The man proudly posing in the image below is Frank Maloney. He happens to be UKIP’s prize clown candidate in the battle for Barking.

You may spot the mistake in his garish campaign poster.

Maloney

In a statement typical of UKIP’s underestimation of the electorate’s intelligence, Maloney claims that spelling Britain wrong was a deliberate error.

The failed footballer, failed jockey, one-time chef and boxing manager said:‘I did that on purpose to see how many people pay attention’.

This follows his boxing match challenge to BNP Leader Nick Griffin, perhaps forgetting that Mr Griffin was a ‘Boxing Blue’ at Cambridge University, and that the latter hasn’t suffered two heart attacks –  unlike Maloney.

Unhindered by political correctness, French officials have denied citizenship to a man who forced his French wife to wear the Islamic full-face veil known as the burqa. The authorities cited the rejection of national values such as secularism and gender equality, as reasons for the move.

In 2008, the French rejected the application of a fully veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that she was not sufficiently assimilated into French society. French law allows for the rejection of applicants if they fail to respect national values. No equivalent legislation is available to the British Border Agency.

This move follows tough words from the French government over potentially banning the full head-to-foot veils, with French ministers concerned about the corrosion of national identity in a country with a 5 million strong Muslim population and ever-growing areas of inner cities becoming Dar al-Islam – literally Islamic ghettos where the French police fear to tread.

During the application procedure, the Moroccan man had alarmed officials by claiming that his ‘wife will never be able to go out without the full veil.”

He added: “I don’t believe in gender equality; women have inferior status; I will not respect the principles of the secular society.”

The applicant is believed to be a member of the fundamentalist Tablighi Jamaat, 100,000 of whom reside in France. Tablighi Jamaat has recently focussed its resources on the United Kingdom. The organisation has embedded itself into at least 600 of Britain’s 1350 mosques.

President Nicholas Sarkozy has been cornered into defending French national identity having won his election by usurping the Front National’s defensive stance on French culture and simultaneously shoring up the ruling party’s right-flank. The proposal was finally put into action last week, when French Prime Minister François Fillon asked the Council of State to help draft a law banning the Islamic veil.

British ministers were said to be contemplating a ban on the burqa, however, this remains unlikely given the extent of the Islamic colonisation within some of their constituencies and Labour’s dependence upon the Muslim bloc vote, particularly Justice Secretary Jack Straw’s Blackburn seat.

Typically, French women’s rights groups have greeted this latest development with silence, much like their British counterparts.

* The British National Party is committed to banning the burqa from public buildings and schools.

* The full-face veil is not specifically mentioned in any Islamic holy text, but it is said to have a twofold practical use in Islamic tradition; to act as a sand mask; to confuse enemy tribes whilst they are selecting which women to kidnap and rape during a raid – they may well end up with an elderly woman. Europe has a temperate climate and no desert, rendering the Burqa obsolete in that respect. I was about to say that we don’t have marauding tribes raping people on our streets, but then I realised I would be wrong.

A 12-year battle against the building of a mosque has finally ended today, after a Facebook page set up by residents of Clitheroe, Lancashire, to protest against the conversion of their local church into a mosque was closed down by social network staff. The local police requested the removal after receiving complaints from the Islamic community.

The group named ‘We Don’t Want a Mosque in Clitheroe’, had attracted almost 1,700 supporters. Heated discussions were listed, detailing the impacts of the mosque upon local traffic levels, falling house prices and noise pollution.  Others questioned why 15,000 non-Muslim residents should suffer from the impacts, whilst the positives are reaped by merely 300 (2% of pop.) members of the town.

In 2003, Clitheroe BNP were called upon to campaign against the upgrading of Medina Islamic Education Centre (MIEC) to a fully functioning mosque. Residents approached the group following pro-mosque propaganda published in the community news bulletin, which featured support from the Reverend Richard Atkinson, minister of Trinity Methodist Church.

“I hope that the Islamic community’s desire for a place of worship be realised in the near future,” said Rev Atkinson. This sentiment was echoed by Lord Adam Patel of Blackburn, also a resident of Ribble Valley.

Despite massive public opposition in the market town and almost 1,000 letters of objection, planning permission was granted by Ribble Valley Borough Council in 2006. This news was greeted with disbelief by local indigenous residents, in stark contrast to the Islamic residents, one of whom, claimed: “This is a victory in our 40-year battle against the council, to establish a mosque.”

Local resident and anti-mosque campaigner Mark Towers explained: “This is a sad day; we’ve been fighting this since 1998. It has taken 12 years but they’ve finally worn us down, and the Tory-controlled borough council just caved in.”

Perhaps one scrap of comfort – should the community leaders decide to Islamicise the existing structure with minarets – is that famous ‘Matchstick Man’ artist L.S. Lowry immortalised the church in one of his works. The Islamic group have already changed the name of the chapel, from Mount Zion to Mount Vale.

Conversion of the Mount Zion Methodist Chapel begins this month.

By Joe Priestley — The Sunday Times this weekend (17/1/10) interviewed Anjem Choudary, leader of the recently banned ‘Islam4UK’ group, a label that says a great deal about the mentality of those that designed it. The questions were asked by Camilla Long.

It was a highly predictable piece. Typical Times: I was left wondering whether its purpose was to tell us about Choudary or to have us think about Islam and Muslims in the way that the establishment would have us think of them.

Ms Long didn’t so much skate over the issues as skate round them. My suspicion is that she was too conscious of the dictates of political correctness to go anywhere near the nitty-gritty of what constitutes Mr Choudary and that that he represents.

Curiously, throughout the interview, Choudary called Camilla Long ‘Audrey’ – even though he’d checked her press card and knew that that wasn’t her name. What was his point? I was surprised and a bit disappointed that Ms Long didn’t delve into this; why didn’t she want to know why Choudary was deliberately getting her name wrong. But then again in this interview she didn’t really delve into anything.

Initially I wondered whether he was taunting the attractive and obviously posh Camilla Long with a name that today one would associate with an older working class woman. Or maybe he was trying to offend her by drawing a parallel with the soap character that goes by the name. Or maybe he was merely trying to irritate her. Whatever he was doing he wasn’t doing it out of the goodness in his heart.

“I’m not Audrey,” she said, “I’m Camilla.”

“What does that mean?” asks Choudary.

What an odd question. Since when did Muslim clerics show an interest in the etymology of Christian names? Of course the issue doesn’t register with Ms Long. She took Choudary at face value in a typically liberal fashion and answered without a thought, “It’s Latin for slave girl.”

I don’t know about you but Choudary’s question had me investigating the meaning of Audrey – I read that at one time it was unpopular because of its association with the word tawdry. I wonder if Choudary read this.

Ms Long opens her piece with a forthright “Obviously I was never going to see eye to eye with the benefit-clogging Muslim hate cleric…” I say, steady on old girl. She continues, “…but I didn’t realise how many of his own community think he’s dreadful too.” That’s more like it.

What, she ‘didn’t realise’ that the vast majority of Muslims are moderates? Pull the other one Camilla love. It’s a necessary requirement for inclusion into the ranks of the main stream media to realise, without a shadow of doubt, just how moderate the majority of Muslims are – and to shout it if not from the rooftops then from the headlines. Islam is the religion of peace, don’t forget. How can she not realise it? Does she not read her own newspaper or any of its stable mates? Does she not watch the telly? It’s the message they all do their best to send us. In fact it’s the message Ms Long is sending in her own article.

She quotes a waiter in the ‘halaal diner’ that housed the interview, “Is that the coffin man?” he asked of Choudary, “I can’t bear him.”

What! Another ‘moderate Muslim’ speaking against him – it just goes to show how moderate these Muslims are, eh Camilla? Wink, wink. And as if to emphasise his total opposition to Choudary, the waiter adds, “I don’t see much difference between him and Nick Griffin.”

Right on cue. I was beginning to wonder when Nick Griffin or the BNP would make an appearance. Of course Ms Long didn’t ask the waiter what he meant – presumably she assumed we’d all know what he was talking about. I was left wondering in what sense Nick Griffin and Anjem Choudary are supposedly alike other than perhaps in their opposition to the liberal mindset.

