Sunday, 29 January 2012

Are Our Children Safe? An Investigation Of Politics & Suicide Risks - Brian Gerrish

UK riots: paratroopers are trained in riot control


British troops are being trained in riot control tactics amid fears that violence and looting will return to Britain's streets this summer.

Hundreds of soldiers from 3rd battalion The Parachute Regiment spent last week learning how to contain and arrest "rioters" in a series of exercises mirroring last summers violence.

Defence sources have confirmed that if violence were to return to British cities, especially during the Olympic Games, the Paras would be "ideally placed" to provide "short-term" support to police forces around the UK.

Such a request would have to be made by the Home Office and would have to have Prime Ministerial approval, according to the source.

During the exercises at the Lydd training base in Kent, the elite troops were pelted with petrol bombs and missiles and "fought" running battles with gangs of protesters as part of the battalion's "public order training".

The battalion is the lead unit in the Airborne Task Force - the Army's premier rapid response unit and can be called on to deal with a wide range of emergency situations - from hostage rescue to riot control - around the world.

Sources have stressed however that being riot-trained does not necessarily mean the Paras will be deployed onto British street in the event of future wide-scale public disorder; instead the move was described as "prudent contingency planning".

There is not understood to have been a specific request from the Home Office or police for the training to be carried out.

The riot training could be used if soldiers were called in to evacuate British nationals or embassies in the face of public disorder in a foreign country.

In the past, riot training was carried out by all troops deploying to Northern Ireland where public disturbances were commonplace. But those skills have been lost following the withdrawal of troops from the streets of the province.

But it is understood that commanders of units likely to be deployed into public order environments have been must have troops ready to be able to deal with all military and civil emergencies.

As well as 3 Para, the Army has another unit known as the "Public Order Battalion", also trained to deal with rioting, bringing the total number of troops to around 1500.

During last week's training package soldiers were taught how to use body-length use riots shields, protect themselves from missiles and how to identify and arrest "ring leaders' using specially trained "snatch squads".

Troops were trained into how to work as teams armed with body-length shields in driving back hostile crowds. The exercise culminated in a full scale riot with fellow soldiers acting as aggressors.

Major Richard Todd, the officer commanding A Coy 3 Para, said: "Learning how to deal with public order situations is a new skill for on a challenging and extremely realistic course.

"Many of the drills are no different to what the Roman Army used to do, with highly disciplined soldiers advancing forward under the protection of shields.

"The key to dealing with large, hostile crowds is control and knowing when and how to react to what is happening in front of you.

"This training is about getting soldiers used to facing a high pressure situation so they don't overreact if they have to face it for real."

Private Peter Harrington, 19, who was also taking part in the exercise added: "It is scary to have petrol bombs thrown at you and really gets the adrenaline going.

"I've had the experience of it now and learnt that dealing with public order incidents is all about looking out for each other and keeping a cool head."

Last summer's rioting was sparked by the police shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham. The violence quickly spread across London and to other cities where police attacked with fire bombs, shops were looted and businesses burnt to the ground.

The violence, which saw home owners being forced to jump from burning buildings, led to calls for the Army to be deployed on to the streets to support the police.

One senior source said: "The police couldn't cope with last year's riots and the Army came very close to being deployed.

"All of the Army's riot equipment was in Scotland at the time and that created a time delay but lessons from that have been learnt. The Army could have deployed but it would have been only marginally quicker than the police.

"Soldiers would have powers of arrest and would be entitled to defend themselves using minimum force. It is unlikely they would be armed but that would be an option if the situation deteriorated.

"They would almost certainly deploy with baton rounds, which are discriminate and, if used correctly, non-lethal."

The riots were the were the worst for a generation and caused over £300m of damage. Hundreds of shops and warehouses were looted as gangs of youth organised attacks via twitter and other social media sites.

The number and spontaneity of the riots often meant that police from forces across the country, but especially in London, were stretched to the limit and in some cases unable to cope.

Local residents were forced to form vigilante groups to protect their communities after confidence in the police evaporated.


"Local residents were forced to form vigilante groups to protect their communities"

Unless they were from the Indigenous community and then the Police went in in full force against them whilst the New Brits were allowed to arm themselves openly on the streets.

But we in the Nationalist community have been warning you all that the Troops will end up being deployed on the streets of Britain to stop the IMMIGRANTS (New Brits) from doing just as they please as the now PRIVATE POLICE FORCES will not, due to orders from the TRAITORS IN PARLIAMENT, go in full force against our replacements.


Saturday, 28 January 2012


I would like to, on behalf of Lanky Patriot, apologise to those who have been expecting replies to Emails and new Blog posts but have received no reply nor read any new Blog posts from Lanky Patriot. This is due to a BT fault within the exchange which has taken Lanky Patriot Offline for the last few days.

Normal service will be resumed within the next 2/3 days all being well.

Friday, 27 January 2012


The oldest US aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise is heading to the Persian Gulf. With the collapse of the oil embargo, it's to force Iran into a confrontation over the Straight of Hormuz. The US and Israel NeoCons are looking for another way to get the long-sought war with Iran started, and more to the point, need to make it look like Iran is starting hostilities in order to make it politically more difficult for Russia and China to support Iran. Now, recall that Israel has a past history of attack US warships and framing other to trick the US into attacks on Israel's enemies, with the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (initially blamed on Egypt) as the most well-known example. So here we have the USS Enterprise, the oldest carrier in the fleet, on its last legs, scheduled to be decommissioned next year. Decommissioning a nuclear aircraft carrier is a very expensive process. USS Enterprise powered by 8 nuclear reactors, all of which must be disposed of as nuclear waste material along with all the associated machinery. The US Navy would save a great deal of money, more than the scrap worth of the steel, if USS Enterprise were to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, where the radioactive mess is someone else's problem to deal with. So, why send an ancient ship at the end of her useful life into harms way? The same reason Franklin Roosevelt moved a bunch of obsolete warships from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, while the newer carriers and warships were well away from Hawaii on December 7th, 1941. Israel has 3 Dolphin submarines, given to her by Germany. They have been seen transiting the Suez Canal in the past, and could well be operating in the Gulf of Oman, even the Persian Gulf by now, lying in wait for a used-up and obsolete warship, more useful as a sacrificial lamb than an actual weapon. A ship with American sailors, to be attacked as Israel attacked the USS Liberty, then to be blamed on the designated target, Iran. Let's save the lives of these brave sailors. Make them doubt a false-flag will be believed, maybe they will call it off. Countless lives will be saved.


