Witch hunt double standards

Successive British governments have been at the forefront of international moves to bring to justice the armed forces of other countries accused of war crimes. The current denunciation of the Russian military actions in Syria is a good example, but there have been many others in the past. So it comes as some surprise to witness political leaders of all parties demanding an end to the 'witch hunt' of British soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Former prime minister Tony Blair said it is wrong to put troops through the ordeal of a criminal investigation for events in a war zone as long as thirteen years ago. Current prime minister Theresa May has stated that she wants to crack down on vexatious claims, which our Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has called a 'witch hunt' against British soldiers.

So what is the justification given for abandoning this 'witch hunt' against British servicemen. It was provided in a Sunday Telegraph article which is worth quoting in full. 'There are legitimate fears that any prosecution which takes place so long after the alleged events will be flawed, given the risk of witnesses being unable to recall events accurately. Some accusers may also be motivated by the prospect of compensation payments from the government.'

However, a strange double standard seems to exist here. Neither the government, nor the opposition parties, nor the gutter press have any qualms about putting men through the ordeal of a criminal prosecution when they have been accused of sexcrimes dating back as long as fifty years ago. Yet all the arguments against continuing the prosecution of soldiers apply equally to these men. But such has been the surrender to the agenda of feminists and children's charities to continue their 'witch hunt' to demonise all men as either potential sexual predators or paedophiles, we are unlikely to see any acknowledgement of this double standard by the politically correct establishment, or their lackeys in the mainstream media.

The burkini controversy

There has been a lot of adverse comment in the British media about the decision of some French municipalities to ban the wearing of burkinis on their beaches. The burkini is an inelegant garment resembling a wet suit with hood that is worn only by Muslim women, and which allows them to swim whilst at the same time covering their bodies completely, so that they can retain their 'modesty'. The overwhelming response of British media pundits has been hostile to this ban, but a majority of the French public support it. The ban was imposed following the Islamic terrorists attacks in Paris and Nice, and is seen by many as an expression of religious fundamentalism that challenges the country's secular values. So who is right, is this ban an example of men telling women what they can and cannot wear, or is this garment a visible symbol of a dark ages superstition which wilfully challenges liberal and secular advancement.

The controversy is a good example of the conflict between the rights of individuals to make their own choices and the need for society as a whole to maintain cohesion. There is no doubt that the burkini is an affront to present day western values as it stigmatises women's bodies as morally 'indecent' and thus unfit for public display. It should be remembered that the burkini is not too dissimilar to the voluminous swimwear worn by women a century ago in Britain. In both cases the justification for this obsession with extreme female 'modesty' was to appease religious sensitivities. Most people in western society can now see that this outlook was nothing more than an irrational superstition, and that women's bodies at their best can be aesthetically very pleasing, and even when they may not be, they are still completely harmless.

France, like Britain, has sleepwalked into the calamitous folly of allowing millions of immigrants into their countries whose first loyalty is to their religious indoctrination. Many in these separated communities are inherently hostile to modern western values. As we have seen in recent times some of their more zealous members feel sufficiently motivated to murder and main their fellow citizens in pursuit of their faith's dogma. So it is not difficult to understand why many French people do not particularly wish to be reminded of the superstitious symbols of this violent religious primitivism when visiting their beaches.

So the French ban is not an attempt by the state to tell women what they must wear. Instead it is to draw a line, and send out a clear signal, that the secular values of their society will be upheld and that there will be no surrender to primitive religious superstition. This does undoubtedly infringe individual choice, but it should be remembered that the only people wearing this impractical and gross beachwear are Muslim women who, since a very early age, would have been indoctrinated by upholders of their faith into believing that excessive and absurd notions of 'modesty' are somehow virtuous.

Body neurosis

There were media reports not so long ago about the case of two young men who Northern Ireland police threatened to place on the sex offenders register for bathing on a beach in the nude. This incident illustrates a long standing tradition of the police who have always derived great satisfaction in harassing otherwise law abiding men with minor infractions of our burgeoning sex offences laws. Both the BBC and the Guardian had questioned the appropriateness of the police action in this case, a highly unusual move for these two 'progressive' media outlets who are normally supportive of men being on the receiving end of increasingly harsh jail sentences for an ever greater number of sex crimes, mostly introduced as a result of an agenda pursued by feminist and child protection activists.

Despite its general sexual licentiousness, Britain is one of the most uptight countries in Europe in its fear of nudity and promotion of body neurosis. However, the European leader in this field is undoubtedly Ireland, with Northern Ireland the most backward of all in its repressed attitude towards the naturalness of the human body. This benighted outlook is shared by both the Catholic and Protestant communities in equal measure.

