Thank you for your recent kind words about For Britain; you are obviously a person with the courage to tell it like it is. In fact, I suspect you and I have a few things in common. I’ve always believed in stating plain facts, and that’s what will bring success For Britain.
We will talk to the back-bone of this country – the working majority. Nobody is listening to the person who gets out of bed, gets the bus to work, pays their bills, raises their kids, and stays within the law. Their opinions mean nothing to a political elite that sees the world as its chess board. Human life is a game they play in Westminster. They have no right, and we will take back the power that rightly belongs to us.
Like you, I feel a strong compassion for animals, and our policies on animal welfare are very close to my heart. I have two dogs next to me as I write this, and I know how wonderful and clever and affectionate and loving they are. Humanity’s treatment of animals is one of its darkest aspects, and I believe we must change this, for our own sake, as well as for animals.
Change is coming, and a lot of people won’t like it, including the established press. I see that they are doing to you what they do to me. ‘Journalists’ have decided to portray us as though we’re unhinged, when actually it is they who are simply not intelligent enough to understand the arguments we’re making. They therefore resort to name-calling to disguise this. As you said, they never print what we say, and like you, I wonder why they bother asking me questions at all.
Thank you for this boost to For Britain. You are one of the only remaining British icons who hasn’t sold out to the thought police.
Thanks again, you’ll always be welcome on board.
This is a letter that was sent to ITV by an academic and moral philosopher of 40 years’ experience. She is writing in response to the documentary detailed here.
I write with regard to concerns about a forthcoming programme Exposure Undercover: Britain’s New Far Right. I have a number of serious concerns about whether this programme might be in breach of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code. My concerns can be summarised as pertaining to perceived unwarranted intrusions into privacy which I argue are not justified on journalistic grounds and which provided poor quality information; misjudgement concerning the undercover filming of people on a political demonstration, having chilling effects on political participation; worrying lack of impartiality with regard to a newly formed political party and its leader, having a deleterious impact upon democracy; and disproportionately severe effects upon the life of an individual as a consequence of this programme, unwarranted by journalistic standards.
Principles at issue and concerns
These all pertain to potential violations of different elements of the Broadcasting Code.
YOUR DUTY OF IMPARTIALITY
The label ‘far right’ and impartiality A central premise of the programme would appear to be that certain individuals, and movements, whether specific groups or more loosely characterised movements, merit investigation as to whether they are ‘far right’. This loosely applied term is now bandied about as a slur, which far from helping debate, obscures issues. Moreover, the implications that can be discerned from the slant of the programme in David Henshaw’s letter to Anne Marie Waters, (which is now in the public domain) together with the investigations at public meetings and public political demonstrations and in pubs, is that anyone associated with anyone under ‘investigation’ as far right also merits investigation. Such slurs are very hard to shake off, and will lead in many cases to social ostracism, and in other cases, worse consequences. For example, ‘Annie the Greek’, who helped organise the Bristol rally on September 10th, was recently beaten up at an anarchist book fair for being a ‘fascist’.
The label ‘far right’ is not only a slur, it is extremely misleading as a characterisation of those concerned about certain elements of Islam – in fact these concerns are premised on a wish to maintain human rights, equality in ethics and before the law, the rule of law, and democracy. It is therefore not only misleading, but actually contrary to the views of the vast majority of those concerned, and your reporter Hazel knows this. The entire tenor of your programme, that the counter jihad movement is somehow linked to the far right, is not only wrong, it is the reverse of the truth. It is based upon concerns for human rights, for equality of all, and to combat the totalitarian, violent and supremacist aspects of Islamic ideology.
Furthermore, how can you compare the anti-jihad movement to anti-Semitic movements (see David Henshaw’s letter to Anne Marie Waters) when a prime motivator for many people is the anti-Semitism within Islamic texts and throughout Islamic history and the life of Mohammed?
‘Anti-jihad’ movement and misleading implications of violence. Moreover, ‘Hazel’ would no doubt have been present at conversations during which individuals discussed a prime motivation for those involved in what you dub the ‘anti-jihad’ movement – to alert politicians, the media, and the public, to a need for careful and informed debate, precisely in order to avoid what many see as inevitable unless something is done – a violent response. The premise of your programme is that the anti-jihad movement is dangerous and encourages violence. So, as a matter of balance, I hope you are including full coverage of those many many people who are engaged in counter-jihad, precisely in order to prevent violence in the future. ‘Hazel’ ought to know this from her undercover work.
In general, these slurs are made disproportionately towards the working classes who are now under general suspicion of being racist and far right – which is not in the public interest. You may find that many members of the Football Lads’ Alliance are very unhappy that an undercover reporter attended their rally on October 7th a part of an investigation into the ‘far right’. You might well find it to your advantage to apologise to the FLA for secretly recording individuals who attended this and then following them back to the pub. It is all too easy carelessly to imply that working class football supporters are uneducated, far right thugs on the cusp of violence hence it is my view that steps should be taken to counter this.
Bias in choice of ‘experts’ Hardcash Productions have relied upon ‘experts’ from Hope not Hate. This organisation is the frequent recipient of criticism on the grounds of bias, but there is no need to elaborate on this here, since posts on their site already make it amply clear that they have an extremely dim view of Anne Marie Waters and of her new party For Britain. It therefore seems blindingly obvious that Hope Not Hate are a poor choice of ‘expert’ to provide unbiased coverage. This could well appear to be a biased slur on a fledgling political party. Not only is this inconsistent with the Broadcasting Code, unless strenuous steps are taken to ensure balance – and I don’t mean a quick 15 second disclaimer at the end that Anne Marie Waters denies the allegations. It undermines the basic principles of our democracy. I say this as someone who is not a member of For Britain, simply as a supporter of democracy and fairness.
There are even links between Nick Lowles and former members of the BNP which I am sure have by now been made aware to you and which I mention only because of the smack apparent of hypocrisy. Impartiality must not just be achieved, it must be seen to be achieved.
