END THE UK RAPE JIHAD

BRITAIN - A HAVEN FOR FOREIGN CRIMINALS, PEADOPHILES, RAPISTS, MURDERERS ETC.

This is an article taken from Russia Today (RT)
http://rt.com/news/uk-immigrants-criminals-deportation-837/

Which shows how low this country has sunk.
Britain in the 1980s would never have allowed the scum of the world to come here, claim benefits, Free housing, health and money and education.

But not now the Country and the Indigenous Population have been betrayed by the LibLabCon party.

Read and be disgusted -





In the UK, which is often called a haven for foreign criminals, ministers are under growing pressure to take measures to close a loophole in the law that allows to offenders to stay in the country even after committing serious crimes.
­In mid-November, the Home Office officially recognized for the first that foreign criminals facing deportation from Britain are creating “a network of children,” starting families in order to stay in the country.
The official recognition of the growing problem has strengthened calls to reform the Human Rights Act in order to ensure that the UK can deport those considered to pose a threat to the public.
“The right to a family life is not an absolute right, and must not be used to drive a coach and horses though our immigration system,” Home Secretary Theresa May argues.
Home Office rules state that any such individual who is jailed for more than a year should be deported, but many judges are appealing to the Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
An innocuous-sounding element in the HRA means that having children can stop illegal immigrants being kicked out of Britain – no matter what they have done.
Paul Houston knows what it is like to have your family destroyed. His 12-year-old daughter Amy was killed in a hit-and-run driver – it was an Iraqi man who had been banned from driving.
“As she was crossing the road, Mr. Ibrahim, the driver of the car that ran her over, hit her and carried her on the bonnet of the car, and she became trapped under the wheels of the car, and he basically fled the scene and left her to die trapped under the wheels of a motor car,” the victim Paul Houston says.
Amy’s killer, Aso Mohammed Ibrahim already had a string of minor convictions even before he mowed her down and fled.
But because he subsequently fathered two children by a British woman, he still lives in the UK. It is Article 8 that keeps him there.
In May this year, it was revealed that nearly 4,000 foreign criminals were set free from detention centers because it was decided they could not be deported within a reasonable timeframe. Among them were dozens of rapists, murderers and pedophiles. Separately, last year nearly 600 people used the Human Rights Act to avoid deportation, the vast majority citing the right to a private and family life.
In the case of Amy’s killer, a series of bungles and delays by the authorities meant that, by the time Ibrahim came up for deportation, he appeared to have established a family. Despite flimsy evidence about his parenting intentions, he was allowed to stay.
Yet human rights campaigners argue Britain’s status as a haven for the persecuted is sacred.
“These are rights that hark back hundreds of years. They’re embedded in international law, adopted after the Second World War to make sure we always grounded our own society on those principles we hold dear,” says Angela Patrick, director of Human Rights Policy.
But for a grieving father like Paul, that stance is missing the point.
“What we have, especially with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, is criminals, terrorists, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, all using the Human Rights Act as a shield to hide behind, and to allow them to stay in the country. I don’t have a problem with genuine asylum seekers – I don’t think anyone has – but we have people abusing it, and that’s what needs to be addressed,” says Paul Houston.
Amy was Paul’s only child. He now lives alone, spending his time campaigning against Article 8, and wondering why the rights of his daughter’s immigrant killer outweigh his own.
Oddly enough, but even a cat and its criminal owner have catapulted the issue into the headlines.
The Home Secretary has seized on claims that an illegal Bolivian was allowed to stay in the UK country because of the emotional trauma of separating him from his pet. Not quite true, but it got people talking, and noticing much more serious cases, including a rapist who successfully argued asylum over his social life, and a killer who lived with his parents.

              -----------------   

Now you can do something about it.

You can forget the BNP, they're dead in the water and sinking fast as the Local Election Results show.

But we now have the BRITISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

The BDP, a party newly formed and in existence for less than 3 months decided to test the waters in the Local elections.

