White Racism Excuse Blamed for Ethnic Peers’ Expense Cheat Prosecution

White Racism” Blamed for Ethnic Peers’ Expense Cheat Prosecution

The BNP Newsroom

It was inevitable: white people have been blamed for the exposure of the expenses hearing committed by three ethnic members of the House of Lords, “Baroness” Uddin, “Lord” Bhatia and “Lord” Paul.

An inquiry this past week found that all three had wrongly claimed a total of nearly £200,000 by deliberately registering properties they rarely or never stayed in as their “main home” which allowed them to claim parliamentary overnight allowances.

The Lords Conduct and Privileges Committee recommended that Ms Uddin, who has failed to apologise or repay £125,000 in illegitimately claimed expenses, be barred from Parliament until April 2012.

“Lord” Bhatia, who has repaid £27,000, was suspended for eight months, and “Lord” Paul, who returned £42,000, for four months.

The Committee ruled that both Ms Uddin and Mr Bhatia had not acted in good faith, but that while Mr Paul was described as “grossly irresponsible and negligent.”

During the House of Lords debate to formally implement the bans on the three, another ethnic “Lord”, Waheed Alli said the investigation had been based on racism — and he, of course, meant white racism.

“It cannot have escaped your attention that the only three members of the House who were referred to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and subsequently investigated under these procedures were all Asian,” Mr Alli said.

He went on to argue that the suspensions should not be imposed because the peers “were the victim of racial bias.

"In the rush to apologise for the expense system for which we should all be embarrassed, it should not be at the cost of justice or fairness for all regardless of race,” he said.

Bangladeshi-born “Baroness” Uddin was investigated over claims she had never stayed at her designated main home, a flat in Kent. She was able to claim £30,000 a year in tax-free expenses by designating her family home, which is four miles from Westminster, as her second home. She has now agreed to pay back £125,000 in wrongly claimed expenses.

Indian-born “Lord” Paul, a major Labour party donor, has agreed to pay back £40,000 after he admitted that he never spent a single night at an Oxfordshire flat that he registered as his main home while claiming money in overnight expenses for a London property.

Tanzanian-born “Lord” Bhatia has a £1.5 million home in south-west London but in 2007 he “flipped” the designation of his main home to a two-bedroom flat in Reigate, Surrey, which used to be lived in by his brother. Reigate is just beyond the M25, the boundary used to define qualification for expenses.

On one occasion he was said to have been unable to remember the address of the property he designated as his main home. He claims that he acted within the rules as he believed the flat had been his main home. He has now agreed to pay back £27,000 in expenses.

Mr Alli is of course simply lying in this blatant attempt to save his fellow ethnics’ heads. In fact, a number of rotten members of the House of Lords have already been investigated and censured, including Tory peer Lord Hanningfield (real name Paul White) was charged in February with six counts of making dishonest claims for travelling and is due to appear in a criminal court within the next few weeks.

Furthermore, the Crown Prosecution Service also investigated Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who only escaped prosecution by the skin of his teeth.

Last year, two Labour peers – Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott – were also suspended from the House of Lords for six months for misconduct after being found guilty by a Lords committee for willingness to change laws in exchange for cash.

A number of other members of the House of Lords were also forced to pay back wrongly claimed expenses, and the only reason that the three ethnic “Lords” have been so dramatically censured was the amount and blatancy of their wrongdoing.

The British National Party rejects the notion that white people are to blame for everything that goes wrong with the ethnic community, and dismisses Mr Allia’s allegations with the contempt they deserve.

British Self-sufficiency drive key to revitalising UK farming

Self-sufficiency drive key to revitalising UK farming

  Martin Wingfield at http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/news

OCTOBER 2010: NICK Griffin has been asked by an association of farmers from the north of his constituency to support local wildlife initiatives in the North West.


 The association is concerned that the Government's need to cut spending will reduce the amount of public funds going towards conservation.
It wants to see the Government redistribute the costs of conservation by doing much more to make polluters pay for the damage they do to the environment or by making people who benefit from the natural world, pay for some of the services they currently receive for free.
Writing to the MEP, a farmer from Cumbria warns:
"It is critical to protect agri-environment spending as this is the key means of maintaining Sites of Special Scientific Interest, halting the loss of habitats and restoring biodiversity. "The Higher Level Scheme in particular is the crucial, science-based programme for delivery of these goals. In addition, due to the high European contribution to these schemes, scrapping them would mean more money would be sent back to Europe than would be saved, which would make cuts here a poor deal for the UK taxpayer.
"There are other ways to improve the cost-effectiveness of countryside payments. For example, the Single Farm Payment, which cost £1.6 billion in England in 2008, is an inefficient use of taxpayer funds. It does not cost-effectively achieve income security for farmers, food security or high environmental standards."
The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy is due to be reformed in 2013 and the association wants the UK Government to demand more for its investment.
Responding on behalf of the MEP, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"The Coalition Government’s Spending Review 2010 is likely to have a significant and damaging effect on many areas of British life, and the withdrawal of essential funding is of great concern to many service-providing organisations.
"You are quite correct to highlight the absurdity of the current system, whereby a decision by our national government to save money by cutting agri-environment spending may actually result in a net deficit of funds due to the consequential loss of EU grants.
"The British Government is bound so inextricably by European Union community-wide policies and finance schemes, that the decisions made in our national parliament can be undermined, contradicted or rendered negative as a result of this national subservience and interdependence with the EU. Indeed, Westminster is so restricted by EU rules and regulations that there is hardly an area of policy where the British parliament remains entirely sovereign. The cost of this suffocating relationship is, moreover, exorbitant, with British taxpayers enjoying funding rebates which constitute a drop in the ocean compared to the tsunami of public money that is gifted annually to the European Union and re-distributed to the benefit of numerous other European nations.
"Mr Griffin and the British National Party believe that decisions on policy matters in economic, social and political spheres should be made by the British Government, with reference primarily to the best interests of Britain and the British people. This includes, of course, assessing how to spend British taxpayers’ money in a fair, efficient and co-ordinated way, so that overall policy pledges are upheld.
"In order to ensure our national sovereignty and the right to determine our own destiny, the British National Party demands an immediate withdrawal from the European Union.
"With respect to agricultural policy, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies will be phased out following our withdrawal from the EU and replaced, initially, with the British system of subsidy that existed prior to 1973.  
"A healthy nation depends on a healthy environment and healthy food. The British National Party envisages a strong agricultural sector and vibrant farming communities as vital to the nations’ well-being. The regeneration of the family farm as the core structure of our agricultural sector will be encouraged; emphasis placed on quality, self-sufficiency, environmentally sustainable rural communities and (where feasible) decreased reliance on petrochemical products. To protect the environment from damage a “polluter pays” policy will be adopted and the work of the Countryside Restoration Trust will be supported and promoted.
"In short, gaining freedom from European Union control is an essential precursor to implementing co-ordinated, economically and environmentally sustainable agricultural policies."

