G.L-W.: Documents, Treaties, Acts & Essays

A Compilation of Documents, Treaties, Acts, Agreements, Quotes etc. mainly pertaining to Constitution, EU etc.

Martin Luther’s 95 Theses That Brought The Renaissence

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 31/10/2016

 
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Martin Luther’s 95 Theses That Brought The Renaissence …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
.
Hi,
It is believed that on 31-Oct-1517 Martin Luther naile his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle Church thus firing the first shots of the Renaissence and the frtacture in the Catholic Church liberating the Protestant Church from the cloying control of Rome.
It was not until the latter part of the 2oth. Century that serious efforts were made to break down the divide between the two branches of the christian beliefs and superstitions.
luther-martin

Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it, the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and ordinary lecturer therein at Wittenberg, intends to defend the following statements and to dispute on them in that place. Therefore he asks that those who cannot be present and dispute with him orally shall do so in their absence by letter. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying, “Repent ye, etc.,” intended that the whole life of his believers on earth should be a constant penance.

2. And the word “penance” neither can, nor may, be understood as referring to the Sacrament of Penance, that is, to confession and atonement as exercised under the priest’s ministry.

3. Nevertheless He does not think of inward penance only: rather is inward penance worthless unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh.

4. Therefore mortification continues as long as hatred of oneself continues, that is to say, true inward penance lasts until entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

5. The Pope will not, and cannot, remit other punishments than those which he has imposed by his own decree or according to the canons.

6. The Pope can forgive sins only in the sense, that he declares and confirms what may be forgiven of God; or that he doth it in those cases which he hath reserved to himself; be this contemned, the sin remains unremitted.

7. God forgives none his sin without at the same time casting him penitent and humbled before the priest His vicar.

8. The canons concerning penance are imposed only on the living; they ought not by any means, following the same canons, to be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, acting in the Pope, does well for us, when the latter in his decrees entirely removes the article of death and extreme necessity.

10. Those priests act unreasonably and ill who reserve for Purgatory the penance imposed on the dying.

11. This abuse of changing canonical penalty into the penalty of Purgatory seems to have arisen when the bishops were asleep.

12. In times of yore, canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before, absolution, as tests of true repentance and affliction.

13. The dying pay all penalties by their death, are already dead to the canons, and rightly have exemption from them.

14. Imperfect spiritual health or love in the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the less this love is, the greater the fear it brings.

15. This fear and horror – to say nothing of other things – are sufficient in themselves to produce the punishment of Purgatory, because they approximate to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven seem to differ as perfect despair, imperfect despair, and security of salvation differ.

17. It seems as must in Purgatory love in the souls increase, as fear diminishes in them.

18. It does not seem to be proved either by arguments or by the Holy Writ that they are outside the state of merit and demerit, or increase of love.

19. This, too, seems not to be proved, that they are all sure and confident of their salvation, though we may be quite sure of it.

20. Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the perfect remission of all punishments, does not mean that all penalties in general be forgiven, but only those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore, those preachers of indulgences err who say that, by the Pope’s indulgence, a man may be exempt from all punishments, and be saved.

22. Yea, the Pope remits the souls in Purgatory no penalty which they, according to the canons, would have had to pay in this life.

23. If to anybody complete remission of all penalties may be granted, it is certain that it is granted only to those most approaching perfection, that is, to very few.

24. Therefore the multitude is misled by the boastful promise of the paid penalty, whereby no manner of distinction is made.

25. The same power that the Pope has over Purgatory, such has also every bishop in his diocese, and every curate in his parish.

26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls, not by the power of the keys – which in Purgatory he does not possess – but by way of intercession.

27. They preach vanity who say that the soul flies out of Purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.

28. What is sure, is, that as soon as the penny rattles in the chest, gain and avarice are on the way of increase; but the intercession of the church depends only on the will of God Himself.

29. And who knows, too, whether all those souls in Purgatory wish to be redeemed, as it is said to have happened with St. Severinus and St. Paschalis.

30. Nobody is sure of having repented sincerely enough; much less can he be sure of having received perfect remission of sins.

31. Seldom even as he who has sincere repentance, is he who really gains indulgence; that is to say, most seldom to be found.

32. On the way to eternal damnation are they and their teachers, who believe that they are sure of their salvation through indulgences.

33. Beware well of those who say, the Pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God.

34. For the forgiveness contained in these pardons has reference only to the penalties of sacramental atonement which were appointed by men.

35. He preaches like a heathen who teaches that those who will deliver souls out of Purgatory or buy indulgences do not need repentance and contrition.

36. Every Christian who feels sincere repentance and woe on account of his sins, has perfect remission of pain and guilt even without letters of indulgence.

37. Every true Christian, be he still alive or already dead, partaketh in all benefits of Christ and of the Church given him by God, even without letters of indulgence.

38. Yet is the Pope’s absolution and dispensation by no means to be contemned, since it is, as I have said, a declaration of the Divine Absolution.

39. It is exceedingly difficult, even for the most subtle theologists, to praise at the same time before the people the great wealth of indulgence and the truth of utter contrition.

40. True repentance and contrition seek and love punishment; while rich indulgence absolves from it, and causes men to hate it, or at least gives them occasion to do so.

41. The Pope’s indulgence ought to be proclaimed with all precaution, lest the people should mistakenly believe it of more value than all other works of charity.

42. Christians should be taught, it is not the Pope’s opinion that the buying of indulgence is in any way comparable to works of charity.

43. Christians should be taught, he who gives to the poor, or lends to a needy man, does better than buying indulgence.

44. For, by the exercise of charity, charity increases and man grows better, while by means of indulgence, he does not become better, but only freer from punishment.

45. Christians should be taught, he who sees his neighbor in distress, and, nevertheless, buys indulgence, is not partaking in the Pope’s pardons, but in the anger of God.

46. Christians should be taught, unless they are rich enough, it is their duty to keep what is necessary for the use of their households, and by no means to throw it away on indulgences.

47. Christians should be taught, the buying of indulgences is optional and not commanded.

48. Christians should be taught, the Pope, in selling pardons, has more want and more desire of a devout prayer for himself than of the money.

49. Christians should be taught, the Pope’s pardons are useful as far as one does not put confidence in them, but on the contrary most dangerous, if through them one loses the fear of God.

50. Christians should be taught, if the Pope knew the ways and doings of the preachers of indulgences, he would prefer that St. Peter’s Minster should be burnt to ashes, rather than that it should be built up of the skin, flesh, and bones of his lambs.

51. Christians should be taught, the Pope, as it is his bounden duty to do, is indeed also willing to give of his own money – and should St. Peter’s be sold thereto – to those from whom the preachers of indulgences do most extort money.

52. It is a vain and false thing to hope to be saved through indulgences, though the commissary – nay, the Pope himself – was to pledge his own soul therefore.

53. Those who, on account of a sermon concerning indulgences in one church, condemn the word of God to silence in the others, are enemies of Christ and of the Pope.

54. Wrong is done to the word of God if one in the same sermon spends as much or more time on indulgences as on the word of the Gospel.

55. The opinion of the Pope cannot be otherwise than this:- If an indulgence – which is the lowest thing – be celebrated with one bell, one procession and ceremonies, then the Gospel – which is the highest thing – must be celebrated with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred ceremonies.

56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants his dispensation are neither sufficiently named nor known among the community of Christ.

57. It is manifest that they are not temporal treasures, for the latter are not lightly spent, but rather gathered by many of the preachers.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for these, without the Pope’s aid, work always grace to the inner man, cross, death, and hell to the other man.

59. St. Lawrence called the poor of the community the treasures of the community and of the Church, but he understood the word according to the use in his time.

60. We affirm without pertness that the keys of the Church, bestowed through the merit of Christ, are this treasure.

61. For it is clear that the Pope’s power is sufficient for the remission of penalties and forgiveness in the reserved cases.

62. The right and true treasure of the Church is the most Holy Gospel of the glory and grace of God.

63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful, for it makes the first to be last.

64. While the treasure of indulgence is deservedly most agreeable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore, the treasures of the Gospel are nets, with which, in times of yore, one fished for the men of Mammon.

66. But the treasures of indulgence are nets, with which now-a-days one fishes for the Mammon of men.

67. Those indulgences, which the preachers proclaim to be great mercies, are indeed great mercies, forasmuch as they promote gain.

68. And yet they are of the smallest compared to the grace of God and to the devotion of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates ought to mark with eyes and ears, that the commissaries of apostolical (that is, Popish) pardons are received with all reverence.

70. But they ought still more to mark with eyes and ears, that these commissaries do not preach their own fancies instead of what the Pope has commanded.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, be anathema and cursed.72. But blessed be he who is on his guard against the preacher’s of pardons naughty and impudent words.

73. As the Pope justly disgraces and excommunicates those who use any kind of contrivance to do damage to the traffic in indulgences.

74. Much more it is his intention to disgrace and excommunicate those who, under the pretext of indulgences, use contrivance to do damage to holy love and truth.

75. To think that the Popish pardons have power to absolve a man even if – to utter an impossibility – he had violated the Mother of God, is madness.

76. We assert on the contrary that the Popish pardon cannot take away the least of daily sins, as regards the guilt of it.

77. To say that St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could show no greater mercies, is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.

78. We assert on the contrary that both this and every other Pope has greater mercies to show: namely, the Gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc. (1.Cor.XII).

79. He who says that the cross with the Pope’s arms, solemnly set on high, has as much power as the Cross of Christ, blasphemes God.

80. Those bishops, curates, and theologists, who allow such speeches to be uttered among the people, will have one day to answer for it.

81. Such impudent sermons concerning indulgences make it difficult even for learned men to protect the Pope’s honor and dignity against the calumnies, or at all events against the searching questions, of the laymen.

82. As for instance: – Why does not the Pope deliver all souls at the same time out of Purgatory for the sake of most holy love and on account of the bitterest distress of those souls – this being the most imperative of all motives, – while he saves an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most miserable thing money, to be spent on St. Peter’s Minster: – this being the very slightest of motives?

83. Or again: – Why do masses for the dead continue, and why does not the Pope return or permit to be withdrawn the funds which were established for the sake of the dead, since it is now wrong to pray for those who are already saved?

84. Again: – What is this new holiness of God and the Pope that, for money’s sake, they permit the wicked and the enemy of God to save a pious soul, faithful to God, and yet will not save that pious and beloved soul without payment, out of love, and on account of its great distress?

85. Again: – Why is it that the canons of penance, long abrogated and dead in themselves, because they are not used, are yet still paid for with money through the granting of pardons, as if they were still in force and alive?

86. Again: – Why does not the Pope build St. Peter’s Minster with his own money – since his riches are now more ample than those of Crassus, – rather than with the money of poor Christians?

87. Again: -Why does the Pope remit or give to those who, through perfect penitence, have already a right to plenary remission and pardon?

88. Again: – What greater good could the Church receive, than if the Pope presented this remission and pardon a hundred times a day to every believer, instead of but once, as he does now?

(Top of Martin Luther 95 Theses)

89. If the Pope seeks by his pardon the salvation of souls, rather than money, why does he annul letters of indulgence granted long ago, and declare them out of force, though they are still in force?

90. To repress these very telling questions of the laymen by force, and not to solve them by telling the truth, is to expose the Church and the Pope to the enemy’s ridicule and to make Christian people unhappy.

91. Therefore, if pardons were preached according to the Pope’s intention and opinion, all these objections would be easily answered, nay, they never had occurred.

92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the community of Christ, “Peace, peace”, and there is no peace.

93. But blessed be all those prophets who say to the community of Christ, “The cross, the cross,” and there is no cross.

94. Christians should be exhorted to endeavor to follow Christ their Head through Cross, Death, and Hell,

95. And thus hope with confidence to enter Heaven through many miseries, rather than in false security.


Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

VISA ABOLITION Between UK & France – Gov’t Paper 1946!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 15/02/2016

VISA ABOLITION Between UK & France – Gov’t Paper 1946!
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
http://Leave-The-EU.com
Documents, Essays & Treaties: https://GLWdocuments.wordpress.com/
The Hamlet of Stroat: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com
The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com
Chepstow Chat: http://ChepstowChat.wordpress.com/
Christopher Storey: http://ChristopherStory.wordpress.com/
Des Watkins DFC: http://DesWatkins.wordpress.com/
Hollie Greig etc.: http://HollieGreigetc.wordpress.com/
Psycheocracy: http://Psycheocracy.wordpress.com/
The McCann Case: http://TheMcCannCase.wordpress.com/
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: http://SSOE.wordpress.com/
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: http://StolenKids-Dunblane.blogspot.com/
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.co.uk/

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

NB:

  • I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  • ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  • I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  • I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  • I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  • I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  • I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  • I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  • I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  • I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  • I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  • I am NOT a WARMIST
  • I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  • I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  • I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  • I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  • I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  • I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  • I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  • I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  • I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  • I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  • I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.
Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Criminal Cases Review Commission [CCRC] re: Jasna Badzak, Exposing Ukip

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 25/01/2016

Criminal Cases Review Commission [CCRC] re: Jasna Badzak, Exposing Ukip

.

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

before you read the lengthy statement which has been sent to me, and which from the facts I know would seem to be a fair and accurate document and I have no reason to believe it is anything other than a statement submitted to CCRC.

May I suggest that you take note of the judgement against Nat West CLICK HERE a judgement which would seem to endorse Jasna Badzak’s contention that the bank statement produced as evidence against her may very well have been related to the Nat West judgement!

I can provide no proof that the document is fact but many of the contentions therein are clearly endorsed by factual evidence I have provided over the years on my various blogs including http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com .

Of ther corrupt nature, utter lack of integrity, dishonesty, racism, ignorant lack of judgement and bullying ineptitude of Gerard Batten there is a plethora of evidence – he is also obsessed with conspiracy theories, Russia, racism and his anti Islamic extremism, an obsession brought about by his own supertitions and probably influenced by his Philippino wife’s somewhat fundamental catholicism of the days of Cardinal Sin (Jaime L. Sin born 1928 died 2005).
Having myself never fallen for the guile of Ukip under its leadership to date, and having put in a great deal of time and energy over the last 15+ years to try to expose the corruption of Ukip and its leadership – never having joined Ukip – I find the opening paragraph of the Statement below to be compelling and all 50 pages would seem to me to be a genuine and accurate account on the balance of probabilities and on evidence to hand.
That being the case there is much to be said for setting aside the judgement against Jasna Badzak as being unsound and unsustainable and a full and transparent police enquiry with forensic accounting and aided in full by OLAF of the last 23 years of indisputable corruption and fraud that has been a part of Ukip.
Minded of the verdict of guilty against the Labour MEP Peter Skinner, who stood down at the last EU list election, for abuse of his position of trust and defrauding the tax payers of £480,000 – I dread to think how many £Millions may have been missapropriated by Ukip’s leadership, their cronies and the party at large.
Read on and draw your own conclusions!

STATEMENT TO CCRC

25 January 2016

I made the biggest mistake of my life. I joined a racist, criminal organisation pretending to be legitimate political party. One might wonder how and why, would anyone with a single brain cell, especially University and Postgraduate degree educated person, could possibly make such mistake?

Easy. I was born to care for humanity, I studied medicine, I grew up in family where honesty, decency and help to fellow humans were guiding principles. Those are the principles that I always lived and still live my life. At the age of 21 I became refugee, came to UK and worked incredibly hard to rebuild my life. I got my two degrees here, worked very hard, paid for my degrees, established two successful businesses, had my son, paid for his private schooling and healthcare. As soon as I was back on my feet, I decided to start helping my community, deprived areas of Westminster, in London, United Kingdom. In 2002 I opened my home to less fortunate, having daily surgeries to help sick, disabled, homeless, addicted, children from broken families and generally people in need. I set up my Residents Association to improve our lives, joined Police Community Consultative Group to help with local policing issues, joined neighbourhood forums and ultimately Conservative party, local ruling party in Westminster. My goal was not to seek election to any office, although I stood as a candidate, but solely to work with my Conservative Association to improve area and lives of people in my neck of woods.

I liked Conservatives and aspirational mentality, hard work and ethos of the party. But above all, I liked the chance that links with my local Conservative councilors helped me to make lives of neighbours at least somewhat better. It felt great that local derelict park was through our efforts turned into green oasis, that our local trouble maker became lover of books and electrician, that disabled child got all support her overtired parents needed, that I was able to retrieve £100 of savings for old age pensioner that was robbed but ashamed to report to police, etc.

In 2008 my local Conservative Association started splitting at seams and whole of my ward membership, including Charwoman, I, decided to leave. I really did not want to join any party afterwards, despite very generous offers from Labour and Liberal Democrats. Politics was not my main goal. Then we were all approached by Nigel Farage and UKIP. At that time I did not know almost anything about UKIP, except the myth it was old Conservative Party, Eurosceptic wing. I did not have any reason not to believe them. They said they had MP Bob Spink, gave me his business card, they had MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) and few Councilors. It was small, very inactive party, but Nigel was saying growing party with same Conservative values and vast opportunities to help constituents.

For the first two years, I only attended one single party where I saw Nigel, met Bob Spink, unfortunately their London MEP Gerard Batten, and their press officer Tim Worstall at HMS Belfast.

Two years later, in 2010 Nigel made me Parliamentary candidate and just because I wrote a letter to Evening Standard and it was published, promoted me as number 2

2

candidate on their list, just after him. Nigel was also very impressed that I had full British security clearance through my work with Foreign and Home Offices, journalistic background from my youth and was, unlike other UKIP candidates highly educated, multicultural and highly regarded in my community.

UKIP had a very strange policy, unlike any other party where every candidate pays their own Election deposit and £500.00 more to the Party for election leaflets. Although I was well off, I disagreed and found it strange and illegal, as payments, were effectively donations in cash and none declared to Electoral Commission, which is a criminal act. I refused and told Nigel explicitly I will not be part of it as no other party does it and I don’t do crimes. Rules and laws are there to be respected and I always did. In my entire life I never even made parking infringement, let alone anything else. Nigel backed off and ordered that Party pays, from declared donations both my deposit and my lection leaflet. General Elections came and went pretty uneventful except for Nigel’s plane crash that was caused by tangled UKIP party banner and outrageous racist statements of what I will learn from BBC Broadcaster Sammy Chackabrati, alleged London UKIP Chairman, Paul Wiffen, who was on my insistence immediately sacked.

My local campaign got adequate local media coverage, positive response during hustings as UKIP never had fully pledged manifesto and all candidates could stand on their own platforms. My platform was my community, no expenses at all as I could never understand why would any MP need full office (I was running surgeries from my living room for 8 years at that point) and pledge of 10% of my salary to Help the Heroes Charity. Money was never my driving force as I was making sufficiently through my consultancy work, and coming from the wealthy family, that was never lesson that my parents thought me. My lesson was always opposite, keep for yourself as much as you need, give the rest to help the less fortunate.

After the General Elections 2010 it was very quiet on UKIP front and I carried on with my life. In November 2010, Nigel told me that London MEP Gerard Batten was a huge headache for him and whole of the party and that Nigel told him to contact me with job offer, despite the fact that I already had my self-employed consultant job.

Batten indeed contacted me on the 04th November 2010 and asked me to come to his office in Ilford on 08th November 2010. Batten begged me to help him with urgent media exposure as nobody knew about him and UKIP and Farage were very unhappy with him. I told Batten I was aware of the issue, as Nigel explained, not repeating expletives Nigel used about Batten and made my second mistake. I agreed for the small amount of money, small for me who was earning much more, to help Batten and UKIP with positive media exposure. I did it immediately placing three articles about Batten efforts, actually mine, but I gave him credit, about fight against bikers charge in Westminster and placed articles in three newspapers, Wood and Wale, West

End Extra and London Informer. Batten and Farage were over the Moon. However, Batten wanted more. He wanted me to work there full time, answering phones, dealing with correspondence, managing office, doing his paperwork, as well as UKIP press exposure, full time 9 to 5. And all for £2500 which was just 1/3 of what I was earning at that time. I had a lengthy chat with Nigel and we finally agreed I would do it, to keep any eye on Batten as Nigel was claiming Batten was destroying ‘all good work UKIP was doing’. I finally agreed for a limited time, not longer than 6 months

3

as I thought, knowing my work ethic I would still be able to do my consultancy work in the evening and had some savings as well as husband, who was furious at that time.

As soon as I said yes, troubles began. Instead of paying me from UKIP sources as agreed, Batten put my name on his EU Parliament expenses payroll, which was illegal. I have never worked for EU Parliament, was not doing EU work but was working solely for UKIP. I also did not know depth of the Batten-Farage rift. Since I was close to Nigel, I knew he did not like Batten, called him “fucking BT salesman”, racist prat but was not aware that Batten had obsessive hatred of Nigel and just of everyone else. Nigel told me that Batten had some strange views that needed to be monitored and corrected but never warned me that Batten is obsessive racist with unfathomable hatred of everyone else but Anglo-Saxons that he firmly believed to he was.

Soon after, on 24 November 2010 Batten made strange request to me. He told me in details how Nigel is employing his wife, has a mistress, his press officer Annabelle Fuller and asked me to place that story in the press. I refused, mainly as I was never a type of person who prayed into others’ bedrooms, and frankly could not care less who is Nigel bedding. At that point Batten’s false ‘let me look polite mask’ slipped and he turned into monster, calling me stupid Slav bitch who is good for nothing. I immediately called Nigel and Steve Crowther, who were both furious. Nigel threatened to sue Batten. I agreed to have a sit down with Gawain Towler, at that time UKIP Chief Press Officer at Starbucks on Victoria Street that same afternoon, to try to hash out details how to continue working for UKIP press office and tightly controlling completely unmanageable Batten. I told Gawain that I noticed that Batten has in his always paranoidly locked office just three books, Mein Kampf, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Quran and lot of small black/red coloured booklets that he kept sending out by himself. Gawain told me that Batten is extremist, obsessed with Islam, Jews, conspiracy theories, Russians and Nigel, who does do any work but creates constant problems, that will eventually be exposed and could destroy UKIP, and the main reason Nigel wanted me there was to stop Batten in his extremism and try preventing his activities, as well as activities of some other UKIP MEPs being exposed in the press.

I told Towler, I was not happy doing it but as I promised Nigel will give my best shot. Towler told me how much Nigel was asking me to handle forthcoming Telegraph MEPs expenses story, that was ongoing and was eventually published mid December. Telegraph was collecting all data how much each British MEP costs UK taxpayer, and what was being done with those expenses and allowances. I still remember Nigel’s panicking calls, how Telegraph will discover ‘everything’! I kept asking what is everything? Nigel kept saying, everything UKIP MEPs are doing. Naturally, I asked what? Nigel was initially very cagey about it but then ordered all UKIP MEPs at that time to tell me everything they are doing wrong.

Naturally I started with Nigel Farage but he told me that he was constantly under OLAF (EU Fraud Office Department) investigation. His explanation was that everybody hates him as he is not paying anything, his office was donated, his staff were all just regional organisers (3 of them including Ray Finch, now MEP) who work for UKIP not EU Parliament and that was he was ‘repatriating money to UK’ to

4

leave EU. Nigel employed his wife to open his emails as he cannot use computers £30,000 a year. When I tried to raise the question that it was illegal to do it, that it is fraud to pay party staff from public purse, Nigel’s explanation was that he ‘gave up’ lucrative career in the City (which turned out to be lie, as he was sacked from City and jobless when elected) and therefore he was pocketing all expenses and allowances to make up the shortfall and that his other MEPs are doing much worse things and it was ‘fault of Nikki Sinclaire (at that time Nikki was Independent MEP and Nigel’s alleged enemy as she has left his EFD Group, that Nigel formed with Italian fascists Lega Norda as she did not want to sit with known fascists) who was always calling journalists just because she has ‘her accounts audited and is bitter’.

Then other MEPs started calling me on Nigel’s orders to tell me what they have done wrong:

Paul Nuttall did not have a properly functioning constituency office but was paying regional organisers (again UKIP staff). Nuttal also didn’t go to Strasbourg or Brussels but in Brussels his mistress Kamila Zarychta, who had good contacts in payment office was signing him to collect allowances. Fraud.

Trevor Coleman, UKIP MEP for South West along with William Dartmouth did not have their offices but their office expenses were used to pay for UKIP Headquarters in Lexdrum House, Newton Abbott and staff there including UKIP Chairman Steve Crowther and UKIP Party Director Lisa Duffy. FRAUD.

William Dartmouth on top of all other expenses and allowances he was collecting, also abused his MEP status to speed up receipt of his renewable energy EU subsidy for wind farms that were erected on his property. FRAUD and ABUSE OF OFFICE

Stuart Agnew was helping Lord Pearson (Malcolm Pearson) to run unincorporated Global Britain that was collecting illegal donations for UKIP. In addition, Agnew was already caught on secret Sunday Times recording that he and David Campbell Bannerman were illegally employing Peter Reeve (live-in partner of Lisa Duffy) as

UKIP Regional Organiser and instead of paying it from UKIP, both were like all UKIP MEPs abusing EU MEPs’ ‘assistants’ expenses to abuse taxpayers money to pay for UKIP staff and all MEP offices were UKIP offices, where constituents had no access. All literature was also UKIP literature, which again was not paid by UKIP but EU aka taxpayers funded. Agnew also abused his MEP status to fast track receipt of his maximum farming subsidies as Agnew was prior to becoming UKIP MEP, a farmer.

David Campbell Bannerman, UKIP MEP for East who later defected to

Conservatives, was using his own home in Cambridge as his ‘constituency office’ and was renting his constituency office from himself, had done extensive renovations on his house, using office expenses budget.

Marta Andreassen, UKIP MEP for South East did not even have UK based office as she never lived in UK and only became UKIP MEP after Nigel Farage demanded it. In order for her to become UK MEP she had to have lived in UK and be on electoral register. Marta always lived in Barcelona, Spain and was fraudulently recorded as

5

‘living at Malcolm Person’s flat in Central London’ so she could become UKIP MEP as Nigel wanted, which was fraud form the start.

Godfrey Bloom, Yorkshire and Humberside UKIP MEP used his own home as ‘Constituency Office’ and was using office expenses to pay his mortgage. All of Godfrey’s EU paid staff actually worked for Godfrey’s personal, private businesses. Emma Lund, Bloom’s Victoria Skowarnek, TBO Investments (Bloom’s private company) director David were all paid from EU Parliament expenses while exclusively working for TBO Investments. Jane Collins (now UKIP MEP) was employed as UKIP Regional organiser and actually worked for Bloom’s wife Katrina at her horse stables. FRAUD on unimaginable scale.

Gerard Batten admitted that on 17 October 2008 he travelled with Magnus Nielsen

(UKIP London member, also known extremist) instead to Brussels’s European Parliament to First CounterJihad Conference (extremist anti-Muslim conference) and claimed fraudulently for the trip from the European Parliament, submitting falsely that trip as a Parliamentary business and listing Magnus Nielsen, who does not even have a driving licence as a driver. In addition, Batten admitted that office which was UKIP London office is submitted to EU Parliament and they are paying for it as his constituency office, despite it being solely used as UKIP office. Batten further admitted that Lawrence Webb, UKIP London Regional Secretary is on EU staff payroll and has been since 2004, when Batten was first elected, on £45,000 p/a salary. Batten also gave me his insurance policy for his personal car Green Ford Escort that he bought using EU Parliament expenses at Ford Dagenham shop second hand for around £4200 and was using EU expenses to regularly pay his vehicle insurance. Batten admitted to employ two more people, Kamila Zarychta in Brussels where he never goes, where Batten was paying her half of her salary £45,000 p/a while the other half was paid by UKIP Wales MEP John Bufton, also £45,000 p/a (who at that time suffered stroke and was not working at all but was collecting full salary, expenses and allowances) as Kamila was very ‘useful to him’ because ‘she was signing Batten in Brussels where he was not going to get his allowances and was giving him daily reports on all Nigel’s activities in Brussels. He also bought two 50” Samsung televisions using EU expenses, one for his home, other for UKIP London office. Batten also said he is ‘employing’ one student to help him finish allegedly his law degree (later I found out that to be Batten’ friend Pavel Stroilov who did not speak English language to be able to study at the University level). Batten told me that ‘student’ is giving him back half of his £2000 payment as Batten claimed to face financial difficulties.

Mike Nattrass, UKIP MEP for West Midlands at the time, Nigel told me will not be contacting me as Mike was very rich man and did not need to claim any expenses but was donating to UKIP, while Derek Clark, was too old, too confused and already under OLAF Fraud investigation for paying UKIP regional organisers (and was found guilty and ordered to repay £31,000 – strangely case of large fraud was not referred to the police).

Batten at the very end of ‘confessions of almost all UKIP MEPs’ also left on my desk invoice from his brother Harold dated in 2009. Initially as Harold called UKIP London office almost every day, always asking to talk to Lawrence Webb and discussing UKIP leaflets and brochures I thought that he was just a member. After I

6

was finally given the invoice, Batten reluctantly admitted that his brother is working for him too, at the rate of £2500 per month plus invoices that he submitted for design and printing of UKIP flyers, leaflets, headed papers, brochures and promotional materials.

I was absolutely shocked and furious about fraud admitted. Although Telegraph never called and put only in the article salaries and attendances, I was fuming and confronted Nigel Farage that fraud is not acceptable, is a serious crime and that UKIP is actually engaging in almost industrial scale fraud where almost every single MEP was involved. Nigel told me and stupidly I semi-believed him that confronting his MEPs will mean that they would no longer do it and maybe start repaying money they were stealing.

At the beginning of December 2010 Batten told me that he put my name too on EU expenses list and that I will not be paid until mid January. I was beyond furious, as I was told UKIP would be paying that small sum and it was only temporary not 3 months followed by further three months of contract. On 02 December Batten called me in his office which was always locked and started aplogising for not paying for my parking (in his first email he said he would pay for my parking) and then in the office on the first day he said that he would pay for my parking and petrol expenses and gave me £500. I reluctantly took it as by that time I have already spent more than that and there was no accounting attached to it. I demanded accounting, being finance person I was always vary of any round sums not followed by paperwork. At the same time Batten gave me his brochure “UKIP Immigration – Action Overdue’ and showed me last page of what he called perfectly reasonable Affirmation for Muslim Charter. Just few days later that I dragged Batten to prime media event when Julian Assange was arrested and was to be extradited to Sweden on European Arrest Warrant on 07 December 2010. That day alone Batten, who previously could not get even column inch anywhere had 13 live television interviews and some seven days later further 8. He was on every national and international TV station from BBC to Hong Kong TV to CNN. Only SkyNews refused to interview him as their reporter said he doesn’t interview racists. While I was busy getting Batten interviews, (next day Batten was over the Moon, and the same evening he took me to his home to meet his wife as he was extremely happy to get media attention and see his face on TV), Batten was with

Pavel Stroilov who appeared in front of old Horsfrey Magistrates Court just of Westminster. I met Stroilov for a minute after overhearing him from the media quarters openly and loudly saying how ‘Arabs are dirty and should be removed’ while all World media was present, including many journalists from Arabic countries. I quickly approached Batten to ask him who is that strange person (Stroilov was dressed in back cape and cylinder) and Batten introduced me where Stroilov spoke some sort of barely there, broken English. Batten said that Stroiov is that student he was helping, his friend who he was helping. I told Batten that it is better that his friend stays completely quiet as journalists were in the gathering in front of him and could hear them, which would be media disaster. Only Dutch journalist overheard them and asked me how can I work for such seedy character. I never saw Stroilov again until I took batten to Employment Tribunal and Stroilov submitted some witness statement, written in English saying how Stroilov is famous Russian dissident who stole 50,000 KGB files in 2004 from Russia and brought them all to UK (which

7

is impossible as KGB did not exist after 1990 and how would any person bring that many files with them as they were never stored on computers but were in paper form).

When Christmas finally came I was already desperate to get myself out that awful situation. I was miserable, read Batten’s booklet which was even more racist than Mein Kampf, in my opinion. I became anxious, with stomach pains, could not relax and developed severe allergy that I had to treat with steroid tablets as nervous rash was all over my body. After Christmas Holiday I had huge problems going to UKIP London office, as when I would leave my for work, I would get stomach cramps, headache, vomits and could not drive. My marriage also started to suffer as I was moody and constantly on edge, unable to sleep and impossible short tempered, and all I kept saying was when I would come home after long drive from Ilford to Maida Vale everyday was ‘You would not believe what they did today”. It was worse than working in mental institution (and I know as a medical student I did my practice there) as in mental institution treatment was given and there was no perpetual criminal behavior.

