UAF NATIONAL CONFERENCE -******CANCELLED*****

CANCELLED

Excellent news. The idiot foreigners, Communists and Trots, assorted Labour freaks and great unwashed of the Unite Against Freedom Party have had to cancel their to their National Conference in Central London (collective outpouring of sympathy). A little bird tells me this was down to the efforts of a London Patriotic group who alerted the authorities to the possibilities of a riot at the venue and civil disorder on a massive scale by the UAF Party. Well done to those concerned. ‘UAF Off Our Streets, Whose British Streets, Our British Streets…Good effort. (Why not give them a ring to gloat).

From their website.

The UAF has had to postpone its conference scheduled for Saturday 26 February, due to problems outside our control.

We will announce a new date shortly. Please call us at the UAF office on 020 7801 2782 or email us if you have any problems or queries as a result of the postponement. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

The conference will bring together people from across the country, from all sections of the community and from trade union branches, student groups and community organisations to discuss how we can defeat the fascists of the British National Party and counter the growing threat of the English Defence League – racist thugs with fascists in their midst.

Watch this space for a new conference date soon. Hopefully that one can be cancelled as well.
http://www.londonpatriot.org/2011/02/22/uaf-conference-canceled/

THE WORM TURNS ?

Well done New Labour.
You haven't solved any Racial Issues Britain may have had by your BETRAYAL.
YOU HAVE INCREASED THEM.
I wonder what LISA NANDY and YVONNE FOVARGUE have to say to the INDIGENOUS UNEMPLOYED YOUTH IN WIGAN ?

THREE IN FOUR WORRIED ABOUT IMMIGRATION.

More than half the public support an annual cap while the main worry is the pressure immigration has had on public services and jobs, according to the survey by Ipsos MORI.

In a significant shift, young people, who were previously the least concerned over the issue, are increasingly negative.

Record levels of youth unemployment are being blamed on the change among 16 to 24 year-olds, almost half of who now believe immigration will damage the economic recovery by taking away jobs from people already living here . On a local level, the West Midlands has the highest level of concern, with 88 per cent perceiving immigration as an issue.

Despite a very high number of immigrants, London is the region with the least anxiety but the numbers are still high at 61 per cent.

With the Coalition’s annual cap on migrant workers due to take effect in April, almost two thirds (65 per cent) of the population are in favour of tighter controls.

However, there remains doubt over the impact of the limit with 47 per cent concluding it will not be effective

Ben Page, chief executive of Ipsos MORI, said: “The research shows strong support for tougher immigration policies, and high levels of concern.

“For the first time we are now seeing a rise in people saying immigration is not just a problem nationally, but specifically in their own local areas.

“Concern amongst young people about immigration has also increased and that could be attributed to the high levels of youth unemployment.

“At the same time almost half the public think new tougher government policies won't work – a challenge for this government will be to show how they can."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8339190/Three-in-four-concerned-over-immigration.html

Time to start the DEPORTATION of 90+% of ALL IMMIGRANTS who have entered Britain from 1997-2010 under LABOURS BETRAYAL OF THE INDIGENOUS BRITISH ?

And don't forget New Labour did say "BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS"

They forgot t0 to tell the INDIGENOUS BRITISH that the JOBS were for the NU BRITS.

LABOURS GREAT BETRAYAL

WHAT DO LISA NANDY AND YVONNE FOVARGUE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WHY THEY BETRAYED US ?

Britain experienced the largest influx since the Saxons during the 13 years of the last Government with migrants arriving in the UK at a rate of almost one a minute.

Enough foreign nationals to fill Birmingham three times over moved to the UK in a policy that critics have dubbed “Labour’s great betrayal”.

Up to another million are feared to be here illegally, while a million Britons left the country during the years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The true legacy of the last Government is exposed today in a comprehensive review by the think-tank Migrationwatch.

It has meant pressure on public services, roads, housing, schools and hospitals.

The report also shows:

:: three in four new jobs created since 1997 have been accounted for by migrant workers

:: one in four children is born to a foreign mother

:: a third of future extra households will be due to immigration

:: half a million extra foreign-born children arrived at a primary school

:: the UK population could hit 70 million within two decades, largely driven by immigration

:: research by leading demographer, Professor David Coleman of Oxford University, concluded that if immigration continues at its present level the ‘white British’ may become a minority in the UK by the late 2060s.

The study comes as an independent poll revealed three in four Britons believe immigration is a “big problem” with concerns especially growing among younger people who are facing record levels of unemployment.

Official figures on Thursday are expected to show up to 5.5 million non-UK born people arrived in the country as long term migrants between 1997 and 2010 – the equivalent of almost one every minute.

