Speaking after the conclusion of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) court case today, Mr Griffin said the court had in effect ruled that political parties could not ask its members to endorse policies which oppose mass immigration.

“The court ruled that sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 of the BNP’s new constitution could not be set as conditions for membership of the party as they would discriminate against ethnics,” Mr Griffin said.

Section 3.2.1 of the BNP’s new constitution reads as follows:

Our party is a party of British Nationalism, both ethnic and civic, and we are committed to the principle of national sovereignty in all our British Homeland affairs and of self determination and sovereignty in all Indigenous British affairs.

We are pledged to the continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence of the unity and of the integrity of the Indigenous British and of the government of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and of Eire, which together, and as further expanded in Schedule 1 (“Interpretation Rules”), are referred to in this, our constitution, as our “British Homeland.”

Section 3.2.3 reads as follows:

We are pledged to stemming and reversing the immigration into our British Homeland that has, without the express consent of the Indigenous British, taken place since 1948, and to restoring and maintaining, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the Indigenous British as the overwhelming majority in the make-up of the population and expression of culture in each part of our British Homeland.

“The court has ruled that these clauses, which are part of the membership conditions as stated in section 4 of the constitution, makes it impossible for ethnics to join the BNP,” Mr Griffin said.

“We, of course, disagree with the court’s opinion.

“There is no correlation between being opposed to mass immigration and the opening of membership of the party,” Mr Griffin said, adding that he knew members of ethnic minorities who were just as opposed to mass immigration as any indigenous British member of the party.

“Section 3 of the BNP constitution is protected and cannot be changed except by an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the party,” Mr Griffin went on.

“The new constitution grants the party’s leader the power to change all non-protected parts of that document to comply with the law, without the need for EGMs.

“Section 4, which deals with the requirements for membership and includes the demand that members support all the principles of the party, is not protected.

“I have, therefore, with immediate effect changed the section 4 requirements, as I am entitled to do, to comply with the court order,” Mr Griffin continued.

“What this means is that people can apply to join the BNP without having to endorse and support the principles of the party.

“Everyone knows this is a mad situation, and it has set an astonishing and extremely dangerous precedent for all parties.

“It is a complete subversion of democracy and is in reality an attempt by the state to order the citizenry what policies they can or cannot believe in.

“The bottom line is that the BNP’s policies remain exactly as they were, particularly the demand for an end to mass immigration.

“I have changed the non-write protected constitution to comply with the court order and the amended version will be published online well within the 30 days set our constitution.

“Membership applications are therefore are now open and the 7000-strong backlog will be processed in the order in which they applied,” Mr Griffin said, adding that any ethnic who had applied to join the party would wait in turn like anyone else to have their applications processed.

According to new figures released by the Home Office, the £750 million has been dished out to councils to pay for housing for the “asylum seekers” from all corners of the globe.

£51.1 million has been paid to Glasgow City Council, £14.3 million to Liverpool City Council, £19 million to Nottingham City Council amd £14.5 million to Cardiff City Council.

Millions more have been handed out to “housing associations” and private property firms.

According to separate Home Office figures, some 1.8 million people (officially described as “largely British born,” which is establishment speak for Third World immigrant) are waiting for social housing at present.

Incredibly, immigration minister Phil Woolas defended the expenditure, bizarrely claiming that “It is an absolute priority that accommodation for asylum seekers provides taxpayers value for money.”

The Conservative Party has endorsed all of the legislation which created the asylum swindle and offers no alternative to this disastrous situation.

The British National Party’s position on asylum is simple.

A BNP government would endorse international conventions pertaining to asylum which state that a person fleeing political persecution has the right of refuge in the first safe country bordering the one they are fleeing.

An asylum seeker does not have the right to cross 20 or more safe countries to reach Britain.

The moment these people leave the first safe country bordering the one they are fleeing, they are no longer asylum seekers but simply immigration law breakers.

There are, therefore, the BNP says, no legal asylum seekers in Britain.

The time has come to put the British people first — and only the BNP has the policies to make this a reality.

“This is a commonsense decision, as classrooms should be places of learning and not far left indoctrination centres,” Mr Griffin said.

“There have been dozens and dozens of cases where extremist leftist teachers have been exposed trying to force their views onto children, but there has never been a single case ever of a BNP-supporting teacher promoting their views in the classroom.

“Nothing is ever done by the educational authorities over the leftists, yet they have seen fit to actually hold a ministerial review on the topic of BNP teachers,” Mr Griffin said.

“If anything, that should tell the observer all that is needed to be known on the topic.”

Mr Griffin said that the decision was a “good day for British democracy. Under a BNP government, there would be no employment prohibitions on anyone based on their political affiliations.

“That is what democracy is all about. That is what the BNP stands for, and it is only the other parties which seek the destruction of democracy, freedom of choice and expression,” he said.

They have to do this if their programme leading to “global governance”, the erosion of national sovereignty for the world’s nation states is to stand any chance of success.

Furthermore, their plans for the greatest heist in history, the transfer of some $54 trillion from the developed nations to the Third World by 2050, necessary for the creation of what they describe as their “New Green World Order” can only succeed if the findings of the UN’s IPCC are given credibility by the UN’s choice of “independent” arbitrator.

This episode illustrates the extent to which globalist institutions such as the UN and national governments, are prepared to fabricate “evidence” to facilitate the implementation of their dishonest globalist agenda.

