Saturday 13 July 2013

Take me to your.......errrmm......leader?

 
Shown above is a letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government. It was sent to Mr Anthony David Jones in reply to his Freedom of Information request regarding the 2008 document on "Community Cohesion"
 

 
Shown above is the information sent by Mr Steven Pleasant on behalf of TMBC to the Department of Communities and Local Government. It repays careful study.

In particular note the next to last paragraph where some doubt is cast on how representative the "community leaders" are. In short, who do they actually "lead" and who chose them?

Remember, this is the current chief executive expressing the doubts, not this blog.

33 comments:

One little spark... said...

'Community cohesion' reporting(i.e. peace at any price) can be witnessed in the low key national media coverage of yesterday's Tipton mosque bomb incident. That's the approach the Press have been TOLD to take.

Dracula Has Risen from The Grave said...

If it's acceptable to express concern about your cultural heritage why is it strictly forbidden to express concern about your racial heritage.
The answer is because it would make trouble and the plan is for us to be eradicated quietly.

SerpentSlayer said...

We could do with Vlad Dracula being back, the man repelled many Islamic incursions into his lands. He had my kind of thinking vis-a-vis treatment of enemies also!

Anonymous said...

Don't believe the media or what they say about Nationalists. We are living in sinister times.
1984, Enoch Powell, all the true voices of the past have said what is to become of England.
You can be arrested at the drop of a hat just for having flags and poppies in your garden.
The enemies of England are ready to do anything to bring a nationalist down.......Just remember you are next.

A New Saint Is Created said...

The U.S. version of St Stephen of Eltham. The media complicity in creating this new saint is shocking but not surprising. All the photos St Trayvon show an angelic looking young boy. The Treyvon who assaulted and battered George Zimmerman before being shot dead was a world apart from the photos being used by the media. The young angelic Treyvon had morphed into a full blown ghetto hood, but the media and 'civil rights' groups seem to conveniently forget that in their bid to create a new saint who must be worshiped at the high alter of political correctness with a large pinch of White guilt added for good measure.

The Real Treyvon said...

Land of the free and home of the brave

Law of the Land said...

God bless America and their concealed carry laws where law abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns to defend themselves. We should have the same laws, plus mandatory 50 year prison sentences for hardened/repeat criminals found in possession of ANY weapon.
Arm the innocent. Imprison the criminals.

SerpentSlayer said...

Imprison criminals, and feed them for life? What's wrong with beatings and executions, sterilisation and outlawry (life on the run, shot on being recognised, a real hellish existence)
All academic, we need to unbalance the whole power balance of Europe and the US first.

Anonymous said...

Labour draws up 'scroungers' charter' that could make state benefits a human right.

Pardon !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Enoch Powell was a sell-out Tory civic nationalist who did his level best to flood Britain with the immigrants who would subsequently wreak havoc on our green & pleasant land. Rivers of Blood was too little too late, and if he'd been truly genuine he would've joined the NF when Tyndall held out the welcome hand which he rejected.

Anonymous said...

The media makes out all dead people to be saints including armed forces. It don't mean that they are.

Its the usual rethoric bull that always follows any high profile death. Using the its because he is black argument is total rubbish. Zimmerman don't look like a whiter than guy either.

Anonymous said...

...I find it shocking that Zimmerman gets off Scott free. I agree with reasonable force but using a gun on someone unarmed is what a coward would do. He killed the guy and yet he cannot show any evidence of injury inflicted on himself by the kid. He may or may not of been a bad boy but he didn't have to kill him. You can wound someone with a gun rather than kill them.

Anonymous said...

who was the one carrying a gun? Live by the sword by the sword.

Anonymous said...

Opps sorry!

.. live by the sword die by the sword.

SerpentSlayer said...

In a heated and violent confrontation I doubt Zimmerman cared or was capable of ensuring he only wounded Trayvon, I imagine a scramble for his pistol and firing as many rounds as he could at the target.
I imagine nothing more important than this has happened, nothing to do with our freedom and security, nothing trifling like that.

Anonymous said...

Well truth seems no one really knows what happened. If your going to walk around as a night watchman with a gun then you should be able to physically handle yourself against a young lad. American guns laws are as much to blame as anything.

Yet another Labour thug said...

The prosecution stated that the abusive emails were sparked by Tomkinson’s encounter with a female BNP supporter in a Coventry pub who had branded him “fat and useless.”