The BNP's Andrew Brons MEP Interview with Student Direct

  Interview with Student Direct

  Martin Wingfield at Andrew Brons MEP

THIS is an interview that Andrew Brons conducted with the student newspaper Student Direct in 2010. 
What is your take on this week's change to the whites-only rule employed by the BNP?
"We did not have a 'whites only' clause. We had an 'indigenous population only' clause. This was almost certainly legal under existing law but would not be legal under the Governmentís Equality Bill. I believe that all organisations should have the freedom to decide freely on their membership. This is the essence of the right of freedom of association. That right has been recognised in the case of feminist organisations that do not admit men and the state-funded Association of Black Police Officers that does not admit white officers.
The change to our Constitution was in response to a potentially very expensive civil legal action by the Equality & Human Rights Commission, which was ostensibly pursued to safeguard the right of ethnic minorities to join a party that they did not wish to join! The real (and admitted) reasons for the legal action were:
1. to try to create division in our ranks;
2. to cause us to spend money and valuable time contesting the action;
3. to help small Nationalist parties that have no chance of electoral success to poach our members. It is interesting that an unholy tacit alliance has been formed between the National Front and the EHRC, under which the EHRC agrees not to take action against the NF and that organisation agrees to do as much damage to the BNP as it can. Fortunately, its impact has been minimal."
What has the feedback been from your constituents?
"The response to the changes from our constituents has been minimal. They are interested in our policies and not in the internal machinery of our Party."
Nick Griffin described the body which forced the change as a fundamental outrage, but do you think it's a change which would have come eventually anyway?
"Nick Griffin did not describe the Equality and Human Rights Commission as a fundamental outrage. He described the use of a state-funded body to harass an opposition political party, at the behest of the Government to be an outrage.
I do not know whether or not the change would have occurred anyway. It could certainly be argued that the indigenous population clause was not really necessary because there was no desire on the part of ethnic minorities to join."
Do you agree that, with the change, the BNP can't be called racist anymore?
"I do not use the Trotskyist word 'racist', which was coined to denigrate British and other people of European descent. Whilst there have been attempts to provide scholastic definitions of the word, it is widely understood to mean 'hating people of other races'. We do not hate anybody on account of his race and we have never hated anybody on account of his race. Our opponents will continue to refer to us in insulting language because they are incapable of reasoned argument against us and use insults as a substitute for argument."
Do you think that, had the rule remained in place, it would have been possible for you to represent all your constituents in Yorkshire and Humber?
"I have made it quite clear from the outset that I shall represent all of my constituents, regardless of their personal politics or their ancestry or background. However, there are two distinct forms of representation: representation of political views; and redress of individual problems or grievances. No MEP or MP can represent the political policies of all constituents. MEPs and MPs have a duty to represent the political policies on which they were represented. However, an MEP or MP must represent all constituents on personal problems or grievances."
Do you anticipate attracting more, non-white members to your party now?
"I do not anticipate that many members of ethnic minorities will seek to join the BNP Some are in favour of our policies and will wish to do so but I suspect that they will be few in number. Some were already in touch with us and have already indicated that they will join. Those who seek to join on behalf of hostile organisations or who state that they are seeking membership to cause disruption or damage to the Party (see the remarks of Simon Woolley) will be rejected, not because of their race but because of their hostility to the Party."
How do you perceive race relations in the north: good or bad? What, given the feedback you get from your constituents, is the predominant mood?
"How do I perceive race relations in the North of England? I do not believe that there is any hostility to immigrants, individually or collectively and I am glad of that. However, there is opposition to the phenomenon of immigration and to the presence of such a large number of immigrants. The vast majority of people are sophisticated enough to understand that the blame for immigration lies with the Government and previous governments and not with immigrants who have simply taken an opportunity proffered to them."
Do you feel whites who may feel disenfranchised feel with the current government? What sort of complaints do they have?
"British people do feel that they have ignored by the so-called main political parties, not just on immigration but also on the European Union, on economic policy (particularly the embracing of the Global Economy), on law and order and last but not least on the aggressive wars being waged against Muslim states. The BNP is completely opposed to such wars. They result in the deaths of our first rate troops, the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and (in the near future) in Iran too. They also help to radicalise Muslims at home and abroad."
With the terror arrests in the north over the last year, do you think the government is doing all it can to combat terrorism? Especially in light of subsequent releases of suspects.
"The Government and previous governments are the main causes of terrorism. They invited large numbers of Muslims to our town and cities. They were never capable of being assimilated into the general population. However, successive governments have helped to radicalise them by adopting a partisan stance on the Middle East (we believe in taking a completely neutral stance) and waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both parties are now looking forward with undisguised glee at a war against Iran.
The use of so-called 'clean skins' necessitates keeping a vigilant watch on the communities from which terrorists come - the innocent as well as the guilty. However, I am utterly opposed to any ill treatment of suspects or connivance by the authorities with their ill treatment by other countries (extraordinary rendition)."
Given that some of those arrests took place in Bolton, where race must remain a delicate issue, do you think it serves any useful purpose within that area for them to cancel BNP debates? Or do you think such things should be tackled head on, resolved only through dialogue? Can you tell me what your take is on this decision, and what feedback you have received?
"I am opposed to all bans on proper debate. I would be equally opposed to the banning of radical Muslims, as long as they do not incite violence. The bans on the rights of the BNP are orchestrated by the Labour Party because they have no answer to our policies."

