Thursday, 2 December 2010

WIGAN COUNCIL - HAVE YOUR SAY ON THE CUTS.

As we know that massive cuts to Wigans Public sector are having to be made due to the Treasonus and disgraceful managment of Britains economy by the Blair and Brown led New Labour governments.

Wigan MBC are now asking for suggestions to where these cuts should be made.

If you can think of an area of Wigan MBC budget that can be safely cut without any loss to the overall services provided you may do that here

The Spending Challenge – submit your savings ideas

Public sector services are facing testing times, and up and down the country local people, including council staff, are contributing to the debate about where in the public sector money can be saved.

A public sector that is only 75 per cent of what it is today will need to be one that takes a more limited role and one that offers targeted support only to those who need it most.

We will protect the frontline but we will focus on some different solutions that might work better and be better value –- focusing on causes rather than symptoms.

We all know that there are things that local councils have to do that will always be costly but so essential such as looking after children in care and protecting vulnerable people. But what about outside these areas? Is there anything the council should stop doing? Is there more the community could do for itself?

We also want to know about your money-saving ideas, ideas that come from your own experience managing household budgets, running local businesses and making ends meet.

The only thing we ask is to make your suggestions constructive and we’d really love to hear from you.

CLICK HERE TO MAKE YOUR SUGGESTIONS TO WIGAN MBC


You may also like to give us suggestions as you can be sure that multiple suggestions that are on the same subject will not be overlooked like a single suggestion would be.

Please feel free to send your suggestions to Wigan BNP at -

wigan-leigh-bnp@live.co.uk


WikiLeaks: David Miliband 'championed aid to Sri Lanka to win votes of Tamils in UK'

David Miliband championed aid to Sri Lanka during last year’s humanitarian crisis to win the support of expatriate Tamils living in key Labour marginal seats, one of his own Foreign Office staff claimed.

Tim Waite, a Foreign Office team leader on Sri Lanka, was quoted in a leaked US Embassy cable explaining why the then foreign secretary was lavishing so much attention on the island’s plight.

“Waite said that much of (the government) and ministerial attention to Sri Lanka is due to the ‘very vocal’ Tamil diaspora in the UK, numbering over 300,000, who have been protesting in front of parliament since 6 April,” wrote Richard Mills, a political officer at the US Embassy in London.

“He said that with UK elections on the horizon and many Tamils living in Labour constituencies with slim majorities, the government is paying particular attention to Sri Lanka, with Miliband recently remarking to Waite that he was spending 60 per cent of his time at the moment on Sri Lanka.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8175415/WikiLeaks-David-Miliband-championed-aid-to-Sri-Lanka-to-win-votes-of-Tamils-in-UK.html

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO DEMAND THAT THEY ANSWER TO US FIRST ?

REMOVE THE VOTE FROM ALL IMMIGRANTS - ONLY THE INDIGENOUS BRITISH SHOULD HAVE THE VOTE IN OUR COUNTRY.

Soon we will be a minority then what do you think we will mean to our oppressors ?

We are already ignored by the Political classess are you happy being a WORTHLESS BRIT ?

A POLITICIAN TO WATCH



Morg
.

Who does he remind you of?

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

BATTLE FOR BARKING

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-battle-for-barking/4od#3145017

Morg
.

GOODBYE SWEDEN



Morg
.

COMMENTS BY LAURA FARRIE ON HER BNP DOCUMENTRY - THE BATTLE FOR BARKING.

She was spat on. She was intimidated and threatened. Director Laura Fairrie bares her battle scars from charting The Battle for Barking, a documentary offering intimate insight into the belligerent general election campaigns of Labour and the BNP

You wouldn’t think the British National Party would give, of all people, a middle class woman privileged access to its shrouded party machine and leader. But that’s exactly what they did with film-maker Laura Fairrie in the run up to the general election. And the results are extraordinary.

Before their dismal performance in May, there was a very real fear that the BNP would prize the constituency of Barking – previously a Labour safe seat – from Margaret Hodge. There was reason to believe so; the BNP had twelve councillors in Barking and Dagenham. And under Griffin’s leadership, as he never fails to mention, the BNP had acquired a Jewish councillor and Black and Asian support, lending shaky credence to his self-styled title of moderniser.

That does little to detract from the BNP’s common conception as a band of thuggish suits in boots, an assumption Fairrie now takes issue with: “When I first started trying to get access to the BNP I had all these preconceptions about them as well, but I really wanted to go in with an open mind. What I found was this group of misfits that just were so alienated and cut off from society, who found this place to belong in the BNP, or the ‘BNP family’ as they’d call it. A lot of them were ex-Labour voters. A lot of them weren’t necessarily racist. They were just so fed up and confused. Of course there’s racism in the BNP, and of course here are some horrible characters, but there’s reason behind that racism, and they’re not all evil monsters.”

There are some who would have trouble digesting that; who would take offence with it even. “People thought I was awful for it. It became a real struggle with my own conscience. A lot of people were really critical of me for finding people who didn’t fit into the BNP stereotype. But like everything in life, it’s not just simply black and white. I was trying to be fair and non-judgmental. I was trying to give both sides a fair voice.”

Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time courted controversy for giving the BNP a legitimate platform; despite his performance being critically panned, the BNP claimed that it quickly resulted in 3,000 people registering to sign up as party members. So does giving the BNP “a voice” do their recruitment for them? “Look, a lot of people get angry with me for having made this film, but I think you can actually make more progress by giving them a voice. If you treat the BNP as monsters that must be ignored and just bashed on the head, it reconfirms their sense of being outsiders, of the establishment being against them. If you treat them properly, then suddenly they have to look at what it is they’re saying, and they have to be responsible for their actions.”

Surely it must have been difficult trying to allay their fears and breach that deep-seated mistrust. “It was a constant process of negotiation with the BNP. They let me in, but I constantly had to persuade them that I wasn’t secretly filming and that I wasn’t going to stitch them up. When they were out walking the streets, leafleting six hours a day in the freezing cold, I was there with them. They saw that I wasn’t just coming in as a journalist to grab a few soundbytes and run off. But they still didn’t trust me, right up until the end. Especially as a woman, I think. They just couldn’t work out what the hell I was doing there as a woman on my own with a camera. Even now I hear from some of them saying that their expectations are low, that they’ll be made to look like evil idiots.”

Have any of them seen it? What did Nick Griffin make of it? “I’ve tried to show it to Nick Griffin. They all made such a big fuss the whole time I was making the film. I was intimidated, threatened even, and I’ve since not been able to show it to any of them. Maybe they just don’t want to relive an awful, awful result and a complete humiliation.”

Despite a year of increased national exposure, the BNP suffered a crushing defeat, finishing third behind Hodge and the Conservatives. “They didn’t stand a chance. They were so disorganised. The media were building them up as this viable threat, but that wasn’t what I was seeing. They were just going around with their photocopied leaflets, shoving them through doors. That was the extent of their campaign.”

No one can forget Bob Bailey’s scuffle with some Asian youths while canvassing. Was it not frightening filming alone – Laura didn’t have a film crew – when there was a constant threat of violent confrontation? “I did feel vulnerable and scared on my own. Without money it’s very difficult to get people to commit people to a year’s work. I had a tiny budget. I can’t really say how much because I think my executive producer would be embarrassed! Many people assumed I was BNP. I was even spat on. Sometimes going home on the tube I would think “what the fuck am I doing? I’ve got two young kids.” There were times when I just didn’t feel safe, especially when I was out with Nick Griffin walking the streets. There was a real sense that someone would come and kill him. Cars would drive by slowly, and they’d drive off, and then another would drive up really close.”

Was her access to Griffin – whether canvassing or in the café – predicated on her skin colour? “I thought that maybe it did help a bit, but then they were so keen to prove that they weren’t racist. During the election, BBC Panorama sent a TV crew with a black cameraman. The BNP were so lovely and friendly and welcoming to him. Nick Griffin went out of his way to be nice to him, and they’d all given me such a hard time for months and months. So it’s difficult to say…”

Laura tells me that some people feel the BNP come off better than the Labour Party in the film. Does she feel the camera inhibited their honesty? “I was there so much with the BNP, and they got so used to me being around, that often they’d forget I was there. So there is a lot of honesty in the film. Having said that, Nick Griffin is incredibly calculating and incredibly careful. So I didn’t get the Holocaust denial moment or whatever else it is that people are hoping to get out of this!”

What does Margaret Hodge make of it? “She’s disappointed. It’s not the film she wanted. She wanted something that was going to show all the brilliant work she was doing in Barking to reconnect with the white working class vote, something that would show what monsters the BNP are. But once Nick Griffin announced he was standing, she wobbled a bit and for a while she wasn’t so keen for me to make the film. It became quite difficult because I started moving between both sides. One day I’d be in the Labour Barking office, and the next I’d be in the back of a BNP van. But to her credit she allowed me to carry on making it even in the times she was terrified, when she thought she would lose.”

The BNP ran a dirty campaign against Hodge in Barking, calling her ‘Margaret the Egyptian Hodge’ because she was born in Egypt, before coming to Britain with her Jewish parents, who were fleeing Nazi-occupied Austria. What about Labour’s campaign? “I very much had the sense that Labour was playing just as dirty a game as the BNP. Margaret’s whole thing on the doorstep was: “the BNP are Nazi fascists. You either vote for me or the Nazis.” And that’s demonising and calling everyone who wants to vote for the BNP in her community a fascist. Well there are reasons they are voting for the BNP – they’ve been so let down by the Labour Party. They’ve been left to rot in revolting tower blocks for seventeen years without a chance of being moved, with no one to listen to them.”

-----------------------------

I think we as a party came across very well. At least it should have nailed the lie that the BNP are a bunch of neo-nazi skinheads.

All I saw were people who are trying to save our country and its people from the direct and indirect Anti-White racism that the foreigners already here show to the Indigenous British, with racist comments aimed at the BNP such as "WHITE C***S F***K O** before you get Blown away or words to that effect, from an immigrant to the BNP in the first 5 or 10 minutes of the programme.

