#BringBackOurGirls In Nigeria - British Child Rape Victims Ignored

Sometimes one has to wonder just how shameless and cynical so called VIP's and celebrities can be when courting publicity for themselves, their personal agenda's or their bank balances.  There doesn't appear to be a bandwagon they won't jump on or a trendy cause they won't exploit if they think there could be something in it for them.

Who couldn't fail to laugh at multi-millionaire celebrities joining the occupy Wall Street protest against the so called one percent when they themselves are the one percent? Who couldn't raise a titter at images of Sean Penn espousing socialism, equality and the redistribution of wealth with his bosom pal Hugo Chavez from the comfort of his $150 million dollar fortune?

Only recently British Foreign Secretary William Hague was milking publicity for all it was worth with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt over war time rape. One has to wonder what is so different about wartime rape as opposed to peacetime rape when the latter outnumbers the former by hundreds of thousands per year in the USA and Europe alone.

When the Muslim terrorist gang Boko Haram kidnapped a hundred or so school girls in Nigeria recently celebrities were falling over themselves to join the #BringBackOurGirlsTwitter campaign, complete with very sad faces, to publicise their plight and plead for their release.

Its only right and proper that those who can generate publicity should put it to good use and agitate for these unfortunate girls to be returned home and perpetrators punished. Reports indicated that Boko Haram were going to keep the captive girls as brides for themselves or sell them as sex slaves to other Muslims.

Since there are more horrific instances of child abuse going on in the world it would be interesting to know how these VIP's and celebrities choose which cause to publicise.

One would have thought that the child sex abuse scandals in Great Britain would be a more worthy cause due the staggering number of victims and the more horrific nature of the crimes.

For the uninitiated, Muslim paedophile gangs have been grooming then raping underage white girls, subjecting them to horrific sex abuse then pimping them out sex slaves across the country. These gangs have been operating in England's major cities and towns with the full knowledge of the authorities for decades.

The numbers are truly staggering - with the revelation that the city of Manchester is involved there could be as many as forty thousand victims with fourteen hundred identified in the town of Rotherham alone.

In the case of Rotherham and, as suspected the other towns as well, these gangs operated with the full knowledge of the local political establishments and public institutions. These included the local authorities, the child social services, the police, the Member of Parliament and in some cases the education establishment.

There have been investigations, inquiries, commissions and goodness knows what else but no one has been held accountable let alone prosecuted. There is an investigation into the tampering and destruction of records relevant to one inquiry but despite modern methods of detection they are unable to identify the culprits.

It stretches credulity to the limit when after two decades of covering up the abuse of children by hundreds of officials, all the commissions, investigations and inquiries have not revealed a single responsible official that can be prosecuted. In the opinion of some from the legal world, any official that ignored, therefore facilitated, child abuse knowing it to be a crime is an accessory and can be subject to a prosecution.

Where these hundreds of guilty officials are hiding remains a mystery.

Thousands of young girls have received no justice and guilty public officials are walking free with their taxpayer funded salaries, benefits and pension entitlements intact.

Returning to the original theme - bearing in mind the numbers involved and the horrific nature of the crimes against these young girls, one is entitled to ask where is Michelle Obama, Sean Penn and rest of the celebrity crowd. This is Great Britain so where is William Hague and his pals Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt?

Surely with their ability to generate publicity they can organise a #JusticeForOurGirls Twitter campaign at the very least and William Hague can use his political clout to pressure the authorities into making justice for these young girls a priority over covering up the complicity of public officials.

Angelina Jolie And William Hague Distract Attention From Peacetime Rape

Despite the fact that she is only an actress, Angelina Jolie must rank as one of the most influential people among those who consider themselves to be the global movers and shakers.  Add to that the fact that she is married to Brad Pitt then the drawing power of this couple is increased beyond measure.

The ability to generate publicity on this scale can be used in a positive way to the benefit of millions of the less fortunate or in a negative way as the antics of imbeciles like Justin Bieber demonstrate.

The media gave Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt blanket coverage recently when they teamed up with the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, to progress their campaign of tackling the issue of rape during wars. The campaign centred on Bosnia where a vicious and bloody civil war claimed the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and where some fifty thousand men, women and children were the victims of rape.

