LABOUR RUNNING SCARED?

Well,well well they are really getting in a tizz after our leafletting in Leigh.
Below is a letter I received today together with a "Hope not Hate" newspaper.

Dear Charles,

This RUBBISH was delivered to my door this week and a massive anti BNP launch has been issued in this area.
Four different people have knocked on my door in Leigh spreading lies about the BNP
Where is the response from the BNP? They could do very well in this area.(Don't worry we will respond!).
The callers were all from South Manchester and are targetting the Leigh West ward.
This area is a dumping ground for Eastern European migrants and our area has gone downhill with houses fetching less than £30,000 at auction.


Leigh West councillors are Susan Greensmith "Lord" Peter Smith and Myra Whiteside.
They have done nothing for this area and people are fed up with them housing Slovakian gypsies round here.

THIS IS THE AREA THAT'S GOT LABOUR RUNNING SCARED HENCE THE MASSIVE ANTI BNP DELEGATION.(His capitals, not mine)
I call on you to pass this information to the relevant people.
THIS IS A PRIME LOCATION FOR BNP GROWTH.

Thank you.

This letter was accompanied by the "Mirror " sponsored rag "Hope not Hate" featuring prominently the cross dressing Eddie Izzard and ex singer Coleen Nolan.
Why do these people think because they are on the telly their opinions are more valid than any others?
An article in the middle praises a foreign surgeon who saved a young woman's life.
SO? That was his job and nobody would doubt his dedication and I know that from experience. BUT any doctor worth his salt would have done the same and the reason we have to rely on foreign doctors is because we do not train enough of our own and those Brits who do qualify emigrate to get away from this PC cesspit.

An indication of this rag's innacuracies is that he is described as a Ugandan Asian when his name (Nsamba) and appearance shows he is of African origin.
It says he was kicked out of Uganda for being Asian. He is not Asian and those Asians who were kicked out had lived there for generations but Idi Amin is never described as "racist".
It is also alleged that the BNP is misusing taxpayers money for our election campaign.
As a local organiser I know that is not true as we have had to raise the funds ourselves.
I also know the work put in by our officials working in the EU (If you want a DVD explaining it all phone the above number)

I will not rebut all the allegations on this rag today as the post would be too long but I will later.
Suffice it to say that all this effort shows that the BNP has NOT been kicked out of our area as was crowed 5 years ago and we are growing daily as evidenced by the effort and expense of the smear campaign in Leigh.

Keep it up you useless Labour councillors. It is rebounding on you. People can see who you represent and it is not the people of Wigan and Leigh.

SINISTER PLANS FORSEEN

Only two weeks ago I gave a talk about the possibility of a hung Parliament and a sharp drop in the value of the pound.

I wondered whether this would trigger a national emergency and a coalition of national unity with further elections suspended in the interests of the country.
Now it seems civil servants are considering just such a scenario.
This would give the government powers unprecedented except in war and an opportunity to take us fully into the EU and suspend democracy.

The will of the people would be ignored in the "national interest" and our hard won rights finally lost in a fascist super state.
I don't know whether anyone in government circles heard my talk but they seem to be anticipating the situation I predicted.
I hope I did not give them the idea.

The three "major parties" would be involved in this coalition it seems and thus the only real opposition to our future slavery would be the BNP.
No wonder those in power attack us so. We are the ONLY opposition to their sinister plans and thus the only bulwark against this proposed theft of our democracy and freedom.

Never has it been more important to vote for and support the BNP.
It could be our last chance to secure our freedom.

GORVID CAMEROWN

Morg
.

Rapist avoids deportation so that he can marry in Britain

Un-Bloody believable.

F*CK his "(IN)HUMAN RIGHTS" DEPORT THIS SEX ANIMAL NOW.

What about the "RIGHTS" of the rape victim ?
Oh silly me, I forgot, the CORRUPT JUDGES OF A CORRUPT JUSTICE SYSTEM only apply RIGHTS to the NON-INDIGENOUS .

The BNP will have to tear the INJUSTICE SYSTEM APART and create a new JUSTICE SYSTEM, with PRIORITY on WHAT IS BEST FOR THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION OF THIS COUNTRY.

Alphonse Semo, a refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo, threw his victim on a rubbish tip when he had finished with her.

But on Monday evening he won the right to remain for his wedding just hours before he was due to board a plane back to Africa.

A judge said it was difficult (but not impossible) to have any sympathy for Semo, who was jailed for eight years, but he must be allowed to stay.

Mr Justice Collins said the Home Office had at first agreed to let the 53-year-old, from Deptford, south east London, get married to his long-term partner, a German national.

Then the wedding was effectively cancelled by a subsequent decision ''by the same Home Office - no doubt by a different department''....

Read the whole disgraceful story here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7537577/Rapist-avoids-deportation-so-that-he-can-marry-in-Britain.html

Thanks to BRITISHLADY for drawing this to my attention.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MUSLIMS HAVE THE UPPER HAND

Read about it here

Morg
.

THE TOWN HALL NAZIS ARE MAD MAD.

Thirteen years of New Labour rule have made our lives a misery where it matters most to us  -  on our unswept streets and in our own bin-cluttered backyards.

We all depend on the services provided by local councils, yet these days they are run for the benefit of those who work there, not for the people who pay for them.

When I started out in journalism in Peterborough many years ago, the leader of the local council was an engine driver called Charlie Swift, who ran the city in his spare time and didn't receive a penny from the ratepayers in either salary or expenses.

He wasn't universally popular. Round town he was known as 'That Bugger Swift'.

But the streets were clean, the parks immaculate, the corporation buses ran on time, the roads were in good repair, the schools had a pretty decent record, the car parks were free and the dustbins were emptied twice a week.

That was all anyone wanted from their local authority.

But where once the council chamber contained butchers, bakers and builders, we now have a generation of full-time councillors who have never held down a proper job in their lives.

They get lavish expenses and allowances, while the old breed of town clerk with a sense of duty has been replaced by 'chief executives' who pretend they are employed to run major commercial organisations and expect to be paid accordingly.

Out went frugal 'ways and means' departments, devoted to keeping costs down. The parks committee became the 'leisure and amenities' directorate. The sanitation department morphed into 'environmental health'.

There was a recruitment and spending spree, which would do justice to a sailor on shore leave.

And so we arrived where we find ourselves today  -  with grandiose council 'cabinets', vast PR departments, local authorities with foreign policies and anti-nuclear zones,'diversity' directorates and 'carbon footprint' committees.

...

Over the years, I've made a good living pillorying this never- ending carnival of politically motivated profligacy. I've had enormous fun with the insane jobs  -  lesbian self-defence instructors, transgender policy co-ordinators, nuclear-free zone inspectors  -  invented by councils to expand their empires and devour our taxes.

