UKIP Voters Betrayed As UKIP MEPS Vote for More EU Power

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

The BNP Newsroom

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

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

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

The full section reads as follows:

“Motion for resolution, para 4:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BNP Newsroom 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mohammod.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The choice is clear, but time is short.

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

From the BNP Newsroom

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

oct 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the BNP Newsroom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Tierney’s full post can be found here.

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

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

The BNP Newsroom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOLDOVA: Pieces of silver to surrender its independence?"

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

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

White Racism Excuse Blamed for Ethnic Peers’ Expense Cheat Prosecution

White Racism” Blamed for Ethnic Peers’ Expense Cheat Prosecution

The BNP Newsroom

It was inevitable: white people have been blamed for the exposure of the expenses hearing committed by three ethnic members of the House of Lords, “Baroness” Uddin, “Lord” Bhatia and “Lord” Paul.

An inquiry this past week found that all three had wrongly claimed a total of nearly £200,000 by deliberately registering properties they rarely or never stayed in as their “main home” which allowed them to claim parliamentary overnight allowances.

The Lords Conduct and Privileges Committee recommended that Ms Uddin, who has failed to apologise or repay £125,000 in illegitimately claimed expenses, be barred from Parliament until April 2012.

“Lord” Bhatia, who has repaid £27,000, was suspended for eight months, and “Lord” Paul, who returned £42,000, for four months.

The Committee ruled that both Ms Uddin and Mr Bhatia had not acted in good faith, but that while Mr Paul was described as “grossly irresponsible and negligent.”

During the House of Lords debate to formally implement the bans on the three, another ethnic “Lord”, Waheed Alli said the investigation had been based on racism — and he, of course, meant white racism.

“It cannot have escaped your attention that the only three members of the House who were referred to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and subsequently investigated under these procedures were all Asian,” Mr Alli said.

He went on to argue that the suspensions should not be imposed because the peers “were the victim of racial bias.

"In the rush to apologise for the expense system for which we should all be embarrassed, it should not be at the cost of justice or fairness for all regardless of race,” he said.

Bangladeshi-born “Baroness” Uddin was investigated over claims she had never stayed at her designated main home, a flat in Kent. She was able to claim £30,000 a year in tax-free expenses by designating her family home, which is four miles from Westminster, as her second home. She has now agreed to pay back £125,000 in wrongly claimed expenses.

Indian-born “Lord” Paul, a major Labour party donor, has agreed to pay back £40,000 after he admitted that he never spent a single night at an Oxfordshire flat that he registered as his main home while claiming money in overnight expenses for a London property.

Tanzanian-born “Lord” Bhatia has a £1.5 million home in south-west London but in 2007 he “flipped” the designation of his main home to a two-bedroom flat in Reigate, Surrey, which used to be lived in by his brother. Reigate is just beyond the M25, the boundary used to define qualification for expenses.

On one occasion he was said to have been unable to remember the address of the property he designated as his main home. He claims that he acted within the rules as he believed the flat had been his main home. He has now agreed to pay back £27,000 in expenses.

Mr Alli is of course simply lying in this blatant attempt to save his fellow ethnics’ heads. In fact, a number of rotten members of the House of Lords have already been investigated and censured, including Tory peer Lord Hanningfield (real name Paul White) was charged in February with six counts of making dishonest claims for travelling and is due to appear in a criminal court within the next few weeks.

Furthermore, the Crown Prosecution Service also investigated Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who only escaped prosecution by the skin of his teeth.

Last year, two Labour peers – Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott – were also suspended from the House of Lords for six months for misconduct after being found guilty by a Lords committee for willingness to change laws in exchange for cash.

A number of other members of the House of Lords were also forced to pay back wrongly claimed expenses, and the only reason that the three ethnic “Lords” have been so dramatically censured was the amount and blatancy of their wrongdoing.

The British National Party rejects the notion that white people are to blame for everything that goes wrong with the ethnic community, and dismisses Mr Allia’s allegations with the contempt they deserve.

British Self-sufficiency drive key to revitalising UK farming

Self-sufficiency drive key to revitalising UK farming

  Martin Wingfield at http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/news

OCTOBER 2010: NICK Griffin has been asked by an association of farmers from the north of his constituency to support local wildlife initiatives in the North West.


