This morning as the Telegraph tumbrils continue their relentless journey towards Canary Wharf, exposing the mighty to the condemnation and indignation of we peasants, my eyes lit upon one particular carriage.

Can there be any more deserving passengers in this week of the Gurkhas’ rejection than that of those insatiate monsters, Sinn Fein MPs  Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams?

To learn that five MPs, who represent the political wing of the IRA, have not even taken up their Parliamentary seats and yet have claimed £500,000 for second homes in the same breath as we are told that we ‘cannot afford’ to allow some 1500 Gurkhas, who have fought in every major theatre of war, from the first Afghan war through to Bosnia, the Falklands and more recently Iraq, on behalf of the British Army, to settle in the UK, and yet we can ‘resettle’ the old ‘soldiers’ of the IRA in London, complete with ‘Samson’ 28-inch wide televisions, and DVD Sony cinemas surround systems, in a £5,400 a month – a month! – house in London.

Truly, the Gurkhas must this morning be wondering whether they were aiming their guns at the wrong soldiers.

Gordon Brown used a ‘fabric of falsehood and fantasy’ in claiming that it would cost taxpayers 1.4 billion pounds to let Gurkhas live in Britain, according to campaigners.

The sum was based on the number of Gurkhas claiming a pension in 2004 – 36,000 – with the assumption they would each bring two dependents. More recent Ministry of Defence – figures state there are only 26,500 Gurkha pensioners. On the basis of two dependents each, this brings the figure down to 75,000 applicants. In fact only 1,550 Gurkhas and dependents have tried to unsuccessfully settle in the UK under the former discretionary policy and there are a further 1,350 immigration appeals pending.

The Sunday Express has exclusively revealed that MPs have already voted themselves an additional £16 million in expenses this year.

More than sufficient to resettle those Gurkhas who are desperate enough to apply to live in a country that must surely be on the verge of revolution.

The tumbrils rattle towards the printing presses today – tomorrow the guillotine.

‘Snub’ nosed bullets for the Gurkhas. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Yesterday, the Communities secretary unveiled the new  counter-terrorism strategy, known as Contest 2, a commitment to challenge those who “reject parliamentary democracy, dismiss the rule of law and promote intolerance and discrimination on the basis of race, faith, ethnicity, gender or sexuality”.

Ominously, Contest 2 spells out that the new policy will be reflected in the groups that are supported and the projects that are sponsored as part of the £70m programme to prevent violent extremism. Due warning that there will be a cat fight amongst the many ‘professional advisors’ as to who can get their snout in the trough.

An early casualty was  the Muslim Council of Britain. Their  deputy general secretary Daud Abdullah was signatory to a document which stated that resistance would be appropriate if UK forces were used to prevent arms reaching Gaza. Inciting your followers to take up arms against British soldiers would appear to be a sound reason not to include you in a list of advisors funded by the government, and Ms Blears has demanded Daud be sacked if they wish to continue to advise her.

The Guardian was most upset about this. They call this a ‘perverse decision if the aim is building the broadest possible alliance to take on the extremists’. An arguable point – if you want to understand extremists, then there is some justification for including them in your debate – a point made by Tony Blair when he decided to court Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness in Northern Island, and I would concede the point if extremists of all hues were to be included.

One of the aims of Contest 2 is to challenge those who  “reject parliamentary democracy, dismiss the rule of law and promote intolerance and discrimination on the basis of race, faith, ethnicity, gender or sexuality”.

Logically the Guardian should be calling for ‘inclusiveness’ for the BNP as well. (I doubt that I shall live to see the day!) Two weeks ago, a group of some two dozen people armed with knives and hammers, turned up at a political fundraising meeting in Liverpool. Tony Ward, a BNP party member, needed 11 stitches after he was attacked in an organised disruption of the evening. The BNP polled 14.5% in the Leigh South ward. Understanding why parliamentary democracy is being rejected in Leigh, and by whom,  is at least as important as whether a man who supports Hamas is included in a list of advisors. The Guardian failed to ‘thunder’ on this occasion.

Nor did Ms Blears or the Guardian appear upset when Lord Ahmed threatened parliament with an ‘army of 10,000 Muslims’, nor when Harriet Harman decided the ‘will of the people’ was more important than the rule of law in deciding the fate of Sir Fred Godwin’s pension. The hypocrisy is as breathtaking as it is shameful.

If you wish to foster ‘inclusiveness’ as a social policy, then you must include all, it is an oxymoron to exclude those who don’t share your views. Daud Abdullah’s views are as distasteful as the views of those who beat up Tony Ward, or Lord Ahmed’s threats. The Guardian’s views, of wishing to include some extremists, whilst ignoring others, under the banner of inclusiveness, is surely the most distasteful view of all.

Excluded by inclusiveness. is a post from: Anna Raccoon