British Workers Face Mass Unemployment and Redundancies as Govt Figures Reveal that Foreigners take 2 thirds of new Jobs

As Britons Face Mass Unemployment and Redundancies Figures Reveal that Foreigners take Two out of Three New Jobs

The British National Party Newsroom

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published figures which reveal that foreigners take two out of three new jobs reducing the employment opportunities for the native British people.

As Britons Face Mass Unemployment and Redundancies, Figures Reveal that Foreigners Take Two Out of Three New Jobs

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) have published figures which reveal that foreigners take two out of three new jobs, reducing the employment opportunities for the native British people.

The figures show that of the 297,000 workers who started new job posts between July and September 2010 only 100,000 of them were indigenous Britons.

This means that only a third of all new jobs created during 2010 went to native British workers.

The news comes as the ONS also recently published figures which showed that youth unemployment has risen to a new record high of close to 1 million as unemployment figures increased by 49,000 to 2.5 million.

There are now fears that with youth unemployment so high and high numbers of new jobs going to foreign workers, we are facing the prospect of a ‘lost generation’ of young British people who will never find work. This will ultimately result in an increasingly fragmented society.

The ONS also revealed that since 2004, the number of native British people in active employment has decreased by 334,000 but almost 1.3 million foreigners have successfully found work in Britain.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development recently announced that unemployment could soar by a figure of 200,000 to soon reach 2.7 million. In other words this would equate to 9% of the population.

The British National Party believes that Britain will face increasing economic decline until measures are taken to protect British jobs, cease preferential employment of minority groups and stop the influx of foreign workers into Britain.

Britain is facing economic collapse because the economy is credit-based and has a decimated manufacturing sector.

The British National Party recognises that real national wealth is governed by its ability to produce, and not from its ability to create soft service sector jobs which are easily exported abroad in order for big business to benefit from cheap overseas labour.

Save British Jobs and Families Join the British National Party here! 

How Multiculturalism destroyed the ancient Hebrews

Multiculturalism destroyed the ancient Hebrews

Written by John the Yank

It is rather amazing how so many Jews and Christians promote multiculturalism as the best thing ever to of happened to humanity. Strange it is how they only do this in western countries and ignore China as well as most of Asia. However that is not near as strange to me as their ignorance of what multiculturalism did to the ancient Hebrews. It is as if these people have never even read one word of the old testament in the holy bible. If they did they would realize that God commanded the original twelve tribes of Israel not to embrace other cultures that did not follow the instructions set forth by him in the form of the ten commandments. Many other laws can be found in the Book of Deuteronomy. First lets take a look at the Israelites upon their departure from Egypt, better known as the book of Exodus. God had stricken the Egyptians with ten plagues that had all but decimated the land of Egypt with the tenth killing all first-born Egyptian males. One of these happened to be Pharaoh's own son. This of course happened because of Pharaoh's refusal to release the Hebrews in order so they could go and worship the lord. So tell me then, if God embraces multiculturalism then why did he want the Hebrews to leave Egypt?  Couldn't the Lord see the value of the Hebrews embracing the culture of Egypt? Obviously not. He despised the culture of Egypt and wanted his people to have nothing to do with their idols and immoral sexual perversions. Now God did not see this in a racial sense. He saw it in a cultural and religious sense. That is why some Egyptians were allowed to join with the Hebrews upon Exodus. Perhaps another example of God's denial of multiculturalism can be seen with the nephew of one of his most devout followers, Abraham. The nephew's name was Lot and one day he and Abraham looked upon a piece of land. Abraham told him he could take whatever part of it he wanted. Lot chose the best area which was very close to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham warned him that the cities were very wicked and it would not be a good idea to build a home there. However Lot ignored him and went there anyway. Well one day Lot had to flee the city along with his family and they barely escaped with their lives. God rained in fire from and brimstone from the sky and wiped Sodom and Gomorrah from the face of the earth like a modern day hydrogen bomb. So tell me once again, is God a racist because he hated the culture of Sodom and Gomorrah? What does he have against the homosexual culture of an entire city? The truth is he has never accepted any cultures that contradicts the one he has chosen mankind to follow. So back to the ancient Hebrews again. After they had left Egypt they had to wander in what the Bible calls the wilderness for a period of forty years. This meant they had no real place to call home. No country of their own. It wasn't until they finally reached the "promised land" that they could call themselves Israel. During this time they received an even further set of rules for how to live their lives as commanded by God. These can be found in the book of Deuteronomy. Yet despite these restrictions the Jews never were really content. They noticed the cultures of the other nations around them and decided they wanted to be more like them than the Children of Israel. One of the the things they did to be more diverse was to have a king to rule over them, just like like the other nations whom God disliked. Although he wasn't the first of their kings he is certainly the epitome of what went wrong in Israel. His name was Ahab and he married a woman who was not a Jew by the name of Jezebel. She of course wanted nothing to do with the culture of the Israelites and brought her own peoples foreign gods and practices into the twelve tribes of Israel. This led to complete disaster. The Jews began to marry non Jews and began to worship Baal who was the preferred God of Jezebel.Her marriage to Ahab is not the only occurrence of this sort of thing happening. King Solomon of Israel also did the same  with non Jews and thus the Children of Israel became an ancient melting pot. Multiculturalism was so rampant amongst  Israel that the laws and customs given to them by God were utterly forgotten. So lets jump ahead hundreds of years to the time of Christ as I don't have room in this article to chronicle every enriched mistake committed by the Israelites. The time of Christ has come about. The Jews still consider themselves to be the chosen people of God during this time and still manage to hold on to their temple in Israel. They try to live by the old customs and commandments. Yet they are a far cry from the Israelites from the time of Moses or Joshua. They have intermingled with other cultures for hundreds of years and there are literally no real Jews left. Compared to the days of old they are an absolute joke. Christ points out many flaws amongst their teachings and now the old laws are not even possible to follow even if they tried. He tells them that the future for them will not be one of the past. The temple will be destroyed and so will their birth records. I am of course talking of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem that occurred not long after Christ's death. The Romans burnt the temple to the ground and upon destroying their birth records made it impossible for a Jew ever to trace his lineage from that day on. Today there is not a Jew alive who can trace his history back to the original twelve tribes of Israel. This makes it impossible to establish a priesthood from then or until today. The pitiful truth of the matter is this: The acceptance of other cultures destroyed the original Twelve Tribes of Israel. We should all learn from this sad story and realize that it is permissible to embrace other cultures but to never allow them to become the norm. Lest we all become the modern day Jews.

British mothers and toddlers banned from council-funded playgroup for immigrants | Mail Online

• Local mum booked a place after mixed-race friend had recommended it

Two British mothers who were kicked out of a council-funded playgroup spoke of their humiliation today after being told the group was for immigrant families only.
Emma Knightley, 25, and Kimberley Wildman, 27, turned up at the 'Making Links' playgroup with their children Imogen, 21 months, and Olivia, 18 months.

