A HISTORIC MEETING

Last night we had a meeting which will go down in the annals of nationalist history locally and even possibly nationally.

Our bulletin, put out by our new organiser had in it the information that there would possibly be a leadership challenge this summer. The bulletin was written ten days ago and we had no idea of the events it would provoke.
In it our organiser stated that Richard Edmonds, a long standing patriot would stand for leadership for a year in order to institute a constitution more acceptable to members and an organisation which had more prospects of success than the one we now have.

I and my fellow members did not realise the consternation our little bulletin would have given the Party hierarchy.

Possibly when the North West organiser invited himself to speak at our meeting we should have been forewarned.

On arrival we were rather taken aback by the presence of the National Treasurer and Nominating officer together with two other "high ups" in the party.

The subject for discussion was what we could do to progress the Party and how to build on past successes and that some of us thought a new leader would improve our chances.

This idea/ concept it seems was a red rag to a bull and we were unprepared for the passion at the meeting.

Some of the senior officials were annoyed that ex senior activists and party workers who had been expelled for voicing opinions which differed from the official view were present.
These people had for years been on our "invites list" and remained there in spite of their expulsion. We have had a long history working along side them and saw no reason not to invite them because of their differences with the Party bosses.

We invite many people who are not members and ask them to bring friends (it's no use to always preach to the converted) and we need new and old blood together if we are to progress.

Our organiser gave a short speech after which I had my little input.
I was concerned to highlight where I thought we were going wrong and to seek a way to progress.

Everybody there was a true nationalist but factionalism over the past year has caused a split in nationalism and my aim was to bring these strands together, heal the wounds and form a united front against the dangers facing our country.
If we could achieve this we would be a really strong force in the salvation of our country.

Unfortunately, as I suspected when I saw the presence of senior officials I realised the meeting could become somewhat volatile. The senior party members seem to think they have the monopoly on the truth and although decent people, appear to want to run the Party in a dictatorial manner.

WE IN WIGAN & LEIGH HAVE A HISTORY OF STANDING UP FOR OUR RIGHTS, and we see no reason to change now.

We will not be dictated to and vague threats make us all the more determined.

After all we are in the BNP because we are free thinking people and nobody tells us what to do.

Our crime was, I think the suggestion that we need a new leader and it seems this is frowned upon and can even result in suspension or expulsion.

I can assure those who dislike us that nationalism is alive, well and thriving in our area but I have to admit we have our differences (like family members or those on football teams).
These are only temporary and we will get over them and my job as I see it is to try to unite the various strands of patriotic opinion into a formidable fighting force.

We all believe in the same basic principles and can and must stick together against those who seek to destroy our country (the major parties, media, bankers etc) and we will.

I was proud to be the first in the country(I think ) to announce our new preferred candidate for leader, Andrew Brons.

Andrew is a gentleman, cultured, polite, well read but perhaps not so good an orator as our present leader.
He will I think connect with the voting public better and will institute a more open and democratic party structure.

My announcement was not expected from the senior party members and of course they will oppose Andrew, as is to be expected from those who have hitched their waggon to Nick Griffin and will possibly lose their position if he is replaced.
I don't think they were exactly overjoyed by my revelation, but then that's democracy.

Whether Andrew can get in is another matter in view of the biased party structure which favours the leader and the vested interests that depend on his remaining leader.

This is not to decry Nick Griffin, just that I/we think Andrew Brons will make us more electable and a stronger force in British politics.

Personalities are unimportant, it is influence and ultimately power that counts and to that end we shall continually strive as we must if we are to rescue our country from the thieves and incompetents which now run it.

WE WILL PREVAIL AS A MOVEMENT WHATEVER HAPPENS.

Sorry to be a Jeremiah::

In 2009, the highest number of citizenships granted in the EU was by the United Kingdom (204 000 persons)

There is much in the media these days about immigration and many of the articles discuss just how concerned our government is about this, we see headlines stating that the government is going to crack down hard and that immigration will be reduced drastically..Here are just a few links -

Tens of thousands of migrants will be barred from settling in the...

UK Immigration: Government Unveils Plans To Restrict Permanent Settlement By Breaking The...

Migration settlement cuts planned

All good stuff you may well say, well one statistic amongst many that are not overly publicized is the following.


