Labour's Great Election Robbery in Wales

 

Labour's Great Election Robbery in Wales

Farage and Reform will take the most votes, but gerrymandering will keep them out of power

NICK GRIFFIN SEP 17  On Substack Follow Nick on X

The betting money is all on Reform trouncing Labour in next year’s Senedd (Welsh Assembly) elections. But those who think that this means that Labour will lose control are very likely to be disappointed. Almost unnoticed, Labour have rigged the whole electoral system in order to stop Reform taking power in Wales.

The latest poll has Labour crashing into third place on 14% with Plaid Cymru on 30% and Reform on 29%. With the Tories facing even worse collapse than Labour, it is likely that still more of their supporters will switch to Nigel Farage in the months ahead.

On top of that, the prospect of what finally appears to be a real change will mobilise a fresh block of voters from the significant proportion who have sat on their hands in previous contests in the belief that no-one could ever beat Labour in this, their 21^st century version of the 19^th century’s ‘Rotten Boroughs’.

Thus, it is widely expected that future polls will have Reform creeping ahead of the Blaid (yes, cariad, I remember the mutations in Cymraeg) and then extending their lead.

Not, perhaps, to the same extent as in England; Plaid Cymru’s Welsh language strongholds and special appeal, and status as an ersatz anti-Establishment party, make it more resistant to electoral insurgency from an Anglo-centric force such as Reform. But it is highly likely that Nigel’s merry men and women will end up with at least the same level of backing as Labour secured last time around.

False Impression

That saw Labour took 36.2% of the vote and win control of the Senedd. This wasn’t surprising as Labour had at every sitting since its inception in 1997. Most punters out there are still under the impression that this would mean Labour being replaced by Reform as the party running Wales.

But they are wrong. Why? Because ‘Welsh’ Labour have seen electoral disaster coming and – quite shamelessly – gerrymandered the system to keep Reform out of office.

The mechanism for this grotesque piece of electoral fraud is the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024, by far the biggest change to how the Assembly elections are fought since its creation in 1999. These changes will take effect for the election scheduled on 7th May 2026.

Various commentators have noted the fact that Labour have lowered the voting age to 16, in the belief that the majority of 16- and 17-year-olds are more likely to vote Labour than Tory. Undoubtedly true, but many of them (particularly the lads) are even more likely to vote Reform, so while this change will boost the left and the Muslim vote in the next UK general election, it is likely to have less of an impact that Labour hopes in Wales.

Far more important is the change to the actual voting system. (You may want to skip the next bit, which explains this in a bit of detail, as its distinctly boring to those of us who are not election geeks. I’m putting it in italics, so you know where it stops and my explanation of the Labour fiddle starts again)

Previously, the Senedd consisted of 60 Members of the Senedd (MSs), elected via the Additional Member System (AMS), a mixed-member proportional representation method. Under AMS:

40 MSs were elected in single-member constituencies using first-past-the-post (FPTP), where the candidate with the most votes in each area won the seat.

The remaining 20 MSs were elected from five regional lists (four per region) using proportional representation based on the D'Hondt method, to adjust for overall proportionality. Voters cast two ballots: one for their constituency candidate and one for a party or independent in their region.

The New System

For 2026, the system shifts to a fully proportional closed-list system, increasing the total number of MSs to 96. Key elements include:

Constituencies: Wales is divided into 16 new multi-member constituencies, each formed by pairing two of the 32 UK parliamentary constituencies. These were finalized in a boundary review considering factors like local ties, transport links, and geography. Each constituency will elect six MSs.

Voting Method: Voters will cast only one vote for a political party or an independent candidate, rather than for individuals. Ballot papers will list party names alongside their candidates' names in a fixed order set by the party (closed list), and voters mark an 'X' next to their choice.

Seat Allocation: Seats in each constituency are distributed proportionally using the D'Hondt formula, based on the share of votes received by each party or independent. This formula divides each party's votes by successive integers (1, 2, 3, etc.) after each seat allocation, favoring parties with higher vote totals slightly.

Other Changes: Elections will now occur every four years (reduced from five), and all candidates must reside in Wales. The reforms aim to enhance proportionality, representation, and the Senedd's capacity to scrutinize the Welsh Government.

And, needless to say, to stop Nigel Farage from standing, but that’s more a piece of childish spite than actual election fiddling.