Tomkinson, who is a member of the Labour Party, is already serving a 12-month suspended sentence after having pleaded guilty to similar charges at Birmingham Magistrates Court on May 8.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 17:47, There are plenty of official photographs to show the injuries on Zimmerman. There is also audio from a phone call where cries for help can be heard. Carefully aiming a gun in such circumstances could be impossible and perhaps Zimmerman felt so threatened and in danger he had no choice.
@ Anonymous 19:03, As for 'American gun laws being to blame' the outcome might have been different if Zimmerman had been unarmed. This six footer was no 'young lad'.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 19:03, Yes British gun laws, where the general populace is completely unarmed are much better aren't they. Where you can be had up by the police if you're a law abiding citizen with no criminal record simply for carrying something to defend yourself against the army of scum now out there (modern crime statistics are complete fabrications). Where the establishment has zero fear of an unarmed populace, not like America where the government is that absolutely necessary bit wary and afraid of an armed general population and is very very careful not to tread on the 2nd amendment which declares the people's right to bear arms.
Britain has now descended to a country where some are GRATEFUL they've had their right to arm themselves in self defence removed.

New London, too many of the 'wrong' type now said...

The new benefits cap will force a lot of people and especially certain types of immigrants out of London and into the rest of the country. It's no accident.

Anonymous said...

Britain has now descended to a country where some are GRATEFUL they've had their right to arm themselves in self defence removed.

NOW descended?

The first specific gun control legislation a quick search brings up is from around 1508, so it has taken us around 500 years to 'descend' to a level where many are grateful that most of the scrotes you can see every day around our fine borough are not armed with guns.

Now it is entirely possible to ape the NRA style argument that the US government is held in check somehow by the guns owned by it's citizens, but the situation over there has not applied on these shores for a very long time, if at all.

Imagine if Roy West for example had been armed during his many run ins with local government, how would this have helped exactly?

Access to Information said...

Make sure that you use this to the max.

Anonymous said...

...because one day soon, when all services to the public are in private hands: YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO.

Anonymous said...

Having seen the calibre (ho ho) of the menfolk in sunny Ashton today, then

"a law abiding citizen with no criminal record simply carrying something to defend yourself against the army of scum now out there"

...would be more likely to either blow his own nuts off or have his gun taken off him by any criminal he was to challenge!

Also, guns + young men + booze / girl trouble etc would surely just result in an increase in suicide?

SerpentSlayer said...

If Roy had been armed, they wouldn't have put him through what they've put him through. I imagine they would have pushed him to the brink and he would have slotted them, poor Roy would be in clink but his persecutors would be no loss. I imagine Hel herself would try and send Taylor and co back to the land of the living.

Anonymous said...

...and there you have it!

No dig at Roy intended, but if the scenario laid out by one of his most ardent supporters simply ends in death and imprisonment then it is hardly a glowing endorsement of the efficacy of arming everyone against government.

Indeed, in the 'land of the free' itself, the amount of weaponry held by Joe Public has not exactly stopped big business / the illuminati etc running the show over there, has it?

Thomas Jefferson said...

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

Anonymous said...

Well funnily enough the last time Roy West was arrested at his home, the police told him that they were not going to handcuff him.
They'd done a risk assessment and told him "we know you're not a violent person"

BBC reporting on Treyvon and racial injustice in the U.S. forgot to mention this said...

The FBI’s crime figures for 2007 show that Blacks committed 433,934 violent crimes against Whites, eight times as many as the 55,658 that Whites committed against Blacks.

Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white, with 14,000 assaults on white women by African American males in 2007. Not one case of white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study”

Nobody mentioned THAT on the BBC!

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 17:29, After Dunblane in 1996 gun control laws (already stringent) were extended to the absurd point where no-one, including pistol shooters training for events like the olympics, could own a handgun, (a situation that applies in no other civilised country).
No-one mentioned 'scrotes' but specifically mentioned the law abiding general populace who should be allowed to carry what they see fit to defend themselves against such 'scrotes'. Criminals should be specifically prohibited from possession of a firearms licence, if caught with illegal weapons they should receive a mandatory long prison sentence, 60 years or so would be appropriate. Muggings against the person have plummeted in the US since concealed carry permits proliferated in the last twenty years.
The situation that applies in the US today is that the establishment is, as it should be, wary of an armed general populace. In the UK we've been disarmed in the last few decades giving the state unchecked power, and awareness of that power, over us.
What are you inferring about Mr West, someone who to the best of my knowledge has never committed a violent act.
But if you're happy that the police are now heavily armed with TASERs, stun guns, pepper spray, CS gas, and increasingly armed with guns, despite their continual insistence that crime has gone down, then you must be extremely trusting and credulous towards a state that is increasingly controlling, oppressive and untrustworthy.

Least worst option said...

@ Anonymous 19:46, they'll be a lot more hesitant about pushing it beyond certain points than they will against an unarmed population.

tonydj said...

The purpose of gun control legislation is NOT to protect the citizen from armed criminals but to prevent the citizen from usurping the role of the State.

This does NOT mean that the citizen can overthrow the state. It means that when the state is incapable of protecting the citizen then the citizen (or citizenry) is capable of protecting themselves.

Put succinctly, the thieving scrote is a nuisance to the ordinary citizen, they are not a threat to the system. The citizen "vigilante" is a threat because they envisage a system outside of the state apparatus.

I got my mind right boss said...

And those who've come to like the experience and false security of growing state control over the individual are little more than human sheep.