Say No To Hate Crime Revisited

by Les May

A couple of days ago it was mooted that misandry, defined as ‘hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men’, should be regarded as a ‘hate crime’.  A letter in the ‘i’ newspaper (18/10/18) shows why this is not a good idea. The author wrote:

‘If misogyny becomes a hate crime then misandry should too.   If you have one you should have the other.   Misandry is widespread and commonplace in society and men’s issues – which are serious and pressing, even life threatening – are generally overlooked.  They are certainly not given the sort of attention that women’s issues typically receive.  If the law is changed to make misandry a hate crime then perhaps men’s issues will move towards the centre ground, enter public discourse, and be given the attention they deserve.’

Contempt for men is a staple fare for many female columnists, particularly in the print media, along with bias and downright lies.  Criminalising it will not suddenly bring issues affecting men to the fore.

The reason for men being treated in this way is simply that too few of the men in the media, who could use their position to challenge it, have the balls to take on the women who write this stuff.  They’re afraid that if they do the ‘sisterhood’ will turn its ire on them.  Much better to buy into the idea that women are an oppressed group, by calling yourself a feminist.

When men organise to draw attention to things that affect them deeply the likelihood that they will get any positive publicity is slender. Have you even heard of the group ‘Families Need Fathers’?  Take a look at the recent press release from the group at https://fnf.org.uk/ .  Did you read about it in the press or see it on BBC TV? I think not.

There are plenty of men in the media who could change this, but who don’t.  The same goes for MPs.   The number of men who have lost contact with one or more of their children as a result of intransigence by an ex-partner is in the hundreds of thousands.  No one speaks for them.

If you are inclined to be sceptical about my comments about bias by female columnists how about this?

‘The concept of misandry is dangerously vague in comparison to the reality of misogyny.  I predict that if misandry is taken forward as a hate crime, it will be used to curb discussions of male violence and female oppression’, and ‘It’s already too easy for men to cry foul every time a woman says or does anything they don’t like.’

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/misandry-hate-crime-abusive-men-law

Whilst labelling misogyny as a hate crime was the only game in town our brave women columnists were all for it.   Now that there’s a possibility that they might find themselves on the receiving end of an accusation of hate crime on the grounds of misandry there’s what is called in the feminist lexicon ‘a backlash’.

If they succeed in killing off the whole idea they will be doing everyone a favour. The police have enough to do without being given the job of investigating what Orwell in his book 1984 called ‘thought crime’. 

********* 

Rochdale Tory motion mocks multiple voting

A Correction!

by Les May

IN my article ‘A Breach of Trust!’ I said that the silence of the Rochdale Conservative opposition was effectively condoning the behaviour of Labour Councillor Faisal Rana who as we now all know actively solicited, and made use of two ballot papers in the May elections.

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-breach-of-trust.html

This was unfair.  After this offence came to light Tory Councillor Ashley Dearnley arranged for a motion to appear on the agenda of the Council meeting to be held on Wednesday 17 October.

The motion to be moved by Councillor Dearnley and seconded by Councillor Holly reads as follows:

‘The Communities of Rochdale deserve to have confidence in our democratic processes.  In light of his recent acceptance of a police caution relating to an electoral offence, and the consequential damage caused to public confidence in local democracy, this Council calls upon Councillor Faisal Rana to consider his position as an elected member of this authority.’

Lib Dem Councillor Andy Kelly has informed me that after the offence came to light he too wrote to the Chief Executive about this matter.

***********

A Breach of Trust!

by Les May

I had hoped that the opposition parties in Rochdale would do their job and hold Allen Brett to account for his decision not to ask for the resignation of Labour Councillor Faisal Rana who admitted to soliciting two votes in the local election in May this year.  After a single feeble complaint by Lib-Dem leader Andy Kelly, no more has been heard from either party. Indeed there seems to be no record of the Tories saying anything, effectively they are condoning Rana’s behaviour.

Disappointed, but not surprised, on 14 September 2018 I wrote the following letter to Councillor Faisal Rana.   As a matter of courtesy and for information, I sent a copy to the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive of Rochdale MBC.

“I have been aware since mid August that you have received a police caution for electoral offences relating to the poll of 3 May 2018.  Until a few days ago I had not read the transcript of the interview which you gave to Sky News.   I assume that the transcript is a true and correct record of what you said.