An additional point is that in order to understand and interpret what she was hearing, I hope that ‘Hazel’ – plus everyone involved in editorial decisions – was fully trained and had a good knowledge of the Koran, the full biography of Mohammed and a basic understanding of the hadith, of sharia law and a basic appreciation of Islamic history. Very many of those who warn about the problematic aspects of Islamic extremism and political Islam have the problem that if your audience don’t know much about Islam, the truth is so bad it sounds as if you are making it up or exaggerating. The wrong person then gets counted as an extremist – the very person who is warning about extremism. I hope then that you will be able to verify the qualifications or experience in the study of Islam that the production team has between them. (And I don’t mean the highly biased and notorious Hope Not Hate.) This is especially important given the high level of understanding of Islam among the people ‘Hazel’ spied upon, which means that many of them would frequently be making statements about Islam that someone ignorant of the reality might find extreme or exaggerated.
Lastly I would like to make some further remarks concerning the letter from David Henshaw to Anne Marie Waters which is now in the public domain.
Here I refer to some, but not all of the many points he raises.
As a moral philosopher, I believe also that Islamic ideology can be called ‘evil’. There are so many reasons for this but here are some for a start – it demands submission of the individual to a system of rules that governs their entire life, and repeatedly makes the claim ‘we love death as they love life’. If you are unclear about why demanding total submission of each individual to a totalitarian system that governs the whole of life is wrong, I suggest you can get a fast reprise of this by watching the current series ‘Reformation’ on BBC4, since you are no doubt all very busy.
I would agree that if you examine Islam as a unified whole, there are elements in it which render it very dangerous and arguably evil. It is directly counter to a universalist ethic, and just one element alone which I consider renders it ‘evil’ is that it encourages people to ignore their consciences – there is a verse in the Koran which tells people that they may not like the deeds Allah is requiring them to do, but they should do them anyway. I could write at length about this, since my entire working life has been dedicated to teaching and studying the foundational basis for ethics; I have serious academic reasons to consider that, although of course some would disagree, it is within the boundaries of a reasonably argued position that significant elements of Islam are indeed ‘evil’. The very notion that AMW’s views is divisive is laughable, given that one of AMW main concerns is that Islam has an ethic which divides. I can been seen explaining this during an interview at the Bristol rally on September 10th. It can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uxvkgo4K_I I challenge you to find the praise of a universalist ethic and of blind impartial justice a ‘far right’ philosophy, yet it is an underlying motivating concern of all I have met at such events.
I also believe that there is enough in Islamic ideology, as held by sufficient numbers of people, to justify the claim that a war is being waged against the West, by a sufficiently significant element of adherents of Islam to warrant concern. See e.g. Ibn Warraq’s recent book of masterful scholarship, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism, among many other sources.
Years of careful study have convinced me that although many Muslims treat Islam as a religion which simply governs their personal lives, Islam itself is an inherently war-like religion with systematic political and authoritarian, supremacist, global political aims. I presume you have read the full biography of Mohammed – you will notice then, that he is the perfect role model for Muslims who happens to be a war lord. The Koran is full of open ended calls for jihad against unbelievers and apostates. There are commands to emigrate in order to spread Islam. Islamic lands are ‘lands of peace’, all others are ‘lands of war’. For a fair programme you should include some of these quotes and the surrounding context and I hope you will do so to give a fair context to the concerns about Islam which are shared by millions, I believe.
As to responses from the crowd on June 11, please consider that these are more likely to have been occasioned by the knowledge of the crowd of Islamic texts, Islamic history, and recent terror attacks in the UK and Europe than by being ‘egged on’ by AMW. I was present at that event. I have repeatedly found that everyone I meet at such events, is in fact usually far more informed about Islam than the average TV broadcaster or journalist appears to be. A YouTube video where I say as much can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrAb26T4f5oIn order to be impartial, your programme could usefully discuss the extraordinarily high level of understanding of Islam among those who attend the rallies. The comment about ‘Allah being a paedo’ is no doubt occasioned by the high level of knowledge of Islam among the crowd. Mohammed married Aisha when she was six, and consummated the marriage aged 9. There are Islamic sources which state that before consummation of marriage, he used to ‘thigh’ her. (Look it up.) Mohammed is a ‘perfect role model’ and followed commands of Allah. Hence …. This comes not from AMW, but the source problem is in Islamic history and texts.
Re AMW’s speech at Rotherham – see above comments re Douglas Murray. Can an Old Etonian say what an Irish woman cannot? Is this impartial coverage of AMW’s views?
28th September – AMW has her own reply to all the points DH raised. I must say, on this count, I feel that your reporter is actually being highly duplicitous. AMW is a profoundly open and sincere person, who is extremely concerned about the treatment of women in Islam. It is this facet of her personality which keeps her going, and which I most admire. I have met AMW on a few occasions and I deeply admire her integrity. She has serious points to make when she says these remarks, for example, see Phyllis Chesler’s new book, Islamic Gender Apartheid. Numerous scholars, myself included, consider that it is incontrovertible that women are treated very unjustly under Islam. How is it fair to ‘expose’ this as ‘far right’? Moreover, it is completely unfair and biased to exploit the fact that when talking privately she used words like ‘treated like shit’. That, you know well, is a cheap trick and will fool none of your viewers. Many women are indeed, ‘treated like shit’ the world over, but there is a large body of opinion that the position is especially bad in Islamic cultures.
It would take too long to go through the rest of DH’s letter. However, an afternoon or two doing research will find a plethora of academics and individuals with direct experience of Islam and of sharia law holding views which are extremely close to those you ‘accuse’ Waters of holding. More to the point of your programme, far from being far right, those who hold such views wish to uphold individual freedoms, democracy, equality for all, and the rule of law. They wish to work to prevent violence, not to incite it. So, whose side are you on, that you wish to defame those whose aim is to prevent violence? From everything I know about Anne Marie Waters, she also has these motivations. If you wish I can supply you with a reading list, or if you are ever in Oxford pop round and you can browse through the bookcase I have dedicated to Islam.
