BOLTON PATRIOT: 'Have more babies and Muslims can take over the UK...

BOLTON PATRIOT: 'Have more babies and Muslims can take over the UK...: "Muslim hate fanatics plan to take over Britain by having more babies and forcing a population explosion, it has been revealed. The swollen..."

Nick Griffin MEP Acts on Persecution of Christians in the Middle East

Persecution of Christians in the Middle East

  Martin Wingfield at Nick Griffin MEP Euro News

NOVEMBER 2010: NICK Griffin has signed an open letter condemning attacks on Christians in the Middle East.
The letter said:
"We, Members of the European Parliament, are deeply moved by the recent terrorist attack against the Baghdad Cathedral and by the ongoing persecution targetting Christians in the Middle East.
"We are aware of the anxiety and growing fear in the heart of Christian communities in this region. We desire to be kept informed on a regular basis of any kind of pressure, threat or attack against Christians in the Middle East.
"We, Members of the European Parliament, are determined to maintain relations with the Christians of the Middle East and to not leave them alone.
"We are determined to use all means at our disposal so as to regain Democracy, Human Rights and Freedom of Religion, including for Christians in the Middle East." 

Nick Griffin's European Office Questioning Jose Manuel Barroso on his Maoist past

Questioning Barroso on his Maoist past

  Martin Wingfield Nick Griffin MEP Euro News

 NOVEMBER 2010: WHEN Nick Griffin's European Office submitted a Written Question to the European Commission concerning Commission staff with Marxist affiliations, the reply came back from none other than the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, himself.

 He said:
"The Honourable Member asks about possible political affiliations of the Commissioners and their support staff in the past.
"According to the Code of Conduct for Commissioners, the Members of the Commission may be active members of political parties. This also applies to officials pursuant to Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations. In both cases, they must act solely in the interests of the Union when performing their duties within the Commission.
"It is not the Commission’s task to check or evaluate the political affiliations of Commissioners or officials."
According to political researcher Andrew Moffatt, the reply didn't answer the question so he penned another series of questions to Mr Barroso in an effort to pin the President of the European Commission down and to give a more revealing answer.
Andrew wrote:
"I refer to your reply E8354/10EN.
Given the Commission does not consider the extremist, totalitarian political affiliations of unelected Commissioners and officials - who initiate legislation - to be of significance to the people they govern, kindly advise in specific regard to Commissioner Barroso:
1  For what duration was he a member of a Maoist party?
2  Whether, given the elimination of between 60m-100m persons in Maoist China, Mr Barroso will condemn Maoism?
3  Whether Mr Barroso has ever expressed regret for his past affiliations, which many persons will consider to have been distasteful in the extreme?
4  Whether Mr Barroso will apologise to the people of both Europe and China for his previous membership of such an organisation and, if not, why not?
5  Whether Mr Barroso considers his previous affiliations an error of judgement.?
6  Whether Mr Barroso will condemn, outright, both the organisation to which he was affiliated and its policies?"
The reply from the President of the European Commission will be published on this website  http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/ when it is received.

"Look, Bolton it's getting warmer every day!"

"Look, it's getting warmer every day!"

 By  Nick Griffin at Nick Griffin MEP Euro News

 NOVEMBER 2010: THIS was a speech I made yesterday in the European Parliament in Strasbourg concerning the next Climate Change Summit in Cancun (right).


 Last year I attended COP15 in Copenhagen, but this time the number of places available for my Environmental Committee have been reduced in what appears to be a deliberate move to exclude me, and my global warming scepticism, from the conference.
This is what I told my fellow MEPs, and it certainly caused upset amongst some of them.
"Choosing sunny Mexico for COP16 was a good move. We should be spared a repeat of last year´s embarrassment, when global warmists shivered in the coldest Copenhagen December for decades.
Likewise, using the deceitfully ambiguous term 'climate change' rather than 'global warming' may blind a few British taxpapers to the irony of holding it just as an unusually cold summer and autumn give way to an early, icy winter. An even better trick would be to hold these events only in the spring - "look, it's getting warmer every day!"
How much longer can the fascistic EU impose ever more punitive taxes and controls on ordinary citizens on the pretext of man-made global warming, when an ever-increasing number of real scientists are rejecting the theory as unfounded and demolished?
AGW is baseless propaganda, a Joseph Goebbels-scale Big Lie from the Green-Industrial complex because they favour massive transfer of wealth from the ´little people´ to carbon trading crooks such as Al Gore and Goldman Sachs.
And it is being exploited by leftist political elites to complete the deindustrialisation of the West, because spineless Conservatives are too brow-beaten by global warming hysteria to stand up and tell the really Inconvenient Truth: Man-made climate change is the most profitable con-trick in history.
This year´s Bilderberg Conference, held in Spain in June, included a session on the dangers of global COOLING. When will the new realism of the people who really shape global politics  creep in here, among the people who merely think they should?"

Million in Foreign Aid to China,£1.2 Million on Hotels for Climate Change talks ,yet British Troops Christmas Dinners Cancelled

£40.2 Million in Foreign Aid to China, £1.2 Million on Hotels for Climate Change, But British Army’s Christmas Dinners Cancelled

The British National Party National Newsroom

The British government spends £40.2 million per year on foreign aid to China, and has spent £1.2 million on “climate change” talks since the election — but now has ordered the army to cancel Christmas dinner for the troops because of “budget cuts.”

The Army is given £30 per soldier for “festive allowance” which is traditionally spent on a Christmas dinner for all serving troops.

As of April 2010, the British Army employed 113,970 regular soldiers, which means that the total allowance would total £3.4 million.