But they were stunned when organisers at the centre in St Neots, Cambridgeshire, ordered them to leave after demanding to know 'what country are you from?'

Read more:
British mothers and toddlers banned from council-funded playgroup for immigrants | Mail Online: "

Amazing details of exactly what asylum seekers MUST BY LAW be given for free By Bolton Council & the Govt

Amazing details of exactly what asylum seekers MUST BY LAW be given for free.

Were you aware? No you were not... And you are not allowed to become aware either.

UK Freebies Here We Come!

ASYLUM SCANDAL

We know they're going to move asylum seekers in there. All the flats have been done up, central heating, the works. And they've put up brand new net curtains. That's a sure sign.

This is the kind of message that we have been hearing from angry locals all over Britain for the last couple of years. Many of the details change, but the total renovations and the highly visible net curtains crop up time and time again.

So too do the denials by local councils that the premises concerned are going to house asylum seekers. And almost as regular is the spectacle of those same councils being forced to eat their words within weeks as local residents wake up to find that new neighbours from Albania and Somalia have been moved in overnight.

The repetition of this pattern over the entire country has been something of a mystery up until now. Strangest of all has been the sight of so many councils telling lies to local residents and newspapers alike, even though the bureaucrats and local councillors telling the lies must know that they will be exposed and discredited within weeks. Just such a sequence of events, for example, played a major role in the by-election victory of our Robin Evans in Blackburn last autumn.

Secret Tenancy Agreement

The answers to this puzzle lies in a secret 26-page document the Revised Tenancy Agreement April 2001 - produced by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, acting through the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Its very existence is supposed to be secret, Section 3 (p), on page 8 has this warning for people or companies thinking of making money out of housing asylum seekers:

The Landlord's attention is drawn to the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989. The landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that all individuals engaged on any work in connection with this Agreement have notice that these statutory provisions apply to them and shall continue to apply after the expiry or termination of the Term.

I don't know whether there is anything to make a reader who is not planning to be a signatory to the document subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. I don't know, and I don't care. This document is so shocking that the truth about it has to be told. All I will say is that this article is published here solely on my authority, so if some Home Office legal bigwigs wants to prosecute over this shockingly democratic breach of their veil of secrecy, they know where to find me.

The anti-free speech restrictions continue on page 9, although by this time the section numbers seem to have become somewhat confused and very unclear. The actual meaning of Section (a) (iii), however, is all too clear:

The Landlord shall ensure that no press release or other public document containing Confidential Information is issued and shall not make any public statement concerning Confidential Information without the prior written approval of the Directorate and the Tenant Company as to its content and the manner and extent of its publication.

This is the answer to one key asylum mystery. This is why local councils and private companies alike, which are providing accommodation for 'refugees', continually refuse to comment or lie about their role in housing asylum seekers. Once they've signed up to this Agreement, they simply don't have a choice.

Detailed list of items for asylum seekers

So what doesn't the Home Office want you to know? Take a look at Schedule 1 on page 14, and you can see for yourself:

This list of requirements for any property being used to house asylum seekers begins, reasonably enough, by insisting that it shall be fit for human habitation, and have adequate light. Let us ignore the fact that many hundreds of thousands of our own people are either homeless or live in houses which are unfit for human habitation because, according to central government and local councils, there isn't enough money to deal with all the problems.

By the time we get to Section 1.3, the secret Agreement begins to lay out requirements which are beyond the reach not just of a relatively small number of the homeless or desperately poor:

all meters shall be of the quarterly type, the use of card or key meters shall not be allowed.

Isn't that nice? If you and your family fall into arrears on your utility bills, particularly electricity, you have to agree to the installation of a card meter set at such a rate that it gobbles up money. British families with children can't be officially cut off but if they run out of meter credit, their lights and heating go off anyway and they have to go to bed at dusk in the winter to try to keep warm. Such hardships are unacceptable, however, when it comes to asylum seekers.

Section 1.7 insists that The Property shall have a full and safe central heating system installed. Paraffin or bottled gas fed heating systems shall not be used. Perish the thought! Such devices are fine for British pensioners and young families shivering on the poverty line, but far too smelly, inconvenient and dangerous for Mr Blunkett's favourites.

New electrical goods

After laying down requirements on issues such as fire safety, the Schedule reaches Point 10: All electrical appliances in the Property shall be either new or, if second hand, shall be supplied complete with a twelve month guarantee. Well, I don't know about you, but when my wife and I got married and set up home, we had to get our first electric cooker and heaters from an auction, completely without any guarantee at all. And, of course, ordinary British youngsters moving into places of their own still face the same choice between paying through the nose for new equipment or going without guarantees.

Pages 15 and 16 go on to provide a long list of the things needed in the kitchen, living room, bedrooms and bathroom of each asylum property. As you're probably expecting by now, this features everything from chip pans to teaspoons, from an easy chair for each bed space to a Boots first aid kit.

The long 'General' list in Section 1.13 even proves that the popular observation about new net curtains showing that asylum seekers are moving in is true, since landlords are ordered to provide net & drawable curtains to all living rooms and bedrooms. They get everything, in fact, including the kitchen sink.

Free colour TV and licence paid!

One item does, however, stand out:

For Each Living/Dining Room

1 new twenty inch screen colour television complete with licence which shall be renewed at each annual anniversary of the Start Date throughout the Term.

Native Brits, of course, have to wait until they are 75 to get a free TV licence, and non-payment of this iniquitous tax is the biggest single 'crime' that puts British women in prison.

Many of those women can't afford a TV licence because they are struggling to bring up young families on pitifully low incomes. As a result, they are also often unable to afford proper child safety equipment. No wonder, then, that the Home Office bureaucrats being so generous with our tax money wanted to keep Section 1.20 secret:

Where there are to be children living in the Property, the Property shall include:

Adequate cot and highchair facilities

Appropriate sterilisation equipment;

Child safety gates on all stairways;

Childproof resistant devices or casement stays on all windows;

Appropriate play areas both inside and outside the Property.

Another thing that ordinary families on average incomes find a big problem is the occasional cost of major repairs. Asylum seekers have no such worries. Under this Agreement, the Landlord is bound to do all repairs within seven days, and to provide an emergency repair service (Section 1.23) where a threat to health and safety is apparent. The rest of us have to turn to Yellow Pages or pay for call out insurance, but it would be unfair to expect asylum seekers to do the same, wouldn't it?

Similarly favourable treatment is also specified in the Letting Provisions, Section (f) of which commits the Landlord to redecorate all parts of the Property in the third year of the Term. The rest of us may have to fork out down at "Do It All", but not Mr Blunkett's special guests.

Perhaps most ludicrous of all, however, is the next section (g) of the Letting Provisions, whereby the Landlord agrees: To have the exterior of all windows of the Property cleaned once every twelve weeks. I kid you not, it's there on page 7. What would George Formby have had to say about it?