Misprint typifies the Reckless abandon with which EU spends our Taxes

Misprint typifies the careless abandon with which EU spends our money

by   Martin Wingfield at http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/news

OCTOBER 2010: NICK Griffin made a one and a half minute speech in the European Parliament in Strasbourg this afternoon during a debate on Financial Instruments.


 Financial instruments are sums of money that are paid to Third World and Emerging Countries for development co-operation and for the promotion of democracy and human rights.
During the speech, Nick was able to take the European Commission to task for a glaring misprint in one of the reports where "2,062 billion euros" slipped past the Eurocrats when it should have been "2,062 million euros".
This is what the MEP for the North West of England had to say:
"Mr President
"As is so often the case with EU proposals, these Financial Instruments include measures which have great emotional appeal.
"All decent people like us want to stop drug smuggling, people trafficking and the supply of small arms to conflict zones.
"But it is very easy to be emotional and generous with other people´s money.
"Thus, while ordinary people in Greece, France, Ireland and Great Britain are having their societies ripped apart by cuts and their backs broken by taxes, the Scholz Report will add 176 million Euros to the 172 million already committed to help Third World capitalists gobble up even more of our jobs.
"The Goerens Report will blow EUR 190M including 17.4 million for a facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries. Dear Colleagues, it may have escaped your attention, but food prices are soaring in our constituencies as well.
"Worst of all, however, is the Branter Report. Here, on page 9, it  is stated that the financial envelope for this will be 2,062 billion euros by 2013! Not millions, billions!
"This is, of course, a misprint. Or at least I hope to God it is a misprint. But the fact that such a ridiculous error could slip past all the experts and MEPs who have read this report speaks volumes for the careless abandon with which the European Union spends money.
"This money does not grow on trees. It is not handed out by a giant tooth fairy. It is not the Commissions` money. It is not MEPs` money. It is taxpayers` money - a hugely disproportionate amount of it BRITISH taxpayers` money."

Page 9 of the Branter Report below:
3. Position on the pre- and post-crisis capacity building

Your rapporteur is of the view that the Commission should improve its strategic planning and increase disbursement of money available for the established Peace-Building Partnership (PBP) under Article 4 (3). Financial support should be focused at smaller and medium-sized projects as well as the large ones in a balanced fashion. The Commission is welcome to reorganise its administrative staff in order to enable proper implementation of the budgetary allowances available for measures under this article.

4. Position on the financial amount made available for implementation of the Instrument for Stability

The financial envelope for implementation of the Instrument for Stability (Art. 24) amounts to 2,062 billion euro over the period 2007 to 2013.

However, the financial means reallocated from the Instrument for Stability to the Food Facility over the period 2010 to 2013 have reduced this amount by 240 million euro.

In order to ensure that the European Union has the full financial means available, under Heading 4 of the annual budget, to fulfil its role on the international stage as expected by the citizens of Europe, the rapporteur urges the Commission to present a plan to restore the initial amount as foreseen in the Regulation.

New MigrationWatch Study Reveals Devastating Impact of Immigration Invasion upon Educational System

New MigrationWatch Study Reveals Devastating Impact of Invasion upon Educational System

The BNP Newsroom

The devastating impact of mass immigration upon the British educational system, which has cost in excess of £16 billion, has been detailed in a new report by the MigrationWatch UK think tank.

“We estimate that in twelve years since immigration began to climb rapidly under the previous government (1998—2009), the additional public spending required for the education of the schoolchildren of migrants was almost £16 billion,” the study said.

“Of this almost £5 billion was in 2009 alone; this amounted to over £13 million a day and was equivalent to over 1p on the basic rate of income tax,” it continued.

“Over the next five years, to 2016, 550,000 more school places will be needed as a direct and indirect result of migration, costing a further £40 billion, and over the next ten years — to 2020 — this rises to one million extra places at a total cost over ten years of almost £100 billion.

“Looking further ahead, the official population projections, suggest that an additional 2.3 million births between 2008 and 2033 will result from migration,” MigrationWatch said in an official press release.

“Adding direct migration to this and assuming that all of the additional children are educated in state schools, the total costs of their schooling would be almost £195 billion over a 25 year period.

“This calculation is made using very conservative assumptions about school leaving age etc., it does not make any allowance for additional education requirements of migrants (e.g.: help with languages etc.) so the eventual cost could be much higher than this.

“By 2033 children born earlier in the period will have left school so the number of additional school places required will be about 1.3 million.

“This would be equivalent to almost 3,800 new schools staffed by around 75,000 additional teachers,” the reports executive summary concluded.

How much more evidence does the public need to understand that the very fabric of our society is being utterly destroyed by the immigration tsunami?

The British National Party is the only party dedicated to halting, and reversing, the tidal wave of Third World immigration. The time is running out for the British people to chose.

EU Common Fisheries Policy has fished British waters to extinction

EU has fished British waters to extinction

  Martin Wingfield at http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/news

OCTOBER 2010: THERE was drama surrounding Nick Griffin's first ever two minute speech in the European Parliament in Strasbourg this morning during a debate on the Fishing Industry.