Currently public attitudes towards nudity are not particularly encouraging, but it has been a lot worse in the past. At the beginning of the 20th century in Britain both sexes were expected to cover virtually the whole of their body at all times when in public. This extended to both sea bathing and in swimming pools. There was of course no such pastime as sunbathing during this period. Any person seeking to change this outlook would likely be accused of trying to undermine public 'decency'.

Gradually during the 20th century matters started to loosen up. From the 1920s onwards women could reveal their legs. From the late 1930s men were able to go topless. From the 1950s women could wear bikinis which became more revealing in the 1960s and 1970s. From the 1980s onwards some women went topless on beaches at popular resorts such as Brighton and Bournemouth, although the practice never became widespread. Strangely, this increased permissiveness did not appear to destroy the fabric of society, disproving the fears of those promoting 'modesty'. It also demonstrated that there is no natural or normal level of body exposure, since this is culturally determined according to the prevailing outlook at any given time.

The past thirty years have unfortunately shown no real advance in body acceptance, and there have been some setbacks. During much of the 1980s and 1990s, probably as a response to feminism, the majority of women reverted to one piece swimsuits in swimming pools, although less so on beaches. During the past twenty years the number of men wearing long baggy 'shorts' both in swimming pools and on the beach has continued to increase. This change appears to have been initially prompted by the fear of being considered homosexual, but appears to have grown into a full blown body neurosis. The current position is that there is still a significant amount of body guilt amongst the general public. Mild body exposure of the kind described above is regarded as uncool, particularly for men and especially for younger men. This has not always been the case.

British society seems confused about the human body. The tabloids endlessly display near naked pictures of identikit models, their bodies invariably mutilated to pander to the porn fetish of their more degenerate male readers. Even the supposedly conservative Daily Mail, on its website, publishes each day photos of female celebrities on the beach with 'revealing' bikinis, usually with highly personal comments about their physical attributes. At the same time the tabloids get into hysterics over the 'sexualisation' of children, for instance the absurd furore over padded bras for girls. In truth, we live in a highly sexualised, but mixed up, society where casual fornication is seen as normal, but public nudity is considered disturbing.

Naturism is another topic which brings out the worst in the British media, and the public too. Whilst no longer condemned outright on 'decency' grounds it is often mocked as a strange eccentricity, which no 'normal' person would ever admit to, whilst also being the butt of tired jokes which are at best adolescent. This general immaturity contrasts with the more positive and grown up acceptance in many other European countries, particularly Germany.

Naturism in Britain has for decades been poorly represented by a body known as British Naturism (BN). It has achieved little except a few ghettoised naturist beaches, nearly all of which are virtually inaccessible. The best known are Brighton, which has been hijacked by the sizeable local gay community, and the much better Studland Bay in Dorset which is a model of what British beaches could aspire to. BN has always quite rightly promoted naturism as a healthy family activity. It has also rightly condemned any overt sexual activity at nudist beaches, events or clubs. However, BN's attempt to completely desexualise naturism, stressing instead the undoubted freedom, satisfaction and enjoyment of being without clothes, is both misguided and naive as it does not fully address human nature. It is natural and normal for people to be physically attracted to others and this attraction is enhanced if they are nude. This visual stimulus is usually stronger in men than in women, but is likely to exist to some extent in most people of both sexes.

Slightly more controversially it is also normal (or should be) for people to be sensually aroused when nude or nearly nude in the company of others to whom they are attracted. Since the overwhelming majority are heterosexual this means in the company of the opposite sex. This sense of arousal since it is normal and natural must also be healthy. Therefore there is no need to apologise for it or for anyone to condemn it. For this reason BN's claim that naturism should not be considered as 'exhibitionist' is unrealistic and damaging since it can prompt guilt in people over what is a natural, normal and healthy feeling, and panders to the agenda of their critics.

Although body exposure should be normal for both sexes, women are generally more comfortable with it than men, since they have been less culturally brainwashed against it. However, psychologists define exhibitionism as a sexual disorder. They seem to be particularly concerned about men who expose their genitals in public to unsuspecting females with the intention of shocking them, or to gain sexual satisfaction, or both. Regrettably, this clearly anti social and threatening behaviour has had the effect of branding those men who enjoying being without any, or with little, clothing in public as potentially deviant and possibly dangerous. On this matter a strange double standard exists. If a man catches sight of a naked woman he is a voyeur and thus a 'pervert'. However, if a woman sees a man without clothes he is an exhibitionist and thus also a 'pervert'.