Who pays?

So what do all these modcons and services cost the lucky occupants of such premises? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. When various bleeding heart liberals tell us how asylum seekers only get basic income support payments, they don't tell us about the Letting Provisions on page 4 of the Home Office's Revised Tenancy Agreement, do they? Yet these show that not only do asylum seekers get their TV licences paid for them, we also pick up the tab for their rent, water rates, gas, electricity and council tax bills.

Surely, you must think, these people must want to spend night after night on the phone to all their friends and family back home, telling them all about the wonders of Soft Touch Britain? A lot of their pocket money must go on paying the phone bill? No, as you probably guessed, they don't have to pay a penny. Section 1 ((b) of the Letting Provisions sets out the fact that the Tenant Company (funded by the taxpayer) agrees to pick up the phone bill for every single property provided by the Landlord in question to asylum seekers.

Don't forget that every single council or housing association in this land which is housing asylum seekers has signed this document. Thousands of councillors in the ruling party in Labour, Lib Dem and Tory councils alike have either read this document or studiously avoided seeing it so they didn't have to.

It only took one BNP member in one council to leak this insulting and undemocratic document. By contrast, we will never know how many Lib-Lab-Con merchants have seen this Agreement since it first started being used in 2001, but not a single one of them has had the guts to put the interests of democracy and their constituents before asylum seekers and the Home Office.

Take Note Bolton European Union Helps Everyone Except UK

European Union Helps Everyone Except Britain

The British National Party Newsroom

As British National Party MEPs prepared to vote in the final weeks of  last years European Parliament, the BNP renewed its call for withdrawal from the European Union (EU) as more UK money is being used to fund poor, developing and third world countries whilst UK industry suffers terminal decline and massive redundancies.

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an EU body which administers a budget of €500m and its purpose is to help people suffering from being made unemployed and help them to reintegrate into the labour market.

According to the EU, the EGF was “created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns.”

In other words, due to the failed policies of globalisation many European countries face massive outsourcing of European jobs to third world countries as European workers could not compete with the low wage standard in the third world.

Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Poland, Belgium, Austria, and even the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) as recognised by the EU have all benefited from the EGF.

Recently, EU MEP’s voted on The Banana Accompanying Measures (BAM) in a motion whereby it was proposed that European and inevitably UK money will be used to prop up third world economies by investing €200 million to 10 third world ACP countries for four years.

In contrast, Britain has not received one penny from the EGF, though substantial portions of the EGF is funded from British taxpayers’ money.

Recently BNP MEPs voted on the following proposals to help other states who are suffering from redundancies forced by the failings of globalisation.

These include:

* Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in ICT wholesale trade in the Netherlands

* Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in diesel engine manufacturing in Poland

* Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in the automotive sector in Spain

* Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in the automotive industry in Poland

* Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in retail trade in Spain

* Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in the textile sector in Spain

* Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in the manufacture of natural stone products in Spain

If passed, these states would all benefit from financial help.

Britain is also facing a massive decline in industry and has suffered a high number of redundancies. The BNP believes that British taxpayers’ money should be used to help alleviate the hardships our own industries instead of being used to help others.

As an example:

* The UK wholesale energy industry is facing criticism of its pricing policies. Three companies – British Gas, ScottishPower and Scottish & Southern have all increased prices, hitting our elderly at a time we are facing one of the harshest winters in decades. We believe that any portion of UK money currently sat in EU coffers should be reinvested back into helping our own wholesale trade industry, perhaps the energy industry in particular in order to lower energy prices.

* Manufacturing industry. Considering the recent depreciation of sterling, which helps to promote UK exports, we feel it would be wiser to reinvest UK funds back into the UK manufacturing industry. According to Confederation of British Industry (CBI) monthly Industrial Trends survey for December, a balance of 4 per cent more employers reported export orders being above normal rather than below it. With sterling currently weakening, we should reinvest UK funds currently sat in EU coffers back into our recovering export manufacturing industry.

* Automotive industry. In 2008 the automotive manufacturing sector employed more than 163,000 people but two years later it was down to 116,000 - that's a 28 per cent cut according Prof. Garel Rhys, chairman of Welsh Automotive Forum. We believe that UK funds should be reinvested back into the UK automotive industry.

* Retail trade industry. According to a recent report by The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) the recession has claimed over 6,000 insolvencies in the UK. We recommend that any UK portion of EU funds should be reinvested into helping those affected by insolvency.

* Textile industry. According to Co-operatives UK, a national trade body, textile jobs in Britain are lost at rate of one per hour. We say invest our portion of UK money residing in the EU back into helping our own textile industry

Naturally, none of these UK industries will receive any help whatsoever from the EGF.

It is important to make the point that the BNP does not oppose help being given to fellow Europeans hit by the failed policies of economic globalisation and the inevitable outsourcing of jobs to the third world, we only oppose UK taxpayers’ money being used for any other use than its reinvestment back into Britain.

The BNP believes that Britain should withdraw completely from the EU to ensure that all British taxpayers’ money is used solely for the benefit of British interests.

The Truth on Trial in Denmark

Truth on Trial in Denmark

The British National Party Newsroom 

 

A Danish author and historian is set to go on trial for his comments about Muslim sexual abuse and honour killings, in yet another country where the truth is no defence.

Lars Hedegaard, the president of The Danish Free Press Society, will appear in court in Denmark on 24 January on charges of “racism” for speaking about the issue of familial rape in Islamic cultures.

His supposed crime is stating that part of the so-called Muslim honour code includes the act of fathers raping their daughters as a punishment.

 
After drawing heavy fire from politically correct quarters in Denmark, Mr Hedegaard defended his comments by citing both recent honour crimes in Denmark and studies on the issue, including the British Crimes of the Community: Honour-Based Violence in the UK, which states that 17,000 women in Britain alone are victims of various honour crimes every year.

However, despite his reasoning, Mr Hedegaard’s chances in court do not look good, due to the anti-free speech laws entrenched in Denmark’s legal system.

A related case came to court just last month, when Danish MP Jesper Langballe was found guilty of “hate speech” for writing that some Muslims carry out honour killings on their daughters. In a trial reminiscent of Nick Griffin’s, when he dared to speak about the issue of Muslim grooming, Mr Langballe was summarily told that the truth is no defence.

In other words, the Danish “justice” system does not take into account whether a defendant is right or wrong, but merely if what he says could cause offence to those of other races or religions.

That being the case, Mr Langballe subsequently confessed, stating, "With this article in the penal code, I must be assumed convicted in advance. I have no intention of participating in this circus. Therefore I confess.”

He went on to criticise what he called a "culture of offence" that has taken root in Denmark and which is supported by its penal code. “In certain circles it has almost become a hobby to feel offended – by caricatures in a newspaper, by criticism of religion and so on,” he said.