Now, however, a Ministry of Defence order, leaked in a daily newspaper, pert, written by Peter Whitehead, deputy head of the MoD's Financial Management Policy and Development, has said that “It is improper to spend taxpayers' funds on Christmas trees, decorations, carol concerts or parties.”

The order continues: “Team-building or unit cohesiveness events during Christmas would be viewed by taxpayers as partying at their expense and must be avoided” and adds, significantly, that “As always, we want to ensure that the Department does all it can to avoid any adverse Parliamentary or media attention on this topic.”

Meanwhile, the taxpayer has just handed over £40.2 million in foreign aid to China, one of the world’s largest economies and which now manufactures almost every consumer item in British shops.

According to the Department for International Development, this £40.2 million is allocated to “education, growth, water and sanitation, environment, humanitarian assistance, governance, research and other social services.”

In addition, the ConDem regime has spent more than £1.2 million on “international climate change talks” since the election.

The most includes £41,800 on hotel accommodation for a meeting in Bonn, and £17,800 for a meeting at the luxury Hotel Fira Palace in Barcelona in May.

Meanwhile, British soldiers, ordered to fight and die for the ConDem and labour’s illegal foreign wars, have had their £30 per head Christmas dinner cancelled.

So it is with the Westminster parties, always putting the British people last.

The British National Party is the only party to have called for an immediate halt to the “foreign aid” swindle.

The total budget for this racket will soon be close to £13 billion which British taxpayers can ill-afford and which should either be cut completely from the budget or be reallocated to provide services to British people.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs of the british National Party Website

More "Supposed Benefits" of the Tory/Labour Privatisation Racket

More "Benefits" of the Tory/Labour Privatisation Racket

BNP National Newsroom 

Hot on the heels of the news of the £8 billion stumped up by taxpayers to buy new stock for the “privatised” railways, comes news that the privately-owned energy suppliers have reported record profits as millions of Britons slump into fuel poverty.

The rampant profits generated by the Tory and Labour party-supported privatisation of the energy industry has risen by 38 percent over the last financial year.

According to a report by the taxpayer-funded watchdog Ofgem, the average margin on a standard dual-fuel tariff had risen from £65 to £90 since September.

Most energy suppliers, including British Gas, Scottish & Southern and Scottish Power, have recently increased their prices to consumers once again after claiming that prices in the “energy wholesale market” (wherever that might be) left them with no choice.

Ofgem's chief executive Alistair Buchanan was quoted in media reports as saying that he wanted to “make sure [energy] firms were playing it straight with customers.”

Ofgem, set up by the government to monitor the energy market after its privatisation, will now launch an investigation into the accounts to the energy companies to determine if there has been excessive profiteering.

One of the biggest problems facing the energy industry, just like with the privatised rail network, is capital investment.

Only a tiny amount of £200 billion infrastructure investment which is needed before 2020 to meet current demands has been made so far.

Their obligations to shareholders, which has driven profit before investment, has meant that most of the companies simply do not have the cash reserves available to make the investments which are needed to literally keep the lights on.

Earlier this year, Ofgem even drew up proposals which would in effect lead to the renationalisation of major parts of the energy industry so that Britain would be able to provide for the projected increased demand.

Then, Mr Buchanan (previously an enthusiastic supporter of privatisation, told the media, that “"We live in a different energy world" and that he had “revised his view on the market's ability to deliver the investment required.”

Media reports went on to quote Professor Dieter Helm, an expert in the economics of energy at the University of Oxford, as saying that it was an “extraordinary volte-face to admit that a liberalised market won't achieve its objectives. They have argued against intervention and said markets would engage with the issue of security of supply. The irony is incredible."

The revised Ofgem position was a realistic assessment that Britain will suffer power shortages from 2015 onwards unless the way energy companies operate is overhauled. Large investments are needed to repaly old coal and nuclear power plants which are due to be closed down, and North Sea gas reserves are also dwindling, making Britain more dependent on imports.

Mr Buchanan said there was a "two-year" window in which to act, otherwise consumer bills would have to rise steeply to pay for the last-minute investment needed to maintain energy supplies. "Crisis tactics will be paid for by the consumer," he was quoted as saying.

Ofgem’s proposal is to create a new state-owned central energy buyer, identical to the old Central Electricity Generating Board, which would require power plants to sell it electricity at fixed rates, which it would sell on to customers.

This plan would ensure that the "Big Six" energy companies — Centrica, E.ON, npower, Scottish and Southern, Scottish Power and EDF — who own most of the UK's power plants, would not be able to profit take to the consumer’s disadvantage.

(The irony of EDF’s ownership of part of the UK’s energy industry is made even more bizarre by the fact that it is in fact the French state-owned power supply company. No-one has yet been able to explain why it is bad for the British state to own the energy supply industry in Britain, but it is perfectly acceptable for the French state to own it).

Ofgem’s proposals have, of course, been ignored by the ConDem government, which still clings fanatically to the Thatcherite vision of letting profit come before infrastructure or the interests of the state.

The British National Party is all in favour of private enterprise and privatisation where clear benefits can be shown to the consumer. However, where it is clear that this process has been detrimental to the consumers, there is no justification to continue with that policy and it must be reversed.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs of the british naytional Party website

Hypocrisy of the State Would Someone be Arrested for Burning a Bible?

Would Someone be Arrested for Burning a Bible?

The British National Party Newsroom

The arrest of a 15-year old girl for burning a Koran and putting a video of it on Facebook — an act which is doubtless reprehensible — has however raised the obvious question: would someone be arrested for burning a bible?

As appalling as the answer to that question may be, it is of course a resounding ‘no.’

