cimen of the White race would never have got near the top in the first place.
As it is, only sorry specimens get through the Jew-filter: if you won’t lie and cheat for the Chosen Ones, you have as much chance of succeeding in politics as Zimbabwe has of landing a man on Mars. Bliar is the most prominent example, but there are countless more race-traitors in the British government whose chief talent is to keep a straight face while spinning the lies that will supposedly lead us to a multi-racial Jewtopia:
Schoolchildren should be taught “traditional British values” as part of an attempt to challenge extremism and promote a more cohesive society, the higher education minister, Bill Rammell, will say today. Under the proposals, all 11 to 16-year-olds will learn about free speech and democracy in the UK, as well as the contribution made by different communities. Mr Rammell will announce a six-month review of the school curriculum by a leading headteacher to see how best “core British values” can be incorporated into the school timetable.
Speaking at South Bank University, Mr Rammell will say the UK is a strong multicultural and multifaith society, but to prosper it must focus on shared “core values.” These include the tradition of free speech; the contested view that Britain was founded on freedom, democracy and liberty; and the contribution of different communities to building a modern, successful country. “I very strongly believe that we are a multicultural, diverse society and I think that gives us incredible strength and richness,” he told the Guardian. “But I think it is crucial that we recognise that there are some core British values that are central and common to us all.” (The Guardian, 15th May 2006)
Can you keep a straight face listening to this guff? You shouldn’t be able to. After all, what is the point of teaching values that are already “central and common” to us all? Are Muslim children going to be taught that water flows downhill and that politicians are lying whenever their lips move? Of course not. As soon as you admit the need to teach these values, you admit that they aren’t “central and common.” Islam has no tradition of free speech, let alone of “freedom, democracy and liberty”, and if Bill Rammell wants to sample the “incredible strength and richness” of our multi-cultural diversity, he should go and live in one of the Muslim ghettos that pockmark Britain.
After the ghetto’s inhabitants have extended one of their traditional ten- or fifteen-to-one “Welcome the Whitey” ritual greetings, Bill might start to change his mind about the Joys of Diversity:
Machete Mob in Race Hate Attack
A man whose head was sliced open with a machete by a racist mob as he tried to protect two young women has been left paralysed down one side. Tower Hamlets police say the gang attack is being treated as racially motivated. John Payne and two friends were viciously set upon by a gang of Asian youths wielding machetes and metal bars in Stepney on April 8. At around 11.30 pm that night, John was walking two young female friends home after an evening out. The trouble started when John, friends Sarah O’Leary and Jenny Curran, and Jenny’s brother Denny turned into the car park of Dagobert House, off Jamaica Street.
A gang of between six and nine Asian youths were waiting in the car park. They shouted racist insults at John and his friends, who told them to be quiet. They were then set upon by the gang, which swelled to a mob of 20 as other Asian youths rushed to join in the beating. Despite John and Denny’s attempts to protect her, Jenny was repeatedly punched and kicked, and struck on the head with a metal pole. Denny and John were both hacked around the head with machetes, leaving John with a deep wound. John was taken to intensive care at the Royal London Hospital. He is now paralysed down one side of his body, and has slurred speech and memory loss. He has regained some movement, but it is still uncertain whether he will be able to work again. (East London Advertiser, 3rd May 2006)
But what are the chances that one of the people responsible for flooding Britain with aliens actually has to suffer the consequences like that? Vanishingly small, at least in the short term. JuLabour don’t care what we suffer because they don’t think they’ll have to suffer it themselves, and they’re still trying to keep us quiet by lying. Take the suicide-bombings in London on 7th July 2006:
The Clues that MI5 Missed and the Unanswered Questions
• Mohammad Sidique Khan led the 7/7 bombers. His phone number was logged by MI5 in 2003 after he was contacted by a known terror suspect already being monitored by the security services. The two men talked about arranging meetings but this was never followed up. Why?
• The following year Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, another 7/7 bomber, were bugged over a number of months by MI5 talking about a separate alleged plot to blow up targets in the UK. One of the bugs was placed in a car Khan was driving, yet MI5 says it did not have the “resources” to identify either man. Is this credible?