I am particularly concerned with the paragraph which reads:

‘I legally registered my votes by providing my genuine national insurance number, date of birth and addresses and when I received these through the post I thought it would have been OK and that is why they issued me two ballots for two constituencies’.

In my view this appears to imply that the electoral services of RMBC should have checked for a duplication of national insurance numbers and dates of birth, and informed you of the illegal nature of your actions.

From my own experience registering to take part in the ballot is an active process. It is necessary to provide an address at one is resident in order to receive a ballot paper at that address.  Ditto for a postal vote.  I assume that you are quite properly registered at the address at which you reside permanently with your family and that you legitimately used that vote in that ward.

What is in question is the ‘other’ address, which I assume was in the ward in which you stood as a candidate, and what legitimate interest you had in the property at that address which you considered gave you an entitlement to register yourself at that address and apply for a postal vote to be sent to that address.

As a resident of Rochdale Metropolitan Borough I would like answers to the following questions within 15 working days of the date of this correspondence.

What was the address used to apply for a second vote?

What legitimate interest did you have in the property identified by that address?

Were you a tenant of the property identified by that address?

Were you the owner of the property identified by that address?”

The 15 working days were up last Friday.  I have not had a reply from Councillor Rana or an acknowledgement from the other two recipients.

Councillor Rana clearly does not want us to know the address at which he registered in order to get his second vote or why he thought he was entitled to two votes.  The 2017-18 electoral register for the Spotland and Falinge ward shows that a Faisal Rana is registered at 170c Spotland Road, together with Hassan Tehzeeb and Amna Kiran.  This is a change from the three previous registers, 2014-2017, when a Susan Williams was registered at this address.

So just why did Councillor Rana think that he had an entitlement to a second vote.  Was it because he was now claiming to be resident at this address or was it that the change in occupancy of 170c Spotland Road now gave him a convenient address at which to register and to receive the papers enabling him to cast his second vote?   If this is indeed the case then it suggests that both the police and the Labour leader have not been so diligent as perhaps they might have been in enquiring much more closely into Faisal Rana’s actions and motivation. If there is another explanation, then what legitimate interest did he have in 170c Spotland Road?

A number of people, including a fellow councillor, have come forward to act as apologists for Councillor Rana seemingly without reflecting upon the morality of the act of deliberately soliciting a second vote and upon the way that his actions have tainted the Labour party.   I’ve heard stories about his being so contrite that he was in tears, that he undertook a pilgrimage out of contrition and perhaps most ludicrous of all, that he should not be forced to resign because if he did it would lead to a bye-election in the ward and this would cost the town £50,000.   None of this cuts any ice with me.

Electoral fraud is not a minor matter.   This is what the Pickles’ review into electoral fraud, Securing the Ballot had to say:

‘Electoral fraud and corruption is intertwined with other forms of crime as well. Local authorities have a large procurement role.  A group of people who cheat their way to power are unlikely to hold a higher moral standard when handing out public contracts, or when making quasi-judicial decision on planning and licensing.   Electoral registration fraud is connected with financial crime

and illegal immigration.’

In other words there is a moral as well as a legal dimension to a Councillor deliberately seeking to obtain a second vote.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/securing-the-ballot-review-into-electoral-fraud

Councillor Rana has shown contempt for electoral law and the basic premise of our democracy, ‘one man, one vote’.  He actively sought to obtain for himself a second vote, but he lacks the moral fibre to admit that he did wrong and to do the honourable thing by stepping down.  By this he taints Labour as a party that will tolerate electoral fraud for the sake of expediency.

In May 2018 a large number of Labour party members went on record as showing their support for Jacqui Beswick being elected as leader.

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/129/letters-to-the-editor/118578/letter-labour-party-members-show-support-for-jacqui-beswick

From what I hear of this lady she would not have been so tolerant of Faisal Rana’s wrongdoing as Allen Brett.   Perhaps it is time for Labour party members to once again let their views be known.

*******

Say 'No' To Hate Crime

by Les May

ELLA Whelan, author of the book ‘What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism’, has described the campaign by MP Stella Creasy to have misogyny classified as a hate crime as, ‘a top-down act of virtue-signalling by a handful of MPs and feminists, and an affront to freedom’.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/09/06/stella-creasys-war-on-thoughtcrime/

It’s top down because as she points out women are not marching in the streets for the criminalisation of misogyny.  It’s an affront to freedom because it seeks to punish individuals for what they think, not what they do, i.e. thought crime.