This interview is a microcosm of the relationship of Western-liberalism to Islam. Camilla Long bent over backwards to accommodate Choudary just as Western Liberals bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims. She refused to take his threats seriously in the same way that the liberal establishment refuses to address the threat that Islam poses to our way of life. The subtext of the whole exercise was the moderateness of the Muslim community; even Choudary’s supposed extremism was made to serve that interest.

In sharp contrast Anjem Choudary showed his host absolutely no respect. He made no effort at all to hide his contempt for her liberal weakness and saw it merely as something to be taken advantage of. Such is his disregard for Ms Long and indeed for the British state and its people Choudary felt perfectly at liberty to threaten one and all.

He made no bones about it. His aim is the “imposition” of sharia law, and he talks quite openly of a military coup as a means of creating an Islamic state in Britain. His companions, “…a noisy rabble of bearded young men,” tell of conversions to Islam and of trips to the Middle East.  Choudary boasts of advocating “…no cooperation with the police in the fight against terrorism.”

In response Ms Long feigns amusement: “But the funniest thing…”

It’s the same old story – the establishment doesn’t want to take these fanatics seriously because it fears the consequences for its madhouse utopia the multiracial multicultural society. So instead, when they’re not kowtowing to them, they say we should laugh at them.

And what was it that Camilla Long found so amusing about Anjem Choudary? Apparently she split her sides on learning that his undergraduate days were “…spent downing pints, smoking dope, ogling porn…”

Why is that funny? Is she not convinced by his conversion from decadent Western student to strident Muslim? And if not, why not? On the evidence contained in this interview Choudary’s conversion is a lot more convincing than Young’s amusement which I suspect was nothing more than a liberal’s nervous giggle.

By John Bean — The ever expanding EU regulations will cost the British taxpayer at least £184billion over the next 10 years (this is in addition to our £6.4billion annual net contribution).

According to ‘Europe Open’ the second most costly regulation is the Climate Change Act which will soon add £130 to £200 a year to the annual energy bill for a typical UK family. Much of this is going into the installation of costly windmills as a power source.

None of the above costs will be reduced, let alone eliminated, by the LibLabCon parties despite the enormous black hole of national debt which has to be tackled by any incoming new government – and if it is headed by Cameron it will also continue with an increased total overseas aid programme costing in excess of £10billion.

The effectiveness of what the old discredited parties are offering to tackle the gigantic debt  that their globalist, multiculturally-obsessed  policies produced can be equated with the value of the  power generated by our expensive national array of windmills. For ten days of this winter’s deep freeze when temperatures were at their lowest, not one windmill blade turned from the Suffolk coast to the Scottish highlands.

The problem was that when a high pressure area settles over Britain in the winter it gives two weather effects. Very cold temperatures and low wind speeds. And as they were below 7.5 mph, the windmills did not work.

Yet Brown – fully backed by the evergreen Cameronite Tories and the politically pointless Lib Dems -  has committed us to a £200 billion dash for wind. Power companies have been awarded contracts to build 6,400 wind turbines off the British coast. Not one turbine has been built in Britain so far – they are either imported from Germany or Denmark. As for the much-heralded “extra British jobs” this will bring, the only major source will be the redundant fishermen whose jobs have been taken by the French and Spanish and for the future can crew the service boats for the offshore wind farms.

If all these proposed 6,400 wind turbines were installed by 2020, which at present engineering capabilities is an impossible target, then as long as the wind blew at the right speed the peak capacity would provide 25 per cent of our power needs. The variability of the wind being what it is means that there must always be a conventional power source back-up, whether it be coal, gas, oil or nuclear power.

But the EU has already said that we must close our coal-fired power stations in six years and that they will not give exception to the proposed clean coal operated power stations. Led by the French and German owned companies, the UK power companies have now said they will require £100billion investment to build a “super-grid” connected to Europe to guarantee a steady power supply.

Having led the way five years ago in pointing out that we had reached “peak oil”, the BNP supports development of alternative energy sources, which includes wave power, nuclear power, solar energy panels and, as we still have millions of  tonnes of coal deposits, effective clean-coal operated power stations.

We recognise that there is a definite place for small wind turbines which have been proven as an effective back-up source for power generation for individual homes, farms and small manufacturing units. But it is the fact that they will always need back-up that makes them a financial disaster on the mass scale envisaged by the LibLabCon.

Recommended reading: The Wind Farm Scam  by John Etherington.

Dr Etherington argues that wind turbines cannot generate enough energy to reduce global CO2 levels to a meaningful degree; what’s more wind power is by nature intermittent and cannot generate a steady output, necessitating back-up coal and gas power plants that significantly negate the saving of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the inefficacy of wind power there are ecological drawbacks, including damage to habitats, wildlife and the far-from-insignificant aesthetic drawback of the assault upon natural beauty and the pristine landscape, which wind turbines entail. He argues that wind power has been, and is being, excessively financed at the cost of consumers who have not been consulted, nor informed that this effective subsidy is being paid from their bills to support an industry that cannot be cost efficient or, ultimately, favour the cause it purports to support. 300 pages.Paperback.  £9.99

Click here to order online.

THE British National Party’s call-centre, which is usually canvassing for membership fees and donations, has taken on a new role during the bitingly cold spell of weather that has a grip on Britain this week.

Instead of asking for money, the team of professional telephonists are inquiring whether British National Party members and supporters, who are senior citizens, need any help!

“Many elderly folk just don’t want to risk going out with the pavements so treacherous. By calling them at home we can see if they need any help or vital supplies,” reports a call-centre spokesman.

“We then contact the local branch or other younger members living nearby and ask them to look in and see what they can do to help.

“It certainly makes a change from the usual sales patter we use, and the people that we have already called have been delighted that the British National Party is taking the trouble to check up on them and see that they are OK.”

Some pensioners have been so pleased at the consideration being showed by the Party as to their welfare, that they have insisted on making a donation to show their appreciation!

“MANY at Westminster believe it, (the BNP), is on the verge of winning its first seat in Parliament with the support of disillusioned former Labour and Tory voters.”

This sentence alone, buried away in mid-text, was the reason behind the Sunday Times publishing its ridiculous report yesterday under the headline – “BNP crisis as Nick Griffin faces jail over whites-only policy.”

The Labour Party is in a state of panic because it believes that the British National Party is going to build on its London Assembly seat won in 2008, and two European Parliament seats won in 2009, by winning a seat in the Westminster Parliament this year.

Exactly 12 months ago Gordon Brown and his cabinet were fretting over the possibility that the BNP could win seats in Brussels. To try to stem the growing support for the British National Party, Brown & Co paid £1 million to American firm Blue State Digital (BSD), which was behind the victory of Barack Obama in the US Presidential Elections.

The goal of Blue State Digital’s campaign was to create a negative image of the British National Party in the minds of the electorate. It was to do this by flooding newspapers with stories and reports about the BNP showing the Party in a less than favourable light.

The US firm acknowledged that it could do little about dedicated BNP supporters, but thought that it could limit the numbers of voters switching allegiance from the Old Gang parties to the BNP. In fact, the purpose of the negative stories was really to keep voters at home – to generate a ‘plague on all their houses’ mentality.

On the Blue State Digital payroll were journalists whose sole job was to bombard British newspapers with anti-BNP stories. The financial crisis within the newspaper industry played into their hands with in-house journalists being laid off to cut costs, stories from BSD’s team, which were ‘free copy’, were snapped up with few questions asked.

Even after the European Elections, this campaign has gone on as Labour desperately try to stop the BNP bandwagon continuing to roll.

If you go to the website of the The Times and search for “BNP” you will provided with over three hundred stories from the past year and many of these have been fabricated by journalists on the BSD payroll.

Any self-respecting editor should have spiked the BNP crisis story that appeared yesterday. Journalist David Leppard should have been asked two questions:

“Who says the BNP is in crisis?”
“Who says Nick Griffin faces prison?”

He claims his source was “Whitehall officials”, but any editor worth their salt would want to know more details for such an important story.

I expect if pressed further, Leppard would have revealed that it was the Equality Commission itself that fed him the story on the direction of the Office of the Prime Minister.

There was a similar report back in October by Fiona Hamilton headlined “BNP supporters call on Nick Griffin to quit as leader.”

