MORE ON THE "IDEAS" CONFERENCE

Having had more time to digest the BNP ideas meeting and time to gather my thoughts and analyse the tone and atmosphere of the meeting I realise the difference between this meeting and other BNP meetings I have attended.

First the participants (not audience) were not all Party members.
There was no omnipotent hierarchy dominating the meeting.

Of course there was a "top table" including Andrew Brons but the meeting was chaired fairly and of course competently by Arthur Kemp.
There was the chance of all present, members and nonmembers but all nationalists to have their say as how to best progress the cause.

Arthur Kemp stated at the beginning that we should not dwell too much on the past but that our purpose was to find a way to promote the cause in the future. Many different ideas were considered from starting a new party to joining a new party.
All were agreed that the need to unite the nationalist cause, but how? What is the best way?
All present were allowed to have their input and in the end the consensus was that a new party was unviable.
It was agreed that the BNP had a toxic reputation but that was largely owing to the malign influence of Nick Griffin and his cohorts, but that cleansed of him and these others a new clean party, untainted by them could emerge.

The BNP in its present form it was agreed was finished with a decreasing membership and questions to be answered regarding financial and other aspects of its management due to be answered in court.
So what was decided?

A new party it was considered was a non starter and bound to fall into oblivion as will the many new micro nationalist parties which have sprung up in the last year.

The consensus of the meeting was that we should have a parallel group with no name ( to avoid proscription) ready to take over when the inevitable demise of the present BNP occurs.

Contacts should be made with existing BNP members as well as those formerly with us to join this NATIONALIST grouping in readiness to take over when the time comes.

Of course this puts more work on to Andrew Brons but with others in the room the burden on him can be lessened.
Andrew was reluctant to take on any extra work. He was there because of his belief in our country and people, not his pocket, which makes him unique among politicians.

And finally, the attendees were self selected from the best of our nationalist bretheren.
All they wished for was UNITY, and that was evident at the meeting.

So whatever happens to the dieing corpse of the present BNP there will with the help of those at the meeting a new CLEAN vehicle to take the cause of Nationalism, patriotism and our country forward.

WE SAW QUALITY YESTERDAY

HAS NICK GRIFFIN LOST HIS MARBLES?

A few years a good friend of ours, a shop proprieter became increasingly unconcerned when my wife went to purchase from her. Afterwards my wife said she was not going there again although she had been a longtime friend.
On another occasion a man I knew who ran an off licence held up another similar shop, a man who knew him. He was of course arrested as his victim knew him. We all thought it strange at the time.

The two above I am using as illustrations of what can go wrong with people's minds.
They were later diagnosed as suffering from brain tumours, which had altered their personalities from those we liked into another alien frame of mind.

I believe Nick Griffin is suffering from some cerebral disturbance.
Last year I thought he was God until he began to renage on his promises and "fix" motions at party meetings to ensure his long term control of OUR party in an undemocratic way by schemes such as proxy votes.

Now it seems anybody with whom he disagrees is a traitor. No free speech or opinions there then.

Today we went to the "BNP Ideas" in Leicester, a very civilised meeting with eloquent patriotic speakers who tolerated differnt opinions. No black garbed "security" were in attendance and we met many old friends.
Some had left the party, some had been thrown out or sacked for asking questions (Griffinite democracy) and many remained but were in dispair at the failing fortunes of the party in which we sought our national salvation and which claims rapid growth, in spite of losing two thirds of its membership.

At the meeting I was informed that Griffin had "tweeted"(I don't go on it) that the attendees were all in the pay of George Soros or Searchlight spies.

What planet is this man on? These people were those who had worked with and supported him and were not meeting to destroy Nationalism.
We met to save Nationalism from the destruction visited upon our creed by the present hierarchy.
We can see the fall in support in electoral results and local activism. If Griffin can not see this he has lost his mind.

I DO believe there are moles in the party, but they are not to be found in those ejected as they would not be very good moles.

They are to be found in those AT THE TOP of the party and not those present at the WELL ATTENDED meeting.

Anyone who wished could speak from the floor, and different views were respectfully heard.
We differed in certain aspects of the best way forward but we were united in our desire to save our country and culture.

We know that and agreed that Nick Griffin is an impediment. He is an electoral liability.
How do I know? The electors tell me and have told others at the meeting.
If he had any decency he would resign in the interests of the cause, if indeed he believes in it.

