Tag Archives: london

Maggie: A Nation Mourns

Posted on by
4

Britain ground to a halt today as crowds of ordinary people thronged the streets to say goodbye to a dear leader, Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher, who single-handedly killed Stalin as well as ending child poverty here at home, was probably the most loved Briton of the 20th century, even surpassing the popularity of Winston Churchill.

Alf Grimes, a former coal miner from South Yorkshire, couldn’t stop the tears from rolling down his grubby face. “It were ‘orrible in t’ pit”, he sobbed. “Only Maggie understood, and put an end to our suffering”.

A delegation of West Indians from South London also turned up and sang Negro spirituals as the procession passed. Winston Green, one of their number, reminisced: “I was only a teenager then”, he said, “and Maggie made sure we went home and did our homework, by sending in the police to swamp the streets at sunset. Yes, the truncheon blows hurt, and I still experience the occasional headache, but if it wasn’t for her, I wouldn’t be the CEO of a major international corporation now.” (At least I think that’s what he said – his accent was a bit strong).

But a picture tells a thousand words. Our correspondents in London and Leeds submitted the photos below which really capture the raw emotion of the day. Rarely has the British public experienced such unity. Maggie may be gone, but as these images show, she will never be forgotten.

London (photo courtesy @IveMetJoeBlack on Twitter)

London (photo courtesy @IveMetJoeBlack on Twitter)

IanWhiteNews

Leeds (photo courtesy @IanWhiteNews on Twitter)

Why Maggie Won’t Have a Respectful Send-Off

Posted on by
12

Perhaps the United States once really was “the land of the free” – but I see no historical evidence that it deserves this label (unless it refers simply to the freedom of white people to grab land, in the early, pioneer days). An illustration of the power of US corporate propaganda is the way in which Ronald Reagan, a global terrorist and domestic criminal, who redistributed large chunks of the US economy to the super-rich, is today seen by many Americans as a hero; or at least, a nice old man. He even has a provincial airport named after him. This Stalinist-style rewrite of history is an American speciality. The truth is dead – long live the propaganda.

Reagan’s loyal sidekick, Margaret Thatcher, died last week, and the right immediately tried to begin another rewrite of history; the media has pushed a largely establishment view, and the old lady has been given a state-funded funeral, with military escort, to take place this Wednesday. The British establishment is trying to airbrush one unfortunate fact out of history: Thatcher is widely loathed by much of the British public – probably by more people than ever supported her. Unfortunately for the Conservative party, right-wing media and wider establishment, the British people have less of a tendency towards amnesia than our American cousins, and, it appears, less of a tendency to lie down and let the state roll over us.

Thatcher, I commented on Twitter, was the most hated Briton of the 20th Century. I only received one dissenting reply, which suggested Ian Huntley (the murderer of two young girls) as an alternative. Perhaps he was right – but reaching for a child killer underlines my point rather than destroying it.

The point of most of the protests, blogging and anger is deadly serious: to prevent Thatcher from getting the Reagan treatment. It’s important that the long series of tragedies that marked the Thatcher era is kept in the public memory. Even the combined might of the right-wing media has failed to hide that Thatcher is hated by millions of people.

Some clever person thought up a way to reveal the extent of Thatcher-hate: by suggesting that people buy the Wizard of Oz song, Ding Dong the Witch is Dead. The single rocketed up the iTunes chart to number one (before mysteriously settling back to second place in the hour before the count closed on Saturday night); the right, still failing to comprehend the truly mass nature of the anti-Thatcher feeling, tried to replace it with a pro-Thatcher song, “I Love Margaret Thatcher” (which was actually satirical – there are no known pro-Thatcher songs). This effort was promoted by the right-wing media – and still flopped dismally, reaching a pathetic 35th position. Despite what the media was telling us, there was no groundswell of pro-Thatcher feeling to rival the anti-Thatcher feeling.

The BBC and Capital Radio both decided to censor the charts. You see, it’s fine for the mass media to tell people what tunes to buy, but when the public choose the top single for themselves, to make a statement? That’s dangerous sedition. We now have an established precedent: when a fact (in this case, the extent of hatred for Margaret Thatcher) is inconvenient to the British establishment, the media can and will impose censorship.

Anti-Thatcher banners were displayed at football matches. Plans for a minute’s silence at stadiums were shelved, because football fans would have refused to stay silent. Every attempt to paint a picture of a nation in mourning failed.