The article to which he referred is Article 266b of the Danish Penal Code, which states:

“Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.”

Mr Langballe was sentenced to a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner (approximately £565) or ten days in jail. Both Mr Hedegaard and Mr Langballe also have to face separate libel suits for their remarks in addition to their original court trials.

As in Britain and all other Western countries, free speech is only free if you agree with the government; otherwise it always carries a very heavy price.

Who are the Real Extremists?

Who are the extremists?

Written by BC1959    At the British Resistance Website

Thanks to our very own Bertie Bert, who actually managed to get comments printed online via ''The Guardian'' some time back, regarding the supposed extremist views of the British National Party, and the real, active, and deadly extremism of the establishment. Through this, it is possible to allow readers to sample what opponents call ''British National Party extremism'', and the established puppet governments of the last few decades ''mainstream policies''. Let's take a look at the supposed ''extremist views'' of the British National Party, then look at the actual acts and eventualities of Labour and Conservative governments. Obviously, we have limited time and space for something too detailed, but friend, foe, and potential supporter alike will get the message. THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY: A snapshot of major socio-economic-cultural policy. Immediate withdrawal from the EU, saving in total some £200 Billion, including around £60 Billion direct costs to tax payer. Immediate withdrawal from all foreign conflicts, saving in excess of some £4 Billion. Immediate restoration of a scientifically backed death penalty for serious criminals, including child murderers and Paedophiles. Immediate suspension of the ''Equality and Human Rights Act'', which specifically alienates and targets the indigenous peoples of Britain. Nationalise the banks, railways, and transport system, and invest in environmentally sound 21st century systems. Rip up the ''engineered for complexity'' directives that have strangled the rights of workers in Britain, and create a patriotic economically viable investment programme to create jobs, and manufacture products that are required not 'wished for'''. Create an ideas bank, whereby engineering and innovative ideas are produced for the benefit of Briton's, and then exported to foreign markets on a ''surplus to requirements and necessity basis''. Make the NHS more effective, less bureaucratic, and create a system whereby British born students are offered important posts such as surgeons, nurses, and doctors. Retrain British born parents who have had their children, and wish to return, or turn to nursing, this would take the strain off the benefits system, and stop the ''need'' for importing foreign nurses. Halt all benefits to foreign immigrants, and invest the money instead in providing traditional education for home grown youngsters and those in further education. Strengthen Britain's borders, and create a non-military, and military ''National Service'' for two years. No school leaver should enter the jobs market without some form of education in social awareness, helping the elderly, and cleaning up Lib/Lab/Con damaged towns and cities. Introduce a return of the ''Guild System'', so as to produce leaders in specialist fields such as the sciences, engineering, and medical professions. The Guild system should also have a secondary level, whereby those with no natural ability in evidence, can train in subjects such as building, plumbing, and traditional trades useful to the general economic and cultural viability of the nation. THE CONSERVATIVE AND LABOUR GOVERNMENTS: A snapshot of policies previously and currently in evidence from 1948. 1948: introduction of mass immigration, with the immediate effect of robbing our people of opportunities for work, and putting a further strain on the public purse. It is alleged that the original idea was based on a 7 year contract, and then once Britain was stable, immigrants would leaver the UK. The National Health Service introduced, and almost immediately, used along with the benefits system and Welfare State, it produces a debt burdened system that allows commonwealth citizens usage once in the UK. 1958: Harold Macmillan states that we've ''never had it so good'', but in reality all we got was buy now, pay later personal debt, and a national debt that was still being paid for Churchill's secret deals with the bankers. 1962: Reports of an increase in TB and other diseases put a further strain on resources. Stabbings and inter ethnic strife also put a strain on police in the Midlands. Labour win the 1964 general election, and immediately pretend to push forward with ''the white heat of technology''. In reality, the motorcycle industry is dealt a blow, with imports at a record high, and manufacturing hit by strikes from Communist union leaders. By 1968, a mix of immigration from Asia, Africa, and the West Indies sees tensions very high and the national debt increasing. 1965: Abolition of the death penalty for a 5 year trial period. In 1969, it was formally abolished. In those four years alone, the country sees a rise in child rapes and murders, and many more serious crimes including the shooting of police officers ''whilst in the line of duty''. The abortion act is passed in 1967, along with the ''legality'' of homo-sexuality. These two alone were enough to give the ''permissive society'', and homosexuals, rights to engage in both infanticide and lewd acts under law respectively should they wish. 1968: First coins in decimal currency introduced. In 1971, the whole of the UK's currency went decimal, and not a single referendum was allowed. Ted Heath signs a raft of treacherous directives and laws, enabling the EEC (EU), to essentially dictate to the people of Britain. Roy Jenkins and other politicians from both Labour and Conservative parties, employ propaganda to enforce laws which tightens the grip on free speech. 1973, Edward Heath signs Britain up to the supposed ''European Economic Community'', officially. Not too well known is the fact that it was Heath who originally suggested, or agreed, to cut England and Wales into ''Regions'', but stopped at simply ''altering the boundaries'' under the Local Government act. Labour govern the UK under a series of mishaps and possible collusion with ''foreign entities'', and results in manufacturing becoming less competitive. Margaret Thatcher becomes Prime Minister in 1979, and immediately starts to ''capitalise'' the UK. She sells off national assets, and foreign companies, MD's and former and serving politicians, all enjoy the benefits... except the British public. Under Thatcher, employment increases to three million, and over the next 30 plus years, treaties with the EU, increases the anti-British laws, mass immigration, illegal wars, and destruction of economic stability and real growth, enabling foreign bankers to drown the British people in a tide of massive personal, and national debt. 2010: The final solution regarding the ''evil white British'' is implemented. The Coalition carries on as did Tony Blair, who himself essentially sold British traditional values off like a set of cheap jewelry. The EU now makes up over 75% of law in Britain, and the Tri-Partate dictatorship insists that the UK is coming out of recession, even though no attempt at regaining it's independence or a referendum on getting out of the EU is on the cards. Debt is now permanent, and over £50 Billion in interest alone continues to hammer the indigenous peoples. Mass immigration through continued backing of Cameron, who wants Turkey to join the EU, keeps the tax payers under foot. Fuel prices and the cost of living is destroying home and business like never before, and bonuses are still a fat fact of life for Cameron's friends and relatives in the jolly world of ''what debt crises?'' banking. War is no end in sight, and crime is kept a lucrative business for anyone engaging in it, with jails at an all time maximum. Fraud is part and parcel of political life, and millions are going hungry and dying of cold. As stated, this is a simple snapshot, intended to show readers that the word ''Extremist'' is a grave lie when including it in the same sentence as the British National Party. As bertie bert often asks: ''Who Are The Extremists?'' The British people and the British National Party have not got the blood of the innocent on their hands, nor do we support foreign wars. Make your minds up now, for another ten years of the above, and our very culture will be engulfed by the treacherous war mongers, financiers, and political prostitutes and rent boys, whom will make us all know the real meaning of ''Extremism''.