These days I tend towards rage. Now more than ever, with the economy going to hell in a handcart, we simply can't afford this circus of taxpayer-funded excess.

Skilled craftsmen, chartered accountants, chemists, bank staff, estate agents and investment analysts have all made the long trek to the job centre. But there's one lucky group of people who have no such worries about losing their livelihoods.

While private companies are either contracting or going to the wall, Britain's five-a-day co-ordinators, diversity managers, equality officers, elf 'n' safety enforcers and carbon-footprint campaigners can all sleep easily in their beds.

The public sector continues to party like it's 1999. There's been no shake-out in the town halls, no Christmas parties cancelled in quangoland.

This is what Gordon Brown really means when he boasts about 'investment'. It's his reckless spending, putting 800,000 more people on the public payroll, which has left Britain the worst equipped of all industrialised countries to deal with the downturn.

MORE

Morg
.

I AM AN ENGLISHMAN ... AND I WAS NEVER ASKED.

http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/index.php/extras/videos-4-u/1576-i-am-an-englishman

Morg
.

THEY JUST DON'T GET IT

They just don't get it do they?

The Labour Party is bringing Tony Blair back to help them in their election campaign.
Talk about a thief revisiting the scene of the crime?
This is a man who took us into an illegal war and used his contacts to do a shady deal worth £1 million with a Korean crook who is now in jail, who makes £ millions advising rich banking firms and on the after dinner speech circuit and hides his ill gotten gains behind a host of companies and will not open the books for scrutiny. Oh and he "accidentally" shredded his papers when leaving Downing Street so that he could not be prosecuted.
Could anybody else get away with such deceit? I think not.

AND THE LABOUR PARTY THINKS HIS ENDORSMENT WILL HELP THEM?

He has said he "feels the hand of history" on his shoulders.
Rather than that he should feel the noose of justice round his neck as retribution for all his crimes not least the lives of British soldiers and Iraqi people he has caused to be lost.

These politicians live in a dream world far removed from reality, and retribution will surely come if there is any justice in the world.

NO IDEA WHAT TO DO

What a waste of time. The debate of the three financial leaders of the "big three parties" was so boring and devoid of asnwers I switched it off before it finished.
Talk of saving 5 billion here and "efficiency savings" there and fiddling about with a few taxes will do little to reduce the £168 BILLION government deficit we have had thrust on us by this incompetent government.


The tragedy is that the opposition has little idea what do do about it apart from fiddling around the edges.
Even a modest reduction in borrowing will lead to a larger debt next year.
Who do they borrow this money from?

The government printed £200 BILLION last year. What did they do with it?
I'm no economist but perhaps somebody might help me in this but if the creation of money is so simple why did the government not pay its debt with this "created wealth"
I suppose they gave it to their friends in the city to lend out at high rates of interest, leaving us to pick up the pieces.
An easy way to reduce borrowing would be to pull out of Afganistan, the EU and stop foreign aid.


These three alone would reduce our borrowing by 2/3.
The government talks of cutting inefficiency as an aim, but this is seldom achieved.They think by cutting costs this way a rise in unemployment could be avoided, failing to see that efficiency requires fewer workers and thus increases unemployment.

Unless there is a sea change in the way our country's finances are arranged we are doomed as a nation, and only the BNP has the answers.
Don't believe me? Nick Griffin foresaw this unforseen crash 4 years ago unlike senior members of all the other parties.

Meanwhile a little bird tells me Fazakerley Hospital has a ward dedicated to Somalis with TB, a disease we thought we had eradicated from this country. The cost of treating immigrants is becoming a huge burden on the NHS and a threat to our health.

SCENE IN A DOCTORS WAITING ROOM. This is a true story.

A foreigner walks into a doctors surgery and says "I want see doctor " The receptionist says he must wait his turn, about 15 minutes.
The foreigner replies "I not wait I see doctor NOW"
This request is refused and a few minutes the foreigner is called in to see the doctor. He then replies "I on phone. Tell doctor wait".

This typifies the arrogence and demanding attitude of these people who have invited theirselves to take advantage of our services.
No wonder people are fed up and turning to the BNP and think immigration is our main problem.

Yes we expect the smear stories to begin in earnest any day now but in view of the corruption and incompetence of the other parties I am not too worried and in any case they have nothing new to throw at us,so

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NOT THROW STONES.

Community Action Party Manifesto

THE COMMUNITY (COMMUNIST) ACTION PARTY - BRINGING DISHONESTY AND A LACK OF INTEGRITY INTO POLITICS.

The basis of the Community (COMMUNIST) Action Party Manifesto is to develop and pursue a “Political (COMMUNIST) Agenda” based on a consensus of uninformed public opinion, in an exclusive and dishonest manner.

The Community (COMMUNIST) Action Party recognises that community engagement is as important to national issues as it is to local issues. If elected to Parliament we will supplement the eighteen Community (COMMUNIST) Action Party Councillors already elected to Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council. We will represent the voice of local communities (COMMUNISTS) in Westminster instead of Members of Parliament representing the policies of New Labour locally.

With these points in mind the Community (COMMUNIST) Action Party will campaign on the following issues.

1) A NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, FREE AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY

Under New Labour our health service is being privatised by stealth. This was never intended when it was originally conceived and founded. It is our intention to reverse this trend, to eliminate bureaucracy from the health service and to return to traditional values. We propose the abolition of prescription charges and the provision of a health service free of charge to all at the point of delivery and from the cradle to the grave.

2) EDUCATION, AVAILABLE, ACCESSIBLE AND FREE AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY.

Under New Labour the education of our young people is being eroded by government interference. Targets, league tables, government inspections and teachers reporting procedures are leading to a bureaucracy similar to that prevalent in our health service, police force, fire brigade and other public services.

Our schools must be given the chance to stand-alone and be accountable to parents, Governors and students. The Schools Inspectorate and other Government bureaucracies should only be in place where they have a useful role to assist and advise and not to judge. The allocation of places at local schools must take account of the wishes of local people and of parental and student choice. Schools in areas of deprivation must be given additional support to enable all students to have access to the highest standards of education. School facilities should be made available outside of normal school hours, giving young people and the community at large a place to meet, access to facilities and a sense of ownership.

School travel plans should be mandatory in all of our schools. Education at every level should be available to all regardless of their means. We are opposed to tuition fees being charged to students or their parents and call for the re-introduction of student grants linked to a commitment by students to work in this country for an agreed minimum period.

3) COMMUNITY SAFETY

Law and order must be established on the streets by better and more effective policing, manned police stations and police on the beat. It is no longer credible for New Labour to claim that we have record numbers of police, when the public don't see them and they are not available when required.

It is time for ZERO TOLERANCE of drug dealers, arsonists, thugs, thieves and racists. The present low priority given to drug-associated crime and a 93% rise in car crime in the Greater Manchester Area is unacceptable.