 The association is concerned that the Government's need to cut spending will reduce the amount of public funds going towards conservation.
It wants to see the Government redistribute the costs of conservation by doing much more to make polluters pay for the damage they do to the environment or by making people who benefit from the natural world, pay for some of the services they currently receive for free.
Writing to the MEP, a farmer from Cumbria warns:
"It is critical to protect agri-environment spending as this is the key means of maintaining Sites of Special Scientific Interest, halting the loss of habitats and restoring biodiversity. "The Higher Level Scheme in particular is the crucial, science-based programme for delivery of these goals. In addition, due to the high European contribution to these schemes, scrapping them would mean more money would be sent back to Europe than would be saved, which would make cuts here a poor deal for the UK taxpayer.
"There are other ways to improve the cost-effectiveness of countryside payments. For example, the Single Farm Payment, which cost £1.6 billion in England in 2008, is an inefficient use of taxpayer funds. It does not cost-effectively achieve income security for farmers, food security or high environmental standards."
The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy is due to be reformed in 2013 and the association wants the UK Government to demand more for its investment.
Responding on behalf of the MEP, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"The Coalition Government’s Spending Review 2010 is likely to have a significant and damaging effect on many areas of British life, and the withdrawal of essential funding is of great concern to many service-providing organisations.
"You are quite correct to highlight the absurdity of the current system, whereby a decision by our national government to save money by cutting agri-environment spending may actually result in a net deficit of funds due to the consequential loss of EU grants.
"The British Government is bound so inextricably by European Union community-wide policies and finance schemes, that the decisions made in our national parliament can be undermined, contradicted or rendered negative as a result of this national subservience and interdependence with the EU. Indeed, Westminster is so restricted by EU rules and regulations that there is hardly an area of policy where the British parliament remains entirely sovereign. The cost of this suffocating relationship is, moreover, exorbitant, with British taxpayers enjoying funding rebates which constitute a drop in the ocean compared to the tsunami of public money that is gifted annually to the European Union and re-distributed to the benefit of numerous other European nations.
"Mr Griffin and the British National Party believe that decisions on policy matters in economic, social and political spheres should be made by the British Government, with reference primarily to the best interests of Britain and the British people. This includes, of course, assessing how to spend British taxpayers’ money in a fair, efficient and co-ordinated way, so that overall policy pledges are upheld.
"In order to ensure our national sovereignty and the right to determine our own destiny, the British National Party demands an immediate withdrawal from the European Union.
"With respect to agricultural policy, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies will be phased out following our withdrawal from the EU and replaced, initially, with the British system of subsidy that existed prior to 1973.  
"A healthy nation depends on a healthy environment and healthy food. The British National Party envisages a strong agricultural sector and vibrant farming communities as vital to the nations’ well-being. The regeneration of the family farm as the core structure of our agricultural sector will be encouraged; emphasis placed on quality, self-sufficiency, environmentally sustainable rural communities and (where feasible) decreased reliance on petrochemical products. To protect the environment from damage a “polluter pays” policy will be adopted and the work of the Countryside Restoration Trust will be supported and promoted.
"In short, gaining freedom from European Union control is an essential precursor to implementing co-ordinated, economically and environmentally sustainable agricultural policies."