Early part of January I was almost every day sick, vomiting, with patchy dry rash all over my body that even steroid tablets prescribed by dr Kotowski did not fully cure as I was in constant state of stress. After I confronted Batten few times over his UKIP Immigration booklet, telling him it was worst piece of racist rubbish, Batten turned on me calling me rude names, saying how I should behave like English, suggesting I change my name to ‘Bostock’ as my surname sounded Turkish to him and he really didn’t like Muslims. He also started talking about my husband, saying how he had ‘hook giant Jewish nose’ and must be Jew, how my husband at that time must be Jewish, was part of some Bilderberg Group (that I did not even hear about before), how I must be rich as ‘each Bilderberger gets £1 million when joining’ and how I should really give half of my salary (that I did not even receive at that point) to Kamila, as she was ‘nice Catholic girl’ who needs money. At mid January I did not receive any payment into my account at all, except odd £500 Batten gave me to cover all petrol and parking costs. Later on, when Batten made up false, malicious criminal allegations, Batten lied as he did in the Crown Court how I asked him for some loan as I was, according to him, in a desperate financial situations, where my then husband was not giving me money, which is notorious and easily disprovable lie. I had in my account over £3700 and payments were coming from Dragomir Mikulic, my then husband. Furthermore, there was an email Batten sent me on 04 November 2010 (Batten lied I started working on 01 November 2010) saying that I will be coming to office on Monday, 08th of November 2010, and he would pay for my parking costs.

Once there he agreed to pay all my parking and petrol costs, as reasonable expenses due to extreme mileage coming to his UKIP London based office in Ilford from Maida Vale, W10. On top of it, despite his ‘public polite self restrained appearances’, real Gerard Batten had the worst habits, using East End insults, terrible bodily functions and constant requests to accompany him to the builders café where he would have English breakfast with tea and terrible table manners, which are my pet peeves.

Mid January I was still not paid and I asked Lawrence Webb what time in months and how frequent he gets paid. Lawrence told me his salary always comes by the 15th of each month and it was strange that my payment did not come. He immediately started blaming Kamila Zarychta, saying she had a habit of stealing and that invoice

8

Batten was submitting (I have never submitted invoice nor would I know how, Batten was creating invoices and submitting them through someone called Roger Webb, that I never met nor had any communication with him).

At that point I already had enough of UKIP nonsense and decided to stay at home, to continue my normal life that was not making me that sick, on edge, insulted, nervous, with all possible side – effects including grinding my teeth to the very bottom (my dentist can confirm it as he tried rebuilding them later), and countless sleepless nights. Batten was anyway that week in Strasbourg (he would attend once a month Strasbourg Parliament but never Brussels Parliament).

On Wednesday, 19 January 2011 Steve Crowther, UKIP Chairman called me on my mobile to ask me to cover for UKIP Chief Press Officer Gawain Towler, who was going away for three weeks to Australia to bring his wife to the country. I told Crowther that I had enough of all UKIP thing, that it was destroying me mentally, making me very sick, destroying my relationship (my husband was getting very angry why was I doing it to myself and our family, bringing all stress and dysfunction to home, while wasting money to get myself ill, instead of staying home, doing my consultancy work, making money and being happy go lucky person I was before). Crowther was insisting to stay at least until Towler comes back as nobody could cover for him. I said to Crowter it was out of the question as on top of all stress and all problems Batten was constantly creating, I was not paid at all, except odd £500 he gave me for petrol and parking expenses, that could not even cover a week and a half.

Crowther got really upset, repeating why was I not paid and saying whatever cock up

Batten made, he must pay me. On Friday, 21 January 2011 Batten called me, around 4 pm asking manically ‘What is your account number?” I asked him “Why?” and he kept saying he was in the Barclays bank in Ilford and Crowther told him to pay me. I gave Batten my account number. (Phone records exist). Batten called me once again asking me to check whether I received money in my bank account. I confirmed yes, I did and then he told me that he is in huge trouble with Crowther and if I could please come back to UKIP London office on Monday. Reluctantly I said I would. That Monday Batten asked Kamila Zarychta to check why was I not paid and Kamila initially that Monday at 12.09 faxed me first alleged ‘proof of the payment from the payment office’ followed by second alleged ‘proof of the payment from the same payment office’, emailed at 15:22. I immediately noticed, having dealt with proofs of the payments for considerable part of my working life, that those two proofs of alleged payments were different. They both contained same sum of £2500 and were containing my name but invoice numbers and dates of payments were completely different. I emailed Zarychta that same day 16:20 asking her what was she sending me and why those documents have different dates and numbers. She pretended not to know what I was asking and instead of reply she wrote that she will call me back later, which she didn’t. (These emails and fax proofs somehow ended up in my deleted email folder and could not have been found for the trial to show Zarychta’s manipulation). One of the documents show that payments was for a single day of work dated from 01/12/2010 to 01/12/2010. I submitted these as well as ‘email source showing Zarycha sent them to Criminal Case Review Commission as a new evidence previously not available in January 2016 upon obtaining new computer, after police took my computer and recovering those deleted files.

9

Batten then asked me to provide him with the bank statement. At that time, as I am doing to this day, I was solely using Internet Banking as opposed to old style postal statement banking. At my home I did not have any personal bank statements, as due to the nature of my business, I had to keep all invoices, all proofs of payments and all bank statements for 20 years and living in 2 bedroom flat, full of business files dating back some of them with important legal documents, to 1993, I simply did not have a space to keep my personal banking statements, and was shredding them. Only banking statements present in my home were my business bank statements, my husband statements for his business and few statements for my underage son’s from his Child account. In the morning of 25th I was asked to provide my personal bank statement, which I did. I logged and subsequent police forensic examination shows, to my NatWest bank at 08:11:01, copied and pasted (my printer was printing Internet pages in two parts, not full Internet page) it on word document at 08:11:02, saved and printed it. All done within one second and therefore impossible to change anything. On witness stand DS Reardon confirmed that same timeline, added that data came from secure NatWest Internet banking and was true refection of what was on the screen.

For explanation purposes, as Crown was suggesting I altered something, it would have meant that I either breached tight Internet banking security and altered statement there, which would take even to expert hacker considerable time, let alone to me who would not even know how do it or that I altered, picture that was copied and pasted using some photo altering programme, which again would take me lot of time and nobody in the World could have done it in one (1) second, which is the time it took me to copy, paste, save and print that not altered document. It is simply not reasonable nor feasible to suggest that any person in the World, even Bill Gates himself could have performed that operation in that one second. Furthermore, DS Reardon on stand repeatedly said during his sworn testimony on 16 July that documents were identical and data originated from NatWest Internet Banking site. At 08:23 I scanned the printout in pdf form, again identical as I had a long habit to send all important documents in business in pdf form and emailed pdf to Batten and Kamila Zarychta. Kamila Zarychta did not open that email until 06 December 2011, at 17:36:36 some 8 days after I was arrested, when I was supposed to have police interview scheduled for 07 December 2011, and when I received on my Blackberry that was not seized by the police, notification of read email. Some five minutes later, after 17:36:36, Galvin called me to say he was moving interview to 09 December 2011. Later on in CPS disclosure that same email appeared under James Galvin heading and is now subject of IPCC upheld DPS criminal investigation against James Galvin.

The other lie Batten presented to Court was that I was some researcher, secretary or something like that on some trial period to see ‘what skills I had’. I was never researcher and I never researched anything for any UKIP MEP or UKIP itself, as I was falsely represented. I was UKIP press officer based on my journalistic background, where Nigel Farage asked me to help UKIP post General Election 2010, where I, as opposed to other UKIP candidates had all positive media coverage, was in media and was stopping UKIP’s candidates’ media stupidities (monitoring buffoonery of Paul Wiffen and few other UKIP candidates as well as coaching some of them).

10

Nigel specifically asked me to monitor Batten and help him get any positive media coverage and stop him making ‘comments that could sink UKIP’. I failed miserably in that role as Batten’s is simply impossible to work with, paranoid, obsessed with hatred and impossible to reason with, which was subsequently been proven in media from his various persistent racism to explicit threats to journalists who even attempted to uncover his massive fraud.

I had a huge disagreements with Batten his racist’s idiocy with UKIP Immigration – Action Overdue, Muslim Charter and final breaking point came after he tricked me to attend the meeting with bunch of Christian Concern, BNP, EDL extremists on false pretences that he wanted me to meet “his friend who was also refugee’ who turned out to be notorious anti-Muslim hate preacher Sam Solomon, which happened after legitimate pre-arranged meeting I organised with Julian Assange’s lawyer at that time, Mark Stephens on 10 February 2011 (emails and written evidence exists). As soon as I left that horrible and exceptionally nasty meeting (I have evidence in the form of both Batten’s handwritten proposal, two subsequent emails acknowledging meeting, with typed proposals), trembling, shaking furious, for the first time in my life experiencing heart palpitations, I headed to Oxford Circus tube (meeting was at Christian Concern offices at 70 Wimpole Street), Batten was following talking some rubbish to his only journalistic contact Anil Dawar, from UKIP supporting Express newspapers, took a tube straight to Maida Vale, and as soon as I emerged from the Underground called Nigel Farage screaming at him in anger, telling him that Batten took me to extremist meeting with BNP, EDL, Christian extremists, how he wanted to expand his Muslim Charter to include Jews, how EDL’s leader Tommy Robinson was on Sam Solomon’s phone giving his suggestions, and I had enough of all of it. (proof of the phone call exists). I yelled at Nigel that I had enough of racism, seedy characters, fraud, all UKIP shenanigans. Nigel tried calming me down, saying how he will punish Batten, but at point I was beyond furious and after Nigel kept telling me to calm down, to come to work at UKIP Main Office where he is based at 32 Smith’s Square (Old Tory Party Headquarters), I kept telling Nigel that I am need to think about only if he firmly promises to kick Batten out, stamp hard on all racism and sort out fraud issue. I kept telling him “You have one month to do it, just one month or Nigel, I am walking out and talking about everything. I had enough, this is not what I joined UKIP for’. Nigel promised to do it within a month. I became again too sick, with unbelievable headaches, vomiting, palpitations and extreme weakness.

I flatly refused to return to UKIP London office in Ilford and was keeping any communication with Batten to bare minimum. I worked for UKIP main office, for Nigel Farage andfor example, organied Nigel’s Mumsnet appearance, disproving Batten’s lies in Court that there was no fall out. Only communication with Batten was mainly about missing payment, as I raised the question after I received payment in February directly with European payments office, asking whether that was missing payment for November. Batten kept calling me, it took me all restrain I had left in me to keep any resemblance of polite manners, mainly about payment issue. He kept asking me to go to the branch of my bank to check if the payment has come. I kept telling him that branches do not deal with international payments, that I had dealing with NatWest and International payments for a long time and that there is a International payment center NatWest has, that I called as it happened before that international payments would not get credited immediately, to ask them if they were

11

holding it, where their response was that payment has not arrived at all. Batten insisted that I visit a branch which I did on three separate occasions Swiss Cottage and once Miada Vale branch. just to get him off my back and each time I was shown screen of my account, explained, like to idiot, that it is same as on my Internet banking that they had a record I was using and kept telling me to call International Payment Centre. In March I received BACS proof of the payment from British branch of HSBC to NatWest (BACS is Banking Association Clearing System that only applies to internal payments between British based account i.e if I was to send a payment to my son’s bank account it would be done via BACS or CHAPS and only applies to domestic and not to international payments). I kept asking for SWIFT (The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), which is International Banking payment transfer proof to challenge NatWest if they held the payment.

I never received full SWIFT with message from the sending bank, date and time of transfer, details of the bank sending payment, corresponding bank confirmation of receipt of that particular payment, with date and time of receipt and transfer with date and time from corresponding bank to my IBAN number and SWIFT code of NatWest bank. During his testimony DS Reardon claimed that BACS and SWIFT are same, which are not and simple Google search would show that BACS is domestic while SWIFT is International and this was the case of International payment.

Other than payment matters, and then mainly with EU Parliament payments office I did not have communication with Batten and was avoiding him like a plague. At the beginning of March 2011, Lawrence Webb phoned to tell me that Nick Lowles of Searchlight magazine (magazine exposing fascist and racists) keeps calling UKIP

London office trying to talk to Batten about his links to as then known deputy EDL

Leader Alan Lake aka Alan Ayling. Lawrence asked me to help Batten, and I told Lawrence that I could not care less, and if Batten gets exposed it is good, as someone had to expose that racist creep. After that Batten kept calling me with incredible personal insults, (Muslim lover, dirty stupid Slav, Jewish whore, traitor who should be tried for treason to this country, how I am never going to be English, how he will have me deported and similar type of insults). Article about Batten appeared mid March in Searchlight (copy exists) where Batten’s links to anti-Muslim preacher Sam Solomon and Alan Lake, where they had a lunch at Liverpool Street station.

Batten asked me to issue statement on his behalf, which I refused and instead of writing any cover up for Batten’s racism and incitement of racial and religious hatred, I called my local police team Harrow Ward Safer Neighbourhood Team and reported

Batten for the crime of inciting racial and religious hatred under s 5 of the Public Order Act. I gave Police Officer who attended (slim man, of Asian origin) “Charter of Muslim Understanding’, explained meaning of it where Batten is asking entire British Muslim Community to reject their Holy Book Quran and instead pledge allegiance to him, in the form of Code of Conduct that he was sending to the individuals that he thought were of Muslim name on the Electoral Register as well as to many organisations representing that religious community. In addition I highlighted from his UKIP Immigration – Action Overdue many racist statements – racial superiority of Anglo-Saxons race, statements how East London looks like

Bangalore, Bangladesh and Somalia, how Eastern European are criminals who control crime in London and again blatant attacks on the Muslim community. I also submitted

12

his hand written proposal for Dismantling Multiculturalism, his typed up proposal that is both racist against Muslim and Jewish communities, as well as Binding Code of Conduct for Muslims and Jews that he was planning to send. Copy of Binding Code of Conduct Gerard Batten sent to my ex-husband Dragomir Mikulic to sign as a Jew, obsession with Jewish Bilderberg Conspiracy as confirmed by Michael Whine, Director of Security for CST and Board of Deputies. I supplied emails as well as a proof that such meeting indeed took place, who were participants, asked police to check Sam Solomon’s mobile number to prove that EDL Leader Tommy Robinson was participant in the meeting despite of his records of inciting racial and religious hatred and violence against police. I also submitted Batten’s interview he gave to Asian journalist where he was categorically stating that Muslims live in the 6th century and Islam reformer was known leading terrorist Bin Laden. Finally I gave police email Batten sent me praising known European fascist Geert Wilders, stating that during meeting on 10 February I was asked to commit offence against National Security and somehow bring Wilders in the country despite explicit ban on entry for

Geert Wilders issued by Home Secretary on the account of danger to National Security. I gave police short statement highlighting additional verbal statements Batten was regularly saying as well as offensive names he kept calling me.

Gawain Towler wrote silly statement on Batten’s behalf saying how Batten was meeting all his constituents and basically lying on Batten’s behalf. Batten then decided it to send it to me. (copy of the email exists as well as Towler’s statement on Batten’s behalf trying to portray it as a lunch with constituent).

On Tuesday, 22 March 2011 my son was robbed at knifepoint in front of my home, naturally affecting me badly in already dreadful situation. Police attended, looked at CCTV but never caught the culprit. Few days later I called Nigel to ask him what was going on with his promise to kick Batten out as he was still there, still pestering me, with other racist incidents, as well how he was getting on with eradicating fraud and repayment of stolen taxpayers money by UKIP MEP’s. Nigel told me it was best not to talk about it on the phone but to meet him at Chiswick Memorial Club, at Bourne Place in Chiswick, London where he was to hold a meeting on 31 March 2011.

I arrived late and once Nigel finished giving his speech (photos on my Blackberry exist), we went downstairs alone to have a conversation and cigarette. Nigel immediately started complaining that his back was hurting him badly, post his plane accident, and was stretching. I told him to see orthopedic and maybe take up swimming. Then I asked he what was going with our deal? Batten was despite his promises still there, was still making horrific racist statements, fraud was going unabated and despite his firm promise nothing has changed. Instead of answering my question, Nigel suddenly asked me ‘As you are in finance normally, what do think if journalists and snoopers would find bank account I opened in Cayman Islands?’ I was taken a back and said to him ‘You did what?’ He said Steven Woolfe (now MEP naturally) advised him and opened accounts in Cayman Islands where Woolfe was based at that time but his main worry was if those bank accounts would be found if journalists start snooping around his finances, especially as he put lot of his money there and Woolfe opened account as Farage Ltd and Thorn in the Side Ltd. I was shocked and furious and told him that hiding money is offshore accounts is really bad

13

idea, that Cayman Islands also have to adhere to International Money Laundering Agreement and that anybody with financial background would find those accounts easily. I simply can’t believe you were doing it and being so stupid. (Later on Times discovered both of his Cayman Island accounts and published it in 2014).

I pressed Nigel further on my demands, and his response was “Batten was only with any budget left in his EU expenses, and since you can’t agree to work with Batten, I can’t find any way to pay for you, nor can I loose Batten as I would lose the Group in the European Parliament’. I turned to Nigel very close to him and told him that basically he lied and his word means nothing. As I was leaving Nigel, I furiously turned to him and said unlike you I keep my word and I will be walking out and talking about everything that I witnessed and will report all crimes I witnessed and was told about.

Then I jumped in my car and drove off, coming home furious that I have been played so badly by the bunch of racist criminals, constantly saying to my then husband who already had enough of me and UKIP, how I made biggest mistake of my life. My ex husband, was furious with me telling me that at that rate I will be suffering nervous breakdown, how I already destroyed relationship with him and now will hurt my son. He suggested that I urgently need holiday, both my knifepoint robbery shaken and terrified son and I who was impossible to live with. He suggested holiday in the Sun and I booked immediately Barbados resort for 11 April 2011. In April 2011 my salary again went missing and raised that question with EU Payments office Mr Van Hearren, in quite rude, very unusual for me, email, bypassing Batten as I was refusing to talk to him. February salary that was coming for April instead of 11 April 2011, appeared on 14 April 2011 and that morning I left for Barbados. (I have a copy of the booking and time of holiday as a proof). During 9.5 hours flight to Barbados, as soon as I landed and was in a long queue for immigration that lasted almost two hours as soon as I took out my phone I had 14 missed calls and messages from Batten, to call him back. I did as soon as I cleared immigration and customs and asked him rudely what was going on for him to call me 14 times, what was so urgent as I was on the long plane flight. He said nothing important, enjoy your holiday sarcastically, we can talk when you come back. Next morning at 4 am my mobile phone rang and it was Batten again. I asked him what was going on, why is he calling me at that hour, and again he stated, “Nothing, we can talk when you come back”. Following morning he repeated it, 4 am call, same response. At that point I started switching off the phone during the night as he kept calling every morning. I came home on Friday, 22 April 2011, and after catching some sleep with flight that lasted instead of usual 9.5 hours, 13.5 hours as we had to wait on the plane on runway for 4 hours for our language to be loaded and could not sleep on the plane as my son and I ended up in the tight area at the back of the plane where I could not stretch, sitting next to huge man. I called Batten in the evening asking him what was the fuss with all those calls? He again repeated no fuss, enjoy your Bank Holiday, nothing is happening we can talk some other time. During his harassment, just to prove contrary to Batten’s lies in Crown Court, our relationship was at such a level that I sent him text “I am on holiday and will deal with you when I came back” (Message is saved and exists).

On Easter Monday, 25 April 2011, after I came from Barbados on Friday and yet again 4 am wake up call from Gerard. Jump asking what it is. Says ‘No big issue.

14

Enjoy your holiday. Speak tomorrow.’ Crazy, just messing with my head. Can’t calm down whole day.

I did not speak to Batten again, and on Tuesday 27 April 2011, I receive a phone call from my bank informing me that some man named Gerard Batten called them and asked if I was doing Christmas shopping in Harrods. Bank told me that obviously they could not divulge any information to him and that I should speak to that man. I texted then Annabelle Fuller, Nigel Farage’s press officer to tell her what was happening (texts exists). All my stress that somewhat disappeared during the holiday started coming back, as soon as I heard his voice.

On 29 April, Friday it was bank holiday due to Royal Wedding and next day my torturous contract with UKIP came to end, giving me huge relief.

At the beginning of May 2011 my marriage broke down due to my actions and behaviour while in UKIP and my husband found solace with someone else. We separated amicably in May and began divorce proceedings.

In May 2011 I submitted detailed, documented fraud report against all UKIP MEPs except Mike Nattrass, their admissions, documents proving thefts, payments to UKIP regional organisers, payments for UKIP offices, mortgage payments for Bloom’s house, employment of family members, fake employees, Harold Batten where money was split, paying with EU staff expenses employees in MEPs private companies, (Gerard’s brother’s inflated invoices), purchase of the car and insurance of the car, Marta Andreassen’s residency status, Cayman Island’s offshore accounts, priority farming and wind mills subsidies, as well as role of UKIP’s employee in Brussels Kamila Zarychta who through her contacts in EU payment office was illegally signing in her ex boyfriend Paul Nuttall, John Bufton who suffered stroke and Gerard Batten, where none of them were ever appearing in Brussels and were collecting daily sustenance allowances.

I also reported Paul Wiffen after seeing on his laptop (after Annabelle Fuller told me) in the editing suite two disturbing child pornography images (one of young maybe 2 years old blonde girl with huge blue eyes naked where hairy male hand is fondling in the area where her breasts would be, and small baby, black skinned where same hairy male hand was touching his genitals)

On 31 May 2011 in the evening I suffered severe palpitations and next morning around 7 am I suffered severe heart attack where my troponin levels reached 4.7. I never had any heart issues, did not have any risk factors (no cholesterol, no triglycerides, no family history), fit and healthy and only 39 years old. Only previous instance where I suffered palpitations was after meeting at the Christian Concern on 10 February 2011 as I was trembling, furious and shouting on the phone (phone records exist) to Nigel Farage about latest and for me last idiocy Batten did, which is when I stopped going to Batten’s office and was refusing to help Batten with anything, keeping all conversation to the bare minimum and for my usual behaviour, quite rude. (Texts and emails exist).

15

After heart attack Annabelle called me every day to ask how I was (while Batten was busy hacking in my Facebook saying how my heart attack was caused by my Resident’s Association and not him, which is the way my son and my step children found out I had heart attack as I was still in hospital attached to oxygen, measuring devices and receiving urgent medications to stabilise my heart. He went as far as sifting through people on my Facebook friends list and in really bad colloquial, Serbo-Croat sent to three acquaintances, not friends, how I suffered bad heart attack, how I am feeling bad, alarming those people to ask me why am I contacting them to discuss my health issues and why am I using that regional accent that did not belong to the area where I was born and which I used). Fuller even visited me at my home after she was trying to arrange lunch as I was still too unwell to attend.

Few days later she convinced me to start Employment proceedings against Batten, guided me how to fill the forms, telling me which forms to use (texts and emails exist) and even forcing Steve Crowther to tell Batten to quickly settle the case for the suffering he caused me.

Annabelle called me on 09 June 2011, in the morning to ask me how am I, and then she asked if I watched the news. I told her I read BBC teletext as I do every morning until this day, as I don’t have a patience to watch badly edited and presented news, as a former news editor. She asked me if I seen Tory MP was arrested and I replied I did, it was the very first news on teletext. Then she asked me do I know who is that MP. I replied, No I don’t know. She told me Andrew Bridgen (name that did not mean anything to me despite the fact I was for considerable time in the Conservative Party, as I did not know every backbencher). She told me ‘I have his phone’, which I took to mean that she had his phone number, not an actual phone device. Then we talked about her forthcoming Ascot Ladies Day attendance and she was asking for my fashion advice. She told me that she planned to wear white dress and was not sure whether to pair it with red hat or white. I told her that red hat would clash with white badly and that white hat has to have some pastel colours otherwise she would look like a bride. (Police has a record of that call, and as they were searching for the records of calls between Annabelle and I, they found two phone calls she made to Nigel Farage from Bridgen’s bathroom before she fled stealing his House of Commons issued Blackberry and HoC pass).

On 15 June she attended Ascot and sent me photo, calling me to say how right I was and how everybody was complementing her on her looks.

All that time Fuller behaved her usual self, completely normal, cheerful. On 27 June we chatted on Facebook, (I am attaching that chat) she was in Morocco, when she told me how miserable she was preoccupied with some things and sent me link to Mirror interview she gave. In that interview she told how she was the one assaulted sexually by same Andrew Bridgen, how she was broken woman, unable to leave her home, without her parents, like a scared child, how her life was destroyed. My initial reaction was ‘Are you OK? How are you feeling? OMG’ Couple of minutes later it downed on me. All this time when she claimed she was miserable, depressed, unable to leave her home, she was in touch with me, was behaving normally, was cheerful, went to Ascot without her parents, never said a thing. I immediately called her and asked what on Earth happened, I was in touch with you regularly (texts, emails and calls exist) and you never said a word except the name of Tory MP who was arrested.

16

I asked her, ‘Annabelle what happened?’ She replied ‘Nothing happened’. What do you mean nothing? Her replied shocked me to the core. She said she was out, drinking and smoking in front of pub in Westminster, met Bridgen and his advisor (later it turned out it was Edward Green, Civil Servant not adviser), they ran out of cigarettes, jumped in the cab together, went to petrol station to buy cigarettes and cab dropped them off at Trafalgar Square. There she told she asked Bridgen to use his bathroom, and all three of them went to his flat in Admiralty Arch. She went to bathroom while Green and Bridgen went to have a glass of wine and cigarette on the balcony. As she left the bathroom she saw Bridgen’s phone and House of Commons pass on his bed, took it and ran out. As she was running away she slipped and hit her head on the glass door, alerting building security. Guard approached asking her what was she doing in the building and she told him she was in Bridgen’s flat and was attacked there, almost raped.

Throughout conversation I kept asking her did he touch you, did he attack you? And she kept saying No, but I had to say something to the little fucker, I am not gonna go down over his phone, is he flipping? Then she became excited saying ‘Oh, you should see what gems I found there. Messages from Cameron! I am going to download it, we will use it, it is brilliant. I kept asking her few more times if he attacked her (meaning Bridgen) and she kept saying NO, NO, are you mad? I had to say something to little fucker to get him of my back.

I was shocked that anyone in the World would be capable to do such a thing and told her ‘Are you fucking crazy? How can you accuse someone of that?’ which is unusual for me to use swear words. I put the phone down completely shocked.

Several days later, I am not quite sure either on 07 or 08 July 2011 (I remember couple of days before my son’s birthday 10 July) I reported it, to my local police who came to my home to take her photo, her FB messages and my brief statement.

On 06 October, after trying to postpone hearings and responses, Batten somehow managed to arrange CMD at the Employment tribunal. I was not even informed and by pure accident I called Tribunal on 05th to ask when the Hearing would happen, only to be told that I was having hearing next day. At that time I had barrister representing me and Batten appeared with Paul Diamond (notorious racist too, Google him) and his chief witness Pavel Stroilov, man I met only once for a minute in front of old Horsfrey Magistrates Court, where Assange proceedings were happening. I barely recognised him as he was not in his usual cape and cylinder but in suit. Only when Diamond said that was Batten’s chief witness ‘Russian dissident’ Pavel Stroilov, I began wondering what can he testify to, if I only met him once for a minute to stop him and Batten mumbling about ‘dirty Arabs’. Presiding Judge was Linda Goldman, who later on turned out to be Barrister working in the same Chamber as Matt Richardson, UKIP’s legal advisor. Batten first started lying how I never worked with him, how he never did anything wrong, my Barrister said Batten was under police investigation for racism and fraud, as well as under OLAF investigation for fraud against European Parliament, and then Paul Diamond, asked for (later turned out to be illegal and dismissed) reporting restrictions, based on Article 8 of Human Rights Act protection of the family. Goldman granted it immediately asking Batten how long does he want it. Batten replied as long as he secures his re-election. I was angry with my Barrister for not challenging illegal reporting restrictions that could

17

have been only granted in the cases of sexual harassment or disability harassment but not in the case of racial and religious harassment, Equality Act 2010 and constructive dismissal.

As we were leaving Batten said to Diamond “I will report her for crime too’.

On the way back, my ex-husband who drove me as at point I was very weak and unwell awaiting heart surgery that subsequently happened on 24 October 2011, urged me to call Nigel, which I did. I spoke to Nigel on car’s speakerphone and my ex-husband heard entire conversation. I told Nigel Batten was being idiot, lying how I never worked there, how Batten was under both police and OLAF investigation. Nigel said it was about the time OLAF investigated ‘Fucking BT Salesman’ (how Nigel always referred to and called Batten) as he was stealing uncovered for far too long. I told Nigel “You must come as a witness that I worked there and I reported Batten’s unbelievable racist, harassing, obnoxious behavior towards me” (I have text messages with Nigel and Annabelle discussing Batten’s horrible behavior). Nigel’s response was that he couldn’t testify against his own MEP as that would destroy his Parliamentary Group. I told Nigel he must do the right thing for once as Batten destroyed my health, but Nigel kept repeating how he couldn’t testify against his MEP and about EU Parliament Group. I furiously put the phone down on him, confident that I had all written evidence against Batten.

12 October 2011 I send to Nigel Farage text message asking him why he never did anything about Batten after I made so many complaints to him. Texts saved on my old Blackberry

Few days later I was contacted by Policeman Reardon to tell me that they looked at Batten’s publications, especially Muslim Charter, and everything I highlighted in his other racist documents and could not find anything racist (later on when that same Charter appeared on front pages of all leading newspapers Charter was condemned as a Nazi document and caused national outrage). Few days before my surgery I was again contacted by Reardon and officer Galvin who came to my home saying fraud report I produced was too complex for them and it would be the best way if EU Parliament investigated it as they did not understand it completely, did not have resources to investigate fully, it was complex. I told them that OLAF was investigating and OLAF contacted me (someone else possibly form the police contacted OLAF) and Reardon and Galvin took details how to contact OLAF and promised that they will cooperate with them.

OLAF then asked me to send all documentary evidence to them, which I did. Several OLAF investigators were involved but the main one was Neil Ritchie.

I had my surgery on 24 October 2011, in my good old fashion refused full anesthetics, immediately discharged myself from St Mary’s Hospital and came home for recovery, under strict cardiologist order to take it easy, not to get upset at all due to adrenaline hits that caused damage to my heart in the first place, as during the procedure they had to burn additional electrical pathways in my heart, that were created through

18

stress caused adrenaline hits. They also checked my arteries via angiogram that prove that all arteries were clear, elastic and in excellent condition, without single deposit.

I had a deadline to submit all evidence against Batten by 30 November 2011. On the 29th November as I was slowly copying documentary evidence in 4 copies for 3 Tribunal members and defendant Batten, I ran out of the cartridge on my all in one copy, scan, printer and called my ex-husband, unable to leave the home, still with wounds from deep cuts in my groin area, if he could buy me some (I remained on very good, friendly terms with my ex). Around 11 am someone knocked on my door and when I opened they told me they were police officers, 4 of them, 3 men where I recognised Galvin and Reardon, male officer Stoppard and female officer Else. Since at that time I was almost 10 years member of the Westminster Police Community Consultative Group many police officers, especially senior ranks, would whenever they were in my area, would pop around to my place for cup of tea and to discuss happenings. I thought that group came for the same reason and that Galvin and Reardon maybe had more information about still live fraud, child pornography and Bridgen’s investigation. I let them in, without even glancing at their warrants, apologised that I was in loose pajamas, that I had to walk slowly due to being cut post surgery and asked them who wanted tea or coffee. I went to my kitchen while they proceeded to my living room. One of them Galvin, started saying I am under arrest, and I took it as a joke, as many police officers, prior to him, especially jokester, now Superintendent last time I spoke to him, Andy Howe, used to do joke like that. I kept saying to Galvin, “Hold your horses, tea and coffee are coming, I can’t do it any faster”. He continued saying “you are under arrest”, while I was preparing cups, tea bags and sugar. As he continued with his “you are under arrest mantra”, I came to living room before I had poured water from the boiled kettle, asking him, jokingly “what did I do?”. He said “You defrauded European Parliament”. I replied to him “Are you insane, how can I defraud some institution that I had never had access to and never been to”? Galvin said “I am arresting you for fraud against European Parliament” and I asked “What do you mean, who could have reported such stupidity”. Galvin replied “Mr Batten”. I replied “Oh, him”. Then it downed on me that Batten was making up the staff and they are actually doing it. I became very upset, as anyone completely innocent without even parking ticket to her name would and became very unwell, recording huge blood pressure and collapsing. Reardon called ambulance and 4 medics arrived furious, left their names to testify against police behavior and took me to St Mary’s. By that time my ex arrived, found me on the couch, with 4 medics tending to me and two of us left with ambulance. Upon arrival to the Hospital, it was established that due to stress my left ventricle suffered atrophy and was not functioning. (records, photo from the blood pressure monitor and names of medics who attended exits).

