Friday, January 15, 2016


Occasionally someone raises the issue of  asylum seekers invading Europe, and while 'anglophile' is peripheral to the EU, it is front and centre in Oz and in this Tavern. We have largely stemmed the tide of death at sea of death-dealing muslims trying to illegally gain entry here, which is a bit ironic when you think of it, and yet we still have a moral confusion about being 'compassionate' and 'christian'.

But we shall leave the clarifying of the moral imperatives until the end of this piece.

The Lords and Masters (and Mistresses) of Europe  however - and that includes Britain - have all the moral certainty of shellfish. They are innundated with 'multiculturalists, all taxpayer funded, of course, who use taxpayer funds to influence Gummunt policy. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, for a start, it makes Asses of us all.  (And that's the animal, not the American body-part).

The Gummunts in Britain as well as Germany have no qualms about imposing their very modern 'values' on everyone regardless of  tradition, laws or protest. And to make matters even more confusing, the public is not informed by the media who bend the knee instead of waving the stick.

The Oz policy of refusing entry to anyone who tries to come illegally is still challenged by the morally challenged. We 'process' illegal 'asylum- seekers off- shore on a Pacific Island.  We have in the past done that here in Hilary's Village too. It was near suicide.

Tasmania is an Island just south of Mainland Oz. We are assailed with ‘demands’ that we should be the main ‘processing’ centre for illegals for the whole of Oz. We even had a ‘detention’ place set up in a village outside of Hobart. It was barbed-wired and just for males. Women illegals were ‘accomodated’ in hotels in the city.
The 'detention centre' in little Brighton, just ouside Hobart.
Population 3150.
What is notable is the nexus between local gummunts and state gummunts which lobby for this very atrocity as it attracts federal funds. Bugger the  more sane of the Tasmanian taxpayers. They get villified by the gummunt and news programs when they call for caution and sanity. Oh, apart from the ‘compassion-poisoned’ mob who hang out the welcome flags and feature on every TV program about the issue. The gummunts just love them.

Some people in Brighton like the idea too. The shopkeepers for a start. They benefit from having hundreds of thousands of dollars from Taxpayers in Brisbane and Syndey being spent in their stores.  Those taxpayers are not consulted and do not see a bag of crisps.

In Britain the 'debate' is kept well clear of the news. But occasionally some stupidity leaks out. Just for a moment before some nebby shuts debate down before it starts.

But the talk in the UK room  by DWestonFront the other day lifted the lid a little. You will not have seen any mention of this in the news media so be astonished.
Suicide Notes: #1 
UK – Being Earnest on Earnley
A curious thing happened on December 1st 2015 at the Chichester Observer. They published and then removed two articles about the modest parish of Earnley in Sussex.
Specifically, these pieces focused on the fact that Earnley was due to receive 200 “asylum seekers” seeking refuge. They of course followed the modern refugee profile consisting of males between the ages of 18-40. Best of all, these cultural enrichers would be sourced from our dear friends in Calais.
Locals in the area, with a population of just over 400, were naturally delighted horrified at the prospect. The Observer published a piece quoting a number of Earnley residents on their fears. 

I would give you a link to the piece, but the Chichester Observer kindly removed it the very same day it went up. Even the Google cache of the page is no longer available.
Fortunately I saved a copy.
Here is what the locals had to say for themselves:
“I walk with my mum and two young children in the village weekly. It has a population of less than 400 across three hamlets.
“It has no street lights, no pavements, no transport links, no shops, no police station. And they want to leave us with 200 male asylum seekers with nothing to do.
“I feel sick. Just one poorly screened individual and I am walking alone in a tiny village with two young children.
“I feel so vulnerable, my parents and the rest of the village are terrified.”
The asylum seekers would be 'security cleared' so Earnley Concourse ‘would not be a detention centre’, the parish council has said.
Bracklesham Bay resident Graham Bray added: “This is a totally inappropriate location for this purpose and must be rejected completely.
“This would ruin the ambience of this lovely village.”
‘Would not be a detention centre’? Oh what a relief for the residents! 
This would mean of course minimal security, if any, and they would have the run of the town. As you may have guessed, this mass dumping of human trash was (surprise!) nothing to do with Earnley’s residents or its nearest local council. It was  “a Home Office project independent of either Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council.” 
Yet again, residents were simply told what was going to happen, not asked. 
Shortly after the “Earnley residents ‘terrified’ by asylum seeker plans” story quoted above was removed, another piece went up for a few hours before also being pulled, entitled “Chichester community ‘need to welcome asylum seekers'”. I also saved this one.   
It presented the polar opposite perspective to the now memory-holed article prior. In it, we find out that residents in Earnley and surrounds actually can’t wait for the human deluge:
Sarah Nunn helped organise a candle-lit vigil for Syria’s stricken refugees in Chichester in September.
Bracklesham resident Mrs Nunn said: “We need to welcome asylum seekers into our community because they are people in desperate need.
“We have all seen the photos. Who would put themselves, let alone their families into such danger if they were not fleeing for their lives?
“We, in Sussex, have so much in comparison, the least we can do is be welcoming.
“Is that not what we would want for our family if we were in their shoes?”
Commenting on the Observer Facebook page, Scarlett Lee Silvester said: “I look forward to their arrival.
“It’s nice to have a cultural diversity. Perhaps when they do arrive they could provide better transportation links if the residents are so worried.”
That last sentence was one of only two to give any indication at all that something was amiss. The second one stated only, “The news has divided opinion locally.”
No sh*t! Really?
Now depending on at what time you happened to read the Chichester Observer, you would have received a very different picture of the local sentiments. 
Anyone living in the area though is probably painfully aware of the kind of travelling clown show that purports to represent ‘local views’ but does anything but.
The only reason I picked up these two stories at all before they both went down the memory hole is that I have written a suite of web scrapers that I launch occasionally (they tie up the computer for a while even with multiple threads) to scan the front pages of local media for certain keywords/terms – which currently include ‘refugee’, ‘Syria’, ‘asylum seeker’ among others.
I’ve started doing this every couple of weeks to see what important stories are being reported locally, but fail to reach the national media and therefore national consciousness. I previously did this with keyword searches on fuel poverty and have been absolutely stunned by some of the stories that would be of national but that just end up buried or otherwise ignored. I suspect many don’t make it to the print editions either, so even less (Ed. Fewer) people see them whilst the hacks in question can pretend they’ve carried out some kind of due diligence.
Given neither of the two stories above lasted 24 hours, I was curious to find out what was going on. The Chichester Observer don’t like to pick up the phone it seems, but they *did* respond to email after a few days. Here is what they said:
“There were people making some legally problematic comments across social media relating to the story where the residents raised their concerns so we felt it was the best course of action in the circumstances to take that story down. Had we left the more positive story there it would have been unbalanced so we took that down too, leaving the one that was purely factual.”
Now, credit to them for pulling the other piece too. I do wonder if some kind of editorial battle was going on behind the scenes over this. Someone (I hope) genuinely wanted to accurately report the sentiments of local residents even if another member of staff thought it more important to present the usual activist regressive left talking points. The ‘factual story’ in question that was left up is linked just below.
Without researching it, you would have no idea there was any contention, never mind that 2000+ people signed a petition against the asylum seeker centre, with many leaving hostile comments against ‘the project’.
None of this detracts from the general feeling of unease at the prospect that they just don’t want to air certain opinions. 
“Problematic comments across social media” in response to the first story is just pure bullsh*t. People are livid about this being forced on them *and* being told to ‘shut up, racist’ too. The paper is not liable for how people react to this on social media.
Yet the only reaction I ever see from people who should know better and who should learn from it, is to double down. 
What is wrong with these people?
And so back to the moral issue. Let us look at what is wrong with them.