The results are extremely surprising -

Here are the election  results for our three candidates:

Leicestershire County Council

Loughborough South
Robert SHARP –  Labour Party 1449 – 51.8%
David SLATER – Conservative 921 – 32.9%
Kevan STAFFORD  – British Democrats 206 – 7.4%
Diana BRASS – Liberal Democrat 162 – 5.8%
Tony ONIONS – TU & Soc Against Cuts 60 – 2.1%

Coalville
Terri EYNON – Labour Party 1294 – 44.7%
Phil HOLLAND –  UKIP 825 28.5%
John COTTERILL  - Conservative 476 – 16.4%
Graham PARTNER -  British Democrats 215 – 7.4%
Lee WINDRAM – Liberal Democrat 84 – 2.9%

Lancashire County Council

Pendle Central
Dorothy Lord – Liberal Democrats 1055 -
Ian Graham – Labour 864 -
Tommy Cooney – Conservatives 847 -
Brian Parker – BNP 423 – 12.7%
Gary Topping – Brit Dems 133 – 4%

I advise you to take a look at the BDP Website and decide for yourself whether you stay away from Nationalism or rejoin and start fighting back without the baggage of the BNP or Griffin.

 http://britishdemocraticparty.co.uk/

We can take our country back but YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU.

You don't need to dodge bullets or bombs to take OUR COUNTRY BACK.

Are you up for it ?

JOIN THE BRITISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY

                          

ADOLF HITLER THE ANTI-RACIST

GMO Threat against humanity proven

AGRICULTURAL SETASIDE - DESIGNED TO STARVE THE BRITISH IN THE UPCOMING FOOD FAMINE?

Must Britain now Dig for Survival?

Warnings of world food shortages are gathering pace and the horsemeat scandal has highlighted the provenance of food 

As a nation that imports 40 per cent of all the food we consume, Britain is in a precarious position if the supply chain breaks down due to poor harvests, rising international costs and competition from other countries clamouring to buy up dwindling stocks.

It was revealed earlier this month that our wet winter and freezing spring have led to the poorest potato yield (down 20 per cent on last year) since the drought of 1976. Jersey Royals will be at least a month late because of tardy planting due to adverse weather, and the price of a 2.5kg bag of white potatoes has risen by 43 per cent – up from £1.35 this time last year to £1.93. The carrot harvest has been hit by the waterlogged ground, peas and tomatoes have been affected by low levels of light, and Britain will also need to import more wheat than it exports for the first time in a decade.

It’s a bleak picture when the price of the weekly shop is already steadily rising. All the same, can it really be true, as agriculture minister David Heath claims, that unless householders start Digging for Victory (Survival, even), we will face empty shelves as supermarkets struggle to import enough food to feed us? Alarmingly, it would appear so.

“I am delighted that, at long last, a minister has been upfront about what is a very serious issue, because we urgently need to get our act together, but shame on the Government for dragging its feet,” is the vehement response from Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University, London.

“The last Labour government, of which I was no fan, belatedly realised the same thing in 2007-08, when food prices rocketed, and they ended up with a policy called Food 2030, published in 2010. But the Coalition came in and abolished it, so we’ve lost three years.”

According to Prof Lang, all assessments of the world’s food systems reach the same damning conclusion, namely that “a big crunch is coming”. Falling oil reserves – needed for fertilisers – climate change and a soaring global population are coming together in a perfect storm.

“The only arguments are over what to do about it,” he says. “Some say that new technology will address the problem, but I’m one of those who say it can’t, because we would need four planet Earths to eat like the Americans and two to three planet Earths for us all to eat like Northern Europeans. What we need to do is radically change our diets.”

At present, 50 per cent of all grain grown in the world is fed to livestock. A dramatic reduction in meat and dairy consumption would free scarce land and resources for plant cultivation.

Consumer concerns over buying genetically modified foods may be swept aside by the need for large-scale production, and indeed this Government plans to lobby other European Union countries to lift current restrictions on the use of GM technology.

But a key factor in securing our food supply lies, quite literally, in growing our own, and public figures are leading by example. When David Cameron was elected Prime Minister, he and his wife took on the vegetable garden planted in Downing Street by former residents Gordon and Sarah Brown. Their green-fingered foray was made with the encouragement of the American First Lady. When she arrived in Washington, one of Michelle Obama’s first projects was to dig a vegetable patch on the White House lawn, so that she could invite local children along to sow and harvest vegetables.

“We are all down in the dirt,” wrote the novice gardener in her book American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America. “There is no hierarchy, no boss and no winner. It is almost impossible to mess up and we make it clear that gardening isn’t about perfection. It is, however, about re-establishing a seasonality to our diets and would certainly put paid to the environmental scourge of air‑freighted strawberries in December and Peruvian asparagus in March.”

It may come as a shock to learn that a National Farmers’ Union report shows tomatoes, cucumbers and spring onions are among several British fruit and vegetable crops that have been labelled “endangered” due to a significant fall in national self-sufficiency over the past 10 years. A further four crops – Brussels sprouts, lettuce, leeks and cauliflower – are “at risk” due to a steady shrinkage in production and consumption.