While Police was still there in my flat, they had a limited search warrant to obtain only financial records and not to touch legally privileged material. DS Else and DC Stoppard went in to my room, took my desktop computer, I followed and gave DC Else as she was asking for financial records such as bank statements. I told her that I only had my business bank statements and personal and business accounts statements for my ex-husband and child account statements for my son. She took two files. Reardon and Galvin remained in my living room. Reardon took my laptop computer that contained pretty much nothing, while Galvin kept standing in my living room,

19

next to the floor lamp. I was trying to reason with Reardon, telling him it was vindictive mistake, that I have never done a single infringement in my life, not even a parking ticket, have full British security clearance showing that nobody even in my family had any civil infringement, let alone criminal as I would not be able to get security clearance.

When I became really ill, from the unimaginable stress they caused me (just imagine being innocent person, community leader who was getting arrested) Reardon de-arrested me, called ambulance, saying he was once upon a time paramedic.

Gavin just left search warrant and wrote his contact details to call him when I feel better. Reardon kept saying to take my time, there is no hurry, to recover and then to call them.

I was so rightfully agitated and during the stay in A&E called one of my police contacts, DS Dave Finlayson, who told me it is impossible that I was arrested, nothing was showing on the police computer, that it was some mistake. Dave, who was frequent guest at my home asked me who reported it and I said Batten’s name and details, telling him that police reports against Batten exist but he could not find any. I self discharged from the hospital, I email Dave Finlayson, who in email (it exists) confirmed that files against Batten could not be found anywhere, and he would make sure that they do exist, creating them again. I sent to him everything again. Finlayson called me next day to tell me that police report against me exists but for some unknown reason was locked and he could not access it. He also tried talking to Galvin, who strangely told him I was guilty of fraud against European Parliament, that even Finlayson who knew me for a long time could not understand.

Next day, on 30th I notified Employment Tribunal that I lost my computer through false, malicious actions of false report to the police Batten arranged and could not prepare documentary evidence (document exists). Tribunal asked Batten for explanation but his only response was she is now arrested and Tribunal should be aware of that I am criminal who would be charged.

I immediately found the lawyer Hodge Jones and Allan and they called to arrange for meeting with the police. Meeting was arranged for 07 December at 10 am, but due to already mentioned, suspicious read email notification I received on my Blackberry that was explained above and is subject of police criminal investigation, got postponed to 09 December 2011.

On 09 December 2011 I came to West Central police Station with my lawyer, waited for 45 minutes for Galvin and Reardon to come, and as soon as they came Galvin arrested me again, despite protestation from my lawyer Ruth Hammond from Hodge Jones Allan, who noted them.

I was taken to custody suite, where I saw behind custody desk Superintendent John

Morgan, who I knew for 10 years from Westminster Police Community Consultative Group. Morgan was shocked to see me, and asked what I was doing there. I jokingly responded ‘Well, it seems I am Al Capone’. Morgan became very uncomfortable and quickly left custody suite. I was asked for my name, address, DOB, physical health, any allergies (I stated poor physical health due to heart condition, allergy to penicillin

20

and latex), and then taken to have my photo taken and finger prints with officer wearing latex gloves that brought out my eczema and caused severe itching.

I waited in the central area of the custody suite with my lawyer, then she was called for some disclosure chat with Galvin and Reardon and after good two hours interview began. Prior to interview my Lawyer told me that police have my hard copy bank statement (that would prove contentious in Court) and it was showing payment n 20 December 2010. She advised me to respond to all police questions with “No comment”, which I found hard to do and prepared the statement saying if the money was found and there was banking error, as I was always saying, money will be immediately repaid to Batten.

As we were leaving Galvin said, your client will be charged.

In January 2011 my lawyers contacted Galvin telling him in writing that I am willing to repay all the money and on 02 March 2011 Galvin refused to have any dealings with mechanics of repayment of the money. On my volition I sent in January Batten personal cheque that was not cashed, nor it was ever retuned. I was on bail. First Employment Tribunal Hearing was supposed to happen on 20 December 2011, and my lawyers arranged with Reardon to release my laptop and documents I needed for the Employment Tribunal, civil legal proceedings I had against Batten. I received limited number of documents, with many of my family photos that were on second hard drive in the desktop where I kept them missing, many legal documentary evidence missing as well as many emails deleted. For example thousands of emails that I received for 10 years working for Westminster Police Community Consultative Group, many with senior police officers, which were saved, vanished. Each time I tried to log in to my jasna10@aol.com email account, there was notification that email was accessed for unknown location and hacked. (Document exists).

New Years Eve 2011/2012 – unknown men at my door shouting you bitch will pay for suing Batten, which continued in January 2012 I started getting big, clean shaven, Nazi thugs late night visits to my door with shouting, and expletive ridden threats that both my son and I will be killed and our flat burned. Same continued happening in February 2012, and at the same time I started to receive calls from my former employer – where I was contractor for wide variety of Economist businesses (Business Central Europe, European Voice, Economist Conferences, Economist Research, Economist Intelligence Unit and Economist magazine itself) that they are getting letters and phone calls form someone called Gerard Batten telling them I am fraudster. My health was suddenly main topic for Batten’s UKIP known associates on various social media accusing me of lying about my health, discussing it, saying no medical evidence exists (it actually does exists and plenty of it) which was repeated by Batten, prompting my GP to intervene and supply to Employment Tribunal statement that I am seriously sick through actions of Gerard Batten.

On 13 of February 2010 I filed in Central London County urgent request for Restraining Order under Protection from Harassment Act 1997. 19 February 2012 – woman named Mary from Batten’s office comes to my door late in the evening to tell me I will spend rest of my days in jail. Call police on 999 nobody responds, and nobody from the police responds to many phone calls I kept making about persistent harassment and threats at my doorstep.

21

27 February 2012 – Hearing at the Central London County Court for injunction.

Batten is represented by CCFON lawyer and Batten’s best friend Paul Diamond (known Christian fundamentalist stirring hatred against Muslims, Jews and LGBT community). Suddenly James Galvin also appears to testify against me on Batten’s behalf. Just before hearing in the Chamber, in the waiting area, in front of Court Usher J Hart Galvin laughs with Batten, hug each other, assuring him (just in front of me) that I will be charged no matter what and will end up in jail. Just as we entered Chamber Hon Judge Gilchrist is shocked to see ‘police officer’ and asks him what he is doing there. Galvin responds that I am criminal who will be charged and will end up in jail. Galvin also lied to the Judge claiming that no reports have ever been made against Gerard Batten (at that time there were 3 separate reports) and that Batten’s name does not appear in any police statements.

During the break in the proceedings I was approached by Battens best friend Paul Diamond and offered Batten’s withdrawal of all his allegations against me in return for dropping my Employment Tribunal proceedings against him and promising never to say another word against UKIP. I refused. Both incidents were witnessed by Dragomir Mikulic.

Later on that day I spoke and exchanged emails with alleged Galvin’s superior DI Andrew Fleming. In telephone conversation I simply asked who authorised Galvin to appear at all in the Civil case. I was met by barrage from Fleming telling me I am a thief who stole from ‘reputable MEP’, which is the reason I lost my job and how I am harassing Mr Batten with my case at the Employment Tribunal. I ended the telephone conversation then and emailed Fleming and Commander Simon Bray asking him to remind Galvin that it is not Police’s job to intervene in civil cases and especially not to mislead judges regarding accusations made against Batten. Both my email and Fleming’s response were deleted by someone other than me from my email account jasna10@aol.com. However, later on emails mysteriously reappear in deleted folder of my computer and are now saved, printed and available as documentary evidence.

At the same time James Galvin enters in Police CHRIS report false entry that he did not attend civil proceedings hearing and that Goran, Hodge Jones Allan Solicitors complained about Galvin’s meddling in civil case proceedings. That was Galvin’s blatant lie as both Official Court transcript as well as Galvin’s signed witness statement on behalf of Gerard Batten show he was there.

Hearing for full restraining order happened on 17 May 2012, where Batten’s defence abated by James Galvin was that all harassment Batten was doing, including hacking, discussion of my emails, thugs at my door, malicious letters Batten was sending to the Economist Group (Economist Group kindly provided me with those and they exists), was for the purposes of ‘crime prevention’ as I will be charged with some crime.

Employment Tribunal Hearing happened at 20 March where Batten was caught lying under Oath and committing perjury. I reported the matter to the police as usual, but whenever I would report anything to the Metropolitan Police, only person available to ‘investigate it’ was computer expert Shaun Reardon, who dismissed complaint, despite Batten’s own lies in sworn statement that meeting on 10 February was to “discuss raising anti-Semitism” (easily disproven with Batten’s own handwritten

22

proposals and Batten’s own emails with typed proposals he sent me. Furthermore, Batten lied in his sworn statement that his brother Harold never worked for him, where Harold’s invoice to UKIP London and Batten’s own admission to Open Europe think tank show Harold worked for Batten. During whole of the Employment Tribunal Proceedings Batten and Diamond were quoting James Galvin’s statement and wanting to call him as a witness, repeatedly stating that I am criminal who will certainly be charged, convicted and jailed. Batten did not win Employment Tribunal case as he later lied. Instead after I saw huge and persistent police interference in the civil proceedings, caught CPS Chief prosecutor Simon Timothy Orme tampering in the proceedings where he accidentally or on purpose Ccd me in the emails he was sending to the Tribunal on Batten’s behalf, I decided to withdraw from the legitimate proceedings due to illegal tampering by police and person from CPS.

At the end of April 2012 I became exasperated with police shenanigans and criminal conducts, and I decided to report Galvin, Reardon and Fleming to the IPCC. Reasons given interfering with civil cases, failure to investigate 4 crimes reported. Two cases against Batten – March 2011 for inciting racial and religious hatred, May 2011 for fraud and 3rd one for perjury and perverting the course of Justice at the East London Employment Tribunal in relation to claims Batten does not pay his brother (he does), existence of Charter of Muslim Understanding and Dismantling Multiculturalism. All police records of my allegations renamed as Crime Related Incidents, named of suspects removed and initial allegations I made in March and May 2011 deleted from Police National Computer.

27 September 2012 – the night before my birthday 10 pm Batten sends UKIP activist Mary to appear at my door (I was sitting in the living room and watching Grown Ups comedy with my son) and told me loudly for my son and my neighbours to hear she is delivering me Birthday wishes that I will end up in jail

10 October 2012 – with no resolution in sight I write letters to Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and Rt Hon David Cameron, Prime Minister informing them both what is happening to me. Receive reply form Cameron’s office to confirm that he will be asking questions. Speak to Stephen Greenlagh, Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime and he informs me that Boris has asked for DPS investigation.

25 October 2012 – letter received from Metropolitan Police DPS that none of the officers involved in my investigations are Police officers and cannot be traced in any systems.

In further communication with PS Sean Wray, PS Wray confirms that request has been received from the Mayor’s office, that both Mayor and Prime Minister have been informed and re-confirms that Galvin, Reardon, Fleming are not Police Officers. Not used in the Court as Barrister Piercy was not provided due to Reardon’s “”my father is imminently dying’ excuse.

November 2012 my son had to leave his private school that I was paying for since his reception year, as I became too sick, completely disabled, unable to work and could not pay for it. He had to wait almost 6 months to get a place in state school, where he still has a difficulty to adjust and due to all turmoil Batten caused, due to all

23

harassment, fear, reasonable threat to his life his grades suffered terribly with inevitable huge impact on his future.

19 February 2013 – further visit at the door with threats to life, 2 males with Mary from Batten’s office.

Throughout October 2012 to 10 March 2013 I am harassed by one of Batten’s closest associates Kim Gandy, notorious UKIP racist, and Batten’s very close confidante, where I receive hundreds of messages daily on open Twitter platform that I am a thief, criminal, will be charged, go to jail, Serbian lunatic etc. Despite numerous reports to Metropolitan police, which were completely ignored, I make complaint to Essex Police and they interview Kim Gandy under caution, which is when her harassment stops.

On 07 March 2013, my new solicitors Tuckers write to Charing Cross Duty Inspector stating that CPS have reached decision of no further action, that no crime was committed and that Police should stop. That letter is available but was not used in Court due to Reardon’s false statement to bring forward the trial in front of the Recorder (not fully Judge) Gledhill who was previously known to Batten and in that way prevented me from preparing any defence with my Barrister Arlette Piercy. At that point I was already 14 months on bail and 13 times re-bailed. Each and every time excuse for re-bail was ludicrous, ranging from CPS lawyer has a flu, was moving, new lawyer arriving, was going on holiday, leaving CPS but always “She will definitely be charged no matter what’. Each and every time CPS lawyers sent “no further action response’, Galvin, Reardon and Fleming complained until it eventually reached notorious UKIP friendly CPS lawyer, same one who was meddling in my Employment Tribunal and who has now charged, in the similar set of circumstances, another UKIP whistleblower, Nikki Sinclaire (in Birmingham, UK’s second largest city as if Birmingham doesn’t have CPS), Simon Timothy Orme.

As soon as Charing Cross receive my solicitors’ formal request for ‘no further action’ as my solicitors were verbally told at least on 10 occasions same decision was reached but had it from CPS in writing only once, therefore negating Reardon and Galvin’s tall tales about CPS lawyers moving, having flu, going on holidays and similar nonsenses, I get charged on 21 March 2011, despite at that point known and supplied Reardon’s statement that nothing was altered, that documents were identical and data was coming from NatWest Internet banking site, with “Forgery” and “Fraud” stemming from forgery. I was charged by DC Anthony Tony Holden who then attached to my bail no contact order with Gerard Batten, despite the fact I did not have any contact with Batten, Batten was the one who was harassing me and I explicitly forbid Batten to make any contact with me in December 2011 (document exist – email sent to his extremist lawyer Paul Diamond). At the same time, my legal representative Christine O’Connor handed to DC Holden around 70 pages of harassing messages I was receiving from Batten’s close associate Kim Gandy as well as from his extremist lawyer Paul Diamond, that were not of legal nature but “shut up”, “stop talking”, “liar”, “fool” type of insults.

24

05 April 2013 – appeared at Westminster Magistrates Court and pleaded not guilty.

Since the case was indictment sent to Crown Court

03 May 2013 admitted to High Dependency Unit of St Mary’s Hospital for brain swelling caused by heart failure related Natrium deficiency. While in hospital, with serious life threatening condition, I had my mobile in case my son, who was with my mother urgently needed something. Instead, that night I received phone call from the journalist Dipesh Gadher from Sunday Times, who I did not know nor had any contact with before, who was doing the story on Batten’s racism towards Muslim and Jewish community and Batten’s praises of Mein Kampf – Dipesh asked me who I was and why Tony Holden was threatening his arrest for trying to write a story about Batten’s racism. In the CPS disclosure for the trial, police disclosed threatening emails that DC Tony Holden sent to two journalists Dipesh Gadher of Sunday times and Rob Hastings from Independent that they will be arrested if they write anything about Batten. CPS also disclosed Batten’s emails to DC Holden, sent from his private email address, starting with “Dear Tony” and asking him to scare of journalists who were just, completely unconnected to me, doing their job. Later on in December 2014, Times Newspaper published that abuse of office by DC Holden and threats to journalists. Since my underage son was at home with my mother, unaware of the huge problems I was having with rogue police officers, I had to self discharge from the HDU Unit, in mortal danger, to be with my son in case Holden goes further and in

Batten’s paranoid, conspiracy (usual) state of mind tries to do something to my son.

08 May 2013 appeared at the Southwark Crown Court and plead not guilty.

03 June 2013 – received reply from earlier complaint to IPCC about non-existing

Police Officers stating in the restricted document that none of the ‘Police Officers’ James Galvin, Shaun Reardon, Andrew Fleming and Anthony Tony Holden do not exist.

11 July 2013 met with my Barrister Arlette Piercy to decide defence strategy and which documents to be used for defence of the crime that did not even happen, and I was charged for. Trial was scheduled to happen on 25 July 2013 and we had plenty of time to prepare defence strategy, go over the documents as well as independent document proving Batten lied about everything. Batten’s own statement to the Police given 14 June 2012, some 7 months after I was arrested showed extremely malicious intent where his last sentence in the police statement that was submitted in disclosure literally reads:

“On 15th June I received notification from the Employment Tribunal that Ms Badzak was pursuing a case against me and attempting to sue me for £1.8 million damages. Her complaints against me are catalogue of lies. I intend to defend my good name vigorously. I can provide her accusations to the police if relevant to this case.

On 23rd September I receive a further letter from a different firm of solicitors, JB Law

Solicitors of Macclesfield, Cheshire, informing me that they were acting on Ms

Badzak’s behalf for damages under the Protection form Harassment Act 1997 on no-

25

win-no-fee basis. Again, her complaints against me are catalogue of lies. I am willing to provide this letter to the police with false accusations if they deem it relevant to my complaint.

Both of these legal actions are attempts to extort money from me by the threat of making false accusations intended to damage me personally and professionally under the privilege of court proceedings.

On receipt of this letter I believe that it is reasonable for me to conclude that I have been victim of fraud/theft by deception for the sum of £2,500 by Ms Badzak by means of verbal statements, false statements in emails, and by means of the presentation of false bank statement”

Batten himself is admitting it that sole reason for reporting “crime’ to the Police was, because he was subject of civil proceedings, as a vindictive response to civil proceedings legitimate claims, abusing criminal justice system to gain pecuniary advantage and avoid civil liability as well as to pervert the course of Justice in civil proceedings.

Prior to his false criminal allegations, Batten at no time asked for return of the money, started small claims civil procedure to recover the money I allegedly owed him or even indicated in any shape or form that anything suspicious was going on. Timing of his false criminal complaint is of essence as he made his false report, only after civil proceedings were issued against him and he learnt that he was under criminal investigation.

None of my claims in Employment Tribunal proceedings were false as all have subsequently appeared with documentary evidence in all leading British newspapers, on the front pages, causing national outcry.

During Batten’s sworn testimony in the Southwark Crown Court, on 16 July 2013, as official Transcript shows, Batten changed his testimony again and lied that his wife told him he was victim of scam, completely contradicting himself, once again, to the sworn statement he gave to the Police.

On 12 July 2013, my Barrister calls me in the morning frenetically that date of the trial has been moved to following Monday, 15 July 2013. Reason given was that DS Reardon father was dying, Reardon wanted to spend his last days with him and trial had to start that Monday, in front of the Recorder Gledhill, who was available.

To this date Reardon did not provide ‘death certificate’ for ‘dying father’ and provided five different excuses for his action ranging from ‘going on holiday, taking his father to holiday, his father going on holiday, spending some quality time with his father, his father wanted to go on holiday’. Nothing about imminent death and certainly no ‘death certificate’ to prove his demand for urgent move of trial to be heard in front of Gledhill was ever provided.

Later on, in 2014 when my appalling case of miscarriage of Justice hit a headlines and became known as one of the most awful cases, I was contacted by prominent member of Christian Party, their candidate, who had close connections with Batten’s close

26

associates extremist Christian fundamentalists, Christian Concern, who told me that Michael Gledhill, Recorder, judge in my case, was Christian Concern long standing

Barrister (Recorder is not fully Judge but part time Judge who still works as a Barrister or Solicitor), was doing many cases with Batten’s best friend Paul Diamond, was known to Batten and that even one of cases where Batten and Diamond worked together was “Jerry Springer Opera” received newspaper and other media coverage. Hence, Batten’s lies in his testimony at the Southwark Crown Court that Diamond was at present at now notorious 10 February racist, Islamophobic and anti-semitic meeting when documentary evidence showed Diamond was not there. Batten was reminding Gledhill that he also close Diamond’s friend and associate of Christian Concern, as was Gledhill.

Due to sudden move of the trial my Barrister at the start of the trial nor throughout the trial did not have crucial evidence that would expose criminal conspiracy Batten has created with DI Fleming (who called me criminal on 27 February 2012, who is harassing ‘wonderful’ MEP, who deleted incriminating emails so they were not available at the trial, lied on Galvin’s and Batten’s behalf, admitted to having lunches later on with London MEP, which could only be Batten as all others MEP refute suggestions that they would have lunch with him, who left MET in June 2013, but was attending trial every day, and finally who is stalking me to this day to the point that on Christmas day 2014, at 2 pm, when whole nation has a Christmas lunch, he was busy checking my LinkedIn page –all evidence exists and all deleted emails Fleming deleted are recovered). Galvin, who was later found to be UKIP member, who on his Facebook pages posted photos from various UKIP functions, was posting support for UKIP and Batten, was found on leaked BNP membership list, who when Sun Columnist and former MP, Louise Mensch started calling him out on his UKIP and Batten association, was deleting his Facebook profile which is screen captured and stored on Louise Mensch blog, Unfashionista, that I supplied as well as purchase of Norton Anti-Virus using my bank account details when my computer was in police possession as well as my bank account details, and opening email sent to Kamila Zarychta eight (8) days after I was arrested – all subject of IPCC ordered police investigation. Shaun Reardon who refused to investigate Battens massive fraud (even when he had in possession Batten’s proof of fraud with documentary evidence of his own brother’s invoice, insurance policy and confirmation that Lawrence Webb is UKIP regional organiser, all paid with EU expenses, as a fraud/theft), refused to investigate Batten’s incitement of racial and religious hatred contrary to S 5 of the public Order Act, Batten’s perjury, child pornography produced and distributed from UKIP London office, all evidenced.

TRIAL

Selection of the Jury

During the selection of the Jury, my Barrister insisted that none of the jurors because of prejudicial reasons can be members of UKIP and/or EDL supporters. Gledhill

27

immediately refused putting defence in the ridiculous position where last juror on the right was openly waving to Batten and giving him thumbs up. Gledhill refused to do anything.

Strangely also Simon Timothy Orme, who was shown to my by my Barrister as I did not know how he looked like, same Simon Timothy Orme who was interfering in my civil proceedings and is now prosecuting from London another UKIP whistleblower Nikki Sinclaire in Birmingham (as if Birmingham does not have CPS) was there.

First day of the trial – 15 July 2013

Batten’s “Evidence” and Perjury

On first day of the trial Batten openly lies that he notified police on 02 October while evidence shows that he only notified Police after he learned that he was subject of both Police and OLAF (European Fraud Agency) investigation. He completely changes his statement to the police and talks about some “penny dropping”. This is a double perjury, where Batten has either lied to the Police in the signed, truth verified statement or sworn on the stand in the Crown Court. His two contradicting statements, especially where on stand, he completely negates his true, malicious reason for making false allegations, (She is taking me to Court in civil cases, so I am reporting her to Police) and categorically “states” (lies) that was never the case, despite the documentary, signed statement where he writes that was the case.

Batten lies and then admits lying that I was never researches as he was previously falsely stating (and appeared in pre-prepared articles that appeared immediately on conviction, written by UKIP Chief Press Officer, including nonsense and blatant lie about some shopping spree in Harrods, which was later confirmed through Towler’s and Batten’s boastings. Style of writing those two articles was Towler’s that I immediately recognised as soon as they were brought to my attention as I worked with Towler and read many of his releases).

Batten admits on the page 90, second paragraph, under cross-examination that payment has not arrived when he lied to police it had in December 2010. Later, after the trail it became very apparent that bank statement that Galvin claimed to have seen through my living room/bedroom wall (as he has never entered my bedroom and bank statement was not ever there) was the only bank statement in The World that did not have any date on it, is very suspicious, as all bank statements have dates on them, and can be concluded beyond any reasonable doubt was either Galvin’s or Reardon’s forgery.

On page 92 there is admission that NatWest bank did not confirm to allegedly originating European Parliament Bank in Luxembourg that they even received the payment in March 2011. Due to the fact that Trial was brought forward, my Barrister did not have and it was not used in Court NatWest own admission that in December 2010 there were problems with crediting accounts and that evidence should have been used if it was not for Reardon’s mysterious “my father is imminently dying but no death certificate” story.

28

On page 97 and 98 Batten is blatantly lying about seeing email from my initial lawyers Hodge, Jones, Allan that as soon as he demanded payment he was offered one via solicitors as well as prior to that he received cheque from me, that he did not cash nor returned. My Barrister did not have that document, due to the Trial suddenly brought forward on Reardon’s false pretences.

Page 98 3rd paragraph Batten lies stating that he and I has ‘amicable relationship’ where there was documentary evidence in the form saved text message saying ‘I will deal with you when I come back’, demands to Farage to get rid of Batten (all exist but my Barrister could not get them in time due to Reardon’s actions).

Page 101 Batten deliberately lies that Paul Diamond, close associate of Recorder

Gledhill was at the meeting 10 February 2011, (meeting that caused full breakdown of Batten’s and my working relationship) where documentary evidence shows he was not.

Batten is blatantly lying about meeting to Dismantling Multiculturalism and the fact that at point I stopped going near him and had only limited, for my vocabulary, rude correspondence and that is precisely the reason why he was taken to Employment Tribunal as after that meeting for the very first time I suffered heart palpitations, there is documentary evidence of complaints to Nigel Farage, of the confirmation from Farage’s press officer that Batten was given “dressing down” and subsequently from the stress, as medically established, I suffered heart attack caused by Batten’s now widely exposed, notorious racism.

Page 116 and page 117 it was also bunch of Batten’s lies, and my Barrister due to Reardon’ s “my Father is imminently dying’ bringing of the trial forward, did not have all Employment Tribunal Batten’s own admission where it was constantly stated “Badzak was arrested, Badzak will be charged, Badzak is fraudster, criminal, I will bring police officer Galvin to testify in my favour). Sole reason I withdrew from Employment Tribunal proceedings was Batten’s constant statements that I am fraudster, where his malicious actions should not even be mentioned, and CPS Orme’s interference in the proceedings.

Last paragraph where some swift was mentioned was never seen by me and that swift looks nothing like swift usually does (no originating bank, no date of payment, no codes, no transfer code to correspondence bank, – Barrister did not have original swift how it looks like as I had numerous swifts to show and none of them looked nor corresponded with any of the swifts that I had, nor corresponded to the SWIFT’s own example how Swift message looks like). Furthermore, 22 March 2011 was the day my son was robbed at knifepoint, documentary evidence exists and that email did not exist there.

Page 120 and 121 Recorder Gledhill changes indictment, illegally, without any power to do so, and includes, £500 petrol and parking costs Batten on his volition gave me and tries to include that too in the indictment, trying to represent it as a fraud.

29

Second Day of the Trial – 16 July 2013

Reardon’s Testimony

Page 3 of the transcript Reardon admits that his sole function in the Police was ‘computer examiner’ so it is very strange that he was involved in every complaint I made to the police, where none of those complaints, except Batten’s and UKIP’s fraud that were not examined (such as inciting racial and religious hatred, harassment, perjury and perverting the Course of Justice) were not his expertise.

Strangely, on page 12 Recorder Gledhill states that none of the statements Galvin,

Reardon and Batten gave to the Police were not given to Jurors and due to that action, Jurors were not in the position to see Batten’s lies and contradicting himself in the statement given to the Police, regarding his real, malicious, vindictive reason for making false malicious allegations (She is taking me to civil courts).

Page 18, Reardon himself admits that PDF is often used in legal matters and business, which is the real reason why someone who has been in business at that time, in financial consultancy for 11 years, sending all documents as PDFs.

Page 19 Paragraph E (fourth paragraph) Reardon admits that data was copied from NatWest Internet Banking Website. Repeats it also in the first paragraph of page 20 in the Official transcript.

Page 21 of Reardon’s testimony Word document and PDF are identical.

NB IF DATA CAME FROM NATWEST WEBSITE, AND BOTH DOCUMENTS

WHERE IT WAS COPIED ARE IDENTICAL, HOW CAN IDENTICAL DOCUMENTS DEEMED TO BE FORGERY, WHICH WAS THE PRIMARY CHARGE FOLLOWED BY THE FRAUD STEMMING FROM THE FORGERY!

ALLEGED CRIME SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.

Page 24 of Reardon’s statement , paragraph C and D says it was emailed to Batten and Kamila Zarychta. In the bundle it was shown that Galvin opened email (heading says James Galvin) and it was opened for the very first time on 07 December 2011, 8 days after I was arrested and it is now subject of IPCC ordered criminal investigation against James Galvin.

Page 28 is CRUCIAL

Paragraph B

30

Q. That is our tab 12, pages 1 and 2:

“Examination of the first document revealed that this was created at 08.11.02 on 20 January and it was last written to at 08.11.03. (Virtually a nanosecond later). This indicates that the contents of the document were created at the same time.”

Paragraph C

A. Yes, it’s not re-edited.

Crucially, Reardon admits that there was no re-editing and I was charged with

FORGERY. HOW CAN ANYONE BE CHARGED WITH FORGERY IF DOCUMENTS ARE IDENTICAL AND POLICE’S OWN COMPUTER EXPERT ADMITS THERE WAS NO RE-EDITING?

Page 42 and 43 are also VITAL as they show that actually 3 payments are missing. On Internet Banking page which, even according to Reardon it was not re-edited and altered. 2 payments £2500 and £540 are missing, while on both Internet Banking Statement and Full Banking statement that NatWest supplied much later, in 2013, £500.00 cheque payment on 07 December 2010 payment from Batten for petrol and parking costs do not show anywhere.

From page 45 – James Galvin’s Testimony

In his opening statement, Galvin’s admits that he too has been promoted, also to the Elite Police Force Unit – Antiterrorist Command at Scotland Yard, which is extremely suspicious and certainly way above Galvin’s abilities.

Page 48 third paragraph B, Galvin immediately lies, saying that I have ever said my husband who was my ex-husband at the time of search had access to any computer.

He is computer illiterate and has never in his entire life used any computer.

Page 48 – paragraph B – A “she started pulling files from the shelves and throwing tem onto bed” is a blatant lie. TDC Else, woman police officer went with me in my bedroom, asked me where are my financial statements files, among many other files (household bills, business correspondence, my son’s school file, tax records, client’s files etc) and I pulled out two files, explaining to her that one contains my ex-husband’s bank records and my son’s child account records, while the other contains my business bank statements. There was no throwing as bed was covered in arranged copies of the paperwork – evidence for the Employment Tribunal I was preparing,

31

and I handed them to TDC Else in her hands. She asked about other files and I explained to her, as they were all marked, what they contain. TDC Else in her statement contradicts Galvin and says that she was in my bedroom with me, as is standard procedure that female officer goes in bedroom. Galvin remained in my living room, by the floor lamp at all times.

Suddenly, on the page 52 it became apparent that shut, in excellent condition lever arch file has been destroyed between times that CPS and Defence checked it that morning, 9 am before Galvin testified and times of Galvin’s testimony at 12 pm. Galvin admits he was solely in charge of the both files but blatantly lies saying that he doesn’t know how the intact files got destroyed in that 3 hours window period.

Page 55 it was noticed that “bank statement” Galvin lied to have found in my bedroom does not have DATE on it and every bank statement that bank produces there is a DATE and is not forgery, that Galvin or Reardon produced does not have a DATE at all.

On page 58 Galvin refers to bank statements from 2008 and states that all have

dates on them, but ONLY HIS RELEVANT “BANK STATEMENT” DOES NOT HAVE ANY DATE ON IT, confirming once again it was forgery.

Then Galvin tries to create scenario that obviously forged bank statement was found in other file, separately, where both files have completely fallen apart while in his sole custody that morning?????!!!!! Page 63

Page 64 Galvin admits that documents seized by the police, contrary to very limited search warrants, belonged to another people that were not subject of search warrant.

Page 64 – Galvin falsely claims that original debt letters, (where payments were being made) were signed by Jasna Badzak, while documentary evidence not only shows that they were not signed by me, there is no my signature at all, that handwritten comments were not handwritten in my handwriting, that both my ex-husband’s debt letter contains same handwriting, that all four of them contained same handwriting that did not belong to either my ex-husband and I, suggestion that both my ex-husband and I have exactly the same, completely identical handwriting (graphological nonsense), none of them are signed and none contain DATE as neither does “bank statement” Galvin lied to have found. Debt letters did not appear in disclosure, were sprung on defence, and it is already known that due to Reardon’s ‘My father is imminently dying’ I did not have a chance to even submit documents that I had nor statement to my Barrister, and the trial started without preparation on on defence side. While sworn under Oath, Galvin lies, page 64 paragraph G that documents are signed by Jasna Badzak, when they are not.

Page 73 – instead of three debt letters, four were passed around, including illegally seized Mr Mikulic’s (ex-husband) debt letter and evidence from Defendant’s bundle shows it.