The BNP supporters turned out to be posters on a neo-nazi website. The vast majority of these people are enemies of the BNP rather than its supporters, yet editors at The Times still allowed this malicious story to be published.

And that’s real purpose of this report – to mourn the demise of The Times. Once it was Britain’s newspaper of record, but now it is allowing itself to be manipulated by this Labour Government in an attempt to curb the growing support for the British National Party.

It is all a rather sorry state of affairs.

By David Morris — On the first day of the new decade, some very telling comments were made which showed the emasculated British establishment’s complicity with the enemy forces and its failure to understand the nature of war. Gordon Brown invited international partners to discuss countering radicalisation in Yemen after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian, tried to blow up an aeroplane bound for Detroit: “It’s strengthening counter-terrorism co-operation; it’s working harder on the intelligence efforts.”

Officials said the UK and the US would jointly fund a counter-terrorism police unit in Yemen in the wake of an alleged bomb airline attack over Detroit. It was announced later that Britain was giving £120 million to Yemen.

Why transfer British taxpayers’ money to stop terrorism in Yemen when the authorities allow it here? Because our rulers cannot deal with the fact the there is a war going on between the West and Muslims which is mainly organised from Britain.

In January 1999, the Yemeni government challenged Britain to show it was not a haven for terrorists by extraditing a London-based Islamic terrorist accused of sending British Muslims on a bombing mission to Yemen.

There have been many cases of British authorities refusing extradition of terrorists who were wanted by other countries. Before 9/11, the governments of France, India, Turkey, Israel, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia had protested about Britain’s refusal to extradite terrorists.

It is outrageous that our decadent authorities are exporting terror to Muslim countries. Somalia’s transitional government accused Britain of being the main source of money and soldiers for the fighters of the Islamist Courts Union.

Deputy prime minister at the time, Hussain Mohammed Aideed, stated: “The ICU’s main support was coming from London, paying cash to the ICU against the government. Among those who died in the war with the ICU were British passport holders.”

The bodyguards of Sheik Yusuf, an Islamist commander, included two brothers from Wood Green in North London. One, Hamid, said: We are doing our duty by fighting for the cause of Islam, which is above all countries.”

University College London, where Abdulmutallab was president of the Islamic Society, allowed the spread of radicalisation and has been accused of “failing grotesquely” to prevent extremists from giving lectures on campus.

In 2007, the Islamic Society held a five-day series of lectures and seminars against “The War on Terror” that were advertised on YouTube. This happens on most university campuses and Muslim students use the block vote to gain influence in students’ unions.

Brown also stated, “It is because we cannot win through a fortress Britain strategy that we have to take on extremists wherever they are based: in Afghanistan, Pakistan and all around the world, including here in Britain” — but they do not take on extremists “here in Britain” — they allow them to use it as a base to carry out terrorist operations abroad.

The preacher who influenced Abdulmutallab is Al-Awlaki. He was born in New Mexico but entered the UK to give a series of lectures in December 2002 and January 2003 at the London Masjid al-Tawhid mosque. In those lectures, he described the rewards martyrs receive in paradise.

Louise Ellman, MP for Liverpool (Riverside), mentioned the relationship between al-Awlaki and the Muslim Association of Britain, which is a Muslim Brotherhood front organisation founded by Kemal el-Helbawy, a senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in the House of Commons, as far back as 2003. So why was he allowed in?

A cousin of Abdulmutallab insists he was influenced by extremist groups while in Britain, not the Yemen. He regularly visited the East London Mosque, which has hosted extremist Muslim preachers. Earlier this year, the East London Mosque hosted a pre-recorded talk by Anwar al-Awlaki, who the US Department for Homeland Security says acted as spiritual mentor to three of the 9/11 hijackers. This distracts people from the real centre of Muslim world terrorism — Britain.

The Sunday Times has reported that Scotland Yard warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style bomb attack. In a briefing on 8 December, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, announced: “Mumbai is coming to London.” Then why allow them to stay here to carry out such attacks?

Islam4UK announced a protest in Wootton Bassett where the bodies of our dead soldiers are brought off the plane. This was denounced by “moderate” Muslims. Shahid Murasaleen, from London-based Minhaj-ul-Quran International UK, said: “These kinds of extremists do not represent the British Muslims. This march will achieve nothing other than to incite hate crime against innocent law-abiding British Muslims.”

Note the nature of their objection to the march. They oppose it not because it is insulting to this country or offensive to the families of fallen troops or that it is an insult to the memory of brave servicemen. No, it is condemned because Muslims will suffer. They do not condemn Choudary’s views but his tactics — they share the same goals.

What is behind the security services allowing Muslim extremists to weapon train and develop networks here? This is a clue: former Italian President Francesco Cossiga admitted in the Italian paper Corriere della Sera in 2008, that in the 1970s, the Italian government allowed Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks.

The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a “secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organisations, including terrorist groups. Moro designed the terms of the agreement with Arab terrorists, Cossiga said. “The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organisations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were ‘handled’ by the secret services.”

The security services have operated a similar deal in Britain. On 22 August 1998, the newspaper Al Sharq Al Awsat quoted Omar Bakri: “I work here in accordance with the covenant of peace which I made with the British government when I got (political) asylum.”

This covenant allowed Muslim extremists to plan attacks abroad and develop terror networks here. In 1999 it was reported that each year approximately 2,000 Muslims were trained about Holy War at camps in Britain run by Bakri’s organisation al-Muhajiroun.

In Birmingham and London the trainees learnt hand-to-hand combat and survival skills. For further training they were sent for military training in Yemen and Afghanistan. After the London bombings, The Times reported that “a dozen members” of Al-Muhajiroun “have taken part in suicide bombings or have become close to Al-Qaeda and its support network.” He was protected here for 20 years.

In January 2007 Bakri revealed that Islamist extremists were infiltrating the police and other public sector organisations. The Daily Mail exposed eight members of al-Qaeda in the police.

MI5 investigate what the Government instructs them to investigate and ignore what the Government wants them to ignore.

As far back as 4 May 2003, The Sunday Telegraph’s Alasdair Palmer wrote: “Britain has become the headquarters of choice for extremist Islamic preachers, who now have a network of organisations dedicated to sowing pure hatred: hatred of the West, of democracy, and of the values of tolerance and freedom — the very values that give them the freedom to operate here: ‘Your task against the infidel,’ says one video, ‘is to kill their children, take their women, destroy their homes.’”

In January 2009, the head of domestic security service MI5 revealed that 2,000 people in Britain were involved with Islamist terrorist plots and many more support terrorism through fundraising and propaganda.

From 11 September 2001 to the end of March 2008, British authorities arrested 1,471 Muslims for terrorism-related offences. Yet just six months later, The Daily Mail reported the security services were scaling down checks on Muslim terrorists.

Commander Shaun Sawyer of Scotland Yard’s counterterrorism command gave the green light to Muslim extremists by telling the Muslim Safety Forum that security services would scapegoat “whites” and scale down surveillance on them — “far right” groups could be planning a terrorist “spectacular” to stoke up racial tensions,” he said.

I wouldn’t put it past security services to do one and blame the “far-right.” This followed an order to the police to “go easy” on Muslim terrorists.

The London bombings of 9/5 resulted from British security services allowing the development of terror networks throughout Britain. A threat assessment by the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre a mere month earlier stated: “There was no group with current intent and capability” to commit a terrorist attack in Britain.

Colin Cramphorne, chief constable of West Yorkshire from 2002 until his death in 2006, was mocked for warning that extremist cells ran training camps in national parks, such as the Yorkshire Dales.

After being alerted by local farmers, the British National Party reported to Yorkshire police that young Muslims were weapons training with guns in local woods and fields. The media obscured this by mocking the claims and the police refused to investigate.

Attempted attacks like the series of attacks known in Europe, America and the Middle East in 1999 and 2000 were planned in London. There were terrorist cells in Milan and Hamburg but London was the control centre.

It was known that Abu Qatada was running the al Qaeda cells in Spain and Germany from London. The two terrorists who bombed Mike’s Place in Tel Aviv were Muslims with British passports.

