And if Gawain had written they would not have published it. This is not a shoddy piece of work or a mistake. The reviewers did not overlook the wording.
Perhaps by not distributing thoughtless and meaningless leaflets.
I learnt many valuable lessons when I was a cop in the 70s & 80s, e.g., someone who threatens to punch you won't; ignore him and watch for the guy who doesn't threaten but does.
In the same manner, if you're going to nick someone, don't threaten to nick them, just nick them.
We have laws against the things included in that leaflet. We shouldn't need to tell people what we might arrest them for; we should just arrest them.
The British naval historian and author Cyril Northcote Parkinson wrote, "It is a commonplace observation that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” (Parkinson's Law)
That leaflet is the living embodiment of Parkinson's Law.
The fact is, we have (had) a perfectly competent police force capable of knocking on people's doors unannounced and nicking them for any one of those offences.
Nemo censetur ignorare legem (“no one is presumed ignorant of the law”). However, that's something I have a HUGE problem with amongst our native population, never mind foreigners. But it's not difficult to understand, even for the most barbaric of interlopers, that leaving women and children alone is non-negotiable.
My belief is that Reform wants our judiciary and its servants to do their job; my hope is that they compel them to do it.
It will, however, be a long job, and I rather like Peter Hitchens's proposal for the police in Britain. Recruit and train an entire national police force in parallel with our existing police force, then replace what we have with the new force in its entirety overnight. And yes, Force, not Service.
Let’s face it. The female sex do not have any value to immigrants or many of the unenlightened Brits I. This country will disappear off the face of the earth within the next 3 decades ….our country will be a caliphate.
Have Iran or Afghanistan signed up to net zero? You would think that the left would be scared that their beloved, if derranged, charge towards net zero would be at risk under Islamic rule and use their powers to resist this for the UK.
Must not offend, even when advising (advising? Why not warning?) the foreign "community" about how to behave in a civilised country.
The very notion of having to advise immigrants how to behave in a civilised country tells you all you need to know about the level of civilisation that they are from.
Lefties in the Establishment have always taken a very relaxed attitude towards paedophiles.
Since the Home Office is stuffed with ethnic minorities from the areas of the world where the problem of child "marriage" and rape is most prevalent and women are treated like property, there's a very good chance that this disgusting document was drafted by one/some of them.
The document probably has one main purpose. The lawyers of several asylum-seeking rapists have used the excuse "different culture, didn't understand" as their defence at trial. If they've been given a booklet telling them the law/culture, that defence will be weakened. That's how the Establishment thinks: it doesn't want to prevent the crime (by deporting them). It just wants to mitigate the perception and damage.
The Government refuses to release rape statistics by nationality/ethnicity because they know the information is appalling. They are deliberately importing these violent men and now Burnham has announced that they should be spread around the country, into villages and small towns because they too deserve "their fair share" of men the Government knows are likely to be violent foreign rapists.
While it is widely accepted that the civil service has its own policies there is also a lot of evidence that a clear policy will be achieved if pushed by a Minister WITH the known support of the PM.
I anticipate some of the senior people will not want to deliver a Reform manifesto. The sooner they are identified the sooner they can get another job. However we should not plan a fight.
I disagree. We should very much plan for a fight with the civil service. It's about time someone was up for metaphorical fisticuffs with the mandarins controlling that bloody shower.
And whilst Reform/Tories/Labour/LibDems and the saw-toothed tit of a tit whisperer produce volumes of policies to deal with the future of our country, there is only one man tasked with making sure that Reform's policies mean anything. That man is not Nigel Farage, Zia Yusuf or Robert Jenrick; it is Danny Kruger, who is very much up for trading blows with Whitehall and says as much.
Determined promotion of Reform's policies should be the priority not spending two years in conflict with the blob while nothing useful gets done without their permission.
It is my observation that Reform has made preparations for government and that continues but having preparations does not justify initiating a war.