The BNP's Andrew Brons MEP Interview with Student Direct

  Interview with Student Direct

  Martin Wingfield at Andrew Brons MEP

THIS is an interview that Andrew Brons conducted with the student newspaper Student Direct in 2010. 
What is your take on this week's change to the whites-only rule employed by the BNP?
"We did not have a 'whites only' clause. We had an 'indigenous population only' clause. This was almost certainly legal under existing law but would not be legal under the Governmentís Equality Bill. I believe that all organisations should have the freedom to decide freely on their membership. This is the essence of the right of freedom of association. That right has been recognised in the case of feminist organisations that do not admit men and the state-funded Association of Black Police Officers that does not admit white officers.
The change to our Constitution was in response to a potentially very expensive civil legal action by the Equality & Human Rights Commission, which was ostensibly pursued to safeguard the right of ethnic minorities to join a party that they did not wish to join! The real (and admitted) reasons for the legal action were:
1. to try to create division in our ranks;
2. to cause us to spend money and valuable time contesting the action;
3. to help small Nationalist parties that have no chance of electoral success to poach our members. It is interesting that an unholy tacit alliance has been formed between the National Front and the EHRC, under which the EHRC agrees not to take action against the NF and that organisation agrees to do as much damage to the BNP as it can. Fortunately, its impact has been minimal."
What has the feedback been from your constituents?
"The response to the changes from our constituents has been minimal. They are interested in our policies and not in the internal machinery of our Party."
Nick Griffin described the body which forced the change as a fundamental outrage, but do you think it's a change which would have come eventually anyway?
"Nick Griffin did not describe the Equality and Human Rights Commission as a fundamental outrage. He described the use of a state-funded body to harass an opposition political party, at the behest of the Government to be an outrage.
I do not know whether or not the change would have occurred anyway. It could certainly be argued that the indigenous population clause was not really necessary because there was no desire on the part of ethnic minorities to join."
Do you agree that, with the change, the BNP can't be called racist anymore?
"I do not use the Trotskyist word 'racist', which was coined to denigrate British and other people of European descent. Whilst there have been attempts to provide scholastic definitions of the word, it is widely understood to mean 'hating people of other races'. We do not hate anybody on account of his race and we have never hated anybody on account of his race. Our opponents will continue to refer to us in insulting language because they are incapable of reasoned argument against us and use insults as a substitute for argument."
Do you think that, had the rule remained in place, it would have been possible for you to represent all your constituents in Yorkshire and Humber?
"I have made it quite clear from the outset that I shall represent all of my constituents, regardless of their personal politics or their ancestry or background. However, there are two distinct forms of representation: representation of political views; and redress of individual problems or grievances. No MEP or MP can represent the political policies of all constituents. MEPs and MPs have a duty to represent the political policies on which they were represented. However, an MEP or MP must represent all constituents on personal problems or grievances."
Do you anticipate attracting more, non-white members to your party now?
"I do not anticipate that many members of ethnic minorities will seek to join the BNP Some are in favour of our policies and will wish to do so but I suspect that they will be few in number. Some were already in touch with us and have already indicated that they will join. Those who seek to join on behalf of hostile organisations or who state that they are seeking membership to cause disruption or damage to the Party (see the remarks of Simon Woolley) will be rejected, not because of their race but because of their hostility to the Party."
How do you perceive race relations in the north: good or bad? What, given the feedback you get from your constituents, is the predominant mood?
"How do I perceive race relations in the North of England? I do not believe that there is any hostility to immigrants, individually or collectively and I am glad of that. However, there is opposition to the phenomenon of immigration and to the presence of such a large number of immigrants. The vast majority of people are sophisticated enough to understand that the blame for immigration lies with the Government and previous governments and not with immigrants who have simply taken an opportunity proffered to them."
Do you feel whites who may feel disenfranchised feel with the current government? What sort of complaints do they have?
"British people do feel that they have ignored by the so-called main political parties, not just on immigration but also on the European Union, on economic policy (particularly the embracing of the Global Economy), on law and order and last but not least on the aggressive wars being waged against Muslim states. The BNP is completely opposed to such wars. They result in the deaths of our first rate troops, the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and (in the near future) in Iran too. They also help to radicalise Muslims at home and abroad."
With the terror arrests in the north over the last year, do you think the government is doing all it can to combat terrorism? Especially in light of subsequent releases of suspects.
"The Government and previous governments are the main causes of terrorism. They invited large numbers of Muslims to our town and cities. They were never capable of being assimilated into the general population. However, successive governments have helped to radicalise them by adopting a partisan stance on the Middle East (we believe in taking a completely neutral stance) and waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both parties are now looking forward with undisguised glee at a war against Iran.
The use of so-called 'clean skins' necessitates keeping a vigilant watch on the communities from which terrorists come - the innocent as well as the guilty. However, I am utterly opposed to any ill treatment of suspects or connivance by the authorities with their ill treatment by other countries (extraordinary rendition)."
Given that some of those arrests took place in Bolton, where race must remain a delicate issue, do you think it serves any useful purpose within that area for them to cancel BNP debates? Or do you think such things should be tackled head on, resolved only through dialogue? Can you tell me what your take is on this decision, and what feedback you have received?
"I am opposed to all bans on proper debate. I would be equally opposed to the banning of radical Muslims, as long as they do not incite violence. The bans on the rights of the BNP are orchestrated by the Labour Party because they have no answer to our policies."

Misprint typifies the Reckless abandon with which EU spends our Taxes

Misprint typifies the careless abandon with which EU spends our money

by   Martin Wingfield at http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/news

OCTOBER 2010: NICK Griffin made a one and a half minute speech in the European Parliament in Strasbourg this afternoon during a debate on Financial Instruments.