Not long after 9/11, the Prime Minister’s office published an analysis of terrorism that showed there was evidence available: “Al Qaeda retains the capability and the will to make further attacks on the US and its allies including the United Kingdom… other cells like those who carried out the tasks must be assumed to exist … al Qaeda functions on its own and through a network of other terrorist organisations. These include Egyptian Islamic Jihad and other North African Islamic extremist terrorist groups, and a number of other Jihadi groups in other countries including the Sudan, the Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and India. Al Qaeda also maintains cells and personnel in a number of other countries.”

On its website, the Egyptian State Information Service announced in its article “Call to Combat Terrorism,” that Britain harboured seven of the 14 most wanted terrorists. These included one who plotted the failed assassination of the Egyptian prime minister.

In August 2006, the US government put the highest terrorism alert ever for commercial flights from Britain to US after “the liquid terror” attack was foiled.

Michael Chertoff, Homeland Securities Secretary, said that this “plot may indeed be suggestive of Al-Qaeda, but its real incubator is the atmosphere of Londonistan: the political correctness of Britain that keeps British officials from confronting the jihad ideology that spreads in British mosques and Islamic schools.”

A Muslim school in London famously taught that Christian and Jewish people are “pigs”!

How did this situation come about?

After the Yom Kippur War of 1973 between Israel and her Arab neighbours, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) struck back at the West through an oil embargo on America and by increasing prices by 70 percent on her European allies. This caused the cost of a barrel of oil to rise from $3 to $5.11. In January 1974, they raised it further to $11.65, forcing industrial nations to submit to Arab influence.

Then the EC bowed to Palestinian Liberation Organisation terrorist threats and blamed America for putting “vital European interests at risk” — a euphemism for Palestinian terrorist threats should the West not support Arab policy.

From then on, the Euro-Arab working commissions under the president of the European Commission and the Secretary-General of the Arab League were started.

They have developed into something now known as the European-Mediterranean Partnership which has built institutional structures for mass Muslim immigration and the Islamification of Europe.

Europe’s anti-Israeli policy and anti-Semitism are part of this. Talk of “Holocaust denial” is only used to inhibit whites — Muslims routinely deny the Holocaust but the authorities ignore it.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, revealed that British authorities bowed down to the Saudis and abandoned the bribery investigation into the arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems because of a threat by the Saudis that if the case continued, “British lives on British streets would be at risk.”

Meanwhile, Mr Brown has announced that technology that sees through clothes is expected to be introduced at airports. Our Prime Minister said it was “essential” to tackle the new terrorist threat. Once again everyone is penalised because the state has allowed Islamist terrorism to flourish.

The solution to the problem is not “new body scanners. The answer is simple:

Firstly, stop the massive influx of Third Worlders into the West. If they cannot fly here, they cannot blow up our planes (but think: Lord Mandelson just cut grants to universities which means they will need more foreign “students” to make up financial shortfalls).

Secondly, instead of nurturing and protecting radicals and terrorists, their citizenship needs to be revoked and they need to be sent back to where they came from.

Thirdly, the already available repatriation programme needs to be fully activated and implemented.

ONE-IN-NINE people thought that the British National Party were the biggest political winners of 2009 according to the readers of the Metro news organisation in its Metro Urban Life Poll.

The BNP’s 11% was nearly double that of the Liberal Democrats who managed just 6% and nearly three times that of the Labour Party, who came bottom of the poll with just 4%.

Not surprisingly most readers – 54% – thought that the Conservative Party had made the biggest inroads during the past 12 months.

“For a small party we did make a big impact,” said BNP spokesman Simon Darby.

“We currently have thousands of new members eagerly waiting to join when the court-imposed freeze on membership is lifted. It is good that we are getting into the public consciousness at this time with the General Election imminent.”

The finding emerged after a Metro Urban Life poll of 2,664 readers in full-time work, aged between 18 and 44, was carried out in the second half of last month.

There was more positive news from the poll for the British National Party as the top issues for public concern were the war in Afghanistan and immigration – two issues at the forefront of the BNP’s General Election campaign.

In fact, the immigration issue saw the second-biggest rise in people’s worry, with 43% seeing it as the most important issue compared to 36% back in 2008.

WITH all the media hype and Government propaganda over the past six months over global warming, it is somewhat surprising to many people that Britain should be experiencing the worst winter freeze for 30 years.

The Met Office has issued more severe weather warnings for the whole country this morning with temperatures remaining well below freezing.

The AA has attended 20,000 breakdowns a day this week compared to less than 9,000 on a normal day, and it says it has been so busy because of the icy conditions on the roads.

So many people have fallen over on icy pavements and broke bones that some hospitals have run out of plaster with which to set them.

The accidents on our roads and pavements have been caused because local authorities have run out of their stocks of grit and salt with which they treat public areas during freezing weather.

It’s surprising that councils should have been caught short this winter because the same thing happened last winter and no lessons seem to have been learnt from the chaos that ensued then.

Once again depots have insufficient salt reserves and the Cheshire mine that produces most of Britain’s supply is now struggling to keep pace with emergency demands and only has a few days’ supply of “surface salt” left.

Salt is mined from deep underground and that is why orders to the company have to be placed well in advance. It is very apparent that it wasn’t done this year so now the British people are paying the price.

The British National Party has made a number of Freedom of Information requests to local authorities regarding the ordering of grit and salt supplies in recent years. It has also asked whether the Government issued any guidelines as to the quantities councils should order.

“In the light of the problems we experience 12 months ago, you would have thought that this time we would have been well prepared for the current cold snap,” a BNP spokesman told the website.

“Our concern is that the Government might have believed its own propaganda about man-made global warming raising temperatures and taken a gamble that this winter wouldn’t be so cold. We need to know whether it advised councils not to stockpile grit and salt.

“Hopefully our FOI requests will shed some light on this.”

THE British National Party’s widely publicised ‘Adopt a Granny’ campaign to help pensioners during this bitter spell of winter weather will have gone down well with Pensioners Rights – a lobby group that calls for better conditions for older people.

Pensioners Rights has written to British National Party chairman Nick Griffin, asking him to take a lead in the campaign to get a better deal for the elderly. The group had asked both Gordon Brown and David Cameron for help, but didn’t receive any response.

It is surprising that the Labour and Tory Party leaders didn’t regard the 15 points of issue raised by Pensioners Rights worth responding to, especially with a General Election being imminent.

Maybe for the Old Gang parties, securing the Grey Vote isn’t so important any more now there is a larger and much more influential block vote that needs to be courted.

But for the British National Party, British pensioners will always be the No.1 priority and that is why Nick Griffin will be pledging his support to Pensioners Rights’ aims of establishing a basic pension of £250 a week, introducing a 25% discount from all utility bills for those over 65, and a £15 television licence fee for pensioners rather than the current £142.50.

SHARON Wilkinson, the leader of the British National Party group on Burnley Council has challenged leading Labour, Tory and Lib-Dem councillors to pay back hundreds of pounds of allowances that they have received in error.

When councillors were given a pay rise this year, senior councillors including Mrs Wilkinson, had their payrise calculated from an incorrect baseline figure which meant there was an overall overpayment of nearly £5,000.

“I have been overpaid and will return the money,” Sharon told the Lancashire Evening Telegraph.

“There was an anomaly when calculating certain senior councillors pay because an additional payment for using broadband for conducting public affairs was incorrectly included as ‘basic pay.’ The money has to be paid back, it is as simple as that.”

Unsurprisingly Tory leader Peter Doyle wanted to hang on to his money.

“The council approved the pay rise,” he told the local newspaper, echoing the whines of many of his counterparts at Westminster that they were acting within the rules after being exposed in the expenses’ scandal.

“Too often in recent years the call for a rational debate on mass migration has degenerated into name-calling and charges of racism.”

No, that’s not Nick Griffin speaking, but none other than Lord Carey of Clifton, better known as George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.

Writing in The Times this morning Lord Carey warns:

“The fact is that a rise in the UK population by ten million in two decades will put our nation’s resources under considerable strain, stretching almost to breaking point the enormous reserves of tolerance and generosity of the British people. Failure to take that action could be seriously damaging to the future harmony of our society.”

He also acknowledges that the million people who voted for the British National Party at the European Elections had genuine concerns about both overpopulation and the ability of this nation to integrate new communities whose values are sometimes very different, even antithetical, to our own.