The following are just some of the issues and facts that the UN has to “dispose” of.

1. The head of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has no background in Climate Science. His PhD is in economics and he worked as a railway engineer before becoming the head of the IPCC.

2. Only 52 scientists contributed to the 2007 IPCC summary for policy makers, although diplomats from over 115 countries contributed.

3. A paper that became a key reference source for the IPCC’s claimed that the effect of urban warming in eastern China was “negligible”. It turned out that 49 of the 84 climate monitoring stations used for the report had no history of their locations at all, meaning no one could verify where the data came from. This included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest no fewer than 18 “had been moved” during the study period to warmer urban areas. When the source data was re-examined it was found that urbanisation was responsible for 40% of the warming previously reported and claimed as evidence for “man-made” global warming.

4. When asked to independently review the IPCC’s last two reports on claimed sea-level rises, the reviewing scientist was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors was a sea level specialist”.

5. Up until 2003, the IPCC’s satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend in sea level, so the IPCC used an increase of 2.3mm recorded on a single Hong Kong harbour tide-gauge to claim a global sea level increase of 2.3mm.

6. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that the Himalayan glaciers were melting was derived from nothing more scientific than a phone interview with someone who wasn’t even a scientist.

7. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that “man-made” global warming would lead to increasing numbers of natural disasters, such as Katrina scale hurricanes, was based on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to critical peer-review.

8. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that “man-made” global warming was going to result in deficiencies of up to 50% in African agriculture was also based on a non peer-reviewed claim in a non-scientific paper.

9. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that “up to 40%” of the Amazonian rain forest could react drastically to even a slight reduction in rainfall was based on a non-peer-reviewed non-scientific paper.

10. The IPCC’s claim that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level, rather than the actual 26%, has now been retracted.

11. According to the United States Historical Climateology Network (USHNC) 90% of US climate-monitoring surface stations have been found to be poorly situated, meaning that they have a margin of error greater than one degree Centigrade, which is huge in climateology terms.

12. In 1978 there were 6,000 climate-monitoring surface stations; today there are only about 1,200.

13. The vast majority of lost climate monitoring stations were sited in rural areas, meaning that overall results are distorted upwards due to a much greater percentage of such stations being located in urban areas, often on top of warm office blocks.

14. Carbon dioxide contributes only 4.2% to 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect.

15. Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is actually man-made.

16. Water vapour accounts for between 90% and 95% of the green house gas effect.

17. An estimated 99.99% of water vapour is natural, meaning that no amount of de-industrialisation could get rid of it.

18. There have been many times when the temperature of the planet has been higher than it is now; these include the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene and the Jurassic periods.

19. Antarctic ice core samples prove that increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them as claimed by the IPCC.

20. A leading figure in the “Climategate” scandal now admits that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995.

21. 2008 and 2009 were the two coolest years of the decade, neither of which are likely to be as cold as 2010.

22. During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times higher than what they are now – yet the temperature was lower.

23. Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change.

24. Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar in cause.

25. The planet Mars has warmed by about half a degree Centigrade since the 1970’s, which is about as much as the Earth over the same period; as far as we are aware there is no industry on that planet.

26. The 0.7 degree Centigrade increase in temperature over the last century is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, climate trends.

27. The distance between the Earth and the Sun varies; thus affecting the amount of heat energy the earth receives.

28. Earth’s axial tilt oscillates between 21.4 degrees and 24.8 degrees, which affects the distribution of the sun’s energy across its surface.

29. Antarctica has 90% of the earth’s ice and it is growing, not shrinking as claimed by the IPCC.

30. The Arctic sea ice has now returned to its 1979 levels, which is when monitoring began.

31. The Arctic ice caps have recovered from their loss in 2007.

32. The Arctic is now one degree Centigrade cooler than it was in the 1940’s.

33. Sea level 81,000 years ago was one metre higher than it is now while carbon dioxide levels were lower.

34. According to satellite data sea level has been decreasing since 2005.

35. Instead of damaging forests, the increased level of carbon dioxide has been helping them grow.

36. Some climate scientists argue that urban warming is responsible for half of the global warming trend from 1980 to 2002.

37. According to a leaked “Climategate” email, temperatures recorded in Darwin, Australia, were shown to be falling by 0.7 degrees Centigrade per century – but after IPCC “homogenisation” they were recorded as increasing at 1.2 degrees Centigrade per century.

38. It is alleged by Russian scientists that Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit “cherry picked” climate data from just 25% of Russia’s surface weather monitoring stations, thereby overstating Russia’s warming by a very significant two-thirds of a degree Centigrade for the period between the 1870’s and 1990’s.

39. It is alleged that Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit, the body at the centre of “Climategate”, threw out original temperature data that could have been re-examined to verify its findings, because it claimed it did not have “storage space”.

40. The owners of the trading floor where the carbon credits will be traded, allegedly including Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, stand to make trillions of dollars if cap-and-trade is passed by the US administration.

The threat to national sovereignty and the prosperity of all in the developed world from the United Nations cannot be overstated.

British National Party Greater London Assembly member Richard Barnbrook today called for the indictment and prosecution of Tony Blair and all politicians responsible for the war in Afghanistan after attending a repatriation ceremony in Wootton Bassett for Rifleman Jonathon Allot, the son of loyal BNP members from Bournemouth.