32

Page 76 shows that those are original debt letters that were not sent to anyone and contain someone else’s handwriting, that does not belong to ex-husband nor Jasna Badzak. They are without dates of that handwriting and without signatures. Nobody knows who entered handwriting but it is certain it was not Mr Mikulic (ex-husband) nor Jasna Badzak, who can produce their handwriting and numerous people who have viewed it since have agreed that handwriting does not belong to Jasna Badzak. Those letters are poorly done copies of the letters that existed dated after August 2011, when Jasna Badzak became very ill, unable to work, requiring urgent heart surgery, where handwriting belongs to Jasna Badzak, are copies (not originals like these), are all dated and signed by Jasna Badzak’s signature. Crucial factor transpires that each time Galvin makes a forgery, he forgets to put the date on forged documents (“BANK STATEMENT” and handwritten documents have a joint characteristic of missing DATE).

Page 79 paragraph H Galvin cannot stop lying and falsely claims he de-arrested me after I became very ill. It was not Galvin, it was Rerdon who claimed to be paramedic, he de-arrested me, called ambulance and was very concerned and scared with what was happening.

During the Police interview in the Police statement, Reardon and Galvin repeatedly claim ie page 92 that “only payment missing is £2,500, when in reality 3 payments were missing, £540.00 form 3rd December 2010 payment from ex-husband, £500.00 cheque for petrol and parking from Batten and £2,500 from allegedly European Parliament bank in Luxembourg. £500.00 cheque payment form Batten never showed up, despite the proof that it was deposited in the same NatWest bank and proof that it left Batten’s account.

Page 93 – during Police interview Solicitor reminds both Galvin and Reardon Paragraph D “You have three allegations that you are not investigating so it doesn’t stand”.

Page 100 Paragraph D and E, Galvin contradicts himself and finally admits, under cross-examination that it was DC Stoppard and TDC Else the only ones who were in Badzak’s bedroom and he was not. DC Stoppard and TDC Else took computer without Badzak’s presence, while TDC Else took two files from Badzak’s hands. Galvin’s admission is a proof that he lied both in his statement and throughout the Trial. On the previous civil court hearing for emergency Anti Harassment injunction against Gerard Batten, Galvin lied on Batten’s behalf that there were no investigations against Batten and then lied in the Police official CHRIS record that he didn’t attend hearing nor gave statement on Batten’s behalf, both of which proved to be lies as civil case transcript shows Galvin was there, lied about ‘no investigation against Batten’ on 27 February 2012 and his signed statement on Batten’s behalf exists.

Galvin admits Page 101, paragraph B, that he “can’t recall bed full of documentary evidence” which is hard to believe that he missed entire King size bed that dominates small bedroom, proving once again that Galvin was never in Badzak’s bedroom.

33

Page 106 and 107 Galvin’s admits that files were intact in the morning, secured, in a sealed bag, that he was solely in the charge of the files and now, some 3 hours later at the start of the testimony both files have fallen apart, documents are upside down, falling out and he doesn’t know what happened and yet was the only person in charge of the files. At the same time, he continues lying that he knows precisely what was where 16 months ago???!!!!!

One has to remember that in his statement signed by James Galvin he claimed that all files were intact and that he saw “BANK STATEMENT” hanging from the file. (through thick living room/bedroom wall???????)

Page 110, Paragraph D and E, Galvin admits that he knew about Badzak’s criminal allegations against Batten and others, but again lies that he was not involved when both Reardon and Galvin were involved, confirming that Badzak was the first one to report Batten and others for the crime they committed and Batten’s sole reason for inventing this non-existent crime was vindictive, malicious allegation to pervert Justice in criminal allegations against himself and pervert Justice in the Civil cases Badzak had against him, which he admits in his signed statement to the Police.

Page 116 to page 143, Badzak’s Barrister, based on documentary evidence makes submission that THERE IS NO CASE TO ANSWER based on well known R v

Galbraith case, as there is no evidence that anything was forged, that alleged “statement” Galvin claimed to have found does not have a date and that three payments are missing. JURY NEVER HEARD OR KNEW ABOUT THAT

SUBMISSION AND WAS DELIBERATELY LEFT IN DARK

However, Recorder Gledhill admits Galvin’s proven false evidence even after admission that DC Stoppard and TDC Else were the only ones to enter my bedroom, DC Stoppard took my computer, while TDC Else was handed in her hands, nothing was thrown on the bed fool of organised papers – documentary evidence for the Employment Tribunal Hearing and that files fall apart that day, not when they were seized, while they were in sole custody of James Galvin and he did not have any explanation how files were torn apart and all documents falling out, turned upside down and what was where, if actually any statements were there in the first place, as “the bank statement” that is only crucial document for the Prosecution DOES NOT HAVE DATE ON IT, making it the only bank statement in the World without date on it.

Recorder Gledhill on page 40 also claims that payment (from my ex-husband) of £540.00 that was credited on 03 December 2010 and payment of £500.00 that was credited on 03 December 2010 are one and the same???!!!!

On Page 141 and 142 Recorder Gledhill makes ridiculous assumption that PDF is different to Word document, where it was established they are completely identical.

Jury was never informed by Recorder Gledhill that submission NO CASE TO ANSWER was made by DEFENCE and they never knew that such submission was made.

34

Jasna Badzak Testimony starting at 3.54 pm 16 July 2013

Page 160 Last three paragraphs I say that it was banking error, known NatWest repetitive not-crediting accounts on time error, that has happened previously. Due to Reardon’s “my father is imminently dying excuse” when the trial was brought forward, my Barrister did not have a chance to receive documentary evidence that in December 2010 NatWest issued public apology for not crediting accounts of their customers in a timely manner or at all, until long chases to locate the money. It has been ongoing issue, and well-publicised issue with NatWest transaction operations.

Jasna Badzak Testimony continues 17 July 2013

Page 12 I explain mechanics of SWIFT payments, mechanics of International payments, fact that bank, even NatWest sends separate confirmation of International payment when any account, business or personal (I had both with NatWest) receives any International Payment, how SWIFT looks like. Nobody in the room understands mechanics of the International Payments and my Barister, again due to Reardon’s “my father is imminently dying excuse” does not have proof how real SWIFT payments and notifications from the NatWest bank look like when international payment is received.

Three missing payments are banking error and thousands of NatWest customers had the same problem until 2012, when NatWest finally decided to upgrade their systems and it is well documented in the press, in blogs, on Internet financial pages, everywhere, as it was appearing even as main TV news over and over between mid 2010 to end of 2012.

Page 40 – at the trial I was severely sick and photographic evidence taken by the paparazzo Batten hired shows me severely bloated, full of water, at that time due to the stress of this false accusations and Batten’s already described continuous harassment, I already had disturbed vision from persistent dizziness that accompanies heart failure, Natrium deficiency, electrolyte disbalance and my vision was blurred. The way that writing was to me at that time, with disturbed vision it looked like my handwriting, but later on after I received diuretics, infusions and was stabilised, both my ex-husband, I, Louise Mensch, Sun columnist, and human rights campaigner Lee Jasper all noticed that although it was very good attempt of forgery of my writing, it was not my handwriting as my letters look different, there was no date and no signature, and my ex-husband’s handwriting looks noting like even close to my handwriting. Someone else wrote that on those original debt letters, and there was correspondence between debt holders and I post late August 2011, when I sent and kept copies of similar letters, where that handwriting was forged from.

35

Harrods purchases that Prosecutor was going on about (coming from the wealthy family and earning very good money prior to coming working for UKIP) I always shopped at top end stores as I could afford and was used to those stores. For the record, and record show that during the time I worked for UKIP and was through Batten’s shenanigans illegally paid from EU funds for UKIP work, I received over

£14,000 from my ex-husband for the limited work I have done for him, opposed to £15,000 I received for working full time for UKIP. I did not count £3,273.00 ex-husband paid for my son’s and I trip to Barbados.

Despite the fact that Ms Dummett, and later on in pre-prepared articles that appeared in Telegraph and Daily Mail as well as documentary evidence that I sent to text to another UKIP press officer in May 2011, that Batten was calling my bank to ask if I ever shopped in Harrods, “spending spree” as Batten and Towler described it was:

Harrods – 13/12/2010- £150.00 – Dolce and Gabbana T-shirt for my son Harrods – 13/12/2010 – £112.90 Calvin Clein underwear and Dolce and Gabbana socks for my son

Harrods – 13/12/2010 – £14.85 Laduree macaroons

Total Harrods: £277.75

Gucci – £95.00 – Iphone phone cover for my son

Page 93 – Recorder Gledhill keeps insisting on £500.00 payment for petrol and parking Batten gave me in cheque on 02 December 2010 despite the fact it is not part of the indictment, not part of the alleged fraud, just Batten’s lies that it was a loan based on his, as shown previously, self-prepared, self-serving document that Batten himself just typed up on his computer only he knows when.

Miss Piercy acknowledges on pages 94 and 95 that after she met with me, only after the Trial began she was receiving documents from me in email form, on her Iphone, and computer, and that Defence was completely unprepared for the trial due to Reardon’s “my father is imminently dying excuse”.

In CPS closing argument page 111, paragraph D, suddenly indictment is changed, and Dummett is telling Jury that “Batten was defrauded of £3000” which is completely different to malicious and baseless initial indictment.

Full evidence was not presented about communication breakdown nor was shown text message “I will deal with you when I get back”. None of my texts to Nigel were shown showing that I was communicating to Nigel not with Batten, about Batten’s extreme actions and abhorrent behavior. That evidence must be treated as a new evidence due to Reardon’s “my father is imminently dying excuse”

Page 113, Jury was never shown Batten’ss police statement which he signed confirming it is a true version of the events, saying that sole reason for reporting

36

“crime’” was because I was taking him to the Civil Courts, showing malice and mitigation and perverting the course of Justice in civil proceedings.

Page 127, paragraph B, CPS admit that Batten overwrote cheque stub and over “salary” wrote “advance on fees”.

Page 128, paragraph B and C, Ms Dummet on behalf of CPS

No doubt, the defendant justified herself to herself the spending of that £2,500; in Selfridges, Harrods and wherever. No doubt she justified it to herself at the time and no doubt she said, “Well, I was providing for my son. I was buying him things. He is 12 and he likes things like that”.

But spending in Harrods, Gucci and Selfridges before that all happened before 14 December 2010, while Batten made his £2,500 payment, forced by Steve Crowther as payment was missing, on 20 january 2011. Therefore bare faced lie.

Page 140, paragraph A and B, Batten never asked for re-payment but Ms Piercy, and neither does Jury, again due to Reardon’s “my father is imminently dying excuse”, does not have Batten’s signed, under threat of prosecution, police statements admitting that he is making criminal allegations because I was taking him to civil courts.

Summing up by Recorder Michael Gledhill (later found out to be known to

Batten as they worked for the same extremist Christian Concern for Our Nation)

Page 155, paragraph H and page 156, paragraphs A, B and C – Gledhill is defending “dismantling Multiculturalism” and “Charter of Muslim Understanding through Binding Code of Conduct for Muslims and Jews, that were declared as NAZI documents by all leading Parliamentarians such as Shadow Justice Secretary

(and now Labour mayoral Candidate for London) Sadiq Khan and Conservative Vice-Chairman and Government’s Chief Whip Robert Halfon, by all leading media commentators and appeared on the front pages of all national newspapers as Nazi documents!!!! This Recorder is not only defending Nazi documents but also making expressly forbidden, in the Judicial Code of Conduct, exceptionally dangerous Political statements from the Bench.

Page 158, Gledhill is implying that Batten and I had “good working relationship” on 28 March 2011, because he was writing emails to recover his money, when as a matter I reported batten to the Police on 11 March 2011.

Page 163, paragraphs E, F, G, h Gledhill gives completely wrong instructions and instructs Jury to separate charges, where Indictment is clear cut that Count 1 is forgery and Count 2 fraud stemming from that forgery.

37

Page 168, Paragraphs C, D , E, F, G Gledhill alters indictment and instructs Jury to cross out part of the Indictment, and alter the Act relevant to it.

Page 170 Gledhill goes further and changes the dates when falsely alleged “fraud’ happened’ completely changing indictment, and in doing so to make sure that regardless of evidence presented, available, shown that corpus rei, or put it bluntly crime does not exist (which Jury was not allowed to hear), Defendant is at all costs found guilty.

It is worth noting that Gledhill summary or as many people, including many eminent lawyers called it “rant” went over 2.5 hours, over 100 pages long (unheard of in criminal cases) and is materially flawed and solely designed to hammer Jury to believe that Jasna Badzak is guilty of the crime that doesn’t exist and must be convicted at all costs.

Continued summary by Recorder Michael Gledhill

18 July 2013

FACTUAL INACCURACIES IN THE SUMMARY – RECORDER MICHAEL GLEDHILL

Page 3 – First paragraph – inaccurate description of Badzak’s role. Second paragraph should have read Badzak worked for UKIP and Batten was committing fraud by putting her on EU expenses as she has never worked solely for one MEP – may examples of work for other MEPs including UKIP leader Nigel Farage and agreement was that UKIP would pay for her, not EU Parliament as Badzak never worked or has attended EU Parliament.

Page 4 – Batten wrote a cheque to Badzak for petrol and parking on 02 December 2010. Gledhill claims that at that time one month has not finished, therefore claiming that in December, November was not finished.

Page 5 – My bank Statement for November – how much money was there? Why would I ‘need’ and ‘ask’ Batten for more money? Also where is that ‘signed’ original?

Page 9 – email – my reliability as a witness – how so?

Page 11 – Batten sent Kamila to payment office – Kamila is a source of confusion with 2 different payment orders!

Page 16 – ‘BACS (British Automated Clearing System) trace’ – How can BACS trace is even relavant and what relevance can it have when there is a question of international payments?

38

Page 21 – ‘Is she telling you the truth?’ – Deliberate misleading statement without any evidence to misdirect Jury and implying (falsely without any evidence of someone’s guilt) guilt – prohibited under Prima Facie and Mens Rea – certainly compromising Judicial integrity

Page 22 – Van Haeren finally admits BACS is UK only – but still no evidence of actual bank payment from the international source?

Pages 24 and 25 – NatWest doesn’t even reply to corresponding bank as per Pascal de Porter?

Page 26 and 27 – What is SWIFT, how does real SWIFT look like and how does SWIFT manufactured by James Galvin look like? Whole transfer code message is missing?!? – also Hear Say evidence – cannot be admitted as evidence beyond reasonable doubt and the very fact that Galvin and Reardon presented their version of ‘SWIFT’ message which looks nothing like a real SWIFT message proves beyond reasonable doubt that this is fabricated evidence.

Page 29 – Nothing before them in these emails about the falling out that Mrs Badzak …- T-Mobile phone logs prove and SMS messages with Fuller as well as I am bypassing Batten completely

Page 30 – last paragraph – ‘so here is this man chasing up the money on her behalf’ – No, Batten was chasing money for Batten – at that time we barely talked, Batten was making ridiculous accusations about ‘Badzak’s alliance with Nikki Sinclaire MEP’ (a woman Badzak never met), Batten was exposed as fascist in Searchlight magazine and had to make admission of meeting with EDL.

Page 32 – Working from home since 22 March? Good, amicable terms? – No, stayed at home since mid February and worked for Farage and UKIP because I could no longer stand his insults, his racism and fascism.

THERE is nowhere mentioned absolute crucial fact – 31 May and 01 June 2011 – severe tachycardia attack and severe heart attack causing Badzak’s heart disease. Medically proven ‘NO ORGANIC FACTORS’ just Batten caused through stress – adrenaline attacks leading to destruction of heart muscle

Page 33 – What proceedings in September – civil

Page 34 – Recorder Gledhill categorically states that it is perfectly acceptable (last paragraph of Summing up document) that Batten abuses his position, uses his official stationery, uses his MEP status (all serious criminal offences of misconduct in public office) to sort out his personal problems and execute vendetta against person taking him to Civil Court – Misconduct in the public office is a serious criminal offence that carries life in prison term, yet it is for Recorder Gledhill acceptable to commit that crime.

Page 35 – Employment Tribunal proceedings lost? (actually temporary withdrawn)– solely credibility after Batten in his skeleton arguments used ‘arrest, certain charges, and Galvin as a witness’. On top of it Batten committed perjury in the Employment

39

Tribunal Proceedings which was reported to the police, and for some illegal and illogical reason ended up yet again in the hands of DS Reardon, computer expert?!? To sweep it under the carpet and help Batten, once again avoid any criminal responsibility. Same happened with Civil Restraining Order (Galvin’s witness statement) and Police interference in the Civil proceedings.

Page 44 – LIE – ‘it was mentioned at the tribunal when she gave evidence and said she has been arrested’ – Batten mentioned it all the time in his skeleton arguments and letters to Tribunal

Page 44 – ‘Finally, it was put to him that he was trying to protect his position when Mrs Badzak was threatening to go to the press’ – No, press was not at that time involved at all. Batten has been reported by Badzak before any of Batten’s false allegations were made up – £1/2 million fraud Batten was committing with his brother Harold Batten trading as ROUNDEL, where Batten bought a car and car insurance abusing taxpayers funds, Badzak was never declared as working for Batten, Batten was at all times creating fraudulent invoices, stamping them himself with Prime Numbers Ltd stamp he illegally obtained to give those fraudulent invoice false appearance of ‘independent approval’ where Batten was in fact self-approving all his invoices. In addition Batten was reported for criminal acts of ‘inciting racial and religious hatred’ for his numerous racist publications and statements including

‘Charter of Muslim Understanding’, ‘Dismantling Multiculturalism’, UKIP

Immigration – Action Overdue, Muslims live in the 6th century, when you reform

Christianity you get Martin Luther King, when you reform Islam you get Bin Laden;

Gays – Blonde Bimbos, Bilderberg Jewish Conspiracy, war on Muslims, Slavs and Russians… All submitted to the police – sole reason Batten made false, malicious allegations against Badzak was to cover up his own wide ranging and extremely serious criminal activities and escape Justice by destroying person with evidence against him. Galvin and Reardon happily colluded with Batten and aided and abated criminal.

Mid paragraph Gledhill goes on again about £500.00 that was not subject of proceedings, it was not a loan and was never intended to be paid. Throughout 6 months Badzak sent much more on petrol and parking costs, there is a parliamentary introduced section that person working for MEP and/or MP must be reimbursed for those costs, money did not come from Batten, he claimed it from European

Parliament and the total sum spent was in excess of £3,400 that Batten never paid (but probably pocketed money himself as usual). One has to know that all EU payments including expenses, allowances and office expenses go directly into personal MEP accounts, which is odd way of managing taxpayers funds.

Page 46 – Galvin opened email – sent to Kamila? Never mentioned as was never mentioned that Kamila sent two different proofs of payments and was challenged about it. Why was that sequence of emails deleted and only subsequently recovered.

Page 47 – Gledhill talks about possibility of altering the copied statement. Once selected and copied, it is a picture attached to word document. To alter picture one would have to use one of photo altering software, which was not even suggested it was used. Without it, it would be impossible to alter anything. Defence did not even have that information due to Reardon’s “my father is imminently dying

40

excuse”. Later on Louise Mensch while doing research for her blog

“Unfashionista” tried to do that suggested exercise and with Adobe Photoshop it took her more than 24 hours to try deleting one payment and cold not align the page afterwards. This is suggestion that in one second three payments were deleted from the picture copies and pasted on to Word document, which is beyond ridiculous, as Bill Gates himself would not be able to do it.

Page 49 – 51 ‘Galvin’s whole evidence is pack of lies’ – Galvin never entered Badzak’s bedroom nor moved from the floor lamp in the living room. Galvin does not have X-ray vision to see anything in Badzak’s bedroom through thick wall. ‘Statement’ was not there and why did Galvin destroy 2 files except to plant evidence. Ms Piercy saw intact files at 9 am the day of Galvin’s evidence, files destroyed whilst in Galvin’s hands by 12 pm when he was giving evidence.

Page 53 – Ex-husband not helping – whilst ex-husband was by Badzak’s side entire trial and bank statements show ex-husband providing Badzak with more money then she was paid by Batten?!? – NB the lowest salary in Badzak’s entire life

Page 59 – Gledhill raises issue of legitimacy of PDF – 1. In business PDF s are usual methods, 2. The content of Word and PDF are same 3. Word, in Reardon’s own words was not altered.

Page 61 – Gledhill fails to mention that Batten had already tried to breach and endanger National Security and only due Reardon’s “my father is imminently dying excuse” this exhibit was not shown to the Jury

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4603182/Dutch-anti-

Muslim-politician-turned-away-from-Britain-at-Heathrow.html

Page 62 – middle paragraph – there is itemised bill showing I called Farage and subsequent texts showing disagreement and repulsion, as well as demand to remove Batten from UKIP, that defence did not have and was not able to present due to Reardon’s “my father is imminently dying excuse”.

Page 65 – those debt letters – whose handwriting is that? Where are Badzak’s and Mikulic’s signatures? Where are dates? Were signatures too difficult to forge when copied from letters dated after August 2011 when Badzak was too ill to do any work.

Page 70 Gledhill Summary (or rant as other eminent lawyers called it ended at 12.50) meaning that over 3 hours he was “Summing up’, implying guilt, hammering Jury with Batten’s lies.

Page 74 paragraph C – Gledhill refuses to divulge to Jury Defence submission that there was no case to answer and Jury is completely blind that it ever happened.

Friday 19 July2013

After Gledhill’s 3 hours hammering Jury was never able to reach unanimous ruling. Ruling reached was 10:2 after 1.5 days of deliberation. It was so surprising, that

41

officer in the dock, sitting with Badzak, convinced of her innocence, hugged her as even he misheard it was expected NOT GUILTY ruling.

Only when Badzak started laughing, Gledhill then decided she was in contempt of Court, later admitted and Miss Piercy can confirm that no Contempt occurred. Then after Badzak said she will appeal, after hearing from astonished guards, who were told by Ushers that it was GUILTY verdict, as soon as Badzak said she will appeal it, Gledhill calls her CRAZY and demands psychiatric evaluation. CPS was as a punishment suggesting mild to moderate amount of community work, while Gledhill was insisting on jail.

Badzak, having realised on second day that whole hearing was a set up, by Galvin, Reardon and Batten (she did not know anything about Gledhill as Barrister could only tell her he was working as Barrister too), asked that defence, to be more precise Miss Piercy to obtain top, independent, leading psychiatrist as I was rightfully afraid, after being found guilty for the CRIME THAT NOT ONLY I DID NOT COMMIT BUT THE CRIME THAT DOESN’T EVEN EXIST, that Gledhill’s real intention was to lock her up in mental institution. Miss Piercy immediately suggested dr Gupta, lead forensic psychiatrist for Broadmoor and well known in his field.

AFTERMATH

I was in absolute state of shock at what was done to me. I was innocent, not done anything wrong in my entire life, not even a parking ticket, had full security clearance that is available for inspection, had excellent earnings before deciding to help UKIP, which was the worst mistake in my life, that I have admitted and apologised thousands times, at the age of almost 42 was convicted criminal for something I have not done. As soon as I left the Court and walked short distance to the London Bridge tube station, from the utter shock I became paralysed from the waist down and simply collapsed on the street. My ex-husband hailed the cab and had to carry me home, to my third floor flat.

For the next three weeks I was completely paralysed. On Saturday, 20 July 2013, emergency doctor attended my home and established shocked caused paralysis. He was not sure whether paralysis would be permanent or temporary and how long it will last. My GP has all records. My mother, my son and my ex-husband when he was available had to carry me to bathroom and I could not get out of the bed. Injustice hit me so hard and is still until this day destroying my life and my health.

Who would in their right mind even accept the notion that someone is highly educated, has a great earnings, sends her son to private school, has a very good standard of living, had MBA in International Finance, excellent future suffers heart attach at the age of 39 solely caused by stress Batten was creating, would for meager £2,500.00 destroy their bright future. That amount was less than I was making in few

42

days before I made biggest mistake of my life promising to help Nigel Farage and UKIP.

During my paralysis my son, decided to one afternoon go and play football he adores with his friend in Wembley and was sexually assaulted on the tube train, as I was paralysed and could not take him there. Person, someone named Abbas was caught and convicted of that crime, and nobody from my family shared that information with anyone. On 11/11/2013 Mary from Batten’s office visits my home, unaware that I had in the meantime, after constantly being dismissed by the police, installed on my front door CCTV and she was captured delivering message on Batten’s headed paper in his handwriting and shouting so my son who was behind me could hear her, NEXT TIME YOUR SON WILL BE RAPED.

At that point I simply grabbed her letter, chased her as fast as I could and threw the paper after her. Mary was obviously faster as I had ongoing now extremely severe full heart failure, escaped not to be captured and took the letter I threw hoping my son will not see where it was coming from. CCTV of Mary’s visit exists as well as still photos taken.

On 25 September 2013, after I could walk, slowly and limping, I attended meeting with dr Gupta, Consultant Psychiatrist who found contrary to Batten and Gledhill’s assertions that I did not have any mental health problems, that I did have serious cardiac, visible problems, that I was highly educated, high achiever, honest, was always telling the truth (he checked each and every of my statement), expressed disbelief in situation and miscarriage of Justice, noticed sleep difficulties as I could not sleep and still wake up almost 2.5 years later with a nightmares from that miscarriage of Justice, frustration with injustice, as someone incapable of lying, stress from Batten, persecution, and stated if this situation continued with Batten that I might develop persecution syndrome and become fatally ill.

Dr Gupta checked everything carefully during more than 2 hours long interview and found me truthful, honest person, incapable of committing such crimes. He was adamant that any Gledhill’s suggestions of jail sentence would likely kill me and he would be objecting to that.

Full report exists and was sent to Gledhill. I also had to endure attending meeting with probation officers, both in the Court building where Miss Piercy was told by Gledhill to state that I was mentally unstable (blatant lie) and Miss Piercy refused it, as well as in Marylebone, Central London. Whole discussion, accusations, unfair and unjustified conviction left me constantly crying, unable to sleep, unable to function with inevitable further deterioration of my health.

Only person who is unjustly convicted for something she/he did not done can understand how much injustice hurts, every single minute of every single day. It is the worst possible feeling, much worse than death in the family as it never fades away and hurts equally almost 2.5 years later as it did that 19 July 2013. I have never altered anything, nothing was shown to be altered, I had done nothing wrong and yet I am convicted criminal, at the age of now 44. This is the worst experience of my life. It haunts me every day and now I am regretting seeking asylum in the country where

43

this miscarriage of Justice could happen and where such crimes committed by Batten, Reardon, Galvin and Gledhill are still not punished. The only people punished are I, who has done anything and my son, whose life has been wrecked by this injustice. He lost his go getting, happy mother and gained invalid that he has to care for, who is always in a bad mood, because all she thinks about as those thoughts cannot leave my mind, is injustice I suffered.

On 07 October 2013, Recorder Gledhill decided to completely ignore Psychiatric report, he only mumbled that he saw it, after Miss Piercy insisted that it is taken into consideration as he was the one requesting it, and sentenced me to 1 year jail sentence, suspended for 2 years, with 4 month of 7 pm to 7 am curfew!!!!???? As a reason for not sending me to jail instead of doctors report and impeccable references from another eminent doctor, Reverend, long term friend who were all describing me as extremely honest and selfless person and knew me for over 15 years, Gledhill instead mentioned my son, talked how he did not want to interrupt his education opening him for UKIP’s and Batten’s revenge. Once again, having seen Gledhill and coming back to the scene of Batten’s, Reardon’s, Galvin’s and Gledhill’s crimes I became paralysed from shock, again completely loosing control of my legs for 2.5 week, 18 days to be more precise.

A week later, another Batten’s associate and former useless UKIP press officer, Mark Croucher who started working for Batten published extremely defamatory blog where not only lied about my ex-husband and his family, claiming that my ex-husband’s dead father, who died in 1981 was representing me in Court. He also accused me of being part of Russian mafia, part of mob that killed some banker, revealed where live, despite strict International Court order that my address is not revealed, that even Gledhill had to adhere to, and similar Batten’s created lies.

Apart from being innocent person convicted for something she did not do, in November my son developed life-threatening inability to pass urine at all and had to be urgently treated. I cannot describe embarrassment I felt when I had to leave my son in hospital, with my ex-husband, because I had curfew that I had to adhere to. I will never forget my son’s cry ”Mum, please don’t go, don’t leave me alone”!

Beginning of 2014 all stories that Batten lied in Court were not true, started appearing on the front pages of all National Press. He was declared Nazi, racist, bigot, anti-Semite, Islamophobe, paranoid, with many cases for theft to answer as did Nigel

Farage. Times Newspaper ran whole series of articles about UKIP theft. Nigel Farage was found guilty by Electoral Commission for failure to declare his office donations and pocketing expenses.

I was still absolute wreck, in and out of hospitals, with left chamber enlargement that developed as a consequence of injustice and miscarriage of Justice, followed by thickening of Chamber, right ventricle failure, uncontrollable blood pressure despite over maximum dosage of all medications available to treat high blood pressure, passing out from not able to sleep, not even with sleeping tablets. Doctors, especially cardiologists were surprised that I was still alive each time I had to be urgently saved. My son suffered too. Instead of predicted 10 GCSE he gained only 4 with marginal

44

grades as he had to take on burden of the mother who was becoming sicker and sicker, more and more disabled because of the injustice she suffered and continues to suffer.

After I was contacted by CCRC to say that police officers who were described to

Mayor of London, Prime Minister and I as non-existent, several journalists including

Daniel Foggo of Panorama, Philip Braund, very well known freelancer, Alexi Mostrous from Times all called Metropolitan Police Office Press Office as they all read about my case, became informed through their channels, were 100% sure of my innocence based on their knowledge of Batten, his conduct and material evidence in the case, and each one of them were called again that such police officers, namely Galvin, Reardon, Fleming and Holden do not exist.

In March 2014 I suddenly started receiving calls from Acting Superintendent David R Manning from OCU Westminster, Metropolitan Police saying that he wanted to meet me and open investigations in the crimes I initially reported. I told him on multiple occasions that I have completely lost all trust in Metropolitan Police after what they have done to me and kept refusing to meet him. After one evening while I had dinner with my son he called 8 times in a space of 45 minutes, I finally relented and agreed to meet with him on 24 March 2014. At the meeting there were four people present, Acting Superintendent David R Manning, DS Worthington, my ex-husband who drove me and acted as a witness and I. I recorded openly whole meeting telling Manning that I did not believe them after stitch up and false conviction I suffered. I also told him that everything discussed will be public and journalistic knowledge as I was afraid of another police stitch up.

During the meeting with Superintendent Manning and DS Worthington, I re-reported the same four initial crimes I reported in 2011, Batten’s incitement to racial and religious hatred contrary to the section 5 of the Public Order Act, Batten’s and whole

UKIP, including all UKIP MEPs, except Mike Nattrass, multi-million pound fraud, Batten’s close associate’s Paul Wiffen’s creation and distribution of child

pornography and Farage’s press officer’s Annabelle Fuller’s perverting the Course of

Justice and theft of House of Commons secure issued Blackberry telephone and House of Commons security pass. I also reported new heinous crime that UKIP committed while Metropolitan Police was busy harassing me, sexual assault at UKIP Conference in September 2012 in Birmingham, in Crown Plaza Hotel.

Victim of heinous and deplorable sexual assault contacted me via my then Barrister Arlette Piercy, telling her that she was UKIP’s victim too and has more information about my stich up. Victim was before she was drugged and assaulted where all her clothes was ripped off, and assault filmed for entertainment and blackmail purposes told that I, who she knew nothing about, will be convicted and going to jail, Batten was heard boasting how he knew Judge and bent coppers, how articles will appear about me describing me as a spender who prays on vulnerable and naïve politicians. After the attack and sexual assault, she was threatened that if she goes to police and reports anything, she will end up in jail like I will. That happened in September 2012. When victim saw article in Daily Mail and Telegraph that Towler showed her it was prepared back then, although she did not believe UKIP at the time, and her case was

45

reported to the Police by Birmingham West Conservative MP Smith, once she saw that that article was printed and was saying exactly Towler and Batten told her, she contacted me and decided not to cooperate with police due blackmails she was receiving about filmed assault and also scared that she will suffer the same fate as I did.

Soon afterwards, Manning sent me 5 investigations he planned to open, while Worthington took again my statements and again evidence, primarily documentary evidence and promised, full transparent investigation.

On April 2014 Diane Taylor, investigative journalist for Guardian newspaper who deals solely with police corruption and misconducts, began calling Metropolitan Police Press Office. 24 hours later, probably because they had long standing dealings with this particular journalist Metropolitan Police relented and admitted that they have indeed lied to Prime Minister, Mayor of London, IPCC and I that Galvin, Reardon, Fleming and Holden did not exist. Not even 10 minutes after Diane Taylor called me to inform me that Met Police finally that they have lied to de facto and de jure their bosses, Inspector Etheridge called me and I recorded his call, as I did with all future police officers calls to protect myself from further harassment and further stitch ups saying “We made a mistake. It was human error.” Whole conversation can be heard here https://youtu.be/OEMERABYOQg

On 25 April 2014 I decided with very well known human rights campaigner, who specializes in police corruption to make criminal allegations about the crimes that Batten, Galvin, Holden, Fleming, Reardon and now PS Wray committed. We met with Acting Superintendent Manning and DS Worthington and together created a list of criminal allegations against these 6 police officers who have committed crimes not just against me but Justice system through their joint criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice.