The right resorted to snivelling: “An old lady has died… Think of her family.” But then why is such a hated woman awarded a state-funded funeral that is bound to generate anger and protest? Why is there a military presence, and why are the chimes of Big Ben to be silenced? Because then future generations can be taught that she was a national heroine; that her vindictive and deliberate destruction of Britain’s social fabric was actually done in the national interest. The fact of the funeral itself can be used to write history – how different is this from the state-sanctioned worship of North Korean leaders? These tyrants can prove how “loved” they are by showing videos of cheering, flag-waving crowds. Tomorrow’s event is made-for-TV. The pictures will show the burial of a loved woman, not a hated one. Millions can express their hatred for Thatcher on the streets, online, at football matches, by buying singles; but the final story that the establishment wants to tell is a different one altogether.

This is why the protests this week have been important. This is a battle for memes: a struggle to control which version of history goes into the history books. Because for all the praise over Thatcher’s legacy, the British people have not forgotten:

  • Thatcher’s “economic miracle” never happened: British GDP has grown in line with Germany and France - and this happened at the time of a North Sea oil boom in the UK.
  • Thatcher therefore didn’t create wealth with her policies – she merely redistributed it, from poor to rich, as shown by the Gini coefficient.
  • And the long-term economic legacy? According to Thatcher fans, we now have a country of opportunity for hard workers. Yet Thatcher actually made it harder to succeed – social mobility fell, and is among the worst in Europe, with only Portugal lagging behind us. This fact, more than any other, destroys the central myth of Thatcherism.
  • Thatcher’s one true economic achievement was to turn London into a global financial centre; but this happened at the cost of losing Britain’s position as a manufacturer, leaving Germany to soar ahead; and the 2008 crash showed that the City boom was far less valuable to the nation than had been previously assumed. It had been built on sand.
  • Some “libertarians” have declared Thatcher a fighter for individual liberty – these people clearly don’t remember the most authoritarian regime of the post-war era, probably even beating New Labour’s control-freakery after 9/11. The police were given a blank cheque by the Thatcherites: as a result, police corruption and violence soared. Deaths in custody were ignored. When young people turned away from politics and embraced rave culture, the police were even there to stop them dancing in fields. Thatcherism did not approve of dancing. “Free” people must consume, not dance.
  • Despite the rise in brutal policing (or more likely, because of it) violent crime rose throughout the 1980s, peaking in the mid-90s before starting to fall again (see “Trends in Crime” graph in this BBC article).
  • Thatcherites spread the myth that privilege is now about hard work, not birthright; yet when Thatcher’s moron son Mark attempted to engineer a coup in Equatorial Guinea and was arrested, strings were pulled on his behalf, and he was fined and released.

So Thatcher’s death is being used by conservatives to reinvent her life. Don’t these people have any respect for a frail old lady who has died, or for her family? Despite a torrent of media lies and censorship; despite the police acting to prevent peaceful protest; despite the tabloid wailing about “leftie extremists”, the British people have acted to stop history from being rewritten. The British love of free speech wasn’t given to us from above; it’s deep in our culture, and it’s the people who claim to defend it who most want to take it away.

Pre-emptive Arrests In UK

Posted on by
11

With the upcoming Thatcher burial (or firing her out of a cannon, or whatever they’ll do with her), some people have been taken by surprise by suggestions that activists may be pre-emptively arrested to prevent them from disrupting the funeral.

If you’re one of those surprised people, you haven’t been paying attention. The police have increasingly arrested people – including those with no history of violence – in the run-up to major events.

This is just one more example of thought crime, which has been increasingly prevalent since 9/11. But, you may say, in a democracy, how can political speech be criminalised? It can’t – democracy is meaningless without the right to protest.

Arrests were made in the run-up to the Royal Wedding in 2011, and 97 people were arrested in the run-up to Notting Hill Carnival that year.

Here’s a video of the political arrest of Charlie Veitch, in 2011, in the run up to the Royal Wedding. He was held for 24 hours to prevent him from making any kind of protest, however peaceful or humour-based. This is what a police state looks like in Britain: polite police officers enforcing undemocratic edicts from above to prevent speech that upsets “the establishment” – whatever and whoever that may be.