“This is not about growers versus retailers, but we have to bring an end to damaging activities or risk losing huge swathes of British horticultural production,” says NFU deputy president and potato grower Meurig Raymond. “Some retailers are making efforts to invest in the future of British farming, but our figures show that all too often this is being undone in pursuit of higher profits.
 “Unless action is taken now, we could see less home-grown fruit and vegetables on supermarket shelves. This will mean more imported produce, less choice and ultimately higher food prices due to a lack of investment in farming.”

Elsewhere, the Royal Horticultural Society’s Britain in Bloom movement has just launched “Edible Britain”, which promotes the idea of growing herbs, salads and fruits in outdoor spaces: chives in window boxes, lettuce in tubs and strawberries and tomatoes in hanging baskets.

Throughout this month Britain in Bloom will be giving away 30,000 packets of seeds to create more than 1,000 public edible gardens nationwide. The scheme, which has been given the backing of Michelin-starred chef Raymond Blanc, is part of a drive to get people in general and children in particular to re-engage with fresh food. And according to research carried out by Homebase, 62 per cent of British children want to be taught more about gardening at school.
“It’s really important to get children involved in gardening and learn that fruit and vegetables don’t come wrapped in polythene,” says Andrea Van Sittart, head of regional development at the RHS. “And 17,000 schools signed up to our gardening in schools programme.”

When you grow something, you gain a different perspective on its value. In recent years the National Trust, once associated with the preservation in aspic of stately piles and ornamental gardens, has diversified into the cultivation of our horticultural heritage by creating 1,000 allotments, where communities can grow fruit and vegetables. The economic downturn has made a considerable impact, according to the National Allotment Society, with 150,000 people on waiting lists for council allotments and waiting times in London as long as 40 years. Figures released last December showed that the share of all fruit and veg grown in allotments and gardens rose from 2.9 per cent to 5 per cent between 2008 and 2011, an increase of 70 per cent.

But with the best will and the best weather in the world, it’s simply not possible for the average family to become self-sufficient in fruit and vegetables. Alex Mitchell, author of Edible Gardener, admits that the Surbiton idyll of pigs and chickens and home-brewed wine portrayed by Richard Briers and Felicity Kendall is far from the reach of most people.

“You can’t really grow all your own food unless you have about half an acre or more,” says Mitchell. “But you can cultivate little bits and pieces that make you feel more connected to the seasons and raise your awareness of the natural world around you. That, in turn, will make you think before you buy fruit that’s been flown half-way round the world and might change your shopping habits to support local growers more.”

But she does believe it’s possible to become self-sufficient in herbs, salad, garlic and even chillies. “Growing your own food is wonderfully life-affirming,” she says. “It also makes you feel as though you’ve won back a little control from the big supermarkets, and it’s resourceful.”

The horsemeat furore has heightened interest in the provenance of our food; buying traceable British produce allays concerns and dovetails with the calls to reduce our dependence on imports.

Turning the herbaceous border over to rhubarb and spring onions may not constitute digging for victory per se. But perhaps sowing and growing my children’s supper (with plum crumble for afters) could constitute an important milestone along the way.

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

Set aside  farming land taken out of food production, the building of 100s of 1000s of new homes on Farmland/countryside, massive immigration problems not to mention the disappearance of BEES doesn't bode well for a country who has to import over 40% of its food.

If you have a Garden it wouldn't be such a bad idea to start growing your own food as prices will start to escalate rapidly over the next 6 mths.

I'm sure you all know how little your getting for your money when you go to the supermarkets compared to 2 yrs ago.

And what will the LibLabCon do about this?

NOWT, ZILCH, NADA as per usual.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/howtogrow/9997719/Must-Britain-now-Dig-for-Survival.html

BOSTON BOMBIMG, 7/7, 9/11 ETC ETC ALL FALSE FLAG OPS?

