Denied NHS healthcare after a lifetime of service to the country

Denied healthcare after a lifetime of service to the country

  Martin Wingfield at Nick Griffin Mep Euro News

OCTOBER 2010: 
HARDLY a day goes by at Nick Griffin's Constituency Office without there being a call on the telephone or correspondence in the MEP's mailbag, drawing attention to how Britons are being treated as second class citizens in their own country.


 It sometimes seems as if the Government has concerns only for the welfare of newly-arrived immigrants to these shores and doesn't give a damn for the well-being of British people, especially the elderly who have served this country throughout their lifetime.
A letter last week was from a family whose elderly mother was being denied Fully Funded NHS Continuing Healthcare (FFNHSCHC) by the North Lancashire Primary Care Trust after a fall at home left her with almost no cognitive function.
The lady, an 86yr old widow of a retired RAF Officer who served as aircrew in WWII, and herself a former wartime Auxilliary Nurse, has been refused for FFNHSCHC and told that her family are responsible for any onward movement to a nursing home.
"The Primary Care Trust are failing to ensure that my mother receives all the care that she needs and is threatening to take her possessions to pay for any future care," a distraught son told his MEP.
Responding on behalf of Nick Griffin, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"I am sorry to hear of your mother’s ill-health and share your outrage over the way she is being treated by the administrators of the North Lancashire Primary Care Trust.
You mention that your mother has almost no cognitive functions and is fully dependent on the healthcare she receives in hospital, so it would seem that she should qualify for the free package of fully funded continuing care that is provided by the National Health Service.
As a former wartime auxiliary nurse, and the widow of a retired RAF officer, the automatic right to free healthcare should be absolute. In addition to serving their country, both will, no doubt, have paid a lifetime of National Insurance contributions and it is criminal that essential care is now being denied to your mother in her hour of need.
I know from the huge amount of correspondence that Mr Griffin receives from constituents that people cannot comprehend how this Government can believe that it is defensible to deprive our vulnerable elderly of the care they deserve, yet consider it justifiable to continue to waste millions of pounds of public money on foreign aid and welfare benefits for newcomers to our shores who haven’t paid a penny into our social protection funds.
I fully agree with your view that it is unfair and morally unacceptable, moreover, for Lancashire Primary Trust to assert that it is your mother’s responsibility to fund the move to a nursing home - before the appeals process has been concluded.
I note that you have already lodged an appeal against Lancashire PCT’s ‘non-entitlement’ decision, on behalf of your mother, and I hope that justice is served with a successful outcome.
In the meantime, may I refer you to some support services that may be able to offer you and your mother advice and help? If you are not already in touch with the NHS Patient Advice and Liaison Services (PALS), it might be helpful to contact them. PALS provide information for people who are concerned about the care patients are receiving, including the transfer arrangements from hospital to other care facilities, and can also help to resolve complaints. There is a PALS office in the Royal Lancaster Infirmary - telephone number: 01539 795497. Email: pals@mbht.nhs.uk .
The Citizens Advice Bureau can also offer informed advice about care options and appeals procedures. They can be contacted at: Oban House, 87-89 Queen Street, Morecambe L A4 5EN. Telephone: 0844 499 4197 (advice line); 01524 400405 (appointment booking line only). Email: post@morecambecab.co.uk .
Caring for a loved one is an immensely rewarding task but it can also create intense stresses and strains on the carer. The Carers Federation offers a confidential support and information service for carers: their website can be found at www.carersfederation.co.uk/ . Email info@carersfederation.co.uk .
Please do not hesitate to contact Mr Griffin again if you require any further assistance."

LibDems Bask in Victory as David Cameron Indicates Conservatives Will Retreat over “Immigration Cap”

Liberal Democrats Bask in Victory as David Cameron Indicates Tories Will Retreat over “Immigration Cap”

From the BNP Newsroom

Yet another Conservative election promise seems set to be watered down as Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable celebrated yesterday at the Confederation of British Industry’s annual conference in London that David Cameron was “listening” to business complaints about the proposed “immigration cap.”

The immigration cap policy, a pathetic attempt by the Tories to con the voters into thinking that they were serious about stopping the immigration invasion, has come under fire from the very beginning from the Liberal Democrats, with Mr Cable in particular leading the charge to get it reversed.

Earlier, Mr Cameron told the CBI conference that the “coalition will not impede” businesses who seek to recruit non-British persons to work in Britain.

Obviously not realising the inherent contradiction in his words, Mr Cameron told the CBI that “As we control our borders and bring immigration to a manageable level, we will not impede you from attracting the best talent from around the world.”

That comment was widely interpreted, even in the Tory media, of indicating a shift away from the key Conservative pledge of bringing down net immigration.

When he addressed the CBI a short while later, Mr Cable could hardly contain his glee at Mr Cameron’s remarks.

“The Government is listening to the complaints of business about its proposed immigration cap,” Mr Cable said. “The message has been heard loud and clear.”

Previously, when Mr Cable has said that the immigration cap was “very damaging” to the British economy, Mr Cameron and Downing Street spokesman had slapped him down, declaring that “there was no evidence a cap would be damaging to business.”

The slavishly pro-Tory Daily Mail announced that “David Cameron opened the door to a new wave of immigration yesterday by signalling that the Government will let businesses bring in more staff from overseas.”

The Mail continued: “His words brought claims that the Tories are watering down their tough stance on new arrivals to placate the Liberal Democrats.”

The extremist leftwing Independent newspaper went even further, claiming that a deal had already been worked out which would herald a major retreat on the issue by the Tories.

“Plans for a stringent cap on numbers of immigrant workers are to be softened in the face of warnings from business leaders that it could prevent them from bringing the brightest foreign talent to Britain,” The Independent said.

“Ministers are close to a deal on an issue that has deeply divided the coalition partners, The Independent understands. Ministers are considering two options: they could allow firms to transfer staff from offices overseas to Britain for limited periods without counting towards the limit, or allow them to take on highly qualified foreign staff in return for paying a high visa fee. Cabinet ministers will meet shortly with a view to announcing the policy by December,” the paper reported.

Ironically, the immigration cap, even if implemented as originally promised, will do nothing to avert the real problem, namely the ethnic cleansing of British people from their ancestral homeland.

The “cap” is based on the “balanced migration” nonsense as it seeks to bring “net immigration” down to 1990s levels. What this “net immigration” actually means is that the number of people leaving the country is only slightly superseded by the number of people entering the country.

In other words, if 500,000 white British people leave Britain in a year, then it will be “balanced migration,” Tory-style, to allow 600,000 Third World immigrants into Britain that same, year.

This insane policy is based upon the belief that Third World immigrants will “become British” by learning the language and dressing like British people. This bizarre idea, known also as “cultural nationalism” or “civic nationalism” denies any ethnic identity to nationhood and believes that anybody, from anywhere, can become “British,” “Chinese,” “African” of even “American Indian” simply by changing their language and dress.

Furthermore, this “balanced migration” nonsense also fails to take into account the far higher birth rates of Third World immigrants, who are multiplying at a rate 15 times faster than the native indigenous British population.

Only the policy of ethno-nationalism, as espoused exclusively by the British National Party, offers an answer to the immigration invasion.

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."