My First Strip

Posted on by
4

silhouette-of-stripper-on-a-pole_17-1120222452Once again, we are delighted to welcome our striptease correspondent Edie Lamort. You can follow her on Twitter here: @EdieLamort

Something occurred to me last summer after phoning up a radio talk show and commenting. It was in the wake of a Cornish policeman accusing lap-dancing clubs of increasing rape and the controversy it had caused. There were the usual prohibitionists on the line so I called to put the other side of the argument. I was trying to make the point that this way of thinking gave excuses for criminals and rapists. It allowed them accuse society and sexy women as the cause of their crime rather than to take personal responsibility. It also ran the old-fashioned narrative that the victim of rape is somehow to blame. Just a bit of good old-fashioned slut-shaming.

During the conversation, I had to keep asking the radio presenter to get back on to the subject at hand, because he was interested and wanted to know a lot more about the job. He asked about the money, the customers and how I felt doing my first strip. I gave some vague answers but was a bit puzzled as to why he was so intrigued about my first strip. It did make me wonder as it’s not the first time interviewers have strayed from the subject matter and quizzed me like this. They all ask about your first strip and to be honest I don’t really think about mine.

Why do they ask? I think it’s because there is a general perception that this job is not something you would choose to do and therefore you must have fallen into it or happened upon it. Do they think that one thing led to another, and before you know it, you’re on the slippery slope towards stripping? That it was forced on you and suddenly, before you could stop it, you were naked on stage? That it was not a personal decision? That you somehow took the wrong turn and did something you never expected to do? Or is it because we are all voyeurs? Even those who clutch their pearls and gasp, yet still want all the details?

I began stripping in San Francisco and it was a personal decision that I pondered for a while. I’m sorry to be boring but I am quite a pragmatic and analytical character. I ruminate on a decision for a while and I am not very impulsive. I am methodical about things and it takes me a while to settle on a decision. This is because once I do it is firm and I stick to it.

I decided to dance for a number of reasons, money obviously being one, but freedom and creativity being others. So I went to talk to a dancer that worked around the corner from the restaurant I was working in. I asked her many annoying questions and got lots of information about different types venues and where they were. Then I began a tour of the venues. Going into them one by one and telling them I was looking for work. They were all very nice and polite and showed me around. I spoke to the girls, watched stage shows and checked out the dance booths. They told me all about the fees and security protocols and how the shifts worked.

After this tour I decided on the venue I wanted to work at. I called them up and booked an interview with the house mom. She gave me a lot of advice during the interview and booked me in for an audition. She also gave me a few addresses of shops where I could buy my new work uniform; a long gown as it was an upmarket club, some T-bar panties (not G-strings – too crude apparently) and a couple of bikini sets. She then gave me dancing advice and we watched a few shows together. She explained floor work was important and to move slowly as it was more seductive. The whole interview process took a long time and I found myself getting a little impatient with it. I wanted to start work.

I returned the next week with my recommended outfits and settled into the changing room. I made up my face and put on the long red velvet gown over my underwear set and pasties. It was California over a decade ago and we had to follow strict protocol as you do in any licensed venue. We had to wear pasties over our nipples, along with the t-bar panties, and could only remove them in the last 30 seconds of the strip. Everything was quite controlled and tame really.

When I did my audition I was concentrating on the things she had told me to do, hoping I got the job. I chose middle of the road music and kept it fairly straight. The quirky, creative, more rock n roll part could come later. You don’t go to an interview in your wildest outfit after all. It was all over very quickly despite being about five minutes and my main focus was on perfecting my new craft. Moving slowly, feeling the beat, moving my hips and remembering all that poise I’d learnt in dance classes as a teen.

I got the job and was given a month of lunch shifts so I could get used to the stage, the dance and how it all worked. This next month too consisted of me learning the ropes, and that really was my focus, to learn my new craft and make it my job. Towards the end of the month the house mom came on to the floor during one of my lunch shifts and watched a few dances. She smiled and told me I’d improved a lot and seemed so much more natural on stage. This meant I could be moved on to a full rota, which would include evening shifts, and that I had passed my probation. This was great news because I had plans and savings goals that could now be achieved.

No one forced me to do this; it was purely a personal decision. I didn’t tell any of my friends, or colleagues from the restaurant, that I was doing it either. This was because I wanted it to be my decision and was worried that they would worry and panic, clouding my view and effecting my decision. Also it is not information that you can give to freely due to the social stigma so you have to be careful who you entrust with it. Even after I’d left my former job and started stripping, I gave some friends vague answers about ‘working in a bar’. I needed to make sure they would be ok and I wouldn’t get strange reactions. People will either think it’s disgusting, try to save you or ask a hundred bizarre questions. I was comfortable with the job but cautious in regards to the reaction of others.