 Financial instruments are sums of money that are paid to Third World and Emerging Countries for development co-operation and for the promotion of democracy and human rights.
During the speech, Nick was able to take the European Commission to task for a glaring misprint in one of the reports where "2,062 billion euros" slipped past the Eurocrats when it should have been "2,062 million euros".
This is what the MEP for the North West of England had to say:
"Mr President
"As is so often the case with EU proposals, these Financial Instruments include measures which have great emotional appeal.
"All decent people like us want to stop drug smuggling, people trafficking and the supply of small arms to conflict zones.
"But it is very easy to be emotional and generous with other people´s money.
"Thus, while ordinary people in Greece, France, Ireland and Great Britain are having their societies ripped apart by cuts and their backs broken by taxes, the Scholz Report will add 176 million Euros to the 172 million already committed to help Third World capitalists gobble up even more of our jobs.
"The Goerens Report will blow EUR 190M including 17.4 million for a facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries. Dear Colleagues, it may have escaped your attention, but food prices are soaring in our constituencies as well.
"Worst of all, however, is the Branter Report. Here, on page 9, it  is stated that the financial envelope for this will be 2,062 billion euros by 2013! Not millions, billions!
"This is, of course, a misprint. Or at least I hope to God it is a misprint. But the fact that such a ridiculous error could slip past all the experts and MEPs who have read this report speaks volumes for the careless abandon with which the European Union spends money.
"This money does not grow on trees. It is not handed out by a giant tooth fairy. It is not the Commissions` money. It is not MEPs` money. It is taxpayers` money - a hugely disproportionate amount of it BRITISH taxpayers` money."

Page 9 of the Branter Report below:
3. Position on the pre- and post-crisis capacity building

Your rapporteur is of the view that the Commission should improve its strategic planning and increase disbursement of money available for the established Peace-Building Partnership (PBP) under Article 4 (3). Financial support should be focused at smaller and medium-sized projects as well as the large ones in a balanced fashion. The Commission is welcome to reorganise its administrative staff in order to enable proper implementation of the budgetary allowances available for measures under this article.

4. Position on the financial amount made available for implementation of the Instrument for Stability

The financial envelope for implementation of the Instrument for Stability (Art. 24) amounts to 2,062 billion euro over the period 2007 to 2013.

However, the financial means reallocated from the Instrument for Stability to the Food Facility over the period 2010 to 2013 have reduced this amount by 240 million euro.

In order to ensure that the European Union has the full financial means available, under Heading 4 of the annual budget, to fulfil its role on the international stage as expected by the citizens of Europe, the rapporteur urges the Commission to present a plan to restore the initial amount as foreseen in the Regulation.

New MigrationWatch Study Reveals Devastating Impact of Immigration Invasion upon Educational System

New MigrationWatch Study Reveals Devastating Impact of Invasion upon Educational System

The BNP Newsroom

The devastating impact of mass immigration upon the British educational system, which has cost in excess of £16 billion, has been detailed in a new report by the MigrationWatch UK think tank.

“We estimate that in twelve years since immigration began to climb rapidly under the previous government (1998—2009), the additional public spending required for the education of the schoolchildren of migrants was almost £16 billion,” the study said.

“Of this almost £5 billion was in 2009 alone; this amounted to over £13 million a day and was equivalent to over 1p on the basic rate of income tax,” it continued.

“Over the next five years, to 2016, 550,000 more school places will be needed as a direct and indirect result of migration, costing a further £40 billion, and over the next ten years — to 2020 — this rises to one million extra places at a total cost over ten years of almost £100 billion.

“Looking further ahead, the official population projections, suggest that an additional 2.3 million births between 2008 and 2033 will result from migration,” MigrationWatch said in an official press release.

“Adding direct migration to this and assuming that all of the additional children are educated in state schools, the total costs of their schooling would be almost £195 billion over a 25 year period.

“This calculation is made using very conservative assumptions about school leaving age etc., it does not make any allowance for additional education requirements of migrants (e.g.: help with languages etc.) so the eventual cost could be much higher than this.

“By 2033 children born earlier in the period will have left school so the number of additional school places required will be about 1.3 million.

“This would be equivalent to almost 3,800 new schools staffed by around 75,000 additional teachers,” the reports executive summary concluded.

How much more evidence does the public need to understand that the very fabric of our society is being utterly destroyed by the immigration tsunami?

The British National Party is the only party dedicated to halting, and reversing, the tidal wave of Third World immigration. The time is running out for the British people to chose.