Jolie, Pitt and Hague must be commended for using their celebrity to generate publicity for such a noble cause and hopefully their action to get as many of the perpetrators prosecuted will come to fruition. In addition to visiting Sarajevo, they have also visited other war zones such as Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo where rape was endemic during their respective civil wars.
(See the story here and here)

Looking a little deeper into the issue of rape, Angelina Jolie, who is fronting the campaign, has overlooked the fact that her efforts are not without their negative side and one has to wonder whether she has chosen the wrong target. By using her considerable ability to draw the media's attention to war zone rape , she has inadvertently taken the spotlight off horrific rapes that have recently been in the news elsewhere.

The world was shocked and horrified when young girls were not only gang raped in India but hung from a tree afterwards. Young girls were being gang raped on the transportation systems, including buses, with one unfortunate lady dying from the injuries she sustained during a particularly brutal attack.

In a country that is renown for its poor treatment of women, the negative global publicity that ensued had the effect of forcing the government and the police to act in the women's interests not only with the issue of personal safety but of women's rights in general.

Jolie's campaign has distracted the attention away from India and apparently the momentum for change has been lost, much to the relief of the authorities no doubt.

Looking at the issue of rape in a wider context, its been twenty years since the war in Bosnia ended and although fifty thousand rapes during the three year conflict is an appalling number it is a minor statistic when compared to rape generally.

When discussing war time rape it is worth remembering that rape and pillage has always been an indulgence of war from time immemorial, the spoils of war had always been counted in treasure, slaves and concubines.

In ancient times Alexander the Great indulged as did the Romans before the Vikings took things to whole new level. During the Second World War the Germans raped, pillaged and murdered their way across Russia before the Russians did the same as they conquered Germany. It is estimated that over a million German women were raped after the fall of Berlin.

It could be argued that the way to end rape during war is to stop war from starting in the first place and that is unlikely to happen. Angelina Jolie's campaign to bring the perpetrators to justice however remains right, proper and noble.

But what of rape during peacetime? The statistics are shocking and although there are no mitigating circumstances for rape, one would think that rape on this scale outside the heat of battle would be more deserving of Angelina Jolie's attention.

As mentioned earlier some fifty thousand people were raped during the three year Bosnian conflict but according to UN statistics eighty thousand were raped in the USA between 2004 and 2010. Even this is overshadowed by the US Justice Department figures of some three hundred thousand rapes per year. (That's 300,000 per year)
(See the DOJ report here and more stats here)

When looking at the country by country rape statistics, and they do vary considerably depending on source, the USA, India, Great Britain, South Africa, Mexico, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Belgium, Lesotho, Botswana and Canada are consistently at the top.
(See one such report here)

As the British Foreign Secretary William Hague will be well aware, the rape crises in some European Union countries is a scandal that is being deliberately ignored on the grounds of cultural sensitivity and political correctness.

Rape in Sweden is now reaching epidemic proportions due mainly to the sudden influx of Muslims. According to some statistics, one in four Swedish women will be raped by a Muslim in their lifetime. The Swedish government are renown for their craven obedience to the EU and they are at the forefront of the campaign to impose multi-culturalism across the continent but this shouldn't be at the cost of their women's safety.
(See Swedish rape stats here)

Sweden considers itself to be the vanguard of 'progressivism' in the EU and prides itself on its record of equality and women's rights but as one commentator noted they can have women's rights or Islam but they can't have both.
(See a report here, also Muslims rape 300 Swedish children in seven months, see here)

The story is the same in Belgium where there were five gang rapes in a single week carried out by Muslim gangs with similar horror stories in all other European countries and in countries as far away as Canada and Australia.
(See here and here)

In Great Britain, the adherence to the cultural replacement agenda by the political class is the stuff of legend; this is where the authorities including the local councils, teachers, socials services and the police 'service' ignored Muslims paedophile gangs in most of the major cities on the grounds of cultural sensitivity.

Hundreds of underage white girls were groomed then subjected to horrific sexual abuse, including gang rape, with the complicit approval of the authorities.
(See stories here)

In conclusion I will add that once the objectives of Angelina Jolie's campaign against war rape are achieved, she should concentrate her efforts on peacetime rape which is a far bigger issue and more widespread.

William Hague is well aware of the rape epidemic engulfing Great Britain and Europe, which includes the rape of children, and he should bring his influence to bear on Angelina Jolie and urge her to use her publicity generating prowess to combat peacetime rape. She should draw particular attention to Muslim gangs, who believe that all western women are prostitutes, and who are ruining the lives of thousands of victims across the continent and the wider world at large.