It doesn't matter how good right-wing policies are; if the blob doesn't like them, they don't get done.
This isn't a belief; it's an acknowledged phenomenon, not entirely, though mostly, confined to right-wing politicians; even the left complains about it.
But it's not purely political ambitions; it's right across the entire civil service from the economy to the military and the judiciary.
Politicians are directed by NGOs acting through the civil service to stymie political initiatives. We have hordes of immigrants sailing across the channel because of the human rights laws Blair redesigned. We have men in women's toilets because of the Equality Act Blair designed. We have a Supreme court that rides roughshod over parliament thanks to Blair. We can't change any of this without a fight!
Even Kruger concedes there will be a battle, and it will be bloody. Politically motivated judges don't sack themselves, and the HoL will stand in the way of everything that even smells right-wing as loaded as it is with Labour and Lib Dem members.
That is the point of the 'Preparing for government' document. It's a standalone (or will be) policy on what Reform will do with the civil service when it gets into government.
No government I'm aware of has done this before, and it's a simple concept. If voters elect Reform at the next general election, that policy will have been explicitly approved by voters, and the principle roadblock to accessing the civil service is the HoL. If the public approves the policy and the HoL acts to resist it, the HoL itself will be perceived as anti-democratic, and they cannot afford that.
It is possibly the single most important policy put before the general public in modern political history and is designed to unravel all the damage Blair did to the country almost at a stroke.
The war with the civil service, the judiciary and the economic reins held by NGOs is an unavoidable consequence of that policy. No other policy will be approved without that confrontation.
You're spot on with the Blair stuff, David. Blair systematically changed so much legislation during his 10 year tenure that disconnected the levers of power. The PM and the government no longer run the country - the Blob does, and the difficulty in getting rid of that lot would be akin to finding the cure for cancer.
Most of what you wrote is accurate. Reform is preparing and it is aware of the issues.
The problem with your post is its call for open antagonism from day one. That will more likely provoke a worse response and a loss of public support at least at the margin.
Far better to go into government prepared and to act as it becomes clearly necessary.
"We should very much plan for a fight with the civil service."
The operative term is 'plan'.
There doesn't need to be a fight if the civil service falls into line and does what the legitimately elected government, representing the voters of this country, demands, but it would be foolish not to plan for one.
Hendrix Ekwen, 34, took nine years to admit he was to blame for the “appalling” attack on the woman when she was drunk, unconscious and “vulnerable”, an immigration tribunal heard.
Because of his “sexual entitlement”, he did not accept guilt for the crime and tried to “place responsibility of the rape with the victim”.
But he has now won an immigration case to stay in Britain after launching a human rights claim.
A judge ruled he could remain in the UK after Ekwen insisted he had “learned his lesson”.
Ekwen, an Italian national, came to the UK in 2009, when he was already 18, to join his mother and siblings in the North East of England. Between 2012 and 2014, he was involved in five domestic abuse incidents and in 2015 he received a conditional discharge for possession of cannabis...........
An Italian national....yeah right...... Just how long do we have to go on accepting this as part & parcel of life in the UK ?
The link refers to Iraq ... and it *does* have to do with religious laws because the 'perfect' prophet Mo is said to have consumated his marriage with Aisha at age 9 (after marrying her at age 6) - this is according to the Hadith (story of Mo's life) Bhukari, which is seen as the most authentic.
Thank you for this. I was a copywriter and I know the importance of the imperative. I also know how many people have to scrutinise copy before it goes out. Chilling.
Great piece Gawain, the leaflet shows how far we have sunk and the calibre of the people who wrote it and sanctioned it. Reform has a mountain to climb when in government getting rid of these idiots.
Can and could are the get out clauses. Why is there no rigour in policy documents? Many of them seem to be written by someone desperately in need of remedial lessons in effective use of the English language.