He then went even further, and predicted that the British National Party could win the parliamentary seat of Dagenham at the General Election.

He told the readers of Britain’s premier newspaper:

“In Dagenham, where I was brought up, the white working-class electorate, alienated by far-reaching social change and largely ignored by the mainstream parties, could vote for a BNP Member of Parliament.”

He said that people were supporting the BNP because it was the only political party echoing the sense of unfairness that many people felt about immigrants, economic migrants and bogus asylum seekers coming to Britain and availing themselves of our social services and our jobs.

“There is a sense of alienation on the part of white working class people who are saying ‘our jobs are being taken by people from abroad’.”

The former Archbishop of Canterbury also expressed concern that Britain’s traditional values were being undermined by immigration.

“The idea that Britain can continue to welcome with open arms immigrants who immediately establish their own tribunals to apply Sharia, rather than make use of British civil law, is deeply socially divisive.

“Democratic institutions such as the monarchy, Parliament, the judiciary, the Church of England, our free press and the BBC also support the liberal democratic values of the nation. Some groups of migrants, however, are ambivalent about or even hostile to such institutions. The proposed antiwar Islamist march in Wootton Bassett is a clear example of the difficulties extremists pose to British society.”

By Tom Gower — In modern Britain we are constantly reminded about the black slave trade and how white Europeans are to blame for the 19th century slave trade and that we should be ashamed of ourselves. Any form of slavery ism of coursem wrong but liberals are quick to ignore the fact that many Africans were all too willing to sell their own people into slavery to us.

We have statues dedicated to the abolishment of the black slave trade (a constant reminder again that the white man is to blame) even though it was the British who abolished the slave trade 200 years ago.

While we have all these monuments dedicated to black slavery, on Oxford Street in London the other week, in broad daylight, three Albanian men were photographed selling a Lithuanian women in her 20s for a mere £3000.

The unnamed Lithuanian woman had been promised a ‘holiday’ in Britain by her boyfriend, totally unaware that she would be sold to a Muslim Albanian gang by her Albanian boyfriend. She would have been expected to make her new owners £100,000 a year working in brothels across the country.

Luckily for her, the men were caught by police and each received a prison sentence. Cases like these highlight the decay which uncontrolled immigration brings to our society but are usually ignored by the mass media.

An estimated 18,000 enslaved white European women and children are thought to be working in the vile sex industry in the UK. They are forced to work on the street, in brothels, and lap dancing clubs. They are moved from club to club, and city to city all across the UK often changing owners whilst being moved around.

On average Metropolitan police estimate trafficked white women forced into prostitution in London see between 20 and 30 men per day, each pundit spending on average £100 a time — making vast profits for immigrant criminal gangs.

Some 90 percent of these women and children are completely unaware they will be forced into the sex industry when they leave their country to come to Britain. Once here, they will have their passports removed from them, which makes them believe they are illegal immigrants, and they are then under the impression they have become property of the pimp and that they must work off debts to the pimp in order to be granted freedom.

This is a form of slavery which both Labour and Conservatives completely ignore, simply because the people who are enslaved are white European victims.

In the mindset of the average liberal, white people cannot be classed as slaves. In all schools across Britain there is never any mention of the one million white European slaves who were sold at Arabic markets during the time of the North African Barbary pirates.

Instead children are subject to liberal Marxist brainwashing on how their ancestors were wicked slave drivers, despite the fact that even today Albanian Muslim gangs are selling white women on busy streets in London.

Do not think that trafficking stops at white Eastern European women. Recent research gathered by the Christian charity Barnabus showed that British women are being sold as slaves abroad. According to Peter Green, Director of the Barnabus, “I believe we are not aware this is a two way issue, that young women are being taken out of our country and sold abroad because they owe money to the massage parlours.”

According to the National Christian Alliance on Prostitution (NCAP), there is “an issue” of UK women being trafficked abroad.

This is another area which is being ignored by the mass media. With Muslim paedophile gangs operating across the country it should however come as no surprise. It is the BNP’s intention to undertake an in-depth study of this issue within the near future and I hope to report upon it for this website in due course.

The BNP is the only party which will bring an end to the exploitation of women and children with our sensible approach to immigration.

Britain will no longer be responsible for the trafficking of slaves and the most severe punishment will be dealt out to any criminals engaging in this practice.

Sex trafficking in numbers

6,000-18,000 Trafficked women and children are thought to work as prostitutes in Britain

500,000 Number of women and children trafficked into the EU each year

This morning the Labour Party have published a green paper supporting the institution of marriage and conceding that children fare better when parents stay together.

A number of Labour’s proposals can be found in the Family Law White Paper that was presented, debated and accepted by delegates at the British National Party’s Annual Conference in November.

On the right of contact with their children for estranged parents, the BNP pledged to introduce a legal presumption to contact as this would act in the child’s best interest by ensuring a continued relationship with both parents. In addition, all special dates such as birthdays and Christmas would be shared between the parents.

It was agreed by conference that the BNP should recognize the fact that many single parent families are formed by circumstances in which no blame can be attached such as death or the breakup of a formerly stable family unit, but it was also stressed:

“Whilst we affirm that no child should ever be penalised for the actions of a parent, the BNP will seek ways to discourage the formation of single-parent families as a Tax payer funded career option for young women and the closely connected problem of feckless young men fathering children and walking away from their responsibilities. Our school children will be taught through the National Curriculum the moral and practical benefits of the traditional family unit.”

On disputes that end up in court currently both the applicant and the respondent are entitled to apply for Legal Aid funding. In the vast majority of cases the mother gets legal aid as she is normally in receipt of some form of state benefit including Working Families Tax Credit and, as a result, is entitled to Legal Aid. The vast majority of fathers are working and not in receipt of state benefits, so have to fund their application themselves.

The White Paper acknowledged parents or a parent receiving Legal Aid can afford to prolong the proceedings at no expense to themselves. However many working parents are forced to pay thousands of pounds and are still not guaranteed to gain direct or indirect contact with their child.

The BNP called for all disputes should be solved by State funded mediation which should, if necessary, be followed by arbitration without the need for Legal Aid for either party.

The substantial 32 page document was debated on both the Saturday and Sunday of conference and was voted on, and passed, just before Nick Griffin’s closing speech.

THE BNP has proved to be the most efficient of all the political parties in maximising its vote at the European Elections from the funds that it had available.

The British National Party spent £282,843 on the campaign trail and received one vote for every 29p of expenditure.

That was far more economical than UKIP which had to pay out 51p for each vote it received and the Lib-Dems whose votes cost £1.2 million – 57p each.

But it was the discredited Labour and Conservative Parties that had to fork out the most money in their attempt to get voters to support them at the European Elections.

Every Tory vote cost David Cameron and his Eton chums a whopping 59p, but even that was dwarfed by the Labour Party which paid out £2.3 million for its total vote of 2,381,760 which works out at 97p for every vote they managed to poll.

By David Morris — The Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge Ian Trigger for his attack on Britain’s immigration system. What is Justice Trigger’s crime? He said that “hundreds and hundreds of thousands” of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system.

Justice Trigger made the comment as he sentenced a drug dealer to jail. One might have thought that this perfectly sensible passing remark would be supported by any reasonable person, but to the rest of the judiciary who encourage the asylum swindle, remarks such as these are regarded as “inflammatory” and need to be suppressed.

Judges routinely make political decisions not just political statements. This is why the establishment is called an “Ideological Caste.” It is united by central ideas like anti-white racism, internationalism and abstract beliefs like social justice and progress where prejudice and discrimination are transcended.

Their fantasy is inherently flawed because these qualities are ineluctably part of human nature; far from transcending prejudice and discrimination, they have changed the objects of their prejudice and discrimination from outsiders to their own people.

The attack on our people and way of life by the judiciary has two main planks: promoting Muslim extremism and undermining our way of life through legal means.

Lord Bingham expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and as “intrinsically counter-majoritarian . . . (this) should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion.”

In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, but now a judge, described nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS, was largely responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force which policed opinions instead of crime.

In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.”

The judge who turned the police into an institutionally anti-white racist organisation was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. His report contained overtly Soviet techniques to oppress white people:

“12. That the definition should be: “A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”

13. That the term “racist incident” must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.

14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies.”