Mr Barnbrook was invited to attend the sad ceremony by 19-year-old Jonny’s grief-stricken parents, BNP members who are strongly opposed to the conflict in Afghanistan.

“The British public are outraged and disgusted with the toll this unjust conflict is taking on our young people’s lives,” Mr Barnbrook said after throwing roses on the hearse carrying the remains of the 3 Rifles member who was killed as he was clearing explosives in Helmand Province.

Jonny was the front man in a patrol responsible for clearing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) from pathways used by his comrades and was killed while on patrol to find a new base.

“How much longer must the public endure these unbearable hardships?

“How many times must young people’s lives be so cruelly ended for a war which has nothing to do with Britain and in which no British interests are served?

“The time has come for the public to demand that the people responsible for the sad events of today, and all the other days, be held accountable for their actions.

“Our troops should not be in Afghanistan. As if this was not enough, they have been sent there deliberately underfunded and ill-equipped and are expected to operate under the harshest conditions with substandard supplies and armour.

“The whole nightmare is a disgrace and Mr Blair, Gordon Brown, Iain Duncan Smith and all of the politicians who sent our soldiers to Afghanistan must be put on trial for the crimes they have committed against our nation,” Mr Barnbrook said.

The BNP is considering sending a fact-finding mission to Afghanistan to obtain a first-hand account of the situation.

The latest example of how British people are always put last has come through a series of press releases on the Department for International Development’s (DFID) website. These statements are always blacked out by the controlled media for fear of adverse public reaction, but can be viewed by clicking here.

On 10 March, the DFID announced that it was giving £7.5 million to Somalia to provide food, clean water and medicine.

At the same time, the DFID announced a further £5.8 million for a new programme “to help promote peace and stability in the region by supporting reconciliation and local peace building initiatives between clans and communities.”

The DFID’s 2009–2010 aid programme in Somalia currently totals some £30.5 million.

On 9 March, International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander launched a “new growth programme for Helmand to provide jobs and help for farmers and local businesses.”

The Helmand Growth Programme (HGP) will see around “800,000 people benefit from the project in which the Department for International Development is investing £28 million over three years” and will put “in place the foundations for continued growth and job creation.”

This grant will, the DFID said, reinforce “the commitment made by the Development Secretary in 2009 to invest £32 million in major infrastructure projects in Helmand, including a 50 km road linking the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah to the economic hub of Gereshk.”

On 8 March, the DFID announced that it would give £20 million to “help millions of people affected by conflict in Pakistan.”

By 2011, Pakistan will be the UK’s second largest development programme worldwide, the DFID has proudly announced — despite Pakistan having a massive army which has nuclear weapons.

The huge cash grants are put into perspective by the Government’s failure to address the problem of eight million “economically inactive” people in Britain, and the paltry £12 million given for “deprived white working class areas” in October last year.

Even that £12 million was divided up into 100 identified regions, which means that each area will get £120,000 — not even enough to buy a single new house.

Only the British National Party will put the interests and rights of the British people first and says that these billions should be invested in fighting poverty and deprivation in Britain.

The NHS Confederation is also reported as claiming that allowing patients to email their consultants could help save money and be beneficial to their care.

Neither proposal is thought likely to win much support from amongst a general public increasingly dissatisfied with the state of the NHS under a succession of Labour and Tory governments.

As an aside, although both Tory and Labour politicians claim support for the NHS, it is evident that no few of them prefer to “go private” when the need arises.

It is further claimed that savings of up to £20 billion have to be made over the next three years suggesting that the motive behind these proposals may have more to do with the care of finance than the care of patients.

According to a spokesman for the health “think tank”, the King’s Fund: “those at the coal face are all too aware that decisions need to be made and soon.

“This is not next year we are talking about; the squeeze starts from April.”

This is a view that also appears to be shared by many in NHS care trust management:

“We are still in a state where we are operating what is a lot of 19th century healthcare alongside 21st century healthcare.

”This is an opportunity to move to 21st century healthcare — but that is a very different model of healthcare from what people have been brought up with.”

Indeed it is.

Those familiar with the NHS in its heyday, the 1950s and 1960s, remember its standard of patient care, its cleanliness and the facilities, including convalescence homes and sanatoriums — all long since sold off for commercial gain.

How it has changed.

How often do we hear about medical incompetence and malpractice, dirty wards, disgusting food and the inability of some clinicians even to understand basic English?

To say that is not to devalue the good work carried out by health professionals, people who struggle to cope with the ramifications of long hours, under funding and care trust administration that often appears to be organised for the benefit of care trust managers than patients.

Yet who can doubt that the crisis in the NHS is about to get worse?

This country is up to its neck in debt due, in no small part, to the negligence of this inept government to exercise control over the banking sector.

The next few months will see the imposition of a series of austerity measures having the objective of cutting back on services to reduce government expenditure and a corresponding rise in taxation to increase government revenues; it is inevitable that the NHS will “take a hit”, particularly in terms of staffing levels.

The British National Party supports the NHS, opposes staff cuts amongst clinicians and ancillary medical staff — but not necessarily amongst care trust managers.

It seeks to restore the NHS through the provision of appropriate funding, and time-proven practices, to its “golden age”, when it was a world-class service and the envy of other nations.

To that end a British National Party government will direct funding away from the financing of “pet” projects, such as wars engaged in on behalf of the “International Community” and foreign aid, into a major refinancing of the NHS.