 Normally speeches are one minute, or sometimes 1 minute 30 seconds, but this morning Jean Marie Le Pen, who was due to speak, was called away on Front National business and Nick was given his one minute slot in addition to his own.
He was only told that he had the extra time just a few minutes before he was due to speak, so he had to quickly make notes and then literally run to get to his microphone in time!
Hence when the speech is televised, people will see the MEP for the North West of England is somewhat out of breath.
This is what Nick told his fellow MEPs:
"Mr President.
"Before taking advice from any 'expert', it is wise to examine their record to check that they are competent.
"The Integrated Maritime Policy report is partly the work of the Fisheries Committee, so before buying in to its various grand schemes for EU maritime imperialism, it is worthwhile taking a critical look at the European Union's record on the management of the seas.
"Inevitably, this means assessing the situation in the former sovereign UK waters and fishing grounds secretly betrayed to European bureaucracy control in 1973, since nearly 70% of so-called EU fishing stocks are actually British fishing stocks.
"How have our fish and our fishermen fared under the Common Fisheries Policy?
"The figures tell us far more than all the fine words in this report.
"88% of the EU's stock is overfished, against a global average of about 27%. 30% of our fish species are now officially "outside safe biological limits" because there are too few adult fish left for normal reproduction.
"Under the CFP´s obscene quota system, nearly a million tons of fish are discarded dead into the North Sea alone every year. Meanwhile the industrial hoovering up of species such as sand eels has led to crashing populations of bird species such as puffins.
"To Europe's south the picture is just as bad. West African fishermen whose lifestyle has been sustained for generations are forced to switch to people trafficking because EU registered vessels have helped fish their waters to extinction.
"It is time for the EU to acknowledge that its record in marine management is the worst in the entire world, a typical example of what is known as The Tragedy of the Commons - the phenomenon by which shared resources always get exploited ruthlessly because anyone who exercises restraint is disadvantaged by the unscrupulous.
"It is time to restore control of the seas and fishing grounds to the sovereign nations whose track record has shown them fit to exercise such stewardship. In more than two thirds of the waters the EU has nearly fished to extinction, that means the British nation and British fishermen."
As a youngster Nick recalls visits to Lowestoft and seeing the harbour packed with trawlers and the docks alive with men shifting boxes of fish and men and women gutting and packing the catch. Now it's a ghost port, with the EU scratching around for proposals to revitalise it.
The same is true of ports like Fleetwood all along the North West coast. So the MEP was delighted to be able to speak up on behalf of our surviving fishermen and for a future when we nurture our depleted fish stocks back to being a major national resource once more.

FSA Guidance on Halal Food puts Muslim Interests before those of British Shoppers

Guidance on Halal Food puts Muslim Interests before those of British Consumers

The BNP Newsroom

Guidelines issued by the Food Standards Agency on Halal food issues demonstrate the hypocrisy their supposed animal welfare concerns and the total contempt in which they hold the British consumers, reports Doug Ward, Yorkshire BNP Press Officer.

Following on from the shocking revelations of the sale and production of Halal foods in Britain by the BNP’s Manchester super activist Derek Adams and the exposure of the practices of the John Lewis Partnership’s Waitrose Supermarket, we have obtained guidelines from the Food Standards Agency on Halal foods.

The guidelines, distributed on October 1st, 2010, to all Local Authority enforcement officers, demonstrates the hypocrisy of their animal welfare concerns and the total contempt of the British consumer as Islamic Shariah Food Law takes precedence over our laws.

“Dear Director,

The Food Standards Agency issued guidance for Local Authority enforcement officers on Halal food issues in February 2003.

The mislabelling and misrepresentation of Halal foods is of great importance to the Muslim Community, and continues to be an issue of concern.

For this reason we are re-issuing the advice drawn up in association with relevant Muslim organisations, LGR and Defra.

Food enforcement officers are requested to:

Use this advice when planning inspections, food sampling and labelling checks relating to Halal foods and take appropriate enforcement action.

It would be very helpful to be informed of any action taken by LAs to enable us to provide assurance that LAs are aware of this issue, and take action where necessary to protect the interests of the Muslim Community.

Should you require any further information on this issue or wish to inform us of any action that your LA has taken, please contact me on the details below.

Yn gywir /Yours sincerely

Rob Wilkins

Arweinydd Tîm, Gorfodi Cyffredinol / Team Leader, General Enforcement.

GUIDANCE NOTE FOR FOOD LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ON HALAL FOOD ISSUES

Halal is an Arabic word which means ‘permissible’, a related word in the Qur’an is Tayyab which means wholesome and fit for human consumption. With regard to food described as Halal, it means food that Muslims are permitted to consume under Islamic law. The opposite of Halal is Haram, which means ‘prohibited by God, unwholesome, foul’. If a Muslim is sold Haram food, it is viewed very seriously, as it causes them to eat food prohibited in Islam which may be a form of fraud or deception.

To be Halal:

The animal should be alive or deemed to be alive at the actual time of slaughter and slaughter must be carried out in compliance with Islamic Shariah and the Welfare of Animals Regulations 1995 (as amended).

Animals/birds must be slaughtered by severance of neck arteries and jugular veins.

Under Regulation 22, ‘Schedule 5 (which relates to the stunning and killing of animals) shall not apply to any animal which is slaughtered in accordance with Schedule 12 (which relates to slaughter by a religious method)’.

Islamic Shariah (law) relating to slaughter of animals or poultry

Animal and birds should have preferably been raised in a natural environment. Their feed should not contain animal-based products.

In the slaughterhouse animals must not be able to see other animals being slaughtered, nor must they have sight of blood. This requires cleaning the area before the next slaughter.

There must be no cruelty to animals or poultry at any time.

The slaughter man must be a Muslim, who has been properly trained and licensed.

All slaughtering must be carried out in a licensed slaughterhouse.

Places where pigs are slaughtered should be avoided.

The slaughter man must use a sharp knife (which must not be sharpened in front of the animal). He must sever the jugular veins and carotid arteries as well as the oesophagus and trachea, but not the spinal cord as this restricts convulsion, which in turn restricts the pumping out of blood.

At the time of slaughter he must pronounce Bismillah Allahu Akbar (In the name of God, God is the Greatest) on each animal or bird.

At all times the meat and general hygiene regulations must be complied with.”

The guidance demonstrates the priority of the Food Standard Agency’s aim to protect Muslim communities from any form of fraud or deception.

It is now for the British public to decide whether clear labelling of this inhumane method of slaughter will be enough to appease public opinion or whether a campaign regarding the schedule 12 addition of schedule 5 of the Welfare of Animals Regulation 1995 should be abolished on the grounds that its inclusion contradicts the whole purpose of the regulation.

BRITISH National Party MEPs, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons Votes this week in Strasbourg

Votes this week in Strasbourg

  Tina Wingfield at http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/news

 OCTOBER 2010: 
THE BRITISH National Party MEPs, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, have an extremely busy week scheduled in Strasbourg. This week’s plenary session follows the usual EU format, whereby the business agenda is so absurdly packed that it is impossible to subject the reports presented to any truly meaningful debate.

 Nonetheless, this is what the MEP’s must strive to do. The level of legislation emanating from the European super-bureaucracy is immense and the regulations, directives and diktats disseminated encompass just about every aspect of social and economic policy. While the ultimate aim of our MEPs is to withdraw Britain from this unnecessary time, money and resource-draining entity, they take very seriously their responsibility to use their influence as elected Members of the European Parliament to shape EU legislation in accordance with the best interests of Britain and the British people.  
The MEPs, along with their Constituency Staff teams, invest many hours in assessing the content of resolutions and motions that are debated and then put to the vote in the plenary sessions held in Strasbourg.
The Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee (FEMM), for example, has a controversial report listed for debate and voting in this week’s session which tables amendments to the Council’s Directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. The FEMM Committee considers that the Commission’s proposed re-working of the Directive falls short of delivering the required changes to effectively promote gender equality in the labour market and to encourage parenting based on shared responsibilities. To redress these shortcomings, the Committee proposes 81 amendments to the Commission’s revised proposals which seek to significantly strengthen maternity rights.
In order to help the MEPs decide whether to vote in favour of adopting a motion the Constituency teams assess all the proposals from a British Nationalist perspective. Given that we are committed to opposing any increase in the level of EU interference in matters which are rightly the concern of national parliament, the proposed amendments have to be considered within this framework. However, our MEPs do not want to abdicate from their responsibilities, so unlike many of the UKIP MEPs, they are not content to simply oppose all new legislation in blanket fashion. Where new laws and regulations are likely to be adopted, the British National Party MEPs will seek, wherever possible, to mitigate the impact and scope of the content.
With regard to the FEMM’s amendments, from a British Nationalist viewpoint, the Committee’s “life-cycle” approach to work, which recognises that male and female workers have different needs and priorities at various stages of their lives, is commendable. Legislation that enables mothers to spend extra time at home with their newborn and facilitates a longer breastfeeding period is wholly desirable; as is the encouragement of shared parenting between mothers and fathers.
Desirable employment outcomes for one particular social group should be assessed, however, within the wider economic framework. Increasing maternity legislation will significantly impact on British business and the perceived benefits to women workers (and family life) must be balanced against the interests of employers. The rightful place for employment legislation to be debated and decided upon is within our national Parliament.
As British Nationalists, we are wary, moreover, of EU-generated proposals which purport to improve the balance between family life and work. Our interpretation of an “improved balance” is likely to differ from the EU’s, which assesses workers primarily in terms of their function as economic units within a global market. Our framework of reference is more holistic: for example, while it may make sense in purely economic terms to increase the activity of women within the workforce, in social welfare terms it might actually be more beneficial to introduce employment and economic measures which promote and facilitate the right of mothers to remain outside of the paid workforce. Motherhood is, after all, a full-time job in itself and in many cases it is economic imperative and devaluing of the full-time carer role which forces mothers into the public workforce, rather than personal choice.  
FEMM’s amendments largely serve to further increase European-level bureaucracy and, in line with our opposition to EU interference in our national concerns, a “no” vote is therefore, generally recommended by the Constituency team. However, a number of amendments are identified which are viewed as constituting positive additions or changes to the motion, which will not in effect add to the excess of Brussels bureaucracy which is making life increasingly difficult for  British organisations and businesses. A “yes” vote is advised for instance, in relation to a text change which clarifies the protection of pregnant women from performing tasks that pose health risks, and a new point which gives workers on maternity leave the right to receive automatically any general increase in salary.
Another motion likely to court controversy in Strasbourg this week is the Employment and Social Affairs Committee’s (EMPL) Report on the Role of Minimum Income in Combating Poverty and Promoting an Inclusive Society in Europe. Although the EMPL Committee rejected an amendment calling on the European Commission to propose a framework directive on minimum income (which would have established minimum income systems in the EU), this report nonetheless calls on the Commission to present “an initiative” in the area of introducing minimum income schemes in all EU Member States.
The report encompasses an extensive range of economic and social fields with its call for Commission and national policies to ensure universal access to the labour market. The introduction of minimum income schemes (set at the suggested level of 60% of average income in the Member State concerned) in all EU Member States is considered to be an essential measure in order to combat poverty.
Reference is made within the Report to the Europe 2020 strategy, which is founded on the assertion that no Member State can address global challenges effectively by acting in isolation. From a Nationalist perspective, it is unfortunate that neither the EU generally (in its economic and social policy briefings), or the EMPL Committee’s Report specifically, takes this assertion to its logical conclusion. If they did, it might actually be possible to achieve some of the laudable goals set in respect to improving average living standards across the entire European Union. The Eurocrats’ pursuit of their (utopian) European social market economy is doomed to failure because they fail to establish the necessary economic parameters to deliver their dream.
Sustaining a minimum income would serve to reduce poverty, but such a strategy could only work within a closed European market. The reality is that as long as European jobs and the produce of EU workers are not protected from being undercut by imported goods from non-European Union, low-wage economies, raising EU labour costs to a minimum level will in practice, serve to worsen the balance of trade and increase unemployment across the EU. At the present time, an advantage held by the poorer European nations is the fact that their cheaper labour costs enable them to produce goods at lower prices than their more developed and wealthier European competitors. Increasing labour costs across Europe, without introducing measures to protect the European economy from non-European competition, will expose the EU to unfair and unmatchable pressures. European goods and services will be undercut by products and services supplied by Third World countries. The consequent collapse in European GDP levels will be accompanied by a parallel increase in poverty and social exclusion rates... the very opposite outcome of what the EU’s social and economic engineering was intended to achieve.
Whilst the Constituency team is sympathetic to the worthy aspirations embodied within EMPL’s proposals, the view was taken that, the only way they can be achieved in practice is by withdrawing Europe from the global market economy and protecting European jobs and wage levels behind high trade walls. As the EU is unlikely to accept an amendment promoting such a protectionist approach, a vote to reject the motion is advised.

