An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP

From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP
Date: 9th February 2011 A.D.

Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech at the Munich Security Conference February 2011 Concerning the Threat to Western Liberal Democracies by Islam and Islamic-Sponsored Terrorism

Dear Mr Cameron

I am writing to you in connection with the speech you delivered at the Munich Security Conference last week since its subject matter pertains not just to the security of the United Kingdom and other Western European states but also to the long-term survival of the indigenous population of this country itself: the ultimate security question.

You begin your speech by seeking to reassure fellow member NATO states that despite the dire condition of the UK economy Britain will continue to meet the NATO 2% defence-spending target. In general terms that is good. However, the standard government line notwithstanding – Labour as well as Tory – Britain is not made safer nor is our national security enhanced by the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan. The NATO presence in Afghanistan has, I believe, more to do with the nuclear ambitions of Iran.

Now, you begin your discussion of the terrorist threat in the UK by saying that some of these attacks are carried out ‘by our own citizens’ and that the perpetrators, Muslims, ‘are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens’ (my emphasis). But these Muslim terrorists do not regard me, us, as ‘their fellow citizens’. Indeed, they are correct: I am not one of ‘their fellow citizens’. Nor do I wish to be. Formally these people may have acquired a British passport but in what way can these people be regarded as ‘our own citizens’ when they live in parallel societies paid for by the white indigenous population and are at best indifferent to, and at worst murderously hostile, to the interests of the host indigenous population? If I went to live in Munich and started to make demands of indigenous Germans that they adapt to my folkways, habits and customs and threatened to kill them, would Germans regard me as one of their own? I doubt it.

True, Europe has suffered from terrorism before the arrival of Al Qaeda and its imitators. The key difference is however that groups such as The Angry Brigade (England) IRA (Northern Ireland), The Red Brigades (Italy), Direct Action (France) and Baader-Meinhof & RAF (West Germany) were all home-grown groups. People who were active in the IRA belong to the tribes of the British Isles. Muslims have no such claim. They are alien. Islamic terrorism would not be a problem in the United Kingdom had we maintained strict control over our borders and not permitted the huge influx of immigrants from Pakistan, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Somalia. This was and remains a direct consequence of the cult of multiculturalism, a cult that preaches the poisonous view that, for example, sub-Saharan Africans have as much right to live in Britain as the white indigenous population.

You say that: ‘Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries’. Who exactly needs to wake up? Millions of people throughout Europe who over the last 40 years have seen their cities turned into Third World slums, who have witnessed, and suffered from, the relentless influx of immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, who have seen their institutions – police, armed forces, health services – corrupted by multiculturalism, who have seen their primary and secondary schools and universities turned into centres of politically correct indoctrination, where to be white, middle class, heterosexual and Christian is to suffer a constant stream of insults and barely concealed hatred, where, on the other hand, to be black or non-white is to enjoy special, protected-species status since non-whites are supposed to be bearers of some wonderful gift (referred to as diversity) and a source of great wisdom. Those of us all over Europe need no lectures from you Mr Cameron on what has been happening. If they are not exceptionally wealthy and have no choice but to endure the daily grind of commuting into our large cities or may actually have to live there, white people are confronted every day of their lives with the consequences of ‘vibrant multicultural diversity’ and have been for a long time. Take it from me they hate it and where possible they will avoid it all costs (white flight). If they work in the public sector and have large mortgages they will endure the consequences of the cult in silence, confiding their fears only to a trusted few.

All over Europe an unaccountable class of political-functionaries has sought to impose the alien cult of multiculturalism on the white indigenous populations. Your call that we need to stand up to Muslims - and it is not just Muslims – comes far too late and is, in any case, thoroughly dishonest. The danger to the white indigenous population posed by mass non-white immigration has been evident for a long time and politicians of all parties have either encouraged this process of dispossession or have been too cowardly to speak out in public. When, in his famous speech, Enoch Powell warned of what was to come he was mocked, derided and abandoned by people like you. The damage done to the indigenous population, its history, culture and future may now be irreversible. I pray to God that I am wrong; that it is not too late to save our nation.

Your attempts to distinguish between Islam as a religion of peace and Islamic terrorism are doomed to failure. Such is the overwhelming collectivist ethos of Islam and the complete absence of any respect for the dissenting individual that Muslims resident in this country who do not take part in acts of terrorism are not going to break ranks with the extremists. For Muslims the rule of law, free speech and liberal democracy are alien Western abstractions that mean very little. Given the choice between the rule of law, free speech and the civil society and Islam - in any shape or form - Muslims resident in this country will support the cause of Islam. There is no love for the British: we are just a source of welfare payments and material provision that would be impossible in Pakistan and Somalia (the reason immigrants come here).

You state the following: ‘It is vital that we make the distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again people equate the two’. Again, your attempt to separate religion from ideology is doomed to failure for the obvious reason that Islam, the ideology-religion, recognises no lay principle: it is all or nothing; it is Islam for the believers; Dhimmitude for the rest. Consequently, whatever action Western governments take to neutralise what they believe to be the purely political, ideological aspect of Islam, will always be interpreted as an attack on Islam as a whole. Indeed, such measures will be an attack on Islam as a whole since Islam does not recognise the division between state and civil society; the right of the individual to resist its collectivist ethos (just like communism incidentally).

The other factor that makes Islam a threat to the Christian West is the birth rate among Islamic immigrants resident in the West. The huge increase in the Muslim population throughout the West may well turn out to be the decisive factor that overwhelms the white indigenous population in their ancient lands, reducing them to a suppressed minority. In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World.

You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: ‘hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy’. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World. Egypt’s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.

Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of “we” does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of ‘we’ refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population ‘to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong’. If, according to you, the ‘we’ failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this ‘vision’? If they have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of ‘vision of society’.

You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that ‘instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone’. National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is ‘open to everyone’ is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult’s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others. Do Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Japanese and Zulus want to share their national identity with me? Of course not: and why should they? It is their exclusive property.

Nor do immigrants wish to share their identity with white Europeans. When, in 2008, he addressed a large Turkish audience in Cologne, the Turkish Prime Minister, Reccep Erdogan was quite clear by what he understood on the question of integration. He told his audience: ‘I understand the sensitivity you show towards the question of assimilation. Nobody can expect that you tolerate assimilation. Nobody can expect that you submit yourself to assimilation. Then assimilation is a crime against humanity.’ Erdogan’s vision of how he expects Turks to behave in Europe is just one of a number of reasons why a Muslim non-European state such as Turkey can have no place at all in the EU.

You argue that Muslims are attracted to extremism from a sense of not belonging. Again you claim that this is the failure of ‘the wider society’. You might like to ask yourself why indigenous Britons - ‘the wider society’ - do not wish to engage with Muslims. Here are some of the reasons why indigenous, white Christian (or heathen) Britons want nothing to do with Islam: Tuesday 11th September 2001; Thursday 7th July 2005; suicide-homicide bombers; sharia; jihad; the obscene practice of female circumcision; so-called honour killings; stoning women to death; polygamy, the sexual grooming of white girls; extreme censorship; hatred of free speech; welfare parasitism; mosques; continuing, active terroristic hatred of white European host societies; and the cruel murders of Christians in the Middle East (and Turkey).