Sentences must be made to fit the crime to reassure the public that justice will be done and seen to be done. Community Service must be appropriate and of benefit both to the offender and to the community and not just a punishment for the offender.

We are opposed to any reduction in the number of firefighters and to any cuts in the fire service.

4) OVERSEAS AID

Real aid must be given to developing countries, not just tokenism and loans linked to punitive trade deals that create massive long term debt. We must cancel the existing long term debts of developing countries to enable them to escape from the continuous cycle of poverty. Developing countries must be supplied with the technology to enable them to become self sufficient and equal trading partners.

5) THE ENVIRONMENT

We are opposed to the destruction of our heritage and the use of green field sites and playing fields for development. We stand for the conservation and improvement of the natural and built environment and the protection of wildlife and its habitat. We will work towards the review and resetting of environmental limits of pollution released into the atmosphere by industry. We support the principle of bringing the point of sale closer to the point of consumption, a levy on waste producers such as the packaging industry and sale and return schemes to promote re-cycling. Global Trade must be reorganised and prioritised to reduce transportation and to promote local self sufficiency.

6) TERRORISM

The laws that have existed for years are more than adequate to cope with the very small number of incidents that have occurred in this country in recent times. We require effective policing and less interference by the pro-war New Labour Government and their USA allies in the affairs of other nations.

We are opposed to the draconian so-called anti-terrorist laws, introduced by the New Labour Government, that will remove more of our civil liberties and imprison people without trial and without the right to Habeas Corpus.

Habeas Corpus has existed since the Magna Carta was granted by King John at Runnymede in 1215 establishing the rights of free citizens and is regarded as the basis of civil and political liberty in England. We are opposed to the introduction of Identity Cards that would further infringe undermine our civil liberties.

7) IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM

These are bogus issues created by the media and the national parties to divert attention away from their own shortcomings. We are opposed to all forms of racism and to the anti-asylum hysteria promoted by New Labour, the Tories and the BNP.

8) TRANSPORT

We are in favour of a fully integrated public transport infrastructure, publicly controlled and maintained, effectively managed, affordable and fully accountable to the public. We want to promote the use of public transport such as rail, buses and trams and reduce the amount of road traffic congestion, pollution and fuel usage. We want heavy freight to be taken off the roads and put onto the railways.

9) EUROPE

We acknowledge that our future is inextricably linked to Europe and welcome the multi-culturism and trading relationships that membership of the European Union promotes. However we are opposed to quangos whether British or European, the European party political gravy train and the erosion of democracy both in this country and abroad.

10) IRAQ

We are opposed to the illegal invasion and war against the people of Iraq . More than 100,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives. Hundreds of thousands more have been injured maimed or physically abused and tens of thousands have had their homes destroyed. Almost one hundred British soldiers have lost their lives and hundreds more have been injured. Many have lost one or both legs. Those Members of Parliament who supported the illegal invasion of Iraq based on a web of lies should be held to account.

©2003 - Promoted by Peter Franzen,

Vote for this bunch of COMMUNIST, ISLAMIST, UAF SUPPORTERS if you DON'T WANT A FUTURE FOR YOUR CHILDREN.

NATIONAL CURRICULUM?

School lessons have been hijacked by the Government to teach its "faddish and incoherent" social policy, a leading exam expert has said. 

Read about it HERE. 

 

Morg

.

The secret plot to destroy Britain's Identity.

The secret plot to destroy Britain's Identity.

by Melanie Phillips

Of all the issues of concern to the public, immigration is possibly the most explosive — and the one about which the most lies are continuing to be told.

During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing 3 million.

Ministers claim that immigration policy has been driven principally to help the economy. They have always denied that they actually set out deliberately to change the ethnic composition of the country.

Well, now we know for a certainty that this is not true. The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society — and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.

Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.

The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.

He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 - in response to increasing public uproar — government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.

The "driving political purpose" of this policy, wrote Neather, was "to make the UK truly multicultural" — and one subsidiary motivation was "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

Ministers, however, went to great lengths to keep their real intentions secret from the public — with, said Neather, a "paranoia" that these would reach the media — since they knew their core white working-class voters would react very badly.

Accordingly, a report about immigration by a government advisory unit, which formed the core of a landmark speech in 2000 announcing the loosening of border controls, went through several drafts before it was finally published — and the Government's true intentions about changing Britain into a multicultural society were removed from the final version.

After revealing all this, Neather subsequently tried to backtrack, saying that his views had been twisted out of all recognition by the media. They hadn't been.

Nevertheless, Jack Straw, who was Home Secretary at the time the immigration policy was changed, said he had read press reports of Neather's remarks with incredulity since they were "the reverse of the truth."

Now we know, however, that they were indeed the truth. We know this only because details of the advisory unit's report which were excised from the final published version — just as Neather said — have been emerging into the public domain through Freedom of Information requests.

The pressure group MigrationWatch obtained an early draft which revealed that the Government's intention was to encourage mass immigration for "social objectives" — in other words, to produce a more ethnically diverse society — but that on no fewer than six occasions this phrase was excised from the final version, published some three months later.

Now we further discover, from what was removed from seemingly another early draft, that the aim was not just to implement this policy of mass immigration without the knowledge or consent of the British people.

It was done in the full knowledge that the people actually wanted immigration reduced.

And we also discover that those who expressed such concerns were dismissed with utter contempt as racists — and it was further suggested that ministers should manipulate public opinion in an attempt to change people's attitudes.

Well, they have certainly tried to do that by hanging the disgusting label of "racism" round the neck of anyone who dares voice such concerns.

Thus the eminent and decent Labour MP Frank Field found himself smeared as a racist for daring to suggest that the rate of immigration should be reduced.

What bullying arrogance. The real prejudice is surely to believe that opposition to mass migration can never be based on any reasonable objection.

The implications of this covert policy are quite staggering. Ministers deliberately set out to change the cultural and ethnic identity of this country in secret.

They did this mainly because they hated what Britain was, a largely homogeneous society rooted in 1,000 years of history. They therefore set out to replace it by a totally new kind of multicultural society — and one in which the vast majority of newcomers could be expected to vote Labour.

They set out to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. They set out to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another "multicultural" identity in its place.

And they then had the gall to declare that to have love for or pride in that authentic British identity, and to want to protect and uphold it, was racist.

So the very deepest feelings of people for their country were damned as bigotry, for which crime they were to have their noses rubbed in mass immigration until they changed their attitudes.

What an appalling abuse of power. Yet even now they are denying that this is what they did. This week, the Immigration Minister Phil Woolas blustered that the advisory unit report had not been accepted by ministers at the time.

But the fact is that mass immigration actually happened. The only thing ministers hadn't accepted was that the truth about their intentions should be revealed to the public.

Surreally, Mr. Woolas further claims that the Government has brought immigration down.