Arab spring: 'Western-backed exported Islamist revolution’

Interesting and honest interview by English author John R. Bradley from the Russia Today news team.

Although, it's pretty much what we all knew, it's especially pleasing that this information is actually available for the public to be awaken to.

Monday, 23 January 2012

Racist Murders: Who are the Real Victims?

The recent conviction of the killers of black youth Stephen Lawrence trial has seen an outburst of anti-white hate by the controlled media—but the statistics show that the vast majority of victims of racial murders are white, and the attackers non-white.

A new video produced by former leading BNPtv producers (who no longer work for the party, for the usual reason) has highlighted the obvious anti-white racism of the controlled media and its establishment attack dogs.

The video, which can be seen below, deserves to go viral.

Saturday, 21 January 2012


Facebook has 20 million users worldwide, is worth billions of dollars and, if internet sources are to be believed, was started by the CIA.

The social networking phenomenon started as a way of American college students to keep in touch. It is rapidly catching up with MySpace, and has left others like Bebo in its wake.

But there is a dark side to the success story that's been spreading across the blogosphere. A complex but riveting Big Brother-type conspiracy theory which links Facebook to the CIA and the US Department of Defence.

The CIA is, though, using a Facebook group to recruit staff for its very sexy sounding National Clandestine Service.

Checking out the job ads
does require a Facebook login, so if you haven't joined the site - or are worried that CIA spooks will start following you home from work -check them out on the agency's
own site.

The story starts once Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg had launched, after the dorm room drama that's led to the current court case.

Facebook's first round of venture capital funding ($US500,000) came from former Paypal CEO Peter Thiel. Author of anti-multicultural tome 'The Diversity Myth', he is also on the board of radical conservative group VanguardPAC.

The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".

Breyer also served on the board of R&D firm BBN Technologies, which was one of those companies responsible for the rise of the internet.

Dr Anita Jones joined the firm, which included Gilman Louie. She had also served on the In-Q-Tel's board, and had been director of Defence Research and Engineering for the US Department of Defence.

She was also an adviser to the Secretary of Defence and overseeing the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is responsible for high-tech, high-end development.

It was when a journalist lifted the lid on the DARPA's Information Awareness Office that the public began to show concern at its information mining projects.

Wikipedia's IAO page says: "the IAO has the stated mission to gather as much information as possible about everyone, in a centralised location, for easy perusal by the United States government, including (though not limited to) internet activity, credit card purchase histories, airline ticket purchases, car rentals, medical records, educational transcripts, driver's licenses, utility bills, tax returns, and any other available data.".

Not surprisingly, the backlash from civil libertarians led to a Congressional investigation into DARPA's activity, the Information Awareness Office lost its funding.

Now the internet conspiracy theorists are citing Facebook as the IAO's new mask.

Parts of the IAO's technology round-up included 'human network analysis and behaviour model building engines', which Facebook's massive volume of neatly-targeted data gathering allows for.

Facebook's own Terms of use state: "by posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorpoate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorise sublicenses of the foregoing.

And in its equally interesting privacy policy: "Facebook may also collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service through the operation of the service (eg. photo tags) in order to provide you with more useful information and a more personalised experience. By using Facebook, you are consenting to have your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States."

Is the CIA really providing the impetus and the funding behind the monster growth of this year's biggest dot com success story? Maybe only the men with the nice suits and ear pieces can answer that.

Global Research Articles by Matt Greenop

Do you still want to use Facebook now ?

Friday, 20 January 2012

Behind Big News: Propaganda and the CFR- (Full Length Documentary )

I know this is about American MSM but it applies to our MSM too.

We already know that British MSM are deceitful and the BBC is not averse to fabricating the Truth as the BBC works for the powers that be, whether they be Politicians or MSM Editors and Journalists.

Wednesday, 18 January 2012


I read today of the Romanian woman on benefits being allowed housing benefit after saying that selling "The Big Issue" is a legitimate job.
This parasite who needed an interpreter in court in spite of having lived here for four years, as well as the lawyers all at our expense is already getting £25,500 in benefits for her four children, one of whom it seems is disabled.

Now it seems to that will be added her £2,600 housing benefit so over £28,000 in all plus what she makes selling the magazine bringing a grand total of £33,000 per year.
She has a child of two, but no mention of a partner.
She must have had one at one point and probably still has.

How many hard working British families struggle to survive on much less while doing useful jobs which contribute to our economy? There must be millions.

I don't see why she should have any benefits here. If she wants to breed like a rabbit, let her do it in her own country.
I don't even want to see her types in my country, whether they parasitise from us or not.

She and her brood should be sent home and the nice house she has acquired (it seems without speaking English) could be let to some DESERVING BRITISH FAMILY.

The governernment says that although it disagrees with the ruling it is bound by the international law.

I do not accept that. It is a cop out.

I believe the judiciary deliberately undermine our society, some for political reasons and some in order to make more money for their corrupt proffession.

The government the people foolishly elected should show their metal and dismiss these stupid judges who ride roughshod over the wishes of the people.

But in this case what can we do apart from protest.
STOP BUYING THE BIG ISSUE,and give directly tro local charities if you have any money to spare.

That way you can be sure you are helping YOUR OWN.

Another article in the paper reports that squatters from Moldova have moved into a house in London which was empty and about to be sold.
The police of course can not help as it is a "civil matter".

So breaking in someone's house is a civil matter is it?
They'd find out whether it was if I found squatters in my house. They wouldn't last five minutes.

And yet another report on the ugly muslim terrorist who can not be deported to face charges of terrorism because of his human rights.
Abu Qatada or whatever his name has been prevented from being deported by the ECHR to answer charges even though that country has guaranteed a fair trial and treatment.

Of course Gary McKinnon can be extradited to the USA as well as the other lad accuses of helping music downloads.
And American jails are not nice places like our holiday camps but it seems they must go even though McKinnon will probably not survive.

I know this rant will perhaps make some believe that I am some kind of conspiracy nut, but the above travesties of justice and common sense can have no other explanation that is

The judiciary and the rulers of our country are intent on destroying us and our society and it is our duty to


Will we get our country back without civil war?

I'm beginning to think we wont.