British taxpayers’ money should be spent here in Britain for the benefit of the British people — what more worthy cause than the NHS?

Mr Brown made the pay freeze announcement as part of the Government’s attempts to cut the ballooning deficit — but, in common with the Tories, the Labour regime has promised to increase the foreign aid spend if re-elected.

Earlier, Labour’s chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, proposed domestic spending cuts of £11 billion in the budget due in two week’s time.

Mr Byrne said it would be the “toughest spending review for 20 years” and will include a 20 percent cut in the civil service, halving the cost of consultants, reductions in marketing budgets and sales of assets.

The plans also include “encouraging” the National Health Service to make “efficiency savings worth £10 billion.” This will apparently be achieved by cutting technology systems and merging primary care trusts in big cities.

The “cuts” in the NHS spend contrast strongly with an announcement on the Department for International Development’s (DFID) website that the “UK has already committed £6 billion to improve health systems across the world’s poorest countries and £1 billion to the Global Fund to tackle HIV, as well as TB and Malaria.”

One of the latest projects to be funded by the British taxpayer is a £1 million cash grant to the South African government to buy a billion condoms.

The South African government has just finished buying Gripen fighter jets, frigates and submarines for billions of pounds.

Why British taxpayers should be buying South Africa a billion condoms when that nation can afford to purchase fighter jets and submarines, is not discussed in the DFID press release.

The Conservative Party has called for the foreign aid budget to be “ring fenced” and increased by over 50 percent to around £13 billion per year.

After the Tories made that pledge, the Labour government also announced that they would match that commitment — which means that the forthcoming foreign aid budget will be larger than the domestic budget cuts at home.

Only the British National Party has called for the ending of the foreign aid budget while there is need and poverty inside Britain.

It is time that the interests of the British people were put first.

It is now widely suspected that the UN set-up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for no other purpose than to provide it with the phoney science required to underpin its programme leading to what it describes as “global governance” – a term many consider an euphemism for world government.

In a ministerial briefing document leaked to the media, the UN plan, which calls for the transfer of a staggering £54 trillion dollars from the developed world to the Third World by 2050; and the creation of supranational global structures is revealed.

Some claim that the extraordinary document, which may be read here, not only demonstrates the globalist ambitions of the UN but the extent to which it is dominated by extreme left politics – the proposed $54 trillion transfer from “rich to poor” being a thinly veiled version of the Marxist “redistribution of wealth”.

As the UN’s blueprint for its “New Green World Order” is almost entirely based on what many consider to be the IPCC’s “cherry picked”, selective and downright dishonest findings, the UN has little choice other than to abandon its long cherished plans for “global governance” or convince a sceptical world that the findings of the IPCC are credible.

It has clearly opted for the latter option.

We now learn that the UN has appointed the supposedly independent InterAcademy on International Issues (IAP) to review the findings of the UN’s IPCC.

For the benefit of those who have not heard of this body, the IAP is a global network consisting of over 100 national science academies.

Yet it is questionable just how independent this body can be when a significant number of these national science academies are said to be financed in part or whole by governments committed to globalist ideals and supportive of the UN’s “man-made” global warming claims.

This body’s independence in this area is further brought into question by a statement it made as recently as last year: “ocean water acidity has risen due to increased carbon dioxide caused by human activities, and that it probably will rise further with severe effects on marine life, if the emission of CO₂ does not decrease considerably.”

They also demanded that this issue should be: “included among the problems addressed by the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2009 in Copenhagen”.

These statements attributed to the IAP do not suggest impartiality, which is why the choice of the IAP as an independent arbitrator by the UN could quite possibly undermine its case for “man-made” global warming even further.

There are two reasons why British nationalists should take particular note of the machinations of the UN.

Firstly, their roadmap leading to “global governance” can only be achieved at the expense of national sovereignty.

Secondly, no small part of their call for a wealth transfer of some $54 trillion will fall on the shoulders of the British taxpayer, a sum that will not only help to impoverish this generation further, but the next as well.

The UN is neither a friend of national sovereignty nor of the rights of nation states – as the example of Serbia/Kosovo amply demonstrates.

Media reports have announced that Liverpool Police will provide protection for Muslims claiming “racism” on public transport — but the nationwide epidemic of bus and train attacks by ethnic gangs on white people has received no such special treatment from the authorities.

It has been reported that school bus drivers in Liverpool are to be investigated by police after Muslims alleged they refused to stop for female students wearing the Islamic hijab head covering.

Police officers are now to travel on-board school buses to “protect” the Muslim students from alleged taunting — but no such protection has ever been forthcoming for white victims of the ethnic-origin crime of “happy slapping” which is far more serious.

An online encyclopaedia describes “Happy Slapping” as “a fad in which someone assaults a sometimes unsuspecting victim while an accomplice records the assault (commonly with a camera phone or a smartphone). Several incidents are extremely violent, and some victims of ‘happy-slapping’ have even been killed.”

The entry continues: “Happy Slapping is known to have started in South London, in particular the London Borough of Lewisham.”

While no-one is suggesting that only ethnics commit “happy slapping” crimes, it is no coincidence that this epidemic started in a London borough in which white British people are scare.

In addition, the vast majority of anecdotal evidence for these crimes (the videos posted on the Internet, in particular) indicate that the perpetrators are most usually of Afro-Caribbean origin and the victims white British.