Unknown to me at all this time Batten was stalking me, and once he got a whiff that criminal complaint was against made against him and that he was once again subject of police criminal investigation, on 14 May 2014, using his MEP official paperwork again (which is again serious misconduct in public office and abuse of powers) submitted yet another false, malicious criminal allegation against me.

Furthermore, as he was following my every step, when I was called by NO Xenophobia group, anti-racism to speak with other anti-racism campaigners that was to happen on 17 May 2014, Batten threatened them with reporting the anti-racism group with Police if they do not remove me from the panel of speakers http://news.fitzrovia.org.uk/2014/05/17/rally-to-oppose-scapegoating-of-immigrants-is-threatened-with-legal-action/

Fortunately No Xenophobia lawyers as well as Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, rebuffed Batten’s further threats and I spoke.

46

Acting Superintendent Manning sent all detailed criminal allegations against police officers involved in the crimes in my case to DPPS – Department of Police Professional Standards and that investigation is still ongoing.

On 23 June 2014 I suddenly received harassing phone call from DS Christopher Page, which I recorded and is available here https://youtu.be/eV3iip54DDU telling me that Batten has made (yet again false, malicious, vexatious, pack of lies, criminal allegations). I could not believe audacity and depth of criminality of that man. Batten was lying to Police that I was somehow, despite the fact that he was blocked everywhere, on all social media, on my phones, on my emails, “harassing him” and that I should come for police interview under caution or be arrested. I told DS Page, shaking, frustrated and in anger, expecting that Batten will be finally arrested for his many documentary provable crimes (to cite his brother Harold’s invoice, his car insurance invoice all illegally paid from EU expenses and many others) I was again being harassed by the same police. I told Page to put it all in writing and my lawyer,

(at that time I was introduced to brilliant, top tier lawyer, eminent Graham Atkins,

Plebgate lawyer, man who won against Arnold Schwarzenegger, when he was California Governor) and my lawyer would contact him. Next day my lawyer and I met with DPSS Inspector Fran Pollard and DS Helen Thomas where my lawyer after listening to DS Page’s telephone harassment, asked that DS Page also is charged with harassment.

Strangely, DS Page was part of the Major Crime Unit that deals with peadophilia and has nothing to do with harassment cases. Page persisted bombarding Atkins with emails that I must attend interview under caution, and while it was coincidence that my lawyer Atkins called me while I was attached to heart ECG, to say I must attend police interview under caution on my son’s 16th birthday, 10 July 2014 (Batten and his criminality have managed to destroy even my son’s much anticipated birthday celebration that he did even get a cake), ECG monitor showed massive palpitations and irregular heart function, that it took me over two hours to come around with huge doses of Nitroglycerin.

On 10 July 2014 my lawyer Graham Atkins and I attended, what would Atkins called later the most bizarre interview. There was another officer present, male, who was sitting in the corner, next to Page, avoiding eye contact, probably embarrassed with what was happening. Page gave to my lawyer his own typed statement that he claimed to be disclosure. Atkins responded asking him if this was Page’s first interview and that was not disclosure. He told me you can answer him if you want or we can go as he has no ground to ask you anything.

First Page’s question was Why am I calling UKIP fascist, racist, criminal organisation? Atkins told me you can answer it if you want but I can’t advise you how to answer such stupid question. I answered that Article 10 of Human Rights Act allows me Freedom of Speech and I can call them what they are and Page can’t do anything about it.

Second Page’s question was if I gave an interview to Sunday Times on 09 may 2014

(which was Friday and Sunday Times, it says it in a name, is published every Sunday)? My lawyer asked Page if he had that article, Page said he did and then looked, what my lawyer saw in Page’s paperwork, Batten’s official headed paper

47

dated 14 May 2014, well after European Elections were called and he was no longer MEP, just prospective MEP as anyone else taking part in the European Elections 2014. Batten was not only abusing his office and committing misconduct in the public office but was also falsely self-representing. Furthermore, later on in discovery it was found out that Batten was actually contacted by journalist he forced police officer Holden to threaten with arrest and Batten was again using same tactics while it was Batten who was committing numerous crimes. I reported this Batten’s crime to DS Neil Smithson of Scotland Yard, who deals with election offences post my Court victory on 26 October 2015 but never again heard about it.

Third question was Why am I talking to Lee Jasper as it is a crime to talk to Lee

Jasper. I replied (while Atkins was laughing) that if Page can show me a single Act of Parliament , Green or White Paper saying talking to Lee Jasper was a criminal offence, I would immediately admit it.

After that we left Charing Cross Police Station, same police station where I was charged with the crimes that not only I did not commit but that did not exist.

I came home shaken, angry, frustrated, exhausted, out of breath to furious son who at the very least was entitled to a birthday cake for his birthday, not angry mother.

Over the summer, Lee jasper, based on few of our meetings and documentary evidence he had published on his blog on 03 September 2014 http://leejasper.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/ukip-metropolitan-police-service-and.html Factual statement about the whole case. Several journalists who did not believe in veracity of my court process, knew Batten as a liar, racist and criminal and saw some documents from the Court immediately re-Tweeted it, as did ITV Chief Political Correspondent Michael Crick commenting something along the line – finally truth emerges in Jasna Badzak’s case. Many lawyers, political commentators, pundits and hundreds of others re-tweeted it reaching again Prime Minister, Mayor and Chairman of the Conservative Party as well as Labour and Green party. There were hundreds of RTs. I Re-Tweeted it on 04 September 2014, a day later.

On 04 November 2014 my lawyer Atkins called me, while I was in hospital again with extremely low blood pressure 50/30 to tell me Page called him that I must immediately come to Paddington Green Police Station. I told Atkins I was very sick in hospital but Page insisted that I self discharge from the hospital and come immediately. We arrived around 12 pm and as soon as Page opened the door he arrested me, searched me, provided with one of his self typed disclosures and interviewed me about content of Jasper’s blog. Each of my reply was I did not write it but it was truthful account. After 1.5 hours wait, by that time Lee Jasper came too, I was immediately charged with Harassment of Gerard Batten. I came home and was very unwell and became paralysed from shock again. That evening social media exploded seeing double injustice, first false conviction and now this new arrest, new Batten’s set of lies and new Batten’s harassment. Everyone was commenting, writing blogs, tweeting including may top lawyers and many decent Judges about the full injustice they were seeing. Lee Jasper, author of the blog, Michael Crick who tweeted blog commenting and Louise Mensch who also commented and re-tweeted many

48

times all called DS Page to offer themselves for arrest saying they committed worst “crimes” than I did re-tweeting truthful blog. Page declined them all and then complained to my lawyer Mr Graham Atkins how journalists were harassing him. I was on bail again.

I appeared few weeks later to enter plea as soon as I could walk again, or better limp. I pleaded not guilty, no case to answer, and then few weeks later in December for alleged pre-trail hearing, where most of motions of CPS representative who did not even know what was the case about were refused. I was represented by both Mr Graham Atkins, solicitor, and eminent Barrister Mr Stephen Vullo QC. Mr Vullo QC then took Officer Page to interview him for reasons for such allegations and was given huge file of Batten’s lies and nonsenses which were all thrown out by Judge but one of re-tweeting.

Louise Mensch published her blog in November 2014 leading to frenetic deleting of James Galvin Facebook page and Raerdon’s InkedIn page. Reardon’s LinkedIn page later re-appeared significantly altered removing many false statements. That blog alone had 20,000 unique visitors first day it was published.

On 06 December 2014 article appeared showing that Batten forced DC Holden to abuse his police powers and threaten two journalists for just doing their job, writing a story, drawing rightful condemnation from other journalists as well as David Davis MP, well known civil liberties promoter and current Conservative Mayoral Candidate Zac Goldsmith MP.

On Christmas Day 2014 while whole country was eating Christmas dinner, DI Fleming was busy stalking my defunct LinkedIn profile.

In January 2015 Mayor of London was publicly reminded in open question asked by Green Assembly member Jenny Jones, what was he doing about now publicly known criminal actions of police officers and what was he doing to stop police harassing Jasna Badzak.

On 15 February 2015 from all the stress and continuous non-sleeping, burden of Injustice I was suffering, I collapsed at home with exceptionally low blood pressure of 32/12, no pulse recorded and my son called ambulance where I was barely saved after extreme dosages of Adrenaline, Noradrenaline, Dopamine and fluids. My GP knew all the time but I was ashamed to tell doctors in St Mary’s Hospital what was really killing me – Batten’s persistent harassment and injustice I suffered.

Another pre-trail happened in March with Hearing scheduled to be 01 and 02 April

2015. During pre-trial hearing CPS requested ad their request was granted that

Hearing gets moved to 15 September as my team of lawyers including top UK Barrister Mr Michael Wolkind QC, Mr Stephen Vullo QC and Mr Graham Atkins were asking admission or appearance of all suspects in criminal conspiracy, Batten, Galvin, Reardon and Recorder Gledhill (who was known as extremist to Mr Volkind QC) admit the crimes they committed in Southwark Crown Court or appear in person to be questioned about lies to Mayor and Prime Minister, false, malicious accusations

49

Batten made against me leading to my miscarriage of Justice, conviction for the crime that never existed and Batten and Gledhill links from before my trial.

On morning 10 June 2015 as my son was getting up to go to school he found me unconscious, covered in feaces and vomit and called ambulance where once again I had immeasurably low blood pressure, no pulse, in complete heart block. I was fortunately revived after whole day of medical struggle in A and E department. The day after that as I was recovering, still attached to Noradrenalin and Adrenalin, I developed severe Hospital Acquired pneumonia, that next day escalated to full respiratory failure and chest sepsis. My lungs simply collapsed and I had to be urgently intubated. Surgeon who performed intubation extracted 6 liters of water (retained due to Batten’s harassment and injustice caused heart failure) and told my family I had less than 5% chances of survival. After 4 days in narcosis I woke up and could breathe again on my own. That night I fell in comma that lasted 5 days and further five waking up from comma. Again my son, instead of being able to study for his A levels, first step of exams, was with me in hospital going crazy, permanently rightfully terrified that his mother will die due to injustice Batten caused her.

After long stay in hospital from 10 June 2015 to 02 July 2015 I was finally able to go home but not without long-term consequences, physical as well as permanent from Batten’s injustice. My left hand is still paralysed and I suffered ulnar nerve damage that is exceptionally painful. As a result of Batten’s racist harassment and injustice I suffered I am currently on Metformin for diabetes, double the maximum dose of Beta blockers, ACE1, ACE 2 inhibitors, two types of Calcium Channel blockers, aspirin, diazepam, diuretics for heart failure, Temazepam for trying to sleep which does not work as it is 5.05 am now and I as usual cannot sleep as injustice is constantly in front of my eyes, Gabapentin for neurological pain, Tradmadol (opiates based pain killer for unbearable pain from paralysed hand), waiting for surgery sometimes this year to at least try to return some function to my hand and reduce unbearable pain.

I am awaiting surgery to attempt to give me back at least some functionality of the hand or death from health complications caused by Batten’s injustice and harassment.

Trial for false, malicious harassment allegations falsely, maliciously, invented by persistent offender Gerard Batten miraculously disappeared on 04 September 2014, when my lawyer, Graham Atkins received fax stating that al charges are dropped, bail is dropped due to insufficient evidence or translated none of the accused wanted to admit their crimes nor appear in court to be questioned by Mr Wolkind QC and Mr Vullo QC.

At the end of September 2015 IPCC ordered more stringent investigation as officers such as PS Wray and Inspector Etheridge left the force before they could be questioned. Now emphasis is on Galvin’s hacking and Kamila Zarychta’s forgery.

In September 2015 as I was to meet my lawyer for lunch, he informed me that his office manager just then told him, that DS Page when he was bringing disclosure of failed “harassment” trial was heard shouting “Why is Graham Atkins representing that woman?”, “Why is such prominent lawyer defending that woman?”, “How did she get such lawyers?”

50

I must emphasise that my case of miscarriage of Justice is so strong that it brought top lawyers, where Mr Michael Wolkind QC and Mr Stephen Vullo QC, two country’s leading criminal barristers, top of the top, where Mr Wolkind QC is known as best barrister in the country, are representing me pro bono, despite extreme demand for their services as my case of deliberate miscarriage of Justice is so strong and consequences of such injustice so visible that it became country’s most awful, notorious case that has caused public outrage and tens of thousands supporters of

JUSTICE4JASNA which appeared in blogs, YouTube, social media, everywhere.

Since September 2015, after my win when Batten and his criminal associates refused to admit their crimes, Kamila Zarychta, Batten’s notorious assistant despite being blocked on Twitter kept sending at least dozen tweets, sometimes hundred tweets every day calling me criminal, liar, that September case was never won, that I don’t have any lawyers, that my son should be ashamed of me, that he is son of criminal, until she stopped her every day tweets on 08 January 2016, at 7 pm when my son went to meet some new girlfriend, who approached him in front of his school, lied to him she was attending same school, gave surname as Batten’s UKIP London close associate Belammy and when my son was at the exact time when Kamila stopped her harassment that lasted every day since September when Batten’s lies were dismissed, suddenly and my son was beaten senseless, receiving three horrific punches – first one in the eye, second one in his nose breaking the nose and third one in his mouth where his front tooth and tooth number 6 were broken. Police are now investigating GBH, while both my lawyer and I are asking that Batten and Kamila are questioned as her abusive, persistent, everyday tweets stopped at the precise time of attack, well before passer by found my son and alerted police robbery squad that was in vicinity who then informed me around 9 pm.

All I am asking from Criminal Case Review Commission is to look at the documentary evidence of the case, conduct of Gerard Batten, who was facing civil trials, police officers that are under criminal investigation and Recorder Gledhill who never declared conflict of interest despite knowing Batten before the hastily on false pretences moved trial.

I simply cannot believe that this is my life. I went to school until I was 29 years old, did three degrees, was refugee, rebuilt my life, was selfless community worker, had a good job and enviable earnings, was able to provide my son everything, private healthcare, private schooling, at least two holidays per year, excellent life, never did a step wrong in my life and now I am dying because of injustice, being convicted for something that I did not do and something that simply does not exist and has never existed, but was just false, malicious, vindictive, vexatious, baseless accusation to prevent me to take action for damage to my health Gerard Batten through his racist, criminal and despicable bahaviour caused me.

This is truthful and accurate account of injustice I suffered though false conviction and miscarriage of Justice.

 

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
http://Leave-The-EU.com
Documents, Essays & Treaties: https://GLWdocuments.wordpress.com/
The Hamlet of Stroat: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com
The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com
Chepstow Chat: http://ChepstowChat.wordpress.com/
Christopher Storey: http://ChristopherStory.wordpress.com/
Des Watkins DFC: http://DesWatkins.wordpress.com/
Hollie Greig etc.: http://HollieGreigetc.wordpress.com/
Psycheocraphy: http://Psycheocracy.wordpress.com/
The McCann Case: http://TheMcCannCase.wordpress.com/
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: http://SSOE.wordpress.com/
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: http://StolenKids-Dunblane.blogspot.com/
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.co.uk/

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back UK Land Line Messages
I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence
I am NOT a WARMIST
I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technology eg. WIND TURBINES
I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technology
I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for violent rape, mass or for pleasure murder , child abuse etc.
I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EU MEMBERSHIP – IMPLICATIONS of – 25-Apr-1967 CAB129Legal

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 25/07/2015

EU MEMBERSHIP, Implications of – 25-Apr-1967 CAB129Legal.

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

EU MEMBERSHIP – IMPLICATIONS of – 25-Apr-1967 – CAB129Legal

(c) crown copyright Catalogue Reference: CAB/129/129 Image Reference: 0012
(THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY‘S GOVERNMENT) C(67) 62 COPY”NO. 0
25th A p r i l , 1967 CABINET LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Memorandum by the Law Officers As requested by the Cabinet (CC(67) 21st Conclusions , Minute 3), we have considered the Report by officials attached to E (66) 7, and have the following comments on the legal and constitutional implications discussed there in.

Implementation of the Treaties
2. The preparation and passing of the Acts implementing the Treaties would be a major legislative operation.
We would be faced with the task of unravelling the categories of Community law which have direct internal effect and which would require to be incorporated into the law of th e United Kingdom.
There would also be need to amend a considerable body of our existing Acts .
But these are problems which could be overcome.

Sovereignty of Parliament
3. British constitutional doctrine is that Parliament is sovereign and that no Parliament can preclude its successors from changing the law.
It is, however, implicit in acceptance of the Treaties that the United Kingdom will not only accept existing Community law, but also will refrain from enacting future legislation inconsistent with Community law.
This requirement thus detracts from Parliamentary sovereignty Such a restraint on our legislative system would not, however, be unprecedented.
Our legislation often takes account of Treaty obligations (for example, the Charter of the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Ottawa Agreements of 1932), which restrict our future legislative freedom.
Further, several Acts of Parliament have reduced for all time vast territorial areas of our sovereignty (the various Acts of Independence granted to India, etc.).
However, the continuing incidence of future Community legislation would be without precedent and would presentus with continuing legislative and constitutional problems.
Not only would Parliament have to refrain from enacting future legislation inconsistent with Community law, but future Community law would have to be accepted as binding on us .
The United Kingdom Parliament could pass legislation enacting that Community law should prevail over United Kingdom law if any conflict arose but there is in theory no constitutional means available to us to make it certain that no future Parliament would enact legislation in conflict with Community law.
In our opinion, if Parliament did in future enact such legislation expressly contradicting Community law, the Courts would apply that legislation, despite its repugnance to Community law.
However, we think that this theoretical possibility could, in practice, arise on a matter of importance affecting the Community, only in political conditions in which the United Kingdom had in any case decided to break with the Community.
The risk of inadvertent contradiction between future United Kingdom and Community law will not be great.
After we join the Community, we shall be taking part in the preparation and enactment of all future Community law.
Our participation would thus enable us to reduce the likelihood of incompatibility between the Community law and our domestic law.

Character of the Community Law
4. Community law has little direct effect on the ordinary life of private citizens, their rights and obligations.
By far the greater part of our domestic law will remain unchanged.
Nothing in the Treaties touches our criminal law, matrimonial law, law of inheritance, land law, the law of tort, or negligence, or contract (save inrelation to restrictive practices), the relations of landlord and tenant, housing or town and country planning.
Direct taxation would not be affected.
Nor is there any reason to expect the creation of future Community law in these fields, for the power of the Community to create new law is limited to the purposes set out in the Treaties which cannot be enlarged except by unanimous agreement.
The main impact of Community law would be in the realms of trade, customs, restrictive practices and immigration.
It would also affect the operation of the iron and coal industries.

Courts
5. We understand that there would undoubtedly be a British Judge (and perhaps a British Advocate General) at the European Court! we regard this as an important safeguard.
We agree that it would be quite possible to assimilate Community law and rulings of the European Court in to our own systems.
We consider that the United Kingdom Courts would be likely to refuse to hold that Parliament had by implication repealed or amended any part of Community law.
But if Parliament were to pass an Act expressly derogating from Community law, we consider that the United Kingdom Courts would regard themselves as bound to give effect to the Act even though this involved a breach of the Treaties.

Safeguards for the Protection of Individuals
6. We regard it as important that there is a right of appeal to the European Court, which we believe to be a Court of high standards, from Community decisions which affectindividuals and corporate bodies.
We consider that the various powers of the Commission to authorise its inspectors to enter premises, inspect books and interrogate persons is acceptable, provided that such powers are not normally exercised in this country without an order made by a United Kingdom Court.

International Relations
7. The requirements under the Treaties would restrict our independence of action in future international dealings, and would, broadly speaking, have the effect of transferring to Community institutions our power of concluding treaties on tariff and commercial matters.
We consider that this would be an inevitable and acceptable consequence of our acceding to the Treaties.
As a matter of international law, we would have no right to withdraw from the Treaties unless there was a fundamental change in circumstances (e.g. if one of the member States were over–run by a foreign power).
We regard this as somewhat academic; if for any reason, the United Kingdom decided to withdraw, and an Act of Parliament were passed for this purpose, we find it difficult to imagine that our Courts would not give effect to it.
Withdrawal from the Treaties would certainly be an immensely complex operation.

F.E.J.
G.S.
D.F.H.
S.W.
The Law Officers 1 Department, W.C.2 ..
25th April, 1967 SECRET

Secret as this document may have been it is clear that Enoch Powell in his speech in the House of Commons debate on 25-Feb-1970 CLICK HERE had deduced and laid out the facts for the British peoples prior to the Referendum on the ratification of The Treaty of Rome!

It is clear with hindsight that the Government of the day, together with their EC allies set out to use FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) to oppose those who wished to Leave_The_EU, or more accurately did not wiash to ratify the Treaty, playing largely on the lack of leadership of the NO Vote, their underfunding and the fact they were beset by squabbling and the egos of a few small minded individuals who, with hindsight, can be seen to have cost Britain and the peoples of Britain their liberty, independence and sovereignty through a so called democratic proces which was riddled with corruption.

Sadly, with the benefit of that hind sight we can see the same sad situation mapping out once again in the lead up to the promised referendum of 2017!

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
http://Leave-The-EU.com
Documents, Essays & Treaties: https://GLWdocuments.wordpress.com/
The Hamlet of Stroat: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com
The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com
Chepstow Chat: http://ChepstowChat.wordpress.com/
Christopher Storey: http://ChristopherStory.wordpress.com/
Des Watkins DFC: http://DesWatkins.wordpress.com/
Hollie Greig etc.: http://HollieGreigetc.wordpress.com/
Psycheocraphy: http://Psycheocracy.wordpress.com/
The McCann Case: http://TheMcCannCase.wordpress.com/
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: http://SSOE.wordpress.com/
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: http://StolenKids-Dunblane.blogspot.com/
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.co.uk/

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back UK Land Line Messages
I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence
I am NOT a WARMIST
I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technology eg. WIND TURBINES
I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technology
I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for violent rape, mass or for pleasure murder , child abuse etc.
I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Five President’s Report To Strengthen EU Economic & Monetary Union 01-Jul-2015

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 01/07/2015

Five President’s Report To Strengthen EU Economic & Monetary Union 01-Jul-2015

.

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Five President’s Report

To Strengthen EU Economic & Monetary Union

01-Jul-2015

Press Release & Full Text

European Commission – Press release

Five Presidents’ Report sets out plan for strengthening Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union as of 1 July 2015

Brussels, 22 June 2015

Today, the five Presidents – European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, together with the President of the Euro Summit, Donald Tusk, the President of the Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, and the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz – have revealed ambitious plans on how to deepen the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) as of 1 July 2015 and how to complete it by latest 2025. To turn their vision for the future of EMU into reality, they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU. Delivering a Deeper and Fairer Economic and Monetary Union has been one of the top 10 priorities of President Juncker in his Political Guidelines.

President Juncker said: “The euro is a currency shared by 19 EU Member States and more than 330 million citizens. It is something to be proud of. It is something that protects Europe. But it is also something that can work better. Our Economic and Monetary Union remains incomplete and I promised when taking office that I would work to consolidate and complement the unprecedented measures we took during the crisis and make them more socially fair and democratically legitimate. Today we, five Presidents, are setting out our common vision. The world is watching us and they want to know where we are going. Today we lay out monetary integration and bring it to its ultimate destination.”

Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President for the Euro and Social Dialogue, said: “The Economic and Monetary Union has been strengthened in recent years, not least in the light of the financial and economic crisis. Yet it remains incomplete. Today’s report suggests how it can be further strengthened, in stages, over the coming years. We stand ready to bring forward the specific proposals needed to turn this ambitious, yet pragmatic vision into reality. A complete EMU is however not an end itself. It is a means to contribute to more growth, jobs and prosperity for all citizens, now and in the future.” 

Despite the progress made in the past few years, particularly with the launch of the Banking Union, EMU remains incomplete. Divergence across the euro area is significant and the crisis of recent years has further highlighted existing shortcomings. It is clear that with 18 million unemployed and many within our societies exposed to risks of social exclusion, a lot more needs to be done to turn the euro area – the world’s second largest economy – into a rock-solid architecture. We need a lasting, fair and democratically legitimate basis for the future which contributes to more growth, jobs and prosperity for all citizens.

The Report sets out three different stages for turning the vision of the Five Presidents into reality (see Annex 1):

–         Stage 1 or “Deepening by Doing” (1 July 2015 – 30 June 2017): using existing instruments and the current Treaties to boost competitiveness and structural convergence, achieving responsible fiscal policies at national and euro area level, completing the Financial Union and enhancing democratic accountability.

–         Stage 2, or “completing EMU”: more far-reaching actions will be launched to make the convergence process more binding, through for example a set of commonly agreed benchmarks for convergence which would be of legal nature, as well as a euro area treasury.

–         Final Stage (at the latest by 2025): once all the steps are fully in place, a deep and genuine EMU would provide a stable and prosperous place for all citizens of the EU Member States that share the single currency, attractive for other EU Member States to join if they are ready to do so.

To prepare the transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2, the Commission will present a White Paper in spring 2017 outlining the next steps needed, including legal measures to complete EMU in Stage 2. This follows the model of the Jacques Delors White Paper of 1985 which – through a series of measures and a timetable attached to them – paved the way to the Single European Act, the legal basis of the Single Market project.  

What’s in the Five Presidents’ Report concretely?

1. Towards an Economic Union of convergence, growth and jobs

This Union should rest on four pillars: the creation of a euro area system of Competitiveness Authorities; a strengthened implementation of the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure; a greater focus on employment and social performance; and on stronger coordination of economic policies within a revamped European Semester (see Annex 2). This should be put in place in the short run (Stage 1), on the basis of practical steps and the Community method. In the medium term (Stage 2), the convergence process should be made more binding through a set of common high-level standards that would be defined in EU legislation.

Competitiveness Authorities

The aim of the Competitiveness Authorities should not be to harmonise practices and institutions in charge of wage formation across borders. Those processes vary widely within the EU and rightly reflect national preferences and legal traditions.

Based on a common template, each Member State should decide the exact set-up of its national Competitiveness Authority, but they should be democratically accountable and operationally independent. National actors, such as social partners, should continue to play their role according to the established practices in each Member State, but they should use the opinions of the Authorities as guidance during wage setting negotiations. Some Member States, like the Netherlands and Belgium, already have such authorities.

2. Towards Financial Union

Economic and Financial Union are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Progress on these two fronts must be a top priority in Stage 1. As the vast majority of money is bank deposits, money can only be truly single if confidence in the safety of bank deposits is the same irrespective of the Member State in which a bank operates. This requires single bank supervision, single bank resolution and single deposit insurance. We already have achieved the goal of single bank supervision. A Single Resolution Mechanism has been agreed with a Single Resolution Fund (which will become operational on 1 January 2016). As a next step, the five Presidents propose the launching of a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) under Stage 1 which could be set up as a re-insurance system at the European level for the national deposit guarantee schemes.

3. Towards Fiscal Union

Unsustainable fiscal policies not only endanger price stability in the Union, they also harm financial stability. In the short run (Stage 1), the five Presidents propose the creation of an advisory European Fiscal Board which would coordinate and complement already existing national fiscal councils (see Annex 3). It would provide an independent analysis, at European level, of how budgets perform against the economic objectives set out in the EU fiscal governance framework. In the longer term (Stage 2), a common macroeconomic stabilisation function should be set up to better deal with shocks that cannot be managed at the national level alone. It would improve the cushioning of large macroeconomic shocks and make EMU more resilient. Such a stabilisation function could build on the European Fund for Strategic Investments as a first step, by identifying a pool of financing sources and investment projects specific to the euro area, to be tapped into.

4. Strengthening Democratic Accountability, Legitimacy and Institutions: From Rules to Institutions

Greater responsibility and integration at EU and euro area level means more interdependence. It also means better sharing of new powers and greater transparency about who decides what and when. It’s time to review and consolidate our political construct: the Report proposes greater parliamentary involvement and control – at national and European level especially when it comes to the Country Specific Recommendations, the National Reform Programmes and the Annual Growth Survey. In the short term (Stage 1), EMU needs a unified external representation – as outlined in the Political Guidelines of President Juncker. Today, the EU and the euro area, are still not represented as one in the international financial institutions, notably the IMF. A fragmented voice means the EU is punching below its political and economic weight. The Five Presidents also propose strengthening the role of the Eurogroup. In the short run, this may require a reinforcement of its presidency and the means at its disposal. In the longer run (Stage 2), a full-time presidency of the Eurogroup could be considered.

Finally, while euro area Member States will continue to decide on taxation and the allocation of budgetary expenditures along national political choices, some decisions will increasingly need to be made collectively while ensuring democratic accountability and legitimacy. A future euro area treasury could be the place for such collective decision-making.

5. The Social dimension of EMU

One of the main lessons learned from the crisis is that a “triple-A EMU” must combine competitive economies that are able to innovate and succeed in an increasingly globalised world, with a high level of social cohesion. As President Juncker said in the European Parliament upon his election as Commission President: “I want Europe to be dedicated to being triple-A on social issues, as much as it is to being triple A in the financial and economic sense.” This means in particular that labour markets and welfare systems need to function well and be sustainable in all euro area Member States. Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report.

Next Steps: This report has put forward the principal steps necessary to complete EMU at the latest by 2025. The first initiatives should be launched by the EU institutions as of 1 July 2015. To prepare the transition between Stages 1 and 2, the Commission – in consultation with the Presidents of the other EU institutions – will present a “White Paper” in Spring 2017, assessing progress made in Stage 1 and outlining next steps needed. It will discuss the legal, economic and political preconditions of the more far-reaching measures necessary to complete EMU in Stage 2, and will draw on analytical input from an expert consultation group. Translating the Five Presidents’ report into laws and institutions should begin without delay.

Background

The Euro Summit of October 2014 underlined the fact that “closer coordination of economic policies is essential to ensure the smooth functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union”. It called for work to continue to “develop concrete mechanisms for stronger economic policy coordination, convergence and solidarity” and “to prepare next steps on better economic governance in the euro area”.

This report has benefitted from intense discussion with Member States and civil society. It builds on the report “Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union” (the so-called “Four Presidents’ Report”) and on the Commission’s “Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU” of 2012, which remain essential references for completing EMU.

It reflects the personal deliberations and discussions of the five Presidents. It focuses on the euro area, as countries that share a currency face specific common challenges, interests and responsibilities. The process towards a deeper EMU is nonetheless open to all EU Members.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

 

For more information:

The Five Presidents’ Report.

CLICK HERE

 

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
http://Leave-The-EU.com
Documents, Essays & Treaties: https://GLWdocuments.wordpress.com/
The Hamlet of Stroat: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com
The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com
Chepstow Chat: http://ChepstowChat.wordpress.com/
Christopher Storey: http://ChristopherStory.wordpress.com/
Des Watkins DFC: http://DesWatkins.wordpress.com/
Hollie Greig etc.: http://HollieGreigetc.wordpress.com/
Psycheocraphy: http://Psycheocracy.wordpress.com/
The McCann Case: http://TheMcCannCase.wordpress.com/
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: http://SSOE.wordpress.com/
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: http://StolenKids-Dunblane.blogspot.com/
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.co.uk/

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  • I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  • ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  • I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  • I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  • I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  • I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  • I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  • I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  • I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  • I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  • I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  • I am NOT a WARMIST
  • I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  • I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  • I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  • I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  • I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  • I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  • I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  • I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  • I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  • I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  • I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Asian_Nature_Cures NATURE CURE AND NATURAL METHODS OF TREATMENT

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 12/06/2015

.

Asian_Nature_Cures NATURE CURE AND NATURAL METHODS OF TREATMENT

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

.

NATURE CURE
& NATURAL METHODS OF TREATMENT

Overview

For those who are followers of Natural Health & Natural Cures – Particularly those who are Asian or follow Asian medical practices.

We have uploaded a 265 page .pdf of cures and herbs, details and cures of primarily Indian origin.

THIS DOES NOT constitute a recommendation in any way by this web site – ALL such cures should be considered little more than Snake Oil and like the use of Chemotherapy, Drugs and the like in the treatment of cancer you should make any decisions ONLY when you have thoroughly considered the dangers, side effects and efficacy.

IF in ANY doubt discuss all treatments with your medical team.

That said YOU may find the contents of the .pdf of interest as an educational curio alone, whilst others may find it of value based upon their beliefs.