I am not convinced that you are serious about combatting the damage done by multiculturalism. If you are then the following measures should be taken:

(i). in the interests of clarity and in order to remove any remaining ambiguities you shall publicly state that multiculturalism has failed in the United Kingdom and that it shall no longer be promoted as policy, above all in education, so that white indigenous children are not denied their history, culture and national pride to which they are entitled and that where such subjects are taught they are not taught in away that denigrates the great achievements of Britain across the entire spectrum of human endeavour;

(ii). the government shall acknowledge that the Macpherson Report (1999) has had a disastrous effect on policing especially in large cities with large black populations and shall publicly disown the report’s central conclusions and recommendations;

(iii). the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 shall be repealed along with all other legislation which aims to stifle free speech under the banner of preventing ‘hate speech’ and which leads to the persecution of white critics of multiculturalism;

(iv). the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the successor body to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), shall be disbanded immediately;

(v). the government shall set a limit on the number of immigrants skilled or otherwise, who are permitted to work in this country. The option of working in this country implies no right to citizenship;

(vi). the government shall make it clear in a statement that there shall be no amnesty for illegal immigrants currently resident in the United Kingdom;

(vii). the government shall issue a personal apology to Mr Ray Honeyford, the former Bradford headmaster who warned of the dangers of multiculturalism in1982 and who for his honesty and professional decency was vilified by xenophile extremists and abandoned;

(viii). with immediate effect the government shall ensure that efficient and relentless border control and surveillance (entry and departure) shall be implemented. Such measures will include the explicit use of racial profiling;

(ix). the government shall take all necessary measures to ensure that illegal immigrants are hunted down, rounded up and immediately deported. Where possible the government shall aggressively seek to recover the costs associated with the deportation from the illegal immigrants themselves: property, bank accounts, valuable metals (gold, platinum), cars and so on;

(x). those employers who employ illegal immigrants shall be subject to severe financial penalties and where judged appropriate terms of imprisonment;

(xi). the government shall remove all welfare payments from the huge underclass so that the recipients of state benefits are obliged to work (this removes or weakens the incentive from employers to hire illegal immigrants);

(xii). the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that under no circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom;

(xiii). the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that the provisions of Sharia are incompatible with the legal, political and cultural traditions of the United Kingdom and that the exercise of Sharia shall not be permitted within the United Kingdom and that any of judgements as may be made by Sharia courts shall enjoy no legal or special cultural status;

(xiv) the government shall initiate an International Church and Mosque Comparison Study (ICMCS). The aim of ICMCS shall be to ascertain the status of Christian churches, artifacts and believers in all Muslim states and the degree to which Christians endure persecution and terror. ICMCS will pay very close attention to the status of Christianity in those states that provide the main Muslim immigrants currently resident in the United Kingdom. A key part of ICMCS will be to ascertain whether the number of mosques existing or planned in the United Kingdom is too high relative to the number of immigrants themselves and whether the number of Christian churches in the immigrant homelands is too low.

Finally, I challenge the Prime Minister David Cameron MP or a senior member of the government to debate multiculturalism and the challenge posed by Islam, immigration and related problems with me on prime time live television. The terms and conditions of any debate (time, format, audience selection; lighting, citing of cameras, among other things) shall be a matter of discussion and formal written agreement between Ellis, Cameron and the television broadcaster.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis

Bankrupt UK Dishes Out Half a Billion Pounds in Foreign Aid in First 5 Weeks of 2011

Bankrupt Britain Dishes Out Half a Billion Pounds in Foreign Aid in First 5 Weeks of 2011

  The British National Party Newsroom

Bankrupt Britain has dished out just on half a billion pounds in foreign aid in the first five weeks of 2011, as British taxpayers staggered under a wave of price and tax increases, job losses and cutbacks which threaten to put millions on the dole in this country.

The staggering foreign aid spend includes projects such as the “promotion of free trade in Africa” (£78 million); help to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (£110 million); a tripling of aid to Somalia (in excess of £126 million); a £40 million donation to the world anti-polio initiative (set to become an annual donation); £134 million in aid to Pakistan; and £55 million in aid to the Sudan.

The grand total comes to £483 million, but when administration costs and logistics are factored in, the final cost to the British taxpayer will be well in excess of half a billion pounds.

The figures and details of the spending spree are contained in a series of press releases issued by the Department for International Development, all of which were of course ignored by the controlled media.

By way of comparison, England's university budgets have been cut by £449 million, which will cause student places to be reduced by an estimated 6,000 in the next academic year.

Teaching budgets in Britain have been reduced by £215 million, while research funding has been frozen and the buildings budget has been cut by £562 million, or 25 percent.

The spending cuts, supposedly to “bring the deficit” under control are so far-reaching that even flood defence systems in Britain have been cut – ironic when it is considered that a large amount of the foreign aid paid out to Pakistan recently has gone to flood relief aid.

According to the Environment Agency, 20 percent of houses in Britain are “at risk of flooding” but more than 1,000 major flood defence projects in Britain have had their funding cut as a result of “budget cutbacks.”

From figures published by the Office National Statistics in October last year, UK public sector net debt was £952.8 billion or 64.6 percent of National Gross Domestic Product (GDP ).

The PBR (annual government borrowing) forecast for 2010/11 is for net borrowing of £149 billion, or 12.6 percent of GDP.

This means that each month, the Government is set to borrow in excess of £12 billion just to stay afloat: and of this, it seems, at least half a billion (and possibly more) is then spent on foreign aid.

EU Fishing Quotas: Discard Usable Fish Policy Scandal

EU Fishing Quotas: Discard Policy Scandal

  Martin Wingfield   Nick Griffin MEP Euro News  

FEBRUARY 2011: Nick Griffin's speech in the European Parliament on the fishing industry at the end of last year certainly struck a chord with his constituents.