The Sandwell, Birmingham, girl was questioned and bailed by detectives on suspicion of “inciting religious hatred” after the Facebook entry appeared.

The video, made two weeks ago on her school premises, has since been removed by police request from Facebook and reported to the school in question.

According to reports, a 14-year-old boy has also been arrested on “suspicion of making threats.”

While the British National Party accepts that the Koran is full of unbridled hate against non-Muslims, and in fact tells its followers to enforce its dictates by violence, burning books is a medieval mentality.

However, the obvious discrepancy in treatment by the state between the defilement of Islamic holy books and the Christian Bible has made the establishment’s bias very clear.

For example, in 2009, Glasgow City Council allowed a Bible to be defaced with obscene and offensive messages in an exhibition at the city’s Gallery of Modern Art.

No police officers were called in, and no charges were laid, despite the treatment which was clearly designed to give maximum offense to Christians.

Visitors to that exhibition were told: “If you feel you’ve been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

A number of crude comments and angry remarks expressing hatred for the Bible’s teaching were left, and Glasgow City Council received hundreds of complaints.

Simon Calvert, of The Christian Institute, said at the time: “We all know that they wouldn’t allow that if it was the sacred text of another religion.

“That a taxpayer subsidised gallery should see fit to give space to something like that is disappointing”, he added.

In 2006 executives at the BBC admitted that they would consider broadcasting a scene where the Bible was thrown into a bin but they would never do the same with the Koran.

In fact, the Internet is full of videos of the Bible being burned, yet the politically correct police who have fallen over themselves to come to the defence of the Koran, have not bothered to get out of bed to act against any of the bible burnings.

The harsh reality stares all but the blind in the face: no-one in modern Britain has ever been arrested for burning a bible, yet the police cannot wait to arrest a kid for a Facebook video of a Koran burning.

If that does not tell the reader all he or she needs to know about the true bias of the state, then nothing will.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costsof the British National party newsroom

Third World Immigration Leads to Death Epidemic in UK and Europe

Immigration Leads to Death Epidemic in UK and Europe

  by David Hannam

The British National Party’s opposition to mass Third World immigration has been vindicated with the release of statistics which show that 63 percent of all new HIV cases in 2009 were black Africans.

In addition, the figures, released by the Health Protection Agency, also revealed that 68 percent of HIV sufferers acquired their infection abroad, mostly from sub-Saharan Africa.

According to official statistics, which the BNP disputes as inaccurate, blacks make up approximately 2 percent of the UK population.

Other statistics revealed that 42 percent of all newly diagnosed cases of HIV were a result of homosexual activity.

The Health Protection Agency estimates that around one third more people are undiagnosed. This means that if 6630 were diagnosed with having HIV during 2009, the actual figure is likely to be around 8000.

HIV/AIDS treatment costs the National Health Service (i.e. the taxpayer) £21.8 million in direct costs, which is known as the Aids Support Grant.

It is therefore inevitable that the number of Aids cases will only rise further, particularly given the recent forecast made by Oxford demography Professor David Coleman, based on Office for National Statistics reports, that Britain will be a white minority country by 2066.

In 2008, the EU Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population estimated that around 2 to 4 million Africans “emigrate” from sub-Saharan Africa every year.

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), 19 percent of all reported HIV infections during 2008 originated from sub-Saharan Africa.

Of the 318,233 HIV infections diagnosed in Western Europe by the end of 2008, 35 percent were contracted through homosexual activity, the ECDC figures showed.

Some 42 percent of cases were contracted through heterosexual contact. This figure actually compromises the 19 percent of infections which originated from sub-Saharan Africa. 

The BNP believes that only a complete halt, and reversal, of mass Third World immigration will halt this trend. 

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costsof the british national party Website

Why are British and Horwich homes so expensive?

Why are British homes so expensive?