I also note that from my consideration of DH’s letter to AMW of the material obtained by deception, I conclude that such material is very thin and in my opinion can in no way justify the intrusion into the privacy of not only AMW but of whomever else happened to be near her.
In summary, I suggest that your general treatment of the anti-jihad movement as somehow linked to the far right, is fundamentally flawed, partial, and inaccurate, and therefore misrepresents the individuals and groups involved, contrary to the Broadcasting Code. I advise you to make sure that your final programme, should you decide to broadcast it, gives a more balanced and accurate view. I also consider that your reporting methods especially the undercover reporting on public demonstrations and in pubs, are fundamentally unethical and I urge you to delete all such footage, and to apologise to the individuals and organisations concerned. I also urge you to consider whether you have acted against the interests of democracy in targeting public demonstrations for secretive filming, and in slurring the leader of a fledgling political party.
My response to the bias of ITV’s “Exposure”, the letter I received – which includes the relevant bullet points – can be read here.
Dear Mr Henshaw,
Thank you for your letter and for making me aware of your documentary.
While I realise that my response will not alter your intentions to smear my character, and that you don’t intend to provide unbiased information to the public, I shall indulge you – for the sake of “exposure”.
I will address your points in turn.
You believe me to be a far right extremist, many do not. Many believe (rightly) that I oppose the very racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and oppression usually associated with the far-right, and usually associated with the religion of Islam. I’m unclear what is meant by “entire religion”. Does it mean every Muslim? If so, you’ll no doubt report that I have clearly and consistently maintained that I do not blame all Muslims. Perhaps “entire religion” refers to every verse of the Koran? Please clarify. It would be beneficial also if you understood that “Islam” does not equal “every Muslim”. If you understand the difference between a book and the readers of a book, you may grasp the difference between Islam and Muslims. I’m criticizing the book, and it is my fundamental right to do so.
Yes I did. Am I to congratulate you for your “exposure” of something I said on Twitter?
I didn’t say Muslims want to kill us and enslave us, I said those who committed the slaughter in Manchester (and who commit slaughter in the name of sharia all over the world) want to kill us and enslave us. Presumably, you’ll include this in your report. What others say at an event is not my fault or responsibility.
Yes I did. Once again, this is in the public domain. I’ve no doubt you’ll ensure the viewer understands that you did not “expose” this; I said it in public.
I didn’t “appoint” Jack Buckby to any role. He put together the initial website and has worked alongside me throughout the campaign, along with other people. If what he did constitutes a “campaign manager’s” role, then so be it, I’m unconcerned what title Jack has. The quote you place here is from Jack, not from me. Presumably, while you allege I tried to hide that Jack and I were working together, you’ll include the fact that he was present, and even spoke, at my campaign launch. Hardly the actions of people trying to conceal our involvement with each other.
I do not “closely associate” with Jordan Diamond, he is – or was – a supporter who came to my events, and along with many others, often socialised afterwards. He is not involved in For Britain, and never was, and now that I have become aware of some of his comments, he will not be welcome in the future. His association with Generation Identity is his, not mine. I am no more responsible for their comments or beliefs than you are for mine. I offered Jordan Diamond and another activist Jonaya English a sofa in my house after the Last Day of Silence event in London because they had missed the last train to Manchester; it is a civil and hospitable thing to do. You may imply this means that I am responsible for every comment he has ever made but I doubt the British public will agree. What Jordan said “at the same table as me” is not my responsibility, nor am I aware of all that is said. His views on the future of white Europeans are his to hold – talking about the future of the white race in Europe is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have, and it doesn’t imply any hatred of any other race. I did say I know of Generation Identity, and that one of the things I had heard about them was that some neo-Nazis were associated (I still don’t know if this is true). This made them a concern to me, but as I’ve stated many times, until I see personal evidence of Nazi-sympathy for example, I will not make any judgements. I have learned not to believe all I hear when I myself am subject to lies and smears. I did not have a problem speaking at the same event as Martin Sillner (once again, I’ve never met him), as I do not know him, nor do I need to agree with every view in order to speak at an event – something I said publicly at the Traditional Britain event itself.
Your undercover reporter witnessed me attending and socialising at events. That’s absolutely fine.
I’ve said many times that Britain is becoming an Islamic state; in speeches, on Twitter etc. I have no idea what the Mohammed “thick as shit” comment means. I do want to reduce Muslim birthrates, overwhelmingly by empowering Muslim women and girls. I stand by it.
I’ve said this in public many times too; the only difference is the language used – I do not swear in public. I reiterate; I can’t bear the idea that British girls will be treated in a future UK as girls are treated in Muslim countries today. I can’t bear the idea that mass numbers of people would come from Muslim countries and impose their religious values on a free Britain. I make no apology for this. Once again, you’ve exposed nothing.
No, I was going to point out to him specific aspects such as child marriage and death for blasphemy. Once again, you expose nothing but desperation to portray me as dishonest for saying in private what I routinely say in public. I have made a public speech, recorded by the BBC, where I explained that any religion that scripturally condones the evil of child marriage (among other horrors) can rightly be described as evil. I have refused to backtrack or apologise for this at any point, so suggesting I’m trying to hide it is frankly absurd.
I sent out a tweet that day saying that Jihad had won. Once again, you have exposed me saying something I said on Twitter. Great work. If I did say it was a fix, it was likely through ill-thought-out emotion at the time, but I don’t believe it was a fix (but as I’ve also said in public, nothing would surprise me about party politics).
Also all of it in public. That you describe Tommy Robinson as “far-right” does not make him so. I also said publicly that people from proscribed groups would be considered on a case by case basis, and that Tommy Robinson had no interest in joining UKIP. I said this many times, publicly, so once again, nothing “exposed”.