• Khan and Tanweer visited terror training camps in Pakistan in 2003 and 2004. Their trips were not monitored, say the security services, despite the war on terror being in full flow. Why did MI6, which has substantial resources in Islamabad, fail to pick them up? Why were they not clocked at British ports? (The Sunday Times, 14th May 2006)
Why? Well, I can suggest a good answer for all of those questions. It wasn’t because MI5 and MI6 were incompetent but because they were overwhelmed. Tracking potential terrorists in Muslim-enriched Britain must be a lot like tracking potential rapists in black-run South Africa. In other words, there are so many it has to be a matter of guesswork and luck. The British intelligence services have some very powerful computers and some very sophisticated software at their disposal, but where Muslim gang-bangers are concerned they’re probably just as well off relying on much older technology:
“A Mohammad Sidique Khan, sir. Another of our vibrant Muslim community. We’ve recorded him discussing the prospect of enriching us with a explosion or two. Should we investigate further? What’s that, sir? Roll the dice? Hold on, please... Five and three, sir... Very well, sir. I’ll put him in the ‘Action Pending’ pile.”
That’s probably isn’t too far from the truth, but maybe if MI5 had taken more notice of the Fantastic Four who murdered fifty-five people on 7/7, another Fantastic Four might have murdered even more on another day. Bliar and his government obviously know much more than they are telling us, and they’re still trying to use lies and spin to keep Britain’s racial time-bomb from exploding. It won’t work and the longer we pretend the bomb isn’t ticking, the more people are going to be crowded around it when it goes off. I’m concerned about Whites first and foremost, but I don’t welcome the prospect of Muslims suffering unnecessarily either, which is why I want us to start repatriation as soon as possible. The longer we let the situation fester, the worse off everyone is going to be. It’s already clear that very large numbers are prepared to leave:
Two-Thirds Of Muslims Consider Leaving UK
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have thought about leaving Britain after the London bombings, according to a new poll. The figure illustrates how widespread fears are of an anti-Muslim backlash following the July 7 bombings carried out by British born suicide bombers. Nearly two-thirds of Muslims told pollsters that they had thought about their future in Britain after the attacks, with 63% saying they had considered whether they wanted to remain in the UK. Older Muslims were more uneasy about their future, with 67% of those 35 or over having contemplated their future home country compared to 61% among those 34 or under. Britain’s Muslim population is estimated at 1.6 million, with 1.1 million over 18, meaning more than half a million may have considered the possibility of leaving. (The Guardian, 26th July 2005)
Paying them to go back where they belong would leave both sides better off. As an extra incentive, we could even give them Tony Blair and the other JuLabour cheerleaders for the war in Iraq to put on trial in their homelands, while American Whites do the same with Bush and his neo-con puppet-masters. After all, both Britain and America are suffering from the same disease. It’s called Jew-flu and it induces the madness described here by Pat Buchanan:
Historians will one day marvel that, as their Southwest was slipping away from the United States – demographically, linguistically and culturally – Americans were fighting to keep Iraq together. Remarkable. Foreigners are invading and occupying Arizona, while Americans are fighting for Anbar province.
Foreigners are invading and occupying Britain too, while our soldiers fight for Basra province. The best way to understand this lunacy is to ask “Cui bono?” – “Who benefits?” The answer, of course, is: “Jui bono!” – “Jews benefit!” Whites fight non-whites in the Middle East so Israel’s power increases, while non-whites fight Whites in America and Europe so the West’s power decreases. Jews have long seen the world as their goyster: it’s full of gullible goyim to deceive, drain of blood, and destroy.
That’s why one clear message rings down more than two millennia of Western history: “Jews are poison!” Ignoring this message has been the biggest mistake we’ve ever made and the message now sniggered behind the hands of race-traitors like Bush and Blair is: “Let them eat kike!” But there’s reason for hope. Jews and their shabbas goys have tried to hold back reality with a dam made of lies, but the dam is leaking badly in a dozen places. The more it leaks, the weaker it grows; and the weaker it grows, the more it leaks. When it finally collapses, there won’t be room in the Jew-canoe for the present gang of traitors, criminals and parasites to ride out the flood.
Click here foren the “Hitler treatment” by the Hollywood movie producers of Braveheart. With the influence the Hollywood movie industry has on the minds of the public, we suspect that if the public were to be convinced that King Edward I was crazy, then there would he no public protest regarding England’s obvious disobeyance of King Edward l’s Royal Edict of 1290 which bans all Jews from England (and Aquitania, a former English territory which the English no longer have). Although the mass mailing of the Jul/Sep ‘94 NSV Report to the English newsmedia and Parliament did not generate any response to date regarding Lady Birdwood’s trial or the illegal proceedings against her, the timing of the production of the movie Braveheart indicates to us that world Jewry is very much concerned about Lady Birdwood’s case.