Details

You decide: 

To view the full .pdf Click Here

Comments

We would much appreciate YOUR opinions on any page of the document provided, in which you have a particular knowledge or expertise.

 

A COMPLETE HANDBOOK OF NATURE CURE

Contents
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgements
PART I
NATURE CURE AND NATURAL METHODS OF TREATMENT
1. Principles And Practice Of Nature Cure
2. Fasting – The Master Remedy
3. Therapeutic Baths
4. Curative Powers Of Earth
5. Exercise In Health And Disease
6. Therapeutic Value Of Massage
7. Yoga Therapy
8. Healing Power Of Colours
9. Sleep : Restorative Of Tired Body And Mind
PART II
HEALTH THROUGH NUTRITION
10. Optimum Nutrition For Vigour And Vitality
11. Miracles Of Alkalizing Diet
12. Vitamins And Their Importance In Health And Disease
13. Minerals And Their Importance In Nutrition.
14. Amazing Power Of Amino Acids
15. Secrets Of Food Combining
16. Health Promotion The Vegetarian Way
17. Importance Of Dietary Fibre
18. Lecithin – An Amazing Youth Element
19. Role Of Enzymes In Nutrition.
20. Raw Juice Therapy
21. Sprouts For Optimum Nutrition
22. Acne
23. Alcoholism
24. Allergies
25. Anaemia
26. Appendicitis
27. Arterriosclerosis
28. Arthritis
29. Asthama
30. Backache
31. Bronchitis
32. Cancer
33. Cataract
34. Cirrhosis Of The Liver
35. Colitis
36. Common Cold
37. Conjunctivitis
38. Constipation
39. Dandruff
40. Defective Vision
41. Depression
42. Diabetes
43. Diarrhoea
44. Dysentery
45. Eczema
46. Epilepsy
47. Falling Of Hair
48. Fatigue

PART III
49. Gall-Bladder Disorders
50. Gastritis
51. Glaucoma
52. Gout
53. Headaches And Migraine
54. Heart Disease
55. High Blood Cholesterol
56. High Blood Pressure
57. Hydrocele
58. Hypoglycemia
59. Indigestion
60. Influenza
61. Insomnia
62. Jaundice
63. Kidney Stones
64. Leucoderma
65. Neuritis
66. Nepthritis
67. Obesity
68. Peptic Ulcer
69. Piles
70. Premature Greying Of Hair
71. Prostate Disorders
72. Psoriasis
73. Pyorrhoea
74. Rheumatism
75. Sexual Impotence
76. Sinusitis
77. Stress
78. Thinness
79. Tonsillitis
80. Tuberculosis
81. Varicose Veins
82. Venereal Diseases
PART IV
WOMEN’S PROBLEMS
83. Menstrual Disorders
84. Pre-menstrual Syndrome
85. Menopausal Problems
86. Childbirth The Natural Way
87. Habitual Abortion
88. Female Sterility
89. Leucorrhoea
90. Inflammation Of The Uterus
91. Prolapse Of The Uterus
92. Vaginitis
93. Pruritus Vulvae
94. Hysteria
95. Goitre
PART V
OTHER DISEASES
96. Cholera
97. Dermatitis
98. Hiatus Hernia
99. Intestinal Worms
100. Malaria
101. Whooping Cough
102. Halitosis
103. Measles
104. Mumps
105. Pleurisy
106. Pneumonia
107. Sore Throat
108. Cystitis
A COMPLETE HANDBOOK OF NATURE CURE

To view the entire .pdf 265 page document CLICK HERE

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
http://Leave-The-EU.com
Documents, Essays & Treaties: https://GLWdocuments.wordpress.com/
The Hamlet of Stroat: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com
The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com
Chepstow Chat: http://ChepstowChat.wordpress.com/
Christopher Storey: http://ChristopherStory.wordpress.com/
Des Watkins DFC: http://DesWatkins.wordpress.com/
Hollie Greig etc.: http://HollieGreigetc.wordpress.com/
Psycheocraphy: http://Psycheocracy.wordpress.com/
The McCann Case: http://TheMcCannCase.wordpress.com/
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: http://SSOE.wordpress.com/
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: http://StolenKids-Dunblane.blogspot.com/
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.co.uk/

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back UK Land Line Messages
I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence
I am NOT a WARMIST
I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technology eg. WIND TURBINES
I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technology
I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for violent rape, mass or for pleasure murder , child abuse etc.
I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide

Posted in Asian Natural Health Cures, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W, HEALTH, NATURAL CURES AND NATURAL METHODS OF TREATMENT, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PATERSON, Owen EUrope Speech 24-Nov-2014 – 01

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 24/11/2014

PATERSON, Owen EUrope Speech 24-Nov-2014 – 01

.

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

.

Hi,

here is the full text of MP Owen Paterson‘s speech to Business for Britain today, in which he advocates and shows that these United Kingdoms should Leave_The_EU and would be better off in many ways if we were to do so.

The great significance of this would seem to be that as a recently ex member of David Cameron’s Tory Cabinet he is the first British politician of credible stature to make so detailed, and unequivocal, speech showing Britain would be Better_Off_Out  and providing a viable, honourable and responsible mechanism by which Britain can act to Leave_The_EU with due consideration for subsequent survival.

Consider the facts:

PATERSON, Owen EUrope Speech 24-N0v-2014 – 01

 

AN OPTIMISTIC VISION

OF A POST – EU

UNITED KINGDOM

Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP

 

Business for Britain

24 November 2014
Ideas Space
London SW1
.
I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
.
II.
HISTORY OF THE EU
A political project from conception, masquerading
as an economic project
.
III.
MOTIVATION FOR A FULL POLITICAL UNION
EXPOSED
Contemporary Examples
.
IV.
LOSING INFLUENCE ON THE WORLD STAGE:
1/28th. OF A CHAIR
OR
A WHOLE CHAIR
AT TOP TABLES
V.
BOTH A SINGLE MARKET AND GLOBAL TRADE
a) a single market
b) global trade
c) immigration
.
VI.
AN OPTIMISTIC, POSITIVE VISION
THE UK AFTER THE EU
.
VII.
AN ORDERLY EXIT
INVOKING ARTICLE 50

To View The Full Text of The Speech CLICK HERE

For the full text of FleXcit CLICK HERE

See Also CLICK HERE

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in Business For Britain, EEA, EFTA, EU, FleXcit, Norway Option, Owen Paterson, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

IMMIGRATION – Ukip Policy!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 24/10/2014

.

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

.

 

IMMIGRATION – Ukip Policy!

IMMIGRATION POLICY - EUkip 01

1 Immigration: Enough is Enough
Research by Fiona Wise
The assistance of Professor Stephen Bush,
Lynnda Robson, & the Members of the
UKIP Immigration Committee 2007 is gratefully
acknowledged
Immigration:
Action Overdue!
By Gerard Batten MEP
UK Independence Party
UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