So if it is the case that mild exhibitionism is normal, natural and healthy why is it that most of the public are not exhibitionist and society is generally disapproving? There are a number of reasons for this, the most basic being that most people are highly conformist and do not think too deeply about issues. They accept the prevailing ethos of their peer group with relatively little thought as to why they hold the views they do. Some people may privately not fully accept the prevailing viewpoint, but they keep quiet and do not openly challenge it for fear of being considered different, or even 'weird', by those they socialise with. Since most people in society are sheep-like it takes a brave person to openly defy the prevailing consensus. But because such people do fight for what they believe, often in the face of ridicule, abuse, condemnation and legal harassment, their achievements can benefit society. Two examples relevant to this post are topless swimming costumes for men, and bikinis for women.

Until the late 1930s all men were expected to cover their chest when on the beach or in swimming pools. The reason for this was to preserve 'public decency', which the majority of people if asked would most likely have supported because it was the established custom for as long as they could remember. In the USA many men were fined for being topless and as a result a now largely forgotten campaign, the 'No Shirt Movement' was created. Through legal challenges, resolute action and persuasive arguments the fines were overturned and as a result men could go topless without fear of harassment from the authorities. Because the USA was a cultural trendsetter the practice spread to Britain. Within a very few years virtually all men started to wear swimming trunks and hardly anyone today considers this to be wrong or 'indecent'.

The bikini was created in 1946 and was named after Bikini atoll in the Pacific where an early atomic bomb had been tested. The French designer considered that his two piece women's swimsuit would be potentially explosive, and he was proved right since it predictably provoked the ire of the 'public decency' brigade. At the time such a costume was considered by the majority of British women to be completely unacceptable in a public place. A version, that was expected to cover the navel, was slowly taken up by women on the continent during the 1950s and gradually this spread to British beaches. By the 1960s, without any fanfare, the bikini had shrunk to expose the navel, and by the 1970s the briefest of bikinis was commonplace both on beaches and in swimming pools. Once again the fears of the 'decency' scaremongers were proved to have been unfounded. These two examples show that a relatively small number of determined individuals can be more in tune with people's real feelings than a submissive public are themselves.

Although significant factors causing exhibitionism and naturism to be currently unfashionable are submission to peer pressure and cultural conformity, there are other issues militating against greater acceptance. Traditionally, the most vocal opponents of body acceptance were the Christian churches, which considered the unclad body to be fundamentally indecent and likely to give rise to the sin of lust. This viewpoint was particularly prevalent during the Victorian era which saw the introduction of voluminous swimming costumes. In earlier periods, men at least, were able to swim naked without harassment. The influence of the churches has been significantly reduced in recent decades with the rise of secular values. The notion that the nude human body is inherently 'indecent' is less openly stated these days although it has not gone away completely, and it is disturbing to note that legislation is still on the statute book using this term for which men are currently in jail. Unfortunately, the gap caused by the loss of influence of the churches has been filled by a new secular religion comprising the cult of the celebrity and its associated idealised notions of bodily perfection. People not living up to this ideal (which includes most of us) become anxious about their perceived bodily imperfections. Because of this many women these days openly declare that they hate the way their bodies look, which previous generations would have accepted as perfectly normal. Thus if they are uncomfortable with their bodies they will be unwilling to reveal them in public.

Another group more openly promoting body guilt are the feminists. The more militant members of this movement are undoubtedly anti men and are keen to ferret out opportunities to exercise control over them. Once such method has been to claim that male admiration for the female body 'objectifies' women. Therefore women should cover themselves up to prevent such 'exploitation' from occurring. This attitude, which reached its peak during the 1980s, may have caused the return to fashion of the one piece swimsuit during this period. With the rise of a more 'in your face' femininity typified by the Spice Girls in the mid 1990s this viewpoint has been in retreat but again has not completely gone away, and in recent years has been undergoing a revival.

Another interest group which provokes trouble and paranoia is the child protection industry as exemplified by the Mumsnet brigade and so called 'charities' such as the NSPCC, which has now become an agent of the state. They are on the lookout for paedophiles around every corner and are happy to assume that nudity equates to a form of sexual deviancy which threatens their little ones. In fact naturism on the continent has demonstrated that children are very comfortable in a nude environment which includes adults. They become acquainted from an early age with the human body and it has no fear for them, unlike many of those who have led a more sheltered existence in this respect.