EU Common Fisheries Policy has fished British waters to extinction

EU has fished British waters to extinction

  Martin Wingfield at http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/news

OCTOBER 2010: THERE was drama surrounding Nick Griffin's first ever two minute speech in the European Parliament in Strasbourg this morning during a debate on the Fishing Industry.


 Normally speeches are one minute, or sometimes 1 minute 30 seconds, but this morning Jean Marie Le Pen, who was due to speak, was called away on Front National business and Nick was given his one minute slot in addition to his own.
He was only told that he had the extra time just a few minutes before he was due to speak, so he had to quickly make notes and then literally run to get to his microphone in time!
Hence when the speech is televised, people will see the MEP for the North West of England is somewhat out of breath.
This is what Nick told his fellow MEPs:
"Mr President.
"Before taking advice from any 'expert', it is wise to examine their record to check that they are competent.
"The Integrated Maritime Policy report is partly the work of the Fisheries Committee, so before buying in to its various grand schemes for EU maritime imperialism, it is worthwhile taking a critical look at the European Union's record on the management of the seas.
"Inevitably, this means assessing the situation in the former sovereign UK waters and fishing grounds secretly betrayed to European bureaucracy control in 1973, since nearly 70% of so-called EU fishing stocks are actually British fishing stocks.
"How have our fish and our fishermen fared under the Common Fisheries Policy?
"The figures tell us far more than all the fine words in this report.
"88% of the EU's stock is overfished, against a global average of about 27%. 30% of our fish species are now officially "outside safe biological limits" because there are too few adult fish left for normal reproduction.
"Under the CFP´s obscene quota system, nearly a million tons of fish are discarded dead into the North Sea alone every year. Meanwhile the industrial hoovering up of species such as sand eels has led to crashing populations of bird species such as puffins.
"To Europe's south the picture is just as bad. West African fishermen whose lifestyle has been sustained for generations are forced to switch to people trafficking because EU registered vessels have helped fish their waters to extinction.
"It is time for the EU to acknowledge that its record in marine management is the worst in the entire world, a typical example of what is known as The Tragedy of the Commons - the phenomenon by which shared resources always get exploited ruthlessly because anyone who exercises restraint is disadvantaged by the unscrupulous.
"It is time to restore control of the seas and fishing grounds to the sovereign nations whose track record has shown them fit to exercise such stewardship. In more than two thirds of the waters the EU has nearly fished to extinction, that means the British nation and British fishermen."
As a youngster Nick recalls visits to Lowestoft and seeing the harbour packed with trawlers and the docks alive with men shifting boxes of fish and men and women gutting and packing the catch. Now it's a ghost port, with the EU scratching around for proposals to revitalise it.
The same is true of ports like Fleetwood all along the North West coast. So the MEP was delighted to be able to speak up on behalf of our surviving fishermen and for a future when we nurture our depleted fish stocks back to being a major national resource once more.

FSA Guidance on Halal Food puts Muslim Interests before those of British Shoppers

Guidance on Halal Food puts Muslim Interests before those of British Consumers

The BNP Newsroom

Guidelines issued by the Food Standards Agency on Halal food issues demonstrate the hypocrisy their supposed animal welfare concerns and the total contempt in which they hold the British consumers, reports Doug Ward, Yorkshire BNP Press Officer.

Following on from the shocking revelations of the sale and production of Halal foods in Britain by the BNP’s Manchester super activist Derek Adams and the exposure of the practices of the John Lewis Partnership’s Waitrose Supermarket, we have obtained guidelines from the Food Standards Agency on Halal foods.

The guidelines, distributed on October 1st, 2010, to all Local Authority enforcement officers, demonstrates the hypocrisy of their animal welfare concerns and the total contempt of the British consumer as Islamic Shariah Food Law takes precedence over our laws.

“Dear Director,

The Food Standards Agency issued guidance for Local Authority enforcement officers on Halal food issues in February 2003.

The mislabelling and misrepresentation of Halal foods is of great importance to the Muslim Community, and continues to be an issue of concern.

For this reason we are re-issuing the advice drawn up in association with relevant Muslim organisations, LGR and Defra.

Food enforcement officers are requested to:

Use this advice when planning inspections, food sampling and labelling checks relating to Halal foods and take appropriate enforcement action.

It would be very helpful to be informed of any action taken by LAs to enable us to provide assurance that LAs are aware of this issue, and take action where necessary to protect the interests of the Muslim Community.