So why did Labour wait 26 years before suddenly deciding that the electoral system wasn’t fit for purpose and needed drastic change? Because its purpose was to keep Labour in power and, thanks to the Reform surge, it’s no longer fit for that purpose!

True, now amount of tinkering can stop Labour losing control of Wales, but what has been rammed through could well be enough to stop Reform winning it. Yes, they may well be on course to take a similar proportion of the vote which Labour got last time but, under the newly rigged system, that will not translate into a majority of seats anymore.

The shift to a more proportional system Will reduce the "winner's bonus" that larger parties often received under the old AMS, where FPTP constituency wins led to over-representation relative to vote share.

In the 2021 election, for example, Welsh Labour secured 50% of seats (30 out of 60) with around 39% of the constituency vote and 36% of the regional vote, largely due to dominating FPTP races.

Denied an Outright Majority

Under the new closed-list PR with D'Hondt and six seats in each of the 16 constituencies, seat totals will more closely align with overall vote shares, making it harder for any single party—even one with the largest number of votes—to achieve an outright majority (at least 49 out of 96 seats).

Labour will be out of power, but Plaid Cymru and Labour between them will almost certainly win more seats between them than Reform. Indeed, they will probably win more seats between them than Reform and the Tories – their only possible junior coalition partners.

For a party with the largest vote share (e.g., 35-40%, based on historical Labour performance), the expected seat count would be roughly proportional: around 34-38 seats in the 96-member Senedd, assuming uniform vote distribution.

In practice, D'Hondt provides a modest advantage to larger parties within each district, but the smaller district size (six seats) introduces a higher effective threshold for smaller parties (around 8-10% per constituency to win a seat), potentially allowing the largest party to claim several seats in strongholds where they poll 40-50%.

In other words, Reform only stand a chance of actually taking control if they do some 10% better than Labour got last time around. Labour’s belief – probably correct – is that this is not going to happen.

Compared to the old system, Grok told me when I asked what this means, is that “the largest party is likely to secure a smaller proportion of seats relative to their votes but a similar or slightly higher absolute number due to the expanded Senedd size. This reduces the chances of single-party dominance and increases fragmentation”.

Keir Stalin

To simplify that: Reform have been robbed of meaningful victory a year before the contest even takes place. As Joe Stalin used to say, it’s not the people who vote who count, it’s the people who count the votes! Or decide how they take effect.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not shedding any tears for Nigel here. Not least, because when Labour played a variation of this trick against the BNP back in 2009, Mr. Farage didn’t say a word against the naked rigging of the system. (Just as, incidentally, he had nothing to say about the injustice of ‘debanking’ people for their political believes when the BNP, and I personally, was debanked back in 2000 – more than twenty years before Nigel and Co.

But to return to Labour’s penchant for changing the electoral system to rob the electorate of the chance to replace them with people perceived as really different, let’s look for a moment at what they did – without a word of complaint from Farage or UKIP – in Stoke in 2009.

Back in 2002, before the BNP became a threat in this betrayed and de-industrialised former Labour stronghold, the Blairites decided to use it to showcase their scheme for elected mayors in major cities.

By 2005, however, this was causing them problems; indeed, it gave Labour one of the biggest frights in the whole of the BNP’s decade-long electoral insurgency. In this contest, their Mohammed Pervez won with 48.3% of first-preference votes.

Thanks to various sub-fiddles (particularly sending the postal ballot papers out several days before the booklet containing the mini-manifestos of all the candidates landed on voters’ doormats) the British National Party candidate, Steven Batkin finished third with 17.3% of first-preference votes, just behind the Conservative candidate, who took second place with 18.1%.

When the booklet did arrive through the Freepost system, the phone line we advertised in it rang almost non-stop for several days with people saying they had voted before they even knew the BNP were standing, and asking if there was any way to change their votes now they did.

Uncounted BNP Vote Mountain

The raw figures conceal the reality of the contest. Under the system being used, voters also cast a second-preference vote, but these were only counted and added to the total of first-preference votes for the candidates who came first and second. Since the BNP were pushed by several frauds into third place, our second-preference votes were never counted.

This saved Labour from a sensational drubbing, because large numbers of Labour voters had given their second vote to the BNP, and huge numbers of Tories had given their second vote to the BNP. With the result that the BNP would have won the contest, had those votes been counted.

This wasn’t just our assessment. A group of our campaigners were leaving the count in the ornate town hall when they overheard one of Labour’s team saying to a colleague that “the untold story of the night is the huge fascist second-preference vote”.