These then are some of the wowsers who promote bodily guilt and paranoia to the detriment of natural, normal and healthy behaviour. Back in the 1970s some naturists predicted that swimwear would gradually fall out of use as it gradually became skimpier and eventually it would be discarded altogether. Sadly, this has not happened, the easy going 1970s have been replaced by the anxious 21st century. On a more positive note once a year hundreds of cyclists are allowed to parade in the nude through London and other towns in support of a liberal approved environmental cause. Hypocritically, they are widely cheered and supported by an amused, or maybe bemused, watching British public, and even photographed in the company of the police. If a single cyclist tried this on there would be a very different outcome. There is clearly safety in numbers and having the right politically approved cause.

In the 1980s many women reverted to one piece swimsuits in swimming pools whilst for men 'speedo' style swimming briefs were still commonplace. Thus during that decade men demonstrated a greater willingness to embrace body freedom whilst swimming than women. This has now changed, many more women are now wearing bikinis, some very skimpy. On the other hand the large majority of men have taken to wearing long baggy shorts often below the knee. So currently, women are more likely than men to enjoy the freedom of wearing as little as currently possible whilst swimming or sunbathing.

From a practical viewpoint for swimming there appears to be no particular advantage either way between one piece swimsuits for women and bikinis. From this it can be deduced that many women like to wear more revealing swimwear for its own sake. In other words they are relaxed about body exposure and thus quite normal and uninhibited . For men however, swimming in baggy shorts is far less practical than in swimming briefs as the water drag is much greater. For this reason they have never been worn in swimming competitions. From this it could be concluded that many men today are suffering from body neurosis. This may well be the case for a lot of them, but for some it is more likely to be their fear of being considered homosexual since it is a commonly held, but false, view that speedos are more popular with the gay community.

On the beach bikinis never went out of fashion. If you are trying to acquire a tan they are more practical than a one piece swimsuit. A small number of women go topless on popular beaches, but the practice has never really taken off as much as it has on some continental beaches. For men long baggy shorts are just as prevalent as in swimming pools. Here the impracticality is compounded since they are less practical for sunbathing and are more uncomfortable when wet.

Swimming costumes of whatever type are unnecessary for both swimming and sunbathing. They can more accurately be described as 'decency' costumes since this is the only purpose they serve. Regrettably, in the current climate of conformity and orthodoxy they are here to stay, for the foreseeable future at least. So the public are denied the right to practice an enjoyable, harmless and positive activity in an appropriate context such as swimming and sunbathing.

Where now for Britain?

The politically correct classes are maintaining their collective rage at the outcome of the EU referendum. This is the biggest setback they have suffered in their creeping campaign to introduce totalitarianism into Britain. They are desperate to find a means of reversing the decision to leave the European Union. Suggestions made include MPs ignoring the result as the referendum was only advisory, holding a second referendum after further negotiations with the EU, holding a general election to 'endorse' the result, dreaming up legal challenges to the outcome, and finally going on demos bleating that the 48% who supported remaining are now 'unrepresented' and isn't that a really terrible thing. There is a simple message that can be given to these spoiled brats, and their tantrums provoked by, for once, not having got their own way. It is this, the leave campaign got 52%, they won, so get over it, petals.

Some of the more serious analysts, shocked by the result, are mounting a campaign of gross exaggeration that Britain is in chaos following the referendum outcome. Although there may be some relatively minor economic and financial turbulence in the short term, this will be more than compensated by the fact that Britain is now in control of its economic destiny and can take unencumbered the decisions that best promote our national interests.

Some pundits are suggesting that negotiations with the EU will take many years thus adding to the uncertainty. There is no need for this alarmism. All that Britain needs to do is to invoke the section 50 procedure which meets our treaty obligations to the EU. Then to repeal the European Communities Act which ends Britain's membership of the EU. Then to pass a single act into which are bundled all the legislation that has been incorporated into British law at the behest of EU directives. These can then be gradually repealed, revised or retained into British law at our leisure by future Acts of Parliament.

The only negotiations that need to take place are over Britain's access to the single market. Our negotiators should make it clear that the freedom of movement into Britain of EU nationals is no longer acceptable and that this matter is non negotiable. As a result the EU will almost certainly block Britain's access to the single market, but we shall still be able to trade with the EU under WTO rules. Given the low tariffs, and the fall in the value of sterling, this should not have a huge impact and may well affect the EU more adversely than it does us. We will no longer be part of the common agricultural and fisheries policies, and with regard to the latter we will now be able to block EU countries from fishing in our territorial waters.