Now whilst I share Ella Whelan’s view on this there is I think a more practical objection.   If you think you’ve witnessed a hate crime, who you gonna call? Certainly not ‘The Ghost Busters’!  It’s the police of course.

The problem is that the police may not understand what constitutes a hate crime and what constitutes free speech.

A week ago it was reported that in Bath city centre a Christian street preacher by the name of Dale McAlpine was threatened with arrest and forced to leave the area.  Police issued a dispersal notice to a group of preachers and ordered them to leave the city centre.   It seems that one of the officers involved claimed they were committing a ‘hate crime’.

The outcome? Avon and Somerset police have contacted all police staff in Bath ‘to ensure they understand the importance of freedom of expression’.

https://www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Police-apologise-to-Bath-street-preacher-threatened-with-arrest

It isn’t the first time that McAlpine has been in trouble for expressing unpopular views.   In 2010 was arrested after he told a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) that as a Christian he believed homosexuality was a sin.   As the term ‘hate crime’ was not fashionable then, the PCSO contented himself with having McAlpine arrested for making ‘homophobic remarks’.

The outcome? The charges were dropped and police in Cumbria agreed to pay him £7,000 in compensation as well as his legal costs.  McAlpine responded ‘I hope the police will in future do their duty defending freedom of speech.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339843/Homosexuality-sin-street-preacher-wins-7k-police.html

I may not have any sympathy with McAlpine’s beliefs, but I’m glad that he’s there.  It’s people like him that remind us that freedom of expression applies to people you disagree with as well as those whose views coincide with yours.  The alternative is the echo chamber of social media where you need only listen to views that coincide with your own.

My motivation in writing this is primarily my concern that the eagerness of some people on hearing something they do not like to resort to words like, racist, anti-semitic, islamo-phobic, misogynistic, trans-phobic, homo-phobic, patriarchal or hate speech, prevents reasoned discussion and, if we self censor to avoid being so labelled, effectively denies us freedom of expression.   (It is not without interest that the PCSO who had McAlpine arrested is himself a homosexual.)  But in Stella Creasy’s case there is something else.

Creasy is credited with having championed payday loan fee caps and more recently has urged a crackdown on high cost credit cards. I admire this and say more power to her elbow. I just wish she would not waste her time trying to solve a non-existent problem. Perhaps she is not immune to vanity.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/mar/27/stella-creasy-to-call-for-crackdown-on-high-cost-credit-cards

Ask About The Wedding Tackle

by Les May

A person who was born a male, identifies as a woman, uses the name Karen White, posted pictures on Facebook looking like a woman and claims to be ‘transitioning’ was jailed yesterday for life after admitting sexually assaulting two female inmates whilst being held on remand in HMP New Hall, a women’s prison in West Yorkshire, and the previous rapes of two other women.

The lawyer for the prosecution said:

‘She is allegedly a transgender female. The prosecution says allegedly because there’s smatterings of evidence in this case that the defendant’s approach to transitioning has been less than committed.’

The judge told White:

‘You are a predator and highly manipulative and, in my view, you are a danger. You represent a significant risk of serious harm to children, to women and the general public’.

White is currently in a male prison and even after gender transition surgery it is unlikely that a transfer to a female prison would occur.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

A man who tricked four men into having sex with him by pretending to be a woman online has been convicted.  A jury at Kingston Crown Court found Duarte Xavier guilty of six counts of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45760672

What the first case demonstrates is that allowing an individual to claim that they have changed from the sex they were born with to the opposite sex and treating them as such, purely on their say so, is an exercise fraught with danger.
In spite of the guarded words of the prosecution lawyer it is apparent what he meant.  Translated into commonplace English he was saying that White is still equipped with a full set of wedding tackle and has shown no sign of wanting to lose it, but every sign of wanting to use it.

What the second case demonstrates is that when we engage in intimate acts with another individual we have a right to be aware of all the facts about them. That would include what sex we would identify them as, not simply what sex they claim to be.

An ‘intimate act’ isn’t just about sex.  It covers who we are willing to share a changing room with, who we are willing to have examine us medically, who we are willing to assist us with bodily functions at times we cannot do this for ourselves, how closely we feel comfortable with allowing a stranger or a friend to approach us, etc.  I see no reason to assume that men and women will apply exactly the same ‘rule of thumb’ in each case.