 Back then. the MEP for the North West of England told fellow MEPs.
"Britain´s home waters have been fished to near extinction under European Fisheries policies.
"The reality is the protection of fish stocks is best left to local fishermen and national government marine scientists, not EU bureaucrats.
"The advice from the men working in the broken remnants of Britain´s fishing fleets is simple: Scrap quota systems that lead to discards and highgrading (right), and replace them with weight-based catch limits so that all fish caught are landed for human consumption or for processing into animal and fish feed."
Now the issue is being raised again thanks to Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall's "Big Fish Fight"programme.
Hugh is campaigning to stop the fish being thrown back into the sea because of the European Union's "fish quotas".
"Please support this campaign," a constituent from Rossendale in Lancashire asks Nick.
"Trawlers are throwing back nearly three-quarters of their catch into the North Sea DEAD. Tonnes and tonnes of prime cod is being killed for no reason. Please get the European Parliament to stop this madness."
Responding on behalf of Nick Griffin, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"Anyone with an ounce of common sense must realise that it is an absolute scandal that every day, half the fish caught in the North Sea are thrown back dead. That is almost a million tonnes of edible fish every year simply wasted as a consequence of EU supposed “conservation” measures.
"Discarding is not limited to the North Sea. According to EU figures, between 40% and 60% of all fish caught by trawlers in 2007 were discarded. Fishermen, constantly struggling to earn a decent living, are forced to waste much of their catch because of the quotas imposed on many species of fish.
"Mr Griffin and the British National Party have campaigned against this nonsensical EU discard policy for many years, so it is encouraging to see the issue now firmly on the political agenda.
"The long-term solution to this problem is clear: national control over our own fishing industry must be restored, and the only way to achieve this is for Britain to withdraw from the European Union.
"In the meantime however, action must to taken to safeguard the immediate future of Britain’s beleaguered fishing businesses. Following discussions with fishermen, Mr Griffin and his fellow British National Party MEP, Andrew Brons, have identified four key priorities which must be addressed. The most immediate priority is to resist any reduction in the number of days they are allowed to fish from 135 days. The drastic 90-day proposal favoured by Brussels Eurocrats would certainly sound the death knell for many British fleets, but any reduction could drive trawler businesses onto the rocks.
"Any reduction in species quotas must also be opposed and the immoral policy of discarding “over-quota” fish must be ended. A fourth priority is to end the clandestine speculation in quotas which increases prices and reduces profit margins for trawler owners. Quotas should only be sold to trawler owners.
"Please be assured that your British National Party MEPS will be campaigning vigorously within the European Parliament to try to revise the Common Fisheries Policy so that it reflects - to some degree at least - a sensible and sustainable fishing

St George's Day celebrations in Manchester have been hijacked and Made Politicaly Correct

St George's Day celebrations in Manchester have been hijacked

  Martin Wingfield

 FEBRUARY 2011: 
MANCUNIANS are upset that the city's traditional St George's Day celebrations have been scrapped and replaced by a Caribbean-style street parade led by a black puppet portraying England’s patron saint!

 Clergy at Manchester Cathedral are even changing the date of England's national day from April 23rd to Sunday 8th of May, and instead of the traditional patriotic bunting and street parties are holding for festival of puppets and poets with a carnival procession and jazz music.
Canon Andrew Shanks, from the cathedral, said he and other churchmen wanted to help ‘rebrand’ St George’s Day by depicting the saint as a young black man cutting free the restraints of a pitiful dragon (right).
This hasn't gone down well with some of the city's residents who have written to their MEP to complain.
"What has it come to when our own church tells us to be ashamed of our Englishness and instead to celebrate the occupation of our country by people who have arrived here from the other side of the world within my lifetime," said one lady.
"I had always hoped that one day the British people would wake up to what has happened to their country and that the English would be the people to lead the Scots, Welsh and Irish in the campaign to reclaim it.
"Let's hope that this hi-jacking of St George's Day stirs the English people of Manchester at the very least," she said.
Nick's constituency office has received more than twenty emails and letters on this issue so far, and as news of the scrapping of the traditional festival gets more widely publicised, you can guarantee that there will be many more!

Nick Griffin MEP joins the battle to save Liverpool Coastguard Station

MEP joins the battle to save coastguard station

FEBRUARY 2011: Nick Griffin MEP Euro News
RESPONDING to requests for help from coastguards across his North West constituency, Nick Griffin has written to the Ministry of Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) raising his concerns over the possible closure of Liverpool's Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre. 

 A recent MCA consultation document has revealed the intention to close 10 of the current 18 coastguard stations throughout the UK including .
The station at Crosby in Liverpool covers a vast area which includes the whole northwest of England, the Isle of Man, parts of Scotland and Wales.
This is not the first time Liverpool coastguard has been earmarked for closure.
In 1999, the station was under threat, but a campaign by staff at the MRCC halted the planned closure although the MCA did close three other coastguard stations in other parts of Britain.
A Transport Select Committeee report on "The Work of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency" published  on 18th July 2004, clearly states in para 64 that "it is unacceptable to contemplate further closures when there has been no full assessement of the closures already made."
Nick Griffin has written to Mr Mike Penning MP (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport) and Vice-Admiral Sir Alan Massey (Chief Executive, Maritime and Coastguard Agency), outlining his concerns with regard to the changes proposed and pointing out that cost-cutting alone should not be the pre-eminent driver of change and that over-zealous efficiency measures must never over-ride emergency response effectiveness.
In his letter he said:
"I have read your Consultation Document on Modernising the Coastguard, which of course potentially affects many of my constituents in North West England. In general I welcome the broad outlines of these changes proposed to equip H.M. Coastguard to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.
There are, however, a number of issues which in my view raise concern, and merit, therefore, further consideration.
Firstly, cost savings to the long-suffering British taxpayer achieved through increases in efficiency are always most welcome. However in a vital service such as this it is essential that cost savings are not seen as a pre-eminent driver of change.
As you rightly observe, the number of incidents with which this Service is expected to have to deal is likely to increase, as is the potential seriousness of these incidents as vessels get bigger and our waters grow more congested with shipping and offshore installations such as wind farms in, potentially, worsening weather conditions.
I need not, I am sure, point out that if excessively zealous cost-cutting leads to just one additional major pollution incident in our coastal waters, the consequent clean-up costs will exceed many times over any savings achieved, to say nothing of less easily quantifiable environmental damage.
To this end, I believe that all possible steps should be taken to avoid losing the services of any more experienced Coastguard Officers than is absolutely necessary, and would ask you to endeavour seriously to confine redundancies to administrative staff only.
Secondly, in any centralisation of emergency coverage to fewer and further away Operations Centres, as proposed, it is essential that local knowledge is not lost. I am familiar with the consequences of this adversely affecting my constituents in another Emergency Service.
When the Ambulance Service was reorganised on broadly similar lines to those you propose, 999 calls for Cumbria were transferred to a call centre outside of the county. The result was a marked and potentially life-threatening decline in service. This was in many cases due to the new call centre staff being unfamiliar with the geography and in some cases the dialect of Cumbria. An ambulance called to attend in Wigton, Cumbria, for example, was sent in error to Wigtown, Dumfries and Galloway, many miles away.
H.M Coastguard needs to study and learn from this and similar reorganisations in other emergency services - including the Fire Service "FiReControl" project the new Government has decided to scrap, citing similar concerns to those which have been widely expressed about this reorganisation.
If it is decided to proceed as planned, I would suggest that the new structure makes full use of the local expertise of the increased number of Coastal Safety Officers, who I understand are intended to provide 24/7 cover. Perhaps the local Coastal Safety team member on watch could be included in the handling of 999 and other urgent calls? The Maritime Operations Centre staff receiving such a call could if required telephone the appropriate local Coastal
Safety Officer on call and include him/her and the caller in a phone conference loop so the caller would be able to talk to someone with detailed local knowledge. This would undoubtedly in some cases make a potentially vital difference to the swift and effective resolution of the incident.
I would add that I particularly welcome the additional support you propose to be provided by local professional Coastguard officers to the local volunteer Coastguard Rescue teams.
Thirdly, I feel that if a choice must be made between Liverpool and Belfast as the site of a Maritime Operations Sub-Centre, Liverpool is significantly preferable. Liverpool is a larger port than Belfast, and is once again expanding after a long period of decline, notably as a result of proposals to use it as a significant port of call for cruise liners as well as cargo shipping.
Unlike Belfast, which is geographically isolated from other significant ports, Liverpool is near for example Birkenhead, Fleetwood and Heysham and well placed to offer additional support if needed to Holyhead. Also Northern Ireland has - for good reason I agree - received a disproportionate amount of public expenditure and public sector employment in recent years, and it is surely time to redress the balance in favour of another economically challenged area, Merseyside. I must therefore firmly oppose any proposal to close the existing MRCC at Crosby rather than incorporating it into the new structure."