I don’t work closely with Rebel, they sometimes report on my events – they are reporters. Even if I did work closely with Rebel, I see no problem with this and no reason to try to hide it.
I have never met Martin Sillner. Given that I am consistently smeared, I tend not to make judgments on people I don’t know – I’m aware of the lies we are subject to. I spoke at the same event as he did. I will speak at most events (again as I’ve said in public) even when I don’t agree with every view of the organisers. I do not share many of the views of Traditional Britain (as I said at the speech I gave at their event).
I didn’t, I said Western culture.
Yes, in public, and I stand by it.
Yes, in public, and I stand by it.
Yes, and I stand by it. I also stand by my assertion that Islam is a source of child rape and mutilation.
Yes I did, in public, and I stand by it.
Yes, in public, and I stand by it.
Yes and I stand by it. All of the above comments are on Youtube for the world to see. I knew they would be on Youtube when I said them. I also post these to my Facebook page/Twitter etc.. But yet you’ll allege I tried to hide it. Rather unconvincing if I may say so.
The rest of your letter merely demonstrates further arrogance, prejudice, dishonesty, and bias. You allege I am a “danger”. By what criteria? I would argue instead that it is your dishonest behaviour placing me and others in danger. My friend was recently physically attacked by people while labeling her a fascist. Therefore, I suggest that you are promoting an extremist and dishonest rhetoric: one which implies that those of us who oppose religious tyranny are “far-right”. In doing so, I would argue that you are knowingly increasing the probability that we will be subject to violent attack, merely for utilising our right to criticize a religious ideology.
Furthermore, you argue that my determination to utilise my democratic rights “could potentially inspire violent activity”. That’s quite an assertion, do you suggest we all stay quiet because there’s an off-chance someone might be violent? Are people’s words responsible for all violent crime? I’m afraid I’m unclear on your position. It would also be helpful if you would provide any thoughts on what potentially inspires violent activity from jihadis.
I shall leave with one final point – your uninformed, prejudiced, and biased opinions do not constitute facts.
I can only finish by thanking you both for the publicity and for confirming to the public that the only ammunition you can fire at me, despite months of deception on your part, is to “expose” what I continually and repeatedly state in public.
Thank you once again.
Anne Marie Waters
The tally is now at 5 terror attacks within 6 months in the UK. Across Europe, it’s even higher. Still, as you can guess, the politicians are singing the same tune. “Will not divide us”, “carry on as usual”, “nothing to do with” etc.
London has come under attack again, as it will again and again. The Islamic attackers have set aside trucks and knives for the moment, and returned to bombs on the tube. 29 people were injured on the District Line at Parsons Green last week when a timed device failed to inflict its carnage. Due to sheer good luck, scores weren’t killed. Who knows how the dice will fall next time, and the time after that?
In France, there was a double event in one day. A knife-wielding man plunged at a soldier in Paris, but again just by luck, nobody was killed.#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" target="_blank"> This of course reminds us of a similar attack just weeks ago outside Buckingham Palace in London. Here, a man attacked police with a sword, having first attempted to hit them with a car.#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" target="_blank"> Back in France, on the same day as the latest London and Paris attacks, two women were critically injured in a hammer attack in Lyon – by a man shouting “allahu akbar”.
We are at a critical juncture now. There is no more time or room for platitudes. People are dying and will continue to die until tough action is taken.
I’m frequently told that my tough response to Islamic terror will make things worse, but how much worse can it be? How can it be worse than a Europe that cowers in fear and all but apologises to those who attack us? What ‘worse’ do my critics have in mind? Perhaps open warfare on the streets (that is, more open warfare) is what they fear. But this is what we’re going to get in any case. Unless we have leaders who fight back on behalf of the people, then the people may do it themselves. There is trouble ahead, and either we fight back now and come out the other side with our society intact, or there will be no other side. We will submit to Islam and our society will be gone for good.
The only peaceful way to fight back now is with new politics and new politicians, and if UKIP will allow me to lead, that is what I will provide.
It’s difficult for me to write about other candidates as that is not the campaigning I want (I want to talk about the issues, not the people, but on this occasion, the issue is the people). Many of my fellow candidates have recently found a sudden interest in Islam, but it isn’t real. I know what knowledge of Islam looks like, and I don’t see it on the UKIP leadership candidate panel; no matter what other fine attributes they have (and they do). This is not a serious issue for them, and I know in my heart that if any were to win, Islam would not be tackled – it simply won’t happen.
Furthermore, we need clear policies on the other key issues at home: NHS, housing, police, jobs, education, immigration…. I have offered all of these from the beginning, and I will continue to. I care a great deal about many things, and my passion is clear. I hope UKIP members will allow me to turn that passion in to leadership.
But Islam is now key – it will both interest the public and win their votes. ‘Same old, same old’, including from UKIP candidates, will not do. “Not all Muslims” will not do, blaming the problems on Wahhabism will not do, blaming a perversion of scripture or a tiny minority of extremists will not do. We have an enormous problem here, and that problem is in the Koran.
Across the Muslim world, vast majorities support the barbarism of sharia and there is simply no concept of Western-style freedom, even in the most ‘moderate’ of countries. The British people need to know this, so they can then decide what to do about it. Living with the comfortable lie of ‘tiny minority of extremists’ will not do.
I have been heavily criticized not because what I say isn’t true, but because of those I have worked with. There is certain company I won’t keep – I won’t stand with anti-Semites, or racists, or misogynists, or homophobes. I’ve stuck to this throughout (and been criticized for that as well). But the company I’m condemned for keeping usually amounts to Tommy Robinson, a man who is widely admired across the country. Only those who are completely out of touch and ensconced in the bubble (this very much includes some in UKIP) don’t seem to realize this.
Tommy Robinson, like me, comes from a working class background and he has been a voice for the working class against mass Muslim immigration for years. I admire him for it and I will never regret or apologise for a moment I have spent in his company.
