Boris Johnson, James McGrath and The Shrill Cry of Racist!

And so we have our first casualty of the Boris Johnson mayoralty.

James McGrath was a senior aide to Boris Johnson who gave an interview to Marc Wadsworth, who is a member of the Labour party, alleged journalist and race campaigner.

Alas before doing so he appears (according to Marc Wadsworths article here) not to have bothered looking the man up. As refreshing as this is, after all it is good to know that those in government don't spin, it was also a mistake, because those in "journalism" certainly do.

James McGrath has stood down, over this exchange:

McGrath was far from politically correct, David-Cameron-new- cuddly-Conservative Party, when I pointed out to him a critical comment of Voice columnist Darcus Howe that the election of "Boris Johnson, a right-wing Conservative, might just trigger off a mass exodus of older Caribbean migrants back to our homelands".

He retorted: "Well, let them go if they don’t like it here." McGrath dismissed influential race commentator Howe as ‘shrill’.

Now it is clear to me who is saying "blacks go home", it is Darcus Howe, though why is unclear as I can't find the article in the Voice online.

The problem we have is that whilst someone like Ken Livingstone can tell Jews to "go back to Iran" and get away with all sorts of other comments some might view as racist, (as indeed can Labour with their "British Jobs for British Workers" slogan) we can't. That sort of mud sticks to us far more than it does to Labour. We can't change that perception over night.

So was Boris right to ask for his resignation? I fear he was. I have not met James McGrath, but hear he is a decent, kind and honourable man.

The problem is that our opponents aren't.

They will use any means to smear our party.

We need to be much more careful about playing the game.

People like Marc Wadsworth and Darcus Howe will use what ever means they can to both get at the Conservative party and to divide the Afro Caribbean community from the rest of society. After all, how else could Darcus claim to speak for older Caribbean migrants?

Iain Dale has this, Conservative home has this and the BBC has this.

The Police should stop more black people shocker!

"Police: stop more black suspects" is the headline for a front page article in today's Observer.

The Policeman making the plea is not known to have any links to the Klu Klux Klan, the BNP or any "white supremacist" movement, though some argue that he heads a racist organisation which excludes members of specific racial groups, namely the Black Police officers Association. He is Keith Jarrett.

It looks and sounds a lot more controversial than it is.

The fact is that there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed against "ethnic minorities" and that needs a solution. These crimes are also disproportionately committed by "ethnic minorities" so it does make sense for police to stop and search them more. However the most interesting line in the whole article is this:

Controversially, Jarrett said he would not oppose a random use of stop-and-search when officers had 'reasonable suspicion' an offence had been committed. He argued that, as long as officers used the powers courteously and responsibly, many within the black community would accept it as a necessary evil.

The thing which most grates anyone is lack of courtesy and makes the relationship of the police that much harder. In general the police are polite, largely because they know the people on their patch. That is good. However there is nothing quite so likely to "rile" people as the police jumping on easy technical offences whilst ignoring ones that effect people a lot more.

Are Gollywogs racist? or indeed racist?

There is a storm in Sussex about the sale of golliwogs, which some people complain are racist.

You can see the video report from South East today here.

You will note that one of the shopkeepers selling them is himself of Afro Caribbean origin.

Let us get this straight. A golly wog is a rag doll, that happens to be of Afro Caribbean appearance (well some parts of Africa any way as there are many racial groups there).

Is it wrong to sell a rag doll of Caucasian appearance? If not, what is wrong with one of Afro Caribbean appearance?

Offence is often in the eye of the beholder in much the same way as beauty is. I wonder who finds them offensive, and if you are going to give a view, could you please state your own ethnic origin?

Update 22:00

I should add that I can see how people may find the name offensive (golly wog as opposed to golly doll)

Muslims slam Cross ban

I thought I would use that as a headline just to make it clear that Croydon Council's ill conceived "guidance" on wearing jewelry of religious significance other than some non Christian exceptions has no support amongst any religious community including Muslims.

It appears that Croydon Council has issued some bizarre guidance stating that no jewelry should be worn, which would be fair enough, but for the exemptions for Hindu's, Sikhs and Muslims. There are no exceptions for Christians.

What beggars belief here is that anyone could or indeed would think that such a stance would be helpful? What exactly is it supposed to achieve other than causing discord, and increasing racial hostility?

In short, what were they smoking?

The Daily Express even thought it such an important story that they left Princess Diana off the front page for once!

David Cameron is Dead Right!

David Cameron gave a speech today in which he discussed social responsibility and how the state is infantalising society by treating everyone like children. It has some interesting ideas. (The BBC has this)

At it's core is the idea that individuals should not ask what the country can do for them but what they can do for the country (now where have I heard that idea before) because the tendency to assume the state can fix all ills has caused ever increasing amounts of legislation and the state pocking its nose further and further into peoples live.

The effect of all this is that many people leave too many things up to the state which is then not able to provide.

What I found most interesting is that whilst Labour were casting scorn on the ideas as mere "fluff" the Sun has clearly taken on board Cameron's message. (Not that I take that much notice of the Sun), in its leader here.

The Sun says:

DAVID Cameron is dead right.

British society has become pathetically hooked on the State.