Written by Finlandia

Saturday 2010

This year has seen a dramatic increase in enquiries to the Citizens' Advice Bureau and housing charities from people troubled by rent arrears, threats of foreclosure or impending homelessness, problems that look set to become more widespread as unemployment rises and government benefit cuts begin to bite. This week, the housing and homelessness charity Shelter launched an art exhibition and auction entitled 52 weeks, "to raise awareness of the thousands of families struggling to keep a roof over their heads". The exhibition/ auction features works by Sir Terence Conran (of Habitat), Sir Peter Blake (creator of the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album cover), comedian Vic Reeves and others. Many people nowadays struggle to meet rental or mortgage payments on their homes, largely because housing in most parts of the country is more expensive than it has ever been. Economists may give complicated reasons for the high cost of British housing, but ultimately it boils down to supply and demand. The fact is that as long as the number of people seeking affordable homes to rent or buy outstrips the availability of such homes, prices will continue to spiral. As a result, many of those in private accommodation will be priced out altogether, and forced to join the five million already on social housing waiting lists. Throughout most of the post-war period, UK housing costs have risen faster than incomes, and that trend has been accelerating. People seeking homes in modern Britain are squeezed between a slowdown in construction and a rapidly rising population. Powerful groups with vested interests in maintaining the pressure include older, wealthier home owners who for years have used their collective economic and political clout to block the building of new homes, so as to sustain the (ever increasing) value of their own properties. Under bogus banners of environmental or social concern, these NIMBYs ("Not In My Back Yard") have campaigned against proposals that might threaten house prices, and have withheld support from politicians and parties who support house-building programmes. A second interest group is made up of private landlords, some of whom have exploited their freedom to extort unemployed and low-paid people, whilst paying scant attention to the quality or habitability of the accommodation they offer. (Anyone who has spent time looking for rented accommodation in one of our larger towns or cities, and seen some of the overpriced dumps that constitute the majority of private rentals at the lower end of the market, will know what I am talking about.) But most of the blame must be laid at the door of successive governments, who have known about the shortfall in affordable housing but have done little about it. They have failed to control the excesses of unscrupulous landlords, and (most deplorably) have failed to control immigration, which has increased the competition for scarce housing at the same time as depressing wages, making it doubly difficult for many British citizens to afford a decent home. The crisis in housing has hit the young  especially hard, and many young couples earning average, or below average, wages have had to put family plans on hold for years, whilst they try to obtain social housing or save a deposit for a small place of their own. The government says that it will increase the number of low-cost homes built, and that it will generate extra money for this by raising the rents of many existing tenants. However, a report by Shelter called Forgotten Households has shown that government subsidised "affordable housing" schemes have benefited developers and high-middle income earners more than people on low incomes. According to Shelter: "The average wage of households accessing low-cost home ownership is between £28,000 and £32,000, significantly higher than the national average wage of £21,700 and completely out of reach for households earning an average of just £16,000 a year." Doubtless part of the present crisis is due to social changes that have created lots of single households. But a much greater problem is that of our ever-expanding population, as was highlighted last month by London Mayor Boris Johnson: "… the population of the UK is set to rise by an incredible 10 million over the next 20 years.... Thanks very largely to Labour's deliberate failure to control immigration, and to higher birth rates, the Big Society is about to get very big indeed.... We already have huge waiting lists for social housing. On the private market the average age of a first-time buyer has now soared to 37... and we have desperate problems of overcrowding." Johnson predicts that when the economic eventually starts to recover, the housing shortage together with a rapidly rising population will cause prices to "spike more viciously than ever", leaving young people even less able to buy. He acknowledges the need "to increase the supply of affordable homes", but fails to acknowledge the other part of the equation – namely the need to stop, or at least drastically reduce, the flow of immigrants. We shouldn't be surprised at this – after all, it was Boris who only a couple of years ago called for an amnesty for the hundreds of thousands (more than a million, according to some estimates) of illegal immigrants in Britain. (Does anybody still believe that this man's buffoonish persona conceals a sharp intelligence?) Figures released this week by the Home Office show that immigrants have been taking jobs that unemployed British workers are qualified to do, providing further evidence (if it were needed) of the hollowness of economic arguments for unrestrained immigration, and of British employers' greed for cheap foreign labour. If the government were rational, it would tackle the present housing crisis first by reducing demand – in other words by halting mass immigration – before it starts covering more of our countryside with concrete. There are certain basic things that we should expect of a civilised society. They include physical security, food and clean water, and a decent home. I would say that when a government neglects its duty to secure these basics of life, then it begins to lose its claim to legitimacy.

Sajjad Karim MEP North West England and the British National Party

Sajjad Karim MEP and the BNP

Written by Green Arrow   at  the The British Resistance

November 2010

OK, I meant to write about this guy for another reason but will kill two birds with one stone.  Sajjad Karim is the Pakistani MEP for the North West of England and is in the press for reporting that he had received threats from BNP members and supporters and had BNP scrawled on his property. Now when moslems like Karim make these kind of complaints I tend to question whether the events they described really happened.  Surely we all remember when Shahid Malik was an MP and a minister in the Department for International Development, claimed on his website that he had been detained for 40 minutes or more by security officials at Dallas Airport in America.  Of course the truth was something different.  Malik did not expect the US authorities to release a video tape of the alleged incident showing that Malik was lying.  Later the statement by Malik was withdrawn by his office after the video showed it took him the normal 8 minutes to pass through airport security but he never did apologise. Then there was the moslem preacher who made a pile of money by claiming he had been abducted by the British National Party after first having BNP scrawled on his walls.  He also was lying but before being brought to justice, fled to Mauritius.  He was sentenced to one year in prison in his absence.. So you will understand if I am a little bit suspicious of the claims made by Karim, who on arriving in Europe as an MEP, helped establish the European Parliament Friends of Pakistan Group. Thought he was elected to represent the interests of British People.  Then again, blood is thicker than water as they say. Check out this story, where he is fighting for British Interests by demanding the EU continue to give Foreign Aid to Pakistan for decades. Showing who he is really frightened of, Karim is also campaigning to get the names of MP's who voted to support the illegal war in Iraq, removed from websites in case mad moslems decide to track them down and look down their necks having first removed their heads. So why does Sajjad Karim feel threatened by the BNP.  Well he fears that us infidels have taken offence over his objections in Europe to a proposal that the meat from  ritually slaughtered animals be clearly marked as being a Halal product. Of course these labels would have meant that civilised people, knowing just what "ritually slaughtered animals" means, would have avoided the meat like the plague or Toxteth on a Saturday night. Can you imagine the outcry if the EU were to say that they were going to remove the Halal labels from existing "ritually slaughtered" products?  Brussels would be burning now along with the rest of Europe. Well that is one bird.  Now for the next. Reading more about Sajjad Karim, I discover that he is a standing delegate to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership(Barcolona Process) that is a stepping stone to the creation of Eurabia.  Check out the map. The blue is the current size of the EU.  The yellow are the planned future members of the new Eurabia. And of course once those countries shown on the map are in the enlarged EU, all their citizens will be free to head west into the civilised world to assist with the genocide of the white peoples of Western Europe.