Tuesday, 17 January 2012


The turmoil in the Middle East is continuing and even hotting up with Iran threatenung to close the Straits of Hormuz which will lead to a rise in gas prices here it is said (another indication of the folly of selling our own gas supplies off cheap, and the "dash to gas" while sidelining indigenous coal supplies), and maybe because of the boycott of Iran an increase in oil prices.

Assasinations of nuclear scientists in Iran by Israel continue with little condemnation by our government or media. One wonders if the situation were reversed whether these atrocities would be so played down.

Iran has been accused of disobeying UN resolutions and it has. But so, many times over the past fifty years has Israel without condemnation.
Foolishly Iran stated that it wishes to destroy Israel, while Israel goes about destroying Palestine by stealth, condoned by the West.
Israel does not say what its intentions are even though they betray them through their actions

I hold no brief for Iran nor any muslim regime, but to understand the present situation one must study the history of the Middle East in the 20th century which has been bedevilled by Wwestern and British interference.

Starting during WW1 the arrogance of the Balfour Declaration which gave land which did not belong to us to the Zionists has had a catastrophic effect on that region, intensified by our and the USA's continuing meddling and interference there.

In the Fifties we removed a democratically elected leader and installed the Shah, a ruthless and cruel leader whose crimes were hushed up in the West but suffered by the Iranian people.

In the Eighties we backed Saddam Hussein in a war against Iran in which he used poison gas and only fell out with him when he pointed a gun at Israel, and then got in a war justified on false evidence.

Meanwhile the consolidation of Israel continued with more local people displaced into squalid camps, and those remaining having second class status.

Lebanon has been invaded and parts of Syria occupied by Israel.

And we are surprised by the hatred to us shown by Arabs and other Middle Eastern countries?

They see us as unfair and against them and retaliate as evidenced by the 9/11 horrors and London bombings.

Why do we continue on this path of strife which will inevitably end in nuclear war?
Because of the Zionist lobby in the USA and Britain with its political influence and money.

We should attempt to see things from the Arab point of view and come to a "non interference" arrangement with them.
We should allow matters in the Middle East to be settled by the people living there and if they want to fight keep out of it. Thus any arms held by states there would be of no threat to us.

It is said that Israel is a bulwark for democracy in the Middle East. No it is not, it is a festering bone of contention set among people with no desire for democracy and certainly no desire to be dominated by Zionist money and influence.

Israel has cost the "West" billions and many lives.
Our fuel supplies are threatened by its presence as is our safety.

If we could disengage from all influence there and negotiate the return of muslims here we would preserve our country from further danger from this unstable region.

We have meddled for 100 years.

Let's learn our lesson--


Monday, 16 January 2012


If anybody still doubts the increasingly undemocratic assault on our rights an anouncement today in the papers would surely disabuse them of these doubts.

We have become inured to the stealthy attacks on our free speech, which I as a child was told was the cornerstone of our freedoms. But we have now to be careful what we say in case we offend people who we did not invite here and should not in my opinion be here in case we are accused of "racism". This latter is the most serious crime of all.

In effect stating that you have more affinity with those of your own ethnicity and object to the colonisation of our land has to be said very carefully or you could end up in court

A court you may say would give you justice.
The evidence weighed by 12 true men, your peers would guarantee justice, wouldn't it?

Well up to now it would, but now it is proposed to do away with juries in many cases and have the verdict decided by a a solitary magistrate or "learned"(don't make me laugh) lawyer.


To save money they say.
Well if that were the case perhaps the legal proffession should cut theur fees.

You can be sure that those chosen to adjudicate will be chosen to ensure the correct PC views and thus the correct verdict.

But what about those who do not hold views considered by the government as correct or "acceptible". They would be found guilty and punished.

We have had the jury system for hundreds of years and it has provided a degree of protection for the ordinary man, his freedoms of action and speech. Admittedly not all verdicts passed by juries are correct, but not all judgements made by judges are correct, hence the number of cases when at appeal cases were overturned and the judgement deemed to be faulty (I note judges can not be sued for incompetence as can other proffessionals).

Yes speed up the legal process by all means. Make it cheaper by cutting legal and judges fees, but not at the expense of justice.

I do not trust the state to be impartial in all cases as history has shown this leads to dictatorship.

We can only have confidence in the law and justice system when we are judged by our peers. That is our guarantor and we must hold on to this.

Or do we allow ourselves to be conned into Mandelson's "POST DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY"

It is worth spenting £30 million to avoid this.


Sunday, 15 January 2012




"The virologist who created a potentially dangerous, mutant strain of the deadly bird flu virus has agreed to omit methodology details from his published reports on the new strain. The decision came after the U.S. government warned Tuesday that published details of the experiment could be used to create a biological warfare weapon.

Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands, said he created the contagious form of the deadly H5N1 bird flu strain "easily" by mutating a few genes within the strain. Officials feared the virus could kill millions if it were unleashed.

The study results were to be published in the U.S. journal Science, but in an unprecedented move, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, an independent committee that advises the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies, recommended against full publication after it determined the risks outweighed the benefit.

"Due to the importance of the findings to the public health and research communities, the NSABB recommended that the general conclusions highlighting the novel outcome be published, but that the manuscripts not include the methodological and other details that could enable replication of the experiments by those who would seek to do harm," the committee said in a statement Tuesday.

A dutch scientist, Ron Fouchier, created mutations of the H5N1 virus in a lab saying it will be helpful in treating the disease and creating vaccines.

"The researchers have reservations about this recommendation but will observe it," the Erasmus Medical Center said Wednesday in a statement.

Fouchier said that he hoped his research would assist in developing better vaccines and treatments for influenza in the future. He conducted his research on ferrets, whose immune response to influenza is similar to that of humans.

"We know which mutation to watch for in the case of an outbreak, and we can then stop the outbreak before it is too late," Fouchier said in a statement Tuesday on the medical center's website. "Furthermore, the finding will help in the timely development of vaccinations and medication."

The Erasmus Medical Center press office and the National Institutes of Health, which funded the research, said in statements that the researchers are currently working on a new report that complies with the feds' recommendations before it is published in scientific journals.

Since it appeared in 1996, H5N1 has killed hundreds of millions of birds, but transmission to humans has been rare. There have been about 600 confirmed cases of infections in people, most who worked directly with poultry. While rare, it is a deadly human disease. About 60 percent of those who had confirmed cases of the virus died.