The still images which accompany this article are all taken from “happy slap” videos loaded onto the Internet.

Quite why the police service finds alleged “racism” directed at non-native Britons more worthy of their attention than that directed by ethnic minority thugs towards native Britons is a question of great concern to the public.

The British National Party condemns bullying of any sort, but would remind the police service that they have a duty to impartiality — which means treating all sections of the community equally.

Clearly this is currently not the case.

Offensive? The Mohammed dog created by Lars Vilks

Seven Muslim immigrants were arrested in the Republic of Ireland yesterday, over an alleged plot to murder a Swedish cartoonist who drew a picture of Mohammed with the body of a dog.

The bounty was placed upon the head of cartoonist Lars Vilks in 2007, by groups closely linked to al-Qaeda.

The group offered £67,000 for the murder of the cartoonist; a further £34,000 if he was murdered ‘like a lamb’, the technique used in barbaric halal slaughter.

It also offered £34,000 for the murder of the editor-in-chief who allowed the cartoon to appear in the regional newspaper, Nerikes Allehanda.

The pictures, published in 2007, were used as an excuse for rioting by Islamic colonisers in Sweden and caused diplomatic protests from Iran, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Egypt.

Mr Vilks remains in defiant mood, explaining that he has an axe ready should anybody breach his round-the-clock security.

“I’m not shaking with fear, exactly,” he told Swedish news agency TT after Tuesday’s arrests.

“I have prepared in different ways and I have an axe here in case someone should manage to get in through the window.”

According to reports, the Islamic extremists — three women and four men — were granted asylum regardless of the fact that they passed through several safe countries to arrive in the republic, having left their home countries of Morocco and Yemen.

Two of the offending images, below.

Mohammed Dog with placard, reading: 'Islam means Human & Animal Rights'

Mohammed Dog with goal posts

All 40 councillors from Surrey Heath Borough Council will consider the application from the Hampshire & Surrey Bengali Welfare Association this evening at the theatre in Knoll Road, Camberley starting at 6.45pm.

Local residents are up in arms over the idea of what was formerly St Gregory’s Roman Catholic school being demolished and replaced by a mosque with a domed roof and two minarets. Over 300 people are expected to pack into the theatre to voice their opposition to the application.

The property in London Road, which is about half a mile away from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, was bought by the Bengali Association back in 1996 and has been used as an Islamic Centre.

Now they say the building no longer large enough to meet the needs of the growing local Muslim community.

The report goes on to claim that by 2025, drivers could be wasting over 600 million hours a year just sitting in traffic jams going nowhere fast; this cannot be good for the economy anymore than for the blood pressure of those affected.

Elsewhere in the study we learn that traffic congestion in Wales will rise by 35% in 15 years unless more money is invested in roads; Wales, of course, being viewed as a “dispersal” area for increasingly overpopulated regions such as London and the South East.

It appears that the “solution” to the problem is to spend more money on our road infrastructure; but is this really a solution?

If nothing else it fails to address, far less recognise, the underlying problem – that our population is expanding beyond our capacity to accommodate it; an unsustainable road infrastructure policy borne of an unsustainable population.

The “thinking” displayed here is no different to that shown by those who whilst complaining that Britain does not have enough homes, refuse to accept the connection between increasing demand and increasing immigration.

If it is true that traffic congestion will increase by 37% over the next 15 years then it follows that there has to be a corresponding increase in vehicle ownership to account for it.

Whereas it may be true that vehicle ownership per head of population may experience a slight increase this would be nowhere near sufficient to account for the projected increase in traffic congestion.

That this and successive governments, Tory as well as Labour, are covertly committed to the globalist concept of free movement of labour across national borders, and intend allowing millions of further immigrants into our country over the next twenty years is, of course, no secret.

This is also why they are adamant that this country needs several million new homes over the next twenty years.

Traffic congestion, just like the shortage of affordable housing, is  state created – arising directly from our EU-collaborator politicians adherence to globalism, manifested in unwanted and unnecessary mass immigration.

The Government will “address” the problem of immigration-fuelled traffic congestion in the usual way, by extorting vast sums of money from the motorist and sinking it into road building and existing road widening.

They will also, in all probability, do their friends in the construction industry a favour or three, by franchising contracts for privately built, tollgate controlled, stretches of motorway.

Unfortunately, it won’t be just the longsuffering motorist who will pay the price – the real victims of government insanity will be this country’s native flora and fauna – as tens of thousands of acres of countryside, some of it prime agricultural land, will be bulldozed into history.

Yet if you believe things are bad now and find your “rush” hour journey to work a nightmare, just imagine how bad its going to get when our population rises, as it will, to 70 million and beyond.

Listening to the experts, in particular those of a ministerial disposition, speaking on behalf of the Government, you may be forgiven for believing that growing traffic congestion is an unavoidable natural occurrence, like a heavy fall of snow, over which we can exert little influence.

This, of course, is utter nonsense.

We can nip this man-made problem in the bud by halting immigration, saving both the exchequer and our countryside.

Immigration is, after all, the single most significant factor behind the current and projected growth in traffic congestion.

This being a low cost, high impact, commonsense solution from the British National Party – which this and future EU-puppet Westminster regimes can be safety relied upon to ignore.

Daisyfield Primary is the first non-Muslim school to get the certificate from the Halal Monitoring Committee which enforces strict checks on the killing, preparation, packaging and delivery of animals.