Mosy UK People Want Lower Immigration, Yet They Continue to Vote for More ?

Nearly 80% of People Want Lower Immigration, Yet They Continue to Vote for More

The British National Party Newsroom

Nearly four out of five people in Britain want to see a reduction in immigration, a Government survey has revealed.

The poll, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government, shows that 78% of people in England and Wales want to see immigration into the UK cut back. Twenty-four per cent of participants said they would like to see immigration reduced a little, while 54% said they wanted it cut “a lot”. Conversely, only nineteen per cent said levels should stay the same, and just three per cent said there should be more.

These statistics are all the more remarkable considering that in addition to the 10,000 participants from England and Wales, the survey also added the views of two “boost samples” of 5,000 “ethnic minorities” and 1,200 Muslims, suggesting that it is not just the indigenous people of these islands that want to see immigration slashed.

This begs the question as to why such high numbers of people continue to vote for parties that have created the mass immigration problem in the first place and will only continue to worsen it.

Unfortunately, many may have been fooled by Prime Minister David Cameron’s posturing on the promise of an “immigration cap”, an impossible pledge for a country that is open to unlimited immigration as a member of the European Union.

Mr Cameron’s loophole-riddled promise of reducing visas for less skilled workers from outside Europe by a pathetic 6,300 a year is a pointless drop in the ocean for a country that lets in nearly 600,000 immigrants annually. It is made all the more insignificant by his scrapping of limits on intra-company transfers, his commitment to the EU/India Free Trade Agreement, which will ensure another 20,000 Indians per year gain access to work in Britain's IT sector alone, and his febrile desire to hasten Turkey’s accession to the EU.

The British National Party is the only party that promises to halt all immigration into Britain, with no misleading talk of caps, quotas or politically correct “moratoria”. If this policy is “racist”, then so is the majority of the population.
Please Donate to the British National Party Here 

The Patron Saint of UK Marxism

The patron saint of Stalinism

Written by The Pilgrim   at the British Resistance Site
Few people nowadays know the name Harry Pollitt, but he was perhaps one of the most influential people in Britain during the twentieth century.  For many years he was the leader of the Communist Party, and narrowly missed out on winning a seat in parliament in 1945.  He admired the mass-murderer Stalin, and was feted as a hero by the Soviet Union. Communist Party membership reached a peak in 1945, declining thereafter.  This did not however mark the decline of communism in Britain – far from it.  The Daily Mail writer Peter Hitchens records that: Just after the Second World War, the leader of the British Communist Party, Harry Pollitt, went to Cambridge to speak to a gathering of highflying young Left-wingers. He told them: 'Don't join the Communist Party. Work hard, get good degrees, join the Establishment and serve the cause from within.' No doubt he made a similar trip to Oxford. Another Daily Mail writer, Sue Reid, records that these young lefties “were soon exercising considerable influence in universities, the state education system, publishing houses, the legal hierarchy, and the civil service.”  She does not mention the church, but I would be surprised if not one Oxbridge leftie from the 1940s ever found his way into the clergy. The only senior clergyman I can think of in this country with openly communist leanings was Hewlett Johnson, known as the red dean.  However he was already established as a clergyman and a communist long before Pollitt spoke at Cambridge. Most of the young men who heard Pollitt’s rallying cry back in the 1940s are probably dead by now.  Any who remain alive are probably long since retired from whatever professions they entered all those years ago, but I have a sneaking suspicion that their influence lives on. A common feature of communist sympathisers is their callousness, their belief that the benefits of communism justify the deaths of millions of people.  Another is their hypocrisy, for how many of them seek to justify or even mitigate the atrocities committed by Hitler or Mussolini or Franco? We can perhaps gauge the extent to which Pollitt’s influence is still felt in this country by considering this quote from the website of the Methodist Church: Second is the myth that everyone who votes for the BNP is a committed Nazi. People vote for the BNP for a whole number of reasons - as a protest, out of fear, out of resentment - and although their decisions should be challenged, these people should not be demonised and dismissed. The fact that the Methodist Church is quite happy for its premises to be used for hustings meetings from which BNP candidates are excluded might suggest that they are not being entirely honest here.  Also, implying that at least some BNP voters are Nazis is undeniably a form of demonization.  Yet for all this, how often do the leaders of the Methodist Church, or any church, speak out against communism?  For example, we know that communism is alive and well in the Labour Party, but the churches never tell their flocks not to vote Labour. I don’t suppose Harry Pollitt, were he alive today, would regard Britain as bearing much resemblance to his vision for a Stalinist wonderland, but all the same it may be many years before the British establishment can rid itself of the stain of communist thinking which can be traced back to that speech at Cambridge more than sixty years ago. But to end on a lighter note, back in the 1980s the BBC gave us a glimpse of what life might be like under a communist regime.  Enjoy.

Muslim Paedophiles Running Amok in Multicultural England

Muslim Paedophiles Run Amok in Multicultural England

Just a few of the past TheOPINIONATOR  at http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/ posts on muslim paedophiles running amok in England. Remember these muslim predators are and continue to be protected by the blind allegiance to political correctness and Multiculturalism that has infested our government, schools, police service, etc. Our children are paying an egregiously high price for "diversity".
MUSLIM MEN RAPE FOUR BRITISH SCHOOLGIRLS AT AMUSEMENT PARK
Muslim Asylum Seeker Poses as Boy then Rapes Girl in Same Children's Care Home
More Muslim Paedophiles Arrested in Britain
Muslim Millionaire Pedophiles Buying British Little Girls for Sex
Muslim Pedophile Rape Gang Arrested in Rotherham
British Judge Refuses to Deport Illegal Immigrant Muslim Pedophile
MUSLIM MAN KIDNAPS 14 YR OLD BRITISH GIRL FOR SEX
MUSLIM TAXI DRIVERS RAPING BRITISH GIRLS & WOMEN

Link between child porn and Muslim terrorists discovered in police raids

 

Muslim Paedophile Rapes 12 Year Old Girl

 

Muslim Pedophiles Rape British Taxpayers

Gang of 'Asian' Pedophiles Trying to Abduct Girls in Croydon England

January 10, 2011

Sex slavery and Britain’s conspiracy of silence

Daily Mail, 10 January 2011
Not for the first time, Jack Straw has ignited a firestorm of controversy by expressing serious concerns about behaviour within the British Muslim community.

Mr Straw, whose Blackburn constituency is heavily populated by Muslims, spoke out after two British men of Pakistani descent were jailed last week for a series of rapes and sexual assaults on vulnerable young girls, whom they also groomed for sex with other gangs members or their relatives.