This is a key time for UKIP as a party and the UK as a nation. My passion to save this country from irreversible and negative change will not dampen, but I worry that smear tactics, lies, and bandwagon-jumping may derail those of us who know that change is needed now, not in 10 or 20 years.
If I become UKIP leader, I will not back down, I will not cower, I will not apologise, I will support the British public in their call for an end to immigration from Muslim societies. I and others understand that Muslim immigration means Islam, and it is Islam that we do not want. Islam, by any literal reading, is a religion of totalitarianism and tyranny. Individual Muslims certainly can, but Islam itself is unlikely to adapt because its own scriptures won’t allow it.
“Reform” is showing no signs of success (now or in the past), and why should this occur in Europe or the West at all? How many Westerners will be killed or raped as we generously open up our societies for Muslims to reform? To carry out inter-Islam wars on our soil? No.
This must be understood and can only be understood when we have leaders who know Islam and can talk about it, knowing every trick that the journalists will pull.
The time is now, the election is now, the UKIP leadership is now. If I can, I will take this fight forward in a way that no other politician will do. If not, we wait… very probably until it really is too late.
#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" target="_blank"> http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/854456/Paris-terror-attack-French-soldier-stabbed
#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" target="_blank"> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/27/buckingham-palace-attack-second-man-held
Recently, I sought help to fund a consultation with defamation solicitors to discuss the legal position regarding newspapers referring to people as “far-right”, “fascist” or “racist” simply because we speak negatively about Islam. Those of us who do so are frequently subject to smears from the press, which portrays us bigots and liars.
See the Gofundme post here.
As promised, I met with a defamation solicitor in September and I post their full written response below. I want to sincerely thank all of those who have supported me in this and other endeavours. Thank you.
I will continue to challenge dishonest labelling in the media and continue to speak out for truth.
Solicitor’s response in full:
I write further to our consultation today. As agreed, I will very briefly summarise: –
There are essentially three things you complain about: 1) the suggestions that you are a neo-fascist/fascist/white racist right/anti-Muslim bigot, 2) the apparent suggestion in one Times article that you have sought to hide the fact that you were born in Ireland, and 3) the repeated/gratuitous references to your sexuality.
As a general/overarching point, I advised you that these complaints raise quite distinct legal and factual issues, which sadly can’t simply be bundled together. Similarly, and perhaps more significantly, I noted that the complaints concern an array of different publishers, and dealing with all of them may simply be infeasible.
Firstly, it is important to remember that these four terms all have different meanings, even though they may conjure up similar images. I have not seen any explicit/direct newspaper references to you being a fascist, or neo-fascist. Please point these out to me if there are any. Assuming there are none, we
would be relying on an indirect, or inference meaning, which necessarily tends to be more difficult. The word fascist is not actually that easy to define – people disagree on it. I would tend to agree with you that fascist or neo-fascist refers to someone who believes in a totalitarian/dictatorial system, but it might be said that fascist also means someone who believes in racial supremacy (as fascist Italy/Nazi Germany did). I have seen you directly described as a part of the ‘white racist right’ and an ‘anti-Muslim bigot’. These have arguably quite different meanings – literally someone who is white, on the right, and racist, and someone who is intolerant of Muslims, respectively.
In general/broad terms, if you were to sue any major news publication/journalist in defamation over these descriptions of you, then I think they would likely defend them, both on the grounds that they are true (accurate) or substantially true, and on the basis of honest opinion, and, finally on the grounds of publication in the public interest. The truth defence might ultimately fail, but my instinct is that the honest opinion defence would likely succeed. Furthermore, I think it unlikely that such proceedings would settle early, and I think there is a very good chance that they would result in significant adverse publicity for you (that the paper(s) might, effectively, go to war with you). You would need significant funding, and would be exposed to a huge costs risk. In short, my instinct is against any such action, but if you want more specific advice, then you would need to draw the specific words of a given article(s) to my attention.
I think the headline of the article in question is arguably defamatory in that the words ‘hides her roots’ could be taken to mean dishonesty, and I can certainly see why you are upset with this. If sued upon, I think the Times would try to argue that the word ‘hides’ actually means something different, or somewhat less, than dishonesty. Furthermore, I think they would argue that any reader would be able to tell from the balance of the article that there was no such suggestion. Alternatively, they could simply say that it was true, or again, honest opinion. For these reasons, and for the same reasons given above vis-à-vis costs etc. I would not recommend taking action. Based on what you told me, I do think the headline is inaccurate (which is different from defamatory), but there is an exemption in the Data Protection Act (s.32) for journalistic material in the public interest, and since you are currently running for the leadership of a major political party, I think this defence would probably protect them in any DPA claim.
The most relevant case is Trimingham, which we discussed. There is, naturally, nothing wrong with describing someone as a lesbian per se. It is not a pejorative term. It could be a misuse of someone’s private information if their sexuality was a secret, or especially closely guarded, but otherwise there is unlikely to be any cause for complaint. Repeated, gratuitous use of the term, could amount to harassment. However, I think in order to have a viable claim, we would need to have several, if not several dozen, articles by the same publisher in which they did this over and over again. I have not seen evidence of such a campaign.
For the reasons very briefly set out above, my instinct is that threatening/bringing legal proceedings would not be in your best interests. However, if you do want to take some sort of action, particularly in respect of item 2, above, then a way forward might be a complaint to IPSO on grounds of inaccuracy. A complaint to IPSO is unlikely to blow up in your face in quite the same way that legal threats might, and certainly would not prove financially ruinous. The idea would be to present you as someone who was not complaining about adverse press per se, and was certainly not interested in money etc., but who, on matters of principle, wanted to point out where the press had crossed the line/where the journalism wasn’t up to scratch etc. It might be a way to air your grievances about some of the reporting of you generally. Note that, as we discussed, the Guardian is not a member of IPSO.