By 2008, with just a year before the seat was due for re-election, Labour was in even deeper trouble in Stoke. The BNP won 8 out of 20 council seats up for election in June that year, a stunning advance on top of the single seat we had won before.

With the Tories reduced to just 6 seats, it was very clear that the BNP was in pole position to take the mayoral post the following year – which would have been our first position of real power in the country.

So what did Labour do? They suddenly discovered that the incompetence and corruption which had characterised their years in power had so disillusioned the public that the post just had to be abolished.

To give this blatant fiddling a fig-leaf of ‘democracy’ they hastily called a ‘referendum, in which a compliant local press constantly rubbished the position as full of failure and fraud. The referendum took place in October and a mass of publicity about the cost and failure under the two successive (Labour) mayors led to the post being abolished.

Just for good measure in Stoke, Labour also redrew the ward boundaries, absolutely classic gerrymandering of the kind the left howled about and claimed justified IRA terrorism when the victims were Catholics in Northern Ireland. By doing so, and by dint of other dirty tricks, they managed to take four of the BNP’s seats back in the next council elections, in 2011.

Dense Skulls Screaming

When it finally sinks into the rather dense skulls of Nigel’s current crop of political advisors that Labour fraud has robbed them in Wales, they will of course scream blue murder.

A Guardian cartoonist also notices the uncanny resemblance……

With justification, but not from any moral high ground, because when the BNP were the victims of precisely the same trick, Mr. Farage like the Cheshire Cat, said nothing, but grinned. Only he didn’t fade away, because the BBC was busy promoting him under their indecent sweet-heart deal to keep out the BNP by offering voters a safety valve option instead.

Likewise, Nigel didn’t utter a word of complaint when I and my fellow British National Party MEP, Andrew Brons, were attacked by an Antifa mob hurling, not milkshakes, but bricks, bottles and darts on College Green, Westminster, in 2009.

If you ignore Pastor Niemuller, it often comes back to bite you like this, as the civic right are now finding with leftist political violence. “First they came for the fash, but I wasn’t fash, so I said nothing…. And then they came for me…..”

Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale On Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.

Pledge your support

Jayda Fransen LIVE 17th September

 

Housing Crisis in Khan’s London

 

Labour presiding over “housing delivery collapse” warn homebuilders

NICK GRIFFIN SEP 16

Follow Nick Griffin on X

A new report from the Home Builders Federation reveals that housing delivery in London is in a major crisis and warns that home building targets will be unachievable without intervention to improve the deliverability of homes in the capital.

The collapse of house-building under Sadiq Khan is a major factor in the parallel failure of the Starmer regime,

With the capital supposed to deliver 440,000 of the Government’s unattainable promise of 1.5 million new homes target by 2030, housing delivery indicators continue to head in the wrong direction with both housing completions and planning permission approvals falling year-on-year, putting this at significant risk.

The Mind the Gap report highlights that only 30,000 homes were completed in London in the year to June 2025, down 12% from the previous year and way below the 2019/20 peak.

Planning permissions have also taken a nosedive, dropping to their lowest level since records began in 2006, with just 966 projects approved in the 12 months to June 2025.

The number of new home building sites starting has plummeted by 38%. With the Government’s Standard Method setting a requirement for London to deliver 88,000 homes a year, output would need to more than double, increasing by 175%, to meet that goal. A competent mayor would help to put this right, but with Khan in charge, Londoners have no hope.

Londoners face the highest barriers to home ownership in the country, and a first-time buyer would need to save 50% of their discretionary income for more than 13 years to afford a deposit, with average deposits now amounting to nearly seven times annual income after bills. The house price-to-earnings ratio stands at 11 in London, compared to 7.7 nationally, and the average cost of a first home is now 17 times the net annual salary of a 22– to 29-year-old.

Is Khan really “Islamifying London”, or merely helping Starmer & Co turn it into a run-down twin fior Sodom and Gomorrah?

With the indigenous population shrinking as the demographic winter begins to bite, the primary underlying factor in London’s house crisis is the Boris/Keir immigration wave, coming as it does on top of decades of lax immigration policy under all the Westminster parties. Net Zero mania – again the work of the whole of Westminster, not merely Milliband – is another way in which the elite are making life extremely hard for ordinary people.