Should you require any further information on this issue or wish to inform us of any action that your LA has taken, please contact me on the details below.

Yn gywir /Yours sincerely

Rob Wilkins

Arweinydd Tîm, Gorfodi Cyffredinol / Team Leader, General Enforcement.

GUIDANCE NOTE FOR FOOD LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ON HALAL FOOD ISSUES

Halal is an Arabic word which means ‘permissible’, a related word in the Qur’an is Tayyab which means wholesome and fit for human consumption. With regard to food described as Halal, it means food that Muslims are permitted to consume under Islamic law. The opposite of Halal is Haram, which means ‘prohibited by God, unwholesome, foul’. If a Muslim is sold Haram food, it is viewed very seriously, as it causes them to eat food prohibited in Islam which may be a form of fraud or deception.

To be Halal:

The animal should be alive or deemed to be alive at the actual time of slaughter and slaughter must be carried out in compliance with Islamic Shariah and the Welfare of Animals Regulations 1995 (as amended).

Animals/birds must be slaughtered by severance of neck arteries and jugular veins.

Under Regulation 22, ‘Schedule 5 (which relates to the stunning and killing of animals) shall not apply to any animal which is slaughtered in accordance with Schedule 12 (which relates to slaughter by a religious method)’.

Islamic Shariah (law) relating to slaughter of animals or poultry

Animal and birds should have preferably been raised in a natural environment. Their feed should not contain animal-based products.

In the slaughterhouse animals must not be able to see other animals being slaughtered, nor must they have sight of blood. This requires cleaning the area before the next slaughter.

There must be no cruelty to animals or poultry at any time.

The slaughter man must be a Muslim, who has been properly trained and licensed.

All slaughtering must be carried out in a licensed slaughterhouse.

Places where pigs are slaughtered should be avoided.

The slaughter man must use a sharp knife (which must not be sharpened in front of the animal). He must sever the jugular veins and carotid arteries as well as the oesophagus and trachea, but not the spinal cord as this restricts convulsion, which in turn restricts the pumping out of blood.

At the time of slaughter he must pronounce Bismillah Allahu Akbar (In the name of God, God is the Greatest) on each animal or bird.

At all times the meat and general hygiene regulations must be complied with.”

The guidance demonstrates the priority of the Food Standard Agency’s aim to protect Muslim communities from any form of fraud or deception.

It is now for the British public to decide whether clear labelling of this inhumane method of slaughter will be enough to appease public opinion or whether a campaign regarding the schedule 12 addition of schedule 5 of the Welfare of Animals Regulation 1995 should be abolished on the grounds that its inclusion contradicts the whole purpose of the regulation.

BRITISH National Party MEPs, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons Votes this week in Strasbourg

Votes this week in Strasbourg

  Tina Wingfield at http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/news

 OCTOBER 2010: 
THE BRITISH National Party MEPs, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, have an extremely busy week scheduled in Strasbourg. This week’s plenary session follows the usual EU format, whereby the business agenda is so absurdly packed that it is impossible to subject the reports presented to any truly meaningful debate.