Some previous posts on Muslim child sex abuse in Great Britain here and here.

Update: Teenager raped by 30 men in Birmingham, UK. It's not a war zone so Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and William Hague are not interested. See here.

Mugabe Steals Zimbabwe Election - Business As Usual For The Aid Industry

The fact that the present disaster in Zimbabwe is of the western worlds making is studiously ignored by current commentators who are trying to distance themselves from their action of putting 'Butcher Bob' Mugabe into power.

According to these commentators, the Prime Minister, Ian Smith, was an out of date colonialist from a bygone age for wanting to maintain living standards in Rhodesia and for wanting to fight the communist insurgency that was ruining the economies of the neighbouring countries.

Ian Smith and the rest of the informed world knew what the result would be of handing over power to the Marxist led liberation movements but then, as is the case today, political ideology took precedence over the well being of the people. Ian Smith's successful leadership led to high literacy rates, record levels of employment, a surplus of agricultural products for export and ' not a single empty belly'.

With the collusion of the western leaders, Rhodesia went on to be fundamentally transformed by its Maoist leader, Robert Mugabe, from the breadbasket of Africa to the basket case of the world, within a decade or so.

The descent into the abyss began when the world's progressive hierarchy at the time, including British socialist Prime Minister, Harold Wilson and the American global troublemaker Henry Kissinger, forced Ian Smith to start the process of handing over power to the black majority who were not prepared or equipped to handle political power.

White minority rule offended their perverted sense of justice despite the economic success of Ian Smith's leadership and the threat of a disaster under a communist black leadership.

Regardless of any negotiated outcome and with complete disregard his for his reputation for lunacy, the worlds progressive leadership wanted Robert Mugabe in charge from the outset. He was their chosen man.

At the negotiated Lancaster House settlement, an interim power sharing government was set up until elections could be held; these were eventually held and won by the moderates led by Bishop Abel Muzorewa. That victory should have signaled the start of a new era of self determination in the newly decolonized African states. With encouragement and western support the newly created Zimbabwe could have remained the bread basket of Africa to the benefit of the entire continent.

To Kissinger, Wilson and the rest of the 'international community', Bishop Muzorewa, being a Christian and pro-western, was not deemed African enough to satisfy their progressive vision of independent African nations led by proper Africans. In an act of treachery which has gone unpunished to this day, they undermined Bishop Muzorewa's administration by refusing to recognize his government and left crippling economic sanctions in place; in effect they engineered its downfall.

Unsurprisingly Mugabe and the rest of the revolutionaries continued the war and as history shows us they eventually usurped power to the rejoicing of the west.

In an attempt to disassociate themselves from the consequences of their treachery, these same 'progressives' and their descendants claim that nobody could have predicted Mugabe's behavior prior to his anointing.

This is nonsense as any junior student of African history will know. Robert Mugabe was an unashamed disciple of Mao Tse Tung from the start of his political career. His vision for Zimbabwe was stated clearly in 1975 during his exile in Mozambique.

"a new progressive society could not be constructed on the foundations of the past and they would have to destroy most of what has been built up after 1900 before a new society, based on subsistence and peasant values could be constructed".

This statement cannot be mis-interpreted into anything other than what it is. It is classic Maoism as put into practice by Pol Pot and the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia. The western 'progressive' leaders knew this when they chose him to be their man in Southern Africa.

Peter Hain, the coward who abandoned his South African comrades to their fate when he ran away to Great Britain, was a Mugabe supporter from the start.

This political low life is quoted as saying; "Throughout the 60's and 70's, I demonstrated for an end to the Ian Smith white regime. I was delighted when Robert Mugabe won the elections in 1980".

Peter Hain must have been equally delighted when Mugabe began his reign of terror not long after his anointing when he sent the infamous North Korean trained fifth brigade into Metabeleland to massacre any opponents to his rule. Twenty thousand people or more, including women, children, the old and the sick were raped, tortured and butchered with the full knowledge of the Western leaders. There were no sanctions imposed on Mugabe for this genocide as was imposed on Ian Smith for his successful running of the country.

On the contrary, he was feted by adoring academics from Great Britain and America as if there were no massacre in Metabeleland. Over the mutilated bodies of the slaughtered he was given an honorary degree by the University of Edinburgh in 1984, by the University of Massacheusetts in 1986 and by the University of Michigan in 1990. And to her eternal shame he was even knighted by the Queen in 1994.