We must protect our British industry from piratical and slave labour economies

We must protect our industry from piratical and slave labour economies

Andrew Brons Andrew Brons MEP Euro News

 NOVEMBER 2010: This was a contribution that I made yesterday under the Catch the Eye procedure to a debate in the European Parliament on the Commission Work Programme for 2011.
I told the Chamber:
"Reading the Commission Work Programme document, one principal point stands out: use of the crisis to grab power or the Commission. Objectives include:
1. co-ordination of economic and fiscal policies;
2. broader and enhanced surveillance of fiscal policies;
3. better co-ordination of macro-economic policy; and (more chillingly)
4. new enforcement mechanisms.
We have heard that these will produce, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. However, the Commission's Europe 2020 document* was disrarmingly frank:
1. twenty-tree million unemployed;
2. a 4% fall in GDP in 2009; and
3. production back to 1990s levels.
As long as we embrace Globalism, we shall not dig ourselves out of the crisis. The Europe 2020 document refers to member states being the most innovative in the world. However, if emerging, low wage economies are able to steal inventions and innovations with impunity, innovation will not help us..
The 2020 document refers to the peoples of  Europe as talented and creative. Perhaps we should follow demographic policies that foster those talents and protect and preserve that creativity.
* the Commission Work Programme is the implementation of the first part of the Commission's 2020 document.

British National Party Councillor in Stoke-on-Trent Moves to Get Halal Meat Banned in Local Schools

BNP Councillor in Stoke-on-Trent Moves to Get Halal Meat Banned in Local Schools

The British National party Newsroom

British National Party Stoke-on-Trent councillor Michael Coleman has fired the opening round in the war against halal ritual slaughter in Britain with a motion due before his council on 9 December which, if passed, will ban that meat from being served in schools in the town.

“I have had numerous complaints from parents whose children are being fed this unfit meat and who are not being informed of how this meat is acquired,” Cllr Coleman told BNP News.

“Many of the schools which receive the meat are predominantly populated by British children, and so any claim that the authority is simply providing food for Muslim pupils is false.

“Anyway, it’s against the law to procure meat in this way and then sell on to non-Muslims, a point I will be making on the 9th December,” Cllr Coleman continued.

“I find it disgraceful that we have a law here that makes it a crime for you or I to slaughter an animal in this way but enables Muslims to kill in this inhumane way and it is legal.

“It is such legal paradox and duality that will ultimately expose this traitor regime - and will lead to the political awakening and uprising of the British people,” he said.

The exact wording of the motion due before the council is as follows:

“Notice of Motion – City Council 9th December 2010

Moved by Councillor M Coleman

Seconded by Councillor J Burgess

Animal Cruelty

This City Council condemns the cruelty suffered by animals slaughtered to provide halal meat products. Animal welfare organisations such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is the independent advisory body to the government, have called for a ban on halal meat in Britain.  Animals that are not stunned before slaughter suffer incredible pain before death and the current law that permits this barbaric method of slaughter should be changed.

The City Council is asked to note that halal meat products are served in 17 city schools to unsuspecting children and parents. Halal meat products are not labelled and children (or their parents) have no idea what they are eating or provided with an alternative. This is a disgraceful practice and children and their parents should be given information and choice about the products their children are served. 

The City Council is asked to:

1. Write to the Secretary State for seeking a change in the law to minimise or prevent any further animal cruelty as a result of this barbaric method of slaughter.

2. Place an immediate ban on the use of all halal meat products in our schools, City Of Stoke-on-Trent Authority.”

According to information obtained by Cllr Coleman, the schools under the Stoke-on-Trent authority which provide halal meat to their pupils are as follows: Alexandra Junior School; Alexandra Infant School; Belgrave Primary School; Etruscan Primary School; Forest Park Primary School; John Baskeyfield Primary School; Mill Hill Primary School; St Marks Primary School; St Peters RC Primary School; Summerbank Primary School; Thomas Boughey Centre; Waterside Primary School; St Mary’s Tunstall; Birches Head High School; Brownhills High School; Haywood High School; and St Peters High School.

* Meanwhile, North West Tory Muslim MEP Sajjad Karim has run to the local media claiming that people are threatening him after he published an article on his website supporting halal slaughter and expressing his opposition to a proposed EU regulation which would force halal meat to be labelled as such.

Mr Karim, who has of course blamed the BNP for his latest woes, was quoted in the Jewish Chronicle earlier this month as saying he was ‘watching’ the BNP in Europe.

Approached by the media for comment over his latest allegations, BNP spokesman John Walker said that the “British National Party will continue to oppose halal slaughter and support the labelling of halal meat despite a hate campaign against the party launched by Mr Karim.

“Mr Karim, who put up a story on his own website outlining his support for Halal slaughter and his opposition to a new EU regulation which would force all food suppliers to label which meat had been ritually slaughtered,” said Mr Walker.

“On the basis of Mr Karim’s own website, the BNP carried a story pointing out his support for Halal slaughter. If Mr Karrim has angered animal lovers with his support for halal barbarism, it is on the basis of a story which he started on his own website and nowhere else.

“The BNP rejects with contempt all attempts by Mr Karrim to stir up trouble and slur our party,” Mr Walker said.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs

The Figures Which Expose the Immigration Cap Reality

The Figures Which Expose the Immigration Cap Lie

The British National Party newsroom

In excess of 400,000 foreigners enter Britain legally each year through various channels, making a mockery of the ConDem regime’s claim that its new “immigration cap” will cut immigration from “49,700 to 21,700.”

According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics in August this year, 437,000 foreign citizens entered Britain last year, “not statistically significantly different” from the figure the preceding year.

The new “immigration cap” announced by Tory Home Secretary Theresa May has largely ignored this number, and has instead concentrated on the 49,700 who entered Britain last year under the “points based system” introduced by the previous Labour regime and endorsed by the Conservatives.