This was far from a one-off case. Police operations going back to 1996 have revealed a disturbingly similar pattern of collective abuse involving small groups of Muslim men committing a particular type of sexual crime.
This has typically involved abducting, raping or otherwise sexually attacking hundreds of mainly white girls aged 11 to 16, as well as enslaving them through alcohol and drugs and grooming them for sex.
Mr Straw said the reason was that some British Pakistani men regarded emotionally ‘vulnerable’ white girls as ‘easy meat’ whom they trapped through plying them with gifts and drugs.
The reaction to his remarks from certain quarters was all too predictable.
Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said Straw’s comments were ‘pretty dangerous’. Others accused him of being ‘inflammatory’ or ‘stereotyping’ an entire community.
What all this merely illustrated, however, was the politically correct denial which exculpates the guilty by ruling out of bounds any criticism of the community to which they belong.
For far too long, this has served to suppress an absolutely vital debate which desperately needs to be had.
For while, of course, most Muslims repudiate any kind of sexual crime, the fact remains that the majority of those who are involved in this particular kind of predatory activity are Muslim.
The picture is certainly complicated. The overwhelming majority of people who are convicted in general of sex crimes — including sexual abuse within families — are white men.
Nevertheless, we do now know that most cases of gang-led, on-street grooming that have come to light involve British Muslim offenders and young white girls.
Most disturbingly, the police say that these convictions form only a small proportion of a ‘tidal wave’ of such crimes. Yet, until now, there has been a conspiracy of silence over this phenomenon.
Charities such as Barnardo’s won’t even discuss the cultural background of such criminals. The Home Office refuses to collect such statistics. And, of course, the Guardianistas condemn any such analysis as ‘racialising crime’.
Actually, there is more than a grain of truth in that particular criticism. For this is certainly not a racial issue. Indeed, one of the many red herrings in this debate is that — if cultural characteristics are discussed at all — the gangs tend to be described as ‘Asian’.
But this is to besmirch Sikhs, Hindus, ­Chinese and other Asians. For these ­particular gang members are overwhelmingly Muslim men. And the common ­characteristic is not ethnicity, but religion.
For these gang members select their victims from communities which they believe to be ‘unbelievers’ — non-Muslims whom they view with disdain and hostility.
You can see that this is not a racial but a religious animosity from the fact that, while the vast majority of the girls who are targeted are white, the victims include Sikhs and Hindus, too.
Back in 2007, The Hindu Forum Of Britain claimed that hundreds of Hindu and Sikh girls had been intimidated by Muslim men who took them on dates before terrorising them until they converted.
And the Sikh Media Monitoring group described ‘the deliberate and targeted sexual degradation of Sikh women purely because of their religion’ and how a minority of young Muslim men boasted about ‘seducing the Kaffir (unbeliever) women’.
Nevertheless, there is a particular problem with white girls. They are targeted because the men involved in these offences do not regard Muslim girls in the same way as sexual objects to be shared by all.
One Muslim man was reported as saying that white girls are targeted by such men because ‘if they did it to a Muslim girl, they’d be shot’.
White girls also tend to be seen as sluts. Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a national Muslim youth organisation, says: ‘These people think that white girls have fewer morals and are less valuable than our girls.’
What seems to have taken place is therefore a tragic conflation of certain primitive, religiously based attitudes towards women and unbelievers — and the degraded way in which certain white girls behave.
For in this debauched British society, highly-sexualised behaviour by even pre-teens is ignored, excused, condoned or encouraged.
Who can be surprised that young white girls willingly go with these sexual predators who pick them up when so many stagger in and out of pubs and nightclubs in a drunken haze wearing clothes that leave little to the imagination and boasting of ‘blow jobs’ or how many guys they have ‘shagged’?
Who can be surprised when even sex education materials in schools advise on oral sex and other sexual practices; teen-targeted magazines, clothing and popular culture are saturated by sexuality; and family life has often disintegrated into a procession of mum’s casual pick-ups and gross parental indifference, leaving young girls desperate for affection from any quarter?
The disgust felt by some Muslim youths at such sexually promiscuous girls can then feed into a more general hatred and hostility towards Britain and the West. Such youths form themselves into gangs bound by a common feeling of being outsiders united by a profound hostility to the society into which they were born.
But because they are indeed also part of British society, and have therefore been exposed to an education system which gives them precious little education about Britain and even less moral ­guidance, such youths often descend into the same pit of drugs, alcohol and sex as their ‘unbeliever’ peers.
Yet they come from backgrounds where, all too often, women have second-class status — a world in which some particularly extreme communities have a mindset that divides them into either virginal slaves to their husbands or prostitutes.
The resulting conflict set up in the minds of these British Muslim boys sometimes creates a disgust that turns upon the ‘slags’ and ‘slappers’.
Or — far more lethally — it leads to a self-disgust which makes them vulnerable to the message that they can purify themselves by destroying the society that has led them into such evil and ungodly ways.
It is remarkable that, even though the obscenity of rape and the inviolable rights of women over their bodies are among the shibboleths of the age, feminists and other liberals are almost totally silent when Muslims violate these sacred codes.
Muslim women are often treated abominably within their communities. But to their suffering, feminists and other right-on liberals are almost totally silent. The only sound from that lobby is the cry of ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’ hurled at anyone who dares protest at such religious slavery.
Some Muslim sexual predators may now be behind bars. Others, according to the police, may still be very much at large.
But it is multicultural, reverse-racist, sickeningly hypocritical Britain which is actually in the dock.