Hain and his ilk cannot claim surprise when their man did what he promised he would do prior to his election.  He set about fundamentally transforming Zimbabwe into a country based on "subsistence and peasant values".

Since 1980 Robert Mugabe, the 'progressives' choice for Zimbabwe, has been a classic blood soaked African dictator, rampaging through his country, looting, pillaging, killing and above all rigging elections so that his reign of terror carries on interminably. That's thirty three years where the west has stood by and allowed this disaster to continue.

Where, might one ask, was the United Nations or the Organisation of African Unity? They have intervened in Sierra Leone, Sudan, Libya and other places but turned a blind eye to their boy in Zimbabwe. They even managed to ignore his invasion of the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo where he looted its mineral wealth for himself and his cronies.

Regardless of Butcher Bob's carnage and the overwhelming evidence that giving aid to Zimbabwe is doing more harm than good, the Aid industry cannot find a reason to suspend giving this beast shed loads of taxpayers money. See here how Mugabe and his henchmen, including his opponent Morgan Tsvangerai abuse British taxpayers money. Even by British MP's standards, 1.2% of total public expenditure on foreign trips is a bit excessive.

With the re-election of Mugabe for another five year term in what was a standard African election, i.e. rigged from start to finish, what can the long suffering Zimbabwean people expect from the current batch of western leaders?

Not a lot by all accounts.  Peter Hain, the South African coward and former British government minister is trying to distance himself from Mugabe but as usual he is all hot air and obfuscation. He is also busy doing what he does best, that is stabbing the loyal people of Gibraltar in the back by siding with Spain in the current border dispute.

'Oh how the mighty have fallen' is apt when referring to the current political class in the once 'Great' Britain. The rattle of a sabre by a British Foreign Secretary would have been sufficient to bring any misbehaving dictator into line, but the current incumbent couldn't frighten a kitten with his pathetic utterances. William Hague warns of "grave concerns" over the recent poll where the hated Mugabe got 61% of the votes. That will have Butcher Bob quaking in his boots as he settles down to another banquet in one of his foreign aid financed mansions while his people starve.

The people of Zimbabwe have been abandoned by the western leaders because, despite their weasel words, Butcher Bob Mugabe is still their boy. They chose him, they groomed him and they were instrumental in putting him into power.  After thirty three years of indulging his butchery they are hardly likely to dump him now.

Compensation For Slavery - Caribbean Islanders Join The Mau Mau Gravy Train

It didn't take long after the British government caved in to international pressure and agreed to compensate the Mau Mau butchers of Kenya for the descendants of other so called 'victims' of the naughty British to jump on the easy money gravy train.

After the success of the Mau Mau terrorists using distorted history to drum up support amongst the professional international grievance industry, the leaders of twelve Caribbean countries were not slow to spot an opportunity to make some easy money. They have banded together and formed the Caribbean Community with a view to using the so called 'Mau Mau model' to extort a bit of loot of their own.

The Caribbean grievance mongers haven't got off to a very good start as the 'Mau Mau model' is based on allegations of torture and physical abuse as opposed to "the lingering legacy of slavery".

The allegations of abuse are a bit rich coming from the Mau Mau who were notorious for their brutality, not only against the British but against innocent civilians from their own people.

The British government, led by Foreign Secretary William Haig, either didn't do history at school or he is deliberately ignoring it in order to curry favour with the professional international grievance industry.

As with any uprising, the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya was a brutal affair with atrocities committed on both sides.  The Mau Mau however are acknowledged to have surpassed brutality even by African standards. They paid particular attention to women, children and old people for rape, mutilations and torture before death. Burning victims alive was another favourite pastime.

It would appear that William Haig, better known as 'Little Willie Squit' in his hometown, has chosen to ignore the survivors of the Lari and Chuka massacres, to name but two, in an act of appeasement over justice.

As was predicted by everyone outside of the political bubble, agreeing to pay compensation for perceived historical wrongs would set a precedent and open the floodgates to anyone with a grievance, real or imagined, to take the opportunity to gouge the British taxpayers for some easy money.

If the principle is to give cash compensation to the victims of physical abuse then it would be in order for the British government to share the 20 million they plan to give to the Mau Mau killers with their victims. Surely the grievance industry would not object to that.