Margaret Thatcher: the most useful of idiots

With his mixture of vaulting intellectual ambition and howling mediocrity of mind, Lenin is the MaGonagal of  philosophers. (Connoisseurs of intellectual incompetence and pretension should browse through Lenin’s ‘Materialism and  Empririo-Criticism’ for an especial treat). Nonetheless,  like Hitler, the man possessed a certain low animal cunning  and a complete absence of moral restraint, which qualities  permitted him to make a few acute psychological and  sociological observations. Amongst these is the concept of  the useful idiot.
For Lenin this was the role to be played primarily by  simpleminded bourgeois dupes who unwittingly aided the  movement towards the proletarian revolution, a revolution  utterly antipathetic to the ideals and aspiration of the simpleminded bourgeois dupes. But the concept is of general  political utility. The useful idiot is any person who acts  in a way which unwittingly promotes political interests  which are opposed to his own political ideals.
The best of all useful idiots are those in positions of the  greatest political advantage, both because they have power  and their  propensity to be  deluded by their egos  into believing that they are utterly beyond manipulation or mistaken in their policies. They also display a serious want of  understanding of the probable consequences of their actions.
It was this combination of circumstances and mentality which  made Margaret Thatcher so potent a useful idiot in the  liberal internationalist cause.  As I wrote that last sentence, I saw rising up before me the  opposing hordes of her admirers and haters, singularly  united in a ghastly embrace of disbelief. Was she not the  Iron Lady, the Hammer of the Left, the destroyer of union  power, the slayer of the socialist dragon? Did she not speak  of turning back the tide of immigrants? Was she not the rock  from which the European Leviathan rebounded? Did she not  ensure that Britain was respected in the world as she had not  been since Suez? Was she not a mover and shaker in the nationalist cause?
In her own rhetorical world Mrs T was all of these things,  a veritable Gloriana who enchanted some and banally persuaded  many more, but in practical achievement she was none of them. This discrepancy between fact and fancy made her an  extraordinarily potent tool for the soldiers of the  ascendant ideology of the post-war period, the sordid bigotry  that is liberal internationalism.
The hard truth is that she allowed the primary British  political corruptions of the post war period – immigration,  multiculturalism, “progressive” education, the social work  circus,  internationalism, the attachment to Europe – to not  merely continue but grow vastly in scope during her period in  power.
A harsh judgement? Well, at the end of her premiership what  did Britain have to show for her vaunted patriotism, her wish  to maintain Britain’s independence, her desire to drive back the state, her promise to end mass immigration? Precious  little is the answer.
Her enthusiastic promotion of the Single European Act, which  she ruthlessly drove through Parliament, allowed the  Eurofederalists to greatly advance their cause under the  guise of acting to produce a single market; her “triumph” in  reducing our subsidy to Europe left us paying  several billion  a year to our European competitors whilst France paid next to  nothing; our fishermen were sold down the river; farmers  placed in the absurd position of not being allowed to produce  even enough milk for British requirements; actual (as opposed to official) immigration increased; that monument to liberal  bigotry, the Race Relations Act was untouched, the  educational vandals were not only allowed to sabotage every  serious attempt to overturn the progressive disaster, but  were granted a great triumph in the ending of ‘O’ levels, a  liberal bigot success amplified by the contemptible bleating  of successive education secretaries that “rising examination  success means rising standards”; foreign aid continued to be  paid as an unforced Dangeld extracted from an unwilling electorate; major and strategically  important industries either ceased to be serious competitors  or ended in foreign hands; the armed forces were cut  suicidally; the cost of the Welfare State and local  government rose massively whilst the service provided both  declined and Ulster was sold down the river with the Anglo Irish Agreement. Most generally damaging, she promoted  internationalism through her fanatic pursuit of free trade.
At all points Britain was weakened as a nation. Such were  the fruits of more than a decade of Thatcherism. Even those things which are most emblematic of her - privatisation, the sale of council houses and the  subjection of the unions – have had effects which are  contrary to those intended. Privatisation merely accelerated  the loss of control which free trade engendered. We may as customers celebrate the liberation of British Telecom and BA,  but is it such a wonderful thing to have no major car  producer or shipbuilder? The trouble with the privatisation of major industries, which may be greatly reduced, go out  of business or be taken over by foreign buyers, is that it  ignores strategic and social welfare questions. Ditto free trade generally. Both assume that the world, or at least the  parts which contain our major trading partners , will remain  peaceful, stable and well disposed towards Britain for ever, an absurd assumption.