Around 2.3 million left over the same period meaning the UK population increased by around 3.2 million as a direct result of foreign migrants.

Some 80 per cent of those also came from outside the EU, dispelling the myth that the country’s ability to control inflows was restricted by the right to free movement of member states.

Most migrants came from the Indian Sub-Continent, Africa and the Middle East.

The Migrationwatch study, Immigration – Labour’s enduring legacy to Britain, said the scale of the movement is the largest seen in the UK since the waves of Saxons more than 1,000 years ago.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: “In the years to come immigration will be seen as Labour’s great betrayal.

“The sheer scale of what has occurred is changing Britain fundamentally and irrevocably and in ways the majority of the population did not ask for, were not consulted about and did not wish to see."

“When you consider that three million extra people on this island equates to the creation of three cities the size of Birmingham, seven the size of Manchester or 20 the size of Harrogate with all that that means for the pressure on our roads, railways, housing, infrastructure, the environment, schools, hospitals and the general quality of life it gives some idea of the scale of what Labour has bequeathed to us all.”

In 2009 Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, claimed that the sharp increase in migrants over the last 10 years was partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity".

Sir Andrew said: “Immigration on a sensible scale has clear benefits but only if it is both properly controlled and limited in scale.

“It is still not entirely clear whether the outcome of the Labour years was a result of gross incompetence or some politically motivated desire to change the whole nature of our society.“

Damian Green, the immigration minister, said: "Unlimited migration has placed unacceptable pressure on our public services over the years.

"That is why we are currently carrying out major reform of the system to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.

"We have already introduced an annual limit to the number of economic visas from outside the UK alongside new proposals to reform other routes of entry including student, marriage and settlement visas which have in the past been subject to widespread abuse."

A separate poll by Ipsos MORI yesterday found 75 per cent of people think immigration is a very or fairly big problem and two thirds are in favour of tighter controls.

With youth unemployment at its highest level since records began, half of people aged between 16 and 24 believe immigration will damage the economic recovery.

Ben Page, chief executive of Ipsos MORI, said: "For the first time we are now seeing a rise in people saying immigration is not just a problem nationally, but specifically in their own local areas.”

Damian Green, the immigration minister, said: "Unlimited migration has placed unacceptable pressure on our public services over the years.

"That is why we are currently carrying out major reform of the system to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.

"We have already introduced an annual limit to the number of economic visas from outside the UK alongside new proposals to reform other routes of entry including student, marriage and settlement visas which have in the past been subject to widespread abuse."

Gerry Sutcliffe, shadow immigration minister, said: “This is an unbalanced, misleading and highly political report.

"Migration levels increased initially because of the strength of the British economy over many years and must be seen in the context of increases globally.

"However the most recent figures show net migration from outside the EU was coming down as a result of the new points based system and over a third of "long-term migrants" were in fact students, the vast majority of whom study, pay their fees, and then return home."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8339075/More-than-three-million-migrants-under-Labour.html

Is it time we started DEPORTING 90+% off IMMIGRANTS who have entered BRITAIN from 1997-2010 and the BETRAYAL OF THE INDIGENOUS BRITISH BY LABOUR?

GREAT BRITAIN 2011 - ALLEGED WAR CRIMINAL WORKING IN CARE HOME

Celestin Ugirashebuja is wanted for war crimes in Rwanda, where he accused of organising attacks during the genocide in 1994.

Mr Ugirashebuja, who passed a Criminal Records Bureau check, works at the Anna Victoria Nursing Home in Frinton-on-Sea, Essex.

Nearly half a million Rwandans died in the genocide, and Mr Ugirashebuja, 60, is accused of organising roadblocks and urging Hutus to kill escaping Tutsis.

CRB checks only show British convictions, so the background check did not the summary indictment issued against Mr Ugirashebuja by the Rwandan authorities.

After the massacre, Mr Ugirashebuja, a former mayor, fled to the UK, where he was arrested in 2006 along with three men also accused of being involved in the genocide.

They cannot be tried in Britain as courts here do not have jurisdiction over acts of genocide committed by foreign nationals outside the country.

When their extradition case came before the High Court in 2009, it was thrown out on the grounds that the men’s human rights would be breached if they were forcibly returned home.

Care home manager Vivienne Purser said she was shocked to learn about Mr Ugirashebuja’s past. “We had heard bits and pieces about him but unfortunately there's gossip that we try not to react to. Some of the girls heard things but it’s not really fair.”

Hundreds of suspected war criminals are living in Britain, despite recommendations by a UK Border Agency unit that action be taken against them.