As a society we accept an asymmetry in attitude between men and women. Women will in general be more conservative in these matters than men.  We acknowledge that a ‘Peeping Tom’ is more likely than a ‘Peeping Thomasina’.
An asymmetry in attitudes is also found in those who identify as ‘transexual’. 

The few people I have read of making the transition from female to male seem to have got on with it without fuss. The noisy, belligerent individuals are (frequently) those who grew up as male and want to be identified as female.
This is a new phenomenon.  None of the three people at the links below behaved like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Ashley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Morris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Wilson
For me the red line is whether or not someone who has lived as a male and now wishes be identified, and be treated as, a woman, is still sporting a full set of wedding tackle, even though their secondary sexual characteristics, e.g. the presence of breasts, gives them the sort of appearance we associate with being a woman. If they are I am unwilling to treat them as a woman and I do not believe it is appropriate for the law to treat them as women either. I consider they are perpetrating a deliberate deception.

If they have made the level of commitment required to undergo full ‘gender reassignment’ surgery I am happy to treat them as a woman and in circumstances where the law continues to treat men and women differently, to have them treated as a woman.

In this respect I differ strongly from Jeremy Corbyn who is reported as saying: ‘The position of the party is that where you have self-identified as a woman, then you are treated as a woman.’   I think this is foolish as is demonstrated by case I referred to at the start.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-to-clarify-policy-over-trans-women-on-all-female-shortlists

I wholly reject the notion that we have to accept that ‘gender is fluid’ and therefore we should simply accept an individual’s declaration that they are henceforth male or female and can change this status whenever they wish.  This simply opens the door for individuals to take advantage of circumstances that favour them.   The only person who seems to have had the courage to go public with this view is the writer Ben Elton who used his script for the BBC1 comedy ‘Upstart Crow’ to make exactly this point. If so called ‘trans activists’ can steal from chemistry the ‘cis trans’ pairing I will label this ‘keto enol’ behaviour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keto%E2%80%93enol_tautomerism

The views I have put forward will not please everyone.   I have already had doubts expressed to me about my willingness to treat someone who having lived initially as a male, but who has later had gender reassignment surgery, as a woman.   I do not doubt that my refusal to accept ‘self certification’ as the sole requirement for treating someone as a woman will draw criticism from so called ‘trans activists’.  If you want to label me ‘transphobic’ go ahead, it will not intimidate me into silence.   I will simply quote to you Article 10 of the European Convention.

I am not a feminist, a creed which I believe is designed to preserve hierarchies not abolish them.  The fact that I have dealt almost wholly with the problems which can arise when men self certify themselves to be women, is because I believe that the potential negative impacts will fall on women much more than on men and because there have been attacks on women who have expressed doubts about self certification or in two cases simply tried to promote discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL26jtQXSJw
https://www.socfem.net/2017/11/helen-steel-labf

That there is disagreement seems to me to be healthy. Any changes in the law surrounding transex/transgender individuals will affect all of us. As such we all ought to have the opportunity to make our views known.
The government has launched a consultation about changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.  If you wish to take part the consultation closes in one weeks time on 19 October.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004

Collapse of Carillion keenly felt in Tameside

by Brian Bamford
NORTHERN VOICES has covered story of the Carillion collapse extensively, and based on reports in the Financial Times and Construction News, had been warning of the dangers for the best part of a year before the collapse happened.  

The trade union body, Tameside Trade Union Council, had been asking for explanations of Tameside Metropolitan Council's close involvement and partnership with the backlisting  company Carillion since August 2011.  Reply came there none!

For years before the crisis the Labour leader of Tameside MBC, Kieran Quinn, continually ignored all the concerns expressed from Tameside Trade's Council and Northern Voices.  Indeed shortly before his sudden death he called for more collaboration.

*********

THE disastrous collapse of construction giant Carillion in January hit the headlines and sent shock waves throughout the country.

Building work ground to a halt across the country.

Sites were mothballed and the future of £1bn-worth of projects was placed in jeopardy.
Nowhere in Greater Manchester has the impact of the firm's demise been more keenly felt than in Tameside .

From CCTV upgrades and making public spaces safe from terror, to improved playgrounds and a proposed children’s home, a string of vital local services could all end up becoming collateral damage in the wake of Carillion’s downfall.

All face being sacrificed to foot the scandal’s unexpected bill.