All this is great news for Britain and its people as we enter a new age where we have thrown over the shackles of foreign interference in our affairs and regained control of our destiny.

The right decision

The people have spoken and the conclusion has been reached that Britain should leave the European Union. This is undoubtedly the right decision; Britain will once again become a nation state, and no longer a vassal of an unaccountable supranational authority. Although the margin of victory was relatively slim, there were clear majorities for Leave in Wales and all but one of the English regions. In contrast, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London all voted Remain by significant margins.

As a result of this decision both the Conservative and Labour parties are in turmoil and there have been spectacular falls in both the stock market and currency exchanges. Superficially this might be interpreted as confirmation of the fears expressed by the Remain campaign, but this turbulence should be relatively short lived as a more realistic appraisal is reached on Britain's future, free from the shackles of a European Union that is incapable of reform. There should be no haste to invoke the Article 50 procedure, but neither should this be delayed for too long after a new prime minister is in place.

Although there was some scaremongering and exaggeration by both campaigns, nevertheless the main issues and arguments were presented effectively, allowing the British electorate the opportunity to reach an informed decision. In this respect the BBC for once acted impartially, and the Electoral Commission ensured fairness by requiring a remain or leave answer, rather than a yes/no response which studies have found to be biased in favour of the former.

Both sides played to their perceived strengths, the economy for Remain and immigration and sovereignty for Leave. Credit should be given to David Cameron for allowing the referendum in the first place, for the huge effort he put into his renegotiations with the EU and for effectively and vigorously presenting the arguments for Remain. Unfortunately for him, the adamant refusal of EU leaders to give him meaningful concessions meant that he always had one hand tied behind his back when making his case. However, it has to be said that Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and above all Boris Johnson did a brilliant job in the TV debates in presenting the case for Leave.

This decision has been a massive body blow for the politically correct class who are in a collective rage that their agenda has been thwarted and their values rejected. For them the EU was a mechanism whereby they could impose a politically correct straightjacket on public behaviour and discourse, without there being any danger of their measures being repealed or removed through the democratic process. Shamefully, some are now agitating for a second referendum which demonstrates the degree to which they hold the public in contempt. The electorate would have noted, in the final TV debate, the venom with which Sadiq Khan denounced the perfectly reasonable Leave arguments as the 'politics of hate'. Had Remain won by the same margin we can be sure that they would now be crowing about how the British public had rejected the politics of 'hate', 'division' and 'isolation'.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is now threatening a second referendum on Scottish independence. The British government should demonstrate a firm response to this special pleading, by stating beforehand their refusal to recognise the outcome of any unlawful referendum she might call, and threaten to impose direct rule on Scotland as a last resort in any subsequent stand-off. To do otherwise would be to undermine the use of genuine referendums, legislated for by the British parliament, in deciding a constitutional issue which allows it to be settled for at least a generation. At the time of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, voters would have known that there was a good chance of the UK electorate subsequently deciding to leave the EU.

The British nation now stands on the threshold of a new era in which democracy has been restored and debate reclaimed on a wide range of issues. It is a time for great optimism.

Toxic feminists 3 - Catharine MacKinnon

Strident feminists are engaged in a war against male heterosexuality and their greatest cheerleader has been Catharine MacKinnon. She was born shortly after the last war into a Minnesota legal family, her father was a judge and congressman. She has a PhD from Yale university and is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

Mackinnon became influential in feminist politics in the late 1970s with the publication of Sexual Harassment of Working Women in which she coined the term 'sexual harassment'. She claims that this behaviour is a form of discrimination against women because of the alleged power inequality between women and men. Her framework on this subject was incorporated into US law later in the decade. She subsequently developed an overarching theory of inequality, in which she argued that women live in a state of subordination, with pornography, sexual harassment, prostitution, child sexual abuse, domestic violence and rape as key elements in a patriarchal system of male domination.

Mackinnon's most influential work is Toward A Feminist Theory Of The State published in 1989. A lot of the book is devoted to an unintelligible and impenetrable critique of Marxism vis-à-vis the objectives of feminism. With regard to power politics, she argues that as the legal system has largely been framed by men this results in a power imbalance between men and women to the serious detriment of the latter. She claims that 'over and over again, the state protects male power through embodying and ensuring existing male control over women at every level' and 'the state, through law, institutionalizes male power over women through institutionalizing the male point of view in law.' This is, of course, a travesty of the true position.