In keeping with the principle of paying compensation to the victims of physical abuse in Kenya, it has been suggested that not a penny is handed over until the Kenyan government pays cash compensation to the victims and survivors of its own atrocities.

There are plenty to choose from including the Gorrissa massacre of 1980 and the Wagalla massacre of 1984 where 3,000 and 5,000 ethnic Somali villagers were butchered by Kenyan government troops.

Now the precedent is set for paying compensation to victims of death and abuse, we can look forward to the professional grievance industry demanding that their approved terrorist organisations follow the same rules :

a) the Palestinians pay the victims of the Lod Airport massacre of 26 innocents in 1972

b) Palestinians pay for the Ma'alot massacre of 29 Arab Christian women in 1974

c) the Tamil Tigers pay for the Anuradhapura massacre of 146 Buddhist nuns and monks in 1985 who were at prayer in a sacred shrine at the time.

The list of grievance hypocrisy is endless.

The claim for compensation by the Caribbean Community should be seen for what it is. An attempt by venal politicians and the legal vultures to extort money from a craven, cowardly government, that is more concerned with its international 'progressive' reputation than justice for the British taxpayer.

There is no "lingering legacy of slavery" in the Caribbean. It is surprising that Little Willie Squit doesn't know the history of slavery despite being the author of a best selling biography of William Wilberforce, the man accredited with abolishing the slave trade.

If there is poverty in these Caribbean Island paradises then it's the incompetence, corruption and criminality among the people and their leaders that is responsible and nothing to do with the events of 200 years ago.

The proposal to abolish the slave trade was put forward first in 1787 and then again in 1807. It was passed into law in 1833. The Caribbean Islands the British left behind were already developed, if they are in under-developed state today then the blame lies squarely with the Caribbean people themselves.

It's a mystery to many how some of these beautifully situated, fertile paradise islands can end up as the crime infested cesspits that they are today. The consensus is that they wouldn't be in this state if the British were still there.

As with the Mau Mau precedence, if these money grabbers are successful then the world can look forward to the professional grievance industry pushing for the Romans to compensate for British slavery, the Arabs for enslaving Africans, Africans for enslaving other Africans, the Turks for enslaving the Greeks and above all, the most famous cases of slavery in history, the Egyptians and the Babylonians for enslaving the Jews.

The assertion that the Caribbean slave trade generated the wealth which is the basis for Britain's prosperity today is utter nonsense. The Caribbean industries represented a mere five percent of the British economy and my ancestors didn't see a penny of it.

In conclusion it's worth noting some quotes from two African leaders who were against abolition of the slave trade.

"the slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and glory of their wealth"

King Geco of Dahomey

"we think this trade should go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself".

The King of Bony (now Nigeria) who was horrified at the Bill to abolish slavery in 1807.

It would appear that the people of Dahomey and Nigeria will be asked to cough up for their brothers and sisters suffering "the lingering legacy of slavery" among the palm trees on their sun drenched Caribbean Island prison.

Defeated Conservative Leaders Leave The Blinkers On And Open Fire On Their Own People

From the battle of Balaclava and the Charge of the Light Brigade to General Gordon and the Siege of Khartoum, British history is littered with glorious defeats. These defeats were usually the result of incompetent leaders. Traditionally the troops were immortalised in poetry or song and they have entered the folklore of British history.

In keeping with this history, the Conservative party leaders have managed to engineer another glorious defeat at the Battle of the Eastleigh byelection but with one exception, this defeat will not be immortalised in poetry or song, instead it will be remembered for the fact that these leaders wore blinkers and opened fire on their own troops before and after the battle.

It is now universally accepted that after he had usurped the leadership of the Conservative Party using a combination of spin, dissembling and outright lies, David 'Call Me Dave' Cameron, set about purging the party of its traditional supporters and transforming it into another version of the the Labour and Liberal Democrat 'progressive' parties.

Cameron and his cronies dropped the traditional conservative values of patriotism, individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, low tax, free enterprise, small government etc, by claiming that these values were old fashioned, regressive and therefore toxic.

In their place they substituted, high tax and spend, political correctness, mass immigration, forced multi-culturalism, continuing transfer of sovereignty to the EU, a ruinous green agenda and ever more intrusive government interference in the lives of the people. These policies were supposedly modern, trendy and 'progressive'.