The extra millions it has already cost to get projects back on track are set to have wide-reaching ramifications for the 220,000 people who live and work in the borough.

 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/collapse-carillion-devastated-tameside-scandal-15263055

Let Them Eat Cake

by Les May

A panel of five judges sitting as the Supreme Court yesterday gave a ruling which reinforces our right to free speech and ensures that we cannot be forced to express views that we disagree with.

The case revolved around a case where a Gareth Lee had placed an order for a cake decorated with the words ‘Support Gay Marriage’.  The owners of the bakery, Daniel and Amy McArthur declined the order because as Christians they were being expected to express a view that they disagreed with.

Lee argued that they were discriminating against him because he is a homosexual. Two lower courts accepted this argument but the Supreme Court did not.

The president of the Court Lady Hale said:

‘It is deeply humiliating to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief’.

‘But that is not what happened in this case. As to Mr Lee’s claim based on sexual discrimination, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation’.

The court accepted the argument of the McArthur’s lawyer that forcing them to bake the cake would be forcing them to go against their religious beliefs.

Commenting on this ruling the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

‘Freedom of expression – including the right not to express a view – and freedom of belief are rightfully protected in a democratic society and this case demonstrates the need for a more nuanced debate about how we balance competing rights’.

Lee was trying to use the Courts to force the McArthur’s to accept his view of the world. It was the action of a bully. His mistake was to argue that the couple were being ‘homophobic’ when they simply had a different view about the world.   A view to which he took exception.

But as I have argued in another publication Lee’s approach is far from uncommon.

https://peacenews.info/node/9175/no-right-not-be-offended

Increasingly we see people who express a view which the listener or reader does not like being labelled as antisemitic, homophobic, islamophobic, mysoginistic or some similar pejorative epithet.

The courts ruling means that provided we do not discriminate against someone because of what they ARE, we will not find ourselves in court for expressing our dissent from the views they hold. Mr Lee should be happy about this. He can criticise the views about homosexuality held by some Christians to his heart’s content safe in the knowledge that he will not find himself in court for being Christianophobic.

I should say that I have always been a bit puzzled how some Christians know what God thinks about homosexuals as to the best of my knowledge he has never written an autobiography. Perhaps they have just read the wrong sort of biographies..

Citizen journalist site scores over professionals

by Brian Bamford

BELLINGCAT, a website founded by the British citizen journalist Eliot Higgins, has just published its findings in its investigations into the Skripal poisoning case.  The collective Bellingcat, who worked with Russian news organisation The Insider, claim they have identified the second suspect involved as Alexander Mishkin, a doctor working for the Russian GRU intelligence service.

Along with another suspect, earlier identified by Bellingcat to be Anatoliy Chepiga, Mishkin travelled to the British town Salisbury in March 2018 and allegedly poisoned former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.

Skripal, who was a former Russian intelligence officer turned double agent, was poisined using the rare chemical nerve agent called Novichok.  After the poisoning, both Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia spent several weeks in a hospital, but both ultimately survived.

From the Russian regime's point of view it was a botched job.

It must be said that Russia has denied any involvement in the case and has claimed the two Russians were in Salisbury on a tourist trip anxious to see the sights of Salisbury town centre with its cathedral and clock tower. 

Once Bellingcat was launched in 2014, major ground was covered over the course of its first investigation, the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17). Bellingcat concluded that the downing was initiated by the Russian military; this was later confirmed by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which found in a report dated 25 May 2018 that the downing of MH17 was initiated by the Russian military.

Following a Russia Today's interview with the suspects of the Sergei Skripal poisoning case, Bellingcat published the suspects’ passport data showing inconsistencies in the official story, and possible links to the Russian secret service.   Since then the Russian foreign ministry rejected the report stating that it believed Bellingcat had ties to western intelligence.  It noted Bellingcat's access to a Russian database not publicly available.

Bellingcat was founded in 2014 by British journalist Eliot Higgins, with the help of a crowd-funding campaign.  It's good news that a do-it-yourself outfit like this has triumphed over the institutional media.

*************

Peace News, Free Speech & 'Hate Speech'

by Brian Bamford

PEACE NEWS has been continuing its splendid coverage of the controversial transgender issue and its impact on free expression since the beginning of this year; the latest edition carries a thoughtful comment piece from the Manchester peace campaigner Cath Bann and a letter from the biologist Les May.  Northern Voices particularly applauds its editorial stand on free speech.