British National Party Chairmans Update - Barnsley the Next Battle

Barnsley the Next Battle

Written by Nick Griffin MEP

February 2011

Dear Fellow Patriot, Another Labour party thief is caught red handed with his hands in the taxpayers’ till. Quite rightly he is losing his seat in Parliament, and our next by-election will soon be upon us. Working closely with our hard-working Barnsley branch, we have selected a superb candidate – Enis Dalton, a professional trainer and well-known local community campaigner – to be our candidate in this high-profile election. As a local girl, she is perfect for a constituency like Barnsley with its close-knit community. Predictably, Labour have parachuted in a candidate, from Hampshire. Last year, at the General Election, the British National Party candidate polled 3,307 (8.9%) votes in Barnsley Central. With the party united behind Enis, and a strong local branch under dynamic organiser Ian Sutton leading the campaign, all we need to secure an excellent vote is the money to stand against Labour and run a really professional campaign. We’ve already hit the ground running, with a fantastic total of 150 activists joining me and Enis Dalton on our first Day of Action. The whole constituency was blanket leafleted in just a few hours, with more specialised teams also out canvassing and using specially designed questionnaires to collect the information about what Barnsley voters really worry about. This information will allow us to tailor our message for maximum possible impact. We’re aiming to make this our most professional campaign ever. “We need to remind voters that Labour are no friends of the people of Barnsley. They have betrayed us. The British National Party is now the true voice of the British people” – British National Party candidate, Enis Dalton. Your help is always appreciated. All nationalists are required to assist in this battle. Please help us in any way you can. Come and join us on the streets, or send your most generous gift today. It is almost impossible to put a monetary target on this appeal for Barnsley, but every single penny you send will make a difference. You will help us confront the Labour thieves, raise public awareness and ensure that the British National Party become the true voice of Barnsley... because we’re in it for the long haul. By working together, we will win the battle for local hearts and minds in Barnsley. Thank you for your continued and generous support. I know that Enis will appreciate your help as much as I do. Yours faithfully, Nick Griffin, MEP Leader, British National Party You can donate to the British National Party on their site here. The British National Party’s national organiser, Adam Walker, has called for urgent ‘instant’ demonstrations against convicted thief Labour MP Eric Illsley for tomorrow afternoon

EU Commission Rules Questions on president, José Manuel Durão Barroso Communist Background “Inadmissible”

European Commission Rules Questions on Barroso’s Communist Background “Inadmissible”
The British National Party Newsroom

The European Commission has unilaterally ruled that any questions about the extremist Communist background of its president, José Manuel Durão Barroso, are “inadmissible” and will not be discussed.

The shocking refusal to answer a simple set of questions over Mr Barroso’s background was made in a letter to the British National Party Member of the European Parliament for North West England, Nick Griffin.

The questions which Mr Griffin asked related to Mr Barroso's college days when he was one of the leaders of the underground Maoist MRPP (Reorganising Movement of the Proletariat Party, later PCTP/MRPP, Communist Party of the Portuguese Workers/Revolutionary Movement of the Portuguese Proletariat) in his home country.

There is a video clip of Mr Barosso, recorded in 1976, where he criticises the “bourgeois education system” which "throws students against workers and workers against students" and which displayed his ultra-leftist and Maoist sympathises.

With the title “Marxist connections of Commissioners,” Mr Griffin’s written questions ran as follows:

“Given that 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 60-1 00 million 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?”

After a lengthy wait, Mr Griffin finally received a response from the European Commission in which he was told that the “President” (that is, Mr Barosso) “has deemed it [the questions] inadmissible.”

Mr Griffin said later that patriotic politicians are forced all the time to apologise for youthful indiscretions and for silly things they have said or done in the past.

“Everyone can change, but it is always reassuring to hear from the horses’ mouth that such youthful dalliances are no longer applicable,” Mr Griffin said.

“It is therefore worrying that Mr Barosso, whose salary package is now larger than the president of America, will not even discuss his extremist Communist past, never mind apologise or repudiate it.”

The Church of England Now there's a Misnomer

Screw the Church of England

Written by Green Arrow    At the British Resistance Site

February 2011

Church of England.  Now there's a misnomer if ever there was one.  The Church of England has not been for England or any other part of the United Kingdom for a long, long time.  In fact it has very little to do with religion even these days and is more about pushing the communist party manifesto or the homosexual Pink News rather than the word of God. Instead of being concerned about the number of Churches being converted into mosques for the followers of the Cult of the Dead paedophile, whose followers are killing Christians world wide, they are more concerned about their pink frocked priests joining the British National Party. Today, their ruling body, the General Synod has backed draft legislation paving the way for a ban on clergy membership of the patriotic BNP.  One wonders how long before they start to ban their congregations from joining or even supporting the party.  But why stop there?  Why not burn the nasty BNP alive at the stake or perhaps throw them to some lions. One would also have thought that the issue of how they can condone having practising homosexuals as priests and ordain at so called homosexual weddings is driving real Christians away from the Churches, would have been more important.  But in the new Church of England, politics is far more fun than saving souls. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. One of the main drivers for pushing this ban through on British People, is Indian born Vasantha Gnanadoss, a Metropolitan police civilian worker and General Synod member who first won backing for the ban two years ago and who I wrote about here. My advice to true Christians (and I consider myself to be one) is to say "Screw you Vicar and screw the Church of England.  God does not care where we worship or where we pray to him but he does care about the way we follow his teachings".

Beirut in Folkestone Kent ” — David Cameron’s Muscular Liberalism in Action

Beirut in Folkestone” — David Cameron’s Muscular Liberalism in Action

The British National Party Newsroom

An outbreak of Afghan tribal warfare which has left at least one dead and several injured in Folkestone, Kent, has served once again to highlight the continuing insanity of mass Third World immigration and David Cameron’s “muscular liberalism.”

According to local inhabitants quoted in regional media sources, Folkestone has “become like Beirut” and there are entire areas of the town which are no-go zones for white British people.

Most recently a tribal warfare broke out between gangs of Afghan “immigrants” at Marine Parade in the town.

One Afghan “immigrant” was stabbed to death in an area which was described as a “no-go area after dark” in the local media.

Another five Afghan “immigrants” were hospitalised as the fight, which turned the street into something resembling a combat zone, raged up and down the street.

According to local residents, the area around the former harbour has “become a hotbed of problems between rival gangs and is notorious for drug taking.”

The buildings behind the hotel, which overlooks the harbour, has been used to house “asylum seekers” and “foreign nationals,” the local media reported.