Up until now, experts believed that the strain was transmissible from person-to-person only through very close contact, but Fouchier mutated the strain, creating an airborne virus that could be easily transmitted through coughs and sneezes.

In a written statement, Science's editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts said that the journal was taking the NSABB's request for an abbreviated version of Fouchier's research "very seriously."

While Alberts said that the journal strongly supported the work of the NSABB, Alberts and the journal's editors have "concerns about withholding potentially important public-health information from responsible influenza researchers. Many scientists within the influenza community have a bona fide need to know the details of this research in order to protect the public, especially if they currently are working with related strains of the virus."

Read PT 2. HERE - (Click on the link below)


Inside the intriguing world of Tony Blair Incorporated

It is easy to walk past the anonymous, Georgian townhouse in central London without giving it a second glance. But the five-storey building on Grosvenor Square, close to the American embassy, is home to a multi-million pound industry with tentacles that reach across the globe.

"The Grosvenor Square headquarters of Tony Blair's myriad companies and charities. The former prime minister's extensive foreign travel means he is rarely there

The house acts as headquarters to Blair Inc, the unofficial name which Tony Blair’s activities have earned. It is from here that the former prime minister, among other things, makes his money.

Financial experts claim that his widespread portfolio of companies and properties have thrust him into the upper echelons of Britain’s super-rich. His fortune – hard to judge because of the secrecy that surrounds his various enterprises – could now be in the millions of pounds, possibly enough to push his name for the first time on to Britain’s unofficial rich list. Mr Blair, who with his wife Cherie owns seven properties, is probably among the 2,000 wealthiest people in Britain.

One City accountant, who has examined Mr Blair’s companies’ accounts, said: “His total wealth is difficult to know but I would estimate it is in the range of £30 million to £40 million.”

Mr Blair’s spokesman denies the former prime minister’s wealth is “anything remotely approaching” that amount."

Read the rest here - Just click on the link.

Now Tony BLIAR being the good little Socialist that he and his wife are must be desperate to hand over most of their cash to good causes, help Britains poor, homeless, sick and injured.

I'm just wondering when these SOCIALISTS are going to something SOCIABLE.

The real story here is that Tony and Cherie BLIAR are TRAITORS who have been made extremely wealthy for their TRAITOROUS BETRAYAL of the INDIGENOUS people of this island we call home.

When the time comes, and it surely must come, BLIAR and his wide-mouthed frog of a wife will be stripped of ALL assests and wealth, given a fair trial and then HANGED BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD.

This go's for every Socialist (Communist/Marxist) lib/lab/con MPs.

We will not forget what they have done and will bide our time and then we, the INDIGENOUS POPULATION, will have our revenge for the BETRAYAL of our people, our ancestors and our childrens and grandchildrens futures.

Saturday, 14 January 2012


The protests over the proposed new railway from London to Birmingham typify the "nimbysm" of the people living along the route. It is also a problem for Cameron and his Tories that many of his supporters, including his father in law are up in arms as is Baron Rothschild.
This latter person will be subjected to a railway within a mile of his country seat which to him is unacceptable. Poor man, my heart bleeds for him.

It is hard for people who have their houses destroyed for such a scheme as inevitably some will be but this has happened all over the country with the building of new towns and motorways and people have had to put up with it.

The difference is that those previously affected have not been as well heeled and lacked the political clout of those now threatened.

It seems OK to build over countryside in semi urban areas where there is a scarcity of open space but not in the broad acres inhabited by well heeled Tories.
Their view will be disturbed and no doubt newts and other supposedly endangered species threatened they will say.
Hundreds of millions of pounds will be expended as a sop to these well heeled people in tunnelling to avoid spoiling their views.

The above may seem that I do not hold the countryside dear. I do especially as a farmer and am well aware of the impact of transport networks on local environments. I live 100 yards from the M6 which bisects my farm and the noise is noticeable at times, but you get used to it and shielded by greenery as it now is the impact is minimal.

If the only reason for building a new railway was the speed of getting to London I would be against it.
My main reason for supporting the venture is that when continued to Manchester and especially Liverpool these cities would be rejuvenated.
Liverpool could become a gateway to Europe and a thriving port once more
In addition many much needed jobs in construction would be created and having been compl;eted the line would be a permanent part of our national infrastructure for many years, unlike the Olympic Games or the "Dome". We would reap the benefits for years and help redress the balance between the affluent South and the neglected North.

Of course many of those complaining are not concerned with the prospects of the northern regions or employment in general, insulated as they are by city office jobs and great wealth.
Many live in the country in second homes and are there only at weekends and do not want their rural idyll disturbed so they can escape the environment in which so many others live.

But how do they travel to their rural retreats? By car along a motorway which will have affected the regions through which it passes just as much as a railway, or even by rail where the same argument applies.

Unless they avoid rail and motorway travel they should at least have the insight that their mode of transport affects others, but then when have these types ever considered others, let alone the national interest?

Wednesday, 11 January 2012


Michael Mann is an historical sociologist and Professor of Sociology at UCLA. In his book Fascists (Cambridge University Press, 2004) he provides the following definition:

“Fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism.” (Mann, op. cit., p. 13)

Definition of terms:

· Transcendence: Belief that the state can transcend social conflict and blend all social classes into a harmonious whole. Belief in the power of political ideology to transcend human nature and produce a better world.

· Cleansing (ethnic): Favoring one or more ethnic or racial groups over others, either by granting special privileges or imposing disabilities; deportation of ethnic minorities, or worse.

· Cleansing (political): Silencing the political opposition so that the transcendent aims of fascism can be realized. Restricting the freedom of speech, outlawing opposition parties, imprisoning political opponents (or worse) and indoctrinating youth in fascist principles.

· Statism: Promoting a high degree of state intervention in personal, social, or economic matters. Belief that the state can accomplish anything.

· Paramilitarism: “Grass roots”, populist squadrism aimed at coercing opponents and obtaining popular approbation by acting as a supplementary police force.