But the reductions he is talking about have taken place on the separate issue of asylum. The impact of the Government's new points scheme upon the record rate of immigration growth has been negligible.

The truth is that these early drafts of the advisory unit's report have blown open one of the greatest political scandals of the Labour years. At no stage did Labour's election manifestos make any reference to a policy of mass immigration nor the party's aim of creating a multicultural society.

What we have been subjected to is a deliberate deception of the voters and a gross abuse of democracy.

There could scarcely be a more profound abuse of the democratic process than to set out to destroy a nation's demographic and cultural identity through a conscious deception of the people of that nation. It is an act of collective national treachery.

Now we face imminently another General Election. And now we know that in their hearts, Labour politicians hold the great mass of the public, many of them their own voters, in total contempt as racist bigots — all for wanting to live in a country whose identity they share.

There could hardly be a more worthy issue for the Conservative Party to leap upon. Yet their response is muted through their own visceral terror of appearing racist.

The resulting despair over the refusal of the mainstream parties to address this issue threatens to drive many into the arms of the truly racist British National Party.

If that happens, the fault will lie not just with Labour's ideological malice and mendacity, but with the spinelessness of an entire political class.


Melanie Phillips is a journalist and blogs at The Spectator.

She is author of "Londonistan," which describes how London became Islamicized. British authorities accomodate Muslims, their demands, their desire for shari'a law and their culture at the expense of English traditions and culture. "Londonistan" makes the point, in Tom Gross's words, that "many if not most members of Britain's governing class — its politicians, judges, intellectuals, journalists, church leaders, and even senior police — have turned right and wrong on their heads and encouraged Londonistan to develop." As the Muslim population grows, it becomes radicalized and -- again in Gross's words -- "Radical Islamists in Britain have already produced some of the organizers behind the Bali bombings and the beheading of Daniel Pearl, the 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui, the shoe-bomber Richard Reid, and suicide bombers that have murdered innocent Israelis, Iraqis and Indians. British-based terrorists have also been behind attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Russia."

Taken from - Middle East and Terrorism
http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2010/03/secret-plot-to-destroy-britains.html

Military humour.

Stolen from Oh What NOW, who found it on Daily Politics

A U.S. army platoon was marching north of Fallujah when they came upon an Iraqi insurgent, badly injured and unconscious on the left-hand side of the road.

On the right-hand side was a British soldier in a similar, but less serious state. The Brit was conscious and alert. As first aid was given to both men, the American platoon leader asked the injured soldier what had happened.

The soldier reported: “I was recce-ing the highway here when suddenly, coming towards me from the south was a heavily-armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road.

“I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein had been a miserable, lowlife scumbag who’d got what he deserved. The insurgent yelled back that Gordon Brown is a fat, useless, lying, one-eyed porridge wog. And furthermore, Lord Mandelson is a pillow-biting gay bastard!

“So I said that Osama Bin Laden dresses and ponces about like a frigid, hatchet-faced lesbian.
He retaliated by saying that so does Harriet Harman.

“And, there we were – in the middle of the road – shaking hands, when the f*****g bus hit us.”

I nicked it from here:

http://mrsrigbysays.blogspot.com/2010/03/military-humour.html

Morg
.

.

WHAT DOES IT FEEL LIKE TO BE TREATED LIKE CHILDREN?

.


Henry Porter serves up another reminder of just how much the UK is aping the defunct DDR.

The last days of this dreadful government are being accompanied by an attack on rights and privacy that seems unprecedented during Labour’s 13-year rule.
The government is now drawing up plans to amend the Postal Services Act to allow tax inspectors to intercept and open people’s mail before it is delivered. Given the state’s ambitions to collect all communications data this is hardly surprising, but we must ask ourselves how many more rights are seized by government and its agencies before Britain becomes the GDR’s most obvious European imitator.

Who would have thought, in the dying years of the 20th Century, that the United Kingdom would slide inexorably into acquiescent totalitarianism by the end of the first decade of the 21^st? Not by the gun, the bullet or the bomb; not by armed insurrection or war; but for the chiiiiilllldreeen, for health and safety – oh, yes, most certainly safety, for it is a human right these days to be safe. Safe from the monsters under the bed. Safe from the bad people who say things that might upset us. Safe from offence or, horror of horrors, lack of respect. Safe from things that might happen and we must all be controlled, just so that they don’t – even if they weren’t going to anyway; just to be sure. And we must be made safe from ourselves, because, like naughty children, we are too fat, too thin, eat too much salt, eat the wrong size chips – and too many of them, drink too much alcohol and smoke like a 19^th Century Blackburn mill. So we must be told what to eat, how much to eat, what we must not eat – and certainly, oh, most certainly, no tobacco, no alcohol and no mind-altering substances. We, the good little proles under the all-seeing all-benevolent eye of the brave New Labour project, must live forever in brain-dead tedium; our bodies temples of radiant health and fitness as dictated by our all-knowing, all-wise masters in Westminster, who know better than we what is in our best interests.

More:

http://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2010/03/27/henry-porter-on-hmrc-postal-snooping/

Morg
.

THE POSTER SENIOR TORIES DON'T WANT YOU SEE. MUTINY IN THE RANKS?

The Witney Poster Conservative central office doesn't want you to see

Tory central office would prefer you not to see this poster  Its from Cameron's own constituency where some disgruntled voters have printed and distributed this around the constituency.

Still think Our Dave will become prime minister?

Nicked from here:

http://henrynorthlondon.blogspot.com/2010/03/thw-witney-poster-conservative-central.html

Morg
.

What is UNISON's Dave Prentice on?

Morg
.

"HIDDEN" COMMUNISM IN WIGAN & LEIGH

CAP Leader Mr Peter Franzen

(Possibly)

I'm sure the vast majority of the Wigan and Leigh individual and certainly those of us who enjoy the odd vote now and again will be unawares of the sinister 'stealth' tactics used by the lurking local far-left organisations to embellish their own hidden and communistic agenda upon on us and more definately at this time of the political calendar with the up and coming local and general elections looming.

But, we here at the Wigan (and Leigh) Patriot are not that stupid to fall for this little charade and have been very much alerted to the covert tactics of such sinister organisations disguised as a political outlet to delude the local populace into thinking that the likes of the Community Action Party are indeed a respectable local and populist political establishment ready to stand up for the wants of the people? That is until you look further and deeper (just as we did) to the murky depths of the man at the helm of this group and see that he is nothing more than a cranked up British hating communist crackpot!

Mr Franzen who infamously attended a Wigan council chamber meeting (before losing his seat when the BNP stood in his ward - and we ravished his votes) wearing high shinned laced boots, combat trousers and a Che Guevara t-shirt and then went on and gave a Nazi salute to the sitting committee proves just how unstable this man actually is. But, as we see with many other would be not-so great egotistical socially inept 'socialists' - it only suits them when they want it to. And it seems that the teachings of "property is theft" has fallen on deaf ears with comrade Franzen.