Edward the First by T. F. Tout (Twelve English Statesmen, Macmillan & Company, Ltd., London, 1893, 229 pages) is a rare book and no longer in print. The Micropaedia Brittanica on page 375 in summing up the life of Edward I states, “Tout’s Edward the First (1893) is still the best biography of the king.” The Micropaedia Brittanica serves as a brief guide to subjects which are reviewed in detail in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. The king’s life is discussed in 13 chapters: I – Early years (1239-1258); II – Edward and the Barons’ Wars (1258-1267); III – Edward as a Crusader (1268-1272); IV – The King and His Work (1272-1307); V – Edward’s Continental Policy (1272-1289); VI – The Conquest and Settlement of the Principality of Wales (1274-1301); VII – Edward’s Legislation (1275-1290); VIII – Edward and the Three Estates – The Development of the Parliamentary System; IX – Edward and the Church (1272-1294); X – The Scottish Overlordship (1286-1292); XI – The Years of Crisis (1293-1297); XII – The Conquest of Scotland (1297-1305); XIII – The End of the Reign (1305-1307). In no medieval country were things any better than in the England of Edward I because of the rampant corruption everywhere else. The book Edward the First appears to have some bias but the historical facts appear to be in order. After one reads Edward the First, it can be clearly determined that the movie Braveheart is grossly inaccurate because the number of inaccuracies is too many, only the major inaccuracies in the movie Braveheart will be detailed.
Edward Longshanks (June 17, 1239 to July 7, 1307) was not a pagan but was raised in Christianity at a time when the Catholic Church in Rome was the only Christian religion in the world. Edward excelled in martial arts and won some jousting tournaments. King Edward’s era was the Age of Chivalry. He became a Crusader from 1268 to 1272 when the death of his father, the King of England, necessitated Edward’s return to England to assume responsibilities of king. The first thing which he did was surround himself with English advisors without undue influence from foreign interests and thus earned immediate grass-roots support from the English people. In 1277, after the conquest of Wales, Edward made null and void all Welsh laws and customs which were barbarous or in direct variance with the Ten Commandments. Edward was a skilled diplomat and only resorted to force as a last resort. As a legislator and legal codifier, he lived up to his reputation among lawyers, statesmen and other European royalty as the “English Justinian.” European royalty often called upon Edward to mediate disputes because he was highly respected. At one time, he created a great pacification in Europe among the bickering and warring royalty. In 1287, Edward wanted to lead another crusade to the Holy Land to free it from the infidels but he had to abandon that plan to resolve some feuding among European royalty. After proposing a treaty for the feuding royalty, they accepted Edward’s proposal but the Pope in Rome repudiated the treaty. In 1288, Edward again attempted to lead a Crusade into the Middle East but he had to return to England to deal with Scottish secessionists.
At one point in his life, Edward I faced a crisis – unsuccessful war abroad, sedition at home, rebellion in newly annexed districts and open war with the great power of the Church in Rome. He survived this, however. Never did Edward l’s affairs seem more flourishing than in the early part of 1306. Scotland remained subdued, the French were friendly, the Pope was the king’s creature, the barons and commoners alike were well disposed, and his baronial opposition had broken up. Now all the king had to do was concentrate on problems in England.
Edward II was king from 1307 to 1327 when he died or was murdered; nobody seems to know for sure. Edward II had many enemies and apparently no serious interests, wasted his time in gambling and rioting in low society, and cared for nothing but his horses, hounds, players and boon companions. After Edward I died on his last and final campaign into Scotland, his body was transported back to an immediate burial place at Westminster Abbey where it was placed under a plain monument of gray marble but little corresponding to his greatness as a king and upon which has been inscribed “EDWARDUS PRIMUS SCOTORUM MALLEUS HIC EST. PACTUM SERVA.” (Edward the First, the hammer of the Scots, is here. Serve the pact!) We would probably use the word “hammerer” today. The pact is in reference to a peace pact with the Scots.
The movie Braveheart dealt with the Scottish secessionists. Contrary to the movie, William Wallace was a medium landowner who was 6 feet and 7 inches tall, inspirational, dedicated and a natural leader. In September 1297, Wallace and his rebels put the English army to flight at Stirling Bridge. At Falkirk on July 22, 1298, the Scots lost the battle with heavy losses while the English lost two knights and a few “common folk.” In Braveheart, the English were shown to suffer heavy losses! Year after year for the following six years, Edward led campaigns into Scotland with little resistance and made only slight gains in control on each campaign. Wallace ran into hiding after the battle in Falkirk and he basically hid until one of his own associates betrayed his whereabouts to the English in 1305. Wallace was executed in the appropriate manner of the day for rebellion against the English king. At Bannockburn in 1314, the Scottish rebels did defeat the English and Robert Bruce eventually became King of Scotland. Although Edward I did not get along well with his son, Edward II, there was no mention that Edward II was a homosexual; there was no mention of any love affair between Edward Il’s wife, Isabella, and William Wallace; and there was no issue regarding the real father of Edward III but Edward III was the grandson of Edward I.