2. Robert O. Paxton

Robert Paxton is an American historian and emeritus professor of history at Columbia University. In his book The Anatomy of Fascism (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004) he develops the following definition:

“Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a massed-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external explansion.” (Paxton, op. cit., p. 218)

3. R.J.B. Bosworth

Bosworth is professor of history at the University of Western Australia and has been a Visiting Fellow at Columbia, Cambridge, Oxford, and Trento Universities. In his book Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915-1945 (Penguin Press, 2006) he reviews the definitions of Mann and Paxton, with some approbation and some criticism. Regarding Paxton he points out, for example, that the Italian Fascist regime, once in power, left the court system largely intact, provided a good measure of due process, never established anything close to a gulag, and accommodated the church – hardly things that indicate it was “without ethical or legal restraints”. Regarding Mann, he disputes the notion that Italian Fascism “killed democracy” by observing (rightly) that pre-Fascist Italy was not a democracy anyway, and questions the importance of ideological “transcendence”. Bosworth avoids a succinct definition of Fascism for reasons he himself summarizes as follows:

“…it might be argued that the quest for definition of fascism has become absurdly laboured. Why opt for a long list of factors or paragraph of rococo ornateness when Mussolini, on a number of occasions, informed people he regarded as converted to his cause that Fascism was a simple matter? All that was needed was a single party, a dopolavoro [“after work”, a social leisure time organization], and, he did not have to add, a Duce (with a Bocchini to repress dissent) and a will to exclude the foe (somehow defined). To be still more succinct, as Mussolini told Franco in October 1936, what the Spaniard should aim at was a regime that was simultaneously ‘authoritarian’, ‘social’, and ‘popular’. That amalgam, the Duce advised, was the basis of universal fascism.” (Bosworth, op. cit., p. 564.)

4. Conflation

a. Elements deemed essential by all authors

All three authors agree that statism, nationalism , unity, authoritarianism, and vigor are essential elements of fascism.

b. Elements deemed non-essential by all authors

All three authors spend some time discussing things commonly thought to characterize fascism but which do not. They note that such things as parades and street violence were common features of mass movements at the time, and not distinctively fascist. They also note that the role of anti-Semitism in the rise of fascist movements was minor. In the Italian case, it played no role at all in the early days, and indeed many Jews were party members. And then of course there was Mussolini’s Jewish mistress Margherita Sarfatti. In Germany, anti-Semitism was intentionally downplayed by the Nazis during their ascendant phase because many voters found it offensive.

c. Areas of disagreement.

Bosworth is not wholly satisfied with the definitions offered by Mann and Paxton, as previously noted. Mann differs from Paxton and Bosworth on various points, two notable ones being:

i. Charismatic leadership. Mann tends to assign this attribute lesser weight because his analysis includes fascist movements (in Romania, Hungary, Austria, Spain, and Greece) where charismatic leadership was not an essential element.

ii. Violence. Unlike Bosworth and Paxton, Mann is a sociologist and takes a more thoughtful approach in analyzing the use of violence in fascist movements. For Mann, violence is something that states do to maintain order; they do it with military and police forces, prisons, and the gallows. It is the use of paramilitary violence, not violence per se, that Mann finds to be an essential attribute of ascendant fascism. Once fascists have control of the state, they tend to enforce the state’s monopoly on violence and suppress the irregular violence of the squadristi (Black Shirts, Brown Shirts, etc.). Mann has the better of the argument here.

5. Synthesis and Extension: The Ultimate Definition of Fascism

After reviewing the works of these and many other authors, together with sundry primary historical and sociological sources, I think the following definition best captures the etiology and ontology of fascism.

“Fascism is a form of political and social behavior that arises when the middle class, finding its hopes frustrated by economic instability coupled with political polarization and deadlock, abandons traditional ideologies and turns, with the approbation of police and military forces, to a poorly-defined but emotionally appealing soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.” (Chuck Anesi, 2008)

Cause and Effect Diagram for European Fascism

a. Middle Class. In the United States, the term “middle class” as used here includes the high prole, lower middle, middle, and part of the upper middle classes. Americans generally think themselves one class higher than they actually are. To paraphrase Crane Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution, the lower classes have their peasant revolts, the upper classes have their palace coups, but the middle classes make revolutions.

b. Economic Instability. Economic instability played a prominent role in the rise of fascism wherever it was successful, and was more perilous to the middle classes than to the lower classes (who had little to lose) or the upper classes (who were insulated from its effects). Demographic analyses of fascist party membership (Mann, op. cit.) shows quite clearly that members were on the whole younger and better educated than population means – precisely those who would be most likely to have their opportunities blocked by economic instability.

c. Polarization and Deadlock. In all cases where fascism was successful, its rise was preceded by a period of political polarization and parliamentary deadlock. In Italy, forming a stable parliamentary majority had proved impossible since 1919, and making Mussolini Prime Minister in October 1922 offered a convenient way to break the deadlock. The celebrated “March on Rome” could have been easily resisted by the government (and in fact most fascists on their way to Rome were prevented from reaching it by police forces), but it offered a handy excuse for Victor Emmanuel II to invite Mussolini into the government. In Germany, it had been impossible to form a parliamentary majority from March 1930 until Hitler’s appointment as chancellor; Hindenburg had been ruling with emergency powers article 48 of the German constitution until the appointment of Hitler as chancellor in January 1933 allowed formation of a conservative majority government. Ironically, the failure of leftists to compromise and work with centrists was a major enabler for the rise of fascism in both Italy and Germany.

d. Abandonment of Traditional Ideologies. To paraphrase Thomas (not Michael) Mann, World War I fired the mine beneath the Magic Mountain of pre-war Europe when the Enlightenment heritage of individual rights, progress, and equality collapsed into unprecedented carnage. The war left the victors exhausted and demoralized, the losers angry and resentful, and everyone wondering what went wrong.

The victors applied a policy of self-determination to reduce the level of ethnic strife by rationalizing borders and creating homelands for the various “races” (speech and culture groups) of Europe. This scheme failed to reduce tensions for four reasons. (1) regional heterogeneity made it impossible to create ethnically pure states; (2) the desire to weaken the former Central Powers led to violations of the policy — placement of large German populations in the new nations of Czechoslovakia and Poland, and large Hungarian populations in Romania and Czechoslovakia; (3) the policy was at odds with the natural desire of the victors for territorial booty, and failed to reward Italy with any significant territorial gain (the South Tyrol not being significant in the Italian view); and (4) the policy promoted aggressive nationalism.

The war was also followed by sharp though brief economic recessions and, in some countries, by hyperinflation.