In real terms, the immigration cap introduced by Ms May will have the following impact:

Tier 1 (General): Last year, 14,000 people entered Britain using this route. This has now been capped at 1,000 under the new rules.

Tier 2 (General): Last year, some 8,500 people legally entered Britain using this route. The new rules have put an upper limit on the numbers who can use this route from now on at 20,700.

Work Permits: Some 5,200 people entered Britain using this route last year. Ms May’s new rule will bring this down to nil.

Intra-Company Transfers: Last year some 22,000 people entered Britain using this route. The new rule has set no upper limit at all, with the only proviso that such people earn a minimum salary of £40,000 p.a.

In total, this “brings down” the 2009 figure of 49,700 to a new theoretical limit of 21,700, according to Ms May and the controlled media which has parroted her claims.

However, as the overall immigration figures show, this is less than 15 percent of the actual number of people who are entering Britain each year.

To make matters worse, Britain will receive an additional 40,000 Indian IT workers each year in terms of the new EU/India free trade deal.

This figure alone will effectively wipe out any claimed “reduction” in immigration.

Even the £40,000 salary limit on “unlimited” intra-company transfers has been criticised by Ann Swain, Chief Executive at the Association of Professional Staffing Companies (ASPCo).

“Whether the £40,000 minimum salary will reduce the number of intra-company transfers in the IT sector is debatable,” Ms Swain said in her official reaction.

“The average UK wage for IT professionals is close to £40,000, and it is questionable how many workers earn less than that once they arrive.

“About 80 percent of non-EU IT workers come to the UK on intra-company transfers. These changes won’t significantly reduce that influx,” she said.

“We need full transparency on the pay and terms of conditions of workers entering the UK via the intra-company transfer route. The current system is far too opaque and is open to abuse. These proposals don’t radically change that.”

Ms Swain pointed out that “worries over immigration centre on low skilled workers being undercut, so capping the flow of highly skilled workers seems a strange policy.”

Furthermore, Ms May can do nothing to stop the ongoing asylum swindle which sees thousands of utterly bogus claims being made in Britain each year.

Britain’s membership of the EU forces it to adhere to the Human Rights Act, which is used by “asylum seekers” to avoid deportation, even in the case of violent criminals and failed applicants.

When all the figures are added up, it is obvious to all but the willingly blind that the Tory “immigration cap” is just one more lie.

 

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the british National Party website.

£8 Billion Taxpayer “Investment” in Railways The BNP Reveals the Hoax of Tory/Labour “Privatisation”

£8 Billion Taxpayer “Investment” in Railways Reveals Hoax of Tory/Labour “Privatisation”

The British National Party Newsroom 

British taxpayers will be forced to pay out another £8 billion to “invest” in infrastructure for the privately owned rail franchises, even though those companies were originally created with the purpose of “saving taxpayers’ money.”

The railways were first privatised by the John Major government, fulfilling the Thatcher dream of privatising as many state assets as possible in the belief that they could be more efficiently run in private hands and at lessened cost to the taxpayer.

Of course, nothing of the sort has happened.

Instead of becoming “cheaper” to the taxpayers, the cost has increased exponentially as fares have skyrocketed and the level of state subsidies of the rail franchises reached £800 million per year in 2008.

Now, ConDem Transport Secretary Philip Hammond has announced that taxpayers are to stump up an extra £8 billion to buy 2,000 new railcars and to press ahead with construction on the Thameslink program.

However, what Mr Hammond and the controlled media have failed to mention in this news is the fact that these railcars will be provided to private franchise holders (presumably with some sort of long-term, heavily subsidised repayment program).

The question which immediately springs to mind is this: if the state is forced to buy the hardware for the train services which are supposed to be in private hands, then why are they in private hands in the first place?

In 2008, the eight largest railway franchises received more than £800 million in cash subsidies from the taxpayer.

In addition, passengers have been told that rail fares will rise by a minimum of 6.2 percent early next year (and in some cases by 13 percent), bringing total fare rises since privatisation in many areas to well over 200 percent.

The privatised rail franchises have either refused to invest in infrastructure, or have been unable to do so because of their primary duty to pay a return to shareholders and the staggering cost of new hardware.

As a result, the Public Accounts Committee has reported that in the near future there are likely to be 15 percent fewer extra places on London-bound trains during rush hour, compared with earlier targets.

Part of the £8 billion taxpayers’ money will also be used to boost the electrification programme, which has also been put on hold since privatisation. Currently, only 38 percent of Britain’s rail infrastructure is electrified, a figure which lags way behind the largely state-owned European networks.

In fact, privatisation has been such a disaster in the electrification programme that only countries like Albania and Latvia have fewer electrified lines than Britain.

In many respects, both Tory and Labour governments have already had to concede defeat in the privatisation programme.

For example, the railway tracks, previously privatised under the company Railtrack, have already been taken back under state control in the form of Network Rail, a fully government-owned company.

Even the “re-nationalisation” of the railway tracks occurred at huge cost to the taxpayer. In 2001, after making record losses of £534 million, Railtrack approached the government (read the taxpayer) for funding, which was provided — and then used to pay a £137 million dividend to its shareholders in May that year.

The next year, the government “bought” back the railway tracks by buying out Railtrack (which was already in administration) for an additional £500 million. Discounting the “normal” subsidies which were paid annually to Railtrack, just saving the track network from “private efficient hands” cost the taxpayers just short of £1 billion.

The British National Party is all in favour of privatisation where it can be shown that market forces will benefit the consumer.