This makes crime subjective and gives other ethnic groups legal power over white people.  Further, guilt is determined a priori and not in court.

Recommendation 13 is even more mendacious: investigate “non-crimes.” This totalitarian device criminalises everything and allows the politicised police to investigate any aspect of our lives they choose.

Multi-racialism and totalitarianism are indivisible. As in Yugoslavia under Tito, a multi-racial society can only “work” through totalitarian methods.

Recommendation 38 which requests the “power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented” and the citizen loses legal safeguards and the state can prosecute repeatedly until it gets the right verdict.

Recommendation 39 is similar to the extensions to paragraph 10, Article 58 of the 1926 Soviet Criminal Code which ordered “face-to-face conversations between friends or between husband and wife and in a private letter” to be investigated for anti-Soviet thoughts.

The report states: “That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place.”

In other words, judges can pick the cases they hear. Judge Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of ‘asylum seekers’, actively discriminating in their favour. He is so well-known in this regard that The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why does he “hate this country?”

The judiciary-led attack our society also deliberately sets out to undermine the family. Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord, announced at a press conference that she supported gay adoption, legally recognised gay partnerships, improved legal rights for cohabiting heterosexuals and the concept of removing fault from divorce law.

This is an ideological statement which revealed that there will be no impartiality in the cultural war against our society. Lady Hale announced before she had even heard a single case what her position on these traditional values was going to be.

In 1999, the Law Lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia law, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that homosexual couples should also adopt children.

Lord Slynn in turn has attacked the traditional family unit: “Family need not mean either marriage or blood relationship,” he said.

The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the preposterous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that their gender at birth was what they now say it is.

What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born.

The judiciary also support the interests of outside groups over those who have worked to acquire fixed property. The Court of Appeal has ruled that Gypsy families in Chichester, encamped on land they acquired in contravention of planning laws, must be allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.”

This ruling put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law which everyone else is expected to obey. In effect, this was a court ruling which legitimised the breaking of the law. Although the ruling was later reversed, it was a significant indicator of the judiciaries’ bias.

As part of the elites’ Islamification programme, many judges campaign for the introduction of Sharia law. In December 2008, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council he was willing to see Sharia law operate in the country as long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments. He also suggested Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.

In December 2008, Lady Butler-Sloss called for ministers to change the law for Muslims so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a Sharia divorce.

Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights.

In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced.

“The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different,” he said, almost as an afterthought.

The European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles which have subsumed national laws.

Even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU, it is seen as helping political union in Europe and encouraging the move to one-world government. It has acted ideologically and has challenged many national governments’ policies. The court has become a political force and the Labour Party has incorporated the EU’s Human Rights Convention into British law.

During the 1960s, Liberalism changed its focus from individual rights to that of group rights. This is actually cultural Marxism which has translated today into active discrimination against white heterosexual males.

Our nation was always our extended family and the embodiment of our cultural hierarchy. The nation protected individuals as part of our bigger community but this has now been replaced by interest groups which are defined by group identities: race, gender, orientation, and religions other than Christianity. Our homogeneity has been replaced by multi-racialism.

One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn the once-pleasant Britain into a world centre for terrorists. These people use Britain as a base from which to attack other countries.

Human Rights laws prohibit “degrading treatment or torture.” This has been interpreted to mean that illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, cannot be deported to their home countries where our judges decide (or pretend) that such practices exist. During 2008, at least two high-profile terrorists were released from detention under these circumstances.

British judges also interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” (in other words, with prejudice against the indigenous population) than in other countries. They have changed the definition of a “refugee” from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. (Considering the terror attacks and the number of Muslim terrorists in Britain, it is clear that white Britons are threatened by this group.)

International law is not based in national habits, conventions or even democratic jurisdictions — but current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even “proper” judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials.

Through the Human Rights Act, they have given “asylum” to countless people who are a clear danger — but who face “persecution” if they were to be returned to their countries of origin. It goes even further. An “asylum seeker” cannot even be deported to a third country where they might face the possibility of being sent back to their country of origin where they might be in danger.

The granting of asylum to Taliban soldiers in Britain on this basis reveals the true depth of this perversion of our legal system.

Home Office figures released in December 2005 showed that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted to Britain since the terrorist incidents of 21/7 were asylum seekers.

In reality, the judiciary has breached national security. Two of the failed 21/7 bombers obtained asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.

Some terrorists were even protected by the judiciary. Algerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995. Eight people were killed and 150 wounded in that attack. He was granted asylum in 1992 and was kept here for ten years despite three requests for his extradition.

In 1995, the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen — but this attempt was thwarted by the judges. He lived in North London and was allowed to post videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encourage Muslims to join the Jihad.

In 2004, judges wrecked the Government’s attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial (introduced after 9/11) in what is known as the Belmarsh Judgement. Such a move is customary in war but the judiciary pretend we are not at war.

Lord Hoffman even made the ludicrous statement that Muslim extremism does not imperil the nation: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes from laws such as these.”

Lord Phillips’ speech, at the University of Hertfordshire, in support of the Human Rights Act, is a classic of sloppy, illogical thinking.  “Control orders” were an attempt by the Government to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Human Rights Act.

Phillips acknowledged that the act has limited actions in “response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade,” but, he said: “It is essential that (immigrants) and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights. If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society.” There we have it: the law prevents the authorities combating terrorism and so reduces the risk of terrorism!

The alliance between Western elites and Islam is so strong that as well as changing our culture by Islamification, the judiciary are now breaking down the Jewish community.  They promote Sharia Law while making Judaism illegal under the totalitarian Race Relations Act of 1976.

The Jewish Free School in Brent is an Orthodox Jewish school and because it was oversubscribed gave priority to children deemed Jewish by birth. A boy was refused entry because his mother had converted to Judaism rather than being born into the faith.  According to Orthodox rules, Jewishness passes through the female line. M, therefore, was not Jewish, and so did not have the right of admission to the JFS.

The Supreme Court decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. Supreme Court president Lord Phillips and Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke found that the school directly discriminated on racial grounds against child M and others like him.

Judge Lord Rodger said the decision “…produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools…”

The judges have undermined our way of life, protected terrorists, promoted the Islamification of Britain and have now taken it upon themselves to even decide who is Jewish and who is not.

When the final history of traitors and the subversion of our nation is written up, the judiciary will feature prominently on the roll of shame.

By David Morris – Two surprising articles about race and the First World recently appeared in the world’s media: the first in Britain and the other in Russia. Both revealed startling truths which are worth considering in detail.

In Britain, Rod Liddle wrote the wrong thing on his Spectator blog about two black youths who conspired to push a pregnant woman into a canal as part of a failed murder plot: “The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. In return for all this crime, the black community has given Britain ‘rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us’. For which, many thanks.”

The Thought Police immediately stepped in to suppress this way of thinking. The Thought Police have been described as an “ideological caste” because they are an elite who hold power and grant patronage to people who say the right things and destroy those who transgress. (Where is Ron Atkinson the former manager and TV football pundit?) To get into power say the right things; to stay in power, say the right things.

In response to Mr Liddle’s comments, Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney, retreated into history to try to denigrate his accurate comments by comparing him to fascist leader Oswald Mosley.

Yet on her blog, Ms Abbott once admitted: “Sadly 80 percent of gun crime in London is ‘black-on-black,’ often involving boys in their teens. As a black woman and the mother of a teenage son, this is frightening and wholly unacceptable.”

So frightening and unacceptable that Ms Abbot sent her children to a fee-paying school rather than to a local state secondary. In her own words, “too many black boys were unsuccessful within inner-city state schools.”

Ministry of Justice figures for 2007/2008 claim that only 2.2 percent of Britons aged ten or above are black, yet 14 percent of criminal cases tried in a crown court involve black suspects. For some crimes, the figures are even more alarming. One controversial report conducted by Scotland Yard last year found that more than half of teen knife crime offences in the capital involve black suspects.

Two years ago the Commons home affairs committee warned of a “serious crisis” among Britain’s young black community.

The public are given a false view of reality so that they cannot make a mature decision on the important topics of the day. Democracy is only possible when adults make mature decisions based on the facts.