Good to see that Hodge, who said she was trying to reconnect with the White Working Class vote, didn't bother and went to the Islamists and african voters to mobilise their vote.

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

HOMOSEXUALS AND CHILDREN

Homosexuals (and liberals) always vehemently deny that “gays” and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexuals. In fact, for many, especially in the mainstream media, this is a topic whose name they dare not speak.

In this age of “equality” when homosexuals are “entitled” to adopt and foster children every bit as much as normal married couples, you would imagine that the issue has been thoroughly researched in order to protect children as much as possible.

You would dearly hope so.

But what is the truth? Are homosexuals more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals? Was the government right to force adoption agencies that refused to go along with this new agenda to close their doors or are all animals not equal when it comes to caring for children?

I was inspired to write this post after seeing the adverts on the Pink News website. The main ad banner on the mast head was for Southwark Council who are recruiting people to work with children, adolescents and families. I doubt they would dare advertise on a website dedicated to promoting heterosexuality.

Further down is an ad for the charity Plan, looking for people to sponsor children. The advert beside this one declares, “You can be a queer candy”. I didn’t click on that one.

It has left me wondering if the companies who placed these adverts believe that homosexuals have more of an “interest” in children and so their clients will get better results.

(There was also an ad for a course from Middlesex University: “Do you want to change the face of TV so it reflects the diverse world you live in and the people you know?…We are keen to hear from applications with no or limited experience of the media industry. Applications are encouraged from those with a diverse background or a strong understanding of diversity.”)

Anyway, I have tried Googling for definitive information on the subject of whether homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children, but the information seems hard to find.

When talking about the Catholic Church’s paedophile scandal, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN, blamed homosexuals in the priesthood,

Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17.

Tomasi added that it would be “more correct” to refer to ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males, than paedophilia.

Father John Owen, the communications officer for the archdiocese of Cardiff and also a chaplain at Cardiff University, told the BBC that,

most of the offences are being committed by homosexuals and said that teenage boys were the group affected by the “majority” of abuse cases in the United Kingdom, adding: “Now what does that tell you? Now that is a fact.”

The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue reported in a recent Washington Post opinion piece about the origins of the Catholic Church’s child molestation scandals,

More recently, in organs such as the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of Sex Research, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy and Pediatrics, it has been established that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child molesters.

Dr Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist who has worked with abusive clergy, says,

Every priest whom I treated who was involved with children sexually had previously been involved in adult homosexual relationships.

That Washington Post piece says,

Alfred Kinsey was the first to identify a correlation between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors. In 1948, he found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.

Kinsey is the originator of the famous and fraudulent claim (and one which is still, unfortunately, quoted) that ten percent of the population is homosexual (it is more like 1 – 2%), so I do not imagine he was trying to do any favours here. The true figure could sadly be higher still.

Here is some evidence, at least, that homosexuals are more likely to abuse children. With regard to “gay adoption,” whether sexual abuse takes place or not, many people feel that it is child abuse in itself. Henry Makow writes,

If I were a lawyer, I’d make a specialty of suing the nine Canadian provinces and 15 States that allow same-sex adoption. My clients would be young adults whose lives were destroyed because these jurisdictions ignored their innate heterosexuality. I would wager that this arrogant flouting of nature will cost hundreds of millions in restitution.

Google “coming out” and compare the resources available to young would-be homosexuals with the callous indifference to innocent heterosexual children who don’t have necessary heterosexual role models at home and don’t know what’s wrong.

And he cites the real reason for engineering this “equality”,

This stealth war on heterosexuals (disguised as woman’s and gay rights) is designed to destabilize society in advance of the New World Order. The destruction of the nuclear family has long been the Illuminati Communist goal. They wish to make arrested development (homosexuality) the new norm. Lesbianism is the hidden agenda of feminism. Marriage and family are essential to our natural development. But, despite the deceitful propaganda, most male homosexuals don’t want marriage or children. They want sex.

See this 1969 document from Rockefeller-funded “Planned Parenthood” which plots to promote homosexuality and feminism so as to decrease US fertility. (Berelson-Jaffe Chart)

Because promoting homosexuality is the elite Agenda, the research on same-sex parenting is highly politicized. Thus, we have numerous nonsensical claims that homosexual parenting is as good for the child or better than a stable heterosexual marriage. Here is a study that actually claims that more than half of gay men want to have children! It says that in 2007, an estimated two million GLB people were interested in adopting. An estimated 65,500 adopted children were living with a lesbian or gay parent. More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states. Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.

I’m not saying that none of these parents have merit. I am saying that it is wrong to place heterosexual children with homosexual parents.

Society is in the grip of a long-term satanic conspiracy masquerading as “progressive” which is attempting to concentrate all wealth in the hands of the central bankers and their allies. They are re-engineering the human race to serve them in a neo feudal world order.

This is the real “hate” and we won’t be fooled or coerced.

nicked from here

Morg
.

yaz