The report identifies several further factors behind the capital’s declining housing delivery. Lengthy planning delays remain a key barrier, exacerbated by the complexity of the current London Plan, which includes 88 separate residential policies on top of local and national rules. This makes the process more costly and time-consuming, with many developments rendered unviable.

The Building Safety Regulator is also having a disproportionate impact in London, with the capital’s reliance on higher-rise development. As of mid-2025, almost 10,000 homes have been stuck in the Gateway Two process for more than six months. When combined with other policy costs, such as dual staircase requirements, carbon offset charges, and per-square-metre levies under the Building Safety and Mayoral Construction Infrastructure Levy, the financial burden on developers, particularly those building apartment schemes, has become unsustainable.

London’s 35% Affordable Housing requirement is another major constraint. Few schemes can meet the threshold, as the lack of Registered Providers willing to take on Section 106 units compounds the problem. As a result, most developments are forced into viability negotiations, delaying progress.

Brownfield development, essential to London’s pipeline, is also under threat due to high remediation costs and new policy burdens such as Biodiversity Net Gain and Landfill Tax changes.

The report urges the Mayor of London to accelerate the pledge to assess green belt land for development review and lower the affordable housing fast-track threshold to 25% to unlock stalled developments. It also calls for a streamlined and more practical London Plan, with local energy policies brought into line with national regulations, and exemptions introduced for smaller schemes to reduce unnecessary burdens.

Additionally, HBF calls for Government to help restore market confidence by reintroducing a targeted home ownership scheme and cancelling the introduction of the Building Safety Levy, which Will further impact builders’ ability to delivery new homes, and Affordable Housing in particular. Addressing delays in the Section 106 market and resolving electrical capacity constraints are also identified as critical to increasing housing delivery across the capital.

Neil Jefferson, Chief Executive of the Home Builders Federation, said: “The findings of Mind the Gap should be a major wake-up call for Government and the Mayor of London.

“The capital needs an urgent overhaul of housing policy if it is to support the housing needs of Londoners. London Plan policies combined with additional government taxes on new homes, onerous processes to get higher-rise schemes approved and challenging market conditions have effectively made London a no-go zone for housing investment.”

“Intervention is desperately needed to support first-time buyers, with Londoners facing the biggest barriers to home ownership in the country.”

“If Government is to stand a chance at making its aspirational 1.5 million homes target a reality, ministers must prioritise action to reverse the alarming decline in housing delivery across the capital.”

Follow Nick On Substack

Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.

Pledge your support

The Hour of Sanctification

 

The news of Charlie Kirk’s assassination has left a heavy weight on many of our hearts. It’s a sobering time that forces us to confront a difficult truth: the ideological conflict of our time carries a gravity we must not underestimate. It is a reminder that the values we hold dear are under active threat, and that standing for them requires more than just words.

In moments like these, it’s natural to feel anger or fear. Righteous anger can be good, but only if it is directed into productive action. The most powerful response we can have is a turn inward toward spiritual grounding. The most important battle has always been, and will always be, the one we fight within ourselves. We cannot effectively resist the darkness in the world if we are not first committed to overcoming the weaknesses in our own hearts.

I include myself in this. We all have areas where we fall short. We can be prideful, inconsistent, or struggle with private failures. These are the vulnerabilities that can make us ineffective. This is where our focus must be. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.” (Romans 7:18). Acknowledging this struggle is the first step toward overcoming it.

Charlie’s very public walk with Christ, and now his martyrdom, has served as a powerful inspiration in my own life. His witness has sharpened my focus on what truly matters. It has driven me to rededicate myself to the fundamentals: to lead my family in prayer with more fervency, to love my wife with greater Christ-like sacrifice, and to model a faith for my children that is not just professed but lived with unshakeable courage. His death is a stark reminder that our time is short and our witness must be built on the solid rock of personal holiness and unwavering conviction, starting within our own homes.

Let us be perfectly clear: the assassination of Charlie Kirk has obliterated any illusion of peaceful coexistence with the ideologies of death that besiege us. This was not a random act of violence; it was a tactical strike in a spiritual war. The enemy is not interested in debate, compromise, or peace. Their goal is conquest and eradication. Therefore, our response cannot be one of passivity or hollow calls for unity. Our response must be to crush this evil.