Anyone travelling through the village of Golborne will see many a yellow poster in vacated property windows in the town bearing the words FOR SALE and the contact details of non-other than Mr P.FRANZEN. I am actually astounded that this gentleman with all his socialistic clout and commitment to the free world -workers of the world unite- no borders ideology hasn't even had the heart to offer these properties to the desperate and wanton asylum seeker or illegal immigrant that he so openly enthuses and demonstrates as being required to belong here?

Then of course we have the other local Trotsky 'commie' Knob and chum of comrade Franzen and someone whose been fully endorsed for his political beliefs by Georgie Boy -"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability"-Galloway: comrade Stephen Hall - Atherton Respect candidate!

Here's a little blast from the Mr Hall's CV:

Report by Stephen Hall
Published: 12/03/09

Comrades,

In the last few minutes I have been informed by Peter Franzen leader of the Community Action Party in Wigan, based on information provided to him by a prominent member of the SWP in Wigan, that BNP leader Nick Griffin is planning on speaking at a BNP Rally/Public Meeting at the Pure Night Club, Bridgewater Street, Leigh this Friday (13th March) at 7.30pm............................

BNP's Tony Ward interview:

It is an absolute must that we as BNP members and supporters get our messages out and across to the people and the very potential supporters of ours who may not be connected via the internet and ensure they are not hoodwinked by the ever desperate, British hating, communistc and muslim appeasing weak willed cowards!

In Manchester Respect and the Green Party have been able to agree a level of electoral cooperation..............In Salford the `Blears must go` campaign united broad forces drawing together a number of local organisations which had been working locally in defence of working class interests.............................Wigan has the unique position of having had a nominally left of Labour group of 18 councillors – the Community Action Party.This group has subsequently ‘split’ but the more progressive remaining Community Action Party members have responded positively to approaches from Respect to link up................Very soon after that, at a joint public meeting with Dave Nellist from the Socialist Party, Nahella Ashraf of the Socialist Workers Party and Alan Johnson of the Green Party – the Wigan, Leigh, & Makerfield ‘People’s Alliance’ was launched . Around a dozen candidates standing in the local elections (standing as CAP or People’s Charter) will be campaigning under the banner of the Peoples Alliance................

Demographics and Treachery

"Here’s a slightly innacurate but informative video on Demographics, remember this is all by design because whilst telling us we need more people they have been telling our womenfolk ‘it’s only cells’ and ‘it’s a very simple procedure’ since 1970, now slicing up 200,000 British babies per year.
7.2 million since 1970, there goes our workforce, most of these sliced up babies would by now have been raising their own families."

UAF DART THUGS - COLLEGE GREEN. CPS SAYS NO PROSECUTION.

.


So it appears like we are fair game as far as the "authorities" are concerned. Dart in the chest for a BNP man; hammer in the head for a BNP man. No prosecution in either case.

Take care out there.

Morg
.

MESSAGE FROM NICK GRIFFIN

Morg
.

BEDFORDSHIRE'S ISLAM APPEASEMENT

Surely this cannot be right. UK's Bedfordshire Police's rules regarding terrorists and dangerous criminals:

If they're non-Muslim

• Consider the most opportune time of day to be able to arrest suspects with minimum resistance.
• Apply all necessary force to enter the premises and arrest suspects accordingly.

If they're Muslim:

• Community leaders must be consulted before raids into Muslim houses.
• Officers must not search occupied bedrooms and bathrooms before dawn.
• Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises.
• Cameras and camcorders should not be used in case capturing women in inappropriate dress.
• If people are praying at home officers should stand aside and not disrupt the prayer. They should be allowed the opportunity to finish.
• Officers should take their shoes off before raiding a Muslim house.
• The reasons for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.
• Officers must not touch holy books or religious artefacts without permission.
• Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.

Does this not make a mockery of policing and true justice?

With this continuing appeasement, no wonder it's now predicted that Britain will become an Islamic state by 2070.

Time to think about your children.

http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/bedfordshires-islam-appeasement.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FWoLA+%28Fausty%27s+Libertarian+Blog%29

Morg
.

NICK GRIFFIN INTERVIEW

.
Iain Dale sits down with the leader of the British National Party and attempts to discover what the party stands for beyond images of anti-semitism, homophobia and racism

 ID: Do you regard your appearance on Question Time as a triumph or a disaster?

 NG: Neither. I wasn't pleased with my performance - the first half particularly. I'm not good defensively, even when I'm with journalists. I don't actually like soft interviews. If they ask: "What do you want to talk about?" I waffl e on, I ramble. I'm far better with a Paxman. Having said that, the response we've had since has been fantastic. It was a disaster for the powers that be and very beneficial for us.

 So it was a propaganda coup for you?

 Yes.

 You are often described as far-right but does the BNP have things in common with the far left, particularly in economic policy?

 You can't place us on the political spectrum. That's quite often been the case with nationalism. On traditional social things, we're on the old traditional right wing of the Conservative Party. On the other hand, on some economic things, on the railways, or natural monopolies, such as the Post Offi ce, we think they should remain in the hands of the state. So that puts us well on the left. We're certainly not state capitalists or Marxists.

 You present yourself as a moderniser. But a blog written by your legal officer Lee Barnes is all about how ethnic minorities and the Jews are awful. He reckons Britain is controlled by Zionists and their media puppets. There's just no way that if he's a national officer of the BNP, you can present the party as being anything other than obsessed by the usual issues.

 Lee is a very strange and complex character. He's also regarded by all of Britain's Nazis as a leading treacherous pro-Jewish liberal, who's taken control of the BNP.

 If he's liberal, I'd love to see someone who wasn't.

 Lee is one of the people who believes that if you say that there's a Zionist influence in Britain, that does not make you antisemitic. We've got Jewish members. We've got a Jewish council group leader.

 So some of your best friends are Jews... I see.

 Lee is one of the ones who has taken most flak from Britain's Nazis, as he's taken the anti-semitism out of the BNP. But he's still fiercely anti-Zionist.

 But if you say: 'Britain is controlled by Zionists and their media puppets,' there is only one way to read that. I would say that's a grotesque exaggeration. So you don't share any of those views at all?

 No.

 But you've allowed someone who's obsessed by Jewish issues to hold national office in the BNP.

 I do, yes. As I say, if you look at his blogs and his arguments with people in the round, you will see that he's one of the people who's taken the obsession with Jews out of the BNP. It was there. But he's one of the ones who've taken it out by putting it in context.

 Some years ago, you went on an all expenses paid trip to Libya. Has the BNP ever had money from Colonel Gadaffi?

 No, we didn't at the time. We got a big crate of green books, which promptly disappeared in customs, so we didn't actually get any.