A special war crimes unit within the immigration agency has recommended action against 495 individuals in the last five years believed to have taken part in torture, genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

However, according to figures provided to the all-party parliamentary group on genocide by the agency, only a fifth have been refused entry, removed or have left voluntarily, leaving 383 suspects at large.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8336590/Alleged-war-criminal-working-in-care-home.html

MULTICULTURALISM THE SAVIOUR OF FOREIGN GENOCIDISTS IN BRITAIN.

Don't you just hope that one day they look after you and yours.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - ARE YOU OFFENDED ? WELL...P!SS OFF

SMOKING BANS - THE RESULTS ARE IN.

There's a blogger out there who calls himself Frank Davis. I don't think he's particularly a nationalist, but goodness me he's a fine writer.  Here's the blog:

http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/144737.html

I wish he wrote for us.

Read it carefully to the end. Hmmm ... maybe he's a bit of a nationalist after all.

Morg
.

The Loneliness Triblogology

frank_davis

February 19th, 17:07

Freedom2Choose has an important series of blog posts on loneliness. There are three of them. The first is here, the second here, and the third here.




It's my own personal conviction that the really serious damage that smoking bans do is to the very fabric of human society. I'd like to try to explain how this happens and why it matters.

Smoking bans drive smokers from pubs and bars and cafes, and one result of this is that pubs and bars and cafes close down, and this is a visible consequence - 'closed' and 'for sale' signs spring up on the bankrupted pubs. Much less visible are the human communities that are also closed down. A pub or a cafe is a centre of community, a place where people meet and make or renew friendships. When the smokers have been driven out, these bonds of community begin to be broken, because they are no longer being repaired and renewed. The entire community (and not just the community of smokers) begins to unravel. But no 'closed' or 'for sale' signs go up on these communities. The loss is invisible.

One may think of a community as a number of interconnected nodes. The nodes represent individual people, and the lines connecting them represent the relationships between them, some close and some distant, some strong and some weak. At the outset, in a vibrant pub or cafe society, there will be lots of connections between people, lots of friendships and acquaintanceships. But when smoking bans expel smokers - even by just making them stand outside - they stretch and weaken and break many of these bonds of friendship. And the result is that the little society centred around a little cafe or bar becomes less cohesive. It may even disintegrate entirely. At which point the cafe or bar closes down, and the 'for sale' signs go up.

One consequence of this, for example, is that more cohesive groups of friends may set up their own little convivial sub-communities in their own homes (e.g. 'smoky-drinky places') where they can continue to meet to enjoy each others company. But when this happens, the community as a whole has become fragmented, broken up into small groups of families or friends.

But because these groups of families or friends exist in private, it's difficult for anyone to join them. The original vibrant, cohesive pub community was always being renewed and revivified with new people, even while illness and old age depleted them. The new private groups, starved of new members, are likely to in turn gradually become depleted, and themselves die out.

The end point of this process is one in which society has been entirely atomised, and consists of a set of atomic individuals, who have no connection whatsoever with one another, beyond that of an occasional casual encounter.

Does it matter if this happens to a society? Does it matter if communities disintegrate? The antismoking health establishment that has been demanding ever more extensive smoking bans does not seem to think it matters at all. The only thing that seems to matter to them is "health", by which they mean the physical well-being of individual people. In their view, smoking bans improve "health" by "helping" smokers to give up the unhealthy habit of smoking. (It does not seem to occur to any of them that, when smokers are driven out of pubs and cafes to stand outside in the wind and cold and dark and rain, they are put at far greater risk than they were while they were smoking and drinking inside. Even by this crude measure of "health", smoking bans are far more unhealthy than the alternative.)

If we are really to make a decisive improvement in this vacuous, one-eyed notion of "health", it has to be said that the very best thing to do would be to close down all pubs and cafes. Because it's not just smoking that is claimed to be bad for people's health, but also drinking alcohol, and eating crisps and peanuts. All these things are deemed to pose "health risks" of one sort or other. But even if nobody smoked or drank or ate anything, and pubs became indistinguishable from churches, there would still be a discernible "health risk" simply from people transmitting communicable diseases (colds, flu, measles, mumps, etc) to each other. The "healthiest" society is quite obviously the atomised society in which nobody knows anybody else, and everybody stays at home.

And, who knows, perhaps this is what these antismoking health professionals would really like to see?

