without yet having a signed agreement to guarantee the rights of UK citizens living and working in EU countries. It is a foolish and thoughtless thing to do. Over and over again the people who pushed it repeated the mantra that "EU citizens are not bargaining chips". 

But no one is saying that they are "chips". The point is that both groups involved in this situation must be considered equally and simultaneously. When you negotiate a deal, whether it is for importing goods, or for investment, or for employment, or even just for booking a holiday, you ensure that the interests of both sides are taken into consideration in a balanced way before any binding commitments are made. That does not mean the people are "chips" to use the idiotic phrase that keeps on and on being bandied about. It means they are people involved in a BI-lateral negotiation. The Lords want to make a UNI-lateral (or Loony-lateral) agreement that leaves our own citizens stranded, at the mercy of EU bureaucrats who will undoubtedly use them as bargaining chips. The people who have wrung every penny out of this long-suffering country for thirty years and bled us dry, cannot be trusted.
I am happy to hear that the Government does not have to accept the Lords' foolish and perverse amendment. I hope it is binned as soon as possible. The House of Lords is less useful now than it was when peers were hereditary. The hereditary peers never did anything I disagreed with. Now the Lords is full of horrid specimens like Peter Mandelson, the Kinnocks times two, Cathy Ashton, and so on, who all pocketed multi-millions from the EU. They are also contractually bound never to criticize or oppose the EU, on pain of losing their fat pensions. They don't need the handsome expenses the Lords pays them - they are already filthy rich - and their loyalties are not to this country. There are plenty of others getting subsidies, salaries, and backhanders from the EU in one way or another. They should not be allowed to vote on the Brexit Bill. They have got too much vested interest. 

Behind their lordships' ermine robes lurk some very unsavoury and corrupt people such as Grenville Jenner who should have been in jail, not Parliament,

The House of Lords has been described as the most expensive geriatric care-home in England. I don't agree with some of the anti--elderly language I have heard about them, but I do think it is time to kick most of them out. They will probably have to be replaced with an elected body. As a matter of fact, there are arguments for having a hereditary peerage, but that is another question altogether. It is not the policy of the English Democrats, and most people in this country would probably prefer to force members of the upper house to seek election. Whatever else, we must stop paying them £300 per day for just dozing on the benches. That is a scandal.