Both Cath Bann and Les May are responding to a letter in the previous edition of Peace News from Clare Bonetree who claimed that the paper was confusing free speech with 'hate speech'.

Cath Bann writes:  'So few left-wing publications have been courageous enough to print opinions which question the prevailing thought on trans issues, and the fact that you have featured articles from both sides of the divide, as well as offering your own take (as a free speech issue) is commendable.'

Les May in his letter writes:   'Increasingly we have people trying to grab the moral high ground by claiming that something they read or hear, and do not like, is racist, anti-semitic, Islamophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic, patriarchal or in the latest catch all phrase, "hate speech", and should not be said.'

Ms. Bann in her comment piece argues:   'While I appreciate that Clare’s motivations likely stem from the desire (which I and presumably all in the peace movement share) to stand up for minority communities, I believe there is a failure to see that there is an overreach in trans rights ideology that is causing genuine concern.  To label this concern, and Peace News’ article, as transphobic is drawing the parameters of what counts as transphobia too widely.'

This topical broad brush approach employed by Ms. Bonetree and much of the anglo-saxon left is both lazy and dangerous.  As Les May is well aware that in Rochdale and elsewhere in the North it has led to a kind of inverted racism in which tend to turn a blind eye to ethnic grooming gangs or more recently cases of multiple voting by people of Asian ethnicity which the authorities seem reluctant to investigate for fear of being accused of 'institutional racism'.

Peace News in their current editorial commenting on the ongoing disputes surrounding both transgender and free speech declare:

'Last issue, we published a letter from Clare Bonetree explaining why she was ending her subscription to PN over our coverage of recent conflicts over trans rights.  The last straw for her was our description of the conflict at the Liverpool Anarchist Bookfair (over an anti-trans leaflet) as a question of free speech. Clare’s letter prompted a response from another reader, Cath Bann, which is published below.  We welcome responses to both Cath’s and Clare’s letters – we want to represent the diversity of views in grassroots movements for change, and be a forum for debate.'

It's refreshing to see a publication like Peace News that is encouraging intelligent debate on these issues.

************

Banker's Bargain Booze at Labour Conference

THE current issue of Private Eye reports that 'For all the talk of socialism at the Labour Conference in Liverpool, some bankers were still on hand to spread largesse:  the New Statesmen's invitation-only reception was sponsored by Nat West-a subsidary of state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland.'

According to The Eye though RBS was nationalised and bailed out by the public it 'continued to act like a bad private bank paying big bonuses at the top and squeezing small business.'   But at the Liverpool Labour Party Conference it dished-up the drinks for the party members at a party held at the  bar with a Guevara-chic theme catering in a 'pretend revolutionary cocktail bar?'  

Meanwhile, Shadow City Minister Jonathan Reynolds also enjoyed a private party with the bankers at the conference.  The Eye says:  'He was star guest at the invitation-only Lansons Financial Reception, also held in the REVOLUCIÓN DE CUBA BAR.'   Lansons is a lobbying firm which specialises in city clients, which The Eye claims represents 'overshore financial centres and tax havens like Jersey.'

*******

Claim that Burnley Council lacks serious intent!

GREEN COUNCILLOR FEWINGS MAKES APPEAL 

ON the 4th, May 2018, the news reporter Ciaran Duggan wrote in The Lancashire Telegraph:

'THE Green Party has been elected onto Burnley Council for the first time in its 28 year history. Members described the election result as "momentous" and "historic" after Green Party candidate Andrew Fewings was named the councillor for Trinity ward.'
It was also reported that   'He (Green Party Councillor Fewings) received 789 votes, nearly 500 more than the second placed Labour candidate and outgoing mayor Howard Baker' 

Below Councillor Fewings writes an appeal following last month's Burnley Council meeting:

'I have been working hard since being elected in May 2018 to get Green issues on the Agenda.

'At my council meeting on Wednesday 26 September, I left feeling that the Labour run council are not taking Fuel Poverty or empty properties seriously. They suggested leaving housing "to the market".

'Please help me to get the council to take this issue seriously and introduce energy efficiency standards for new homes by sharing and signing my petition on the Burnley council website. https://your.burnley.gov.uk/Petitions

'Apologies to those Local Party members who live outside the borough. Perhaps you could start a petition in your own council?'

Best wishes,

Cllr Andy Fewings

Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Green Party