“Other locals say it is not safe to walk the streets after 9pm and in recent months problems in the area have got worse,” the reports continued.

One local resident was quoted as saying: “This used to be a holiday town but in the last few years it’s turned into Beirut. This could be such a nice place, all these old buildings and it’s been left to go to ruin."

Another resident, Michael Straw, 50, said he had stayed with friends since the mass brawl. “It is absolute chaos and like being in a war zone. I felt scared being there and cannot face going back.”

Another local resident interviewed by the media, former policeman Malcolm Montgomery, said the area had a long history of trouble.

“There’s a lot of problems around here; I wouldn’t feel happy walking around here at night. This area has got an awful reputation."

Chief Superintendent Chris Hogben announced that police were “investigating this serious incident which appears to be the result of a dispute between two groups of Middle Eastern people.”

Ironically, Chief Superintendent Hogben added that the police “also have specialist officers working within the community to reduce these tensions" as if a ‘community cohesion officer’ would be capable of sorting out a tribal war imported into Britain as a result of the Labour/Tory immigration policy.

One report claimed that some families have fled their homes to “escape the violence that has come with the influx of immigrants.”

If this is the sort of ‘muscular liberalism’ and its ‘integration’ which Mr Cameron now prefers instead of his equally awful ‘multiculturalism', then it is about time that Afghan ‘asylum seekers’ should be placed next to his millionaire’s house in Witney.

Why is the Asia & The Rest of The Third World Not “Multicultural?”

Why is the Third World Not “Multicultural?”

  The British National Party Newsroom

Why does the liberal elite want to force multiculturalism upon Britain and the First World yet they vigorously defend the right of the Third World nations to maintain their distinct cultures, asks British National Party correspondent Maid of Kent.

By Maid of Kent — It must be time to divert the attention of the sheeple away from another 'bad news day' — what better way to hide bad news than to announce that our 'beloved and respected leaders' have finally seen the light about the mass immigration and attendant multiculturalism disaster that they imposed on us in the first place?

Watching David Cameron give his 'failed multiculturalism' speech (for all of 30 seconds — I can't take any more than that) I have to wonder at the desperation of the Conservative Party and voters that they would vote for this man.

He speaks with the conviction of a wooden puppet (Pinocchio comes to mind) and so obviously neither believes what he is saying nor intends to follow through with any promises that his speech/propaganda writers make.

He reminds me of Tony Blair, but is an even worse actor and liar, which is saying something.

I just find it frightening that there are masses of people in this country who believe this performance and really think that things are going to change!

What is more indicative of the predominant beliefs among the liberal elite who Cameron represents is the comment on his speech by Paul Vallely in the Independent newspaper.

This — and many of the comments posted — reveals the twisted views and beliefs of influential segments of our society, views and beliefs that we must rigorously contest.

These elements in Britain have the self-righteous view that multiculturalism is the natural and desired state of life in our country, although they rigorously and hypocritically avoid the suggestion that it should be imposed on any other country on earth.

From the brainwashed Marxist agitators to the Asians who say that they are British but still call themselves 'Asians' (you cannot be both), we can see the whole range of Liberal fascism and intolerance of the views of the ordinary British people.

Vallely himself suggests that British culture has no right to be the dominant culture in Britain — how twisted is that?

Perhaps he would be happier if Islamic culture was the only culture of Britain?

Would he also suggest that Indian/Chinese or African culture had no right to be the dominant cultures of those countries? Of course not — such is the hypocrisy and arrogance of these so-called liberals.

Unfortunately, such has been the brainwashing of our people by these liberal fascists, that many British people believe that the mass immigration-imposed multiculturalism is the normal and best state for Britain.

Nationalists, who have opposed the folly of mass immigration and have resented the invasion of our homeland by uninvited and unwanted hordes from all over the world, believe that the indigenous British people have the right to their own homeland and for their culture to be the only acceptable culture in that homeland.

We ask no more than African, Asian or Oriental people do in their own homelands — the acceptance of the indigenous peoples' culture as the sole and dominant culture of that country. 

Why is that not acceptable to these liberal fascists? I can only assume that it is because they wish to see the destruction of any European Christian based culture — for what reasons and ends I can only guess.

But when they make war with my culture, they make war with me, and any who share my belief in our culture.

Bear in mind that the hordes of immigrants who have invaded Britain came originally and solely for economic reasons — and should have been grateful for the opportunities afforded them — but have bitten the hand that fed them by then seeking to impose their cultures (prevalent in their failed Third World homelands) on the countries and native peoples that allowed them such opportunities.

How ungrateful and ungracious is that?

When I see all of the countries in the world happily and peacefully enjoying the multicultural experience, then I may be prepared to submit my country to the multicultural experience.

I fail to understand why Britain and Europe should be the ones to have this experiment forced on them, when many, many, countries in the world would be far more likely to benefit from this experiment than previously successful European nations.

But the liberal fascist elite hypocritically recoil from any suggestion that failed Third World nations might benefit from such an experiment — it is only acceptable for the white European nations.

The truth is — and they know it — that multiculturalism has failed in every country that has experienced it, throughout history.

We have been able to read in our history books and learn about these multicultural failures, but thanks to the Lib/Lab/Con politicians, we can now experience the horrors of such failures ourselves.

The former Yugoslavia, the anti-Semitism prevalent in Europe throughout history — the history of mankind is full of examples of the failed concept of multiculturalism — yet the idiots from the Lib/Lab/Con parties who have ruled Britain for decades ignored the lessons of history and imposed the same doctrine on us — and it has failed yet again. 

This is Britain — not Africa, not China, not India, not Pakistan — and British culture, the culture of the British people who are the rightful inhabitants of Britain, should and will prevail.

If any don't like it, they can go to a country with a culture that they do like.

I, and other Nationalists, won't stop them and if necessary, will help them on their way.

Like many British people, my forefathers spilt too much blood to allow me to give my homeland away to foreign invaders. Like the flesh that I spring from, I will fight for my God, kith, kin and country — and culture.

By the way, there is no such thing as 'multicultural'. The term suggests that the people of a nation enjoy living with numerous aspects of different cultures, all interweaving seamlessly and harmoniously.

While superficially that may be correct — the British people have always enjoyed their cup of tea and more recently, a curry — these examples are merely occasional adoptions of certain elements of other countries cultures in that they have then been absorbed into our culture over time, therefore over time, becoming part of British culture.

These foreign customs have been willingly adopted by the British people, through choice and preference. They have not been forced down our throats.

I had a quite heated discussion with a multi-culture supporter recently. She is quite offended by someone who belches out loud in public — to her (as a British person) it is bad mannered to do so.

But what happens when a refined British person who believes that belching in public is the height of bad manners comes up against someone of Arabic origin and culture, who believes that belching loudly after a meal is the height of good manners?

Does the Arab refrain from belching in order to not offend the Briton (therefore changing their culture and submitting to the norms of another culture) or do they belch loudly (following their own culture) and offend the Briton?

Or does the Briton (adhering to their cultural norms) show their disapproval of the belching (therefore offending the Arab) or, ignoring their own culture, accept the cultural manners of the Arab?