MacKinnon's view is that male sexuality amounts to 'rape culture', that male sexuality inherently degrades women, that participation in male sexuality is morally and socially equivalent to rape, thus concluding that all men are effectively rapists-in-waiting.' She spells out her agenda on sexual relations between men and women as follows ' rape and intercourse are difficult to distinguish, the major distinction between intercourse(normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it'. She further argues that heterosexuality 'institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission' and 'women are socially disadvantaged through socialization to customs that define a woman's body as for sexual use by men'. It is clear from these statements where MacKinnon is coming from and the nature of her agenda.

It would be an exaggeration to claim that currently the British state has fully accepted the MacKinnon theory on sexual relations between men and women. Nevertheless, many of the more committed feminists who are influential in our politically correct establishment have much sympathy with her views, and appear to be pursuing an agenda for policing the bedroom activities of heterosexual males using MacKinnon's theories as their justification.

We appear to be gradually moving towards the kind of regime which operates in many American colleges in which heterosexual activities can be deemed coercive if there are considered to be power differentials between the parties, whether real or perceived. In such a regime affirmative sexual consent standards are imposed, which define sexual assault to include any sexual contact where a woman has not given positive, specific and unambiguous consent, which if lacking can then define as criminal any normal and natural heterosexual male approaches and advances towards women. Nobody is expecting that those in same sex relationships would have to go through all the rigmarole imposed on heterosexual men in continually seeking consent. So this agenda is clearly and openly discriminatory and deliberately so.

Should this scenario come to pass (very likely given the politically correct establishment's continuing craven submission to feminist stridency) our society would have moved from one in which male homosexual activities were prohibited by law, to one in which male heterosexual activities are seriously circumscribed by an all embracing criteria of what constitutes sexual assault against women.

There should be no toleration of sex pests who seek sexual favours from women on the slightest acquaintance. However, MacKinnon and her cohorts fail to acknowledge that in any relationship someone, usually the male, has to take the initiative and they should never be demonised for this, or placed in a situation were they may be criminalised for doing so. In providing the blueprint for how the politically correct state should regulate, control and attempt to stifle normal male heterosexuality Catharine MacKinnon has certainly met the test to be considered as a malignant feminist.

EU referendum

The EU referendum is now entering its final phase. The general tone has been far from elevated with both sides using scaremongering and exaggeration to make their case. The main issues raised have been economics, immigration and sovereignty.

The Remain side are vigorously arguing that we will all be better of financially and economically if we stay in the EU. It is claimed that the advantages arising from our membership of the vast EU single market are so overwhelming that it would be folly for Britain to be on the outside. No doubt there are some benefits but there are also disadvantages. We would be binding ourselves too deeply into a sclerotic economic regime where many countries are suffering high unemployment and little growth. Moreover, the whole edifice is likely to collapse as a result of the internal contradictions of the single currency.

More importantly the price of access to the single market is unacceptable as it requires free movement of people between member countries. Although EU citizens, being mostly of European descent, are likely to integrate better than people from the rest of the world, they nevertheless still lower wages for the less skilled and add pressure to already stretched essential services such a health, education and, most especially, housing. The likely accession of Turkey and other countries will seriously exacerbate this problem.

The Leave side have half heartedly warned about the dangers of uncontrolled immigration if we stay in the EU. However, they are hampered in exploiting this issue by the fear of being labelled as racist, nasty and extreme. It is however a very sound argument for leaving the EU, since if we remain we will have absolutely no control over the large number of East Europeans who are likely to be attracted to come here, particularly when the living wage is raised to the level that is being planned by 2020.

But the huge problem of uncontrolled immigration is not the main reason why Britain should leave the EU. The main issue is the lack of sovereignty and the consequent loss of democratic accountability. If we remain in the EU we no longer posses the ability to govern ourselves, and as a nation we remain vassals to an outside authority over which we have little influence. The need to reclaim the right to govern ourselves is why it is vital that Britain's interests are best served by voting to leave on June 23rd. Addendum: Since writing the above the Leave camp have shown a little more vigour about warning of the dangers of open ended immigration. As a result they moved from being several points behind Remain in the polls to several points ahead. Remain have been smearing the Leave case as promoting 'hate' and 'division' within society. The reality is that the Leave side merely wish to regain national sovereignty, and the ability to control our own affairs without interference from an unaccountable and undemocratic supra national body. It is to be hoped that neither side exploit the senseless murder of Jo Cox MP, or that voters are distracted from the real issues in this referendum campaign by this crazed and wicked act.