1. Introduction
2. Executive Summary
The Problems
The Solutions – Policy Recommendations
3. Britain, a Nation of Migrants? Immigration 43AD to 1945
4. Overcrowded Britain
5. UK Post-War Immigration 1945 to 2008
6. Illegal Immigration
7. The Asylum System and its Abuses
8. The European Union and Mass Immigration
9. Demographic Changes Caused by Mass Immigration
10. Economic Effects of Mass Immigration
11. Cultural and Social Effects of Mass Immigration
12. The Islamic Dimension
13. Myths and Realities Concerning Immigration
14. How Other Countries Have Tackled Immigration
15. Who Benefits Most from Mass Immigration?
16. Appendix I. Members of the Immigration Policy Committee
Immigration: Action Overdue!
Contents
1
2 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
Until relatively recently, when the problems created by mass immigration over
several decades could no longer be ignored, anyone who dared to speak out
on the issue was likely to be labelled a racist or xenophobe by the political
and media elite; but comments that might have been shouted down just a
few years ago are now the common currency of the headlines and editorial
columns of some of the national newspapers.
The UK Independence Party is not against some controlled immigration
where it is in the interests of Britain and its citizens. UKIP is not antiimmigrant,
racist or xenophobic. UKIP has members who were themselves
once immigrants; some are the descendants of immigrants; some
are employed by immigrants, or employ immigrants themselves; some
have married immigrants. UKIP wants an immigration policy designed
for the benefit of the British people, whatever their race or ethnic
origins, not one designed for the benefit of foreigners.
The situation is now so out of control, and potential dangers so great, that
only policies of a radical nature can redress the situation. The British must
begin to value their country and their citizenship in the way that countries
such as the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand do; otherwise we face
a declining quality of life and grave social dangers in the future. Failure by
mainstream political parties to seriously address the issues may drive some
voters with legitimate and genuine objections to continued mass immigration
(especially those at the lower end of the economic scale) into the hands of political
parties whose aims are not controlled and limited immigration but the
long-term hidden agenda of ethnic cleansing.
We all know immigrants and the descendants of immigrants who are
hard-working and law-abiding. People who contribute to the economy and are
valued members of society. Many such people are as vocal in their criticism of
the current immigration and asylum policies as anyone else. Now is the time
to be bold, to say what the vast majority of the British people, of whatever
racial and ethnic origin, want to hear, and to speak up for our country.
The Executive Summary under Section 2 lays out the problems surrounding
immigration, and then gives the solutions as policy recommendations:
sections 3 to 15 show the relevant background information. They policies may
be subject to further refinement and improvement if that proves necessary.
UKIP believes our policy recommendations are necessary if there is to be
any serious attempt to address the issue of uncontrolled and unlimited
immigration into Britain.
1. Introduction
Immigration: Action Overdue! 3
4 Immigration: Action Overdue!
The Problems
1. Since the end of World War II Britain has experienced mass immigration on
an unprecedented scale. From 1997 when Labour came to power, to 2008,
at over 6 million immigrants have come to Britain, almost 4 million people
have left, leaving a net population gain of over 2 million. The estimate for
illegal immigrants is up to one million, putting the overall figure for the net
population gain for 1997-2008 at about 3 million. Currently immigration adds
one million new people to the population every five years – equivalent to a
new city the size of Birmingham.
2. It is simply not true that Britain has always been a ‘nation of migrants’;
for the 879 years prior to 1945 Britain had very little or comparatively moderate
rates of immigration, in terms of both numbers and as a proportion of the
existing population.
3. Britain is already one of the most densely populated countries in the
world. At current immigration levels, by the middle of this century the population
will have risen by over 25% to more than 75 million people; and yet the
Government sees no limits on the number of people that can continue to be
admitted. England, where the vast majority of immigrants settle, bears the
brunt and the rate of population increase is unsustainable.
4. The current Labour Government’s policy of mass immigration has
been deliberately imposed on the British people without consulting them,
and with the support of the Conservative and Liberal-Democrat parties. It can
only be described as uncontrolled, unlimited, and indiscriminate (in the true
meaning of that word).
5. The demographic consequences of mass immigration are that, on current
trends, within a few decades the majority of the people living in England will
be immigrants, or the children and grandchildren of immigrants. The English
will become a minority in their own land.
6. The purported economic benefits of mass immigration are demonstrably
untrue. The costs of mass immigration are however only too visible:
on the health and education services, on housing, roads and public transport,
on the social services and benefits systems, and on the general quality of life
due to over-population.
7. As a member of the European Union, Britain has lost full control of her
borders and immigration and asylum policy.
8. The vast majority of people coming to Britain from the European
2. Executive Summary
1
Union now come from its poorest countries and they show few signs of
returning home, even in the current economic climate. The situation regarding
European Union citizens living in the UK can only be regulated when we leave
the European Union and regain control of our borders.
9. Unlimited, uncontrolled and indiscriminate immigration benefits the
immigrants, the political parties promoting immigration in order to secure
the votes of migrants, and employers benefiting from a supply of cheap labour:
it does not benefit the vast majority of the indigenous population.
10. A significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents in
Britain are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society. This
problem is encouraged by the official promotion of multiculturalism which
threatens social cohesion.
The Solutions – Policy Recommendations
1. UKIP calls for an end to mass and uncontrolled immigration. Any future
immigration must be strictly controlled and limited, and only where it can be
clearly shown to be in the interests of the British people.
2. UKIP has already proposed an immediate five year freeze on immigration for
permanent settlement. There would be an exception for those with a parent
or grandparent born in the UK of British nationality. Entry by time-related
work permits would still be allowed (see item 4. below); and applications for
permanent leave to remain would also be considered, e.g. for those seeking
to marry a British citizen (see item 10 below). During the five year freeze the
government should (a) concentrate on removing illegal immigrants, and (b)
formulate a policy for an annual limit on permanent settlement not exceeding
an absolute maximum of 50,000 per annum, including dependents. This figure
should be reviewable downwards depending on population growth.
3. Britain can only regain control of her immigration and asylum policy by
reclaiming control of her borders and her judicial system. This can only be
done by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and leaving the
European Union. This has always been UKIP policy. UKIP would triple the
UK Border Agency personnel engaged in deportations.
4. Entry for work purposes will be by work permit visa only, issued for
designated periods of time. UKIP will retain and enhance the points based
system for work permits to ensure that British workers are offered the first
opportunities to work, and that employers are encouraged to provide training
for British workers rather than import skills from overseas. Work permits
Immigration: Action Overdue! 5
6 Immigration: Action Overdue!
should be issued by the Government only where there are proven skill shortages
in specific areas of the economy. Extensions to work periods could be
applied for on their expiry – provided that a genuine ongoing skill shortage can
still be demonstrated. Those granted work permits would be required to sign
an Undertaking of Residence (see item 10 below). Work permits should only
be granted to those applicants who have employment waiting for them, who
can financially support themselves, and who meet the qualifying criteria set
by the government.
5. Entry to Britain for non-work related purposes (e.g. holidays and study)
would be for maximum specified periods of time by means of visas: unless an
alternative mutual arrangement has been agreed with designated countries.
Overstaying a visa would be a criminal offence.
6. All EU citizens who came to Britain after 1st January 2004 would be
treated in the same way as citizens from other countries. They would
be required to apply for time-related work permits or permanent leave to
remain. These would only be granted where it was felt it would be in the
public interest. Mitigating circumstances would be taken into account, such
as: marriage to a British citizen; children who are British citizens; existing
employment or business interests; existing mortgage, lease or contractual
obligations etc. Those qualifying would be granted permanent leave to
remain. Those not qualifying would be required to leave.
7. After the five year freeze any future immigration for permanent
settlement, from anywhere in the World, would be on a strictly controlled
basis using a points system similar to those of Australia, Canada
and New Zealand. Apart from short term visas, no one would be admitted
unless they are fluent in English, have the required educational or professional
qualifications, are in good health, and can support themselves financially.
Neither they nor their dependants would be eligible for support by the
benefits system during a qualifying period of five years.
8. People found to be living illegally in the UK would be removed to their
country of origin. All illegal residents in the UK would be required to register
(not including those asylum applicants whose applications have already been
rejected). Failure to do so will be a criminal offence. Only those already in
employment and with proof of having paid tax would be considered eligible
for a time-related work permit. Only in exceptional circumstance would
illegal residents be granted leave to remain. All others will be required to leave.
Anyone who does not register but is subsequently identified would be
expelled to their country of origin automatically, along with any dependants,
and subject to a life-long ban on re-entry to the UK.
1
9. There can be no question of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. These
merely encourage further illegal immigration.
10. Permanent Leave to Remain (e.g. those in the process of seeking
citizenship or permission to live permanently in the UK) would only be granted
to non-citizens on the signing of a legally binding Undertaking of Residence.
The Undertaking would remain in force for a minimum of five years before
citizenship would be granted and would require the applicant to: obey the law
and not to engage in any criminal activities; not to engage in, or propagate,
political or religious extremism; to support themselves and their dependents
without recourse to the benefits system; and to retain their original citizenship
up to the point of obtaining British citizenship. Should they break any of these
undertakings then, by means of a formal process, their residency status would
be revoked and they, and their dependents, would be returned to their country
of origin without recourse to appeal in the courts of the United Kingdom. The
British Nationality Act 1981 will have to be revisited to take into account the
status of children born to those on Permanent Leave to Remain. It cannot
automatically follow that anyone born in the UK to a non-citizen resident has
an automatic right to citizenship.
11. Applicants for British citizenship would be required to have
completed a period of not less then five years as a resident on
Permanent Leave to Remain (see item 10 above). Citizenship would only
be granted on the successful completion of this period and the passing of a
Citizenship Test – based on a basic knowledge of British culture, customs,
law, constitution and history. The final stage would require the applicant to
sign a Declaration of British Citizenship, similar to the Oath, Affirmation and
Pledge currently used in the citizenship ceremony, and with a solemn oath to
uphold Britain’s democratic and tolerant way of life.
12. The existing terms of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees regarding
the application for political asylum must be enforced until such time
as Britain withdraws (see item 13. below) from the Convention. Asylum
applicants must seek asylum in the first ‘designated safe country’ that they
enter.
13. Britain should withdraw from the 1951 Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees and replace it with an Act of Parliament specifying the
conditions for the granting of asylum in Britain to those genuinely fleeing
persecution, and to set limits on the numbers being accepted. There should
a ‘Refugee Sponsorship Scheme’ that allows British citizens who wish to
do so to assume legal and financial responsibility to assist individual asylum
applicants seeking refugee status.
Immigration: Action Overdue! 7
14. Applications for asylum in the UK will only be considered at a British
port or airport where the applicant has arrived directly from the
country from which asylum is sought; or at the British embassy or
consulate in a neighbouring country. Asylum decisions will be made at the
port of entry i.e. before leave to enter the UK can be given or refused. Anyone
who applies for asylum having come through a designated ‘safe country’
will be returned to that safe country by the carrier concerned. It will be the
responsibility of the carrier to inform the British authorities at the ports of
entry in advance of arrival in the UK if there are any nationals from non-safe
countries on its passenger list. Asylum decisions and conditions should not
be appealable in the UK courts or those of its dependent territories. These
conditions should be included in future UK Asylum legislation. UKIP is totally
opposed to any scheme of ‘sharing out’ asylum-seekers between countries
whether through the EU or the United Nations.
15. Except where visa waiver agreements have been concluded with
other countries, all travellers to the UK will be required to obtain a visa
from a British Embassy or High Commission. Non-UK citizens who enter the
UK will have their entry and exit recorded. Visa holders will be told at entry
that overstaying the visa is a criminal offence and will make them liable to
arrest, removal from the country and subject to a possible ban on their future
entry. Those seeking visas from countries considered to be a national security
risk will be subject to a higher level of scrutiny and approval. All non-work
permit visa entrants to the UK (except where reciprocal arrangements exist)
will be required to have taken out adequate health insurance: those without
it will be refused entry.
16. Repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, and withdraw from the European
Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. These have
hindered and prevented the UK dealing effectively with terrorists, criminals,
bogus asylum seekers and undesirable aliens.
17. In future the British courts would not be allowed to appeal to any
international treaty or convention to override or set aside the provisions
of any statue passed by Parliament.
18. Existing asylum seekers who have already had their applications refused
would be required to leave the country, along with any dependents. Those
remaining would have their application subjected to a fast-track processing
system. Those that fail should be required to leave the country and would be
deported with their dependants.
19. The ‘Primary Purpose Rule’ (abolished by the Labour Government) would
be reintroduced, whereby those marrying or seeking to marry a British citizen
8 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
would have to convince the admitting officer that this is their primary purpose
in seeking to enter the UK and not to obtain British residence. Anyone wishing
to marry a non-British citizen (from a country that requires a visa) will have
to register their intention to marry in the UK prior to the marriage. The non-
British spouse or intended spouse will only be granted right of entry to the UK,
if they can speak fluent English, and are at least 24 years of age. The spouse
or intended spouse will have to undergo identification, language proficiency,
and criminal record checks in their country of residence before qualifying
for entry to the UK. The non-British spouse or intended spouse would have
to demonstrate to the admitting officer in their country of origin that both
parties are marrying of their own free will, that there is an existing personal
relationship between them of not less than 12 months, and that he/she is
conversant with British rights and customs pertaining to marriage, e.g. the
equality of the sexes, the use of contraception, the right to initiate divorce etc.
Polygamous wives will not be recognised as legitimate spouses for any
legal purpose.
20. There would be an end to the active promotion and the support of
the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all
publicly funded bodies.
Immigration: Action Overdue! 9
10 Immigration: Action Overdue!
Those in favour of mass migration to Britain sometimes justify this with
statements such as, “Britain has always been a nation of migrants” 1 and
that, the British are “a mongrel nation”. 2 The first statement is simply untrue,
as will be explained in the next section. The second is meaningless since it
supposes that there are ‘pure races’, which there are not. Based on the study
of genetics, the human race is currently believed to have originated from
one location in Africa and all people are therefore related to each other and
everyone is ultimately the descendant of a migrant.
Those who describe the British as a ‘mongrel race’ would of course never
dream of describing any of the other ethnic groups that inhabit the UK in
this way, such as the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Sikhs, for
fear of offending them – and possibly some more unpleasant consequences.
The predominant population of the UK is still the English and the pejorative
accusation of ‘mongrelisation’ is aimed at them. The assertions that England
is a nation of ‘migrants and mongrels’ are intended to cow the English
into submission and create a mindset in which there can be no legitimate
objection to continued mass immigration.
UK Immigration from the Roman invasion of 43AD to 1945.
The modern science of genetics, and ‘genetic archaeology’, which extracts
DNA from skeletal remains, has overturned some of the previously held views
on the supposed waves of immigration that Britain experienced in the distant
past. David Miles in his book, ‘The Tribes of Britain’ writes, “on present genetic
evidence it seems that the majority of the population in Britain…can trace its
ancestry back into Ice Age hunters…” 3 Bryan Sykes, Professor of genetics at
the University of Oxford in his book, ‘Blood of the Isles: Exploring the genetic
roots of our tribal history’, writes, “We are an ancient people, and though the
Isles have been the target of invasion ever since Julius Caesar first stepped
on the shingle shores of Kent, these have barely scratched the topsoil of our
deep-rooted ancestry”. 4
We are told by those with a vested interest in continuing immigration
that Britain has been a country of immigration throughout our history.
Immigration implies people coming to a live among settled population in a
country to which they have usually been invited. This does not describe much
of what has been called, by some at least, immigration in the past.
Roman Britain.
In 43 AD the Emperor Claudius invaded Britain and began a 367 year
occupation of what later became England and Wales. The existing
population were effectively enslaved. However it is estimated that during
the occupation only 4% to 8% of the population was made up of
Roman soldiers or administrators; and the ‘Roman’ occupying forces
3. Britain a Nation of Migrants?
1
were predominantly drawn from territories that made them closely related
racially and culturally to the British population. 5
The Anglo-Saxons.
After the withdrawal of the Romans in 410 AD the first Anglo Saxon settlers
came to Britain and settled in the area of modern day England. By assimilation
and conquest the Anglo-Saxons, as described by the Venerable Bede,
became the English people after whom England is named. It used to
be thought that they drove out the Celtic British into Wales, but now
there is debate about whether they displaced the existing population
or simply imposed themselves upon them as a warrior ruling class and
integrated with them over time. Future genetic research may resolve the
extent to which they were absorbed into and assimilated with the existing
Romano-British population. What the Anglo-Saxons indisputably did do was
to create the bedrock of the language, identity, society, laws and customs
of the English that have survived to the present day.
The Vikings.
The depredations of the Vikings can hardly be described as
‘immigration’ in any positive sense. They began their raids into English
territory in 793 AD, and carved out a large area of territory known as the
‘Danelaw’ under their rule. Although forced to acknowledge the authority of
the King of England during the reign of Alfred the Great and his immediate
successors, England was subject to rule by the Danish King Canute as part
of his Scandinavian Confederation in 1019. Again, there is no agreement on
the number of Vikings that settled in Britain and the extent to which they displaced,
subjugated, or were absorbed into the existing population in the areas
they controlled. English rule was re-established in 1042 under King Edward
the Confessor. The last Anglo-Saxon King, Harold II, was the product of a Saxon
father and a Danish mother.
The Normans.
The Norman invasion of 1066 was a catastrophic event for the indigenous
Anglo-Saxon population. William the Conqueror accomplished his subjugation
of a population of between two and three million with about 10,000 troops.
William had secured the support of the Pope to decree that King Harold
had forfeited his title to the English crown, and that all who supported
him were traitors. This enabled William to dispossess the existing ruling
class of their lands and wealth. By a policy of brutal repression and
selective genocide, William was able to impose the feudal system which
made the Anglo-Saxon population the serfs of a small Norman ruling elite.
The echoes of this ‘ruling elite’ can still be felt in the form of the English
‘class system’ down to the present day. The Doomsday Book (1086) shows
the extent to which William had transferred almost all land and property
Immigration: Action Overdue! 11
12 Immigration: Action Overdue!
to himself and his nobles within a few years of his reign.
None of these events can be viewed as ‘immigration’ in the modern sense and
debate still ensues about the extent to which they impacted on the make-up
of the existing population. David Conway writes, “The genetic similarity
between Saxons, Danes, and Normans makes it practically impossible on
the basis of genetic evidence alone to distinguish between their respective
descendants”. 7 By the 12th century the English were a completely defined
people living within national and county boundaries which have barely
changed from the 10th to the 21st centuries.
There were no more significant influxes of people until the arrival of the
Huguenots in the 17th century. These French Protestants were persecuted
for their beliefs and some took refuge in England, another Protestant state.
The overall number of Huguenots who settled in Britain is estimated at
between 40,000 to 50,000, or about one per cent of the then population 8 over
a period of years. There was no problem of ‘assimilation’ as they shared the
religion of the host nation – that was their reason for coming in the first place.
Irish immigration to Britain during the nineteenth century was mainly as
labour for the industrial revolution. Exact numbers are unknown but the
number of Irish-born people living in Britain in 1891 was 458,315, in 1901,
426,565, and in 1911, 373,325. Overall Irish immigration accounted for a small
percentage of the population.
The 19th century saw the arrival of Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe
fleeing persecution. Jews living in Britain prior to this date numbered perhaps
20,000 to 30,000. It is estimated that between 1880 and 1914 about 150,000
came to Britain 9, the majority going to the United States of America. The Nazi
persecution of the Jews in the 1930s resulted in about 60,000 people fleeing
to Britain, with about another 10,000 following after the war.
David Conway comments: “None of these various pre-War immigration
streams to Britain, including from Ireland, had much impact on Britain’s overall
demographic composition because of the very substantial natural increase
it underwent during this period, especially after 1830 ”.10 And J.A Tannerhill
observed, “Britain is not by tradition a country of immigration. In fact between
1815 and 1914, she not only quadrupled her population without resorting
to large-scale foreign immigration, but also dispatched over 20 million people
to destinations beyond Europe”. 11
1
Britain is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Britain
has an estimated population figure of about 61.4 million;12 the real figure,
including illegal immigrants, must be much higher. Of the World’s top ten
economies Britain is the third most densely populated.
The vast majority of people in Britain (83%) live in England, which also generates
the bulk of Britain’s wealth. Of the world’s top ten economies, England is the
most densely populated.
Table 1
The World’s top ten economies ranked by population density are
as follows. (The UK and England are shown separately).
Country Population Land Mass in Population per
in Millions Square Miles Square Mile
England 51,446 50,631 1016
Japan 126,804 145,870 869
United Kingdom 61,383 94,270 651
Germany 82,283 137,735 597
Italy 58,091 116,318 499
China 1,330,141 3,705,828 359
France 64,768 212,935 304
Spain 40,549 194,897 208
USA 310,233 3,679,185 84
Brazil 201,103 3,265,059 62
Russia 139,390 6,592,812 21
Source: Population figures for 2010 are taken from International Data Base, US Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country.php
The figures for England and the United Kingdom are taken from the Office of National Statistics for 2008.
England, which has 83% of the UK population and generates about 87%
of its GDP, is the most densely populated country of the world’s top
ten economies, and one of the most densely populated countries in the
world. And yet the British Government inexplicably believes that there
should be no limits to future immigration – at least from the European
Union and those countries that will eventually join. India has recently
moved down to eleventh place and does not appear on the above table.
It may surprise many to learn that England is more densely populated
than India, China and Japan.
The population figures from the Office of National Statistics taken from the
censuses 1901 to 2001 show that during that period (See Table 2 below) the
population grew by about 55%. The ONS predictions for population growth for
4. Overcrowded Britain
Immigration: Action Overdue! 13
2001 to 2081 show that it will grow by over 44%. On current trends, by 2051
the population will have increased to about.75 million, and by 2081 to over
85 million. Almost all of this increase will take place in England. These figures
do not take into account the EU candidate counties who may join and many of
whose citizens will come to the UK (see Table 6).
Table 2
UK population 1901-2008, and predicted population 2009-208
Source: Office of National Statistics.
13
Britain’s population growth is entirely fuelled by immigration (see Item 13,
Table 8), which is around five times the natural rate of population increase.
Figures issued by the Office of National Statistics in 2008 showed that one
in four babies born in the UK have a foreign father or mother. A spokesman
for the ONS is reported as saying, “That reflects the cumulative effect of
immigration over the last forty years”.14 The article went on to say that,
“Figures from the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) earlier this year showed…the foreign-born population is growing while
the British-born population is declining”.
Massive immigration on this scale is putting increasing strains on housing,
road, public transport, the NHS, education, and all the public services.
Seven out of 10 people believe that Britain is overcrowded.15 London and
the South East of England are among the most densely populated areas
in the world. London’s population, which reached 7.6 million in 2007,16
is, according to the lowest predictions, to reach 8.7 million by 2026.17
14 Immigration: Action Overdue!
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 2041 2051 2061 2071 2081
Population (figures in millions)
Year
1
A third of London’s population today were born abroad.18 Anyone living
in England, particularly in the South, will know first-hand the problems caused
by an ever-increasing population.
The Government says that three million new homes need to be built in
the South East of England by 2020.19 These homes need to be built to
accommodate the current and intended waves of immigrants. Government
concern for the environment does not extend to addressing the real cause of
congestion, which is overpopulation.
Immigration: Action Overdue! 15
Since the end of Word War II Britain has experienced immigration on a scale
never previously experienced. Between 1950 and 2008 there has been an
estimated population growth of over 21 per cent.
Table 3
UK population growth in the UK 1950 to 2008 by country in millions
Figures in millions.
Country 1950 2008 Percentage Change
England & Wales 44 54 23.64%
Scotland 5.2 5.16 -0.77%
Northern Ireland 1.4 1.78 27.14%
Totals 50.6 61.38 21.31%
Source: 1950 figures from A Nation of Immigrants? David Conway, Civitas, April 2007.
2008 figures from Office of National Statistics, 21st August 2009
20
Almost all this population growth has been in England and Wales, because
the overwhelming majority of the migrant population have chosen to settle in
England. The 2001 national census showed that three quarters of the ethnic
minority migrants are in London, the West Midlands, and in three other areas.21
While the population has grown by a larger percentage in Northern Ireland,
this is due predominantly to natural growth.
The post-War waves of immigration to Britain may be summarised as follows.
1945 to 1948. Sizable groups of displaced persons and refugees came to
Britain after World War II; approximately 130,000 Poles, and about 85,000
other nationalities, making a minimum of about 215,000 people.22
1948 to 1971. This wave of immigration was predominantly economically
inspired. Labour shortages in Britain caused mainly Commonwealth people
to seek work in the UK. These immigrants came predominantly from the
West Indies and the Indian sub-continent. The total numbers have been
estimated at over one million people.23 There was also immigration
from Hong Kong, Cyprus, Malta, and various other countries. This wave
of immigration was brought under some semblance of control by the
Conservative Government’s 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act which
introduced A, B and C voucher schemes. This was followed by the Labour
Government’s 1968 Immigrant Act which distinguished those UK passport
holders with a ‘Right of Abode’ in the UK from those who did not.
16 Immigration: Action Overdue!
5. UK Post-War Immigration 1945 to 2008
Immigration: Action Overdue! 171
1971 to 1996. In the early 1970s about 30,000 Ugandan Asians were expelled
by Idi Amin, and although the Indian authorities made it clear that they would
admit them into India, the Heath government allowed them into the UK, the
1961 and 1968 Acts notwithstanding. Commonwealth immigration continued
at a rate of around 60,000 per annum until the mid 1990s. Immigration
accelerated after the Labour Government took office in 1997. If we look at the
figures just from 1981 onwards we see the following.
Table 4
Immigration into and Emigration from the UK 1981 to 1996
(Figures in thousands, totals in millions)
Year Inflow Outflow Balance
1981 153 233 -80
1982 202 259 -57
1983 202 185 17
1984 201 164 37
1985 232 174 58
1986 250 213 37
1987 212 210 2
1988 216 237 -21
1989 250 205 45
1990 267 231 36
1991 337 264 73
1992 287 252 35
1993 272 237 35
1994 321 213 108
1995 321 212 109
1996 331 238 93
Total (in millions) 4.054 3.527 527
Source: Do we need mass immigration? Anthony Brown, Civitas, November 2002, page 21.
These figures show that for this fifteen year period over half a million
people were added to the population by immigration. It was after 1997 that
net immigration to the UK soared.
Table 5
Immigration into and Emigration from the UK 1997 to 2008
(Figures in thousands, totals in millions)
Year Inflow Outflow Net immigration
1997 326.1 279.2 46.8
1998 391 251 140
1999 454 291 163
2000 479 321 158
2001 479 306 173
2002 513 358 154
2003 508 361 147
2004 586 342 244
2005 563 359 204
2006 591 400 191
2007 577 340 237
2008 Estimate 577 366 210
Total (in Millions) 6.044 3.974 2.067
Source: 1997 to 2007 Annual Abstract of National Statistics 2008.
24
Note: Figures for 2008 estimated on average of preceding three years.
Figures are published by the Office of National Statistics two years in arrears.
To summarise the figures:
• From 1948 to 1980 at least 1 million immigrants entered the UK
• From 1981 to 1996 over 4 million immigrants entered the UK
• From 1997 to 2008 over 6 million immigrants entered the UK.
From 1981 to 2008 over 10 million people migrated to the UK; about 7.5
million people left the UK, leaving a net balance of least 2.5 million people.
These figures do not take account of illegal immigrants, who probably number
three quarters of a million to one million people. Therefore in a twenty-seven
year period legal and illegal immigration has amounted to a net population
gain of between 3.2 million and 3.5 million people. The actual figures will
be higher because they do not take into account the increase for 2009.
For the three year period 2005-2007 there was an average of 577,000
people per annum migrating to the UK. For the same three year period,
allowing for those who left the UK, the net population increase was an average
of 210,000 per annum. That is a net population increase of well over one million
every five years; or looked at another way, this equates to a new city the size
of Birmingham every five years.
18 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
The 2009 Spring edition of the Office of National Statistics Report, ‘Population
Trends’,25 states that the number of immigrants in the UK grew by 21% from
5.2 million to 6.3 million between 2004 to 2007. This shows an estimated
1.1 million increase in the non-UK born population from 2004 to 2007.
Therefore it is apparent that immigration is having a profound and continued
effect on the demographic make-up of Britain.
Some other key findings of the ONS Report on ‘Population Trends’ are:
• In 2007 an estimated 33% of London residents were born outside the UK.
• In 2007 10% of the residents of the South East of England were born
outside the UK.
• In 2007 9% of the residents in the East of England were born outside
the UK.
• In 2005 Westminster became the first local area in the UK to have a greater
number of non-UK born residents than UK born residents.
Although legitimate immigration into the UK from outside the European
Union was relatively controlled up to about 1997, the enormous expansion
in the number of migrants since then has been due to four main
factors: membership of the European Union; illegal immigration; asylum
applications; and the Labour Government’s commitment to mass-immigration
on the grounds that it is ‘economically necessary’, and the intention to create
a more ‘multicultural’ and ‘diverse’ society, which is not only seen by them as
being desirable but something that must be deliberately engineered.
The deliberate engineering of mass immigration and the multicultural
society was revealed in October 2009. Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party
adviser claimed that a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass
immigration to change Britain’s cultural make-up forever.26 Mr Neather
worked for Jack Straw when he was the Home Secretary, and as a speech
writer for Tony Blair. Civil servant Jonathan Portes, who wrote the immigration
report was a speech writer to Gordon Brown. Mr Neather claimed that there
was a ‘driving political purpose’ behind Labour’s decision to allow in hundreds
of thousands migrants. He said, “I remember coming away from some
discussions with the clear sense that that policy was intended…to rub the
Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
Mr Neather said that earlier unpublished versions of the report made
clear that one aim was to make Britain more multicultural for political
reasons. Opponents were to be branded as racists in order to deter
them from criticism. The report entitled, Research, Development and Statistics
Occasional Paper No 67 – Migration: An Economical and Social Analysis
was published in January 2001 by the Home Office. The report painted
a rosy picture of mass immigration showing that there ‘was little evidence
Immigration: Action Overdue! 19
that native workers were harmed by migration’. Home Office Minister
Barbara Roche pioneered the open-door immigration policy after being
attacked by left-wingers for condemning begging by immigrants as ‘vile’.
A Labour insider is reported as saying that “She was called a scumbag.
She wanted to show she was a genuine liberal”.
20 Immigration: Action Overdue!
By its very nature the true extent of illegal immigration to Britain is unknown.
There will always have been those who entered the UK and then stayed
illegally, but this has been made increasingly easier to do.
It is extremely easy to gain entry to Britain, and once inside there is almost
no prospect whatsoever of an illegal immigrant or visa over-stayer being
deported. In 2009 an interim report by the London School of Economics
commissioned by the London Mayor, Boris Johnson, gave the figures of illegal
immigrants in the UK in 2007 as between 524,000 to 947,000.27 However
a report by Migration Watch put the figure for 2008 at over one million
illegal immigrants.28
There is little reason to believe that this is an over-estimation. People
smuggling is now big business. Untold numbers of people pay to be smuggled
into Britain by organised criminal gangs from all over the world. The
notorious Red Cross camp at Sangatte in Calais was just such a stopping-off
point for illegal immigrants. Monsieur Patrick Espagnol, a former Calais
regional governor, estimated that at its peak over 200 illegal migrants
per day, or 73,000 per annum, were travelling from Calais to Dover alone.29
Illegal immigrants can enter Britain by hiding in cars or in the backs of
lorries, but passport holders can easily gain entry to Britain just by arriving for
a holiday or trip and never leaving. Immigration offices have customarily
made only the most cursory of checks on tourists from visa countries
often not requiring for instance to see a prepaid return ticket in the traveller’s
name as is required by the other English speaking countries.
In 2008, 12.7 million non-EU nationals, mostly bona fide tourists and
businessmen, arrived in the UK.30 How many left? No one knows because we
keep no embarkation records. Checks are rarely made on over-stayers and
no action is taken to locate and remove them. The number of people living
illegally in Britain is estimated to be between half a million and one million,
but may well exceed even the higher figure.
6. Illegal Immigration
Immigration: Action Overdue! 21
An ‘asylum seeker’ is defined as someone who has applied for asylum under
the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees on the grounds that
if he or she is returned to their country of origin they have a well founded
fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political belief or
membership of a particular social group. The person remains an asylum seeker
as long as his or her application, or appeal against refusal of their application,
is pending. ‘Refugee’ means an asylum seeker whose application has been
successful. In its broader context ‘refugee’ is someone fleeing civil war
or natural disaster but not necessarily fearing persecution as defined by the
1951 Convention.
Britain has always accepted refugees fleeing actual physical persecution, or
who had served the Crown. For example relatively small numbers of Huguenots
in the seventeenth century, Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
Jews, Poles and other nationalities following the Second World War, and
Eastern Europeans fleeing communist tyranny (Hungarians in 1956 and Czechs
in 1968). But over the last eighteen years or so the number of those seeking
asylum has increased dramatically. This has been due to two reasons:
relatively cheap international air travel and Britain’s implementation of Human
Rights legislation in 200031 which has made it increasingly difficult to deport
failed and bogus asylum seekers.
During the 1980s approximately 4,000 asylum seekers per year came to Britain.
After 1991 the numbers started to rise sharply. Under the 1951 Convention,
asylum seekers are supposed to seek refuge in the first ‘safe country’ that they
come to. Since all EU countries, plus Switzerland, Norway and even Russia,
are designated ‘safe’ countries it follows that no asylum-seeker arriving
through such countries should be allowed entry on asylum grounds
nor should the courts uphold their claims. Yet as we know our nearest
European neighbour makes no attempt to disperse the camps of refugees
trying to reach England by illegal means nor seemingly to consider their
applications for asylum in France.
In June 2006 there was a backlog of 450,000 asylum cases of migrants
refused refugee status (plus their dependants) but who had not been expelled
from the country. According to newspaper reports, the Government intended
to offer them effective amnesty by granting ‘indefinite right to remain’
because of the time they have already spent living in the UK.32 A critical report
by the National Audit Office reported that this number was down to 245,000
by the summer of 2008, almost certainly meaning that around 200,000 have
been allowed to stay. These cases are thought to have cost the taxpayer
£600 million.33
This amounts to an open-door policy for bogus asylum seekers. Once they
22 Immigration: Action Overdue!
7. The Asylum System and its Abuses
1
have gained entry to the UK they have, as far as can be seen, about an 80%
chance of avoiding repatriation to their own country. Many asylum seekers
are in fact economic migrants who are, not unreasonably from their point of
view, trying to better their lives by coming to Britain. These are not necessarily
people who would fulfil legitimate immigration requirements, but by posing as
asylum seekers they can by-pass the system. The number of potentially bogus
asylum seekers in the world is effectively unlimited since so many people
live under undemocratic and tyrannical regimes. The entire 1.3 billion population
of China could legitimately claim asylum in Britain since they live under a
tyrannical communist regime and could possibly claim to be the victims
of political persecution.
Another factor in the abuse of the asylum system has been the Human Rights
legislation introduced by the Labour Government. Britain was one of the earliest
signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950 and it came
into force in the UK in 1953. The Human Rights Act came into force in the UK in
2000. The implementation of this legislation has made it increasingly difficult
to implement asylum and criminal law.
The most notorious example is that of the nine Afghan men who hijacked
a Boeing 727 on an internal flight in Afghanistan and forced its crew to fly
to Stansted airport in February 2000. They were convicted of hijacking and
false imprisonment in 2001 but their convictions were quashed by the Court
of Appeal in 2003 because of a ‘mistake in directing the jury’ in the original
trial. In 2004 they were granted leave to remain in the UK when a panel of
asylum adjudicators ruled that returning them to Afghanistan would breach
their human rights in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Even Prime
Minister Tony Blair, who introduced the Act, called it, “an abuse of common
sense”. The Home Secretary, John Reid, challenged the ruling in the Court of
Appeal, however the Court dismissed the appeal on 4th August 2006, and the
hijackers were allowed to remain in the UK. The message sent out to the world
could not be clearer: hijack a plane, come to Britain, claim asylum – and you
will be allowed to stay.
The European Union ultimately decides Britain’s asylum policy, and who we
can and cannot admit. In January 2005 the then leader of the Conservative
Party, Michael Howard, proposed policies for tougher immigration controls.
He proposed setting an annual limit on the number of asylum seekers
allowed into Britain. Within hours of announcing these proposals the European
Commission pointed out that no British government could implement
them. Friso Roscam Abbing, chief spokesman for the EU Justice
Commissioner, Franco Frattini, pointed out that the EU Qualifications
Directive34 established a binding definition of whoqualifies as a refugee.
It had been adopted by the British Government and was to come into
Immigration: Action Overdue! 23
force in 2006. Mr Abbing said, “There is nothing in these protocols that
allows a British government to opt back out again”. He added,
“Nor would a Conservative Government be able to set quotas for
the number of refugees accepted each year. Say they set a quota
of 10,000 a year, well the 10,001st case could say to a British judge,
‘Your Government is bound by EU rules and is not at liberty not to
consider my claim’.35 If a British Government contravened these rules
the Commission would begin ‘infringement proceedings’, to be
followed, if infringement continued, by legal action in the European Court
of Justice, Luxembourg
24 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
i) How people have come. How many may yet come.
A large part of the massive immigration experienced since 1997 has been a
result of membership of the European Union. Under EU legislation EU citizens
have the right to move to any country in the European Union. The relevant
Directive36 brought together the existing piecemeal and complex legislation
and gives citizens of the EU and their families the right to reside anywhere
in the Union. The EU website37 summarises the purpose of the Directive as
‘to encourage Union citizens to move and reside freely within Member States,
to cut back administrative formalities to the bare essentials, to provide
a better definition of the status of family members and to limit the scope for
refusing entry or terminating the right of residence’.
The Government claims that restrictions are in place with its work permit system,
but the system does not take into account those who designate themselves
as self-employed and can work in industries such as the building or catering
trade quite freely, without the need to pay employees’ or employers’ National
Insurance contributions.
The level of migration greatly increased when eight new nations from
Eastern European joined the EU in 2004 with combined populations of
around 76 million and an average income of about one fifth of the UK. They
were joined by Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 representing about another
29.3 million very poor people with an average income about one twelfth
of Britain’s. They all had a right to come to and work in Britain if they wished. The
Government put limits on Bulgarians’ and Romanians’ working rights
after the debacle of 2004 when the UK, Ireland and Sweden were the only
EU Member States not to make use of this provision, but these restrictions
did not apply to the self-employed and were therefore no more than a
cosmetic exercise.
In 2003 the British Government predicted that only about 13,000 people
would come in the first year after the Easter European countries joined the
EU, but no fewer than 600,000 Central and Eastern Europeans arrived in the
following two years.38 In January 2007 Bulgaria and Romania, two of the poorest
countries in European joined the EU. Another 29.3 million people were given
right of entry to Britain. Many more people followed.
How many migrants in total have come from the European Union since 2004?
That question cannot be answered with great accuracy because no one knows,
but the enormous numbers speak for themselves: an estimated almost
2.9 million immigrants and a net population growth of over one million
(see Table 5) just for the years 2004 to 2008.
The next question is how many migrants from the European Union will come
8. The European Union and Mass
Immigration
Immigration: Action Overdue! 25
in the future. This can be intimated by looking at those countries that have
applied to join the EU and their population sizes, which are shown in Table 6
below.
Table 6
Countries seeking entry to the European Union
Candidate Application Timetable for Population in
Country Status EU Membership Millions
Croatia Candidate 2009-2011 4.4
Macedonia Candidate 2013 (possible) 2.05
Turkey Candidate No date given 72.5
Albania SAA No date given 3.5
Montenegro SAA No date given 0.6
Serbia SAA No date given 7.7
Bosnia &
Herzegovina SAA No date given 3.8
Kosovo No contractual
relations No date given 2.5
Ukraine PCA EU membership
not yet
official policy 47.1
Belarus PCA EU membership
not yet
official policy 9.8
Moldova PCA EU membership
not yet
official policy 3.3
Note: SAA = Stabilisation & Association Agreement
PCA = Partnership & Co-operation Agreement.
The combined population of these countries is 157.25 million. If and when they
join the EU all of their citizens will have an automatic right of entry to the UK.
These are the poorest countries in Europe (indeed Turkey is not even in Europe).
If they all join the EU and just one per cent of their combined populations
decide to migrate to Britain that amounts to 1.5 million people.
ii) EU Immigration Legislation
Key primary legislation is Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (TFEU)39 which states: “Every citizen of the Union
shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the
Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty
and by the measures adopted to give it effect.”
26 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
Other articles include:
• Free Movement of Workers (Art 45 TFEU)
• Free Movement of the Self-Employed
• Freedom of Establishment (Art 49 TFEU)
• Freedom to Provide Services (Art 56 and 57 TFEU)
• Free Movement of Citizens (Article 20 TFEU )
Key secondary legislation is:
Directive 2004/38/EC40 – Free Movement Rights of EU Citizens: implemented
in the UK by The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.
Directive 2004/38 deals primarily with rights of entry and residence of the EU
citizen and family members. The Directive applies to all individuals holding
nationality of an EU Member State and covers workers rights as well. Article
5 outlines EU citizen’s rights of entry into other EU Member States. In theory
EU citizens only have to present a valid passport or ID card although their
rights of residency under Article 6 only extend to three months unless per
Article 7 they are employed or self-employed, have sufficient resources
for themselves and their family, are studying, or are family members
accompanying a Union citizen who satisfies these conditions.
Regulation 1612/6841 – on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community: confers rights of equal treatment, residence, and also specific
social rights (such as tax and social benefits, housing, and access to
education) that can be enjoyed by workers and their family members. For
example Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68 provides that ‘workers’ are entitled
to the same ‘social and tax advantages’ as nationals of the Member State.
Restrictions on immigration: It should be noted that the UK restricted
Bulgarian and Romanian nationals from the UK labour market though The
Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2006.42 This
was possible because such action was allowed under a derogation in the
EU’s Accession Treaties for the aforementioned countries. However this does
not apply to the ‘self-employed’ who may come and work without restriction.
Exception to Free Movement Rights – exclusion of EU citizens:
Art 39(3) EC: Allows for the exclusion of EU citizens under: Public Policy,
Public Security & Public Health.
Directive 2004/38 states that: ‘Public Policy and Security’ exclusion must
be ‘proportionate’ and can be based only on personal conduct (Art 27(2)).
Previous criminal convictions are not enough to justify exclusion
(Art 27(2). Certain diseases with epidemic potential justify exclusion on public
health grounds (Art 29(1). Procedural safeguards include detailed notification
Immigration: Action Overdue! 27
in writing (Art 30) and a right to appeal (Art 31) A person can be excluded
on public policy or security grounds only where his/her personal conduct
constitutes a ‘genuine, present & sufficiently serious threat affecting one of
the fundamental interests of society’ Art 27(2) Dir 2004/38.
The UK has now effectively abdicated control of its immigration policy to the
European Union as far as it applies to the citizens of other European Union
member states.
iii) EU Asylum Legislation
The Legal Foundations43 for the EU’s Asylum Policy are laid down in:
The Amsterdam Treaty (1997) which provided for the establishment
of a common asylum system; the Tampere European Council (1999)
which laid down the major aims and principles as agreed by EU
Heads of State or Governments for the creation of a common asylum
system by 2004; and The Hague Programme for 2005-2010 which laid
out the second phase of the European Common Asylum System.
The EU’s four main legal instruments on asylum are:
• The Reception Conditions Directive which guarantees minimum
standards for the reception of asylum-seekers, including housing, education
and health. This Directive is implemented in the UK by the Asylum
Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 200544 and the Asylum Support
(Amendment) Regulations 2005.
• The Asylum Procedures Directive establishes throughout the EU that
all procedures at first instance are subject to the same minimum standards.
The Directive also introduces the obligation for all Member States to ensure
an ‘effective remedy before a court or tribunal’.
• The Qualification Directive contains a set of criteria for qualifying
either for refugee or subsidiary protection status and also dictates
what rights are attached to each status. The Directive also introduces
a harmonised regime for subsidiary protection in the EU for those
persons who fall outside the scope of the Geneva Convention
but who nevertheless still need international protection, such as
victim of generalised violence or civil war. This directive is in part
implemented in the UK by the Refugee or Person in Need of
International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006, together
with amendments to the Immigration Rules (HC 395). Many parts of
the Directive were deemed not to require implementation as
consistent provision was already made in existing domestic legislation.45
28 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
• The Dublin Regulation contains rules about the Member States’
responsibilities for assessing an application for asylum. It was designed
to identify which Member State was responsible and to prevent multiple
applications.
The above Directives and Regulation are stated as being designed to achieve
the general objective of levelling the asylum playing field and laying the
foundations for a Common European Asylum System, “on which could be
built further structures to safeguard the EU as a single asylum space and
ensure that our citizens could have confidence in a system that gave protection
to those who required it and dealt fairly and efficiently with those without
protection requirements.” 46
As was demonstrated as long ago as 2005 to Michael Howard, the then leader
of the Conservative Party (see under Item 6), it is the European Union and
the European Court of Justice that now controls Britain’s Asylum Policy and
not the British Government.
iv) The Lisbon Treaty
The Lisbon Treaty (which is the European Constitution by another name),
came into force on 1st December 2009. Constitutionally, the Lisbon Treaty
empowers the EU to act as a state in its own right, with full legal
personality; the national constitutions of member states remain in place
but are subordinate to the new Lisbon Treaty which becomes the
de facto constitution of the European Union.47
Under Lisbon the national veto on immigration and asylum policy (as in
much else) has been replaced by Qualified Majority Voting. The UK retains
the power not to ‘opt in’ to some of the planned immigration and
asylum laws. However, if the British Government chooses to ‘opt in’
at the beginning of the legislative process it has no power to veto or ‘opt out’
from the legislation later.
The Lisbon Treaty also introduces full European Court of Justice jurisdiction
over immigration and asylum policy. While Britain theoretically has the power
not to opt in to future legislation all past experience shows that British
Government’s is unlikely to resist the pressure to opt in.
Immigration: Action Overdue! 29
Mass immigration over the last fifty years, accelerated under the Labour
Government since 1997, is increasingly turning Britain into a patchwork of
disparate ethnic groups. Large areas of Britain’s inner cities are now inhabited
by ethnic and religious groups that do not integrate or assimilate into the
host population, preferring to keep their own distinct identity by means of
language, dress, customs and religion.
The face of many parts of Britain has changed radically in recent years. A study
by Migration Watch showed that 41% of immigrants live in London, and
immigrants make up 40% of the population in Belgrave Leicestershire; 35% in
Sparkbrook Birmingham; 26% in Slough; and 25% in Luton and Oxford.48 One
in four babies born in the UK has a foreign-born mother or father. Figures from
the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) showed
in 2007 that about 6 million people in Britain, one in 10, were born overseas.49
By 2009 ONS figures show this had increased to 1 in 9 of the population, or
6.5 million people.50
These profound demographic changes are set to accelerate under the policies
of both the present Labour Government and those of the main opposition
parties (where they can be discerned).
Richard Lynn, Emeritus Professor of Population Studies at the University of
Ulster, estimates that the non-European population of the UK increased
tenfold from 1961 to 2001, and about 4.5 fold for the period 1971 to 2001.
According to Professor Lynn, the combination of the present mass immigration
and the fertility rates of different ethnic groups mean that by about
2053, within the lifetime of anyone under the age of 34, the native British
people will have become an ethnic minority in their own country. Something
unprecedented in our history, and about which the British people have never
been consulted.
Professor Lynn gives the fertility rates of different ethnic groups as follows:
Table 7
2001 Number of children per couple
Chinese 1.3
Whites 1.6
Blacks 2.2
Indians 2.3
Pakistanis/Bangladeshis 5.0
Somalis 5.0
Professor Lynn estimates that on current fertility trends, by 2061 about two
thirds of the population of Britain will be of non-European origin, while one
30 Immigration: Action Overdue!
9. Demographic Changes Caused
by Mass Immigration
1
third will be White.51 These projections do not take into account that the
fertility rates of non-white migrants may decline as they integrate into Britain’s
culture and economy.
What is obvious is that the ethnic make-up of Britain has already changed
profoundly and will continue to change dramatically under the current
immigration trends. Demographers have already predicted that Leicester will
become the first British city in which White people are a minority by 2011.
Demographers at Manchester University have claimed that White people
in Birmingham will be overtaken by those of other ethnic origins by 2027.
Dr Ludi Simpson has predicted that,”Birmingham is likely to become a
minority white city by 2027”.52
An increasing number of indigenous British people are choosing to move
abroad. In 2006 approximately 400,00053 people moved abroad – an all time
record. Many of these will have taken advantage of the ease of relocating
within the European Union for the purposes of work or retirement, and many will
have pursued work opportunities abroad elsewhere; but personal experience
and anecdotal evidence tells us that many people are fed-up with the
ever increasing levels of immigration, crime and taxation in Britain, and indeed
see them as linked. An increasing number of those who are able to leave
Britain are doing so to seek better living conditions and opportunities for
themselves and their families elsewhere in the world.
The British people have never been asked if they are in favour of mass
immigration or in favour of the ethnic identity of Britain being profoundly
changed in a relatively short period of time. They might well ask if the purpose
of mass immigration is to change the ethnic make-up of Britain? According
to the revelations of Labour Government advisor, Andrew Neather (see under
section 5) the answer would seem to be ‘yes’.
The British people, and especially the English, are already being replaced
in their own cities, and on current demographic trends, will be replaced
as the majority ethnic group in their own country during the 21st
century. Were the ethnic make-up of Britain to change gradually over
many decades by means of moderate rates of immigration and racial
intermarriage, and where immigrants and their descendents adhered
to a British common culture, this would not be an issue since it would
be done with the consent of the indigenous population.
However, what we have is the arrival of millions of people over a short
time-scale by means of mass immigration and a forced experiment in
social engineering in order to deliberately and consciously create a
‘multicultural and diverse society’. The dramatic population growth
Immigration: Action Overdue! 31
among those groups which increasingly assert their own separate
identity and culture holds enormous potential for a breakdown in
social cohesion and conflict in the future.
32 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
In a speech to the TUC in 2006 Tony Blair said, “If migrant workers are
treated fairly and paid a decent wage, they represent no threat to the livelihood
of people who are already living and working in the UK.” However an alternative
view is expressed by US economist Professor George Borjas who wrote, “there
is no gain from immigration if the native wage is not reduced by immigration.”
In other words, if some workers are not harmed by immigration many of the
benefits typically attributed to immigration – higher profits for business, lower
prices for consumers – cease to exist.54
Any individual joining the workforce will increase the GDP by at least the
amount of their wages. However, the key issue is: does this amount, plus the
gross surpluses for the business they work for, exceed the average of the
economy as a whole? If it does then productivity is increased, if it does not,
then average productivity is decreased and the average standard of living
of the people as a whole is decreased by these additions to the workforce.
A Dutch Government study published in 2003 stated: “The Gross Domestic
Product will increase, but this increase will accrue largely to the immigrants
in the form of wages. The overall net gain in income of residents is likely
to be small and may even be negative”.55
For a range of reasons, immigrants are likely to be paid only about 70% of the
average wage of the industry sector in which they work. The sectors of the
economy in which immigrants mainly work (apart from construction) pay about
70% of the national average. The average added value per migrant worker
is likely therefore to be in the range of about 40% to 50% of the national average,
say 45%.
Every worker coming to the UK increases Gross Domestic Product by at least
the value of their pay. But if this pay is substantially below the average, as
it clearly is, then GDP per capita is reduced. Corrected for differing price
levels among industrial nations, GDP per capita is a measure of productivity in
the economy and probably the best available indicator of comparative wealth
generation.
Many of the immigrants who come are however attractive to some businesses
because they are a source of cheap labour. This drives wages down for those
at the bottom of the economic scale, but drives property and accommodation
prices up, again especially affecting those at the bottom of the economic
scale. All of this is of course the reverse of the stated government aim of
creating a “high value-added, knowledge based economy”.
The effect of the current form of immigration is to decrease average GDP per
head, and therefore the national wealth; to increase the burden on the average
taxpayer to maintain the current levels of public services; and to increase
10. The Economic Effects of
Mass Immigration on the UK
Immigration: Action Overdue! 33
the burdens on the nation’s infrastructure because of overcrowding and
increased demand on the transport system and on land for housing.
This bears out what many British workers already know and experience
first hand: they have been forced to accept actual pay reductions, or lose
their jobs, in the face of competition from immigrant workers; while
correspondingly, the costs of housing and accommodation in particular has
gone up as a result of increased demand. The indigenous population has
also had to face increased competition from immigrants for public services,
public housing, and social benefits. The national infrastructure of roads, schools,
hospitals etc has to being financed by a reduced GDP per head.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs in its report,
The Economic Impact of Immigration, reached the following conclusion:
“Although possible in theory, we found no systematic, empirical
evidence to suggest that net immigration creates significant
dynamic benefits for the resident population in the UK.” 56
34 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
We have already seen that Britain, and England in particular, is one of the
most densely populated countries in the world; that immigration is, and is
continuing, at a rate that is simply unparalleled in our history; and, on current
demographic trends, the native English population will be an ethnic minority in
their own country within two to three generations. The detrimental effects of
uncontrolled, unlimited and indiscriminate immigration are already apparent.
One of the most sensitive issues is the relationship between immigrants and
crime. Organised crime in London is now almost exclusively the province
of foreign ethnic gangs. The Metropolitan Police have admitted that almost
all of the organised crime gangs in London are foreign. Turks, Albanians,
various assorted Eastern Europeans and Nigerians, etc, control peoplesmuggling,
prostitution, drugs, and some aspects of fraud. Each has their
speciality: apparently Romanians are cornering the market in hole-in-the-wall
fraud: according to a Cabinet Office memo they are reportedly responsible for
85% of all cashpoint crime in Britain.57 Many of these criminals come from
countries that are not even in the EU, but why we cannot identify them and
deport them remains a mystery.
There is also growing conflict between ethnic groups. As one contributor to
the Metropolitan Police’s Consultation on Policing Priorities for 2007/2008
commented, “Culture conflicts go beyond ‘black on black’ violence. Black
on black violence is not correct (as a title) as there are conflicts between
Black and Asians, Asians and Turkish, Black and Turkish, West Indians and
Somalis, etc.”58 There is also the growing threat of conflict between
some sections of the indigenous White population and some sections
of the immigrant population, most notably the riots in Burnley and
Bradford in 2001 between the White and Muslim populations. These are
a phenomenon of poor areas where an increasingly ghettoised Muslim
population are seen by their White neighbours as receiving preferential
treatment from local government in terms of housing and public services.
Large parts of Britain’s inner cities have now changed beyond recognition in
terms of their ethnic make-up. They are now more like enclaves of Pakistan,
Bengal or India than English cities. Instead of integrating into the native culture
many migrants prefer to live amongst people of their own ethnic origin and
religion and live in closed societies that duplicate where they emigrated from.
The phenomenon of ‘White flight’, is also having a marked effect on Britain’s
cities whereby many of the indigenous population who can afford to move out
are doing so, and in growing numbers are leaving Britain altogether.
Many of Britain’s immigrant population are choosing not to assimilate or
integrate into British society, or even learn English. This is supported by
central and local government through the policy of multiculturalism, for
11. The Cultural and Social Effects of
Mass Immigration on the UK
Immigration: Action Overdue! 35
example, whereby even rural authorities with less than 1% ethnic minorities
are compelled to provide translation services. Multiculturalism encourages
some immigrant groups to retain practices inimical to British culture, such as
arranged marriages, polygamy, the submission of women, and female genital
mutilation.
A multi-ethnic society can work where all its citizens share a common
cultural identity and belief in similar values. In Britain this should mean
belief in equality, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for the national
institutions of law and government. Its citizens also need some knowledge
of the nation’s history that made it what it is, and above all
a common language – English. There also needs to be shared beliefs
in a common set of values such as, respect for freedom of speech,
and consensus that religious beliefs are kept overtly separate
from politics. Multicultural societies are a recipe for division
and conflict since a sense of common identity and loyalty is replaced
by contending interests that will inevitably seek to gain advantage over
each other.
36 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
According to the 2001 census, out of a total UK population of 57.1 million,
almost 1.6 million, or 2.8%, were Muslims.59 The population of the UK is now
believed to be at least 61.4 million (not counting illegal immigrants); the Muslim
population in 2008 was just under 2.5 million, over 4% of the population60.
A dramatic growth in both instances.
Since the political emancipation of the Roman Catholics and the non-conformists
in the nineteenth century the settled British view of religion is that it is a
matter of private belief and conscience and should not intrude overtly into the
political sphere. We have admitted immigrants of many different religions to
Britain on the unspoken and assumed belief that they also will adhere to this
way of thinking. But this does not correspond to developments in the Islamic
world.
The growth of Islamic fundamentalism has been a phenomenon of the 20th
century that gathered force and momentum during the latter half of the century,
the worst excesses of which have been seen in the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan. But the Taliban are just one strand of the worldwide
Islamic movement to return to a more fundamental and literalist Islam. The
evangelical manifestations of this, most notably in the West, have been fuelled
by funds derived from Middle Eastern oil revenues. Corrupt regimes in oil rich
countries have sought to placate their fundamentalists at home by giving
them funds to export radical Islam abroad.
Fundamentalist and literalist Muslims do not share Western values, and
indeed see them as corrupt. They do not believe in the democratic nation
state. They believe in the universal Islamic theocracy, the Umma, based
on political rule according to the Qur’an and Sunnah (the teachings of
Mohammed). They do not believe in the equality of the sexes, intellectual or
religious freedom, tolerance of homosexuality, or tolerance of other peoples’
religious beliefs, to name just a few. Their views are simply incompatible with
western liberal democracy.
We are all familiar with how their teachings have influenced and inspired the
wave of terrorist attacks around the world, most notably in New York, London
and Madrid, as well as in many other places in the world. More moderate and
secular Muslim countries, such as Turkey and Egypt, face just the same threats
from fundamentalists as western nations and have themselves been under
terrorist attack for decades.
Muslims in Britain, as in many other western countries, are becoming
increasingly ghettoised and choosing not to assimilate and integrate, using
multiculturalism as their justification. They frequently have arranged or forced
marriages with spouses from their country of origin, who often do not speak
12. The Islamic Dimension
Immigration: Action Overdue! 37
38 Immigration: Action Overdue!
English, have little or no knowledge of British law, customs and culture, and
perpetuate the cycle of non-integration and non-assimilation. Indeed many
would be affronted that they should ‘assimilate’ to a culture that they have
little regard for.
A 2005 opinion poll showed that 6% of Muslims thought that the London bombings
of 7th July 2005 were justified. That is not a large proportion, but 6% of the
Muslim 2008 population figures (2.5 million) equates to 150,000 people. The
same percentage expressed no loyalty to Britain. Meanwhile the proportion
of those who, while not condoning the attacks, could understand why
some people behave in that way was 56%, which equates to an astounding
1.4 million people.61
As Muslim communities increase in numbers they see less and less reason to
integrate as their own identity is reinforced. The advocates of fundamentalist
and literalist Islam are allowed to freely come to Britain and propagate their
message. The fundamentalists’ long-term goal is to turn Britain into an Islamic
society. Given their beliefs this is not an unreasonable point of view for them to
have, and they surely cannot believe their luck in encountering such a week and
submissive society as Britain, and Europe generally. Time and demographics
are on their side.
The Deobandi sect, which totally rejects western values, is estimated to run
almost 600 of Britain’s 1,600 mosques.62 A group called Tablighi Jamaat were
behind plans to build the so-called ‘Mega-mosque’ in West Ham, East London.
This project now seems to have been successfully opposed by the local
community, but it was intended to be the biggest place of worship in Europe,
dwarfing St Paul’s cathedral in London and St Peter’s in Rome, and would have
cost an estimated £100 million. The source of funding was mysterious but
there can be little doubt that much of it would have come from Saudi Arabia,
where non-Muslim places of religious worship are not permitted to be built
under Islamic theological rules. Tolerance and multiculturalism is a one-way
street as far as Islam is concerned.
Tablighi Jamaat preaches an ascetic and literalist strand of Islam and the
French intelligence services have called it the ‘ante-chamber to terrorism’63,
estimating that perhaps 80% of Islamic extremists in France come from
Tablighi ranks. Tablighi Jamaat and other Islamic groups claim they do not
encourage or condone terrorism but they do inspire the fundamentalist
beliefs in which it grows.
The subject of Muslim immigration into Britain and the consequences of
extremism is too big to cover comprehensively in this paper, and needs to be
the subject of a separate study, and specific policy recommendations.
Immigration: Action Overdue!
Those in favour of mass immigration use recourse to a number of myths to
justify it. Space does not allow for all of these to be debunked but here a few
of the main ones.
i) ‘Britain has a declining population’.
This is simply not true. See Table 2 which gives population projections for
the UK from the Office of National Statistics (2008) The figures clearly show
that, on current trends, the UK population is set to grow to 70 million by 2031
and 80 million by 2061. These figures cannot take into account future illegal
immigration and the possible influx of migrants from new entry countries to
the EU over the same periods of time.
All of this population growth is down to immigration and births to migrants.
Table 8 below shows estimated population figures if there were zero net
immigration from 2000 to 2031
Table 8
UK Population Projection (in millions)64
Year 2000 2010 2020 2031
Population
with zero
net immigration. 59.8 60.1 60.3 59.6
The figures show that with zero net immigration (the same number coming in
as going out) over the next twenty years or so the population would fall back
to its year 2000 level. However, ‘net immigration’ would not be considered
desirable by many British people as it effectively means that, over time, the
indigenous population is replaced by migrants.
Britain doesn’t have a declining population but the question has to be asked:
what would actually be wrong with a managed decline in population to a
density level more in keeping with the available living space, resources and
infrastructure? There would be benefits of improved quality of life with a
population of less than 60 million. Politicians should now seriously consider
the benefits of a gradual managed population decline: and all that needs to be
done to achieve it is to stop mass immigration.
ii) ‘Britain has an ageing population’.
Yes, but so what? So does every other developed and developing
country. It is the natural consequence of improved nutrition and health
services, people are healthier and live longer. The Government Actuarial
Service predicts that the dependency ratio i.e. the number of children
and retired people per working 1,000 of the population will actually fall
13. Myths and Realities Concerning
Immigration
39
40 Immigration: Action Overdue!
from 620 in 2000 to 583 in 2020. Increasing the population by mass
immigration won’t supply younger workers to replace the old. It will just
increase the total population, all of whom are living longer.
The natural way to increase the population of younger workers is to
encourage indigenous families to have more children by reducing the financial
burdens on them and providing better child care facilities.
iii) ‘Britain suffers from labour shortages’.
There are currently approximately 5 million people of working age who do
not work and who are not engaged in looking after young children or in
full-time education. Of these 5 million there are now just fewer than 2.5 million
unemployed65 and about 2.5 million on long-term sick benefits – this figure
has risen four-fold over the last twenty-five years – which is remarkable given
that general health has improved. Of the unemployed there are those who
find they are better off on benefit payments than working, and many on sick
benefits who might be able to work but also find themselves better off on
benefits. A vast underclass of benefits claimants has been created while
immigrants are brought in to do the jobs they will not do for the wages on
offer. In time the immigrants will also realise they will be better off on
benefits, more immigrants will be required to fill the low paid jobs and the
whole process will be repeated. The solution is to make it harder for the
able bodied to claim benefits and require them to work.
iv) ‘Immigration is the only way to pay for our pensions’.
Taken to its logical conclusion this is an absurd argument. Immigrants grow
old and need pensions too. The population would have increased accordingly
and yet more immigrants would be needed to pay their pensions; the logical
consequence of this argument is that there must be an ever increasing
number of immigrants to pay pensions of the preceding waves of
immigrants. It has been calculated that to maintain the current ratio
of UK workers to those of pensionable age would require one million new
immigrants per year; leading to a population in excess of 120 million
by the middle of the century. The United Nations World Economic and
Social Report for 2004 put it so: ‘Immigration (to Europe) would have
to expand at virtually impossible rates to offset declining support ratios”.66
The solution to the pension deficit problem is structural reform of working
practices and the pension systems, not more mass immigration.
v) ‘We have a moral duty to allow immigration’.
This argument is based on the premise that Britain was an exploiter
of poorer nations in the past and so we should help their descendants
today. This is wrong on two counts. Firstly, it assumes that the British
were net exploiters of those countries they colonised. Britain in fact
Immigration: Action Overdue!
created a vast legacy of infrastructure, promoted education, improved
agriculture and laid the foundations of civil and democratic society,
and above all the left the inestimable benefit of the English language, in
all of the countries of the Empire. Secondly it is absurd to place a moral
burden on the descendants of long dead ‘sinners’. Present day Britons
are no more responsible for the benefits and the supposed sins of Empire
than the descendants of the Romans, Vikings and Normans are responsible
for the depredations of their ancestors. Any British citizen suffering from
a guilt complex is perfectly free to make personal reparations as they see
fit. The job of governments and politicians is to protect the interests of
their own country and those who elected them.
41
42 Immigration: Action Overdue!
Classic examples of how similarly socially and economically advanced
countries have tackled immigration are the USA, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand. All of these countries are traditionally ‘countries of immigration’ since
in their modern form they were the result of colonisation and predominantly
Anglo-Saxon and European immigration. All of these countries were vastly
under-populated when they were discovered and during their subsequent
development had the need to bring in large numbers of immigrants. However
they now all strictly control immigration because they value their standard of
living and quality of life and wish to maintain it.
It is difficult to obtain a work permit to the USA and qualify for residence
let alone become a citizen. Canada operates a points system based on
educational qualifications, work experience, age, firm offer of a job, and
adaptability. Those applying, and any dependents, must undergo medical and
criminal record checks. Likewise Canada has strict criteria for those applying
for asylum.
Australia and New Zealand also operate points based systems using age,
language proficiency, educational and professional qualifications. Those
applying must have firm offers of work, and no-one over the age of 45 can
apply to Australia. Australia also operates a strict asylum system. They also
have a commendable refugee and humanitarian entrant system whereby
an Australian citizen or permanent resident, may sponsor a refugee or
humanitarian applicant provided that they undertake to provide a certain
level of support, e.g. in providing accommodation and practical assistance in
settling into the country.
Australia has also taken a firm stand against radical Islamists. The then Prime
Minister, John Howard, and Treasurer, Peter Costello, made it clear that
extremists were not welcome and faced a crackdown – Mr Costello said on
national television, ‘If you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic
state, then Australia is not for you…I think we have every right to say to people
who are coming to live in Australia, if you come to live in Australia you have
got to accept some fundamental principles.’67
Contrast this with Britain’s open borders policy and our politically correct,
multicultural state, where all cultures are of equal value, and where the
immigration and asylum policy can be summed up as ‘The more the merrier,
any Tom, Dick or Harry welcome, few or no questions asked’.
14. How Other Countries
Have Tackled Immigration
Immigration: Action Overdue!
The obvious beneficiaries from Britain’s uncontrolled, unlimited and
indiscriminate immigration system are the immigrants, and the huge immigration
industry which includes many charities, housing associations that provide
accommodation, and lawyers who live on Home Office grants paid for by
the taxpayer to defend asylum applicants. Although there are supposedly
strict controls on those applying legitimately as immigrants from outside
the European Union there is unlimited access for those coming from the
European Union, or those from outside the European Union who can obtain
false EU documentation.
As far as immigration from the EU is concerned no discrimination is, or could
legally be made, against those with criminal records, and the low-skilled or
no-skilled. Britain is legally required to accept any EU citizen who wishes to
come.68 The Government claims that it can control the numbers through the
work permit scheme; this is a typically dishonest position as the new points based
system only applies to those workers from outside the EU. The Government
did introduce stricter measures for Bulgarian and Romanian workers
after 2007 but, although workers from Eastern European countries were
required to register for workers registration certificates, this requirement only
applied once they had found work and it is not a means of controlling immigration.
Also, the workers registration certificate does not cover those from Eastern
Europe who describe themselves as self-employed. They are legally entitled
to work without any restrictions; and they do so, for example in the
construction, catering and service industries, possibly paying no income tax
and sending money home. They drive wages down and property prices up
for the indigenous population.
Who then gains from among the political classes that make uncontrolled
immigration possible? Conservative and Labour governments have made
mass immigration possible over the last fifty years or so, but immigration has
exploded under the Labour Government since 1997. This has been because
of Labour’s commitment to a borderless European supranational political
state, and their ideological belief that a ‘multicultural’ and ‘diverse’ society
had to replace the by and large common-cultural and cohesive society that
existed in Britain after the Second World War. The old political parties are
committed to unending immigration because they believe that immigrants
are more likely to vote for them if they are pro-immigration, and they
fear the loss of votes in constituencies dominated by first, second, and even
third generation immigrants.
In the winter of 2007 the Statistics Commission69 published figures that
indicates since 1997 81% of all new jobs created went to foreign nationals
or those born abroad, this includes those who were born abroad but
15. Who Benefits from Mass Immigration?
43
44 Immigration: Action Overdue!
subsequently gained British citizenship. Large sections of business are in
favour of mass-immigration because it provides a never ending supply of
cheap labour, most recently from Eastern Europe.
On the horizon there is the prospect of another 72.5 million people who will
have the right to come to Britain if Turkey joins the European Union in a few
years time, a position enthusiastically supported by the Labour, Conservative
and Liberal Democratic parties. The old-style politicians have their Utopian
ideals, and their narrow electoral interests, and business is only concerned
with making greater short-term profits not with the long term benefits of
country and livelihoods of native workers.
Immigration: Action Overdue!
Members of the Immigration Committee & Contributors
Chairman and Writer: Gerard Batten MEP
Professor Stephen Bush
John Harvey
Phillip Smith
Andrew Moncrieff
John Whiffen
Michael McManus
John Coleman
Research by Fiona Wise
Additional Research by Lynnda Robson
16. Appendix I
45
46 Immigration: Action Overdue!
Immigration: Action Overdue! 47
1 Barbara Roche MP, Labour Minister with special responsibility for immigration, speech at IPPR
(Institute for Public Policy Research) conference ‘UK migration in a global economy’, 11th September 2000.
2 Robert Wnder, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain. Page 2.
3 David Miles, The Tribes of Britain, Weidenfield and Nicholson 2005, Page 66-88.
4 Bryan Sykes, Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of Our Tribal History, Bantam Press, 2006, page 1
5 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants? Published by Civitas, April 2007, pages 21 and 22.
6 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants? Published by Civitas, April 2007, page 25.
7 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants? Published by Civitas, April 2007
8 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants? Published by Civias, April 2007, page 50.
9 G. Black, Jewish London: An illustrated history. Breedon Books, 2003, page 78.
10 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants? Published by Civitas, April 2007.
11 J.A. Tannahill, European Voluntary Workers in Britain. Manchester University Press, 1958, page 1.
12 Office for National Statistics, 2009.
13 901 – 2031 from the Annual Abstract of Statistics 2008, Office of National Statistics;
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/AA2008/AA2008.pdf
2081 Karen Dunnell, National Statistician: Official Report; 5 Nov 2008 : Column 504W
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081105/text/81105w0009..htm
14 The Daily Telegraph, One in four UK babies born to a foreign parent. By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor.
15 You Gov poll, April 2006.
16 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/AA2009/AA09Webversion.pdf
17 http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/maps-diagrams/fig-1-01.jsp
18 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Population_trends_135.pdf.
19 http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingsupply/
20 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=15106
21 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants. Published by Civitas, April 2007.
22 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants, page 69. Published by Civitas April 2007.
23 C.Peach, Ethnicity in the 1991 Census, Vol 2: The ethnic minority populations of Great Britain, HMSO, 1991,
Table 5, page 9.
24 1998-2006 Annual Abstract of National Statistics 2008, page 36. 2007, Office of National Statistics,
19th November 2008. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?id=260.
25 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Population_trends_135.pdf
26 The Daily Express 27th January 2010.
27 http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=21277 Interim report – ‘Economic impact
on London and the UK of an earned regularisation of irregular migrants in the UK’ Interim Report from
LSE London, by Ian Gordon, Kathleen Scanlon, Tony Travers and Christine Whitehead 16/02/09
28 ‘Illegal migrants total hits 1m as MPs call for curb’, by Tom Whitehead, Daily Express, 8th Sept 08.
29 Daily Express, page 7, ‘Queue here for Britain’ by Nick Fagge, Monday 13th August 2007.
30 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/immiq309.pdf
31 The Human Rights Act was adopted in 1998 by the majority of its provisions did not come into force
until 2000.
32 Daily Express, ‘Secret amnesty for 500,000 asylum cases, by Macer Hall, Political Editor,
Monday 6th August 2007.
33 BBC News Channel. ‘Backlog of asylum cases doubles’, by Dominic Casciani.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7846140.stm.
34 Council Directive 2004/83/EC April 2004.
35 Daily Telegraph, Brussels: We’ll halt Howard’s curb on migrants, by David Rennie and George Jones,
26th January 2005.
36 European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, 29th April 2004 on the right of citizens of the
Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Members States.
(amending various existing regulations).
37 http://www.europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/133152.htm
38 http://www.telepgraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtm1?xml=news/2006/08/23/nmigrants223.xml
39 Formerly Article 18(1) TEC (Treaty Establishing the European Community).
40 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:229:0035:0048:EN:PDF
41 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31968R1612:EN:HTML
42 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20063317.htm
43 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/asylum/fsj_asylum_intro_en.htm
17 Notes
148 Immigration: AEnctoiuognh O ivse Erndouueg!h
44 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050007.htm
45 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062525.htm
46 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/asylum/fsj_asylum_intro_en.htm
47 Professor Anthony Coughlan, The Constitutional Implications of the Treaty of Lisbon, EU Watch,
Sept/Oct 2008.
49 The Daily Telegraph, One in four babies born to a foreign parent, by Philip Johnson, Home Affairs Editor,
23rd August 2007.
50 The Independent, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 article by Ben Russell, Home AffairsCorrespondent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/one-in-nine-people-who-live-in-uk-bornabroad-
1631348.html
51 The psychology of race differences, by Richard Lynn, Emeritus Professor University of Ulster, 2006.
52 The Daily Telegraph, White people in Birmingham ‘a minority by 2027’, Friday 31st August 2007.
53 Annual Abstract of National Statistics 2009, Office of National Statistics.
54 Warning: Immigration Can Seriously Damage Your Wealth, by Anthony Scholefield
55 Migration Watch UK. Briefing paper 1.5
56 1st Report (2007-2008) published 1st April 2008
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf
57 The Sun, Warning over migrant crooks, 14th September 2007.
58 Metropolitan Police Authority Online Consultation on Policing Priorities for 2007/2008. Final Report
on Public Consultation, page 27.
59 Islam in the European Union: What’s at stake for the future? Directorate General for Internal Policies of
the Union, Culture and Eduction. May 2007.
60 Labour Force Survey, as cited by Karen Dunnell, National Statistician.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090707/
text/90707w0026.htm
61 YouGov Poll, ‘One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists’, Daily Telegraph,
Anthony King, 23rd July 2005.
62 Radical Islamic Sect ‘has half of Britain’s mosques in its grip’, by Amar Singh, London Evening Standard,
7th September 2007.
63 Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad’s Stealthy Legions, by Alex Alexiev.
64 Do We Need Mass-Immigration? By Anthony Browne, published by Civitas, page 14.
65 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=12
66 Quoted in Financial Times, 30th November 2004,
67 Peter Costello, 23rd August 2005
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?pageID=&doc=transcripts/2005/124.htm&min=phc
68 Except under the narrowly construed grounds of public health, public policy and public security.
69 http://www.statscom.org.uk/C_1237.aspx