However, in the case of the railways, practical experience has made it clear that privatisation has led to increased fares, a lack of infrastructure investment and a spiralling burden to the taxpayer — well in excess of what would have been the case had the rail network remained in state hands.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costsof the British National party website

The right to levy taxes is the mark of a country's sovereignty

The right to levy taxes is the mark of a country's sovereignty

  Andrew Brons Andrew Brons MEP Euro News

24TH NOVEMBER 2010: THIS was my unsuccessful attempt to contribute to a debate on the 2011 Budget in the European Parliament under the Catch the Eye procedure.
If I had been called to speak, I would have said:
"Discussion about which countries are net donors and which countries are net recipients was described as 'absurd' by Mr. Verhofstadt.
The poor and the dispossessed in net donor countries know that net contributions from their countries are taken from them as tax or as withheld services.
We must not presume that all of the populations of net donor countries are wealthy.
We have heard suggestions for the EU having the right to levy taxes in its own name. The right to levy taxes is the mark of a country's sovereignty. An EU power of taxation would be a sign of the transfer of sovereignty to the European Union.
The role of the Council in agreement to the Budget has been described as though it were simply a hindrance.
The Council represents - however badly - the interests of member states. It represents what is left of national sovereignty. Remove its power over the budget and we say goodbye to national independence."

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Just more power for liberal totalitarians and Big Business

ACTA: Just more power for liberal totalitarians and Big Business

Martin Wingfield at Nick Griffin MEP Euro News

 NOVEMBER 2010: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) will be voted on this morning in the European Parliament, and Nick Griffin has made it very clear how he will be voting.

 "This is an initial vote in a procedure to ratify or reject the agreement. I will be voting against the Agreement. The amount of power being demanded would be misued by liberal totalitarian politicians and their Big Business friends," he told journalists.
Opponents of the Agreement argue that there is no need to make a treaty concerning copyright infringement. There is already adequate protection of copyright in the TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention.
The ACTA treaty tries to codify how infringements are to be dealt with in national law. As international treaties are notoriously hard to change, this will remove the fexibility of the legal system at a time when technology is very rapidly changing the environment in which copyright laws have to operate.
It would be a gross error to further fossilise copyright law at this point in time.

Independent UK Business Report Confirms: Peak Oil is Upon Us

Independent Business Report Confirms: Peak Oil is Upon Us

The BNP Newsroom

The independent and private business-funded UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security (ITPOES) has confirmed the accuracy of the British National Party’s predictions about peak oil, and has warned of an oil shortage by 2015.

In a report “Briefing Note on Deepwater Production November 2010,” ITOPES warns that the recent Gulf Oils deep water oil spill disaster has highlighted the world’s shrinking access to oil deposits.

While the Gulf oil well which had to be closed, called the Macondo deepwater oil field, was in relative terms quite small, the ITPOES report said, the reality is that by 2015, deepwater offshore oil production will have to provide 29 percent of new oil supplies.

This will result from a combination of increased demand — mainly from India and China — and slowly reducing traditional oil fields, which, the report says, are currently declining in some areas by as much as 4,5 percent every year.

The significance of the Mexican oil disaster, ITPOES said, was that delays caused to other deepwater oil field development caused by increased legislative environmental protection and engineering costs, could “create spare capacity falls and oil price rises.”

ITPOES, which is funded by (amongst others), Virgin, Stagecoach and Scottish and Southern Electricity, said that even a six-month delay to future deepwater oil production would lower surplus oil supplies for 2015 from three million barrels to two million.

The new briefing note was an update on the taskforce’s February report, which predicted that “the next five years will see us face another crunch — the oil crunch”.

The new ITPOES report said that Britain is “running out of time to implement the necessary measures to both protect the UK economy from the threat of peak oil production, and make the necessary switch to more sustainable energy sources.

“Without a strong and coordinated response from Government to protect the UK economy and society from rising prices, we will see the cost of travel, food, heating and retail goods rise which will impact British businesses and citizens alike,” the report said.

Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency, in its annual report titled “World Energy Outlook,” said that the global crude oil production peak had in fact already been reached-more than four years ago.

According to the IEA, international demand has since fallen slightly due to the recent global economic downturn, but once economies around the world have recovered, the IEA said daily crude production alone will no longer be sufficient to meet their needs.

The report went on to say that that daily global oil production will "plateau" at around 68 million barrels per day by 2035, as total energy demand increases by more than 35 percent over the same period.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costsof the British National Party website

Hands Across The Institutions or stupidity and ''Social Liberalism''