This softly softly approach is still reeking of D E I policies in full ,still scared of being something they never would live down being called at their liberal elite ivory towers...the illegals will glance at it and bin it..the way the government has binned us Gawain..
Your point about DEI is fair, but just think of how few people showed up in Trafalgar Square for that pathetic vigil for Jason Arday and consider how many would have been there just six years ago at the height of the George Floyd/BLM epidemic.
Who really knew about Maggie Oliver then, and who would dare say 'Pakistani Muslim rape gangs' then?
The fact that Zack Polanski (aka the boring little nonentity David Paulden) is calling for media censorship shows how terrified the establishment/blob/activists, etc. are of us.
David ,we have to have the same FAITH "CHRISTIAN " if we are to ensure our futures that our fathers and forefathers and foremothers fought and died for so we can be free from this socialist/Marxist/islamic state we have become brother..
Gawain, this *could* all be the ad writers just being loose with their language, just not aware of their vagueness.
Hmm...
More likely it's a pervading sense of hesitation in the British state, that we feel we just can't say how things are, should be, how they will always be.
Only the politically correct Sir Humpreys and Burnham political advisors could look at a draft that says
"You will not do this in Britain, if you do, you are incarcerated or deported, there is no tolerance for XYZ", and say to themselves "Hmm, in 2026 we can't *really* say that, the sensibilities of non Western cultures must be placated, language about US and how WE do things cannot demonize THEM and how THEY do things".
Yes, not only do we know so many illegals will do the worst things, not only will they unlikely be punished, but they won't even be criticised much, certainly won't be told *ahead* of their crimes that these are UNACCEPTABLE.
More suicidal empathy, the new creed of the ruling classes.
I think I preferred it when Sir Humphrey hated citizens just for being themselves, not hating us and preferring others over us.
Because the whole thing is composed by the office junior, who is the only one competent enough with computers to design the graphics for this.
Or they went out to a very expensive ad agency to get it done and are more concerned with the visuals than the content.
The text is lazy. The terms 'could' and 'might' mean 'it absolutely definitely will happen, maybe' to them.
To say anything more positive would be cruel to the engineers and doctors paddling across the Channel because they don't deserve to be told they will get locked up for rape. It's just not something they do.
Indeed, Gawain. It's as if the progressive mantra of women's rights here are unequivocally to be protected, but sexual mores are somehow to be fudged or not addressed, like a shy meek teacher in 70s Britain too nervous to tell the hormonal boys that when a girl says no, she means no. Rather teach them that they *might try* and show females respect.
This combination of political correct cowedness with a decades long descent into seeing Western culture as no better than some of the worst cultures in the world.
We can't say this is what we stand for, just what we might, and could "new Brits" try and fit in.
“There is no country on earth where it is lawful to rape a child. ”
Two come to mind. Afghanistan and Pakistan, and not a Country, Palestinians as long as the child is a Jew.
The document in question is aimed at cultures, which we are told, are equivalent to and enrich ours. And we should not impose our cultural moral and values on other cultures because they are equally valid. I am confused by the dichotomy.
Their casual attitude to child rape is disgusting
You are in a rich vein of form today, Gawain. They should have asked you to write their shoddy pamphlet. Then it wouldn’t have been vague - or shoddy!
And if Gawain had written they would not have published it. This is not a shoddy piece of work or a mistake. The reviewers did not overlook the wording.
It is what they wanted to say.
This rot is deep within the system
So
How do Reform intend to change this ?
Perhaps by not distributing thoughtless and meaningless leaflets.
I learnt many valuable lessons when I was a cop in the 70s & 80s, e.g., someone who threatens to punch you won't; ignore him and watch for the guy who doesn't threaten but does.
In the same manner, if you're going to nick someone, don't threaten to nick them, just nick them.
We have laws against the things included in that leaflet. We shouldn't need to tell people what we might arrest them for; we should just arrest them.
The British naval historian and author Cyril Northcote Parkinson wrote, "It is a commonplace observation that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” (Parkinson's Law)
That leaflet is the living embodiment of Parkinson's Law.