But we know he won't.

He shows obvious signs of paranoia. He thinks people are against him. Many are, so why does he not just go and leave the nationalist field to flourish without his baggage. He seems to be determined to stay whatever. Like Gadaffi he believes all nationalists love him.

Or perhaps he has a brain malfunction.

If he believes those at our meeting today are in the pay of George Soros he is certainly wrong in the head.

CASHLESS SOCIETY ?

Now they want to take your cash off you.

If they have control of your money electronically how easy is it for THEM to stop you accessing YOUR MONEY or PAYING BILLS etc?

And what if you belong to a political party that the LIB/LAB/CON party don't like?

Your money could soon dissappear, access blocked, payments taken out unauthorised, instant fines.

They want to control OUR FINANCES.



Do you trust THEM ?

WILL THE LIBYANS RETURN?

The news that Gadaffi has been overthrown partly by Libya's own people but mainly because of the assistance of NATO and especially Britain and France opens up a new era.

The reason for Cameron's and Sarkozy's assistants in overthrowing the tyrant are as yet unclear but the attitude of the two countries to Libya seems to have reversed in the last two years.
They knew he was a tyrant but still dealt with and were friendly to him before.

Were they waiting for an uprising to depose him? It looks like it. But why?
Why were our forces deployed in Libya and not in the other dictatorial countries of the Middle East? After all they are all run by tyrant regimes.
What about Syria? Their government has killed thousands and continues to kill every day.
Is Syria too strong or has too little oil or too close to Israel? We are not told the reason for this differing policy. I know Hague has said a few strong words to them. That'll frighten Assad.

The barbaric treatment of Gadaffi showed what a rabble we have supported and what we face if these people ever are in a position of power in Britain.
Even in Nazi Germany the perpetrators of atrocities were given a fair trial before their end.
That is the difference between barbarism and Western standards.

This treatment of a tyrant will have unfortunate side effects.
Assad will not wish for the same fate in Syria and will fight harder to preserve his life and regime. What has he to lose? only the lives of the Syrian people.
And there are the dictatorships of Arabia, Yemen and Saudi to name but two. Why not them ?
Do we fear the loss of their oil? The leaders of these countries will also fear the same fate as Gadaffi and will fight harder to preserve themselves.

It seems freedom is very important but not as important as financial motives.
There is far more to this squalid intervention than democracy as there is little hope of it in any muslim country. They don't want it in any case.

Much as I deprecate the actions of those complicit in the final demise of Gadaffi I am glad he is no more.
It will solve two problems at the same time.
The new democratic Libya will attract all those of that nation who are at present here as refugees. They will relish the opportunity of returning to their own country and to help to rebuild it.
Their departure will ease the pressure on housing here.
If enough return it will obviate the need as expressed by Tessa Jowell for people such as myself and my wife who selfishly live in three bedroom houses since our children fled the nest.

We are told we should move to a one bedroom apartment to ease the housing shortage and make room for those with large families (usually muslims).

I know this might seem a bit selfish but I don't want to move. Yes we have two spare bedrooms now but we have made this house our home.
We have put our stamp on it and want to end our days, however selfish that might seem.

The return of the Libyans will help to solve this crisis.
If that is not enough the house (mansion) occupied by champagne socialist Tony Blair I believe has great potential to be broken up into large apartments to provide suitable accommodation for Somalian "refugees" up to the standards they expect.

Meanwhile we will remain in our more humble abode safe in the knowledge that a mass exodus of Libian patriots is about to occur.

OR IS IT?

Courts need not be bound by Europe, says top judge

British courts do not need to be bound by European human rights rulings, the country’s most senior judge said yesterday.

"

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said the UK need only “take account” of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights but not necessarily follow it.

His comments will be seized upon by David Cameron who is furious with a series of rulings by the Strasbourg court imposed on the UK.

The Prime Minister is resisting a demand from Europe to give some prisoners a vote after the court ruled the current blanket ban is unlawful but is under increasing pressure to abide by it.

The domestic courts had all agreed with Government policy but the human rights challenge won in Europe.

Giving evidence to the Lords Constitutional Committee, Lord Judge was asked whether Strasbourg “always wins”.

He said: “I would like to suggest that maybe Strasbourg shouldn’t win and doesn’t need to win.”