Hands Across The Institutions

Written by BC1959

November 2010

With the latest attacks on British Military reservists, poppy burning, and the usual array of rapes and murders, a more intellectual attack has accompanied the disease of our time, that of ''European Police State'' hegemony. In some Sunday broadsheets as they used to be known, articles have appeared stating what writers on the former Green Arrow, now British Resistance site, have known about for three years or more. We are now almost completely over the line between a free sovereign state, and a subordinate region of the EU. All three major political parties have ignored this, as have the TV and broad based paper media, so why did the Mail On Sunday, and The Sunday Express suddenly think it big news to do so? Answer: They know we know, and that means the population at large, will also know as it filters down the system. It is more than appropriate that, an official department within the British National Party, is formed to offer an ''All Party'' remit to tackle the increasing dictatorial European Union, and it's dangerous ideas, which include total control of our police force, and introduction of an ''EU Centralised Gendarme''. Included in this proposal, is also a hands across the institutions, to organisations such as ''The Tax Payers Alliance''. Before you all smile, and make comments such as ''Don't be stupid, the other parties will never go for this because it's the BNP'', we know that in advance, but once such an offer has been made, it is on record as being official. However, if we are to forcefully gain access to the mainstream voting public, and also to debates other than in Brussels, where we have two excellent hard working MEP's, we must act as though we have those rights here, regardless of the name calling and smears. The Tax Payers Alliance, is non-political, and many links have been made with such groups by other parties or members within them. In fact, there are ''Cross party Groups'', with many associations with other organisations dealing with serious matters that go beyond party politics. There is hardly any time left, with which serious and dedicated people, groups, and institutions, have to halt certain agendas, or find redress to defined anomalies and unlawful acts by unelected red tape merchants. The Conservatives, along with their new friends the Liberal Democrats, know full well what usury, undemocratic acts of betrayal, and treachery is doing to our nation, and still they ignore the dangers, so it is up to us, to fill that void, and at least attempt to officially stamp our mark on issues that cannot be kept out of the public domain. Our tax system is crooked, and in fact, now illegal. Why? Because as many of us know, the original high tax status of Britain, was to fulfill financial requirements for a ''war chest''. Those taxes were never lowered, and as Britain was once the second largest economy on earth, manufacturing, and a low ''Social Security and Benefits'' cost, enabled us to keep clear of international debt mongering. On the Tax Payers Alliance website, a typical example of stupidity and ''Social Liberalism'' can be seen.  An official post within Cambridge Council's employment department, has invented a way of someone, at tax payers expence, to earn a nice £15-17 per hour... as a ''Climate Change Officer''. Where did such an advert for this come from? Yes, The Guardian.  Non-Jobs are part of the problem of massive debt in this country. Whilst the bankers and big businesses that have links to Socialist organisations, especially in looking after accounts for tax funded organisations, ordinary people will not be able to pay bills, and still they make billions from debt related ''Social Programmes''. We seriously need to get to grips with this, and we must be seen to be promoting our sensible policies, whilst adhering to the norms and confines within the current system. The often termed ''hard core and traditional British Nationalists'', have spent years dedicating themselves to our core beliefs, and we acknowledge them of course.  It is now though, time to understand that with everything as it is, a wider agenda, and more intellectual approach is required. The ordinary Briton is waking up, and recently I myself was in the company of a widow, and a former Police Officer of some 30 years, who without blinking or hesitating, told me they voted BNP. So my fellow Nationalists, all is not lost, and the last elections saw a massive voter fraud programme, whereby hundreds of thousands of votes went missing, and even more came from nowhere. We are not lost, we are simply on a smog infested battlefield, and require a way out. We should now be attempting to offer support to every single concerned organisation openly. We have nothing to fear but fear of defeat, and we all know that defeat is not an option. We are now mature enough, even with differences of opinions, to claim our rightful place within the halls of our own institutions, let's make sure we we have the tools and personalities to accomplish this. Although the EDL is a proscribed organisation, and some may see this as wrong, as a political party led by those with vast experience in ''divide and rule techniques'', we must sit back and allow events to unfold. Many people come up to us on leafleting sessions and table top events, and say they are with the EDL, but only because it goes on marches and protests, and some still only take part because they dislike Muslims. That is nothing to do with the broader Nationalist policy, as many don't even vote. Former Councillor Russ Green had a rather disconcerting conversation recently with an EDL supporter. This supporter told Russ Green he ''votes UKIP because they opposed the Dudley Mosque''. He also told Mr Green he did not support all the policies of the BNP, and when asked which ones in particular, the fellow fell silent.  Again, on personal levels, nothing is stopping us from looking at arms length, and seeing what develops, and even chatting to those people taking part, but as our good friend and Video expert Bertie Bert said recently: ''It's leader stood in front of hundreds of EDL supporters, and told them we have NO ONE to vote for in England''. Surely if he was a serious contender in defending our nation from extremism and mass immigration, he could have at the very least, said: ''The only party we have looking after our interests, is the BNP''. We need to make official noises as described in the above paragraphs, however, links to groups that ignore the fourth largest political party in Great Britain, and invite foreign religious individuals, whose own community (Zionists) have spent the last 100 years employing stealth, and underhanded tactics to undermine the west, we must realise why our leaders act the way they do. Not everyone will agree, but most will see the proscribing of the EDL, as acting with maturity, and not allowing years of hard work to be ruined. An MP recently admitted that the EDL was more serious a threat than the BNP. If that is so, then we are on the right track, as it will be sadly they who will find the cosh of the Police State in their faces, because the media has already jumped on the ''it's the EDL that are making Muslims more extreme'' bandwagon. There are dozens of groups out there, and other political parties can ignore us, or at least acknowledge us. We have lost count of the amount of good people, with genuine intent, whom have asked why the BNP doesn't ''join with others'' and fight the enemy. Well, now maybe they will understand, as for those organisations, it would not be worth their professional lives to accept our offers of an olive branch. It has been tried before, but this time we should make it official regarding the Tax Payers Alliance and others serious organisations who use intelligent arguments that are not strictly political, and with as many as possible. Ultimately though, we must face facts... we are alone, and only the British National Party will take the British with them. Others may offer whispered and shaky support, but in the end, it is ALL others who will come to us, and officially or not, will combine to once again to take our institutions back, and provide our nation with pride, jobs, and independence for future generations. The bailout of Ireland will put even more strain on other related ethnic folk, especially as it has now been announced that £7 Billion of UK tax money has been used to contribute to their economic recovery programme. To sum up, even if we are continuously ignored, we must contribute towards a debate where we cannot be ignored completely. We must open channels of communication with serious organisations that are concerned over sovereignty, economic independence, taxes, and every other far reaching act of treachery. The British National Party and it's support sites, must then show the public that, the party has made attempts to do this, and show every man, woman, child, and institution we are serious, intellectually and politically relevant, and will not go away, ever.