But you were asking Gadaffi for money, weren't you?

 We were asking them for money if they were giving it, yes.

 You had no reservation about going to a government that supported terrorists, and asking them for financial support?
 We looked at Gadaffi's ideas. A lot of what was said about Gadaffi in all probability is propaganda.

 If the Equalities and Human Rights Commission hadn't forced you to accept black and Asian members, would you have got to that point yourselves?

 There was a long running debate within the party whether this would have to be done, or should be done. It had the potential to be very divisive. By forcing the issue, they certainly brought it forward by several years. But I think it would have happened anyway. Because it's been forced, it's united us. They've done us a favour.

 How many black and Asian people have applied or been accepted for membership so far?

 We've had several West Indian members for years.

 I thought it was against your constitution. You've been at great pains over the past few years to say you're not a racist party. But that clause in your constitution proves the opposite.

 It could be presented as proving the opposite, certainly. It's always been problematic in political terms. Superficially, it's a huge political albatross. I would say in effect, possibly. In public perception, definitely. But in terms of its intention, not. And its intention really comes from two things. Firstly, in certain parts of the country, South London say, with young, second and third generation West Indians, where they're a lawless menace to everyone around them. Or in Northern mill towns with Muslim gangs preying on white and Sikh girls and lads of other communities. It's just a fact. In Northern towns, you're dealing with dozens of families with 13 and 14-year-old daughters, who have been, and are being, gang raped by Muslims, so it's precisely that. But this isn't a rape issue, this is a cultural issue.

 Do you believe gang rape is Islamic?
 "These women are lawful to you, those who your right arm can own." It's in the Koran time and time again. [This quote is not in the Koran.]

 Surely, you don't believe that moderate Muslims believe that?

 Moderate Muslims don't interpret it like that. But there is a young, street punk Islam that does believe precisely that, and that's what the ones who are funding most of the madrasas believe. The Saudis believe that too.

 If your son brought home an Asian girlfriend, what would your reaction be?

 Much the same reaction as I know many Sikhs and West Indians would give, which is: "I'm not comfortable with this and you need to both really think about it because you've both got two different bloodlines and two different cultures and when you mix them up you destroy both of them."

 Human emotion doesn't count?

 Sure, absolutely. It's not the business of a political party to try to interfere in affairs of the heart, which is something we've enshrined as a definite statement in the new constitution. From a moral point of view, we believe that massive integration and mixing is bad because it's destructive of human cultures. We actually believe in a bizarre way we are the only genuine multiculturalists.

 Excuse me, while I recover from that remark.

 I understand why liberals can misunderstand what we think. People need to take a step back. Human diversity is being wiped out at a rate which is not happening with any other species. Every ecologist ought to be jumping up and down about it, saying: "This is wrong." Sting should be doing benefit gigs. Humanity as a whole has to come up with antidotes, to the homogenising ideology of left-liberalism and the homogenising effects, cultural effects, of world capitalism. Because otherwise we are going to end up all the same, all mixed up, no history, no future, no separate cultures. I think that's bad.

 Let's talk about BNP policies. There's a common theme about how globalisation is wicked, and how it is really damaging society, damaging the economy, and all the rest of it. Doesn't trying to resist globalisation make you look like King Canute?

 No, I don't think so. Everyone is going to very soon find out that globalisation is going to go into a reverse in any case. Because globalisation is fundamentally based on almost free transport, which is based on almost free energy. And because we have used up almost half the world's oil - there is plenty left - but from here on it gets more expensive. The economic business model of China is making things with near slave labour, and shipping them here almost free. Undercutting Western industries is actually a badly flawed business model because it ain't going to get here free anymore. Fuel prices are going to go through the roof the moment the world economy begins to recover.

 Can you clarify something about climate change? On your website, it says: "The BNP accepts that climate change, of whatever origin, is a threat to Britain. Current evidence suggests that some of it may be man-made; even if this is not the case, then the principle of 'better safe than sorry' applies."
 Good lord, I will shoot someone for that. It's clearly dated. Climate change does happen, no doubt. But the climate is always changing. I think that website stuff was written about three years ago. The whole thing is a hoax.

 You have this notion of going back to the 19th century and wanting to impose tariffs on lots of things, which would mean some products would double in price.

 Sure, what we're looking at with the redrafting of this is to say, it has to be far more nuanced, that it has to be done over a period of time.

Your core vote, I imagine, is the white working class, not very well-off. This is going to hit them.

That's why it has to be done in a very steady, slow and nuanced fashion. As long as it's creating proper jobs and helping in a rather more closed economy, it's helping to raise the tax base. It's helping families to help themselves not being forced to be a burden on the state. It's going to be a benefit.

 What about another one which would hit the same group of people, increasing VAT?

 We've never said we're increasing VAT.

 I think you'll find you have.

 We believe the Labour Party and the Tories without a shadow of a doubt would increase VAT. We know they're going to increase VAT to 20 per cent after this election, and put it on food in harmonisation with Europe so it's coming anyway, and that's wrong. I'm sure we haven't said we'll increase VAT.

 You need to read your own literature. How would you cut the national debt?

 By stopping bailing out the banks because they've crippled themselves. They should all go to the wall. And we should simply pick up the pieces. That would stop it getting that much worse.

 RBS, the Bank of Scotland, Lloyds - you'd have let them all go down the pan?
 We'd have let them all go down the pan. And then we'd have nationalised all the assets and turned it into a national reconstruction bank so that where people are still paying mortgages and all the rest, there would be money coming in. We'd have looked after the shareholders and written everybody else off.

 But what about national debt?

 We would get it down. It's safe to assume there'd be a great reluctance of the assorted financial institutions around the world to lend money to a BNP government, although generally they lend to everybody, don't they?

 At a price.

 Well, there's a profit to be had, so they certainly would do. We would deal with the fact that we're getting into debt more and more by not being in the European Union.

 I still haven't heard what you would do in the next two years to address the huge level of borrowing that we now have.

 We would set about eliminating all the sectors of the politically correct servile state that we possibly could, which goes well beyond translators and all the rest of it. We are in a terrible hole. Things have got to be fairly drastic to deal with it. For instance, health and safety inspectors in restaurants, we pay a fortune for them.

 That would save a pathetic amount.

 It isn't made up of a couple of huge sums, this expenditure. It's across the board. It's an example.

 How would you reform the benefits system?

 By recreating a proper hard industrial base in this country to create real, decent, well paid jobs. That would raise the overall wage rates up and make it worth people's while working so they could afford to work. There are people all around the country who genuinely can't afford to work. It's madness. Once there's work out there that is decently paid and people can take it. If they don't take it and they're fit to work, they can starve.

 What about Britain's role in the world?
 We'd stop fighting any more of these stupid wars pretending we're a world policeman. No Iran war, which is coming. All the last bits out of Iraq, and end the Afghan war immediately. We're a bankrupt third rate nation now.