The fact is, we have (had) a perfectly competent police force capable of knocking on people's doors unannounced and nicking them for any one of those offences.
Nemo censetur ignorare legem (“no one is presumed ignorant of the law”). However, that's something I have a HUGE problem with amongst our native population, never mind foreigners. But it's not difficult to understand, even for the most barbaric of interlopers, that leaving women and children alone is non-negotiable.
My belief is that Reform wants our judiciary and its servants to do their job; my hope is that they compel them to do it.
It will, however, be a long job, and I rather like Peter Hitchens's proposal for the police in Britain. Recruit and train an entire national police force in parallel with our existing police force, then replace what we have with the new force in its entirety overnight. And yes, Force, not Service.
Impossible of course, but a nice thought.
I'm 100% with you on that, brother. (Me too, 👮♂️1967-1994)
I’m afraid that’s true. Which makes it not only nauseating but terrifying.
Let’s face it. The female sex do not have any value to immigrants or many of the unenlightened Brits I. This country will disappear off the face of the earth within the next 3 decades ….our country will be a caliphate.
Have Iran or Afghanistan signed up to net zero? You would think that the left would be scared that their beloved, if derranged, charge towards net zero would be at risk under Islamic rule and use their powers to resist this for the UK.
Good one G.
The topic makes me physically sick.
All hands to the multicultural pump eh?
Must not offend, even when advising (advising? Why not warning?) the foreign "community" about how to behave in a civilised country.
The very notion of having to advise immigrants how to behave in a civilised country tells you all you need to know about the level of civilisation that they are from.
WE DONT NEED THEM HERE.
WE NEVER DID.
CALL A HALT !!!!!!
Lefties in the Establishment have always taken a very relaxed attitude towards paedophiles.
Since the Home Office is stuffed with ethnic minorities from the areas of the world where the problem of child "marriage" and rape is most prevalent and women are treated like property, there's a very good chance that this disgusting document was drafted by one/some of them.
The document probably has one main purpose. The lawyers of several asylum-seeking rapists have used the excuse "different culture, didn't understand" as their defence at trial. If they've been given a booklet telling them the law/culture, that defence will be weakened. That's how the Establishment thinks: it doesn't want to prevent the crime (by deporting them). It just wants to mitigate the perception and damage.
The Government refuses to release rape statistics by nationality/ethnicity because they know the information is appalling. They are deliberately importing these violent men and now Burnham has announced that they should be spread around the country, into villages and small towns because they too deserve "their fair share" of men the Government knows are likely to be violent foreign rapists.
Isn't that nice.
While it is widely accepted that the civil service has its own policies there is also a lot of evidence that a clear policy will be achieved if pushed by a Minister WITH the known support of the PM.
I anticipate some of the senior people will not want to deliver a Reform manifesto. The sooner they are identified the sooner they can get another job. However we should not plan a fight.
I disagree. We should very much plan for a fight with the civil service. It's about time someone was up for metaphorical fisticuffs with the mandarins controlling that bloody shower.
And whilst Reform/Tories/Labour/LibDems and the saw-toothed tit of a tit whisperer produce volumes of policies to deal with the future of our country, there is only one man tasked with making sure that Reform's policies mean anything. That man is not Nigel Farage, Zia Yusuf or Robert Jenrick; it is Danny Kruger, who is very much up for trading blows with Whitehall and says as much.
Without the confrontation, nothing changes!
https://preparingforgovernment.com
Kruger is the single most valuable man in politics over the last 50 years, in my opinion.
We clearly disagree.
Determined promotion of Reform's policies should be the priority not spending two years in conflict with the blob while nothing useful gets done without their permission.
It is my observation that Reform has made preparations for government and that continues but having preparations does not justify initiating a war.
It doesn't matter how good right-wing policies are; if the blob doesn't like them, they don't get done.