Halal is the ritual method of slaughter practised under Islam and it has been criticised by animal welfare organisations who claim it causes severe suffering to the animals as they are left to bleed to death without pre-stunning.

While campaigners point out that a cow will take up to two minutes to bleed to death under Halal, the Muslim Council of Britain argues that it provides a quick haemorrhage with no time for the animal to feel pain.

This claim has angered the Farm Animal Welfare Council which published a report that concluded the way Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals. It responded “This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn’t suffer is quite ridiculous.”

Daisyfield’s changeover to Halal has upset local residents. One told the local newspaper that the move will force children to eat Halal meat, while another said it was further proof of the Islamification of Britain.

NOT PAINFUL?: Halal slaughter on a street in Pakistan. Now it has come to a primary school in Blackburn.

“The EHRC’s argument was in two sections,” said BNP leader Nick Griffin MEP.

“The first was that the new constitution was not in force because the BNP had not followed the correct procedures in setting it up.

“The judge has decisively rejected that and ruled that the BNP’s new constitution is valid and has been constituted in a correct and legal manner,” Mr Griffin said.

“The only remaining part upon which the judge still has to decide is the EHRC’s allegation that the BNP’s new constitution constitutes a form of indirect discrimination. He will give his opinion at 10:30 on Friday morning.”

Mr Griffin said the EHRC’s argument was based on an attempt to use the word “policies” in the Act to mean to refer to aims and objectives of any party or group, rather than about application and recruitment policies.

“The EHRC of course claims otherwise, but it is patently obvious this is what they are trying to do,” he said.

“If their argument was followed through, it would open up a can of worms which would be absolutely absurd.

“It would mean, for example, that a party which stood for abortion on demand could be accused of discriminating against Catholics, or vegetarian parties could be accused of discriminating against meat eaters,” Mr Griffin said.

“This would set a terrible precedent and we would hope that the judge would not go down this road.

“It is a very promising sign that judge has already seen fit to strike down most of the EHRC’s pathetic arguments over procedural issues. We would hope that this consistency and logic is followed through on Friday.”

Mr Griffin added that the BNP’s new constitution has empowered him to make any changes if so ordered by the court without having to go through an extended procedure once again.

“As a result, I intend to end this waste of time, money and blatant political persecution one way or another on Friday,” Mr Griffin concluded.

The crisis in Greece illustrates what happens when an economically feeble member state gets into difficulties; the economically powerful resort to protecting their own interests and those of global finance, at the expense of the failing state.

When a new Greek government was elected to office last autumn they soon discovered the truth about Greece’s economy, a discovery that fully confirmed what pundits had previously suspected, that the country had “cooked the books” in 2001 in order to qualify for entry to the Euro-Zone.

Although various EU treaties capped acceptable budget deficit to 3% for member states and set the ceiling for public debt at 60% of a member state’s Gross Domestic Produce (GDP), it has now been revealed that Greece’s budget deficit reached almost 13% last year, with a gross public debt of 125% estimated for this year.

In public the EU’s good and great have made much of publicising their solidarity for Greece; not for the benefit of the Greek people but to reassure already jittery global financial markets.

This is evidenced by their clear reluctance to bail Greece out from central funds but, instead, by squeezing the money owed to the banks out of the Greek people through austerity measures.

To that end the Greek state is now to drastically cut public spending and increase interest rates significantly.

The consequences for the Greek people will be even greater unemployment, cut-backs in education and healthcare and, it is rumoured, an increase in retirement age.

As for that “great theater of human rights and universal brotherhood, the European Parliament”  it will help by sending an “economies commissar” to that struggling province of federal Europe, not primarily to assist them, but to ensure that the Greek Government carries out their planned austerity measures properly in line with the EU’s requirements.

This is because the Greek farce permits the EU to implement treaty small-print that allows it to directly supervise the budgetary and economic policy of a member state – in theory at least, allowing the EU to override the Greek national government where the interest of the EU is compromised.

There is also the claim that the EU was aware of the Greek Government’s manipulation of its economic performance data at the time it applied to join the Euro-Zone but as it was deemed politically important to have Greece in the Zone they decided to look the other way.

The same may be true of other federal nations.

Traditional economic wisdom has it that Greece should seek to save its economy by leaving the crippling Euro-Zone and reinstate a much devalued Drachma; not only would this reduce imports but by making Greek goods cheaper would encourage exports.

Unfortunately such a move will almost certainly be opposed by the EU’s more economically powerful members, a reduction in Greece’s importation of manufactured goods, for instance, will damage their export-led economies

Yet so long as Greece is tied (chained?) to the Euro it can neither stimulate its domestic market nor export successfully.

The inevitable consequence of that country’s membership of the EU would appear to be unemployment and increasing poverty for its people – a consequence by no means confined to just Greece.

If Greece was alone in being beset with crippling financial problems then it is just possible that EU “member solidarity”, meaning the consensus of its more economically powerful export-led economies, would allow it to take the independent action it now needs to take; unfortunately Greece is not the only province of the EU-federal state to be “on  the brink” as the economic news from Portugal, Ireland and Spain shows.

If nothing else the Greek financial crisis exposes the absence of any real community spirit in the EU; when “push comes to shove” the powerful driver nations of the EU are not going to sacrifice their economic stability to prop up the economies of failing states; that is potentially disastrous for the largely superficial cohesiveness of the federal beast.