We cannot expect to defeat the darkness in the world while we willingly harbor darkness in ourselves. This is the fundamental, non-negotiable first principle of spiritual warfare. You cannot effectively wield the sword of the Spirit if your own hand is compromised by hypocrisy, pride, and secret iniquity. These internal failings are not minor flaws; they are a fifth column, a traitorous force that weakens our defenses from within and gives the adversary a foothold. The Apostle Paul issued a stark command that leaves no room for ambiguity: “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5). To mortify is to put our sin to death. It is a violent, final, and decisive act.

This is the hour for ruthless spiritual honesty. We must conduct a thorough audit of our souls and destroy everything that does not align with the character of Christ. This is not a gentle process of self-improvement; it is a demolition project. Every area of compromise must be identified and ripped out by the root. Every secret sin must be dragged into the light of God’s truth and executed. Every lazy thought, every prideful ambition, every ounce of our own hypocrisy must be systematically hunted down and eliminated through the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is the foundational training for the greater battle. Crushing the sin within is how we forge a spirit capable of crushing the evil without. It is how we become men and women of such spiritual fortitude that we become a terror to the kingdom of darkness. We must become living embodiments of the prayer of David, not as a meek request, but as a desperate battle cry for purity and power: “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.” (Psalm 51:10-11). We need clean hearts to see the enemy’s strategies with perfect clarity. We need steadfast spirits that cannot be broken by fear or intimidation.

This internal crusade directly fuels our external mission. A man who has crushed the lust in his heart is fit to crusade against the degeneracy targeting our children. A woman who has crushed the spirit of fear is equipped to stand unshaken against cultural persecution. A people who have collectively put their own sin to death are the only force capable of building a society that is impervious to the rot of the old world.

The evil we face is systemic and rooted in powerful spiritual strongholds. Trimming the branches through politics or protest is insufficient. We must aim for the root. The most effective way to attack the root of national evil is to purge its counterpart in our personal lives. Our personal holiness is a weapon. Our disciplined families are fortresses. Our righteous communities are beachheads of the Kingdom of God.

The call is to action. Total, uncompromising, and sustained action. Crush the laziness. Crush the deceit. Crush the immorality. Crush the cowardice. Do it today. Do it tomorrow. Do it without mercy toward your own sin, and with relentless determination.

Only then will we be the disciplined army needed for this hour. Only then will we be able to crush the evil that seeks to destroy our faith, our families, and our nation.

Armor up. Get to work.

Andrew Torba
CEO Gab AI
Christ is King

Neil Oliver: CIVIL WAR, Is It COMING?!?

….I won’t let them play me anymore!!! To help support this Podcast & get exclusive videos every week sign up to Neil Oliver on Patreon.com   / neiloliver   To Donate go to Neil’s Website: https://www.neiloliver.com To Shop: https://neil-oliver.creator-spring.com YouTube Channel:    / @neil-oliver   Rumble site – Neil Oliver Official: https://rumble.com/c/c-6293844 Instagram - NeilOliverLoveLetter:   / neiloliverloveletter   Podcasts: Season 1: Neil Oliver's Love Letter To The British Isles Season 2: Neil Oliver's Love Letter To The World Available on all the usual providers https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...

 

Labour and Lib-Dem councils are quietly destroying flags. Here's how to fight back

NICK GRIFFIN SEP 14  Follow Nick On X

Labour, LibDem, SNP and Plaid councils are quietly sending out teams of council workers to take down flags put up by Raise the Colours activists and independent members of the public. These leftist bigots add insult to injury as taxpayers who were heartened to see the display of patriotism and identity are forced to pay to have them removed.

What s the answer? In the first instance, get out there and put up twice as many. For good measure, find out where the anti-British councillors live and do their own leafy streets. Tell them too, but be VERY polite when doing so or they’ll go squealing about ‘intimidation’.

But, of course, their most likely response to new flags going up is to get them taken down too. It’s a game that two can play, it all depends if those buying and putting up cheap flags (which don’t have a very long lifespan as smart displays in any case) have got more staying power than the councils taking them down. I that case, the council workers taking them down need to be confronted (peacefully, needless to say) as they go about their destructive work and encouraged to return to base.

So is there as better way of getting those flags left flying high? Yes and, fortunately, it doesn’t involve getting aggressive with council workers, or any of the other nastiness currently being mooted out there.

What needs to be done is strictly legal; in fact, it specifically involves using the law against the very people who usually hide behind it. There are two simple steps:

The first involves putting together or, since we’re now well into the early stages of the AI revolution, getting Grok to put together, a Freedom of Information Act request, to send to your offending local council.