Margaret Thatcher also engaged in behaviour which led to a corruption of public life which undermined and continues to  undermine her intended ends. Politicians should always think of what precedent they are setting when they act for bad  precedents will be invariably seized upon by later  governments. She  consistently failed to  address this concern. Take her attitude to privatisation and  the unions. In the former case she displayed a contempt for  ownership: in the latter she engaged in authoritarian actions  which were simply inappropriate to a democracy. Such legally  and politically cavalier behaviour has undoubtedly  influenced Blair and New Labour, vide the contempt with which  parliament is now treated, constitutional change wrought and incessant restrictions on liberty enacted.
There is a profound ethical question connected to  privatisation which was never properly answered by Tories:  what right does the state have to dispose by sale of assets  which are held in trust on behalf of the general public and  whose existence has been in large part guaranteed by  taxpayer’s money? This is a question which should be as  readily asked by a conservative as by a socialist for it  touches upon a central point of democratic political  morality, the custodianship of public property. The same ends  - the diminution of the state and the freeing of the public from seemingly perpetual losses – could have been achieved by  an equitable distribution of shares free of charge to the  general public. This would have had, from a Thatcherite standpoint, the additional benefit of greatly increasing share ownership. By selling that which the government did not  meaningfully own, she engaged in behaviour which if it had  been engaged in by any private individual or company would  have been described as fraud or theft.
The breaking of union power was overdone. As someone who is  old enough to remember the Wilson, Heath and Callaghan years,  I have no illusion of exactly how awful the unions were when they had real power. But her means of breaking their abusive  ways, particularly during the miners’ strike, were simply  inappropriate in a supposed democracy. Passing laws restricting picketing and making unions liable for material  losses suffered when they broke the rules were one thing: the  using of the police in an unambiguously authoritarian manner in circumstances of dubious legality such as the blanket  prevention of free movement of miners, quite another.
The Falklands War displays another side of her weakness in  matching actions to rhetoric. Admirable as the military action was, the terrible truth is that the war need never  have been fought if the government had taken their intelligence reports seriously and retained a naval presence  in the area. The lesson went unlearnt, for within a few years  of the recovery of the Falklands, her government massively  reduced defence expenditure.
But what of her clients, the Liberal Ascendency? Would they  not be dismayed by much of what she did? Well, by the time  Margaret Thatcher came to power liberals had really lost whatever interest they had ever had in state ownership or the  genuine improvement of the worker’s lot. What they really  cared about was promoting their internationalist vision and  doctrine of spurious natural rights. They had new clients;  the vast numbers of coloured immigrants and their children,  women, homosexuals, the disabled. In short, all those who were dysfunctional, or could be made to feel dysfunctional, in terms of British society. They had new areas of power and  distinction, social work, education, the civil service ,the  mass media to which they added, after securing the  ideological high ground, the ancient delights of politics.
Although the liberal left distrusted and hated Margaret  Thatcher (and did not understand at the time how effective  her commitment to free trade was in promoting  internationalism), they nonetheless had the belief throughout  her time in office that Britain’s involvement in the EU and  the Liberal Ascendency’s control of education, the media, the  civil service and bodies such as the Commission for Racial  Equality would thwart those of her plans which were most dangerous and obnoxious to the liberal.
Margaret Thatcher greatly added to this wall of opposition  by her choice of ministers. Think of her major cabinet  appointments. She ensured that the Foreign Office remained in the hands of men (Howe and Hurd) who were both ardent  Europhiles and willing tools of the FO Quisling culture, the  Chancellorship was entrusted to first Howe and then Lawson who was also firmly committed to Europe. The Home Office sat  in the laps of the social liberals Whitelaw, Hurd and Baker,  Education was given to Baker and Clarke. Those appointments  alone ensured that little would be done to attack the things  which liberals held sacred, for they were men who broadly  shared the liberal values and who were opposed to  Thatcherite policies other than those on the economy, which  of course was the one Thatcherite policy guaranteed to  assist liberal internationalism. By the end, she was so weak  that she was unable to prevent the effective sacking of a  favourite cabinet minister, Nicholas Ridley, by the German  Chancellor.
The constant cry of Margaret Thatcher after  she left office  is that she did not understand the consequences of her acts.  Of course she does not put it in that way, but that is what  it amounts to. She blames Brussels and the Foreign Office for  the unwelcome consequences of the Single European Act. She  readily admits that this minister or that in her government proved unreliable or treacherous, but does not conclude that  her judgement in choosing them was at fault. She blames the  Foreign Office for the Falklands War. But nowhere does she acknowledge her fault.
In her heart of hearts, has  the second longest serving and most  ideological prime minister in modern British history ever comprehended, however imperfectly, that she was a prime mover  in the Liberal Internationalist cause? I doubt it, because  self deception is at the heart of what makes a useful idiot.

Hat Tip

Living In A Madhouse Blog

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/margaret-thatcher-the-most-useful-of-idiots/#comment-3511