The following is taken verbatim from the book Edward the First regarding the Jews:
“The Jews held a strange position in England since the growth of trade, which attended the Norman Conquest, had first attracted them to settle in large numbers in the country. They had accumulated much wealth, owing to their practical monopoly of all banking business; but as usurers and as infidels, they had made themselves exceedingly unpopular. They were accused of foul crimes, such as murdering and crucifying Christian children, and occasional outbursts of Christian fanaticism had involved them in outrage and massacre. But the Jews had powerful friends. They were the special subjects of the Crown, and were nearly always protected in their usury by the royal officials, on the simple condition that a goad share of their spoil found its way to the king’s coffers. But as thirty and forty per cent were allowable and moderate rates of interest at this time, the Jews were able to pay great tallages to the king, and still live luxuriously and grow rich. Many of the greater nobles emulated the royal example, and formed an holy league with the Jews to ruin or buy out their smaller neighbours. During Henry III’s reign (1216-1272) the king’s necessities had forced him into constant dependence on the Jews, so that the religious zeal that might, if he had been a free man, have led him in the direction of persecution, found a sufficient outlet in building the Domus Conversorum (Home of the Converted), a home for converted Jews, on the site of the present Record Office, and in entertaining its few inmates with pensions. As a consequence of this alliance between the Jews and the Crown, the baronial opposition was always strongly opposed to the Jews. In 1215, and again in 1258, the baronial triumph involved the unlucky crown agents in much wanton spoliation and persecution.
“Edward disliked the Jews both on religious and economical grounds. The crusading spirit, that had almost lost hope of fighting against the Moslem, saw some satisfaction in wreaking its vengeance on the Israelites (sic). Edward held strongly the medieval belief in the sinfulness and harmfulness of usury. He was angry that the Jews fleeced his subjects, and saw with disgust that the lands of an impoverished and spendthrift nobility could hardly render him their due service, because they were mortgaged up to the hilt to Jewish usurers. His own embarrassed finances and constant burden of debt did not make him the more friendly to the money-lender. Early in his reign Edward drew up severe laws, forbidding Jews to hold real property, enjoining on them the wearing of the distinctive and degrading Jewish dress, which was bidding fair to become obsolete, and prohibiting usury altogether. [In the book, Edward the First, the Edict of 1275, the Statutem de Judeismo or Statute regarding Jewry, was never mentioned but this Royal Edict was meant to eliminate usury. Only about 10,000 Jews were expelled from English territories at that time.] The Jews knew no other way of living and turned in their distress to even less legitimate methods of earning a livelihood. They sweated and clipped the king’s coin so unsparingly that the prices of commodities became disorganized, and foreign merchants shunned a realm whose money standard fluctuated so widely and constantly. [Note: The term ‘clip joint’ is derived from this meaning of the word ‘clip.’ Also, if you look at the ridges on the edge of an American dime or quarter, you will see ridges. The ridges are there today only for decoration but this ridging was introduced to coinage in Europe hundreds of years ago in order to frustrate the coin-clippers.] In 1278, the royal vengeance came down upon the unlucky sweaters. Nearly three hundred Jews were imprisoned in the Tower on the charge of depreciating the coinage. More than two hundred of them were hanged and their goods confiscated to the Crown. But very few of the Christian goldsmiths and moneyers, who had been the partners of their guilt, were likewise partners in the punishment. Edward caused them to be arrested, but, with very few exceptions, they were released through the partiality of the Christian juries that tried them.