 That's not very patriotic of you. I'd have thought that standing up to Iran would actually have been something you'd approve of.
 No, the Saudi Arabians want us to stand up to Iran because they want to take out their rivals. The Saudi pressure on the old Iranian regime was enormous. No, it's nothing to do with us.

If we withdrew from Afghanistan, wouldn't that be admitting defeat to Al-Qaeda?

 No, because we're not fighting Al-Qaeda. We're fighting Afghan peasants and they've always beaten everyone. Of course we're going to lose. We can't win in Afghanistan. Even the Soviet Union couldn't win there. The only way you could win there is if you nuked it, which can't be done.

 How can you fight Al-Qaeda then?

 You can stop any more young Muslims pouring into Britain for a start because we weren't bombed by Afghan peasants on 7 July.

 You can't tar them with the same brush.

 We were bombed by people who we, locally in the area, had pointed out to the police several years before as being radical and involved in paramilitary training in the woods. We weren't bombed by Afghan peasants.

 But these Muslims who perpetrated the 7/7 bombings, they grew up in this country - they weren't immigrants. They were born here. That rather defeats the argument: "Don't allow any more Muslims in."

 No, but that's a start. We're not going to be attacked by Afghan peasants. Does Al-Qaeda as such even really exist, as opposed to it being just an ideological trend? It's a means on the internet more than anything else. These people don't need a guiding hand. It's a bit like the old anti-semitic crazies with the elders of Zion. They never existed. Likewise, obviously Bin Laden existed - probably is still alive - but the young Muslims that probably make up ten per cent of Britain's immigrant population who are fanatically pro Al- Qaeda and Jihad, they don't need guidance from a man in a cave. They're going to destroy your society one way or another and they've got various ways to do it and they're going to do it.

 The BNP has always had this reputation of being anti-Jewish. What's your view on Israel and does it have the right to self-determination?

 Yes, we've changed the position very radically from being knee-jerk support of the Palestinians, not solely from an antisemitic point of view, also sympathy. These are a people whose ancestral land has been taken away by recent arrivals.

 Would you say in the past the BNP has been anti-semitic?

 Yes, [John] Tyndall and others were extremely anti-semitic. Part of that was in a way just a historical quirk. You've got to understand the people who created that movement. You had a hugely disproportionate number of people serving in the Palestine police. There were loads in the 1970s - you couldn't go to a branch meeting without finding someone that worked within the Palestine police. And they had a pretty rough time from the Stern Gang and so forth, and that coloured everything. It's taken years to turn that around to a sensible position which is where I think we are now. Israel is now in the front line of a civilisational war, which shouldn't have happened, between the West and Islam.

 In the interview you did with Andrew Marr last year you said that you found Mein Kampf very dull but enjoyed one chapter of it. Which chapter was that?

 That was the chapter on propaganda - that was interesting.

 In what way?

 Because it's a long time since I read it, I can't remember it. The only thing I can remember is repetition. But I suppose perhaps the Nazis were ahead of their time in now standard advertising techniques...it's irrelevant really.

 How do you react to being called a fascist?

 We're not fascist. If fascism is defined in its proper sense, it's about worship of the state or of a man that personifies the state. Our tradition is very much in the British tradition of limited government with checks and balances and so on.

 You could have fooled me. Half your policy programme involves a larger state.

 We're not fascist in that regard. It's about a close, almost incestuous relationship, between the state and the corporations. It's corporate fascism. The Thatcherite, Blairite PFI - that's fascist. Another defining factor of fascism is the use of political violence as a political weapon against your opponents. And we're the victims of a Marxist fascism - we do not practise or want to practise violence against anyone else.

 Apart from throwing journalists out of press conferences...
 Apart from throwing out lying journalists when they're asked. I've been instructed that the fellow that quite gleefully grabbed his nose and twisted it shouldn't be put on duties like that anymore, because that was over the top. But the journalist was still breaking the law and he was removed with the minimum force necessary.

 Why is the BNP so anti-gay?

 We're not drastically anti-gay. We were, but it was just a reflection of white working class culture of the 70s. It's unfamiliar, it's odd and I'm afraid it is creepy. Grown men kissing in public is creepy to most people. You don't often see it. But if you do see it, it's not a matter of homophobia. It's odd and you have to explain it to little kids - that's strange. We're not anti-gay. I took over a party which had a total ban on homosexual members. We've got gay members now and people know who they are, but it's 'don't ask, don't tell'.

 When did you stop denying the Holocaust?

 I've never actually denied the Holocaust. I've said some terribly rude things about it and the way it's exploited.

 You said: "It's well known that chimneys from the buildings at Auschwitz are fake."

 Ah, but I also said in the piece that huge numbers of Jews were persecuted or murdered by the Nazis and their allies just because they were Jewish in one of the great crimes of the twentieth century. To deny the Holocaust is presumably to say that no one was killed, that the camps didn't exist. Obviously that would be nonsense.

 Do you believe six million Jews were killed?

 That's the same old problem. I genuinely cannot discuss it with you because European law forbids it.

 That's bollocks.

 It's not bollocks. European law....

 What you're saying then is you don't believe six million were killed.

 There are defence lawyers in Germany in prison now because they've explained in court what their client said.

 It's a simple enough question. You either believe that six million Jews died in the Holocaust or you don't.

 The Holocaust happened.

 But you're not willing to say that six million Jews died?
 Precisely six million?

 Around six million - that's the accepted number by historians.

 I don't think that there should be any restrictions on historical inquiry. Nor should it be an offence to be wrong. But since it is an offence to be wrong - it's an offence to discuss what I used to believe or even the extent to which I've changed my mind - and I have done. I really can't talk about it.

 You can talk about it to the extent that you can say whether or not you believe that around six million Jews died.

 I can't tell you because it's - look, I'm not going to be interrupted and left with something that I've said that I wasn't...

 This won't be edited.

 I suppose I can tell you that the reasons for my doubts were, specifically with the six million figure. The problem was the way it was used as a moral club to prevent any sensible debate about immigration. That's the issue. It's nothing to do with anti-semitism or anything. And there's been people, including Jews and former concentration camp inmates, who've said that aspects of this history have been exaggerated and so on. So that's the base line. When I was at school, the figure of six million was made up of four million murdered at Auschwitz and two million murdered elsewhere. That's six million.

 Well, that's not true.

 That was the fact as presented to people in the 1970s. Then it emerged that the authorities of Auschwitz downgraded the scale of the murders there from four million to a still shattering and appalling 1.1 million. So you're 2.9 million short.

 There were lots of other death camps, not just Auschwitz.

 No, the figure of six million came from the idea that in all the other death camps and elsewhere, two million died and in Auschwitz there were four million gassed and cremated - that's where the figure was made up from. Take the noughts off. If you have six and take away 2.9, do you still have six?

