web analytics


By Pete Moore On July 7th, 2019

Why did the police, councils, prosecutors and other agencies all ignore the jihad-rape of thousands of girls? Because the Labour government told them to do so, effectively issuing a ban on investigations. I heard this interview when it was broadcast but couldn’t find a recording. Someone caught it –

Why did the Labour government tell authorities and agencies to ignore the jihad-rape of thousands of girls? Because the Labour Party relies so heavily on muslim votes, both legitimate and fraudulent.

The Labour Party is scum, total scum.


  1. https://www.warwickshire.police.uk/disclosure-logs?foiid=57635

    It would seem the memo doesn’t exist. Which either means Nazir Afzal is mistaken or he is basing it on informal conversations.

  2. ‘Gotcha’ Pete’s response to Seamus’ link:


    Meanwhile, in other news:


    Tom Thug the ‘refugee’. I wonder will his multiple convictions which include assault of a police officer, football violence, drugs possession and illegally entering the US preclude him from ‘refugee’ status? You couldn’t make it up.

    Maybe karma does exist after all.

  3. I know that Alex Jones is friendly with Tommy Robinson, but I’d still wonder about Prison Planet as a source.

  4. The only other places I’ve seen it mentioned are the far-right “news” type stuff so I don’t know if it is true or not. It would be interesting if it is true. Force The Donald to either alienate his base or cause an international incident.

  5. I doubt it’s a serious attempt but with Trump in power they might just think they could swing it?

  6. This would Be seen as a hostile act by many in the British public

  7. Well, surely the small item of Tom skipping lawful imprisonment would be an issue?

  8. Yes, the Lab party is utter scum, but no more so than the pretend-“Conservatives” who have to the same degree overseen the stench of maggotslam infest the UK.
    “Conservative”, “Labour”, “Lib-Dem”, all just branches of the EU, just puppets. They need to be all utterly swept out, annihilated from the landscape.

  9. https://newsthump.com/2019/07/09/satire-writers-to-take-day-off-after-tommy-robinson-tries-to-become-asylum-seeker/

  10. https://www.newsweek.com/far-right-tommy-robinson-donald-trump-asylum-us-1448197

    I’ve never heard of a person publicly asking for asylum while in the country whose justice/injustice that he seeks to elude.

    Exceptionally interesting strategy.

    He’s asking the British cops to nab him.

  11. I suspect these nimrods actually think they have a chance at this and when it falls flat on its face it’ll be claimed as a stunt to wind the lefties up.

  12. Keep him on that side of the pond please.

  13. totally off topic, but the man responsible for Bill Clinton being elected has passed away.


  14. In 1996 Perot got 9% less than he did four years before. Of those 9% they broke 6% Clinton and 3% Dole.

    Most exits put the Perot vote into three individual columns, all of relatively equal size. Those who would have voted Bush, those who would have voted Clinton and those who wouldn’t have voted. In order to have a balanced number of votes (equal Clinton, equal Bush) – Bush would take 64.8% of Perot’s vote, while Clinton would take 35.2%. If that happened then Clinton would have still won 279 electoral votes to 259.

    It’s also worth pointing out that before Ross Perot re-entered the race in October 92 Clinton had a huge lead.


    58% to 37%. Bush finished with 37%. That would suggest that the bulk of the Perot support actually came from Clinton. Probably a lot of disaffected Republicans who were voting Clinton in opposition to Bush.

    And when a non-Democrat came on the scene they switched their support to him.

    Clinton won because Clinton won. Nothing to do with Perot. Perot was the only one who made it not a complete pasting of Bush.

  15. Perot split the republican base vote and cost daddy Bush the election….. those were the facts on the ground from someone who was actively working for the party at the time.

  16. “Perot split the republican base vote and cost daddy Bush the election….. those were the facts on the ground from someone who was actively working for the party at the time.”

    Nonsense. The facts on the ground were clearly wrong, or biased. A bias driven by self protection. You only lost because of Perot, not your own incompetence. The data is overwhelming.

    The Perot vote split three ways (equal Bush, equal Clinton, equal wouldn’t vote). Without Perot in the race Clinton was winning 58% to 37% only six weeks before the election. The Perot vote dropped by 9% in 1996, Clinton picked up 6% of it.

    All of these show Clinton won the 1992 Presidential election without Ross Perot. Take Perot out and Clinton wins by a bigger margin.

  17. Daddy Bush was not loved figure among the conservative wing of the base. His being Reagan’s VP was a compromise that was hard to swallow. People forget that….

  18. I voted for Perot. I forget what I was mad at Bush about though.

  19. Seamus you don’t take into account political atmosphere. There is a lot more to politics than numbers. There’s getting out the vote which is how elections are won and enthusiasm plays a huge roll.

    Perot was nuts, but he was a crazy enough to make both the other candidates look like a fool. Democrat Presidential voters come out no matter if they like the candidate or not. Republican voters don’t add to that a large section not liking Bush plus Perot’s antics and it suppresses turnout and pulls enthusiasm away from Bush.