Police officers no longer collar villains to avoid form-filling. Teachers can’t discipline yob pupils for fear of reprisals. Kids run amok on our streets and public transport because no one will stop them.

And it’s always “the Government’s fault”.

Britain is Great because of its people. We have always been a stubborn bunch who get the job done. We have never been a nation of handwringers. Nor have we turned our back on those in need.

Every single one of us has a duty. A duty to say what’s right and what’s wrong.

JFK said “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

He was right then. And Cameron is right now.

Clearly the message resonates with people, who instinctively feel it is correct. Good. It is.

Cameron's bombshell speech

Well, I don't think David Cameron can be accused of sitting on the fence on multiculturalism.

In a speech in Birmingham he roundly attacked the concept of multiculturalism, and also more importantly tackled the issue of those groups that purport to represent British Muslims, like the Muslim Council of Britain for not representing Muslims very well, and also their more hard line and vocal members drowning out the voices of the more moderate and reasonable.

You can read more here.

Reid wins battle with Brown over Queens speech

According to Martha Kearney on BBC2's Newsnight, Dr John "Comrade" Reid has got the Queens speech focusing on security.

The Queens speech deals with the Governments legislation program for the coming year.

What new laws do we need? Killing people has been against the law since Babylonian times. Conspiracy to Murder since the 1861 Offences against the people act (Also murder is in there too).

Security is a matter of executive action not parliamentary action. There are plenty of laws out there to deal with the threats we face. The only issue there may be is changing the rules of evidence in court so that we can use our own wire tap evidence rather than having to use Belgian stuff.

You therefor have to assume that what is going to be in the Queen's speech is a mindless pointless attack on civil liberties which will further alienate disaffected Muslims, whilst executive inaction keeps us unsafe in our beds at night.

Fantastic! You could not make it up.


In further news, ID cards to save the world before breakfast. Sounds fantastic I know, but it is substantially more plausible than the claims the Government makes for them.

BNP and the CRE agree that Labour is pushing Muslims too far!

You just could not make this up.

Trevor Phillips, Head of the Commission for Racial Equality, The BNP, and incidentally many Conservatives think that the current focus on Muslims and in particular the veil are in danger of causing riots.

You can read Trevor's article in the Sunday Times here. The BNP's comment is here, from which I quote:

"It's a dangerous game the Labour establishment has chosen to play, one which could lead to serious disorder and bloodshed. Do Blair and Straw really want to see a civil war on the streets of West Yorkshire, Birmingham and Oldham?"

They also quote Richard Oborne in the Daily Mail (hardly the Guardian is it?) saying this:

"There is a whiff of the lynch mob about the wave of attacks over the past fortnight, and it is no surprise to learn that the new national mood sparked by Jack Straw and sanctioned by Tony Blair has indeed led to a number of assaults on British mosques, including one firebombing."

Does this mean that the BNP have become a responsible and respectable party? No, if you read the article in full and the rest of their website you will think not. It does go to show however just how damn irresponsible and dangerous Labour are becoming.

Al Qaida is winning the war on terrorism.

Grim news indeed if true. I think it is because what they are trying to do is to separate Muslims from the rest of us. To create a climate of fear and a clash of civilisations. I have discussed this in two previous articles on the "war on terror" here and here.

However what concerns me is this article in Fridays Telegraph here, reporting a YouGov survey which according to the report puts 53% of British people thinking Muslims are some sort of threat. That's half of Al Qaida's job done, now all they need to work on is making Muslims think the "war on terror" is in fact a "war against Islam", some thing made much easier by stupid people using silly language like "islamo fascist".

That said David Cameron is using far more sensible language. Obviously he thinks it is more important to deal with terrorism than play to the popularist gallery just to get votes.

The week before a plane load of passengers refused to fly with two people who looked suspicious. That really does not help either.

Our government and indeed the US government seem not to understand the battle we are fighting. It is very much a battle for hearts and minds. We can win as many battles as we like, but it is the war over all that counts.

Mind you, it is not all bad, it looks like the counter terrorist operation has caught some people intent on terrorism, having made "martyrdom videos". Obviously we will have to see what happens in court. It would have been a disaster if there was no credible evidence.

What of Tony Blair's liaison committee meeting?

What from I heard of Tony Blair's performance at the liaison committee meeting, he does not understand how to beat terrorist groups.

He did however get it right when he said that the communities themselves need to root out extremists.

Where he got it wrong was implying that some grievances were false.. No, we live in a free country and we need to deal with people who have grievances.

We are told that many young Muslims are being radicalised by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly part of the reason for this is the absolute propaganda gifts handed to the enemy of Guantanamo bay, Abu Ghraib and some of the dafter pieces of "anti terrorist" legislation.

The moderates are the people to do the job, but they do need a hand, and silly point scoring by people like Charles Moore on Channel 4 news last night does not help much either.

We need to make the case that far from oppressing Muslims, the war in Afghanistan has freed Muslims from a very oppressive regime. We also need to do the same over Iraq, but we really do need to stop these propaganda disasters.

We need to make the case that we went into Kosovo and Bosnia to protect Muslims also, because I can assure you that Osama is not going to make that one for us.

As for Darfor that looks like turning into an allegedly anti Muslim thing as well. We need to point out our concern is about oppression, as it happens of Muslims.