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

Another £1 Billion Set to be Added to the EU Membership Finacial BLackhole

Another £1 Billion Set to be Added to the EU Membership Bill

The British National party Newsroom

On the same day that the ConDem regime announced massive cuts to frontline services to British people, the European Parliament voted in a new budget which is set to increase the cost of British membership of the EU membership by nearly a billion pounds every year.

MEPs voted to increase the annual EU budget from nearly £108 billion this year to more than £114 billion in 2011, a rise of 5.9 percent. There were 546 votes in favour of the budget, with only 88 against (including, of course, the British National Party’s two MEPs, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons).

The issue goes now goes into arbitration between MEPs, EU ministers and the European Commission, with this year's budget being rolled over into 2011 if no deal is done by January.

Nearly £400 million has been allocated to finance the new EU diplomatic service which will open offices in New York, Beijing and Moscow, despite all EU members already having embassies in those nations.

Another EU budget allocation which was doubled end was that of the “entertainment” department. This body puts on champagne receptions and courtesy limousines, amongst other things.

Most of the increased spend would however be directed toward agricultural subsidies and aid to the Continent’s poorer regions, particularly those southern European nations who are already struck by financial instability.

It was therefore not surprising to see almost all the Greek, Spanish and Portuguese MEPs vote in favour of the budget, with many rebelling against their political group policy on the matter.

The Lisbon Treaty has put more pressure on the budget by giving the EU new tasks and creating new senior posts, something which David Cameron claimed to have opposed but who now, infamously, accepts as a done deal.

* The EU’s Budget Commissioner has also proposed a new VAT tax which, if approved, will be applied in all member states.

Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski has announced that he wants to revivie stalled plans for a taxation system across all 27 member nations to help finance the EU’s operations.

Other taxes under consideration include levies on carbon emissions, air transport, financial transactions or bank profits.

EU chiefs have already indicated that they want to scrap the remains of

Britain’s multi-billion pound annual rebate.

Islamists terrorise Met Police so This is England Today

So this is England
In this shocking video you can see what has become of our nation through the traitorous actions of the 3 main political parties.