Given all this, it is not hard to see why many authors have seen World War I as the primary “cause” of fascism. Enlightenment liberalism had failed to prevent a huge blood bath, created a peace that nobody was happy with, and wrecked the economy. New ideas, many thought, were needed.

e. Approbation of Police and Military Forces. The police and military forces are responsible for execising the state’s monopoly on violence to maintain order and defend the state. They are highly organized and skillful at what they do, and respect competence and efficiency. They will not long respect a government that is incompetent and inefficient.

Fascists did not “seize power” through any credible threat of violence. Once in office, they proceeded to consolidate and expand their power through technically legal means.

f. Poorly-defined. Fascist ideology was vague and protean. This is a source of endless frustration to those who expect to find a coherent definition of fascism in the the writings of party “philosophers”. But it reflects nothing more than fascism’s pragmatic approach to attaining its goals and its unwillingness to be bound (like its predecessors) to failed dogmas. Like all popular movements, fascism tried to encapsulate ideology in terse slogans – “Believe, Obey, Fight”, “Strength through joy”, “Work makes you free.”

g. Emotionally appealing. It is commonly observed that fascism was more a matter of the gut than of the head. Clearly those who joined fascist parties often did so from shrewd self-interest, but the same could be said of those who join any party. It was the emotional appeal of fascism – the notion that through sheer hope and force of will difficult and long-standing problems could easily be resolved – that set it apart. Triumph of the Will. This idea of course was not new and is still popular. The New Age doctrine of “Manifesting” holds that ideas firmly held will become reality. This doctrine appears in many forms – e.g. “The Power of Positive Thinking”, “The Law of Attraction”, “Change You can Believe in”. In its weak form it holds merely that positive thinking is more likely to achieve a result than negative thinking. Generally this form is harmless and often productive. In its strong form, it holds that positive thinking will in fact produce the intended result. In this form it is indistinguishable from magic.

h. Soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.

i. National unity. This was a fixed core goal of fascism. It held that social conflict could be transcended through service to the nation-state as the embodiment of the will of the people. With all serving the same master, internal conflict would disappear and the people (with certain out-groups excluded of course) would achieve their destiny.

ii. Immediate and direct resolution of problems. This is often confounded with violence. Practically however it had more to do with cutting through red tape and taking shortcuts. Sometimes this involved squadrist violence, and sometimes it did not. It is important to realize that excessive bureaucratization and ineffective justice systems played a role in the rise of fascism. An example will be helpful.

(a) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. Fascist thugs beat up shopkeeper.

(b) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. He has bribed the police and nothing happens.

(c) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. He has bribed the judge and his case is dismissed.

(d) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. The police arrest him, and he is promptly fined and imprisoned.

(e) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. He is cited and the case drags on for a year, ultimately disposed of with a plea to a lesser charge or a deferred prosecution agreement.

A person interested in doing substantial justice with proper safeguards for individual rights would choose scenario (d) as the most desirable. But if scenario (d) is not working, is scenario (a) worse than the remaining choices? At least with scenario (a) substantial justice is done. And these were the kinds of choices that fascists had to make. Direct action did achieve immediate results and contributed greatly to the popularity of fascism in its ascendant stages.

iii. Intolerance for dissent. It would be trivial to observe that since the fascist model required individuals to serve the nation-state as the embodiment of the popular will, and subordinate their interests to it, dissent would be unthinkable for any true believer. A stronger reason for suppressing dissent can be found in the emotional characteristics of fascism. Accepting that ideas firmly held become reality, a dissenter imperiled the collective spell, and dissent was seen as a species of malefic witchcraft.

B. Amateur Definitions of Fascism

Brief reference must be made to definitions of fascism offered in popular works intended for the mass market. These “definitions” are typically lists of attributes deemed to be essential characteristics of fascism. Invariably these lists contain attributes that are often found in non-fascist states, and the authors fail to distinguish fascism from simple authoritarianism, if indeed they even understand that distinction. Examples of authors offering these trivial analyses include Naomi Wolf, Lawrence Britt, Umberto Eco, and others. (I very much like Umberto Eco’s fiction but he is definitely not an analytical thinker.)

II. Avoiding Fascism

A. Maintain Order

Ensure that the people are secure in possession of their lives, liberty, and property. Locke had this one right. And as Jefferson observed, a government that does not ensure these things should be overthrown. Until a government can ensure a high degree of public order it has no business doing anything else. Pursuit of other objectives, however worthy, while public order is lacking will bring the government into contempt and require the people to seek security from vigilante and squadrist organizations. At that point the government is seen as a useless hindrance and fascism is imminent.

The major impediment to maintaining public order in the United States at this time (2008) is the judiciary, which has introduced so much procedural due process that bringing simple cases to trial can take months or years. A re-assessment of these archaic and inefficient procedures would be beneficial, and needs to be undertaken before a crisis exposes their weakness.

B. Compromise

Gandhi said that in his law practice he “strained every nerve to bring about a compromise,” and that “The true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.” (Mohandas Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, ch. 14). Gandhi saw compromise as a spiritual necessity.

The role of maximalism in the rise of fascism has been noted previously. The failure of left, right, and center to compromise and form coalitions weakened the governments of Italy, Germany, Austria, and other countries, promoting the rise of fascism.

Compromise requires intellectual honesty, a faculty often lacking on the right and left. It is necessary for the wise to broker compromises and “strain every nerve” to achieve them.

C. Remember that Law is Violence, and Use it Sparingly

Amateur commentators on fascism (Wolf, Britt, Eco et al.) fail to see that fascists did most of their work using the state’s monopoly on “legitimate” violence with nearly universal popular approbation. This included passing laws that controlled the most trivial aspects of human behavior, backed up by the traditional apparatus of police, courts, and prisons. In many cases considerable procedural due process existed, most notably in Italy, where the judicial machinery was largely untouched. But of course procedural due process used to enforce an unjust law does not yield justice.

The point here is this: if you think you are better than a fascist because you are passing laws to control people’s behavior in trivial and oppressive ways, instead of beating people up, well, you are wrong. The fascists did exactly the same thing. In fact, you are worse than a fascist, because you are too cowardly to do the dirty work yourself, and want to leave it to the police and the courts.

So unless you would be willing personally to use physical violence to enforce a law, knowing that you might be severely injured or killed while doing so, you have no business making such a law, and will only bring contempt upon yourself and the legislature if you do so. This of course is one reason the U.S. House and Senate are held in such low esteem – they are seen, with some accuracy, as a collection of ignorant, cowardly windbags hiding behind the state’s monopoly on violence. (This may seem harsh, but no reasonable person viewing the Congress of the United States in 2009 could possibly disagree with it.)