Comments Please a Article from Simon Darby Blog

Comments Please - By Simon Darby

Written by Copied from the site of Simon Darby

January 2011

The following article has been copied over from the site of Simon Darby, the former British National Party Deputy Leader.  It certainly provides a lot of food for thought and a lot of information on how the state conspires against the British People.  To me the second part of Simon's article is of more importance than the first.  Read it and see what you think.  Take it away Simon.................. Not too disappointed with last night's result in Oldham the main priority being that the British National Party gets back into business after a difficult 2010. The great response of activists and sense of comradeship will have all of those involved eager for the forthcoming Barnsley Central contest. After visiting the Oldham constituency twice this week, I said to Nick that if our vote doesn't come out then it will not be through lack of support. That might seem somewhat paradoxical but those who witnessed the amount of goodwill and respect for the BNP from people on the streets will understand that very well. Despite a tremendous effort by Derek, Clive, Jock and others the cold fact remains that the main parties have now drifted streets ahead of us when it comes to campaigning technique and the subsequent ability to connect with the electorate. Further to this we are not dealing with a level playing field here either. As well as utilising the police to throw our chap out of hustings meetings and a totally biased media we were well and truly outspent by the other parties. Of course it's no wonder we didn't have the finances to fight this election as we should, it was only last month that the state-funded EHRC failed in its attempt to jail our chairman and bankrupt the party in the process. That's an important paragraph, that last one because it highlights the fact that just by being able to seriously contest Oldham was a victory in itself. If all had gone to plan we should have been destroyed by now, but the fact is we are still here much to the obvious annoyance of those who would wish to sweep their crimes against the British people under the carpet for good. If anyone thinks that this blog this morning consists of nothing but fanciful excuses, then please examine this next item which I consider to be major breaking news. The exclusive photos below clearly show the recently exposed undercover police officer Mark Kennedy (in dark clothes with green rucksack) and guess where they were taken? At a recent UAF protest against our RWB festival in Derbyshire. Think about the implications for a minute, that's a police officer trying to disrupt and sabotage the activity of a perfectly legal political organisation. If you have kept track of this story in the Guardian you will understand the implications of what has been going on here. We are talking about a multi-million pound state budget and hundreds of undercover operatives. Just how many of those assets are now actively involved in trying to sabotage the BNP? No doubt many of you will see far wider implications and conclusions to myself, but I now think I understand very well why the Metropolitan Police refused to prosecute the individual clearly caught on camera throwing darts at our MEPs along with the other rioters. You will probably not know this, but last night our chairman and MEP for the north west of England was invited to a question and answers session concerning the recent film "Battle for Barking". Outside the Frontline Club a gang of UAF thugs tried to attack Nick and his security team. The police just stood by and watched and the "left" even boast about this here. I just wonder how much of this intimidation is actually state-sponsored and under such circumstances I am so proud of this party. They simply don't understand that this makes us even more determined. See you in Barnsley.

Asbestos: Live with it, UK Minister tells pensioner

Asbestos: Live with it, Minister tells pensioner

  Martin Wingfield AT Nick Griffin MEP Euro News

 JANUARY 2011: 
FOR the past 18 months, the Constituency office of Nick Griffin MEP has been trying to help a pensioner who has been left to live in a bungalow built with asbestos.


 Asbestos is a silicate mineral formerly used commercially for its desirable physical properties. The inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause serious illnesses, including malignant lung cancer, mesothelioma (a formerly rare cancer strongly associated with exposure to amphibole asbestos), and asbestosis (a type of pneumoconiosis). Long exposure to high concentrations of asbestos fibers is more likely to cause health problems, as asbestos exists in the ambient air at low levels, which itself does not cause health problems.
The European Union has banned all use of asbestos and extraction, manufacture and processing of asbestos products.
After his office had explored every avenue available seeking help for the pensioner, Nick Griffin wrote to the Housing Minster and his letter lays out the full history of the pensioner's predicament.The letter to protect the identity of the constituent.



The Right Hon Grant Shapps MP
Minister for Housing and Local Government
Communities and Local Government
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU
Dear Mr Shapps
Re: Presence of Asbestos in Former Social Housing Property
I write to with regard to a case I have been looking into on behalf of one of my constituents, a pensioner from Frizington in West Cumbria. He approached me last March for assistance with an asbestos problem in his bungalow.
He, along with a number of other people in his area, purchased his home from the social housing provider, Home Housing. The properties, built by Home in the 1970’s, conformed to the relevant building regulations in place at the time, which allowed the use of asbestos.
A ban on the use of blue and brown asbestos was introduced in 1985, followed by white asbestos in 1999, so Home would have been aware at the point of sale that the properties contained this now banned substance, primarily in the ceiling of the heating cupboards. They chose, however, not to share this information with the prospective purchasers.
In 2005 British Gas, repairing a boiler on one of the similar houses on the estate, discovered the asbestos. Subsequent surveys revealed that it was present in my constituent’s house and many other similar properties formerly or still owned by Home Housing. The work to replace boilers undertaken by British Gas on these properties exposed the sheeting (which contained white and brown asbestos), rendering it a health hazard. Home Housing subsequently arranged for the asbestos to be removed by specialists from the properties they still owned. They declined to do this, however, or to contribute to the very substantial costs of specialist removal, for the properties they had sold to my constituent and others on the estate.
He now fears that he and his wife are at risk from the asbestos they cannot afford to have removed. He knows of at least 25 of his neighbours, and other home owners from nearby estates in Frizington, who are in a similar predicament. They have been advised by a solicitor that they would have a legal case against Home Housing for compensation, but they are not, apparently, eligible for legal aid and cannot afford to fund a legal action.
They raised their concerns with their local Labour MP, Jamie Reed, but my constituent says that after showing some initial interest, they heard nothing further from him. He then raised the matter with me, as his MEP. My office has engaged in a lengthy correspondence with Mr Mark Henderson, Chief Executive of Home Housing, regarding this matter. Mr Henderson takes the view that Home does not owe a duty of care to my constituent in relation to the presence of any asbestos that is present in his property, relying on the caveat emptor principle and holding that it was those conveyancing for my constituent who owed a duty of care to ensure that the property was adequately surveyed.
It is not clear to me that a Court would necessarily agree that Home Housing were justified in deliberately withholding a material fact - the presence of asbestos sheeting - in the properties they were selling. A fact which, if disclosed, would certainly have affected the price they were able to secure for these properties, assuming they were able to sell them at all without first decontaminating them of asbestos. In equity if not law Home Housing’s conduct towards a group mostly comprised of their elderly and far from prosperous former tenants seems very hard to justify. This is not the level of morality one expects of a social housing provider, and further calls into question the wisdom of privatising the provision of social housing, which my Party would not have done.
However, I find more compelling Mr Henderson’s implicit argument that, were Home Housing to concede any liability in this matter, they would lay themselves open to a potentially ruinous spate of similar claims affecting hundreds of properties they have sold off over the years. Bringing about the ruin of a major social housing provider is not, to my mind, in the public interest given the growing pressure on the availability of housing for the less well-off applied by a combination of massive immigration and the recent cuts in housing benefit and support.    
Nonetheless it is intolerable that British pensioners should be forced to endanger their health in properties they bought in good faith and oblivious of the asbestos risk, because they cannot afford to decontaminate them. Given that compelling the vendor to finance these works, albeit fair and equitable, would cause wider hardship to even more, again mostly poor and elderly people, the only remaining way forward would seem to me to be assistance from the public purse.
I therefore appeal to you, on behalf of my constituent and the hundreds of others who likewise find themselves in this plight through no fault of their own, to provide a one-off grant from public funds to pay the cost of making their homes safe again where they cannot afford to do so themselves. Such a means-tested one-off grant would seem to me to be fair in the circumstances. The more so as it is the fault of government that there is not a crystal clear legal duty on sellers to disclose material defects in the goods they are selling at the time of sale. As my constituent’s case illustrates, the principle of caveat emptor is too easily the refuge of the rogue, from which they are free to wash their hands of the innocent victims who suffer the consequences.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Yours sincerely
Nick Griffin, MEP
North West Parliamentary Constituency
Constituency Office: 01697 344480
Email: contact@nickgriffin.eu
PO Box 107, Wigton, Cumbria CA7 0YA
There was no help forthcoming from the Housing Minister, so Nick broke the disappointing news to the pensioner.
Dear Mr *****
Re: Presence of Asbestos Sheeting in Your Home
Please find attached, for your information, a copy of the letter received from the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, Minister for Housing and Local Government (dated 15th December 2010), in response to my letter of 10th November 2010).
The Minister is not, unfortunately, willing to act on my suggested resolution to your situation (and indeed the many others who are affected by the presence of asbestos in their homes) - i.e. that his department should make available a one-off, means-tested grant to people like yourself, who cannot afford to decontaminate their homes from asbestos. 
Mr Shapps enclosed a copy of the Tenant Services Authority complaints factsheet with his letter. I have not forwarded this to you, as I am aware you have already been refused help by the Housing Ombudsman Service because you own your property.
As neither Home Social Landlord nor the Ministry for Housing and Local Government is prepared to intervene to help you with your case, I’m afraid it appears that the only option available to you is to pursue action through the courts.
Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you require any further assistance.
Yours sincerely
Nick Griffin, MEP
North West of England Parliamentary Constituency