    Take me for instance I voted for Perot even though I knew he didn’t have a chance, and I was a sitting committeeman and elected Judge of Elections for the republican party in my county at that time.

    If it was just Clinton Bush, Bush would have won.

  20. In the absence of Perot, which for large parts of the election it was, Clinton was outpolling Bush 58% to 37%. If it was just Clinton v Bush then Clinton wins by a landslide.

  21. Surely there are other more appropriate threads to Americanise?

  22. In 1992 the turnout by groups were as follows (adds to 101 due to rounding errors):

    Liberals – 19
    Moderates – 48
    Conservatives – 34

    In 1988 (a Republican landslide) it was (adds to 98 due to rounding errors):

    Liberals – 20
    Moderates – 45
    Conservatives – 33

    All three in 1992 are within the margin of error of 1988.

    The 1992 votes by affiliation are as such (adds to 101 due to rounding errors):

    Democrats – 39
    Republicans – 36
    Independents – 26

    In 1988 it was (adds to 98 due to rounding errors):

    Democrats – 37
    Republicans – 35
    Independents – 26

    Again all within the margin of error. Which suggests that turnout and get out the vote was not a major issue in 1992.

  23. I don’t think there needs to be a strict “don’t talk about this topic on that thread” type idea. Conversation is conversation.

  24. I drop stories when I see ones that I think might spark interest If I don’t have a thread running I drop it where I drop it…..

  25. Seamus, generally American politics leaves me cold and there are four posts on Independence Day alone.

    Surely more appropriate subjects to bring up the death of a US poltician rather than Americanise another non American thread?

  26. To be fair I also took at least one of those Independence Day posts off on a tangent. I don’t really see them as American threads, or British threads, or EU threads etc…

  27. Without Perot in the mix Bush would have been able to pipe down the contempt and pumped up the enthusiasm. Clinton was still a nobody at that point and could very well have been defeated.

    Bush was spending all his efforts in battling Perot the two hated each other Clinton was able to skate.

  28. Breath deep girls….. there are no Irish/American/English etc etc threads. We are delightful community that you can never tell what direction we will run in any day of the week.

    The Perot death deserved a post, but today is a bad day for me so I wouldn’t have done it justice, but his passing rates mention.

  29. Paul coming to the defense of a British thread. Oh the irony! 🙂

  30. Presidential re-election campaigns are often referendums on the President’s first term. If the President’s approval ratings are high and all is going well then he will be re-elected, largely regardless of what the opposition do. If his approval ratings are down and things aren’t going well then he will more often than not lose, again largely regardless of what the opposition do.

    In 1992 Bush’s approval ratings tanked. The economy was going bad. Regardless of Perot, or Clinton for that matter, Bush was not getting re-elected in 1992. The Democrats could have ran anyone and won.

  31. Bush was in trouble from the get-go. The collapse of the savings and loan industry had thrown the nation into a recession, and Bush had broken a 1988 promise against increasing taxes as part of a budget deal with Democrats. National polling in late 1991 showed Bush running neck-and-neck with a generic Democratic candidate to be named later. Eventually, Bill Clinton emerged with his campaign staff focusing on reminding themselves of one idea: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

    Perot entered the contest as an independent candidate, dedicated to ending deficit spending and opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement. That “sucking sound” you hear, he said, is the sound of jobs going south to Mexico. Perot got into the race, dropped out, and then jumped back into the fray. Because his support was Republican-leaning, Perot was cast as a potential spoiler. Bush lost, and Perot received about 19 percent of the popular vote nationally. Immediately, the spin was that Perot had cost Bush his re-election and that has persisted.

    Here’s the truth. Exit polls showed Perot drew votes almost evenly from Clinton and Bush. In the states where Perot did the best—Texas and Florida—Bush still won and took all the Electoral College votes. The truth has hardly mattered to what has become known in political circles as The Perot Myth. During the 2016 election, the political website Five Thirty Eight produced a video trying to dispel the Perot Myth.


  32. Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

    The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.


  33. It only makes sense that a significant number of blue collar union Democrats would have been receptive to Perot’s anti NAFTA message.

  34. I think there were also quite a number of Republicans who wanted to give Bush a bloody nose (especially over no new taxes) and so would have voted for Clinton had it just been Bush v Clinton. Perot being there gave them an option of giving Bush a bloody nose without having to vote for a Democrat.

  35. Bush at one time had an 81% approval rating over his handling of the Gulf War, a rally round the flag phenomenon. This shows polls don’t mean much until the real one on election day.

  36. Ross Perot

    Ferociously loyal. ( personally organized a rescue mission when his employees were stuck in Iran )

    No scandals that I am aware of.

    Military Veteran

    Generous Giver to Charity

    Successful businessman, self made billionaire.

    He is everything that the current leader is not.