“I think for Strasbourg I think there is yet a debate to happen, it will have to happen in the Supreme Court, about what we really do mean in the Human rights Act, what parliament means in the Human Rights Act, when it said that the courts in this country must take account of the decisions of European Court of Human Rights.

“I myself think it is at least arguable that having taken account of the decision of the court in Strasbourg our courts are not bound by them. Give them due weight in most cases obviously, we would follow them but not, I think, necessarily.”

The Human Rights Act, which the last Labour Government passed, enshrined the European Convention of Human Rights in to British law.

Lord Phillips, the President of the Supreme Court, told the peers that Strasbourg can cause “serious problems” when it rules against the UK courts.

But he said that as long as the Human Rights Act existed Strasbourg would win.

The Government has been given a further stay by Europe on its demand to impose prisoner voting pending the outcome of a similar case involving Italy.

Mr Cameron has suggested replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights.

He also plans to use the UK’s presidency of the Council of Europe from next month to lead a radical shake – up of the European human rights court.

However, he was warned last month by his own commission examining a Bill of Rights that radical reform of the court would not prevent it again overruling Parliament on issues such as allowing prisoners to vote.

In other issues, Lord Judge warned ministers that their open criticism of decisions of the courts that they do not like is “damaging”.

The relationship between parliament and judiciary was strained earlier this year in a row over the growing use of injunctions and claims that the courts were effectively creating a law of privacy by stealth.

Asked about a public perception of antagonism between parliament and the judiciary, he said: “It would help if Government ministers did not cheer when they agree with a judicial decision or boo when they disagree.

“That is, I think, very undesirable and I think it is damaging. If we got rid of that I think it would be much easier.”"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8836487/Courts-need-not-be-bound-by-Europe-says-top-judge.html

WHO POLICES THE POLICE?

Police chiefs 'authorised undercover police officers to give false evidence in court'

"

The claims led to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary delaying a report into undercover police tactics at the last minute.

It had been due to be published today and was thought to be critical of the police.

Lawyers for a convicted protester claim a Metropolitan Police officer called Jim Boyling, posing as an activist, was prosecuted alongside their client and lied under oath to conceal his true identity.

Solicitors from the law firm Bindmans claim Boyling pretended to be Jim Sutton between 1995 and 2000 and joined the non-violent organisation Reclaim the Streets, the Guardian newspaper reported.

As part of his role, Bindmans claim, he was prosecuted at Horseferry Road magistrates court in London in 1997 for disorderly behaviour in a three-day trial.

He maintained his fiction during the entire prosecution, they allege, giving a false name and occupation and lying under oath.

Bindmans are appealing on behalf of John Jordan, an activist who was convicted of assaulting a police officer and given a one-year conditional discharge.

They claim Boyling would potentially have been able to use his knowledge of the activists’ defence to boost the prosecution’s case.

It has previously been claimed that Boyling married an activist he met while undercover in the environmental protest movement, and that he went on to have children with her.

Peter Black, another police officer who worked in the same undercover unit as Boyling, said the case was not unique.

Black said occasional prosecutions for regular involvement in public disorder were allowed to go ahead because it helped to build their credibility with activists.

A spokesman for the Met Police said the force was already reviewing issues regarding the deployment of undercover officers.

He added: “The Metropolitan Police Service acknowledges that these are serious matters and is continuing to review the situation, and will take account of any additional information that becomes available.”

A spokeswoman for HMIC said their report had been delayed to “consider the relevance” of the new claims.

She added: “We will be writing to The Guardian and Newsnight [which also ran the story] to invite them to provide any additional information they may have.”

Three different inquiries have been launched following the controversy surrounding Mark Kennedy, a Metropolitan police officer who spent seven years working undercover before turning against his seniors.

Some of the HMIC materiel expected to be published on Thursday was to have examined his role and those of his controllers."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8837724/Police-chiefs-authorised-undercover-police-officers-to-give-false-evidence-in-court.html

IDEAS FOR THE "IDEAS" CONFERENCE

Perhaps the most important conference in Nationalist history for years takes place on Saturday in what could be a make or break moment for our Nationalist movement
The BNP ideas will give all interested people a chance to put forward their opinion of the way forward.

After the euphoria following the election of our two MEPs and three county councillors the BNP has been on the slide.
We really did think we were on the way to even more success, so why did we fail and dissillusion and factionalism set in? Why did our electoral results and percentages decline? Why has Party membership declined?