“The lot of the Jews became constantly more grievous. The old charges of murdering Christian children were revived and eagerly believed in. Archbishop Peckham added to the thunders of the State the thunders of the Church. He finally closed up the synagogues altogether, and sternly rebuked Queen Eleanor for suffering her love of money to lend her into unholy alliances with Jews against Christian landowners. But if Edward’s wife was lukewarm, his mother Eleanor of Provence, who now played at being a nun, urged on her son to harsh measures against the blasphemers. In 1267, during Edward’s long absence abroad, all the Jews from England were imprisoned, and only released on payment of a huge fine. A little later Edward banished the Jews from Guienne. On his return to England, he applied the same policy to his island kingdom. In 1290 he finally expelled the Jews from England. But he allowed them to take with them their movable property, and sternly punished the brutal sailors of the Cinque Ports who had robbed and murdered their Jewish passengers on their way over the Channel. The expulsion of the Jews was a popular act, and the parliament granted Edward a fifteenth as a thank-offering. The king was himself a heavy loser by the transaction, and was thought to have shown rare unselfishness and high religious principle in consenting to get rid of a race so profitable to the royal exchequer. But the Jews were no longer indispensable. Christian usurers from Cahors in Guienne and from northern Italy had deprived them of their monopoly. The Italian agents of Edward’s finances were soon as much hated as the Jews themselves had been.”
Edward I was engaged in an ongoing hassle with the Jews. On January 20, 1857, the Master of the Rolls submitted to the Treasury of England a proposal for the publication of materials for the History of England from the invasion of the Romans to the reign of Henry VIII. The Master of the Rolls suggested that these materials should be selected for publication under competent editors without reference to periodical or chronological arrangement, without mutilation or abridgement, preference being given in the first instance, to such materials as were most scarce and valuable. The following Latin quotes are derived from “Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores or Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland” and are translated by NSV Dir. Rick Cooper with little help.
Puer quidam apud Lincolniam crucifixus, pro cujus morte xviii. Judaei, die Sanctae Ceciliae, detracti sunt apud Londonias. (A certain boy at Lincoln is crucified to his death at 18.) Hugh comes to mind but this may not be Hugh because it is understood that Hugh was a lot younger than 18. (The Jews, on the day of Saint Cecilia, are taken out of London <i.e., arrested>.) This was in the year 1285. Eodem anno, pridie idus Augusti, Judaei destructi sunt apud Cantebrigge, et multi interfecti et exhaeredati. (In the same year <1266>, on the day before the ides of August, the Jews are destroyed at Cambridge, both killed and disinherited.) Medio quidem tempore, dictus comes, suorum quorumdam consilio nep hando, civitatis potentiores regi in aliquo clam vel aperte faventes incarceravit, eorumque bona penitus depraedando; Judaeis ad turrim in fugam versis, Judaismum pro parte majori destruxit. (In the middle of this time <1267>, indeed, an earl favoring he incarcerate, on his own, by means of an unspeakable plan, the more powerful of the citizenship of his region in some place secretly or openly, and about to be deprived totally of their goods; the Jews having been turned into flight towards Tower, he destroyed Judaism for the most part.) Et tres Christiani fuerunt tractati et suspensi; et ccxcii Judaei distracti et suspenci. (Both three Christians were tracted <stretched or expanded> and suspended <a form of hanging>); and 292 Jews tracted apart and suspended.) This was penalty for coin clipping. In Braveheart, William Wallace was shown to be first suspended, then tracted, castrated and finally publicly decapitated.)
Eodem anno, circa festum Decollationis Sancti Johannis Baptistae, factae fuerunt inquisitiones per regem Angliae at suum concilium, justiarios Salomonem de Roffa, Henricum La Waleis majorem Londoniarum, C. de Picthehore, J. de Berwyk, thesaurarium reginae Angliae: scilicet, prima inquisitio apud Westmonasterium in camera domini regis, secunda apud sanctum Martinum magnum; tertia apud Turrim Londuniarum; per xii Christianos et ii Judaeos, de hiis qui de bonis de catallis Judaeorum pro tonsura monetae suspensorum aliquid in custodia habuerent et retinebant post commune bannum regis per civitatem contra praeceptum ejusdem. Et irrectati fuerunt de praedictis bonis retentis, Petrus Cosyn, Thomas de Dunstaple, Phelipus Box, J. le Tapicer, Rute et burgensis frater ejus, at plures alii Lumbardi at Judaei. (In the same year <1294>, around the holiday of Decollation of Saint John the Baptist, there were hearings of facts through the King of England and his own council, justices Solomon of Rochester, Henry Waleis, mayor of the Londonians, Geoffrey of Picheford and John of Berwick, Treasurer of the Queen of England: of course, the first hearing at Westminster in the room of the Lord the King, the second at Saint Martin the Great, the third at the Tower of London; through twelve Christians and two Jews, regarding anyone of the hanged and those whom they have held and were retaining in custody concerning the goods and property of the Jews for clipping of money after the common ban of the King through the citizenship against his teaching. And the unrighteous were retained regarding the good teaching, Peter Cosyn, Thomas of Dunstaple, Phelipus Box, J. le Tapicer, Rute and a commoner, his father, and many other Lombards and Jews.