Yet the Western media deny the public the facts and thereby have corrupted the political process. How many Europeans have ever heard of the Knoxville murders when a gang of blacks brutally murdered an innocent white couple? The case contained horrific details and if the races of the perpetrators and victims had been reversed, the whole world would know about it.

In that case, Hugh Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23, and Channon Gail Christian, 21, were both raped and murdered after being kidnapped early on the morning of January 7, 2007. Five blacks were arrested and a grand jury indicted four on counts of murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape and theft.

Three of those arrested, Letalvis D. Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson and George Thomas, have been convicted on multiple charges including several counts of felony murder. Another has been convicted of federal charges as accessory after the fact to carjacking.

According to the testimony of the Knox County Acting Medical Examiner Dr Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan at the subsequent trial of Eric Boyd, Newsom was repeatedly raped with an object and then blindfolded, gagged, arms and feet bound and his head covered. Barefoot, he was either led or dragged outside the house to a set of nearby railroad tracks. He was shot in the back of the head, the neck, and the back, and his body then set on fire.

Christian’s death came only after hours of sexual torture, medical examiner Mileusnic-Polchan testified. Christian suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus and mouth. She was not only raped but savaged with “an object,” possibly a broken chair leg, the doctor testified. She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed with the same solution – all while Christian was alive, the forensic expert said. She was then “hog-tied,” with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets. Christian died slowly, suffocating, the medical examiner said.

Despite these horrific details, the international press, including CNN, have ignored the story. In Britain, only one paper, The Daily Mail, in Britain dared mention it: “Ironically, the case has now generated more publicity surrounding the furore over whether or not political correctness was behind the US media’s decision to largely ignore the story than it did for the murders themselves.” The same article quoted conservative commentator Michelle Malkin — herself of south east Asian extraction — as saying, “This case – an attractive white couple murdered by five black thugs – doesn’t fit any political agenda. It’s not a useful crime. Reverse the races and just imagine how the national media would cover the story of a young black couple murdered by five white assailants.”

The worst of it is that there have been similar cases in Tottenham, North London which were also hushed up by the media – “The savage path from Knoxville to Tottenham Hale.” Media blackouts such as these undermine democracy and prepare the way for a totalitarian society as they deny all people — black and white – the knowledge necessary to make correct political choices.

The Neo-Marxists are trying to change our perception of reality like the Soviet Union did to its subjects. The Soviets made a distinction between “Pravda,” the truth which is ideologically correct, and “Istina,” the objective truth. The multiracial ideologues view “Istina” as heresy and try to impose ideological truth on people who generally understand reality by common sense, experience and tradition from their parents and community.

The ideologues think they are pursuing a higher truth that leads to the multiracial utopia via the totalitarian doctrine called political correctness. As in Soviet Russia reality has to be described as they would like it to be, not as it is.

Jules Margoline lived through Soviet totalitarianism and is quoted in The Black Book of Communism: “It’s the need to tell an endless series of lies to save your life, to lie every day, to wear a mask for years and never say what you really think.  In Soviet Russia, free (?) citizens have to do the same thing. Dissembling and lies become the only means of defence. Public meetings, business meetings, encounters on the street, conversations, even posters on the wall get wrapped up in an official language that does not contain a word of truth. People in the West can’t possibly understand what it is like to lose the right to say what you think for years on end  . . .”

For years, people who have been oppressed or pushed out have cowed when expressing their grievance and begin: “I’m not a racist, but …” In other words, they are frightened to openly express their victimisation.

The persecution of Western patriots is prefigured in Vassily Grossman’s Everything Flows. A former party worker relates the media attacks on the Kulaks as “the enemies of the people  … these words started to have an effect on me … at meetings and on special courses of instruction, and in radio broadcasts, at the cinema, writers and Stalin himself, all hammered home the same message: the Kulaks are parasites, they are burning brain and killing children … they must be exterminated … it was as if I was bewitched, and it seemed to me that all the world’s woes were the fault of the Kulaks and were they exterminated, the peasants would find happiness.”

Nowadays this process is being used against any patriot who does not want his or her country turned over to the Third World.

This reversal of reality — where the supposedly ‘Free West’ has become totalitarian and the former Soviet Union ‘free’ was aptly demonstrated by the second article under consideration.

In December 2009, Pravda, the former Soviet propaganda sheet, lamented the totalitarian state in which westerners live: “Throughout the totalitarian West, the Marxist internationalist elites, while busily flooding their countries with tens of millions of Third Worlders, have introduced specific measures to keep the native populations down and in check … Hate Crimes Laws. These laws state that a crime is not just a crime if we can find a deeper motive, such as hate of a specific race, sex, religion or sexual orientation … A murder is not just a murder if hate is involved and ‘minorities’ lives are worth more than whites! If the local jury trial is considered too lenient, then the globalist elites of the west can try the person again for ‘hate’  … In America, anti-white violence is exploding. An average of 12 people per day are killed by illegals and three times more whites and Asians are killed by blacks than vice versa. The same can be found in England ….

“When five blacks kidnapped a white couple, raped and murdered the man, than kept the woman for further rapes and poured bleach down her throat to kill her, there was no hate crime, even though those five became the idols of black racist groups in America. Nor when Mexican gangs ethnically cleanse one street after another. When Islamic Pakistanis in England beat an Anglican priest almost to death, in front of his church and screamed how they were going burn down the church … no hate crimes. When Islamic Turks murdered the white, Christian boyfriend of a Turkish girl, in Germany … not a hate crime. When Arabs and Pakistanis in Athens attack and burn Greek Orthodox businesses … not a hate crime. When the director van Gogh is brutally murdered by an Islamic assailant … not a hate crime. However, his Dutch film, showing the plight of the women under Islam, beat and abused, well, most definitely that is a hate crime … We must face the reality that those of us of European ethnic background who reside in the West are no longer living in free societies. We exist inside regimes that believe in our extermination, regimes that do not admit that we exist as a people.”

Like the Kurds in Turkey, we are forced to send our children to schools where the existence of our people as an independent entity is denied. If we do not do so, we run the risk of the government that hates us stealing our children and having them be brought up by strangers.”  Family Courts often sit in camera!

In Florida, Teah Wimberly, 16, was recently charged with murdering Amanda Coll, a friend and classmate at Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale. They were 15 at the time of the shooting. Ms. Wimberly, apparently wanted a lesbian relationship but was rebuffed. On 12 Nov of last year, police say, Wimberly took a .22-caliber handgun to school and shot Collette.

This case is being kept quiet, unlike when Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming or when James Byrd was dragged to death in Jasper, Texas. The latter two incidents got massive publicity in the states. Why so? Because they belong to  privileged identity groups. Shepard was homosexual and two men beat him to death for it; Byrd was black and three white supremacists chained him to a truck, and dragged him through the streets of Jasper and beheaded him.

The ‘hate crimes’ law signed recently by President Obama was called the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Like our oppressive Race Acts, this does not oppose hate, but “Whites.” It is part of the change from the individual rights of traditional liberals to the “group rights” of the “Cultural Marxist” which emerged in the 1960s. The law actually gives preferential treatment to other ethnic groups over whites by creating classes of victims and perpetrators, as if some victims of violent crime are better than others or some perpetrators worse.

Wimberly wasn’t charged with a hate crime because she’s the right sexual orientation — lesbian. Had she been a heterosexual teen who shot a lesbian, it would have publicised incessantly.

Type Kriss Donald into a search engine then, Stephen Lawrence then Damilola Taylor. We are being discriminated against by the law and the media. If people knew what was really going on in our countries there would be public demonstrations and that is why the crime figures have to be doctored: white crime is emphasised while ethnic attacks on whites are played down or not reported.

Trevor Phillips has admitted the facts. “…what we need to do is stop people being shot and ending up dead in gutters at the age of fourteen or fifteen. Who are the people to whom that is happening? Way, way disproportionately black people. I think you will find that amongst the black community in this country there is more keenness for tough and active measures to rein in the gunmen than amongst anybody else, because they are the victims.”

The failure to openly discuss this serious issue to which Mr Phillips alludes to is part of the multiracialists’ mentality.  Suppression of truth, totalitarianism and a quest for a multiracial utopia go together.  They are indivisible. Because it is so unnatural the truth has to be hidden.