Immigration: Action Overdue!
About the author
Gerard Batten was a founder
member of the UK Independence
Party in September 1993.
He was elected as a Member
of the European Parliament for
London in June 2004, and elected
for a second five year term in
June 2009.
From 2004 to 2009 he was a
member of the European Parliament’s
Security and Defence Committee,
and has written on how Britain’s
defences are being gradually
subsumed into a European defence
force – a European Army.
In 2007 he co-Chaired UKIP’s Defence Policy Committee with Rear
Admiral Richard Heaslip. The Committee’s recommendations were later
published as the Party’s Defence Policy.
He now sits on the European Parliament’s misnamed Civil Liberties Justice
and Home Affairs Committee. He campaigns against the European Arrest
Warrant and the development of the EU’s ‘common legal instruments’ that
are destroying our centuries old liberties and protections against unjust
arrest and imprisonment.
In 2007 he was the Chairman of UKIP’s Immigration Policy Committee
and authored the policy paper that was delivered to the Party later that
year. This document is the third revision, with some minor refinements
and additions.
In November 2009 he was a candidate in the UKIP’s leadership
election and achieved second place on 26% of the vote. UKIP’s new
leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, appointed him the Party spokesman
on Immigration and Islamism.
First published in Great Britain in March 2010.
Copyright © Gerard Batten 2010.
Published by Gerard Batten MEP, PO Box 51542, London, SE1 3XS.
Contact
Gerard Batten Member of the European parliament for London
020 7403 7174
gerard.batten@btinternet.com

#######################################

BATTEN, Gerard 18 – IMMIGRATION Action Overdue!

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in Immigration, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BREXIT Dr. Richard NORTH’s Submission

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 28/03/2014

BREXIT Dr. Richard NORTH’s Submission

.

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

.

Brexit RN

&

BREXIT to FLEXIT RN

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

CPS – Homicide: by Negligence (Gross)

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 26/03/2014

CPS – Homicide: by Negligence (Gross)

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is in contrast to voluntary manslaughter and occurs where a person kills, but does so without the intent to kill or cause GBH. Apart from the absence of the requisite intent, all other elements of the offence are the same as for murder.

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter, namely:

that caused by the defendant’s gross negligence; and
that caused by his unlawful or dangerous act.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

This is where the death is a result of a grossly negligent (though otherwise lawful) act or omission on the part of the defendant. The law in respect of this has been clarified in the case of R v Adomako (1994) 3 All ER 79 where a four stage test for gross negligence manslaughter known as the Adomako Test was outlined by the House of Lords:

The test involves the following stages:

a) the existence of a duty of care to the deceased;
b) a breach of that duty of care which;
c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; and
d) the breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.

There is no manslaughter by “Lawrence Recklessness”, overruling R v Seymour (1983) 2 AC 493.

The Duty of Care

There is no “general” duty of care owed by one citizen to another (No “good Samaritan rule”).

A duty of care will arise from an act of a person where the requirements of foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonableness establish such a duty (Donohue v Stevenson (1932) AC 582).

Prosecutors should see Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605 for the test if a duty of care existed.

The duty can exist even where the deceased and the defendant were engaged in an unlawful activity together (R v Wacker (2003) 1 Cr App R 329; R v Willoughby (2004) ECWA Crim 3365.

The duty can arise from a contract of employment (R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37).

In addition there is the case of R (Rowley) v DPP (2003) EWHC Admin 693 where the Administrative Court referred to a fifth test, that ‘criminal’ involved an element of ‘badness’ – but note that the Adomako test is objective and the Crown need not prove the defendant’s state of mind. The risk must be a serious and obvious risk of death, not merely serious injury: R v Misra and Srivastava [2005] 1 Cr App R 328.

The Breach of the Duty of Care

The ordinary law of negligence applies to these cases, in that those with an established duty of care, must act as a “reasonable person would do in their position”. If they fail to do so they will have breached that duty. This is an objective test and will be based upon the defendant’s position at the time of the breach.

Therefore, if the defendant has acted within the range of what was generally accepted as being the standard practice (even if it is at the lower end) it will be difficult to describe such behaviour as falling far below the standard of a reasonable person in his position.

An unqualified person is not to be judged at a lower standard than a qualified person. Therefore the lack of skill will not be a defence if the conduct is deemed negligent. If however, the defendant has particular skills and knowledge of a danger that the reasonable person would not have, his actions should be judged in the light of those skills or knowledge. This test is an objective test.

It does not matter that the defendant did not appreciate the risk (the foreseeable risk of death) only that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the defendant’s position. (R v DPP ex parte Jones 2000 CLR 858 and AG ref No: 2 of 1999 3 All ER 182.)

The Grossness of the Breach

It is for a jury to decide whether the defendant’s conduct was so bad, in all the circumstances, as to amount to a criminal act or omission. In R v Misra and Srivastava [2005] 1 Cr App R 328, the court agreed with the direction by the judge that the term ‘reprehensible’ would be apt to describe the nature of the conduct.

 

Causation

See R v HM Coroner for Inner London, ex parte Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344 for a causation test in relation to gross negligence manslaughter

Medical Manslaughter

Medical manslaughter is legally no different from Gross Negligence manslaughter. The term refers to medically qualified individuals who are performing acts within the terms of their duty of care, when the act or omission occurs.

Where a medical individual is appointed to take charge of a person they then take on a duty of care towards them. Simply being a doctor or nurse in a hospital will not necessarily mean there is a duty of care to a specific patient (see section 7 HSWA [ADD LINK] in the legal guidance Corporate Manslaughter).

Please refer to HSE work related deaths protocol http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/fod/oc/100-199/165_9.pdf

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

This is where the killing is the result of:

the defendant’s unlawful act (not omission);
where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183;
whether or not the defendant realised this.
The act need not be directed against a person (e.g. arson) – see R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 1880.

The knowledge attributed to the sober and reasonable person is that which such a person would acquire as an observer of the whole course of the defendant’s conduct throughout the unlawful act: R v Watson (1989) 2 All ER 865, R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, R v Carey and others (2006) EWCA Crim 17.

In manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act, the accused’s state of mind is relevant only to establish that the act was committed intentionally and that it was an unlawful act.

Once these points are established the question whether the act was dangerous is to be judged not by the appellant’s appreciation but that of the sober and reasonable man and it is impossible to impute the mistaken belief of the defendant that what he was doing was not dangerous: R v Ball 1989 CLR 730.

 

Cases where Death Results from the Unlawful Supply of Drugs

No “unlawful act” for the purpose of unlawful act manslaughter occurs, where a person only supplies drugs or materials to another, who then in turn administers the drug to himself and dies. This is the case even where a person assists another to take the drug by performing preparatory acts, such as applying a tourniquet or preparing a syringe for injection.

The House of Lords considering the point, stated that the criminal law generally assumed the existence of free will and, subject to certain exceptions, informed adults of sound mind were treated as autonomous beings able to make their own decisions on how to act: R v Kennedy (Simon) (2007) 3 W.L.R. 612 where K supplied the drug to B, who then had a choice, knowing the facts, whether to inject himself or not.

 

Encouraging or Assisting Suicide

CPS Areas must refer cases of Assisting Suicide to the Special Crime Division: see Referral of Cases to CPS Headquarters (Central Casework Divisions, The Principal Legal Advisor, Private Office, Strategy and Policy Directorate, and Press Office), The Chief Crown Prosecutors or Complex Casework Units, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

Infanticide

Section 1 Infanticide Act 1938, as amended by section 57 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, provides that infanticide can apply: “Where a woman:

by any wilful act or omission;
causes death of her child being a child under the age of 12 months;
but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child;
or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child then;
notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that, but for this Act, the offence would have amounted to murder (See R v Gore [2007] EWCA Crim 2789);
she shall be guilty of an offence of infanticide; and
may for such an offence be dealt with and punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of the child.”
Infanticide can be an alternative verdict or charged in its own right. The child that is killed must be the child to whom the birth etc. refers, and the child must be under 12 months old. The death can be by either act or omission.

The case of R v Gore [2007] EWCA Crim 2789 has established that there is no requirement that all the ingredients of murder have to be proved before a defendant could be convicted of infanticide. The case has confirmed that the intention of parliament was to create a new offence of infanticide which covered situations much wider than offences that would otherwise be murder. Consequently, the mens rea for infanticide does not require any intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm. Therefore cases of manslaughter (see above) would fall within the elements of the offence.

In every case where the mother is alleged to have killed her own child who is less than 12 months old, early efforts should be made to obtain medical evidence establishing whether or not infanticide is appropriate and, if so, a charge of infanticide can be preferred pre-committal.

There is a close link between this offence with both voluntary manslaughter and diminished responsibility. However, unlike diminished responsibility, the burden of disproving is on prosecution. Although for an Infanticide offence, the child killed must be the one from whose birth/lactation the defendant is suffering; diminished responsibility might still be argued if another child of the family has been killed.

Note: also the offence of Child Destruction: section 1 Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which prohibits the killing of any child capable of being born alive.

 

Familial Deaths and Serious Physical Harm

Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (‘DVCV Act’) creates an offence of causing or allowing the death of, or causing or allowing serious physical harm to be suffered by, a child under the age of 16 or of a vulnerable adult. This stand-alone offence imposes a duty upon members of a household to take reasonable steps to protect children or vulnerable adults within that household from the foreseeable risk of serious physical harm from other household members. It is an offence triable only on indictment and where death occurs, carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment or a fine, or both. Where a child or vulnerable adult suffers serious physical harm the offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both.

An offence under section 5 DVCV Act is an offence of homicide for the purposes of venue in the Youth Court.

The offence is made out where evidence exists to establish the following elements:

a child or vulnerable adult (“V”) has died or suffered serious physical harm;
the death or serious physical harm was the result of an unlawful act, course of conduct or omission of a person (“D”) who was member of the same household as V and who had frequent contact with V;
there existed at the time of death a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by the unlawful act of any member of that household and either:
a) D was the person whose unlawful act caused V’s death or serious physical harm; or
b) D was, or ought to have been, aware of that risk and failed to take such steps as he or she could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from that risk of serious physical harm; and
c) the death or serious physical harm occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

Note: ‘significant’ does not mean ‘more than minimal’ as it would for manslaughter but carries its ordinary meaning: R v Mujuru (2007) EWCA Crim 1249.

The prosecution does not have to prove which of the two possible alternatives, (a) or (b) above, applies. In other words, D is equally liable to conviction whether he or she was the perpetrator of the act that actually caused V’s death or serious physical harm or simply failed to protect V from a foreseeable risk of serious physical harm from another member of the household who had frequent contact with V. It will quickly be appreciated how this dual basis for criminal liability remedies one of the main perceived difficulties with the law relating to other possible charges such as murder or manslaughter.

In every case the prosecution must prove that V’s death or serious physical harm occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen. This requirement protects, from criminal liability, those whose dependants die from unlawful acts that had nothing to do with the foreseeable risk of harm within the household, e.g. where V is at risk of serious harm from an abusive parent but is subsequently killed by a friend of the family who had had until then little contact with the household.

Further, section 5(6) DVCV Act confirms that in this context ‘serious’ harm is to be equated with the level of physical harm that amounts to grievous bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The risk that must be foreseen relates to that level of harm and the risk itself must be significant rather than minimal or fanciful. The section also contains definitions of the terms child and vulnerable adult amongst others. The definition applied to vulnerable witnesses is wider than that applied to the same phrase in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

However, it is clear from the wording of section 5 that the test of what could be foreseen is not purely
subjective but contains a ‘reasonableness’ dimension as well. In determining potential liability the proper test to be applied is ‘what would have been reasonable for this defendant to have foreseen?’ Therefore, a defendant may be fixed with knowledge if the nature of the risk was such that he or she should reasonably have been aware of it even if they claim not to have been.

Frequent contact

Frequent contact could include family members or carers, but is not confined to that group.

Household

Household is defined in sectino 5(4)(a) DVCV and will be given its ordinary meaning. It is not likely to include care homes or nurseries where a child is looked after with a number of others. A paid or voluntary domiciliary carer or housekeeper or an au-pair or similar may fall under the definition, if it would be reasonable in the circumstances. Under the Act, a person may be regarded as a member of the household for the purpose of this offence if they visit so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard that person as a member of the household. Membership of a household will be for the courts to determine on a case by case basis.

The offence only applies to those over 16 years of age, unless the suspect is the mother or father of the victim.

If the person who caused the death lacks or may lack criminal responsibility the other persons in the household can still be charged with ‘allowing’ the death or serious injury.

Unlawful act

Subsection (5) defines an unlawful act as one that constitutes an offence or would be were it not for the fact that the person lacks criminal responsibility.

 

Age of Responsibility

If D was under the age of 16 at the time of the act which caused V’s death he or she cannot be guilty of an offence under this section. Further, where it is sought to prosecute D on the basis of a failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the risk of serious harm, D is assumed not to have been capable of taking any such step before attaining the age of sixteen (s.5(3)(b)). However, neither of these exceptions applies to the mother or father of the deceased child who may be prosecuted for a section 5 offence whatever their age. This distinction is justified on the basis that parents bear a special responsibility for the safety of their children.

Application of Dangerous Offender Provisions

An offence under section 5 is a “serious specified offence” for the purposes of the Dangerous Offenders provisions set out in Chapter 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (DV Act, Schedule 10, paragraph 65).

Procedural Changes

Section 5 creates a substantive offence that can be charged alone and which is clearly designed to remedy situations where it has been impossible in the past to bring charges of murder or manslaughter because of a lack of evidence to prove which of a limited number of suspects caused V’s death. Such situations will doubtless continue to occur and the principle in R v Lane and Lane (1986) 82 Cr App R 5 (referred to above) will continue to have effect.

However, the Act also has in contemplation circumstances where the evidence, reviewed according to the normal standards of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, justifies charging one of more of the defendants with either murder or manslaughter in respect of the same death. Where this is done, it is important to ensure that the defendant is also charged with a section 5 offence. Not only does this afford the jury an opportunity of convicting of an alternative count but several significant advantages flow from the fact that a defendant is charged with both offences.

 

Ruling Out Dismissal of the Case before Arraignment

Following a sending by the magistrates’ court the charge of murder or manslaughter cannot be dismissed under the Indictable Only procedure unless the section 5 DVCV Act offence is also dismissed – section 6(3) DVCV Act .This means that as long as there is a case to answer on the familial homicide offence, the defence will not be able to apply to have the more serious charge dismissed before arraignment under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 on the ground that there is not a prima facie case in relation to murder or manslaughter.

Postponing the Decision on whether there is a case to answer

A similar restriction also applies during the course of the trial itself. As long as the defendant continues to face a charge under section 5 of the DVCV Act the question of whether there is also a case to answer on the charge of murder or manslaughter cannot be determined until the close of all the evidence including the defence evidence (if any defendant elects to give evidence) .

The purpose of the provision is to afford the jury the greatest possible opportunity of hearing the oral evidence of at least one of the defendants during the trial and to weigh that testimony as evidence against the other accused. So, where a defendant is charged in respect of the same death with both familial homicide and either murder or manslaughter, and the prosecution evidence establishes a case to answer on the section 5 DVCV Act offence, the defence cannot make a submission of no case to answer on the murder/manslaughter charge until the close of the defence case.

At that stage the court will have heard the evidence of any of the defendants who decide to go into the witness box and the decision whether there is a case to go to the jury will then be taken in the light of that evidence, not simply the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The potential use of so-called ‘cut-throat’ defences here is obvious. (See R v Ikram (Abid) [2008] EWCA Crim 586).

To view the source from which this is an abstract CLICK HERE

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in GL-W, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W, Murder | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: