A Real Danger for America

A Danger for America

In the lead up to next Tuesday's Mid Term elections in the USA, American readers might wish to take note of this cautionary posting at The American Thinker.

The Democrats' Final Recourse: Massive Vote Fraud

By Selwyn Duke

The reports are rolling in from all over the country. A Craven County, NC resident attempts to vote a straight Republican ticket, but his choices come up straight Democrat four times, despite receiving assistance from poll workers. In NC's Lenoir County, registered Democrat Ervin Norville also tries to vote straight Republican but finds that his ballot has the names of several Democrat candidates selected. Boulder City, NV resident Joyce Ferrara says that when she and several others went to vote for Sharon Angle, they found that Senator Harry Reid's name was already checked off. In Dallas County, TX's congressional district 30, Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson's name was the only one on the ballot in a few locations (no, she isn't running unopposed). And some states have been late in mailing out military absentee ballots, whose recipients, interestingly, are known for their Republican leanings.

These happenings are generally referred to as "mistakes" and "glitches," but if that's all they are, then we're witnessing a truly historic anomaly. Because either the mainstream media is now suppressing stories of mistakes and glitches benefiting Republicans, or the laws of probability have suddenly been rescinded and tossed coins are coming up donkey tails every time. Welcome to American elections, Venezuelan style.

Click here to continue reading at the American Thinker

Bookmark 8 November to Support “Demonstration in London Day,” BNP Activists Told

Don’t Forget To Bookmark 8 November as “Demonstration in London Day,” BNP Activists Told

The BNP Newsroom

British National Party activists have been reminded to bookmark Monday, 8 November as “demonstration in London” day when party leader Nick Griffin is back in court on the trumped up legal case brought by the race-Gestapo Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

The case, brought initially by the EHRC over the BNP’s membership rules, has since expanded considerably as that taxpayer-funded quango has constantly shifted the goal posts of its demands in an attempt to financially exhaust the party.

When the BNP changed its membership admission qualifications to bring the case – and costs – to an end, the EHRC then filed new papers claiming that the linking of belief in the party’s policy to membership was discriminatory because ethnics would not feel at ease with a policy which called for the maintenance of an indigenous majority in Britain.

This was an astonishing argument which means that if, say, a BNP-supporting person wanted to join the Labour Party, he or she could do so without having to agree to support the Labour Party’s policy.

As mad as that logic is, the BNP leader then used his powers in terms of the constitution to uncouple the link between membership and support of the party’s policy, once again in an attempt to end the case as quickly as possible.

This did not, however, fit in with the ECHR’s plans to bankrupt the party through endless court battles, and that body, headed up by Trevor Phillips who once boasted of having a bust of Lenin on his desk, then filed new papers claiming that Mr Griffin did not have the power to unilaterally amend the constitution in that manner.

Of course, the EHRC were wrong, and they probably knew it, but even so filed their papers in the full knowledge that it would once again cost the BNP money to defend this ridiculous allegation.

After yet another legal round, the EHRC was then forced to admit that the BNP leader was empowered to amend the constitution – but then promptly filed new papers saying that the clause suggesting house visits for new members was “indirect discrimination” which would still make would-be ethnic members uncomfortable.

The pattern throughout has been clear: not to achieve “equality” or “fairness” (otherwise the EHRC would have taken the hundreds of black or Asian-only organisations to court as well) but rather to financially destroy the BNP through repeated legal battles.

In that sense, the EHRC has been partially successful, and it is only been due to the astonishing patience and generosity of its supporters that the BNP has been able to carry on for as long as it has.

“No matter what happens on 8 November, and no matter what financial pressures are brought to bear on this party, our pledge to the cause of Britain is this: that we will never give up,” Mr Griffin told BNP News.

“The enemies of Britain think they can break us financially. They think that if they keep us in court, the party will stop functioning if it is bled dry. I want to tell them this: our movement is stronger than that.

“Our movement will continue no matter what, because we are motivated by a noble spirit which is foreign and inexplicable to our enemies.

“Our cause comes from within us, and the strength to carry on is a fountain which their financial pressure cannot break.

 “Nothing, and I repeat, nothing, not financial pressure, not legal cases, not their media-smears, will break us. We will carry on in one form or another until we have secured the right of our people to live in peace and freedom in their homeland.”

* Activists are urged to be outside the court in London on 8 November to show they support and defiance of this ongoing attempt to destroy the BNP. Details will be provided later on this website.

* The BNP’s fighting fund to ward off this evil attack on our existence – which is very serious and does indeed threaten the future of this party – is still in urgent need of your support. Any donations, which can be made by clicking on the donate button on the right, will be gratefully received.

Dontate through this link https://www.bnp.org.uk/donate.html

White People Blamed for "Asylum Seeker" Deaths Left Wing Slur

The Latest Slur: White People Blamed for "Asylum Seeker" Deaths

The BNP Newsroom

White people have been blamed for the deaths of “hundreds if not thousands” of “asylum seekers” who have perished trying to illegally enter Britain by the lottery-funded far leftist “Institute of Race Relations” (IRR).

The bizarre allegation is contained in a new report by the IRR, titled “Driven to Desperate Measures: 2006-2010” by a researcher named Harmit Athwal.

According to this report, which has of course been widely repeated in the controlled media, “The IRR has catalogued a roll call of death of the 77 asylum seekers and migrants who have died either in the UK or attempting to reach the UK in the past five years as a consequence of direct racism or indirect racism stemming from policies.”

By “racism” the IRR of course means “white racism” and therefore is directly blaming white people for the 77 deaths it has catalogued.

In addition, the IRR report said, "hundreds if not thousands" or people had perished making desperate journeys to the UK as stowaways on planes, lorries and ships.

The list produced by the IRR is even more bizarre than the initial allegation. Apparently, some 15 “asylum seekers” died “taking dangerous and highly risky methods to enter the country.”

An observer might ask how that could be blamed on white people. Mr Athwal provides us with the answer: “With legal barriers in place to prevent them securing visas or work permits to enter legally and sanctions applying to aboveboard carriers, the desperate stow away on planes and lorries or attempt to cross the channel in makeshift boats or cling to trains.”

In other words, people who do not want to follow the legal route to enter Britain, are the victims of “white racism,” according to the IRR.

Mr Athwal’s report claims that another 44 died as “an indirect consequence of the iniquities of the immigration/asylum system – by taking their own lives when claims were not allowed, by meeting accidental deaths evading deportation or during the deportation itself, by being prevented medical care, by becoming destitute in the UK.”

Thus, in the world of the IRR’s analysis, white people are also to blame for nonwhites who commit suicide, die in accidents and who become destitute.

The level of vicious, unfounded “blame whitey” and vicious anti-white racism displayed in this ignorant IRR report takes on a more sinister meaning when it is considered that these outrageous allegations have been repeated, without question, in the pages of the controlled media and will doubtless now be used as future “research” to prove how wicked and bad white people are.

The British National Party rejects this “blame whitey” attitude as racist, bigoted and a vicious lie.

White people are not to blame because other people seek to break immigration laws. White people are not to blame because other people commit suicide after breaking immigration laws.

White people are not to blame because other people die in accidents or become destitute.

In fact, there is no justification whatsoever for anybody to seek “asylum” in Britain in the first place. 

The right of asylum is only applicable in the first safe country bordering the one which the “refugee” is fleeing. Once that “refugee” leaves the first safe country and crosses dozens of other “safe” countries to reach Britain, they are no longer “asylum seekers” but simply illegal immigrants.

* Other funders of the IRR, as named in their latest annual report, include the Allen Lane Foundation (set up by the founder of Penguin books); the City Parochial Foundation (a London charity supplied with taxpayer millions); the European Programme on Integration and Migration (which is funded by a number of European foundations, including the Barrow Cadbury Trust, and the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund); the Garden Court Chambers (a London-based law foundation); the Heritage Lottery Fund; the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust; and the Methodist Church.

Denied NHS healthcare after a lifetime of service to the country

Denied healthcare after a lifetime of service to the country

  Martin Wingfield at Nick Griffin Mep Euro News

OCTOBER 2010: 
HARDLY a day goes by at Nick Griffin's Constituency Office without there being a call on the telephone or correspondence in the MEP's mailbag, drawing attention to how Britons are being treated as second class citizens in their own country.


 It sometimes seems as if the Government has concerns only for the welfare of newly-arrived immigrants to these shores and doesn't give a damn for the well-being of British people, especially the elderly who have served this country throughout their lifetime.
A letter last week was from a family whose elderly mother was being denied Fully Funded NHS Continuing Healthcare (FFNHSCHC) by the North Lancashire Primary Care Trust after a fall at home left her with almost no cognitive function.
The lady, an 86yr old widow of a retired RAF Officer who served as aircrew in WWII, and herself a former wartime Auxilliary Nurse, has been refused for FFNHSCHC and told that her family are responsible for any onward movement to a nursing home.
"The Primary Care Trust are failing to ensure that my mother receives all the care that she needs and is threatening to take her possessions to pay for any future care," a distraught son told his MEP.
Responding on behalf of Nick Griffin, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"I am sorry to hear of your mother’s ill-health and share your outrage over the way she is being treated by the administrators of the North Lancashire Primary Care Trust.
You mention that your mother has almost no cognitive functions and is fully dependent on the healthcare she receives in hospital, so it would seem that she should qualify for the free package of fully funded continuing care that is provided by the National Health Service.
As a former wartime auxiliary nurse, and the widow of a retired RAF officer, the automatic right to free healthcare should be absolute. In addition to serving their country, both will, no doubt, have paid a lifetime of National Insurance contributions and it is criminal that essential care is now being denied to your mother in her hour of need.
I know from the huge amount of correspondence that Mr Griffin receives from constituents that people cannot comprehend how this Government can believe that it is defensible to deprive our vulnerable elderly of the care they deserve, yet consider it justifiable to continue to waste millions of pounds of public money on foreign aid and welfare benefits for newcomers to our shores who haven’t paid a penny into our social protection funds.
I fully agree with your view that it is unfair and morally unacceptable, moreover, for Lancashire Primary Trust to assert that it is your mother’s responsibility to fund the move to a nursing home - before the appeals process has been concluded.
I note that you have already lodged an appeal against Lancashire PCT’s ‘non-entitlement’ decision, on behalf of your mother, and I hope that justice is served with a successful outcome.
In the meantime, may I refer you to some support services that may be able to offer you and your mother advice and help? If you are not already in touch with the NHS Patient Advice and Liaison Services (PALS), it might be helpful to contact them. PALS provide information for people who are concerned about the care patients are receiving, including the transfer arrangements from hospital to other care facilities, and can also help to resolve complaints. There is a PALS office in the Royal Lancaster Infirmary - telephone number: 01539 795497. Email: pals@mbht.nhs.uk .
The Citizens Advice Bureau can also offer informed advice about care options and appeals procedures. They can be contacted at: Oban House, 87-89 Queen Street, Morecambe L A4 5EN. Telephone: 0844 499 4197 (advice line); 01524 400405 (appointment booking line only). Email: post@morecambecab.co.uk .
Caring for a loved one is an immensely rewarding task but it can also create intense stresses and strains on the carer. The Carers Federation offers a confidential support and information service for carers: their website can be found at www.carersfederation.co.uk/ . Email info@carersfederation.co.uk .
Please do not hesitate to contact Mr Griffin again if you require any further assistance."

LibDems Bask in Victory as David Cameron Indicates Conservatives Will Retreat over “Immigration Cap”

Liberal Democrats Bask in Victory as David Cameron Indicates Tories Will Retreat over “Immigration Cap”

From the BNP Newsroom

Yet another Conservative election promise seems set to be watered down as Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable celebrated yesterday at the Confederation of British Industry’s annual conference in London that David Cameron was “listening” to business complaints about the proposed “immigration cap.”

The immigration cap policy, a pathetic attempt by the Tories to con the voters into thinking that they were serious about stopping the immigration invasion, has come under fire from the very beginning from the Liberal Democrats, with Mr Cable in particular leading the charge to get it reversed.

Earlier, Mr Cameron told the CBI conference that the “coalition will not impede” businesses who seek to recruit non-British persons to work in Britain.

Obviously not realising the inherent contradiction in his words, Mr Cameron told the CBI that “As we control our borders and bring immigration to a manageable level, we will not impede you from attracting the best talent from around the world.”

That comment was widely interpreted, even in the Tory media, of indicating a shift away from the key Conservative pledge of bringing down net immigration.

When he addressed the CBI a short while later, Mr Cable could hardly contain his glee at Mr Cameron’s remarks.

“The Government is listening to the complaints of business about its proposed immigration cap,” Mr Cable said. “The message has been heard loud and clear.”

Previously, when Mr Cable has said that the immigration cap was “very damaging” to the British economy, Mr Cameron and Downing Street spokesman had slapped him down, declaring that “there was no evidence a cap would be damaging to business.”

The slavishly pro-Tory Daily Mail announced that “David Cameron opened the door to a new wave of immigration yesterday by signalling that the Government will let businesses bring in more staff from overseas.”

The Mail continued: “His words brought claims that the Tories are watering down their tough stance on new arrivals to placate the Liberal Democrats.”

The extremist leftwing Independent newspaper went even further, claiming that a deal had already been worked out which would herald a major retreat on the issue by the Tories.

“Plans for a stringent cap on numbers of immigrant workers are to be softened in the face of warnings from business leaders that it could prevent them from bringing the brightest foreign talent to Britain,” The Independent said.

“Ministers are close to a deal on an issue that has deeply divided the coalition partners, The Independent understands. Ministers are considering two options: they could allow firms to transfer staff from offices overseas to Britain for limited periods without counting towards the limit, or allow them to take on highly qualified foreign staff in return for paying a high visa fee. Cabinet ministers will meet shortly with a view to announcing the policy by December,” the paper reported.

Ironically, the immigration cap, even if implemented as originally promised, will do nothing to avert the real problem, namely the ethnic cleansing of British people from their ancestral homeland.

The “cap” is based on the “balanced migration” nonsense as it seeks to bring “net immigration” down to 1990s levels. What this “net immigration” actually means is that the number of people leaving the country is only slightly superseded by the number of people entering the country.

In other words, if 500,000 white British people leave Britain in a year, then it will be “balanced migration,” Tory-style, to allow 600,000 Third World immigrants into Britain that same, year.

This insane policy is based upon the belief that Third World immigrants will “become British” by learning the language and dressing like British people. This bizarre idea, known also as “cultural nationalism” or “civic nationalism” denies any ethnic identity to nationhood and believes that anybody, from anywhere, can become “British,” “Chinese,” “African” of even “American Indian” simply by changing their language and dress.

Furthermore, this “balanced migration” nonsense also fails to take into account the far higher birth rates of Third World immigrants, who are multiplying at a rate 15 times faster than the native indigenous British population.

Only the policy of ethno-nationalism, as espoused exclusively by the British National Party, offers an answer to the immigration invasion.

UKIP Voters Betrayed As UKIP MEPS Vote for More EU Power

UKIP Supporters Stabbed in the Back Again As UKIP MEPS Vote for More EU Power

The BNP Newsroom

In yet another shocking betrayal of their core supporters and their own party’s supposed policies, eight UKIP MEPs have voted in favour of a European Parliament motion authorising increased EU power and taxation.

Observers were astounded when UKIP MEPs Nigel Farage, John Agnew, Marta Andreasen, Gerard Batten, John Bufton, Derek Clark, William Legge and Paul Nuttall all voted in favour of the Parliament's position on the 2011 draft budget on 20 October.

That budget’s paragraph four contained the clause which said that “the European Union should be endowed with the necessary financial means to attain its objectives.”

The full section reads as follows:

“Motion for resolution, para 4:

Considers that following the entry into force of the TFEU, which strengthens EU policies and creates new fields of competence — notably Common Foreign and Security Policy, competitiveness and innovation, energy policy, space, tourism, the fight against climate change, sport and youth, social policy, energy policy, justice and home affairs — the European Union should be endowed with the necessary financial means to attain its objectives and therefore requires both branches of the budgetary authority to be coherent and consistent as regards increased financial capacities.”

By voting in favour of this budget, the UKIP MEPs aligned themselves with the Socialists, Greens, Liberals, hard Left and Federalist parties in the European Parliament, to equip the EU with the financial means (at UK taxpayers' expense) to meet its objectives of “ever closer union.”

Even the Tories voted against this amendment, as did Nikki Sinclaire, Morten Messerschmidt and several others from the EFD group (to which UKIP is affiliated), along with BNP MEPs Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin.

One UKIP MEP at least did not stab all UKIP supporters in the back. Godfrey Bloom voted against the motion, while three other UKIP MEPs: David Campbell Bannerman, Trevor Colman and Mike Nattrass did not bother to turn up for the vote.

It is reported that Mr Farage’s decision to vote in favour of the motion has caused even further dissent within UKIP’s ranks and might affect his chances of retaking the UKIP leadership.

In any event, the disgraceful betrayal of British taxpayers and UKIP supporters will undoubtedly plague that party for a while to come and it is hoped that more of its members will realise that the British National Party represents the only consistent and reliable anti-EU party in Britain.

The Genocide of a Nation: British People Being Ethnically Cleansed by Islamic Colonisation

The Genocide of a Nation: British People Being Ethnically Cleansed by Islamic Colonisation

The BNP Newsroom 

The British people are being subjected to a calculated genocide through ethnic cleansing caused by Islamic and other Third World colonisation, as evidenced by the news that Mohammed (or variants thereof) was the most common name for newborn boys in England and Wales last year.

The figures, released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), did not provide any clues about the total number of Muslim female babies born in Britain last year.

When it is calculated that their numbers will be approximately the same as the male birth rate, the extent of the Islamic colonisation of Britain becomes evident.

According to the ONS figures, there were 7,515 babies born last year with the name Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed or Mohammod.

This compares with the second ranking name of Oliver, given to some 7,364 babies.

Even without the different spellings, Mohammed was the most common boy's name in the West Midlands and the fourth most popular in London during 2009.

During 2009 there were 3,300 boys named Mohammed, 2,162 Muhammads, 1,073

Mohammads, and 980 called either Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed or

Mohammod.

While the Islamic colonisation of Britain is the most overt sign of the murder of our nation as a result of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem-supported policy of mass Third World immigration, it is not the only threat to the continued existence of the British people.

The baby names list do not, for example, reveal how many other Third World births are recorded under that listing. To gain some idea of the overall racial imbalance, other sources have to be consulted.

National Health Service figures  released in August this year showed that the number of immigrant-origin live births — which are an underestimate of the actual numbers — indicate that Third World population-origin births will be form an outright majority of all babies born in Britain by the year 2030.

These NHS figures claim that of the 652,638 deliveries in 150 NHS Trusts in England last year, an average of 62 percent were to mothers who were classed as “white British.”

This means that 38 percent of all live births in 2009 were supposedly of immigrant origin.

This figure contrasts strongly with a 2005 Office for National Statistics report which said that 36 percent of all births in England and Wales were not “white British” (“Birthweight and gestational age by ethnic group, England and Wales 2005: introducing new data on births” by Kath Moser, Office for National Statistics).

Given immigration levels since 2004, and natural reproduction rates amongst immigration groups (for example, an August 2008 ONS population report stated that, on average, ‘foreign’ women have 2.5 children each, rising to 3.9 for those from Bangladesh and almost five for Pakistani women), it is highly unlikely that the number of immigrant births have only climbed two percent in the period 2005 to 2009.

Even if the figures released in August are accurate (which they appear not to be), they are still evidence enough that Britain faces imminent colonisation via the womb.

Even if a reproduction increase rate of “only” two percent every four years is maintained for the non-ethnically British segment of the population, they are set to become an outright majority in twenty years’ time.

The immigrant increase will of course be greater than two percent as their numbers are increasing exponentially.

Nonetheless, even taking the unaltered growth projection rate of two percent every four years, the growth pattern appears as follows:

2005 = 36%; 2009 = 38%; 2013 = 40%; 2017 = 42%; 2021 = 44%; 2025 = 46%; 2029 = 48%; 2033 = 51%.

Britain stands before the precipice. Will the British people choose to live, or will they choose extermination through colonisation?

The choice is clear, but time is short.

Migrationwatch Urges ConDem Govt to “Come Clean” over Its “Secret” Deal to Give British Jobs to Indian Workers

From the BNP Newsroom

Migrationwatch Urges ConDem Regime to “Come Clean” over Its “Secret” Deal to Give British Jobs to Indian Workers

oct 2010

Migrationwatch UK’s Sir Andrew Green gave further evidence of his increasing disenchantment with the Conservative Party with a new press release which accused the ConDem regime of “secretly” negotiating an EU Trade Agreement which will give British jobs to Indians and urged the Government to “come clean” on the topic.

Sir Andrew was in fact referring to the EU’s Mode 4 agreement which was first brought to the public’s attention by the British National Party’s Nick Griffin MEP, who asked a question in the EU Parliament on the topic in July this year.

That issue aside, Migrationwatch’s statement is to be welcomed as it could signify — for the second time in less than a month — a realisation by Sir Andrew and many other Conservative Party supporters that David Cameron has pulled the wool over their eyes and has no intention whatsoever of stopping the immigration invasion.

“At just the time that the government is calling on the private sector to create jobs, they are negotiating in secret an agreement between the EU and India that would allow an unlimited number of Indian specialists to do work in Britain that has not been first offered to British workers,” Sir Andrew said in the statement.

“The EU/India Free Trade Agreement due to be signed in December will permit Indian corporations to transfer specialist staff to EU countries, notably the UK, without any upper limit on numbers,” he continued.

The Migrationwatch statement went on to point out a number of “potentially serious implications for Britain” which it listed as follows:

- The initiative will be in the hands of Indian companies who win a service contract in the EU.

- There is, apparently, to be no limit on numbers.

- Staff only have to have worked for one year with the Indian company concerned.

- There is no test to see if a British worker is available.

- The concessions become irreversible by individual member states because they will have been granted under the trade arrangements which are matters for Commission competence.

- The UK will be the main target of Indian companies, largely for language reasons, but also because they are already well established here.

- The period that workers are allowed to stay will, in theory, be limited to three years but, in practice, it will be impossible to find and return any who overstay.

“This Agreement could, of course, present very serious problems in implementing a cap on economic migration,” Sir Andrew continued, reminding his flagging Tory readers that the ConDem government claimed to be committed to that cap.

“The concessions under it would have to be operated outside any cap or the level of the cap would have to be adjusted to allow for demand for Intra Company Transfer visas from India,” he pointed out, meaning of course, that the Agreement made a mockery of the entire cap concept.

Mr Griffin’s original EU Parliament question also raised the topic of the depression of salaries in Britain which such an influx would inevitably create.

“Clearly, the mass movement of labour across borders will create dire downward pressure on middle- and high-income wage earners in the relevant service industries. It will also create a significant new wave of potential immigration, as a proportion of the new workforce will seek permanent entry and the inclusion of dependents,” Mr Griffin said in July this year.

Sir Andrew's statement echoed these sentiments: “There may be scope for a minimum salary but such conditions are notoriously hard to enforce.

“It is time the Government came clean about what is in this agreement,” Sir Andrew said.

“It looks as though the Indians are about to drive a bullock and cart through Britain's immigration system despite government talk about creating jobs in the private sector.

“There is no point in a limit on economic migration if specialists from India are excluded from the cap by a separate agreement,” he said.

“British IT workers are already suffering the impact on jobs of tens of thousands of Indian IT staff working in Britain; we already have 48,000 unemployed British IT specialists.”

Under the Lisbon Treaty, Britain has veto against the trade agreement and it is expected to be implemented by mid-2011.

100 Hours Picking up Rubbish in Toxteth: Liverpool’s Peter Tierney Reports from the Front Line

Five Weeks Picking up Rubbish in Toxteth: Liverpool’s Peter Tierney Reports from the Front Line

From the BNP Newsroom

Liverpool City Council caters to the black minority vote in Toxteth by according that community special privileges which encourage anti-social behaviour, reports local British National Party superactivist Peter Tierney.

Mr Tieney, who has just completed 100 hours community service after being infamously and unjustly convicted of defending himself and fellow BNP supporters from an attack by a crazed leftist, provided the details on the Liverpool BNP blog.

“I’m proud to say my 100 hours' community work has been completed and I can now return to the community a ‘reformed character',” the ever-cheerful Mr Tierney wrote.

“My whole 100 hours consisted of painting, clearing rubbish, litter picking, gardening or delivering leaflets.

“I spent 5 weeks involved with this interesting scheme, placed with a small workforce, although, during my stay, I went out with various teams of mixed gender, race and age groups.

“Most of the time, we were assigned to the Toxteth area of the city, doing either gardening in The Caribbean Centre, or to clean away indiscriminate fly tipping.

“This consisted of an assortment of rubbish, three-piece suits, beds, kitchen units, garden waste, loads that seemed to appear in the street overnight. I even came across half a sheep’s head,” Mr Tierney said.

“I noticed a reoccurring pattern of events. It seemed that what the scheme was actually doing in the community was ‘encouraging fly tipping’.

“The Toxteth area is well aware of its pampered status and certain people were definitely taking advantage of it.

“Yet I do understand why Liverpool Council does pamper and appease this area. The power to run the Town Hall is held here, with the cherished minority vote.”

Mr Tierney also revealed that the authorities are well aware of the racial connotations of the area.

“When I was first interviewed for probation, I was asked some interesting questions, such as ‘do you have any enemies in this area' and ‘are there any areas dangerous for you to be in?'

“My reply was, ‘I am English, Christian and in England — shouldn’t I be able to go anywhere?”

Mr Tierney’s full post can be found here.

Express Newspaper and Some Conservatives Try to Steal BNP’s Popular Anti-Foreign Aid Policy

Express Newspaper and Some Tories Try to Hijack BNP’s Popular Anti-Foreign Aid Policy

The BNP Newsroom

The controlled Daily Express newspaper and a small element of the Conservative Party are trying to hijack the British National Party’s highly popular anti-foreign aid policy as public resentment of that blatant swindle grows.

The Express has now carried two stories demanding that the foreign aid budget be cut while British people at home face massive front line service cuts, directly echoing BNP policy and public pronouncements on the matter.

In addition, some Tory MPs have expressed their misgivings over the issue and a poll on the main Tory activist website has shown that over 70 percent of their readers support the BNP’s policy of halting foreign aid completely.

In addition, the Express newspaper carried out an opinion poll of its own readers which revealed that 98 percent agreed with the BNP’s policy.

The Express pointed out that the decision to increase the foreign aid budget “will cost every British family £2,000 over the next four years.”

Chancellor George Osborne revealed this past week that the amount of taxpayers’ cash sent abroad as foreign aid would to rise to £12.6 billion a year over the next four years. The BNP had earlier calculated that the foreign aid spend would rise to £13.1 billion, based on a 0.7 percent cut of the Gross National Income (GNI).

The difference between the two figures is likely attributable to Mr Osborne having access to the very latest GNI figures, but the relative accuracy of the BNP estimate is still remarkable.

According to one of the Express’s indignant articles, this increase in foreign aid “could pay for around 200 new schools, eight new hospitals, or the cost of locking up an extra 97,368 criminals every year.”

The Express went on to claim that the £3.7 billion annual rise is “equivalent to £500 a year for every household in Britain or £2,000 over four years.”

Some backbench Tory MPs, including Philip Hollobone, Philip Davies and Peter Bone,  all clearly rattled at the extent of the growing public anger, have at last spoken out against the foreign aid spend.

Their indignation is however false, as the ring fencing and commitment to increase foreign aid was part of their party’s election manifesto which they all endorsed.

Ironically, International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell insisted that the doubling of aid to countries such as Afghanistan and Yemen would “prevent them becoming terrorist havens.”

Mr Andrew is talking nonsense. Firstly, there are no recorded terrorists of Afghan or Yemen origin having carried out attacks in Britain, and secondly, it has been proven over and over again that the vast majority of foreign-originated terrorist plots against Britain come from Pakistan.

At the same time as the increase in foreign aid was announced, Mr Osborne cut an extra £7 billion from welfare benefits, upped the pension age was hiked for five million workers and announced that nearly 500,000 British civil servants would lose their jobs.

In addition, rail fares will increase by 40 percent as subsidies are withdrawn, and prison and police budgets will be cut by up to 20 percent.

Another £200 million has been set aside for off-shore wind farms, £1 billion for a “Green Bank” and a further £1 billion for other environmental schemes including “a commercial scale carbon capture and storage project.”

Treasury figures showed that average earners on annual salaries around £24,000 will suffer the most from the cuts, despite Mr Osborne and David Cameron claiming that the cuts are “fair.”

Republic of MOLDOVA: Pieces of silver to surrender its independence?

MOLDOVA: Pieces of silver to surrender its independence?"

  Andrew Brons  at http://www.andrewbronsmep.eu/?q=news

 OCTOBER 2010: 
THIS was a contribution I made under the Catch the Eye procedure to a debate on Implemented Reforms in the Republic of Moldova*.
It was my fifth speech of the week in the chamber of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
"The number of net recipients of EU funding is currently just under half of the total membership. As we extend membership to more and more, even poorer, Eastern states, the proportion of net recipients will increase to perhaps two-thirds of total membership. This will, self-evidently, be at the expense of net contributors. However, it will also be at the expense of current members that are net recipients.
"Easing of visa restrictions, we are often told by advocates of that easing, has nothing to do with migration, by which they mean legal migration. It will have everything to do with illegal migration - the trafficking of people to work for less than the minimum wage and less than minimum working conditions. It will also deplete that country of people of working age, who might otherwise help to pull that country out of its poverty.
Moldova declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Does it really wish to surrender its independence to the European Union, however much it might receive in pieces of silver?"
* Moldova is not yet a candidate country or even yet listed as a potential candidate country. However, it is already  a recipient of EU funding under the EU's Neighbourhood and Partnership policy. The EU never tires of saying that this is not given to encourage EU membership but that is clearly false. It was admitted during the debate that Moldova's eventual membership was the long term aim.

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.