As discussed, any work that we undertake, other than initial consultations, is charged in accordance with our terms of business (attached) by reference to our hourly rates, which are as follows: –
Partners £300 plus VAT
Solicitors £175-£250 plus VAT
Trainees/paralegals £135 plus VAT
The costs of us assisting you with a complaint to IPSO would naturally depend upon the scope of the complaint, and whether we just helped you with the initial drafting, or continued to offer you advice and assistance thereafter. If we were just complaining about item 2, and simply helped you draft the initial complaint, then costs might be between £1,000 and £1,500 plus VAT.
Please let me know if you have any queries or if you would like to proceed, either with the ISPO complaint or otherwise. Finally, note that any IPSO complaint must be made within 4 months of publication, and any defamation claim must be brought within 12 months of publication.
Good luck for September 28th.
When things go wrong, that’s when leadership is both tested and defined. Only weeks after innocent people were murdered in Westminster, we have again in Britain have had our way of life assaulted by Islamic killers. The aim of Islamic killers is clear, regardless of how it is sanitised by our politicians; Islam won’t tolerate freedom and we are attacked for being free.
It is written in every other page of the Koran, the persecution and punishment of the unbeliever. Some say these verses apply only to defence, but rarely do they describe (or even know) what it is that Islam defends itself from. It defends itself from disobedience to its rule. To clarify, our freedom is deemed an attack on Islam, and killing us for our defiance is deemed an act of defence.
The increasing terror attacks in the West, as well as the criminal acts such as child marriage or FGM, are the inevitable result of globalisation. When you shift huge populations to live in countries where their values and way of life will clash with the natives, enormous problems will result. When they have, it is globalisation that has been defended, because most of our politicians are dutifully on board.
The Islamic terror attacks are being presented to us as a battle of Good vs Evil. We will not however name who is good and who is evil, or why. We will not call it what it really is, a battle between freedom and a totalitarian supremacist religion. Instead, we have created a fantasy world where we simply pretend that divisions are created not by the existence of different and incompatible ideologies, but by those who point the incompatibility or difference. We are all “one people” is the idea, and the murder and mayhem is brought about by a few bad eggs motivated by nothing in particular.
What is taking place right now is that an expansionist, political, totalitarian and supremacist faith, commanded to world domination, has met with the global destruction of borders. The result of this is obvious, large Muslim populations now live across the Western world, and with them has come Islam – a religion that won’t tolerate free expression, religious or philosophical freedom, and certainly not female freedom. As such, in the West it is now normal for people to whisper, keep their views to themselves, say nothing, or speak only positively about the Islamic master. Thousands upon thousands of girls have been raped by Muslims. Book-burnings in the street have been carried out by Muslims. Marches against free speech and demands for blasphemy punishments are now part of life in this age-old home of freedom.
Fear of Islam so dominates politics that our leaders are terrified to put a foot wrong. Their fear is almost visible. The lines they deliver are all the same – meaningless and evasive. No politician will name the driving force behind these killers, instead they indulge in the pantomime our complicit media dutifully places on the airwaves. All of it is devoted to one thing – sanitising Islam and keeping the borders open.
The standard public discourse is that the Manchester slaughter was an attack by bad people on good people, and not an attack by Muslims on non-Muslims. This is of course in tune with the open border ‘we are all alike’ utopian fantasy that our leaders are desperate to sell.
One example that stands out is the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who called it an “attack on young people everywhere”. It was not an attack on young people everywhere, it was an attack on free British youngsters enjoying the music and festivity of our beautiful Western culture. Donald Trump called the killer a “loser”. A loser? No, he’s not a loser President Trump, he is a jihadi, he is performing jihad. Is there nobody who will tell it like it is? Nobody who won’t indulge in this disguise of jihad?
When things go wrong, true leadership shows, and the British people have seen little of it. Instead they are being fed the same platitudes that keep the borders open and the people blind to the terrible realities that accompany the Islamic religion. A leader will face the truth, be honest with those they lead, and offer them the courage it takes to truly confront the challenges of this era-defining issue.
If I were the leader of UKIP, that is what I would offer. The people need an alternative to the platitudes. Those who are going to fight the influence of Islam to preserve our freedoms, will only do so by reviving a healthy dose of British patriotism and nationalism. We need to be pro-Britain in order to oppose that which threatens Britain. A leader must clarify what kind of Britain we seek to build, and affirm that we will defend that Britain against all threats. Above all, a leader should tell the truth. The British people deserve nothing less. People must be told the truth – especially on such fundamental issues – because only when armed with reality can they tell their leader which direction they want to go in. When voters mark their ballot, they deserve to do so on the basis of facts, and not what is convenient for the politician.
We will build borders, we will deport those who seek to harm us, we will deport rapists and jihadis and we’ll do it quickly. We’ll get rid of the Human Rights Act, and the ECHR, and pay no heed to a UN that puts the savagery of Saudi Arabia on a human rights board (who can take guidance from such a hypocritical body with zero principles?)
Speaking of Saudi Arabia, if the Saudis disapprove of our views on Islam, that’s unfortunate, but the British won’t be told what we can and cannot say in our country. The Saudis will just have to exercise some tolerance, won’t they?
I believe that unless tackled with tough measures, attacks in Britain will continue and escalate. Our politicians are wholly committed to the global project, across political parties. To take this on, to truly face this issue and to tell the truth, it will mean taking on the entire established internationalist order. It will mean defying and standing up to mainstream politics, mainstream media, unelected international bodies, and truly defending the people. This requires leadership, it requires guts, it requires the very opposite of ‘more of the same’. This issue needs radical thought, radical politics – it needs exactly the kind of party that UKIP ought to be.
Anne Marie Waters
Freedom of Information Request sent to West Midlands Police, February 28th 2016
Having read some of the tweets posted by West Midlands Police (@WMPolice) recently, I would be grateful if you could respond to the following questions as required under the Freedom of Information Act.
In a tweet posted by WMP on February 26th, the following is stated:
“Since 2015 its been mandatory for midwives in England and Wales to report ‘known’ FGM cases to police (for under 18s)”
Please answer the following:
1) How many reports of FGM has WMP received from midwives since 2015?