Greece demonstrates the lack of inter-state solidarity within the EU, something that could, should the economic situation deteriorate drastically, lead to its disintegration, as member states follow their own paths to economic recovery.

For the nation states of Europe that day can’t come soon enough.

Cherwell is a largely rural local government district in northern Oxfordshire located, more or less, where the northern Home Counties adjoin the Midlands; its two most populous towns are Banbury and Bicester, neither particularly large by English standards.

Yet according to the Government’s South East Development Plan Cherwell must build a total of 13,400 new homes between 2006 and 2026; this despite the absence of a baby boom or any obvious immediate need.

So far, over 4,500 have been built or have planning permission in Banbury and the surrounding area, with a further 3,000 homes and permissions in place in and around Bicester.

Furthermore, some twenty quaint Oxfordshire villages are earmarked for “development” with, overall, at least 60% of development planned for green field sites.

Ultimately this represents a loss of approaching a thousand acres of precious and irreplaceable countryside in this small corner of Britain alone; yet Cherwell is just one local authority amongst hundreds.

The Government’s insane development plans, if implemented in full, will result in hundreds of thousands of acres of rural England, Scotland and Wales disappearing forever beneath a sea of asphalt and concrete.

Yet despite the hordes of outraged and otherwise concerned residents and environmentalists opposed to this gross act of state vandalism, few have dared ask the obvious question: why is this government hell-bent on building millions of new homes when the birth rate of native Britons is barely at replacement level?

The answer is, as confirmed by the Office of National Statistics (ONS), that the new homes are required to meet the needs of the millions of new immigrants that both the globalist Labour and Tory parties are determined will settle here over the next twenty years.

A secondary, but barely whispered, reason – also evident in ONS statistics – is the astounding growth, achieved through an extraordinary birth rate, of certain migrant communities already established here.

Amazingly, neither Government officials nor Establishment politicians mention either on the rare occasions they are asked; instead they trundle out the standard politically correct nonsense that: “we are all living longer and many more of us wish to live alone, consequently we need more homes”!

This is also the excuse parroted by the Marxist Green “Melon” Party and Establishment backed groups such as the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) – neither of which are prepared to recognise any link between immigration and arguably Europe’s biggest house building programme.

Yet Labour’s programme has little to do with us living longer and everything to do with facilitating a wave of colonisation that will reduce the English, in particular, to a minority in their own homeland; that much is obvious.

It seems ironic that just seventy short years ago our young men flew from RAF Bicester on training missions over the small towns and villages of the Cherwell valley, before going on to engage in a life and death struggle to defend this country from foreign invasion and control.

The mortal remains of some of these young men can be found today in the churchyards of the old villages that are scheduled for “development”.

Yet despite their sacrifice, one doesn’t have to look any further than the local political establishment to discover the Quisling EU-collaborator politicians who are facilitating the colonisation of our country and the dispossession of our children of their heritage and birthright.

Our forebears paid with their blood and often with their lives to defend our country from foreign invasion and control, today the Establishment politicians think nothing of selling it out in exchange for whatever the modern equivalence of thirty pieces of dirty EU silver may be.

Was ever-noble sacrifice so cynically betrayed?

The British National Party believes the only new homes we should be building should be for our own people and then, as far as possible, on brown-field sites – it sees no reason whatsoever why we should sacrifice our countryside to facilitate waves of further mass immigration that are of no benefit to this country whatsoever.

The online survey of 2,000 people revealed that seven out of ten of those questioned felt that immigration had had a “negative” impact on society, putting a strain on housing, hospitals, schools and social cohesion, while one in five voters said immigration had already had a negative impact on their local community.

There was general dissatisfaction with the immigration policies of the three main parties with just 18% supporting the Conservatives, 11% Labour and 7% the Lib-Dems on the issue.

A staggering 61% of people said they couldn’t support the policies of the three main parties on immigration.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK acknowledged it was an important poll.

“It is further evidence that the political classes are ignoring the strongly held views of a large section of the electorate,” he said.

But what was of particular interest to the British National Party was Opinium finding that 54% of voters considered immigration policies “very important” or the “main issue” that would determine the way they voted.

Dissident Tory Boy Peter Hitchens — in his guise as a columnist for the Daily Mail — has published a devastating list of questions he has wanted to ask David Cameron but has been unable to because the Conservative Party leader has refused to be interviewed on them.

Writing in his column, Mr Htchens — who has also attacked the British National Party — said that he has a number of questions for Mr Cameron which he would like answered. The Tory leader has “twice refused to be interviewed by me,” Mr Hitchens wrote.

“I understand this reluctance, and take it as a compliment, but I do not think it is creditable or right.

“A film star or a famous author may reasonably not want to talk to a hostile or critical journalist. And why should they? They have careers to boost or books to sell. What possible reason is there for them to expose themselves to cross-examination?” Mr Hitchens wrote.

“But Mr Cameron is not in showbusiness. He wants to be Prime Minister of this country with a huge influence over all our lives. Yet he is still quite startlingly unknown. Before he became leader of his party, he had held no office of state and had been in Parliament for less than five years.

“The only modern precedent for this extraordinary ascent from obscurity is an unattractive one — Anthony Blair, whose true nature most of us discovered too late. How can we form a proper judgment of him if he is unwilling to undergo critical or sceptical questioning?”