'Call Me Dave' and his water carriers compounded their stupidity by using the modern political tactic of smearing their opponents. They shot verbal insults at anyone who disagreed with their 'detoxifying' exercise.

Dissenters were labelled as out of touch, living in the past or regressive if they vocalised a desire for the traditional conservative values, which incidentally, are held by the majority of the electorate regardless of political affiliation. The so called common ground.

To anyone who has not lived their lives in a remote, incestuous group of like minded trendies this 'detoxifying' exersise was always going to end in disaster. There was a subsequent alienation of party members together with their core vote and this was coupled with a mass defection to the United Kingdom Independence Party, now lovingly known as UKIP.

This alone should have given 'Dave' and his cronies a clue that the imposition of trendy 'progressive' policies on a reluctant party was going to drive even more people into arms of UKIP and put his election prospects into jeopardy.

In a display of  'Flashmanesque' arrogance typical of the spoiled elite who are incapable of indentifying with the people they are supposed to represent,  he shot even more insults at the very people he will need if he wants to retain the Prime Ministers Office.

'Dave' insults UKIP supporters by dismissing them as "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists".

This smear tactic must be party policy as it has been used before by the token Muslim woman and imbecile, the Baroness Warsi. In a television debate she tried to equate UKIP with the extreme left wing British National Party, known as the BNP, who carry the racist label.

Insulting UKIP supporters in this fashion was as amateurish as it was obvious and served as an indication that Cameron's detoxified party is as dirty and sly as the other two.

'Dave' in line with all other modern politicians is an accomplished spinner, media manipulator and liar who continued his assault on his own people up until election day at Eastleigh. Unfortunately for him, the people saw through his spin and deceit in ever growing numbers.

One would have thought that the humiliating defeat of 'Call Me Dave's Conservative Party by UKIP in the byelection would have triggered a little contrition and perhaps a rethink on the direction of his party. Not likely, 'Dave' sent out his bag carriers and mouthpieces to shoot some more verbal bullets at his own dissident supporters.

Apparently 'Dave' is doing the right thing on the important issues and will not change tack. He is doing the right thing on the economy, on immigration, welfare reform, the NHS, the European Union. According to the spin this is the common ground that they hold.

Former leader and serial loser, Foreign Secretary William Hague appearing on a Sunday politics show, insulted and dismissed those who supported UKIP as having an indulgence and who will return to fold at a general election.

In the same interview he then went on to spin, lie and run away from the truth on the imminent arrival of tens of thousands of economic migrants and criminals from Romania and Bulgaria next January.

"We don't have estimates on that" he lied. Off course he does but they are too devastating for this dissembling politician to reveal. "The figures are the figures that came out" he continued, "that immigration is down by a third". Is that gross immigration or net immigration?  Vague Hague omitted to clarify.

Hague continued to spin that any attempt to predict the numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians preparing to come to the UK would simply be 'guesswork'.

Vague Hague further insulted the intelligence of the UKIP supporters and went into full political liar mode when it came to restricting the access to welfare to the expected deluge of immigrants.

He claimed the government would work to restrict immigrants access to welfare and stated that benefit tourism "can't be allowed".  Yes it can and Hague knows it.

Hague is shamelessly lying through his teeth on this, he knows full well that Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants will be entitled to the same range of welfare benefits that other immigrants have.

In an attempt to spike the guns of UKIP, Hague claimed that Ministers are considering plans for immigrants to wait up to a year before they seek hospital care. Ministers can consider all they want, they know that the government's hands are tied by EU bureaucrats.

Poor Willie Hague gets desperate for a positive sound bite and rambles on that:

"It's important there aren't any artificial, perverse incentives for people to come to the UK". So yes we are looking in government at what more we can do to make sure that's controlled, that that is fair across Europe, and I think people would expect us to look at that, it's absolutely right".

What on earth is he rambling on about? If Hague thinks that is going to entice people back into the fold from UKIP then he is deluded.

He rambled on further that "benefit tourism can't be allowed" when he knows it can and it will be.

The 'New' Conservative Party under David Cameron is a fake party which was created to compete with the other two main parties on the basis of who is the most trendy. In the process they have sacrificed their soul on the alter of 'progressivism' losing the support of their own members in the process.

UKIP holds the common ground and with luck and God's help they will remove these fakers from office and return the country to the people from whom it was stolen.