 Nonetheless, this is what the MEP’s must strive to do. The level of legislation emanating from the European super-bureaucracy is immense and the regulations, directives and diktats disseminated encompass just about every aspect of social and economic policy. While the ultimate aim of our MEPs is to withdraw Britain from this unnecessary time, money and resource-draining entity, they take very seriously their responsibility to use their influence as elected Members of the European Parliament to shape EU legislation in accordance with the best interests of Britain and the British people.  
The MEPs, along with their Constituency Staff teams, invest many hours in assessing the content of resolutions and motions that are debated and then put to the vote in the plenary sessions held in Strasbourg.
The Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee (FEMM), for example, has a controversial report listed for debate and voting in this week’s session which tables amendments to the Council’s Directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. The FEMM Committee considers that the Commission’s proposed re-working of the Directive falls short of delivering the required changes to effectively promote gender equality in the labour market and to encourage parenting based on shared responsibilities. To redress these shortcomings, the Committee proposes 81 amendments to the Commission’s revised proposals which seek to significantly strengthen maternity rights.
In order to help the MEPs decide whether to vote in favour of adopting a motion the Constituency teams assess all the proposals from a British Nationalist perspective. Given that we are committed to opposing any increase in the level of EU interference in matters which are rightly the concern of national parliament, the proposed amendments have to be considered within this framework. However, our MEPs do not want to abdicate from their responsibilities, so unlike many of the UKIP MEPs, they are not content to simply oppose all new legislation in blanket fashion. Where new laws and regulations are likely to be adopted, the British National Party MEPs will seek, wherever possible, to mitigate the impact and scope of the content.
With regard to the FEMM’s amendments, from a British Nationalist viewpoint, the Committee’s “life-cycle” approach to work, which recognises that male and female workers have different needs and priorities at various stages of their lives, is commendable. Legislation that enables mothers to spend extra time at home with their newborn and facilitates a longer breastfeeding period is wholly desirable; as is the encouragement of shared parenting between mothers and fathers.
Desirable employment outcomes for one particular social group should be assessed, however, within the wider economic framework. Increasing maternity legislation will significantly impact on British business and the perceived benefits to women workers (and family life) must be balanced against the interests of employers. The rightful place for employment legislation to be debated and decided upon is within our national Parliament.
As British Nationalists, we are wary, moreover, of EU-generated proposals which purport to improve the balance between family life and work. Our interpretation of an “improved balance” is likely to differ from the EU’s, which assesses workers primarily in terms of their function as economic units within a global market. Our framework of reference is more holistic: for example, while it may make sense in purely economic terms to increase the activity of women within the workforce, in social welfare terms it might actually be more beneficial to introduce employment and economic measures which promote and facilitate the right of mothers to remain outside of the paid workforce. Motherhood is, after all, a full-time job in itself and in many cases it is economic imperative and devaluing of the full-time carer role which forces mothers into the public workforce, rather than personal choice.  
FEMM’s amendments largely serve to further increase European-level bureaucracy and, in line with our opposition to EU interference in our national concerns, a “no” vote is therefore, generally recommended by the Constituency team. However, a number of amendments are identified which are viewed as constituting positive additions or changes to the motion, which will not in effect add to the excess of Brussels bureaucracy which is making life increasingly difficult for  British organisations and businesses. A “yes” vote is advised for instance, in relation to a text change which clarifies the protection of pregnant women from performing tasks that pose health risks, and a new point which gives workers on maternity leave the right to receive automatically any general increase in salary.
Another motion likely to court controversy in Strasbourg this week is the Employment and Social Affairs Committee’s (EMPL) Report on the Role of Minimum Income in Combating Poverty and Promoting an Inclusive Society in Europe. Although the EMPL Committee rejected an amendment calling on the European Commission to propose a framework directive on minimum income (which would have established minimum income systems in the EU), this report nonetheless calls on the Commission to present “an initiative” in the area of introducing minimum income schemes in all EU Member States.
The report encompasses an extensive range of economic and social fields with its call for Commission and national policies to ensure universal access to the labour market. The introduction of minimum income schemes (set at the suggested level of 60% of average income in the Member State concerned) in all EU Member States is considered to be an essential measure in order to combat poverty.
Reference is made within the Report to the Europe 2020 strategy, which is founded on the assertion that no Member State can address global challenges effectively by acting in isolation. From a Nationalist perspective, it is unfortunate that neither the EU generally (in its economic and social policy briefings), or the EMPL Committee’s Report specifically, takes this assertion to its logical conclusion. If they did, it might actually be possible to achieve some of the laudable goals set in respect to improving average living standards across the entire European Union. The Eurocrats’ pursuit of their (utopian) European social market economy is doomed to failure because they fail to establish the necessary economic parameters to deliver their dream.
Sustaining a minimum income would serve to reduce poverty, but such a strategy could only work within a closed European market. The reality is that as long as European jobs and the produce of EU workers are not protected from being undercut by imported goods from non-European Union, low-wage economies, raising EU labour costs to a minimum level will in practice, serve to worsen the balance of trade and increase unemployment across the EU. At the present time, an advantage held by the poorer European nations is the fact that their cheaper labour costs enable them to produce goods at lower prices than their more developed and wealthier European competitors. Increasing labour costs across Europe, without introducing measures to protect the European economy from non-European competition, will expose the EU to unfair and unmatchable pressures. European goods and services will be undercut by products and services supplied by Third World countries. The consequent collapse in European GDP levels will be accompanied by a parallel increase in poverty and social exclusion rates... the very opposite outcome of what the EU’s social and economic engineering was intended to achieve.
Whilst the Constituency team is sympathetic to the worthy aspirations embodied within EMPL’s proposals, the view was taken that, the only way they can be achieved in practice is by withdrawing Europe from the global market economy and protecting European jobs and wage levels behind high trade walls. As the EU is unlikely to accept an amendment promoting such a protectionist approach, a vote to reject the motion is advised.