Mr Hitchens said that in the light of Mr Cameron’s refusal to be interviewed, he had decided to make public a list of questions which the Tory leader needed to answer. “Here is the interview I would have if I could — though I should say here that I am keeping at least one important question in reserve, which I am saving for the Election campaign. You will have to imagine the answers unless and until Mr Cameron deigns to answer them,” Mr Hitchens wrote.

He then went on to list nine questions which Mr Cameron has so far refused to ask. The first has to do with Mr Cameron’s alleged use of illegal drugs and is typical of the type of smear politics which dogs British politics. It can then in truth be ignored because it does not address the real national issues which Mr Hitchens only gets round to raising in the other eight questions.

“2. You say you like Britain as it is, not as it was. Yet you also say that it is a broken society. How can you square these two positions?” Mr Hitchens asked. “Surely Britain was broken mainly by the cultural revolution which swept away stable marriage and respect for the law, and encouraged the spread of drug-taking and drunkenness? And surely it was better as it was rather than as it is? One or the other. But not both.

“3. You have strongly condemned the misuse of Parliamentary expenses by many of your MPs, and quite ruthlessly forced the early retirement of several of them on these grounds, though some others who are friendly to you have escaped this treatment. You have made it plain that the fact that a claim was ‘within the rules’ does not excuse greed. Yet you are by any standards a wealthy man. Your constituency is within commuting distance of London, and many who vote for you make this journey daily. So how can you justify asking taxpayers — teachers, school dinner ladies, bus drivers, nurses — to give you £20,000 a year in mortgage relief, close to the maximum permitted claim, to help you pay for what you yourself described as ‘a very large mortgage’ on a spacious country house worth around £1million?

“4. Do you believe that, by holding a poorly-advertised lunchtime meeting in Witney, when most voters with jobs could not get there, by stationing officials at the door with lists to give it the appearance of a members-only gathering, and by cramming it with your own supporters, that you properly exposed yourself and your expenses claims to public scrutiny?

“5. You frequently say you are in favour of decentralising power in this country. How do you square this with your increasingly centralised control of the Conservative Party and above all of the selection of candidates?

“6. You favour the selection of women and ethnic minority members as candidates and have even toyed with the idea of women-only shortlists. Do you believe that women can only be properly represented by women and members of ethnic minorities can only be properly represented by members of the same minorities? In which case how can you, for instance, speak for the women and ethnic minorities of your Witney seat? Or are you, in fact, just Politically Correct?

“7. You refuse to support those who want to restore selection on grounds of ability in state secondary schools. Yet you must be aware that most alleged comprehensives select on other grounds — mainly by catchment areas which close the better schools to the poor, who cannot afford to live in them. Your own child attends a heavily over-subscribed primary school which selects partially on the basis of religious commitment. When your children reach the age for secondary school, it is most unlikely that you will send them to bog-standard comprehensives. In that case you will presumably have to use wealth or faith to save them from this fate, routes closed to most people. Surely ability is a better and fairer basis on which to select pupils, in which case why not say so?

“8. You made a ‘cast-iron guarantee’ of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. You must have known that there was a strong chance, verging on a certainty, that this treaty would be ratified by all EU nations before you were in a position to fulfil the pledge. Yet when this predictable event happened, you had no serious alternative policy. Weren’t you pretending to be tough on the EU, while in fact supporting the ‘ever-closer-union’ which is a condition of our membership?

“9. You once said you were the ‘Heir to Blair’? Isn’t that exactly the problem?”

Although the BNP is no friend of Mr Hitchens, these are questions which all Conservatives should be asking of Mr Cameron as they are indeed valid.

Although many people are ignorant of the fact the EU has appointed a “commissioner for taxation” who is said to be planning a “minimum rate of tax on carbon” to be imposed across the federal union.

Interestingly,  a similar proposal was raised some five years ago, but was considered to be so controversial in the sense it conferred federal powers on the EU, that it was quickly dropped without discussion.

This federalist tax is further proof that the EU is working towards the establishment of a federal political entity, in the same mode as the United States of America; making a mockery of pre-Lisbon Treaty claims by pro-EU politicians that the EU has no designs in that direction.

Amongst the political baggage brought with the Lisbon Treaty, were the introduction of new institutions — including a new President of Europe and a foreign minister having a dedicated diplomatic service.

To a bid to justify this blatant leap into federalism the Director General of the European Commission’s Budget department, recently informed a Brussels audience that the EU was “very close to paralysis” because of the reluctance of stretched national treasuries to give it funding.

“We should have a mechanism which would serve to exploit the possibility, in a progressive way, to lead to direct funding of the EU”.

The proposed federal tax will lead directly to rises in petrol and energy bills and indirectly to price increases relating to the production and distribution of goods.

The think-tank Open Europe has calculated, on the basis of the shelved 2005 proposal, that based on a £9 levy on a tonne of CO2, that the cost of the new tax to British businesses and consumers would be at least £3 billion.

It is further reported that both France and Sweden are enthusiastic supporters of an EU carbon tax “as a part of Europe’s fight against climate change” — this despite the “man-made” global warming myth having been thoroughly debunked and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) discredited through “Climategate”.

Just like the UN, the EU is determined to levy taxes to combat a threat that simply does not exist; it is a development that is totally in line with the recently exposed UN plan to “restructure global governance” and move towards a “Green World Order” — as reported on by this site only yesterday.