Over time I learnt whom I could trust and began to be more open. The standard social narrative swings between ‘poor victim’ to ‘evil slut’ so it’s hard to have a normal and open conversation about this. That it is just people making a living. It is also people doing a lot of other thing besides dancing. You never know, you may work next to someone who dances at the weekend. Or one of those mums you chat to at the school gate so politely with, well she might have a pair of stripper heels in a bag ready to work. Or the friend of a friend that you think is really sweet may be checking in for her shift tomorrow night…

 

The Rise of “Mixed Race”

Posted on by
18

mixed-race-girlAs a dedicated numbers geek, I have a special love for statistics. Stats are what separate truth from myth, rumour and lies: in these interconnected times, it’s easy to spot a liar by their refusal to back “facts” with solid statistical evidence (or providing dead-end references to blogs that in turn don’t reference any verifiable evidence).

One of the highlights of the stats-geek’s calendar is the publication of census results. Censuses provide the biggest, most in-depth statistics, on a scale that only governments can afford to commission. The 2001 England & Wales census provided a fascinating insight into British life and culture; and having digested it, I spent much of the following decade waiting impatiently for the next chapter. The 2011 census results were finally published in late-2012, and made for fascinating reading.

There are two particularly interesting sections in the census results, covering religious belief and racial origin. On the religious front, this census showed what had long been suspected: a collapse in religious belief. Those declaring themselves to have no religion had leapt from 15% to 25% over the ten year period between censuses.

The headline figures on race were also interesting: the white population is now reported to be 86% across the country, and in London, 60%. 6.8% of the nation originates in the Indian subcontinent, and 3.4% identifies as black.

But the most significant change relates to the people declaring themselves as mixed race. This group has increased more than any other, almost doubling in the past decade to 2.2% – meaning that, for the first time, the mixed race population numbers over a million. The mixed race – or “none of the above” – population will continue to grow faster than any other, for simple mathematical reasons. Any person can (theoretically) produce a mixed-race child; and, as racial divides continue to weaken, many more people will.

Racial definition is in part a political decision: in Britain, a person with parents of different racial origins will probably self-describe as mixed-race. In the US, because of the legacy of racist slavery and segregation laws, many mixed-race people identify as black – witness the “black” President himself, the offspring of a European and an African, and Tiger Woods, the “black” golfer, who is in fact more Asian than he is African.

This “one-drop” definition of blackness was designed to hold back the black population; yet perversely, it is black Americans who now most fiercely cling to this racist definition of blackness.

In Britain, without a history of legal segregation to overcome, people are more free to choose a label that most fits their choice of identity, and the mixed race label is thus the fastest growing one of all.

But there are people who dislike the rise of “none of the above”; the far-right’s political pitch has always been based around the “they’re not like us” strategy. In the 1930s the Jews were too alien (they said) to fit in with “British culture”. Then, black West Indians were too different from us, and black immigration was prophesied to cause irreparable social harm in the 1970s. Then, Indians and Pakistanis were again too different; and then Poles and many other groups. Racists hate the rise of “none of the above”, because it proves them wrong. The existence of a growing mixed race population is testament to the fact that immigration doesn’t cause social meltdown (in fact, an analysis of crime figures in recent decades suggests that immigration has helped create a more, rather than less stable society).

Desperate to disrupt the rising racial integration, the most moronic sections of the far-right refer to the rise of racial mixing as “white genocide” (here’s a link to a far-right “white genocide” site – not for the faint-hearted). The idea that interracial coupling is “genocide” is, of course laughable. As globalisation proceeds, all people will become increasingly mixed; and in fact, we already are. DNA analysis demonstrates that the true mixed race population of the UK is far higher than 2.2%; it’s just that most mixed-race people are unaware of their origins.

But the most vocal opponents to black/white racial couplings aren’t only niche groups of far-right white nationalists, but also parts of the black population. I’ve often heard (and seen on Facebook) open discussions advocating against racial mixing, and calling on black men and women  to select black partners; such discussions, if conducted among white people, would be (rightly) described as racist. In my personal observation and experience, mixed couples in London are more likely to receive negative comments and attitudes from black people than from whites. Many black people – backed by middle-class whites with little direct experience of multiracial urban life – try to excuse such attitudes; but I see no difference between those morons fearing the dilution of “white identity” and those fearing the dilution of “black identity”. A bigot who has a problem with the racial blend of a couple he has never met is a bigot, whatever his race.