This isn't a belief; it's an acknowledged phenomenon, not entirely, though mostly, confined to right-wing politicians; even the left complains about it.
But it's not purely political ambitions; it's right across the entire civil service from the economy to the military and the judiciary.
Politicians are directed by NGOs acting through the civil service to stymie political initiatives. We have hordes of immigrants sailing across the channel because of the human rights laws Blair redesigned. We have men in women's toilets because of the Equality Act Blair designed. We have a Supreme court that rides roughshod over parliament thanks to Blair. We can't change any of this without a fight!
Even Kruger concedes there will be a battle, and it will be bloody. Politically motivated judges don't sack themselves, and the HoL will stand in the way of everything that even smells right-wing as loaded as it is with Labour and Lib Dem members.
That is the point of the 'Preparing for government' document. It's a standalone (or will be) policy on what Reform will do with the civil service when it gets into government.
No government I'm aware of has done this before, and it's a simple concept. If voters elect Reform at the next general election, that policy will have been explicitly approved by voters, and the principle roadblock to accessing the civil service is the HoL. If the public approves the policy and the HoL acts to resist it, the HoL itself will be perceived as anti-democratic, and they cannot afford that.
It is possibly the single most important policy put before the general public in modern political history and is designed to unravel all the damage Blair did to the country almost at a stroke.
The war with the civil service, the judiciary and the economic reins held by NGOs is an unavoidable consequence of that policy. No other policy will be approved without that confrontation.
You're spot on with the Blair stuff, David. Blair systematically changed so much legislation during his 10 year tenure that disconnected the levers of power. The PM and the government no longer run the country - the Blob does, and the difficulty in getting rid of that lot would be akin to finding the cure for cancer.
Most of what you wrote is accurate. Reform is preparing and it is aware of the issues.
The problem with your post is its call for open antagonism from day one. That will more likely provoke a worse response and a loss of public support at least at the margin.
Far better to go into government prepared and to act as it becomes clearly necessary.
My second sentence:
"We should very much plan for a fight with the civil service."
The operative term is 'plan'.
There doesn't need to be a fight if the civil service falls into line and does what the legitimately elected government, representing the voters of this country, demands, but it would be foolish not to plan for one.
When Reform win they ought to send Zia in with a DOGE mandate. He’ll terrify the lot of them.
Not actually O/T
Hendrix Ekwen, 34, took nine years to admit he was to blame for the “appalling” attack on the woman when she was drunk, unconscious and “vulnerable”, an immigration tribunal heard.
Because of his “sexual entitlement”, he did not accept guilt for the crime and tried to “place responsibility of the rape with the victim”.
But he has now won an immigration case to stay in Britain after launching a human rights claim.
A judge ruled he could remain in the UK after Ekwen insisted he had “learned his lesson”.
Ekwen, an Italian national, came to the UK in 2009, when he was already 18, to join his mother and siblings in the North East of England. Between 2012 and 2014, he was involved in five domestic abuse incidents and in 2015 he received a conditional discharge for possession of cannabis...........
An Italian national....yeah right...... Just how long do we have to go on accepting this as part & parcel of life in the UK ?
I saw the same story. I guess that's why the leaflet says rape 'could' affect your immigration status....
Really make me wonder about the people involved in this and their own sexual preferences. One has to wonder if kids are their preference too.
Harriet Harman.
I rest my case.
Hard drives should be thoroughly examined forthwith.
Sadly, in Iran, they have lowered the marriage age to 9. It is utterly disgusting, and nothing to do with religious laws!
https://x.com/NiohBerg/status/2088698317362352382?s=20
The link refers to Iraq ... and it *does* have to do with religious laws because the 'perfect' prophet Mo is said to have consumated his marriage with Aisha at age 9 (after marrying her at age 6) - this is according to the Hadith (story of Mo's life) Bhukari, which is seen as the most authentic.