The hiding of reality from the public began with multiracialism in 1948 and is part of the multiracialists’ outlook.

Two days after the Empire Windrush docked on the 22 July 1948 with 790 West Indians, J.D. Murray and ten other Labour MPs wrote to Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee, asking for legislation to prevent an influx.

Atlee replied that he thought they would “make a genuine contribution to our labour difficulties at the present.” Yet in private Atlee’s cabinet held three discussions about immigration.

The first debate on immigration in the House of Commons on the 5th of November 1954 called by John Hynd, Labour MP for Sheffield (Attercliffe), show that these symptoms of social collapse had been evident for over 50 years.

“One day recently 700 embarked from Jamaica without any prospect of work, housing or anything else,” he noted.  He also said the colour-bar in Sheffield dance halls because of knife fights was justified.  Both Hynd and another Labour MP James Johnson called for a committee of enquiry to be set up.

Other speakers repeatedly asked the Government to take action. But Henry Hopkinson (C), Minister of State at the Colonial Office, fobbed them off by telling them “the matter is receiving urgent attention.” He did however admit that he had received many letters from worried MPs on both sides.

In around 1979 a Metropolitan police report on mugging was withdrawn to prevent a clamour for control of immigration or even a white backlash.

In 1959 a report from both the London Metropolitan Police and West Midlands Police expressed concern at the growing number of crimes of violence being carried out by some newly-arrived West Indians. The rate per head of population was four times that committed by indigenous people.

An excellent series in The Times during January 1965 titled “The Dark Million” showed what the official attitude was. The author wrote: “Back in June (1964) a senior civil servant talked to me about a particular aspect of the problem that has since taken some people by surprise. I had asked why figures were not available to give a nationwide picture of the problem.

“I was told: ‘We haven’t tried to find out. It may be as things get more critical, and they are getting more critical, it will be decided that we should do so. It will be a political decision. One of the things about statistics is that people asked what they are, then again in three months time what they are, and then you have a problem on your hands. People start to keep the score, and you have a crisis. If, as, a result, they know that such-and-such is happening in Wolverhampton, they say what is the Government doing about Wolverhampton.  It is a matter of judgement as to when you start taking that line and say something should be done.  It is a matter for central Government’.”

You only have to go three miles from an inner city and people do not know what is really happening.  They believe the media and have the understanding of the world of children. Their reality has been changed.

By Tom Gower — After almost a year since it was revealed that Toorpakai Saeidi, an Afghan immigrant mother of seven was living in a £1.2 million mansion and claiming £175,000 in benefits every year, the news has come that a Somali, Nasra Warsame and seven of her children are living in a luxurious £1.5 million home — also courtesy of the British taxpayer.

Ms Warsame’s luxurious home comes with five storeys, six bedrooms with balconies, three sitting rooms, four bathrooms and a spacious kitchen. It also sports a huge flat screen TV, designer furniture and wall length wardrobes. All this costs the British taxpayer £1600 a week.

Even though the home has six bedrooms, it still isn’t enough. Ms Warsame’s husband and eighth child live in a separate 2 bedroom apartment, also in London.

Meanwhile in the same week mother of two, Stephanie Lewnes her seven-year-old son Cameron and five-month-old daughter Lilly, were quite surprised when Dudley council finally handed keys to her new council home –  only to be greeted by live wires hanging from the roof, boarded up windows with glass and piles of rubbish in the garden.

The contrast between these two stories shows just how much regard the liberal elite have for young British mothers like Stephanie Lewnes compared to Somalian families like the Warsames. This comparison only proves that immigrants are indeed given priority on the housing waiting list.

British families find themselves put to the back of the housing list, simply because immigrants are fast tracked because they often have large families and are therefore given priority. With projections that the population will grow by 9,3 million in the next 30 years to over 70 million, it’s highly unlikely that smaller British families will be getting council homes any time soon.

Figures have shown since Labour took power, council waiting lists in London have gone up by 87 percent and 95 percent in the South East. Nationally the council waiting lists have gone up by over 50 percent.

However, when faced with these figures it’s reassuring to know that the Home Secretary Alan Johnson stated in June, “I do not lay awake at night worrying about the population of 70 million. I’m happy to live in a multicultural society” — reassuring words from a man who at one time considered himself a Marxist and aligned with the extremist Communist Party of Great Britain.

The British National Party will only make social housing available to British people and will make residency in a local area priority when it comes to council house allocation.

Why should British families suffer at the hands of a corrupt government as a result of the failed multicultural social experiment?

The stark reality that foreigners who contribute nothing to the country and who end up in homes worth millions of pounds, will serve as a real blow to the white working class who have been betrayed, forgotten about and ignored by a corrupt party which promised twelve years ago to represent them.

By Tom Gower — The Labour Government has announced that it will introduce  “Gender Equality Lessons” to children from the age of five as a means of tackling “domestic violence, homophobia and transphobia” — but will steer clear of mentioning honour based killings.

In terms of the plan, “personal, social and health education” will also become a compulsory part of the curriculum by 2011. This is little more than a mind-warping subject designed to expose young children to an array of inappropriate adult subjects. The Labour Party has been aiming at this objective for the past decade, and now seems on the brink of achieving their goal.

Schools minister Vernon Coaker said that the lessons would be age appropriate: “The appropriateness of what you do with someone who is five years old is totally different in terms of content and how you will be taught to someone who is 15 or 16,” he said. So here are some of the so-called “age appropriate” subjects:

Age 5-7 — puberty, relationships and how to keep safe;

Age 7-11 — puberty, relationships including marriage, divorce, separation, same sex and civil partnerships, managing emotions and dealing with negative pressures;

Age 11-14 — Sexual activity, human reproduction, contraception, pregnancy, STDs including HIV/Aids and high risk behaviours, relationships, including those between old, young, girls, boys and same sex;

Age 14-16 — Body image and health, choices relating to sexual activity and substance misuse, emotional well-being, reducing risk and minimising harm, parenting skills and family life, separation, divorce and bereavements, prejudice and bullying.

Just what is the perverted Labour government aiming to do by turning our children into adults before their time? Why do they allow pornographic publications to be sold alongside Winnie the Pooh magazines in shops?  If you don’t believe me, just look around you while doing your Christmas shopping and you will see it unashamedly on sale in most retail outlets.

Just listen to singles being released in the charts, again promoted to young children, all with lyrics which glamorise sex. Then the Government wonders why we have so many teenage pregnancies.

Last year, Reverend Tim Jones bravely threw over a display of Playboy merchandise and announced to the media that “The long-term intention of their strategy is to encourage children to see the Playboy bunny as a friendly brand appropriate for children, preparing them for early commercial acceptance of Playboy pornographic merchandise.

“This constitutes a kind of institutional grooming of children for their commercial exploitation by the powerful sex industry. It is indirect but not accidental. It is deliberate, intentional, cynical and wicked and must be resisted,” he said.

While trying to turn our children into small adults, these above-mentioned “lessons” are being used to teach children about “gender equality” — which can only confuse children about their gender. While many children at the age of five will only just be starting to identify gender appropriate toys, the Labour Government is trying to warp children’s minds by introducing books like Mum and Mom Are Getting Married! by Ken Setterington and Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan to the curriculum.

As British National Party leader Nick Griffin rightly said on Question Time, the teaching of homosexuality to young school children is perverse.

If re-elected, 2011 is set to be the year when Labour launches an all-out attempt to corrupt children’s innocent minds into their liberal ways of thinking. It’s the way Marxists work, by preaching equality for everyone, while ignoring the qualities different genders have, all in order to mould people into their ways of thinking.

Labour, with militant ultra-feminist liberals like Hariett Harman at the helm, seek to indoctrinate young children with their politically-correct Marxist theories of equality over individuality. Their hope is to embed politically-correct thinking in future generations.

These regular ultra-Marxist attacks on social norms and the nuclear family must be stopped now. Children should be allowed to remain children, innocent and free of corrupt thoughts.

Personal, social and health education lessons will be a further waste of children’s more important academic time.

* Tom Gower is the organiser for Coventry BNP and full-time member of staff for the party, where he works in administration and distribution at central office. He has been involved in nationalism for nearly nine years and has interests in Indo-European culture and traditions as well as nature and philosophy.