Firstly, and of frankly lesser importance (as 'twas always thus) the 'authorities'  care not a whit for the hoi-poloi. What 'ordinary' people wish is neither here nor there to those who gain bureaucratic power. They do not consider the wishes of a mere 400 people when they have 200 foreigners to house, who share with them absolutely no commonality of tradition, law, moral ethos of even washing habits.

They are autocratic 'do-gooders'. They want to look good, in the eyes and plans of other bureaucrats further up the greasy pole, and, importantly, attract large budgets. Taxpayers' money, that is. In the bad old days the Lords would simply take it. Now the 'appointed' bureaucrats simply take it.

Secondly and more importantly ('Twas ever thus too) is the substitution of a false 'morality' in place of the real one.

The Good Samaritan parable was the response of Christ to a Lawyers' challenge to define ones neighbour.  An ostensive definition.  The samaritan chap was not out looking for robbery victims. He didn't advertise for them to come looking for him for help. He didn't give them a taxpayer-funded home. He didn't give the poor sod a dancing girl (they didn't have TVs in those days) or a piccolo player to entertain him.

He paid from his own purse. For a night or two at an Inn. 

That was all.

He was kind to a man he had encountered who needed some help.

It was 'personal'.


He did not tell anyone.

He did not invoice the taxpayers, or the Romans.

He was a straight down the middle sort of fellow. 

Any virtue and be turned into a vice and Gummunts are exceptionally 'good' at doing just that. Do-gooders too.

I have heard 'christians' say that Christ as a baby was a refugee. True. But no-where in the 'flight to Egypt' is there any note about Egypt providing taxpayer-funded housing, furniture, food, language lessons or anything else. Even at Christ's birth the Landlord of the Inn did not recieve a demand from Joseph to give up his own living quarters.

The bureaucrats of Chichester (I doubt there were many in Earnley) were not offering their own homes and charity. The 'supporters' did not either.

I have no problem with people putting their money where their mouth is, but I do have a problem with them demanding my money. As much has been said in the Tavern a few times before.

In Tasmania we have a number of very charitable folk, mostly associated with Churches of one Christian sort or another, who band together to give assistance to refugees. I have no issue with them spending their time and money being 'Good People'.  However even they are subject to the arbitrary rules of bureaucrats and rely upon the taxpayer funded 'Gummunt Depts.

Hereward said in the bar, about the Earnley matter....
If it comes to pass, that, Earnley is invaded, who will report the resultant crime wave? Or, years down the line will it just become a very small replication of the appalling events in Rotherham? 
We are not free, we don’t have anything like a free press and the people of Britain are not consulted, this land has no democracy. 
In any event, who in their right minds would grant permission for a mass movement, which since circa 1997 has seen the UK population rise (from ± 57m) to an estimated 75 million and don’t quote me 62.5 million that’s just HMG ONS bollox. 
Inundated, unsolicited, by people with which, we have no links, worse even than that – most of the new arrivals hate everything Britain stands for, their ways are inimical to our own traditions and culture. Conclusion, this is deliberate ethnic cleansing and Earnley unfortunately for them, are in the front line.

Coming to a small town near you very soon.

I wonder how many homeless British-born people there are in the UK? And Oz-born in Oz  for that matter. I don't see much effort to accomodate them.

Charity starts at home and on our own streets. 



  1. The dishonesty is staggering. We have one being built near here and nothing is allowed to be said. The govt is deliberately insisting all corners of England are infested, none escape.

    1. Dishonest and traitorous. Way back when, we had high hopes for democracy and the decline of Kings. There is possibility for a return.


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..