EU Budget - Turkey would add to the British Peoples TAX Burden

EU Budget - Turkey would add to the UK's burden

  Martin Wingfield at http://www.andrewbronsmep.eu/?q=news

19TH OCTOBER 2010: THE British National Party MEP for Yorkshire & North East Lincolnshire made the following contribution to a debate held in the European Parliament in Strasbourg this afternoon on the European Union Budget for 2011.
 "The Report* says:
'the EU Budget should in no way be perceived as.......a burden to national budgets'.
"For countries like the United Kingdom that are forced to endure cuts in expenditure at home, any increase in the EU budget - let alone the 5.9% increase originally proposed by the Commission, would be inappropriate.
"A money terms cut or a freeze would be more appropriate.
"The United Kingdom has had a double dose of the bitter pill. We have seen our rebate reduced by a third in the last year alone, making us even more of a net contributor than we were.
"It has been said that whilst the United Kingdom has been a net contributor, the new member countries have been net recipients, for which, of course, their populations cannot be blamed. However, in light of that undeniable fact, would it not be madness to continue to pursue expansion to include even poorer and undeniably burdensome countries, including Turkey, which is not only poor but not European by any stretch of the imagination."
*the report from Sidonia Elzbieta Jedrzejewska and Helga Trüpel

Radio RWB’s Eurofile: The Work of Party Researchers behind the BNP's MEPs

Radio RWB’s Eurofile: The Work of Party Researchers behind the MEPs

The British Party Newsroom 

Radio Red White and Blue has just posted up the latest issue of its “Eurofile” programme which outlines the work of party researchers who support the MEPs in their voting decisions.

The half hour show features two of the researchers, the recently-appointed David Hannam and Radio RWB’s own John Walker, discussing how decisions are made as to how the British National Party’s MEPs are advised to vote on the huge number of resolutions and motions which come before the parliament.

Click here to listen to this fascinating interview in full, and then click on the RWB player launch button.

Labours Horwich Council House Rent Hike Alert

which way to our new council house!

Labours Horwich Council House Rent Hike Alert by Horwich Nationalists
It is with sadness that we have to report to all those who were silly enough to vote Labour in the previous election, and live in a council House in Horwich that I am afraid your rent is to rise alarmingly, of course the Labour Zanu PF party of Bolton claim that is all the Con/Dem Zanu PF Govt's fault, instead of just admitting that is all the three parties fault.
perhaps they should look at all the free housing given to bogus asylum seekers and dubious immigrants whom the Labour and Con/Dem alliance have let and are still letting into the country. And also the expense of the cultural refurbishment of the Local authorities properties as asylum seekers must have a list of new items in properties such as a Internet connection and free phone! that they occupy, instead of the British families who should be occupying them.
Remember that the British National Party is the only party who will put British people at the top of the list for Housing and will through sound economics make more homes more affordable!!!!

What did you do in the war Daddy an Apt Poem for Today

What did you do in the war Daddy

from the Wigan Patriot

What did you do in the war Daddy , the war to save our race. Come on, please tell me true Daddy, I am sure it’s no disgrace….

Did you march with your British brothers Daddy, did you hold our banner high, or did you just sit at home and watch our country die?

Did you take to the streets Daddy, when right was on our side, or did you think of your own skin, and run away to hide?

When you saw the jobs for “Muslims only” Daddy, did you shout out loud in protest, or did you keep silent just like all the rest?

When the union bullies told you Daddy not to vote for our men, did you tell them all to go to Hell and not come back again?

Did you speak out for the truth Daddy, did you spread the word, or did you live in fear Daddy and not let your voice be heard?

Please tell me what you did Daddy. I’ve often wondered who could see the British race overrun, and why we are so few.

You need not feel ashamed, my son because I had a dream, to open up my kinfolk’s eyes to Islams infernal scheme.

But when I spoke, they turned away and closed up their ears. I could not make them understand the reason for my fears, and when we marched we were so few, just fifty men and me. The others stayed at home in fear and watched it on TV.

I’m proud to say I played a part and say that I fought well, that’s why I lost my livelihood and wound up in a cell.

The reason that we lost, my son was not that we weren’t brave, but that the ones we battled for were not worth our while to save

Another £1 Billion Set to be Added to the EU Membership Finacial BLackhole

Another £1 Billion Set to be Added to the EU Membership Bill

The British National party Newsroom

On the same day that the ConDem regime announced massive cuts to frontline services to British people, the European Parliament voted in a new budget which is set to increase the cost of British membership of the EU membership by nearly a billion pounds every year.

MEPs voted to increase the annual EU budget from nearly £108 billion this year to more than £114 billion in 2011, a rise of 5.9 percent. There were 546 votes in favour of the budget, with only 88 against (including, of course, the British National Party’s two MEPs, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons).

The issue goes now goes into arbitration between MEPs, EU ministers and the European Commission, with this year's budget being rolled over into 2011 if no deal is done by January.

Nearly £400 million has been allocated to finance the new EU diplomatic service which will open offices in New York, Beijing and Moscow, despite all EU members already having embassies in those nations.

Another EU budget allocation which was doubled end was that of the “entertainment” department. This body puts on champagne receptions and courtesy limousines, amongst other things.

Most of the increased spend would however be directed toward agricultural subsidies and aid to the Continent’s poorer regions, particularly those southern European nations who are already struck by financial instability.

It was therefore not surprising to see almost all the Greek, Spanish and Portuguese MEPs vote in favour of the budget, with many rebelling against their political group policy on the matter.

The Lisbon Treaty has put more pressure on the budget by giving the EU new tasks and creating new senior posts, something which David Cameron claimed to have opposed but who now, infamously, accepts as a done deal.

* The EU’s Budget Commissioner has also proposed a new VAT tax which, if approved, will be applied in all member states.

Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski has announced that he wants to revivie stalled plans for a taxation system across all 27 member nations to help finance the EU’s operations.

Other taxes under consideration include levies on carbon emissions, air transport, financial transactions or bank profits.

EU chiefs have already indicated that they want to scrap the remains of

Britain’s multi-billion pound annual rebate.

Islamists terrorise Met Police so This is England Today

So this is England
In this shocking video you can see what has become of our nation through the traitorous actions of the 3 main political parties. 
 

Secret Green Climate Warming” Hoax Tax Emerges: £1 Billion in “Carbon Emission”

Now, the Secret Tax Emerges: £1 Billion in “Carbon Emission”

The BNP Newsroom

In what is the inevitable result of the “climate warming” hoax against which the British National Party alone warned, taxpayers are to be hit with a new £1 billion secret tax hike on “carbon emissions,” it has emerged.

The tax, which was not mentioned by Chancellor George Osborne in his Spending Review speech to the House of Commons, was contained in the small print of the accompanying documentation.

The nature of the new tax and its difference from previous “carbon emission” tax proposals makes it clear that the new tax is nothing but an additional way of raising revenue to help clear the deficit.

Previous “carbon emission” tax proposals which were due to be introduced in Spring next year would have seen companies buy “allowances” at £12 for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit.

If companies reduced emissions, they would then receive rebates in relation to the amount they “saved.”

Now however, the scheme will simply charge companies per tonne of carbon dioxide no matter what.

The new tax will, it has been estimated, add 11 percent to the energy bills of British companies which will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

Reports indicate that about 5,000 large and medium-sized companies with bills of more than £500,000 per year will bear the brunt of the new tax.

The business community was unanimous in its rejection of the tax plans which will cause a ripple increase in the consumer inflation index across the board.

Stephen Robertson, director-general of the British Retail Consortium, was quoted as saying that his organisation was “surprised and dismayed that the £1bn per year participating businesses will put in to the Carbon Reduction Commitment scheme is no longer to be recycled to participants but is instead to be pocketed by the Exchequer.

"A tax of this size surely merits a mention in the Chancellor's speech. It is appalling that the Government is sneaking this in, introducing a new burden on businesses that are trying to create new jobs to offset the public sector cutbacks and growing the economy to generate the tax base to pay down the debt."

Additional reports quoted analysts from PriceWaterhouseCooper as saying that the new tax will cost an extra £76,000 per year in the first year, rising to £114,000 per year by 2015, for a business with an average £1 million gas and electricity bill.

The shock effect of this tax and the retardation it will have on medium size enterprises is massive.

The BNP was the only party to warn from the beginning that “climate change” was little more than an attempt to extort taxpayers in Western countries by using the “threat” of temperature changes as a reason to raise taxes.

Now that warning has come home to roost as the ConDem regime has latched onto the ongoing “climate change” scam as yet another method through which they can raise taxes to pay off their madcap schemes which have caused the deficit in the first place.

The new tax clearly has nothing to do with paying for “climate change” and has everything to do with paying for the massive borrowing that the previous Labour regime and their ConDem twins have engaged in to keep their bankster friends bailed out, to keep the foreign aid budget going, to keep up Britain’s EU membership fees and to pay for the Afghanistan war, amongst other madcap schemes.

The UK Governments £83 Billion Cut with 500,000 Job Losses vs the BNP Financial Plan of £83 Billion in Cuts With No Job Losses

The ConDem Plan=£83 Billion Cut with 500,000 Job Losses vs the BNP Plan= £83 Billion Cut With No Job Losses

The British National party Newsroom

The British National Party’s plan to cut the budget deficit consists of slashing all expenditure not in Britain’s interests with no job losses — in marked contrast to the ConDem plan which will cause half a million people to lose their jobs and much further economic damage further down the road.

The £83 billion which the ConDem regime claims is necessary to bring down the budget deficit will bring unprecedented misery to the British public and the economy.

The 500,000 projected job losses will have a massive ripple impact upon welfare and ancillary business which are dependent on state contracts — but all of that could have been prevented by using simple logic and cutting those things not serving any useful purpose.

The British National Party has long argued that the best way to reduce the deficit is simply to cut expenditure which is not vital to Britain’s national interest.

Areas which could be cut immediately without impacting any frontline services to the British people would include:

- Halting British involvement in the Afghanistan war which would cut £5 billion a year off the deficit. The cost of that war has steadily escalated over the years, and will cost even more in the near future as the compensation payouts to the thousands wounded carry on being paid out for decades to come.

- Halting the ‘asylum’ racket which costs Britain around £4 billion per year. There are no legal asylum seekers in Britain, and all such claims are bogus. Asylum seekers who have crossed dozens of safe countries to reach soft-touch Britain are just illegal immigrants, and nothing else.

- Halting the immigration swindle which costs Britain around £13 billion per year. This figure was calculated by Migrationwatch and is a compilation of the direct costs of benefits, housing, incarceration costs, schooling and what the immigrants then send home by way of financial repatriations.