If both follow their own culture, then both will be highly offended by the actions of the other, proving that for multiculturalism to work, one or the other (or both) cultures has to submit to the other.

One, or both have to make concessions for people of different cultures to live harmoniously together, in which case, neither is following their own culture — they are both giving way on their traditional beliefs — therefore they have no culture. Or one does not give way and makes no concessions to other races and cultures, which leads either to the submission of one culture to the other, or to a cultural clash. 

We see this every day in Britain with the acceptance by the British people of 'gay' rights, feminist rights etc., when these same ideals and principles are fundamentally opposed by Muslims — whose culture prevails?

Multiculturalism does not work in theory and it does not work in practice.

People of all cultures and races have more respect for each other when they live in their separate nations where they can observe their own unique cultures, moulded and guided by their own peoples’ customs and traditions.

had enough then Join or donate to the British National Party Here

UK Police running scared of Muslim grooming

Police running scared of Muslim grooming

  Martin Wingfield at  Nick griffin MEP N.W England Euro News

FEBRUARY 2011: 
TELEVISION programmes often generate a lot of correspondence to the MEP's Constituency Office and this week's The Wright Stuff was one such programme.

Programme presenter Matthew Wright (right) was confronting the issue of racially motivated sex crime, and trying to get studio and audience guests to comment.
Apparently the police refused to attend the show, and Matthew Wright openly called them "chicken" for running scared of this growing problem.
What prompted constituents to write to their MEP was the way the invited guests were too scared to honestly respond to questions and used typical political evasion to avoid answering.
One or two people were brave enough to tell the truth including an Asian woman called Yasmin who pointed out that racially motivated sex crimes had increased British National Party membership.
Even a Muslim caller even acknowledged that the perpetrators of these crimes were almost exclusively Muslim.
Special guest Robert Winston backed off when faced with the Muslim grooming issue and this otherwise incredibly intelligent man, displayed that he had virtually no knowledge whatsoever about Islam.
Responding to those who had written to their MEP, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"Given that the police fully collude with the “culture of silence” surrounding the issue of racially motivated sex crime, it is not surprising that they declined to talk publically about the issue. Off the record, of course, officers have revealed that the pathetic conviction rates for sex offenders represents only a small proportion of the “tidal wave” of offending that has been uncovered in areas such as Lancashire and Manchester.
Mr Griffin and the constituency team are working to expose the scandal of the lack of action by police and education authorities to address the problem.
The police are so politically correct that they twist the statistics to hide the extend of Muslim involvement in these vile crimes. We have however, through Freedom of Information requests, forced Lancashire police to admit that all the victims in their Operation Engage grooming investigation were recorded as 'white' and we will continue to shine the spotlight on the police until the true facts surrounding this crime are revealed.
When we have collected all the relevant evidence, Mr Griffin will raise this issue in the European Parliament, as well as running a high-profile campaign in the North West to ensure that this increasing problem is fully recognised and effectively confronted.
We owe it to the young victims - and thousands of potential future victims - to ensure that Political Correctness and the fear of being branded as 'racist', is not allowed to jeopardise the protection of our vulnerable youngsters or to prevent justice from being served."

Bogus Foreign Student Visa Racket Costs Taxpayer up to £500 Million per Year

Bogus Student Visa Racket Costs Taxpayer up to £500 Million per Year

The British National Party Newsroom

The bogus student visa points-based system racket, started by Labour and endorsed by the Tories in their election manifesto, costs British taxpayers anywhere between £300 and £500 million per year, a new study has shown.

Although liberals and some university staff have claimed that a crackdown on the student visa swindle — which saw 90,000 foreigners enter Britain last year — will cost money, the amount lost is far less than the cost to taxpayers which the system causes, said independent think tank Migrationwatch UK.

That body said in a report that a crackdown on bogus student visa applications “is likely to lead to a loss of some £95 million a year fee income to colleges offering below degree level courses, this has to considered alongside the £300—£500 million a year that it has estimated the taxpayer must fund to support British workers made unemployed by bogus students working illegally.”

“This is yet another legacy of the previous Government’s disastrous management of the immigration system which has once again left the taxpayer picking up the bill,” Migrationwatch chairman Sir Andrew Green said in a statement, ignoring the fact that the Conservative government had specifically endorsed that policy in their election manifesto.

“It is neither economically justifiable for the hard pressed taxpayer nor fair to British workers who have to compete for scarce jobs with people who have cheated the system to come here,” Sir Andrew continued.

Migrationwatch did, however, point out that that it was “important to be clear that the purpose of the government’s measures is not to reduce the number of students but to reduce the exploitation of the present system by bogus students” and went on to endorse the typically Tory nonsense of ‘net immigration'.

“In the normal course of events, students should leave after completing their courses to be replaced by others. Over time, therefore, the number of those who arrive will be counter balanced by those leaving with no effect on net migration,” Sir Andrew said.

Meanwhile, a separate report has revealed that last year alone, no less than 90,000 foreign ‘students’ entered Britain by applying to colleges which are not on any Home Office ‘trusted’ list.

A significant number of these entered the country since the election last year, meaning they entered under the Tory government.

Students are only supposed to be allowed to enter the country to attend colleges which have been checked and approved, but this rule has not been applied with any consistency.

According to the figures, there were 613 private colleges which are not ‘highly trusted’ in existence in January this year. Between them, these ‘colleges’ have the ability to sponsor a total of 280,000 international students.

Many of these colleges have been exposed as offering totally bogus courses in ‘hospitality', ‘business administration’ and other obvious hoaxes.

Janus the Chameleon Cameron’s Pronouncements on Islam

Chameleon Cameron’s Pronouncements on Islam

  The British National Party Newsroom

Treacherous Tory leader David Cameron has called upon Muslims to “embrace our British values” just 44 months after telling voters exactly the opposite, namely that British people “need to integrate more” with the Muslim way of life.

In addition, Mr Cameron claimed that there was a difference between Islam and Islamism, even though in an earlier policy statement, he warned directly against making that distinction because, he said, it “plays into the extremists’ hands.”

In an article which appeared in the Observer newspaper in May 2007 titled “What I learnt from my stay with a Muslim family,” Mr Cameron wrote: “Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.

“If we want to remind ourselves of British values — hospitality, tolerance and generosity to name just three — there are plenty of British Muslims ready to show us what those things really mean,” the Tory leader wrote.

In his latest remarks, made over the past weekend, Mr Cameron has decided that it is Muslims who need to integrate into British society, not the other way round.

In his speech at the security conference in Munich, Mr Cameron said that British Muslims must subscribe to mainstream values of freedom and equality and that the policy of allowing each group to have its own culture had failed.

In the earlier Observer article, Mr Cameron also took great pains to stress that “many Muslims” are “deeply offended by the use of the word 'Islamic' or 'Islamist' to describe the terrorist threat we face today.

“Indeed, by using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them,” Mr Cameron wrote in his earlier article.

In his Munich speech, however, Mr Cameron once again completely reversed his view.

“We have got to get to the root of the problem, and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie,” he said.

“That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism. We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam.

“We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing,” Mr Cameron said in his speech, which can be found on the Downing Street website.