Thank you for this. I was a copywriter and I know the importance of the imperative. I also know how many people have to scrutinise copy before it goes out. Chilling.
Great piece Gawain, the leaflet shows how far we have sunk and the calibre of the people who wrote it and sanctioned it. Reform has a mountain to climb when in government getting rid of these idiots.
Can and could are the get out clauses. Why is there no rigour in policy documents? Many of them seem to be written by someone desperately in need of remedial lessons in effective use of the English language.
This softly softly approach is still reeking of D E I policies in full ,still scared of being something they never would live down being called at their liberal elite ivory towers...the illegals will glance at it and bin it..the way the government has binned us Gawain..
Your point about DEI is fair, but just think of how few people showed up in Trafalgar Square for that pathetic vigil for Jason Arday and consider how many would have been there just six years ago at the height of the George Floyd/BLM epidemic.
Who really knew about Maggie Oliver then, and who would dare say 'Pakistani Muslim rape gangs' then?
The fact that Zack Polanski (aka the boring little nonentity David Paulden) is calling for media censorship shows how terrified the establishment/blob/activists, etc. are of us.
We are winning.
David ,we have to have the same FAITH "CHRISTIAN " if we are to ensure our futures that our fathers and forefathers and foremothers fought and died for so we can be free from this socialist/Marxist/islamic state we have become brother..
Gawain, this *could* all be the ad writers just being loose with their language, just not aware of their vagueness.
Hmm...
More likely it's a pervading sense of hesitation in the British state, that we feel we just can't say how things are, should be, how they will always be.
Only the politically correct Sir Humpreys and Burnham political advisors could look at a draft that says
"You will not do this in Britain, if you do, you are incarcerated or deported, there is no tolerance for XYZ", and say to themselves "Hmm, in 2026 we can't *really* say that, the sensibilities of non Western cultures must be placated, language about US and how WE do things cannot demonize THEM and how THEY do things".
Yes, not only do we know so many illegals will do the worst things, not only will they unlikely be punished, but they won't even be criticised much, certainly won't be told *ahead* of their crimes that these are UNACCEPTABLE.
More suicidal empathy, the new creed of the ruling classes.
I think I preferred it when Sir Humphrey hated citizens just for being themselves, not hating us and preferring others over us.
But why the definiteness surrounding letting women work?
Because the whole thing is composed by the office junior, who is the only one competent enough with computers to design the graphics for this.
Or they went out to a very expensive ad agency to get it done and are more concerned with the visuals than the content.
The text is lazy. The terms 'could' and 'might' mean 'it absolutely definitely will happen, maybe' to them.
To say anything more positive would be cruel to the engineers and doctors paddling across the Channel because they don't deserve to be told they will get locked up for rape. It's just not something they do.
Indeed, Gawain. It's as if the progressive mantra of women's rights here are unequivocally to be protected, but sexual mores are somehow to be fudged or not addressed, like a shy meek teacher in 70s Britain too nervous to tell the hormonal boys that when a girl says no, she means no. Rather teach them that they *might try* and show females respect.
This combination of political correct cowedness with a decades long descent into seeing Western culture as no better than some of the worst cultures in the world.
We can't say this is what we stand for, just what we might, and could "new Brits" try and fit in.
They tried that in Scotland.."new Scots " the real scots said no fkn chance..LOL
It doesn’t sound quite so controversial and kind of fits in with the Labour Party oath to ‘fight for women and girls’ just like Jess Philips et al!
These questionable individuals must have children of their own, their is a sinister undercurrent running through our politics.
Worrying. Nonsense like this is becoming the norm.
“There is no country on earth where it is lawful to rape a child. ”
Two come to mind. Afghanistan and Pakistan, and not a Country, Palestinians as long as the child is a Jew.
The document in question is aimed at cultures, which we are told, are equivalent to and enrich ours. And we should not impose our cultural moral and values on other cultures because they are equally valid. I am confused by the dichotomy.