2) What exactly is the procedure if and when such reports are made? Please explain this in detail. How do WMP follow up on these? Who is responsible for communicating this information to midwives in the West Midlands? Could you please supply a copy of what information midwives receive in this regard and from whom?
3) Regarding the procedure referred to in question 2, who decides (has decided) upon this procedure? Is this Government or WMP policy?
4) How many prosecutions for the crime of FGM have such reports resulted in?
5) If there have been no prosecutions as a result of these reports, can you explain in detail what the difficulties are in securing charges and/or convictions?
Please send replies to this email address.
Thank you and best wishes,
Anne Marie Waters
(Replies will be posted here in due course)
A lot has been written about the absurd “Women’s March” that took place in Washington recently. Feminists from across the world bravely came together to protest against a man who has done nothing at all to women’s rights. They did so in “solidarity” with a religion that openly practices female slavery and gets away with it. The organiser of the “Women’s March” is a Saudi apologist who praises the very sharia law that ensures women in countries like Saudi Arabia are kept as property. Even so, Islamist Linda Sarsour led a group of gullible, privileged, clueless feminists though the US capital. Every bearded jihadi on the planet must have been laughing at that one, while the woman who suffers his oppression was told that Western feminists not only don’t care about her, but are actually marching in his favour.
The stupid women’s march aside, something else that caught my eye in the weeks since it took place has confirmed to me that modern feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s rights. In fact, it threatens them. Feminism is now the enemy of women.
Feminists have decided not only to support the world’s most misogynistic religion, they also offer unwavering support to male-female transsexuals, once again at the expense of actual women (no, not “cis” women).
Firstly, my attention was drawn to an article by someone called Marie Solis.#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" target="_blank"> Solis objects rather strenuously to the “pussy hats” worn by those protesting against the Presidency of Donald Trump. She objects to this because recognising the vagina as part of the female, excludes transsexuals. Transsexuals don’t have a vagina is the ‘thinking’, so vaginas are incorrect. According to some of today’s feminists, vaginas are offensive. This is what she wrote: “While clever, pussy hats set the tone for a march that would focus acutely on genitalia at the expense of the transgender community. Signs like “Pussy power,” “Viva la Vulva” and “Pussy grabs back” all sent a clear and oppressive message to trans women, especially: having a vagina is essential to womanhood”. These people have clearly lost all connection with objective reality.
A second article I read was an objection to this insanity, and alerted me to even greater insanity. Charles Rae#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" target="_blank"> wrote a piece entitled ‘Women are being told their bodies are hate speech’ and in it referred to tweets she’d found referencing the Women’s March. One such tweet asked “do y’all silly cis white women not get how problematic your vagina signs are???”. So the bodies of actual women now represent something problematic – is this feminism?
Even worse, ‘lesbians don’t have penises’ or ‘women don’t have penises’ was deemed “transphobic”, and a reference to FGM (female genital mutilation) was labelled “cissexist”. My favourite one though is this: Planned Parenthood#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" target="_blank"> presents itself as a feminist organisation “founded on the revolutionary idea that women should have the information and care they need to live strong, healthy lives and fulfill their dreams — no ceilings, no limits”. Nice words, but I was stunned by a tweet the group sent regarding the so-called tampon tax. In it, Planned Parenthood referred to women as “menstruators”. Menstruators! Just imagine the feminist meltdown if Donald Trump referred to women as “menstruators”. Furthermore, what happened to all those years of work real feminists did to inform the world that a woman is a human being and not a walking uterus? But to accommodate transsexuals, the feminists have decided that all of that was meaningless, and we can in fact be referred to as “menstruators” after all.
It gets even worse.
Rae also points us to a “safe sex guide” issued by a group known as the Human Rights Campaign. In this one, we learn about the “front hole” of a woman. This, they say, is the “word to talk about internal genitals, sometimes referred to as a vagina”. In other words, actual women have now been designated “front holes”. Meanwhile, transsexuals are granted the word vagina for themselves. Vagina is now the “word to talk about the genitals of trans women who have had bottom surgery”.
Barack Obama, the President who cared so much about women that he wanted Americans to experience the cultural enrichment of mass immigration from the most woman-hating societies on earth, set about opening up girls’ bathrooms to anyone who said they were female.#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" target="_blank"> I personally know American women who objected to this, but the feminists don’t care. The opinions of women have nothing to do with feminism. That’s so last century.
Here in Britain, the British Medical Association (i.e. not some looney left fringe group) issued guidance#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" target="_blank"> requesting that pregnant women no longer be referred to as “expectant mothers” but “pregnant people”. The word “mother” may be offensive to transsexuals you see. Whether an actual expectant mother is offended by being referred to as a “pregnant person” is of no significance whatsoever. Who cares if actual women are offended? Certainly not feminists. The guidance booklet also states “there are some intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant”.
I have been back and forward on this issue. I’m a lesbian and I have known a few transsexuals in my time, and I’ve liked them. In fact, my guess is that it isn’t transsexuals themselves making these demands, but ridiculous ‘feminists’ on their behalf.
I have sympathy for people who genuinely believe they live in the wrong body, but my sympathy starts to wane when I am labelled a “menstruator” with a “front hole”. My sympathy also wanes when actual women’s concerns about sharing private spaces with men are dismissed, and women’s views ignored. I have almost no sympathy left however when I and everyone else is asked to alter objective realities in the public space to accommodate someone else’s desire to change their sex.
The importance of objective truth, and clear definition of language, is beyond measure. Without clear, defined, and objective language, society is chaos. The law is built on objective language for example, without it, there is no law enforcement possible. Without objectivity, there is no solid ground to stand on, there is no truth and no lie, everything is what we want it to be. It is entirely destructive (likely why it is so popular on the Left).