Eurostat news release 10/6/11

In 2009, the highest number of citizenships were granted by the United Kingdom (204 000 persons),

France (136 000) and Germany (96 000), which together accounted for more than half of all citizenships granted by the EU27 Member States.

And that's not the whole story:-

The number of citizenship's granted can be related to the number of resident foreigners i.e. non-nationals resident in the Member State. The highest rates were registered in Portugal (5.8 citizenships granted per 100 resident foreigners), Sweden (5.3), Poland and the United Kingdom (both 4.8), and the lowest rates in the Czech Republic (0.3), Lithuania and Slovakia (both 0.5). On average, 2.4 citizenships were granted per 100 resident foreigners in the EU27.

The United Kingdom is in the top end of the league again - what a surprise.

Here is the rest of the table :-

Acquisition of citizenship in the EU27, 2009

	Total number of citizenships acquired in thousands Citizenships acquired per: 2008 2009 100 resident foreigners* 1 000 inhabitants
EU27	698.6	776.1	2.4	1.6
Belgium	37.7	32.8	3.2	3.0
Bulgaria	7.1	9.2	:	1.2
Czech Republic	1.2	1.1	0.3	0.1
Denmark	6.0	6.9	2.1	1.2
Germany	94.5	96.1	1.3	1.2
Estonia	2.1	1.7	0.8	1.2
Ireland	3.2	4.5	0.9	1.0
Greece	16.9	17.0	1.8	1.5
Spain	84.2	79.6	1.4	1.7
France	137.3	135.8	3.6	2.1
Italy	53.7	59.4	1.5	1.0
Cyprus	3.5	4.1	3.2	5.1
Latvia	4.2	3.2	0.8	1.4
Lithuania	0.3	0.2	0.5	0.1
Luxembourg	1.2	4.0	1.9	8.1
Hungary	8.1	5.8	3.1	0.6
Malta	0.6	0.8	4.5	2.0
Netherlands	28.2	29.8	4.1	1.8
Austria	10.3	8.0	0.9	1.0
Poland	1.8	2.5	4.8	0.1
Portugal	22.4	25.6	5.8	2.4
Romania	5.6	9.4	:	0.4
Slovenia	1.7	1.8	2.5	0.9
Slovakia	0.5	0.3	0.5	0.0
Finland	6.7	3.4	2.4	0.6
Sweden	30.5	29.5	5.3	3.2
United Kingdom	129.3	203.6	4.8	3.3
Iceland	0.9	0.7	3.0	2.3
Liechtenstein	0.3	0.1	:	2.9
Norway	10.3	11.4	3.8	2.4
Switzerland	44.4	43.4	2.6	5.6
Croatia	7.6	5.3	:	1.2
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	1.1	0.8	:	0.4
Turkey	6.0	8.1	:	0.1

* Data on foreign population are not available or fully comparable for Bulgaria, Romania, Liechtenstein, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey.

