The headlines always reveal – at least to me – the perps.
“Huge organised welfare scam uncovered”
“Doctor struck off for mis-stating his qualifications”
“Massive consignment of drugs intercepted at [any] airport”
“Father murdered daughter as mother ‘stood by’”
I could go on with dozens of the same, but they all have one thing in common: The perps will turn out to be ‘cultural enrichers’. Invariably. Inevitably. It might be only revealed somewhere in the small print, or emerge months later. But the result is always the same.
However, the headline in last Sunday’s Telegraph “Expenses Scandal: Three peers to be suspended” did not elicit a similar reaction. After all, you could count the cultural enriching peers in the House of Lords on the fingers of one hand. And one of these “Lord” Ahmed is already out of the equation, being otherwise engaged slopping out at one of Her Majesty’s prisons - he killed a kuffar woman while texting and driving at the same time at high speed.
To remind you, this is the Pakistani immigrant who, in the finest traditions of parliamentary democracy, threatened to ‘surround Westminster with 10,000 Muslims’ if Geert Wilders were allowed to address the House of Lords. He, who made his money via a string of grimy fish’n’chip shops in run-down Rotherham, described the subsequent withdrawal of the invitation as ‘a great victory for Islam’.
Which it was. And another cringing retreat for the dhimmi Brits.
Anyway, going back to the Lords in question, imagine my surprise when it emerged that all three of the perps were in fact cultural enrichers. And what a motley crew they make. Former Lords like Wellington, Churchill and Atlee must be spinning in their graves as they consider the low-life scumbags who now infest that august forum.
Roll of drums, ladies and gentlemen I bring you……
Exhibit 1: “Baroness” Uddin of Tower Hamlets.
This specimen fled the poverty, violence and corruption of Bangladesh in 1973 and came to Tower Hamlets – which has since been turned into a replica of the poverty, violence and corruption she left behind in Bangladesh. The difference of course being that the British taxpayers (99% white) now provide the wherewithal to keep this little Dar al Islam flush with welfare and community ‘cohesion’ funds.
Quick to spot her chance, the ‘Baroness’ became a ‘community organiser’ (now where have I heard that term before?). Smart move. Because from then on the goodies came her way by the truckload. Finally, the egregious Tony Blair, in a futile attempt to buy off ‘moderate’ Muslims, elevated her to the House of Lords. She refused to adhere to the normal swearing in protocol, preferring instead to loudly invoke ‘Almighty Allah’. Did Churchill do that I wonder?
Once her paws were on the loot she tucked in and in a short time had swindled the white taxpayers of at least £125,000. Probably feels surprised that doing what she had done to become a peer was now frowned upon.
Exhibit 2: “Lord” Bhatia.
This specimen is an Ismaili Muslim from East Africa who made his money in ‘finance’. Yeah, right. While describing himself as, inter alia, a ‘philanthropist’, a closer look at his ‘charities’ shows that they’re almost exclusively focused on extracting funds from the taxpaying kuffars and shovelling them to his own class of colonists. I have in mind here ‘outreach programmes’ to ‘disaffected youth’ (a.k.a. black criminals), ethnic minorities and ‘disadvantaged communities’ (a.k.a. black and Muslim welfare scroungers).
One of his more surprising innovations was the Charities Evaluation Service. I say surprising because this was the kind of thing likely to rumble charities misusing funds. And “Lord” Bhatia was misusing funds big-time. This included £60,000 diverted to his private account and the spending of £10,000 on a ‘research project to Dubai’. I kid you not.
He now faces suspension from the House of Lords but can console himself by retreating to his luxury £1.5 million house in south London.
Exhibit 3: “Lord” Paul
This guy is listed as Britain’s 88th wealthiest man, but this didn’t stop him reverting to his South Asian nature, i.e. scamming, thieving and fraud. I suppose he did feel a bit aggrieved in that his peerage cost him £400,000 (in the form of a donation to the Labour Party) – well above the going rate, and he felt he was entitled to recoup some of his investment. He was also stung for a £20,000 donation to Gordon Brown’s leadership election campaign.
Despite being mired in corruption and controversy throughout his career, he was nonetheless appointed to the Privy Council and made deputy speaker of the Lords. The first, and hopefully the last, Indian to do so.
So there you have it. These were all ‘people’s peers’ appointed by Labour. Now I ask you, how could Africans and Asians be considered people’s peers in Britain?