Eodem anno post festum Sancti Hillarii, Johannes filius Petri aldermannus at Willelmus de Bectone camararius Londoniarum, electi fuerent cirograffarii cujusdam novae archae ad imponendas obligationes Judaismi. Eodem anno in crastino apostolorum Philippi and Jacobi, per diem Venaris, omnes Judaei per Angliam capti fuerunt, et per carectas ducti Londonias. (In the same year <1287>, after the holiday of Saint Hillary, John, the son of Peter and an alderman, and William of Bectone, a room house operator of London, were elected cirographers whose new rulers imposed obligations of the Jews. In the same year, on the following morning of apostles Philip and Jacob, through the day of veneration, all Jews throughout England were captured and lead through Londonian sedgebushes.) It should be noted that sedgebushes or rushes grow only in water or very damp areas so apparently the Jews were forced to walk through marsh or swamp areas.
Hoc amino in vigilia Conceptiontis beatae Mariae omnes Judaei Londoniarum capti et incarcarati apud Gyhalam Londoniis. (In the year <1289>, on the vigil of Conception of Saint Maria, all Jews of London were captured and incarcerated amid the jail of London.) Eodem anno omnes Judaei, cum eorum bonis, filiis, at uxoribus, circa festum Omnium Sactorum, terram Angliae et Aquitaniae, concendente rege Edwardo, exulantur. (In time same year <1290>, all Jews with their goods, children and wives, around the holiday of All Saints, are expelled from the land of England and Aquitania, Edward the king having conceded.)
No human is perfect and King Edward I is no exception but the fact that King Edward I remained king for 35 years indicates that he was an able and firm ruler, the type of ruler necessary to deal with the problems of the day. The King did what he could in an attempt to get the Jews to become productive people by taking up a trade or craft such as carpentry, masonry, iron working, farming etc. but all was to no avail. King Edward’s Royal Edict of 1275 is arguably the world’s first “affirmative action” program and was meant to outlaw usury forever in England and is still the law to this day. He expelled about 10,000 of the most troublesome Jews in the hopes that this would solve the problem but it did not work. When Edward outlawed usury, the Jews began clipping and sweating coins. All reasonable avenues to get the Jews to change their ways had been exhausted. By 1290, Jewish children of 1275 were carrying on their parents’ pursuits. The Jewish males were once again engaging in usury and whatever else to support themselves except for productive work, and the Jewish females were giving birth to more Jews. Edward had no choice but to pull the weeds out by the roots and expel all Jews which he did with his Royal Edict of 1290.
One aspect of the Edict of Expulsion that the Jew does not hide is the fact that the law has never been rescinded. As Joan Comay states in Who’s Who in Jewish History After the Old Testament (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1974), under the entry for Manasseh ben Israel:
“Manasseh spent much of his life trying to find new places where the Jews might settle... In 1650 he published ‘The Hope of Israel’... the work... sparked off discussion on the possibility of the return of the Jews to England. In Manasseh’s view this would fulfil messianic prophecy. He therefore saw the success of the Puritan cause in England as a hopeful sign. He sent a petition to the Council of State in London. Cromwell favoured the petition, for practical rather than messianic reasons, and invited Manasseh to England. On 31 October 1655 he appeared before the Council of State, laying stress on the economic and social advantages to be gained from re-admitting the Jews. A conference on the subject was convened, but dissolved by Cromwell when it raised obstacles under popular pressure. The Jews who had accompanied Manasseh to London lost hope and returned to their homes on the Continent... Manasseh returned to Holland in October 1657, deeply distressed at what he considered the failure of his mission... Although Edward l’s 1290 Edict of Expulsion was not formally revoked as Manasseh had hoped, the resumption of open Jewish worship achieved the same practical result. The Edict has actually not been revoked to this day.”
In 1981, Comay† wrote in another book, The Diaspora Story (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London):
“To this day the expulsion decree... has not been cancelled, nor has there been any formal enactment permitting Jews to return to England and live there...”
Enforcement or public discussion of the law does not contravene the Race Relations Act. To say that the Jew residing in England is an illegal alien is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is a point of law.
† Colin Jordan notes that Comay, wife of the one-time Israeli Ambassador to the U.K., confuses Edward the 1st and Edward the Confessor