: Data not available

Largest groups acquiring citizenship in the EU27 Member States, 2009

	Largest group Second largest group Third largest group Fourth largest group Previous citizens of % Previous citizens of % Previous citizens of % Previous citizens of %
EU27*	Morocco	7.7	Turkey	6.7	India	4.0	Ecuador	3.6
BE	Morocco	24.2	Turkey	8.4	Italy	5.6	Dem. Republic of Congo	5.0
BG	Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia	47.9	Moldova	29.1	Serbia	5.9	Israel	5.2
CZ	Ukraine	43.7	Slovakia	12.0	Russia	5.9	Poland	5.0
DK	Iraq	17.6	Afghanistan	11.6	Turkey	7.6	Stateless*	6.7
DE	Turkey	25.6	Iraq	5.3	Serbia	4.3	Poland	4.0
EE	Recognised non-citizen3	93.2	Russia	5.2	Ukraine	1.2	Lithuania	0.2
IE	Nigeria	10.0	Philippines	9.1	India	7.4	South Africa	6.9
EL	Albania	83.9	Georgia	3.2	Russia	2.4	Turkey	1.0
ES	Ecuador	32.3	Colombia	20.7	Morocco	8.4	Peru	8.0
FR	Morocco	19.2	Algeria	15.2	Tunisia	6.8	Turkey	6.8
IT	Albania	16.0	Morocco	15.3	Romania	4.6	Tunisia	3.5
CY	Greece	9.1	Russia	7.9	Ukraine	5.7	United Kingdom	5.3
LV	Recognised non-citizen3	95.6	Russia	1.7	Ukraine	1.3	Stateless*	0.4
LT	Stateless*	52.2	Russia	28.6	Ukraine	11.8	Belarus	5.4
LU	Portugal	30.9	Italy	9.0	Germany	8.0	France	6.9
HU	Romania	65.6	Serbia and Montenegro**	11.6	Ukraine	9.6	Belarus	2.2
MT	Australia	38.2	United Kingdom	12.6	Canada	5.1	South Africa	4.7
NL	Morocco	18.5	Turkey	14.0	Suriname	3.8	Iraq	2.3
AT	Serbia	20.5	Bosnia and Herzegovina	18.3	Turkey	15.6	Croatia	5.5
PL	Ukraine	35.0	Belarus	14.3	Russia	6.5	Armenia	3.2
PT	Cape Verde	19.4	Brazil	14.5	Moldova	10.7	Guinea Bissau	8.4
RO	Moldova	67.2	Stateless*	22.0	Ukraine	1.4	Israel	1.4
SI	Bosnia and Herzegovina	27.2	Serbia	15.2	Croatia	11.0	Italy	10.5
SK	Ukraine	29.4	Czech Republic	18.3	Serbia	16.4	Hungary	6.5
FI	Russia	30.1	Somalia	8.5	Iraq	6.1	Afghanistan	5.4
SE	Iraq	10.8	Finland	8.2	Thailand	4.5	Turkey	4.1
UK	India	13.0	Pakistan	10.3	Bangladesh	5.9	Philippines	5.8
IS	Poland	21.0	Philippines	14.6	Serbia	10.4	Vietnam	7.0
LI	Turkey	32.0	Switzerland	27.2	Austria	9.7	Serbia and Montenegro**	7.8
NO	Somalia	15.2	Iraq	11.1	Afghanistan	7.5	Iran	6.9
CH	Serbia and Montenegro**	20.4	Italy	11.1	Germany	9.3	Turkey	6.0
HR	Bosnia and Herzegovina	48.4	Serbia	9.7	Australia	6.7	Chile	4.1
MK	Serbia	39.6	Albania	22.8	Austria	5.6	Turkey	4.3

* A stateless person is someone who is not recognized as a citizen of any State

** Data refer to Serbia & Montenegro, which existed between 2003 and 2006

• Citizenship is the legal bond between an individual and a state, acquired by birth, naturalisation or other means according to national legislation. Naturalisation is the process by which a state grants its citizenship through a formal act on the application of the individual concerned. Other ways of granting citizenship may include spouses of nationals, minors adopted by nationals and descendants of nationals born abroad returning to the country of origin of their ancestors.

 The largest numbers coming into the UK are NON EU citizens and the above numbers do not appear to take into account the number of EU citizens that enter the UK.

Immigrants are still flooding in and despite all the rhetoric it would appear that the government is not going to do much about it at all - there is no evidence that they are implementing any measures that are effective in reducing or stopping the thousands coming into the UK each week.

We must also remember that the above table shows the numbers that are granted citizenship, the numbers entering the country either legally or illegally will be in addition to those being granted citizenship

This paragraph is very interesting

The number of citizenship's granted can be related to the number of resident foreigners i.e. non-nationals resident in the Member State. The highest rates were registered in Portugal (5.8 citizenships granted per 100 resident foreigners), Sweden (5.3), Poland and the United Kingdom (both 4.8), and the lowest rates in the Czech Republic (0.3), Lithuania and Slovakia (both 0.5). On average, 2.4 citizenships were granted per 100 resident foreigners in the EU27.

Therefore the UK has granted 4.8 citizenship,s per 100 immigrants - the UK has granted a total of 204 ,000, hence 204,000 is 4.8% of the total number of immigrants in the UK which makes the total number of immigrants approximately 5,000,000 roughly double what the government figures say

The above calculation is very basic and I would suggest that the 5 million mark is low

Blatantly nicked from here

http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/

Morg
.