 No one would say where they came from. All they would do is persecute anyone who said six, take away 2.9, does not equal six. They were put in prison, beaten, had their houses firebombed, driven from their jobs. That greatly offended me and made me take up the issue of their behalf. But what I will say now is I believe that the evidence that came from British intelligence of German operations behind the lines on the Eastern front makes it quite possible to believe that a million people were shot to death on anti-partisan warfare, mainly as hostages and that the Germans, naturally enough, didn't pick white Russian or Belarussian peasants, who were quite often on their side. They picked the local Jewish community because most of the partisans were Jewish, which again you can't really be surprised about, as it's one of these cycles of horror. So therefore, you are no longer missing the 2.9. You are missing nearly two million. That's all. It would be interesting to be told where they come from. But because the powersthat- be are so convinced that it's true and have passed laws to say that it's true, and because it is irrelevant and because it's deliberately misunderstood, anyone who questions this is held up as anti-semitic. Whereas, it's nothing to do with antisemitism at all. It's about the rights of free speech, or the right of the states and powerful vested interest groups, to prevent free speech. That's what it's actually about. But because everyone's misunderstood or it leads one to jail, I have no doubt whatsoever that the others, the missing ones, must have been there so clearly the six million figure is correct.

 Can you think of one positive aspect of immigration?

 Well, a wide range of curries is a plus. But there again, I've got the recipes.

 The reason I ask that is when you look across the range of policies you outline on your website, almost every one you look at - and you demonstrated it earlier with the environmental stuff - leads back to immigration.

 It's a fair summary of the situation, as all things are interconnected. Secondly, it's a failing of ours and a failing of quite a lot of our writers, as they are all virtually untrained and virtually all volunteers. They write about things with their own glasses and perspectives on. We'd be better as a propaganda machine if we did have it separated out and even where you could see a connection we didn't point to it. But we're not a spin party.

 Even though you like the spin chapter in Mein Kampf so much. In your 2005 manifesto you said: "We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land's population burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home." What does "firm" mean and what does "home" mean, because they are quite difficult to define?

 Firm would mean that certainly in the case of serious criminals and illegals and people whose right to work was removed. For instance, when we left the European Union, there wouldn't be a choice about it. They would have to go.

 Where?

 If we are talking about the Eastern Europeans, who have got the right to come here, it is obvious where home is. With most people, it is clear where they have come from. If people have entered this country and torn their documents up, then even if they have been granted asylum, they shouldn't have been, and we would reverse that.

 But if you don't know where they have come from, you can't return them there.

 If you want to, you can virtually find out which village they come from in Africa with DNA tests. Someone has got to take them. But their presence here isn't fair. And it is not legal.

 Just because you want to send them somewhere, doesn't mean that the state you want to send them to has to accept them. What do you do if they say no?

 Well... we'll find some silly European liberal state which will happily take them. Someone will take them.

 You reckon?

 Yes, someone will take them.

 "Firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home..." Is that policy still your policy now?

 Yes, broadly so. Let's reword the bit in the case of ones who have no right to be here. It would be firm. It wouldn't be brutal, it would be firm. In the case of people who have come here legally, who are integrated into our society, we would say: "Look it is on the table. If you want to take it, you can take it."

 There are about 5.5 million British people who have emigrated or are working abroad. Do you think that the countries in which they live should encourage them to return here?

 That is up to them. That's their right. We have African leaders all over Southern Africa, begging Britain to stop poaching our NHS staff. They use them as cheap labour. They often aren't up to the skill levels that are the best that we can produce. Once they have been here, if we could say to those countries: "Here is money for infrastructure and so on. We will help you with foreign aid because you will have a larger population." We would use it partly to undo some of the damage that mass immigration has caused.

http://www.totalpolitics.com/magazine_detail.php?id=809

Morg
.

Terror threat questioned by committee

New labour has claimed that every year since 2001 the UK has faced a "Public Emergency" every year .

"Since September 11th 2001 the Government has continuously justified many of its counter-terrorism measures on the basis that there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. We question whether the country has been in such a state for more than eight years. "

"This permanent state of emergency inevitably has a deleterious effect on public debate about the justification for counter-terrorism measures. ..."

"The question is, are the counterterror measures we have in place justifiable, on an ongoing basis, in light of the most up to date information we have.

"The idea that we have consistently faced an emergency level threat for over eight years since September 11 is, we believe, questionable."

Now unless your talking about the man made flood in Cumbria last year and the closing down of vast swathes of the UK due to the last winter, I can't particularly remember any other "Public Emergency".

The Governments latest claim of a threat to the UK by Islamists with a Nuclear "Dirty Bomb" now begins to resemble the scaremongering that is a New Labour trait.
Keep them (the public) so scared that they will accept Totalitarian rule in the Guise of the Civil Contingencies Act.

Now the Government need certain events to happen, like acts of Terror, Civil Unrest, Racial Unrest acts of which the EDL and UAF have not quite managed to pull off, though the authorities have tried to inflame the situation, check out the EDL/UAF demo outside Parliament, where both sets of demonstrators were herded and corralled next to each other with only small roadside barriers seperating them. An aside from this is the fact that all protests or demos outside Parliament were banned by New Labour years ago. What was the exception for this demo ?

The only threat this country faces is from New Labour. Every Terrorist act commited in this country can be placed fairly and squarely at the doors of Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Straw, Harman etc.

How can you trust known TRAITORS ?

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

.

 

February 1688/9 Day Tuesday 12

 

• Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

• By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament; By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;
• By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;
• By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;
• By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
• By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
• By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;
• By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;
• And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;
• And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;
• And excessive fines have been imposed;
• And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;
• And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;
• All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

• That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
• That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
• That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
• That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
• That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
• That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
• That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
• That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
• That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
• That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
• That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
• That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
• And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.
Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.
And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.
"I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God."
"I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God."

 

It is ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons now assembled at Westminster that this Declaration be ingrossed in Parliament and inrolled among the rolls of Parliament and Recorded in Chancery.
                                                                                            

 

Day 15 February 1688.

His majesties Gracious answer to the Declaration of both houses.

My Lords and Gentlemen

This is certainly the greatest proof of the trust that you have in us that can be given which is the thing that maketh us value it the more and we thankfully accept what you have offered. And as I had no other intention of coming hither than to preserve your Religion, Laws and Liberties so you may be sure that I shall endeavour to support them and shall be willing to concur in anything that shall be for the good of the Kingdom and to do all that is in my power to advance the welfare and glory of the nation.

Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal assembled at Westminster That his Majesties Gracious answer to the Declaration of both houses and the Declaration be forth with printed and published and that his Majesties Gracious Answer this day be added to the engrossed Declaration in Parliament to be Enrolled in Parliament and Chancery.

http://www.tpuc.org/node/292 

Morg

.