III. Fascist FAQ

A. Scope
This section addresses various questions received in emails, usually from readers who have read amateur definitions of fascism.

B. Didn’t Mussolini say Fascism was “rule by corporations”?

Yes, but he did not mean BUSINESS corporations, and he meant rule by means of corporations.

One means to achieving the fascist goal of transcendent unity was corporatism. In Italian Fascism, this involved a vertical reorganization of society into syndicates or “corporations” that grouped people by their field of endeavor, rejecting horizontal distinctions of management and labor. The initial organization, following the Rocco Law of 1926, “established syndicates of industry, agriculture, commerce, maritime and air transport, land and inland waterway transit and banking, with intellectuals and artisans being grouped in a seventh syndicate of their own.” (Bosworth, op.cit., 226)

Thus, when Mussolini referred to a “corporate state”, he meant organizing management and labor into syndicates under the thumb of the Duce. This was rule by means of corporations — an expedient but certainly not a defining characteristic of fascism.

No more need be said of this. Wikipedia has a decent concise article on Corporatism that will clarify proper usage of the term.

This confusion is not new. I remember when I was an undergraduate many years ago a student used the term “corporate state” in class, referring to some vague idea of a state in which business corporations run the show, and the professor, being an Oxford man, thought he was talking about Fascist corporatism. The confusion was soon resolved. But we are likely to see more of this now that the American education system has given up teaching history, philosophy, mathematics and so forth in favor of diversity studies and post-modernist literary criticism.

C. Can fascism be defined as radical anti-communism?

I guess, if you want to define Bolshevism as “radical anti-capitalism”. Seem like pretty impoverished definitions to me.

D. Why is your style irregular in its capitalization of “fascism”?
When used in reference to Italian Fascism the word is a proper noun. Otherwise it is not.

Tuesday, 10 January 2012

Muhammad Ali , Tells The Truth - 1971



Imagine if massive new deposits of high grade iron ore, copper aluminium and tin were found in this country, there would be massive investments in new mines and the price of these metals would fall drastically.

Well there are massive resources of these metals in Britain, scrap which is sent to China as raw materials for their expanding industries. In effect this trade is the result of globalisation and is a reduction of our resource base.
Also exported are precious metals such as cobalt, much used in the electronics industries.

I believe we should ban the export of scrap metal and store it until the demand is there at home.
Many would say it would depress the price of scrap, and make recycling less profitable to local authorities and at first glance it would.
But thought through the savings would be immense.

No more thefts of manhole covers, cables or lead from roofs, nor even war memorials especially if dealers were under local authority control. No more electricity power cuts or train delays.
It is estimated that theft of metals costs the economy a billion per year.

If we could use genuine scrap to produce goods here industries would be rejuvenated and jobs created saving money now paid out in unemployment benefit.

I do not trust the present fiat money system which creates money out of thin air and lends it at high interest. This money does not really exist, but metals do.
They are raw materials for the manufacture of goods, as was shown in WW2 when all metal was recycled for reuse here and played a vital role in the war effort.

If we keep selling these resources and getting lines of biniary figures on a computer we are getting nothing in reality in return.

As a country we should start conserving "things" as opposed to money for when the value of "money" reaches its true worth, nothing, things will still have a value.

As a country we should not do as we did with North Sea Oil and sell it off cheap and now buy it dear.

I said it at the time and have been proved correct.


Everything else will be proved to be worthless.

Monday, 9 January 2012


Further to the previous article on racism there have been a multitude of so called racist incidents usually involving footballers, who, sensitive souls object and on on occasion be reduced to tears on account of being subject to an insult containing the word "black"

Aw diddums. These people are supposed to be sportsmen but are reduced to tears at the mention of their skin colour.

You can use any insult you like a fat thick ugly lazy bastard and although the insult is there unless you use the word "black" it is not a hate crime.
It seems these touchy people are only offended by mention of their skin colour.
They obviously have a massive chip about this aspect of their being.

If insults were thrown in my direction, and they have been, I would be more offended about the insult rather than any mention of my complexion., but in any case I would have to endure them.

I would have no redress in law.

You can mention Scouse gits, Cockney s**ts, tight fisted Yorkshire people or even Wigan woolly backs and fiery redheads without penalty. You can use the most insulting words in the language and it seems it is not a "hate crime" even though these insults are not used to those you like, but use the word "black" and you will have a visit from the police.

Thus to call an ethnic African black is the worst insult of all.

Why is this? Do they have an inferiority complex?

I suspect they do. They have much to feel inferior about.
Although at many sports blacks excel, in the intellectual stakes they are at the bottom of the pile in all nations.

In spite of its promotion there is no black history. There have been no sub Saharan civilisations whereas in all other continents there are the remains of great civilisations.

There are and never have been successful African states, let alone democracies.
Human knowledge has not been added to by Africans. Look at any scientific programme on television and note the Asians, Chinese, Japs and whites and the absence of blacks.
How many black professors are there?

Alone among races they demand "respect" but give us little to respect.

Diane Abbott blames colonialism for the state of Africa and its nations, but forgets that India and South East Asia were also colonised as was much of China.
They pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and are out competing us in many instances while Africa remains a cesspit of incompetence and corruption.

These race laws are being used by our evil state to disempower the British people by putting us at a disadvantage and suppressing our free speech, but whatever they do the majority of Brits do not welcome this invasion which has been encouraged in order to destroy our national identity even though we have to keep our mouths shut.

The blacks are being used as a stick to beat us with and they themselves are using the unfair advantages conferred by the race laws to gain a standard of living better than they are able to build in their countries of origin.

If the Britain we know and love is buried by this influx of peoples we do not want --





We knew this would happen as BLACK people can't be racist can they ?

"Miss Abbott, the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, was at the centre of a racism row after claiming on Twitter that white people "love to divide and rule".

She also said black people should not “wash dirty linen in public”.

The comments were made as part of an online exchange with freelance journalist Bim Adewunmi as they discussed the use of the term "black community" during the coverage of the Stephen Lawrence murder trial.

As well as calls for her resignation, members of the public also contacted the Metropolitan Police about the tweet.

Despite reports that 40 people had complained about the tweet, police could not confirm how many complaints they had received.

There were suggestions that she should face racial harassment charges.