But let's look a little more closely at what happens when communities disintegrate. These communities do not consist solely of shared friendships, but they also provide a network of mutual support. In these communities people actively help each other out in all sorts of ways, doing shopping for each other, lending things to each other, repairing things, cooking food, checking to see how people are. It's not all just sitting in the pub talking about football. And when a community disintegrates, a network of support disintegrates too. People are left entirely to their own devices. And in the case of the elderly, their devices may be very limited, if they can no longer walk or read or hear. For such people, the death of the community is quite likely to be the death of them.

Nor is it that friendships and acquaintanceships are not important. A marriage is probably the greatest friendship that many people find. In marriages families are bound together by strong bonds. It is in these marriages and friendships and acquaintanceships that many people find meaning in their lives. Take away their marriages and friendships, and their lives become meaningless.

And in an even wider sense, it is through language and writing and music and art that human society is bound together. When people speak, it is so that someone else may hear. And when they write, it is so that someone else may read. And when they play guitar it is so that someone else may listen. Destroy society, and there is no point in anyone speaking or writing or painting or playing music, because all these activities are essentially and inherently social activities.

Smoking bans do not just drive pubs and cafes out of business. Nor is it even that they shatter communities. Smoking bans strike at the very heart of human society itself, and all its wealth of speech and literature and art and music. Smoking bans attack the core interconnectedness of human society. They are an assault upon humanity itself.

The foundations of human society do not lie in universities or government departments or shops or cinemas. The foundations of human society lies in the networks of millions upon millions of bonds of marriage and friendship which tie communities together. Shatter these bonds, and you shatter human society just as surely as you may fell with a power saw in a single afternoon a mighty oak tree that has taken hundreds of years to grow.

It's not just that smoking bans don't even improve "health" (even in the narrow and dwindled sense that antismokers use that word) at all. People carry on smoking and drinking anyway. They just stand outside and do it, and catch their death of cold. But what smoking bans do achieve is the destruction of communities, and the breaking of millions of bonds of affection and aid and support which go to make up the edifice of human society.

The antismoking "healthcare" industry is no better than a band of wolves which has been unleashed upon humanity to rend and tear it apart. Or else they are vandals armed with chainsaws. We have, as a matter of dire necessity, to rid ourselves of these people and all their works. For if we don't there will no longer be any "we" to speak of.

CORRUPTION IN THE JUDICIARY

David Cameron is getting exasperated by some of the actions of the judges who ruled that sex offenders should not be on the sex register for life.
There are many other idiotic judgements made by these noble and unelected lords such as stopping us expelling foreign criminals citing their "human rights".

These people believe they have the right to overturn the will of the democratically elected Parliament.
They are also above the law.
You can not sue a judge who has made a wrong decision as you can sue anybody else for mistakes or negligence.
These people are" incorruptible" and thus their views must override all else even the wishes of the people.

Now I will tell you a true story which happened perhaps 40 years ago when I was a councillor on our local UDC.
We had a dispute with a local quarry owner who was desecrating a beauty spot in our area and wished to extend his operations into nearby woods.

We of course opposed his operations and wanted a stop notice put on him, and the case went to court in Liverpool and we employed at great expense a barrister.
Several councillors including myself attended (unpaid of course) and gave evidence in the case. It was adjourned in the afternoon and was to be further persued the following day.
We then went home.


At about 7 pm I was rung to attend an emergency meeting.
Our counsel had a new proposition in which we would have to accept the continuation of the quarrying which we did not want, but the woods would be saved. He told us there was no point in going to court to get everything we wanted as we would lose the case and the council would be landed with a big bill.
Reluctantly we accepted his "learned" advice and settled for less than we had hoped to achieve or very likely could have achieved.

Imagine my surprise when I read in the paper that this same "learned" council had been in court in Barrow the following day.
In other words he was booked into the court in Barrow on the day we thought he was representing us and the deal he suggested and we were conned into accepting was in order to allow him to go and get another fat fee a hundred miles away.

This man, the epitome of integrity who conned a local council in his own interests is now a high court judge, or was unless he has now retired on his fat non contributary pension.

These are the sort of people who are making and interpreting our laws. No wonder our country is in such a mess.

I could name this man, I still remember him but if I did no doubt he would bring the full weight of his fellow corrupt lawyers and judges down on my head and I can not afford that.
There may be some fellow Labour councillors who can still remember the details but most have passed on so I dare not risk it.

However I promise what I have written is a true record of what I observed as a councillor.

Since then I have always held the judiciary in contempt.
They are a self serving bunch of leeches with NO concept of justice or integrity.They don't know the meaning of the words.

And they are advising the government!

Thank God that the fool Cameron has seen through some of their deceit. Or is he using this for his own political agenda.

I don't trust him either.