The astonishing chameleon-like change is conclusive evidence that the Tory leadership is either utterly devious and opportunist, or just plain downright stupid.

Either way, Mr Cameron is clearly an embarrassment to Britain.

Had Enough Then Join The British National Party Here 

Proof wirral council admit council tax unlawful

Proof wirral council admit council tax unlawful

---

OK – so now the cracks are really beginning to appear.

I am indebted to my good friend and fellow Freeman on the land, for allowing me to use his documentation for this:-
Let me fill you in on the background so you have the case history:-
“Jim” (As we will call him”) is a Freeman on the Land along with us (More on that here www.TPUC.org & www.thinkfree.ca) – and a few months back he decided (Like many of us) that he wasn’t going to pay the UNLAWFUL Council tax that they were trying to enforce upon him via thier unlawful statute legislation. So he stopped paying:-
In due course he started receiving the threatening letters until one day the “summons” appeared on his doormat. (Note: A summons is merely an invitation to attend their place of business to discuss a punishment – its an offer – Read more - just as the Council Tax Bill is an offer to contract with them – read more on this)

The “invitation” was to appear before Wirral Magistrates Court for a hearing concerning the issuing of a liability hearing. Now as we all now ALL magistrates courts are merely a trading styles of the “run for profit” company called “Ministry of Justice” – see below and you can get a copy of the document I have acquired clearly showing:-

1. The corporate status of the Ministry of Justice
2. The Directors (Lord Falconer of Thoroton & Others)
3. The fact that Ministry of Justice has County Court Jugements against it
4. The trading styles of MOJ (Top right – which includes “Magistrates Courts”

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE IS A BUSINESS
http://www.nocounciltax.com/content/images/MOJ_1.jpg

Now call me blonde but I would say this is pretty damned conclusive that we are dealing with a corporate court convened by a corporation to simply lift money from you and I.

So … “Jim” jotted the council a little letter which is shown below:-
FIRST LETTER TO WIRRAL COUNCIL
http://www.nocounciltax.com/content/images/RGWCC_1.jpg

Jim sent this letter about THREE WEEKS before the date that the hearing was due to be heard on.
So … the DAY BEFORE the hearing, Jim received a phone call from the Wirral Council LEGAL DEPARTMENT and what they said was staggering …

THEY WERE GOING TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION FOR A LIABILITY ORDER!

1. Now this is incredible that on the back of one letter they decide to withdraw and more importantly confirms the following:-
2. Council tax is UNLAWFUL, as you and I well know that if these leeches had once ounce of a lawful case for taking this money then they would fight it to the death

They KNOW Council Tax is unlawful and are simply robbing those who haven’t woken up to the facts yet to the tune of £140,000,000,000 per annum (thats 140 BILLION of our money!)
So, Jim being the experienced fellow he is – asked them to email him with confirmation that they were going to withdraw and printed below is their email.
WIRRAL COUNCIL CONFIRMATION OF WITHDRAWAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LAWFUL CASE
http://www.nocounciltax.com/content/images/RGWCC_2.jpg

Jim then asked for further clarification in a formal letter and here is the letter that they sent!
LETTER FROM WIRRAL COUNCIL CONFIRMING THEIR WITHDRAWAL FORM COUNCIL TAX LIABILITY HEARING
http://www.nocounciltax.com/content/images/RGWCC_3.jpg

Then Jim asked them to confirm in writing that because there was now NO LIABILY that the council tax was no longer due
This is the letter they and this is probably (in my opinion) one of THE single most important documents in the fight against Council Tax as it PROVES beyond ANY DOUBT that we DO NOT HAVE TO PAY this UNLAWFUL COUNCIL TAX.
Look at the bit in red!

LETTER FROM WIRRAL COUNCIL CONFIRMING THAT COUNCIL TAX DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PAID
http://www.nocounciltax.com/content/images/RGWCC_4.jpg

So not believing a word of the Council or the courts Jim rocked up to the court on the morning of the Liability hearing and standing as a Freeman on the Land asked the Judge to confirm the withdrawal of the other side which the Judge duly confirmed. The judge then told Jim that he needn’t have turned up and then Jim hit with it.
“I know that sir, but there is the small matter of mys costs”
BAM! – They were not expecting that one!

So, Jim has now duly entered a claim for costs of £1,400 against Wirral Council which is still ongoing at this time as the courts are trying to play silly !!!!!!s with Jim – he has even had one judge step down and refuse to adjudicate in favour of his costs – as you can see – its a stitch up!

Anyway – Jim has some other things planned and I will keep you abreast of developments but there you have it.

A UK Council running away from a court hearing because they KNOW they dont have a LAWFUL leg to stand on and the whole Council Tax is a scam to relieve you and I of money and use it to

• A) Line the pension funds of civil servants
• B) Keep us opressed
• C) Pay of the interest on loans to the bank and the IMF

If you think that Council Tax pays for your bins or the Police – then you are very misguided I am afraid.

GAME ON!
origional posting on  

Proof wirral council admit council tax unlawful - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums: "

Prophets of Doom: David Bentley Hart and the Triumph of the Will

Prophets of Doom: David Bentley Hart and the Triumph of the Will

Written by Tim Heydon

origionaly published on the http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/