The recent biopic Marley outlined how Bob Marley, as a mixed race child in rural Jamaica, had to contend with teasing and prejudice from his peers (naturally, once he became a global “black” superstar, his black fans were quick to forget his mixed background – but Marley himself never did). Those who are fastest to identify racism in others are slowest to see it in themselves.

Those who feel a gut dislike at the sight of a black man with a white woman, or a white man with a black woman, are racists – whether or not they choose to accept or admit this. Certainly, the afro-centric tradition has become more adept at masking racist ideology behind intellectual-sounding justifications than their white racist cousins. It’s easier for many to mock British and American fascists than it is to criticise black people who oppose racial mixing – but strip away the differences in presentation, and there is no underlying difference in ideology – the dislike of mixing comes from the gut, not from the mind.

The rise of the mixed race is unstoppable; it began with the great Persian, Greek and Roman empires, and went into overdrive when the European empires began their global rise and fall. It will accelerate until the time when we have forgotten what “race” once meant. Some people – white, black, Asian – feel uncomfortable about this. That’s their problem.

Boris Johnson: Not a National Treasure

Posted on by
4

YawningBoris

 

Welcoming a new guest blogger: Georgia Lewis is a journalist, and a freelance moron-watcher on Twitter and via her own blog, The Rant Mistress.

“I love Boris Johnson, he’s great comedy value.”

Really? I live in London. If I want comedy, there are plenty of places I can go for that. There is no need to look to the mayor for rampant hilarity. Hell, why is he even considered to be so damn funny? The unkempt mop of blonde hair? The bumbling mannerisms? That time he got stuck on a zipwire? If that’s as good as British comedy gets these days, we may as well go back to watching re-runs of Dad’s Army.

“But he’s a national treasure!”

So is Sooty. But that doesn’t mean he should be the mayor.

All snarking aside, Boris Johnson does belong squarely on a blog dedicated to watching morons.

He has done an excellent job as coming across as the cool Tory, the Conservative who’s really quite progressive. He is so funky he even supports same-sex marriage, even though he publicly said he didn’t realise it wasn’t yet legalised here. But who needs a mayor who is aware of the laws of the land? Pish tosh!

Hell, with all his Boris bike antics, he has even managed to paint himself as the Tory who is ecologically friendly. Except he’s not.

Are you labouring under the misapprehension that he is the green Tory who cares about the people? This is the mayor who decided to give his mates in one of the most privileged parts of the capital a nice little tax break when he reversed Ken Livingstone’s decision to extend the Congestion Charge zone to the western part of central London. If someone has to drive into central London from a more deprived borough, it will cost them £10-£12 each time.

The latest stunt on the Congestion Charge is to remove the exemption for most hybrid cars and all cleaner diesel cars. Boris is expected to approve this plan so it comes into force in July. It’s not as if Central London is overrun with gridlocked Priuses and curiously, it will only add an estimated £1 million-£2 million to Transport For London’s coffers . Surely this could be achieved by, oh, I don’t know, extending the Congestion Charge to the west again.

I test-drove a Honda Jazz hybrid last year and for two days, I did the 16-mile round trip from my house in Zone 4 to my Congestion Charge zone office and back. Because this car operates in pure electric mode when driven at speeds of 20mph or less, and given the stop-start nature of driving in London, I spent most of my commute on both days emitting pretty much nothing. I used almost no petrol in two days. Forcing such cars to pay the Congestion Charge will do nothing to encourage people to buy more eco-friendly cars.

But why would he care about that? He has been busy spending £1.4 million of public money on an anti-pollution scheme that doesn’t work. In 2010, he heralded with much fanfare a trial of dust supressants on some of London’s dirtiest roads. The idea is that the pollution is literally glued to the road. Except that a study by non-morons at Kings College London showed that it was not working and that diesel was the main cause of pollution and that the attempts to glue pollution to the roads did nothing to reduce the grot in areas where the big problem is quite simply too much traffic.

Last week, Boris showed further signs of eco delusion when he announced grand-sounding plans for the Congestion Charge zones to be transformed into “Ultra Low Emission Zones.” Which sounds great on the surface. Except that trucks will be exempt from any restrictions. Oh, and this won’t come into effect until 2020. How useful.