Some things change and so eventually some definitions change. Some things however do not change, we merely pretend they do, and we alter objective reality to accommodate this pretence. Here is some objective reality – men do not become pregnant, women do. Objective reality number two – men do not have vaginas, women do. That the British Medical Association talks about “pregnant men” is frankly frightening, and indicative of how far from reality and truth we have drifted.
The just treatment of women is far more important than ‘feminism’. A society where men hold a violent hand of authority over women is a dark one, where children grow up witnessing the constant humiliation of their mothers. This is not healthy, and it is not the direction we should be heading in. (It is not a coincidence either that the most unjust, brutal, dysfunctional, and often poverty-stricken countries in the world – where child-rape and mutilation are the norm – are the ones in which women have no say).
Feminists today have decided to defer to misogynists at a time when women’s rights need immediate defence. If it isn’t Muslim immigration threatening us, we have Western misogynists who take every opportunity to blame all of the world’s problems on us (how original), and to top it off, we have a ‘feminism’ movement that has decided that bringing Islamic rape culture to the West is more important than protecting women from it. They’ve decided too to insult our bodies, demean our genitals, and hand over female private spaces to any man who wants access. As a lifelong feminist, my disgust for this behaviour, and this betrayal of women, has made even me despise the very word.
This is occurring because when real feminists in the West achieved their goal of equal rights, they went away and got on with enjoying them. What was left behind was a vacuum that would be filled by inept whining children with no idea of the importance of what they were dealing with. All schooled in Social Justice Warriorism 101 – ‘if it ain’t white, it must be alright’ – they rode on the coattails of feminists while simultaneously destroying their legacy.
I take no pleasure in writing any of this, but it has to be said. Third-wave feminism is a poison that has elevated all other considerations over and above those of actual women. They are the new misogynists, and an enemy to me and any woman (or man) who wants to live in a free, safe, and just society.
#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" target="_blank"> https://mic.com/articles/166273/how-the-women-s-march-s-genital-based-feminism-isolated-the-transgender-community#.ttbVSB5ZH
#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" target="_blank"> http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2017/01/womens-march-hate-speech/
#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" target="_blank"> https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are
#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" target="_blank"> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/texas-judge-block-obama-transgender-bathroom-order/
#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" target="_blank"> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/dont-call-pregnant-women-expectant-mothers-might-offend-transgender/
In August, two young friends from Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, were walking through the town when a group of men pulled up alongside them and ordered them to “get in the car”. I recently spoke to one of the girls, 15 year old Ellie Reynolds, who despite having reported the incident to police, had had no contact from them when I met her on December 5th. She also told me she is almost certain that the same has happened to other girls in the town since then.
It wasn’t only one car either. Phone-calls were made and more arrived. Ellie took photographs of some of these cars, but the police, when I interviewed her, had still not looked at them. Part of the description of the men provided by Ellie: “like Turks”.
The details of the story are these.
On the 8th of August, Ellie and a 13 year old friend were walking through Barrow-in-Furness, close to their home. A silver car pulled up alongside them and the men inside shouted at them to get in. When they refused, one of them said Ellie’s name and told her he “had her details anyway”. She had never seen these men before and had no idea who they were, nor had her friend. Understandably very shaken by this, she suggested to me that its possible that girls are being sought out on social media sites. She and her friends are avid Facebookers so yes, it’s possible.
Both girls’ families reported the incident to police on the day it happened. I did not speak to the 13 year old girl, but Ellie had still not heard from them in December, despite chasing several times. Police told the Reynolds family that they had called to the house to find nobody home, but no note was left and there was no attempt to contact them either before or after this supposed visit.
Theresa McMeekin is a friend of the family and said that she too had phoned the police saying she had copies of the photos and asking if they wanted to see them. She said they told her that as she wasn’t directly connected to the case, she could not report it. On hearing this, the Reynolds’ contacted police again and were told they would be visited – they weren’t.
McMeekin posted details about it on her Facebook page, only to find out later that the post hadn’t been made public. Ellie also wrote about it on Facebook to warn her friends. She soon found herself attacked for “racism”. She told me “it was like I was the one in the wrong for reporting it”.
Theresa McMeekin has a young daughter soon starting secondary school, and police were kind enough to advise her that she should warn her daughter of “stranger danger generally” without mentioning any ethnicity. They are on the ball on some matters then.
When a local journalist contacted Barrow police to follow up on Ellie’s complaint, he was told “The victim did not wish to pursue the complaint further”. Ellie Reynolds said this is completely untrue. She was still waiting for them to contact her.
The Police and Crime Commissioner for the area is Conservative Peter McCall. He was sent an email on September 23rd with a detailed description of both the incident involving the girls, and the lack of police response. Theresa McMeekin stated in the email that she represented worried parents in the area, but she didn’t hear back until she chased him on Twitter on October 31st. At that point, he replied “Once we have the police response, they come to me so that I see them with the facts/issues so that I can give you a more informed answer. I have just checked and we are expecting the response from the constabulary imminently. I do appreciate that this does seem slow but you will understand that they get many questions from the public all of which take police time to answer and some are very complex. I am keen to have honest and open dialogue with the public and very much welcome your engagement. As soon as I have the response to your particular concerns we will write and if that doesn’t answer your questions I’d be very pleased to chat.”
I wrote to Chief Constable Jeremy Graham on December 9th and asked him about the above. (You can read the reply on the link provided). I have learned since that the Reynolds family has finally had that contact from police that they’d been promised for so long.
What do we learn from all of this? Firstly, that there is a very real probability that the grooming gang crimes are expanding in to new areas and towns in the north of England. Secondly, as with Rotherham and elsewhere, there is simply no adequate police action. Nothing has changed since the Jay Report.
To top it off, basic bread-and-butter policing, such as providing descriptions, is subject to concerns that the description might be of someone from a minority group. It is incredibly dangerous for a society if facts about crimes are kept quiet for fear of being thought ‘controversial’ or ‘unhelpful’.
The only answer to this is common sense and impartial policing, but just as importantly, a real and robust way for members of the public to hold police to account. This horror has gone on for too long.