EU Budget - Turkey would add to the British Peoples TAX Burden

EU Budget - Turkey would add to the UK's burden

  Martin Wingfield at http://www.andrewbronsmep.eu/?q=news

19TH OCTOBER 2010: THE British National Party MEP for Yorkshire & North East Lincolnshire made the following contribution to a debate held in the European Parliament in Strasbourg this afternoon on the European Union Budget for 2011.
 "The Report* says:
'the EU Budget should in no way be perceived as.......a burden to national budgets'.
"For countries like the United Kingdom that are forced to endure cuts in expenditure at home, any increase in the EU budget - let alone the 5.9% increase originally proposed by the Commission, would be inappropriate.
"A money terms cut or a freeze would be more appropriate.
"The United Kingdom has had a double dose of the bitter pill. We have seen our rebate reduced by a third in the last year alone, making us even more of a net contributor than we were.
"It has been said that whilst the United Kingdom has been a net contributor, the new member countries have been net recipients, for which, of course, their populations cannot be blamed. However, in light of that undeniable fact, would it not be madness to continue to pursue expansion to include even poorer and undeniably burdensome countries, including Turkey, which is not only poor but not European by any stretch of the imagination."
*the report from Sidonia Elzbieta Jedrzejewska and Helga Trüpel

Radio RWB’s Eurofile: The Work of Party Researchers behind the BNP's MEPs

Radio RWB’s Eurofile: The Work of Party Researchers behind the MEPs

The British Party Newsroom 

Radio Red White and Blue has just posted up the latest issue of its “Eurofile” programme which outlines the work of party researchers who support the MEPs in their voting decisions.

The half hour show features two of the researchers, the recently-appointed David Hannam and Radio RWB’s own John Walker, discussing how decisions are made as to how the British National Party’s MEPs are advised to vote on the huge number of resolutions and motions which come before the parliament.

Click here to listen to this fascinating interview in full, and then click on the RWB player launch button.

Labours Horwich Council House Rent Hike Alert

which way to our new council house!

Labours Horwich Council House Rent Hike Alert by Horwich Nationalists
It is with sadness that we have to report to all those who were silly enough to vote Labour in the previous election, and live in a council House in Horwich that I am afraid your rent is to rise alarmingly, of course the Labour Zanu PF party of Bolton claim that is all the Con/Dem Zanu PF Govt's fault, instead of just admitting that is all the three parties fault.
perhaps they should look at all the free housing given to bogus asylum seekers and dubious immigrants whom the Labour and Con/Dem alliance have let and are still letting into the country. And also the expense of the cultural refurbishment of the Local authorities properties as asylum seekers must have a list of new items in properties such as a Internet connection and free phone! that they occupy, instead of the British families who should be occupying them.
Remember that the British National Party is the only party who will put British people at the top of the list for Housing and will through sound economics make more homes more affordable!!!!

What did you do in the war Daddy an Apt Poem for Today

What did you do in the war Daddy

from the Wigan Patriot

What did you do in the war Daddy , the war to save our race. Come on, please tell me true Daddy, I am sure it’s no disgrace….

Did you march with your British brothers Daddy, did you hold our banner high, or did you just sit at home and watch our country die?

Did you take to the streets Daddy, when right was on our side, or did you think of your own skin, and run away to hide?

When you saw the jobs for “Muslims only” Daddy, did you shout out loud in protest, or did you keep silent just like all the rest?

When the union bullies told you Daddy not to vote for our men, did you tell them all to go to Hell and not come back again?

Did you speak out for the truth Daddy, did you spread the word, or did you live in fear Daddy and not let your voice be heard?

Please tell me what you did Daddy. I’ve often wondered who could see the British race overrun, and why we are so few.

You need not feel ashamed, my son because I had a dream, to open up my kinfolk’s eyes to Islams infernal scheme.

But when I spoke, they turned away and closed up their ears. I could not make them understand the reason for my fears, and when we marched we were so few, just fifty men and me. The others stayed at home in fear and watched it on TV.

I’m proud to say I played a part and say that I fought well, that’s why I lost my livelihood and wound up in a cell.

The reason that we lost, my son was not that we weren’t brave, but that the ones we battled for were not worth our while to save