- Halting the £9.9 billion per year foreign aid budget. This figure is set to increase even more under ConDem plans to set foreign aid at 0.7 percent of Britain’s Gross National Income. There is no excuse for giving British tax money away while there are massive shortfalls at home.

- Halting British membership of the European Union which, according to estimates by the Bruges Group costs Britain at least £60.1 billion per year gross, or £50.6 billion net.

According to the Bruges Group figures, this amount is made up as follows:

- £28 billion for business to comply with EU regulations;

- £17 billion of additional food costs resulting from the Common Agricultural Policy;

- £3.3 billion - the value of the catch lost when the Common Fisheries Policy let other countries fish in our territorial waters;

- £14.6 billion gross paid into the EU budget and other EU funds.

In addition, the Bruges Group says, since 1973 the UK has made contributions to the EC budget of almost £213.6 billion gross or £66.3 billion net. By 2013, this figure will have increased to £299.8 billion gross, or £102.2 billion net.

Finally, Britain's accumulated trade deficit with the other EU member states since we joined has risen to £359.5 billion.

If the ConDem regime had the interests of the British people at heart, they would first have cut all of the expenditures listed above before putting the boot into civil servants and the economy in general.

But then again, those who are familiar with the Tory and Lib Dem leadership know that patriotism and a desire to protect Britain are the very last things those people think about.

ConDems Foreign Aid Budget is Twice as Much as British Higher Education Budget Outrage

Scandal: Foreign Aid Budget is Twice as Much as British Higher Education Budget

British National party Newsroom

Evidence of the vicious anti-British nature of the Westminster parties has come with the “education budget cut” announced by the ConDem regime — which inadvertently revealed that the foreign aid budget is now twice as high as the higher education budget.

The shocking news was contained in the announcement by Chancellor George Osborne that the spending review cuts have meant that the higher education budget will be cut from £7.1 billion to £4.2 billion by 2014.

As bad as that news is, a quick look at the “ring fenced” foreign aid budget reveals that even prior to the recession, more money was being put aside for foreign aid than for higher education.

A “revised spending budget” issued by the Department for International Development (DFID) in June 2009 showed that the foreign aid budget for 2009/10 was £6.8 billion and was set to rise to £7.7 billion in the 2010/11 financial year.

The DFID announcement has deliberately understated the figures, hiding the true cost with an administrative trick. The figures they announced are only the direct aid programme, and not the total cost, which is called the “Gross Public Expenditure on Development” (GPEX) – which adds nearly £2 billion each year to total DFID expenditure.

For example, the GPEX in 2007/08 amounted to £6.027 billion, of which £5.2 billion was direct aid. The GPEX for 2006/07 was £7.4 billion, of which £4.9 billion was direct aid, and the GPEX for 2005/06 was £6.6 billion, of which £4.4 billion was direct aid.

This means that in the financial year 2010/2011 the GPEX for the DFID amounted to some £9.9 billion.

Given the higher education budget cuts, this means that British taxpayers now spend more than twice as much handing out cash to countries like India and China than what is spent educating British kids.

The budget cut announced by Mr Osborne amount to a 40 percent cut in higher education teaching budgets.

In addition, universities will be allowed to charge higher tuition fees, which will mean that the debts with which those kids lucky enough to get into university leave those institutions, will be even higher than before.

According to a report which quoted Professor Steve Smith, president of the vice-chancellors' association, the stagnation of investment in the science budget has meant that Britain is “now one of the only countries in the industrialised world that is not increasing our investment in science and research.”

It seems that the ConDem regime, and its Labour twin, are perfectly happy to keep funding nuclear power India and buying schoolbooks in China than ensuring that British kids have a fair chance at obtaining a higher education.

How much more treason do they have to perpetrate before the public sees through the Westminster party scam?

* Mr Osborne also announced that the government will establish a new £150m national scholarship fund to support students from “disadvantaged backgrounds.”

While the principle behind such a scheme is praiseworthy, observers have pointed out that the ConDem’s own definition of “disadvantaged” has generally meant to be those of ethnic origin.

Time will tell if this scheme is just another affirmative action handout or no

Solidarity — A Nationalist Union Which Wins Cases

Solidarity — A Nationalist Union Which Wins Cases

The BNP Newsroom

Solidarity Trade Union National Executive member David Kerr has called on all patriots and Nationalists to join the Solidarity Trade Union and register with its website to receive regular updates.

The Solidarity site has recently featured articles looking at social inequality, the Liberal Democrat’s views on immigration, capitalism and cheap labour and the strikes on the London Underground. 

There’s also a thought-provoking article which asks how British workers can counter the power and influence of the establishment media — and especially the likes of the Sun. 

The most up-to-date articles include a look at the Labour leadership contest and the influence of the establishment Unions and an announcement that Solidarity will be looking into the whole banking system. Here they will also look at “practical alternatives to the banks like Credit Unions, the Islamic banking system, Zopas — 'zone of possible agreement' — and Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS).”

The union is particularly interested in getting a wide range of views in their examination of the whole banking system and alternatives. Therefore BNP members/sympathisers who have experience in the financial sector or an interest in economics may wish to participate in this debate.

Mr Kerr reminded patriots that Solidarity does not go in for political vetting: “we just win cases and do our job.”

Many disciplinary cases have been won for members, but more serious cases have been taken to Tribunal. Often settlements can be brokered by the Union in the interests of our members.

Recently our Representatives won a settlement for a member who was not correctly paid the National Minimum Wage over many months and compensation for another worker who claimed he was a victim of 'religious discrimination' by a public employer.

As the latter case highlights, although most of our cases are related to everyday disputes at work, we are not afraid of taking on discrimination cases whether political, religious or other grounds.

Solidarity is the only union that favours economic Nationalism and resists all attempts to discriminate against or harm the interests of British workers.

Join the Union now!

Join for just £5 a month by clicking on this link.

If you prefer to pay by standing order you can request a form from: Solidarity, P O Box 93, Spennymoor, DL16 9AN, United Kingdom.