But police confirmed today that they would not be investigating."

Read the rest and be disgusted here -


Saturday, 7 January 2012


For a Political party such as New Labour, a supposedly Socialist party with the welfare of the people at it's heart can be revealed to be nothing more than a bunch of CORRUPT, SELF SERVING, MONEY SEEKING TRAITORS.

"Official accounts show a company set up by Mr Blair to manage his business affairs paid just £315,000 in tax last year on an income of more than £12 million. In that time, he employed 26 staff and paid them total wages of almost £2.3 million.

The accounts provide the strongest evidence yet of the huge sums generated by Mr Blair through his various activities since quitting Downing Street in June 2007.

He runs a business consultancy - Tony Blair Associates - which has deals with the governments of Kuwait and Kazakhstan among others and is a paid adviser to JP Morgan, an American investment bank, and to Zurich International, a global insurance company based in Switzerland. Mr Blair makes a further £100,000 a time from speeches and lectures while also presiding over a number of charities including a faith foundation.

Mr Blair has previously been criticised for cashing in on contacts made in Downing Street and these accounts will likely add to those concerns.

The documents also reveal that in the two years until March 31 last year, Mr Blair’s management company had a total turnover of more than £20 million and paid tax of about £470,000.


The scale of Mr Blair’s finances are shown in accounts lodged by Windrush Ventures Limited, just one of a myriad of companies and partnerships set up by the former prime minister. Windrush Ventures Ltd’s “principal activity” is the “provision of management services” to Mr Blair’s various other interests."

Read the rest here

Now you know we truly have been BETRAYED.

Isn't it about time BLIAR, BROWN, MANDELBUM(MER), ABBOT and the rest of the TRAITORS started paying, IN BLOOD, for their CRIMES AGAINST THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION ?

Friday, 6 January 2012


Please click on the link and sign the petition to ban non stun, ritual slaughter such as HALAL.

Thursday, 5 January 2012


*'White people love playing divide and rule'

So the ARCH BLACK SUPREMACIST RACIST NEW LABOUR MP DIANNE ABBOTT is caught again using *derogatory remarks about WHITE PEOPLE on the social networking site TWITTER.

In her defence the ARCH BLACK SUPREMACIST RACIST NEW LABOUR MP DIANNE ABBOTT claims that her Tweet was taken out of context and that she was referring to 19th Century Colonialism. Now I wonder where the previous quotes to 19th Century Colonialism, to put this in "context", went ?

Also it doesn't say White people "LOVED" playing divide and rule. Could she put this into context for us ?


Wednesday, 4 January 2012


With the jailing of Dobson and Norris in the Lawrence case I had hoped this PC circus would have ended, but now it does not seem to be the case as the police will continue their "work" to convict even more of those originally accused.
I have to ask how many people does it take to stab someone?
I accept that the two convicted were two unsavoury thugs and the murder was horrific, but it does seem that if the victim had been white little would have been heard about it after the first innocent verdict.
Certainly seven hundred years of English law would not have been cast aside as happened with the new "double jeapordy" provision and £millions would not have been spent in police and legal expense if there had not been a political motive.
That motive has been to appease the PC multiculti brigade and help put at a disadvantage those of us (the majority I believe) who oppose this uninvited invasion.
Indeed the Mc Pherson report that the police are "institutionally racist" has been used as a stick against people of British stock.
He is right , the police are institutionally racist, or at least the police chiefs are, they are racist against us.
It is considered that racism can only be perpetrated by whites on blacks, and this is shown by the phrase "reverse racism", an oxymoron if ever there was one. It is interesting to contrast the prominence given to this victim with memorial buildings and plaques with that given to other victims, which demonstrates the politicising of certain crimes especially if the victim is black.
Racism is and always will be endemic when different races mix, it is a natural human reaction to the outsider however reprehensible.
Stephen Lawrence was no angel, a bully, petty drug dealer by all accounts and a "Black Power" activist, hardly a portrayal of peace or wishing to live in harmony with the society in which his parents had inserted their family, to the disadvantage of the original inhabitants.
Murder is murder whoever the perpetrator or victim is and is equally to be deplored and race does not come in to it.
Making a white on black murder more of a crime will stoke resentment because of its unfairness.
And justice must be done impartially and seen to be done so.
I believe the authorities were determined to get a conviction and am sure the jury was selected carefully as a "wrong" verdict would have caused the usual riots and arson that people of African origin are prone to indulge in.
The verdict may have been correct, I don't know but the case was politicised from the start and because of that--

Tuesday, 3 January 2012


The tragedy of the multiple shootings have brought out the inevitable kneejerk calls for tougher gun laws.

That people holding gun licences should be checked is common sense, but what about the more dangerous illegal guns used in far more murders such as that of the Indian student in Salford?
More draconian gun laws would have no effect and we are rapidly getting to the situation even now where the only people who have access to guns are the criminals.

And what about knives?

In our village 40 years ago a man killed his wife and children with a knife and strangled his mistress with a rope.
There was no call for a ban on knives or ropes, and indeed the majority of murders are committed with a knife or rope, should we ban these as well?

The talk in the papers illustrates how little media people know about the requirements needed to obtain a gun licence.

I know how the system works as I sign many gun and firearm certificates, unlike the "experts" in the media

A full medical history is needed for a firearm certificate (rifle) and any suicidal or other signs of mental instability and even marital disharmony preclude the issuance of such a certificate.
It is my job to unearth any dangers before signing them fit to have a rifle.

The killer in Peterlee had a firearms certificate (and shouldn't) but the weapon used was a shotgun, not a rifle, for which the rules are less draconian and a certificate easier to gain.

Long range,(up to a mile) rifles are far more dangerous than shotguns and they are rightly heavily controlled, but shotguns are safe at 150 yards but devastatingly lethal at short range.

Shotguns are an essential part of country life, without them farm crops would be devastated by crows and pigeons and many of the people who control these pests are welcomed by farmers on to their land.
Yes they get pleasure but they do a lot of good, but they are generally stable and law abiding or they wouldn't have got a certificate in the first place.

Unfortunately people sometimes do flip and tragedies occur but to ban all guns would deprive the vast majority of owners of pleasure and incur great losses in agricultural production.

And the criminals would still kill with their unlicenced guns and knives.

Leave the gun laws as they are, if mad men do not use them they will kill in other ways and those killed would be--