Why have we failed to connect with the electorate when the omens for national disaster are so obvious?
WE SHOULD BE GOING FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH.

WHAT HAVE WE DONE WRONG?

The loss of morale in our activist base owing to shady financial practices, arbitrary sackings and the promotion of unsuitable people to posts of authority have meant the loss of virtually all the best talent in the BNP with a consequent decline in intelligent policies.

It has been alleged that many now not in the Party are moles or Searchlight spies, the usual rubbish.
I believe we have been infiltrated but I also believe those infiltrators are still in positions of power in the Party such as the Advisory Council. After all it's not much use being a spy if you are expelled and can exert no influence.

Many good people with a long history of hard work and valuable contributions to the nationalist cause have now, wrongly in my opinion deserted to the plethora of smaller parties which suit their own particular brand of nationalism. It's almost as if there are as many different brands of nationalism as there are nationalists, each with their own priorities.
In addition there are many who share our views but would not call themselves Nationalist but just people wishing for a more just country where our people come first, and above all--

THEY DON'T LIKE NICK GRIFFIN. In spite of his narrowly winning the leadrship, he is a vote loser with the general electorate.

There are policies of all these groups and small parties with which I agree and some with which I do not.
Just say I agree with 80% of BNP policies, 80% of English Democrat and 80% of Freedom policies and even 50% of UKIP policies, and I possibly do that still leaves 50% of the policies of those parties with which I agree.
So what are we doing now. We are concentrating on the small percentages where we differ.
The broad spectrum of nationalist minded people agree on the core policy which is the well being of our country and people.

SO
We should first of all be generalist nationalist parties. We should not argue the differences between Ethnic and Civic nationalism.
WE should avoid inflammatory "racist" remarks which allow the media to tar us with the "Fascist" brush which they will do however unjustified that is. We must avoid criticizing Jews, many of them support us but are fearful of voting for us.

The Middle East is nothing to do with us, another poloicy which puts people off voting for us.
Our policy on that is "we have none".

We should avoid detailed policy statements apart from those of a broad Nationalism. Thus homosexuality, abortion, guns or capital punishment should not be core policies.
These and many others can be reasons why people are dissuaded from voting for us.
The official line on even some of these policies I disagree with and stressing them divides us when we are otherwise in agreement. In my case these details do not matter in the broad nationalist context BUT TO MANY THEY DO, and stressing or even mentioning these loses us votes and support.

WE need all the votes we can garner from all those who agree with us on most things but are put off by minor details.

Margaret Thatcher did not say in her manifesto she would destroy the coal and other industries and squander our industrial might and North Sea oil to do so.
She even promised to curb immigration and renaged on it after she gained power.

Ring any bells? Cameron and his referendum for example.

Tony Blair did not promise to go to war as America's poodle or massively increase immigration, but look what happened.

We must cease having a multitude of small policy details, each of which is important to somebody and their inclusion stops their support for us.

We must be broad brush Nationalists and Patriots and put minor differences behind us.

So yes we should put a stop to immigration, foreign control of our industries, green and other taxes which cost us dear in our fuel bills and put our industries at a disadvantage ,engagement in foreign wars and exit the EU.
We must stress our determination to remain a British society whose ancient values are preserved.

These few headings encompass our core beliefs and THOSE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE, and that is the point if we are ever to get elected to any power.

I would hope this conference will delegate a committee to seek negotiations with the other nationalist groups to combine under the banner of a new untainted party for our mutual benefit.
It would of course have to dissociate itself from the toxic BNP brand, but be open to all true nationalists, apart from some of the present leadership.
We would have to put behind us old personal animosities . Forgive and forget. Friendship although pleasant is not the primary cause.
UNITY AND COOPERATION IS.

WE must show the British people we are on their side. We do have to accept that many non muslim families who have been here for years will have to be allowed to remain if they integrate.
I don't like it any more than anyone else but facts are facts and we can not unbake the cake.

BUT, if we unite under these proposals we can stop our cake getting burnt.
It depends on us.

OUR PRIMARY CAUSE IS THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY.

OUR PRIMARY METHOD CAN ONLY BE UNITY.

OUR PRIMARY GOAL IS NATIONAL SALVATION.

WE MUST PREVAIL.