His green credentials took a further nosedive in a ridiculous, science-denying column on climate change for The Telegraph last month. His incoherent rant featured reminiscences from his childhood, random observations from his bicycle, the admission that he was no expert, quotes from scientists that he didn’t know whether or not to believe, and the conclusion that all this chuffing snow means that climate change might be a big load of hooey.

And while Boris loves to tell the world that he has the best job in the world as mayor of London, it is indeed curious that he has taken time out of London this week to pop up to Eastleigh for a spot of Conservative campaigning.

The Eastleigh by-election, caused by the embarrassing downfall of Lib-Dem moron Chris Huhne, features the socially conservative Maria Hutchings as the Tory candidate. Despite being at odds with Hutchings on the issue of marriage equality, Boris felt that the best use of his time was a spot of campaigning miles away from the capital.

Tragically, the Tories believe that getting Boris out on the hustings for Hutchings will be a vote-winner. And, hey, who wouldn’t be swayed by his persuasive words, as quoted by Torcuil Crichton, The Daily Record’s Westminster editor: “It is our constitutional duty to kick the Lib Dems in the … well, do they have any?”

What a statesman.

Boris may say over and over again that he has no ambitions to be an MP again but he has a funny way of showing it. In 2011, David Cameron was quoted as saying his “number one priority” for 2012 was to ensure Boris remained mayor of London. Perhaps Cameron fears that a BoJo return to Westminster would be a threat to his leadership. Or Cameron has become so London-centric that he really doesn’t care about the rest of Britain, with the possible exception of Chipping Norton.

Either way, it would appear Cameron is happy to keep a faux eco warrior in charge of London. A faux eco warrior who put up bus and tube fares again with minimal protest.

But as long as people keep falling for his alleged charms and have no issue with voting for a man widely viewed as a lovable buffoon, there’ll be no breaking free of party politics at local government level any time soon. And the capital’s attempt at democracy will be more like an idiocracy. Boris voters of London, you have the mayor you deserve.

The Islamification of the Conservative Party

Posted on by
25
Creeping Sharia hits America

Creeping Sharia hits America

Regular readers of this blog will remember the day last April when much of Britain finally got bored with the far-right English Defence League and its anti-Muslim propaganda, and dealt with it in the only way we Britons know how: in the absence of legal guns and a trigger-happy mentality (as demonstrated by our wonderful, freedom-loving American cousins), we instead take the piss.

That day may have subdued the EDL a little, but American morons are harder to tame. Right-wing propagandists in the US have succeeded in persuading many lesser-educated Americans that “Sharia” is sweeping across Europe. This is, of course, the oldest fear-mongering tactic of them all: since people can see with their own eyes that their own town or state isn’t being Islamified, you convince them that it’s happening somewhere else; somewhere far away that they have no experience of. Thus, I often encounter Americans on Twitter who will tell me that London (a city that I’ve lived in my whole life) is being terrorised by “Muslim gangs”, or that British law is being subverted by Sharia. London isn’t (of course) being taken over by radical Islam; but try to convince a right-wing Texan Fox News viewer who has never held a passport of that fact – you can’t.

Here is a typical recent tweet from a typical right-wing American (@kmita3) to illustrate how easily fear and ignorance spreads among frightened and ignorant people:

I found it particularly ironic that this announcement came in the same week that the British House of Commons decided to fully legalise gay marriage in the UK, by a margin of 400 votes to 175, thus casting some doubt over how quickly Sharia law is actually taking over British society.

Apparently (I learned this morning via a useful blog post) there are eight Muslim MPs in the House of Commons (around 1% of the total, which again challenges the idea that Muslims are “taking over”). Of the eight, four voted for gay marriage, one opposed and three abstained or didn’t show up. So a full 50% of Muslim MPs voted in favour of gay marriage, beating the 43% of Conservative MPs who supported the change. Of the eight Tory MPs in Wales, 100% voted against gay marriage. In other words, Welsh Tories are far stronger supporters of fundamentalist Islamic principles than British Muslims are.

Clearly the Conservative party has been afflicted by Creeping Sharia! Furthermore, the US Republicans seem to have been even more Islamified!! I find it unlikely that even 43% of Republican congressmen would vote for gay marriage (or perhaps even 4.3%).

So, in a bizarre way, the “Islamification” pundits are right. But it’s not British society, London or Paris that have been Islamified, but the white, Christian, European and American right-wing. Fundamentalist Islamic values – such as opposition to abortion, contraception and homosexuality – have crept into our societies. We must stop these crazed lunatics from destroying our values… before it’s too late.