Skip to content


This article penned by English Democrat representative and commentator Chris Beverley first appeared on his Morley Patriot blog.


A recent newspaper article got me thinking about George Orwell’s 1984, a book I read some years ago and to which I am often drawn.

1984 was published way back in 1949 and describes a future dystopian society in which even the most basic personal freedoms have been outlawed. The state is controlled by an oligarchic dictatorship with the omnipresent figurehead of Big Brother, an enduring symbol of state oppression and terror that has passed into modern vernacular.

The year 1984, in which this novel was set, came and went, and our society breathed a sigh of relief that Orwell’s vision had not come to pass.

And it is true that much of Orwell’s proposed future remains very much in the realm of fantasy. UK citizens rarely have their homes bugged by the state, or get taken away and tortured.

Yet Orwell was particularly prescient in his description of the way The Party censored the language of the people so as to prevent certain unwanted ideas from forming among the population. It is from 1984 that we have terms such as thoughtcrime, and memory hole; Orwell’s memory hole was a literal hole in which forbidden documents were deposited, never to return.

Politicians from the Lib-Lab-Con cartel parties clearly take great inspiration from the hellish society portrayed in 1984. Think only of the way in which certain words and phrases are taboo in our modern society.

I’m sure we have all witnessed friends and colleagues who, realising that a particular conversation was going down a route that may culminate in some manner of thought crime, executed a crimestop and withdrew from the conversation or hastily attempted steer it down an approved path. This is done quite instinctively, so pervasive has been the metastasis of politically correctness in our society.

When one has read 1984, phrases such as the one that caused me to write this article can be better understood.

The phrase to which I refer is irregular migration. It seems that illegal immigration is to be consigned to the memory hole, and replaced with this new and improved Newspeak alternative.

‘Irregular migration’ is deemed a much better way to describe ‘illegal immigration’, I assume, because it serves to obscure the fact that entering the UK without permission – perhaps as a stowaway on a lorry – is still, technically, illegal.

The intention of removing the term ‘illegal’ is clearly to make this activity appeal less severe, to effectively decriminalise the offence, at least in spirit. I am sure that many of those who are currently considering entering the UK illegally will take the hint accordingly.

Perhaps the rioters of whom we have heard so much recently should be re-designated irregular demonstrators. That sounds much nicer than ‘rioters’ and really does show how sensitive we are to the feelings and human rights of the individuals who chose to go about their business in such a way.

And as for looters, aren’t these fellow-citizens of our simply consumers who have decided to make their acquisitions in a way that some of us old-fashioned typed may deem ‘irregular’. Perhaps looters should henceforth be labelled irregular consumers.

Once such activities have been decriminalised in this way, the organs of the state will finally be able to dedicate all their time and resources into the eradication of thought crime – a crime far more dangerous and subversive than the irregular activities described above.

As English Democrats – members of a political party – it is our job to win power; we are not a philosophical debating society. Consequently, the language we employ must be understood by everyone we wish to reach and our message must be presented in a way that people are used to, can relate to and empathise with.

Nevertheless, our party remain firmly rooted in the English traditions of robust free speech and democracy and we will always reserve the right to call a spade a spade.

For however much our opponents may insist otherwise, two plus two will always equal four.