Part 1:  Radical Individualism and Opening the Road to State Terror Modern Freedom means the Limitless Freedom to Will. Unleashed from the Guiding Hand of Christianity and Tradition, the Freedom to Will can Mean  the Freedom to Will Terror Christianity Has Made Us – So How Can We Imagine a Non-Christian World? It is difficult for us, living as we are at the end of nearly two millennia of Christian Civilisation, fully to grasp quite how revolutionary Christianity was in the transformation of attitudes in the ancient world, or to imagine what it might mean if those attitudes were to disappear, as disappearing they are in the West. The World of Rome and the Christian Revolution In his book ‘Atheist Delusions; The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies’  the theologian  David Bentley Hart does a terrific job of bringing  out  the impact of Christianity on the ancients, transforming  a world in which  an individual’s worth was predicated on  his or her  power or lack of it  to one in which every individual has intrinsic worth.   Roman society was built on a rather Nietzschean hierarchy of power in which the most powerful of all, the Roman Emperor, could be worshipped as a god while the lower orders were of little account individually and slaves had no personhood whatsoever. The latter were powerless things, like Christ before the powerful Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate. Hart says , ‘the new world we see being brought into being in the Gospels is one in which the whole grand cosmic architecture of prerogative , power and eminence has been shaken and superseded by a new positively anarchic order; an order in which we see the glory of God revealed in a crucified slave’. Hart’s Answer to Christopher Hitchens and his Ilk:  Western Civilisation The title of Christopher Hitchens’ book ‘God is not Great’ is subtitled ‘How Religion Poisons Everything. ’ After a remarkably entertaining exposure, touched with more than a soupcon of asperity, of the paucity of Hitchen’s intellectual capabilities (and those of Dawkins), Hart asks, ‘Does he (Hitchens) really mean precisely everything?" Would that apply then – confining ourselves just to things Christian – to ancient and medieval hospitals, leper asylums, orphanages, almshouses and hostels?  To the golden rule, ‘Love thine enemies’? ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’? Prophetic admonitions  against oppressing the poor, and commands to feed and clothe and comfort those in need? To the music of Palestrina and Bach, Michelangleo’s Pieta, ‘ah bright wings’; San Marco’s mosaics, the Bible of Amiens and all the gorgeous blue stained glass at Chartres? To the abolitionist movement and contemporary  efforts to liberate Sudanese slaves? And so on and so on? Surely it cannot  be the case that if only purged of faith these things would be even better than they are; were it not for faith it seems fairly obvious, most of them would have no existence at all.’ Our Future:  the Idea of the Sunny Uplands of ‘Progress’ is Likely to Lead to a Totalitarian Hell. Hart holds out little hope for the West in the dawning age of secularism. He asks, ‘What evidence is there for the idea that secular reason, if finally allowed to move forward free of the constraining hand of archaic faith will naturally make society more free, more humane and more rational than it has been? It is rather difficult… to vest a great deal of hope in modernity, however radiantly enchanting its promises, when one considers how many innocent lives (‘an unprecedentedly vast collection of corpses’) have already been swallowed up in the flames of ‘Progress.’ The best ideals to which we moderns continue to cling long antedate modernity. For the most part all we can claim as truly, distinctively our own are our atrocities… The process of secularisation was marked from the first by the magnificent limitlessness of its violence.’ Radical Individualism and the Triumph of the Will The tale of the modern nation-state’s struggle for liberation from the ‘shackles’ of religion and tradition should be located within the larger narrative of the triumph of the will. Like most of the defining ideas in our culture, perverted though they may have been in the modern era, the emphasis on freedom of the will has its origins in Christian theology, but Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, spoke both as the heir of the late Scholastic tradition and for modernity when he said that the true image of god within human beings is the godlike liberty and incomprehensibility of the will. Modern Ideas of Freedom are Nihilistic Hart argues that the modern notion of freedom is essentially nihilistic, ie freedom is to be found in the individual subject’s power of choice, rather than in what is actually chosen. Neither God nor nature nor reason provides the measure of an act’s true liberty, for an act is free only when it is done in defiance of all three. The Degradation of the Idea of Liberty.  Freedom as Consumerism  Where is the ascendancy of the modern Idea of Freedom as Pure Spontaneity of the Will leading our Culture, Hart asks?  At an  ordinary, everyday level, it obviously leads to a degradation of the very idea of freedom, its reduction in the public imagination to a fairly banal kind of liberty, no more –though no less- significant than a consumer’s freedom to choose among different kinds of breads, shoes, televisions, drugs, drinks, sexual activities and relationships, political parties or religions. The Death of Shared Obligations and Common Cause -  the Decay of ‘Community ‘ (and therefore National Sentiment) At the level of conventional social behaviours it leads perhaps towards a decay of a shared sense of social obligation or common cause, or towards an increasingly insipid and self-absorbed private culture, or towards a tendency in society at large less to judge the laudability of particular choices by reference to the worthiness of their objects than to judge objects worthy solely because they have been chosen. (eg ’a woman’s right to choose’) From the Banal to the Terrible All this is both obvious and rather vague, but the modern concept of Freedom can lead to other more terrible things as well. For what the will may will, when it is subordinate only to its own native exuberance, is practically without limit. Although pure spontaneity of the will is an illusion (we must actually will something), something dangerously novel entered our culture when we began to believe that the proper end of the will might simply to be willing as such. Nor does the truly liberated have to confine itself to the adventure of discovering and inventing  itself.  Collective will is so much more exciting than an individual’s will, at least if it can be disciplined and marshalled for some collective purpose. With no Transcendent Source of the Good, the Capacity for Evil is Limitless Furthermore if there is no transcendent source of the good to which the will is drawn but only the power of the will to decide what ends it desires, then no human project can be said to be inherently irrational or abominable. If freedom of the will is our supreme value, after all, then it is to all intents and purposes our god. And certain kinds of gods (as our pagan ancestors understood) need to be fed. Part 2 of ‘Prophets of Doom:  David Bentley Hart and the Triumph of the Will’  will show how radical individualism leads to state control. T his is No 2  In the ‘Prophets of Doom’ Series. No 1: ‘Pitirim Sorokin’ and ‘A Christmas Message of Hope’ Parts 1&2

The Coming English Revolution

Brief edited excerpt from The Mighty Oak Of The Coming English Revolution by Mike James.
We have been betrayed over successive generations by a financial caste, based in the City of London, that regards us as nothing more than cattle. We have been fooled into thinking that the British Crown, an international financial concern, is somehow connected to that wonderfully anachronistic and wholly false construct, the United Kingdom.....which is synonymous with another misnomer, “Great Britain”. They even confuse that with the geographically delineated landscape known as “The British Isles”, which includes Ireland. How deluded we have become, not by dint of their our backwardness, but by an evil, Satanic ruling oligarchy that holds us ever so tightly around the proverbials, placing manacles on our own capacity to think for ourselves.

The little-known Nielson Dissertation, which proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the international-financier controlled British Crown is illegal and had no authority to usurp the Third Republic, is almost entirely inaccessible in any English library. The British Crown system of government, comprising Westminster, Whitehall and the Mafiosa state-within-a-state, the City of London, is not only illegal and lacking in legitimacy, but comprises a unified terrorist organisation designed to kill the spirit of all Freeborn Englishmen and Englishwomen. [I assume here that the author naturally includes Freeborn Welsh/Scottish/Ulster men and women due to the current meaning/interpretation of 'British' - as a result of the failed multiculturalism experiment - becoming so worthless and diluted as to mean virtually anyone]

Every man and woman employed by the illegal British Crown and its administrative adjunct, the fantasy, fictional United Kingdom, is an enemy of the English people. Most would choke on their morning coffees to hear such words. We are just as ignorant of the evil Satanic system that made serfs, and then consumer-slaves, out of the one race of men and women who have, should they rediscover the natural-born courage of their innate, God-given convictions, the effortless ability to utterly destroy the viciously evil Soviet European Union that will have our grandchildren working for less than a euro a day and bow to the Mecca of Brussels at five in the morning.

Not one government minister, not one judge, not one policeman in the illegal United Kingdom has the power or authority to make us obey rules created to protect the Dutch-British-Jewish money matrix for which all English people must pay, namely, the parasites who control every aspect of our lives by playing with virtual money in the City of London, which is, constitutionally, a separate state:
What You Didn't Know About Taxes & The 'Crown' http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/tax... Without the City of London, the monarchy and its hierarchical system of institutionalised repression and deceit would collapse. Without the “pretender” monarchy, not to be confused with its administrative arm, the duplicitous British Crown, then the men and women who are stealing food from out of the mouths of babes and are condemning the elderly and infirm to an early grave would scramble for the first flight out of Heathrow.

This is something that must NEVER be allowed to happen.....
By forcing early closure of all international financial transactions, not one penny of the money they have stolen from us will find itself in the flush of a panicked cash-flight. By confiscating their passports and forcing closure of all international airports, we have them exactly where they belong: in prison awaiting trial.