British National Party MEPs and their offices working well together

MEPs and their offices working well together

  Martin Wingfield at Nick Griffins Mep Euro News

JANUARY 2011: IN the European Parliaments in Brussels and Strasbourg our two British National Party MEPs and their teams of political advisers work closely together on voting lists and committee reports. Back in Britain so do their constituency offices.

Here's an example of the co-operation, with the work of one MEP helping an enquiry from the a constituent of the other.
A letting agency covering rural Lancashire wrote to Nick Griffin's office concerning a new EU law is to prohibit the sale of domestic heating oil to customers after 2013.
The proprietor of the firm wanted to know the details and how it might effect his portfolio of properties
Constituency Office manager Tina Wingield replied:
"May I direct you to reports which were published on the website of Andrew Brons MEP, on 15th July 2009.
As the exchange below between Mr Brons and the Council and Commission well illustrates, EU policy making is often as clear as mud!
In short, the Energy Using Products Directive does not introduce directly binding requirements for specific products, but it does define conditions and criteria for EU-wide rules. The timescale for national governments to ensure that their domestic market conforms to the set requirements varies from product to product. At the present time, it appears that the implementing measures for oil fired domestic boilers in the UK have yet to be definitively set. While 2013 was set as a target date, it may be that as a result of the consultation process with stakeholders, this date could be extended.
I will, of course, advise you when I gain further information on exactly when the law in the UK will change.
Mr Brons was asked by a number of his constituents to try to persuade the European Parliament to postpone the implementation of the Energy Using Products (EuP) Directive (2009/125/EC). To this end, he submitted a Written Question to the European Council on 5th August, asking:
“Is the council aware that:
1.  1.1 million homes in the United Kingdom are heated by oil fired heating boilers and that the directive will prevent them from buying replacement boilers from 2013
2.  Most of these homes are not connected to the gas pipelines and cannot easily be connected
3.  The new style boilers emitting low levels of NOx are too large to fit into the average kitchen
4.  Homes in the UK need to fit central heating boilers in their kitchens because most homes do not have suitable cellars or outhouses in which to put them.
Would the Council consider granting the United Kingdom a five year derogation from the Directive so that it did not come into operation until 2018?
This would enable the boiler manufacturing industry to develop new technology to produce smaller low NOx emitting boilers that would fit into an average kitchen?”
Mr Brons received the following reply from Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the European Commission on 14th September:
"Under the ecodesign for energy using products Directive(1) a technical, environmental and economic analysis (‘preparatory study’) on boilers was carried out(2), and, amongst others, NOx emissions were identified as a significant environmental aspect.
The Commission is currently in the consultation and preparation phase of the relevant Eco-design measure, and will only later table a draft measure on this issue. After a vote in the competent Committee, this measure will then go to the Council and the Parliament for scrutiny before the final adoption by the Commission.
The Commission is well aware of the particular conditions of using/installing boilers in the United Kingdom (UK). Possible ecodesign requirements on NOx emissions (and further significant environmental aspects) will consider the effects on the UK replacement market, the energy supply infrastructure and the usage conditions, with a view to fulfil the provisions of the Ecodesign Directive, and in particular its Article 15 which requires i.a. that ecodesign implementing measures shall not have a negative impact on the functionality of the product and on the affordability for the consumer.
The levels of NOx emissions and the timetable of a possible entry into force are currently discussed with all stakeholders (including industry as well as consumer and environmental organisations) and Member States in the context of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum(3). As required by Article 15 of the Ecodesign Directive, levels and timing will take into account the impacts on manufacturers, e.g. the possible need for re-design of products and possible associated costs, including on UK manufacturers of oil and kerosene boilers, in particular SMEs.
More information on the ecodesign policy can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/eco_design_en.htm
(1)   Directive 2005/32/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 191, 22.7.2005.
(2)   www.ecoboiler.org
(3)   The Commission staff working document for the meeting of the Consultation Forum that took place end June 2009 suggests 105 mg/kWh by 2014, while Eurofuel suggests 120 mg/kWh by 2015
Mr Brons also received the following reply from the European Council on 12th October 2009:
"The Council assumes that the Honourable Member is referring to the ongoing consultations relating to boilers, led by the Commission, of Member States and stakeholders under Articles 15(4) and 18 of the Ecodesign of Energy Using Products Directive(1), that could lead to the adoption of an implementing measure concerning such products as provided for by Article 15 of the Ecodesign Directive.
It is therefore up to the Commission to decide if and when it will present a draft implementing measure to that effect and to consider the appropriateness, in that context, of a derogation as advocated by the Honourable Member. Only then will the Council be called upon to decide on the proposal, if it is not accepted by the Committee established in conformity with Article 19 of the directive. In that event, the Council will, in its deliberations on the proposal of the Commission, of which the European Parliament will also be informed, take due account of the information provided by the Honourable Member.”
(1)   Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 191, 22.7.2005, p. 29.

British National Party Will Fight UK Barnsley Central By-Election

British National Party Will Fight Barnsley Central By-Election

  BNP News

The British National Party will contest the Barnsley by-election, caused by the resignation of convicted Labour Party criminal MP Eric Illsey, the party has announced.

Preparations are already underway to select a candidate, and an announcement in this regard will be made at a special meeting in the constituency on 29 January, reports Doug Ward, Yorkshire British National Party press officer.

Created in 1983, Barnsley Central covers a similar area to that of the former Barnsley constituency. It is considered a safe Labour seat.

In the 2010 election, British National Party candidate Ian Sutton polled 3,307 votes, one of the highest in Yorkshire.

This was up substantially from the British National Party vote in the 2005 election, when some 1,403 people put their cross next to the party’s name. That year was also the first time that the British National Party contested the constituency.

All activists are urged to make plans to attend the campaign meeting on 29 January. Details will be released shortly.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British national Party  website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.