This should include your demand for information about the council decision-making processes involved. You need to find out the whos, whys, whens and costs of the whole process. So you need the minutes and decisions from all meetings, and email and other discussions concerning the decision to take down the flags and the actual process:

Where was this done on the grounds of road safety and, in those cases, what was the assessment process?

Who was employed to go round and make the assessments? Please supply their reports and an estimate as to the cost of this operation;

If the removal was done on grounds of safety, how many flags were removed for this reason and how many were left in situ after the assessment concluded that there was no safety issue given their position?

Was the matter discussed, and the decision made, in full council, by a section of the council or by council employees? Who was involved and who actually sent out the order to council workers to remove the flags?

What consideration was made for the feelings of members of communities or groups who put up the flags, or appreciated their appearance?

Was consideration given to the fact that the Prime Minister has specifically stated that such displays of flags should be allowed, as they help to unify the nation?

Has the council previously removed or left in situ any other flags?

Has the council in the past flown flags of other nations, or celebrating LGBT causes or Black Lives Matter? If so, which flags, when, where and at what cost?

Was consideration given to the danger that members of the public who put up the flags or supported their appearance might mistakenly blame the followers of non-Chrisitan faiths for the removal of flags made up of Christian crosses, thereby inciting religious or racial hatred?

Was it decided to announce the flag removal policy or to carry it out without making it public? If the former, where was it publicised? If the latter, why?

How many man-hours did it take to remove them, and what did this cost?

Which budget did this come from?

How many flags were removed?

Was any attempt made to identify and contact their owners?

What was done with them?

Did the decision involve consideration of the possibility of legal action against the council by pro-flag activists and, specifically, the possible cost of defending Pre-Action Letters before Judicial Review, and subsequent Judicial Review Proceedings?

If so, what costs were estimated? If not, will the council now consider this issue?

Also supply minutes of the discussion of this FOI request.

Finally, in the light of all the above, will the council now concede that it was an error to take down flags – except for any which were a genuine danger to road safety, such as any obscuring road signs or junctions – and confirm that, the next time such flags appear, they will be accorded proper respect and be left flying?

The procedure for submitting your FOI request is very simple, and will be fully explained by Grok; so get to it.

Pre-Action Judicial Review letters are also something with which AI now copes very well, so don’t worry about that later stage at the moment, The one thing you need to understand straight away is that a Pre-Action letter produced in this way will cost you nothing, but that the council is compelled to put together a defence and submit it in good time.

Even replying to your FOI (as the law insists they must) will put them to significant trouble and cost, but that’s small change compared to responding to the subsequent Pre-Action letter – unless they have the sense to roll over and play dead as soon as they have thought through the FOI demand.

The beauty of Pre-Action JR letters is that the council cannot make any claim for costs if you simply walk away rather than actually starting a JR action. They are going to looking at a bill already running into thousands of pounds, and even if you drop it at that stage there’s absolutely no way they can recover a penny. You know that, they know that, but they simply cannot ignore this double-tap threat, or they will lose by default.

Think of it as a protest riot; but instead of going out and scuffling with the police, smashing windows or spray-painting council property, all you are doing is exercising your legal rights in a totally peaceful, constitutional way. It’s a Legal Riot, but it will cost them as much as one which would put you and your fellow patriots in serious trouble.

On the contrary, the trouble, pain and costs will all fall on them. Which will serve them right for tearing down our flags in the first place.

When you go to put them back up, there is a far better way than the cable-tie- through-each-eyelet method used in most places the first time round, but that’s something to which I’ll return here shortly. Subscribe (for free) to my Substack and make sure you don’t miss it, or any of my much deeper articles, for that matter. Oh, and thanks for all Restacks! Cheers, Nick.

Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale is free today on Substack. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments by clicking the Link Below.

Pledge your support

Liberalism Has Lost All Credibility

We find ourselves at an odd time in history in which liberalism seems to have lost the argument and is increasingly morally bankrupt. We can see this everywhere, from Charlie Kirk to responses to the recent Unite the Kingdom march, but can it lead to actual change within the system? The Sacred Way (Sister Channel):    / @thesacredwayrt4   Substack 👉: https://richardthefourth.substack.com Buy Me a Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/richardthefo... Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/RichardTheFou... Twitter/X: https://x.com/RichardTheIIII