UK Mass Immigration and International Terrorism Hotbed

Britain: Mass Immigration and International Terrorism

The British National Party Newsroom

Mass immigration policies pursued by decades of Tory and Labour regimes have turned Britain into a nerve centre for international Islamist terrorism, as proven once again by new revelations that the Muslim terror group behind the ink jet bomb plot is operating inside the UK.

The shocking news that the ink cartridge bombers are actually working from Britain was made by Tory Home Secretary Theresa May in a rare bout of honesty on Thursday.

Addressing the Royal United Services Institute in London, Ms May confirmed that Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), was “now working in the UK and planning new atrocities.”

She also announced that one member of AQAP had already been arrested in Britain for planning a suicide bomb attack on a jetliner.

Even more amazingly, Ms May finally admitted that there was a second threat to Britain from young Muslims living in this country (whom she incorrectly called “Britons”) who were “being trained in Somalia to carry out atrocities when they return to Britain.”

She identified the “radicalised young Britons” as being of “East African origin.”

Ms May is of course being an arch-hypocrite. Firstly, these waves of “east Africans” and Muslims are not British by any stretch of the imagination, and secondly the only reason why they are here in the first place is because of the insane pro-immigration policies her party and its Labour clone have pursued over the years.

The British National Party alone has warned that tolerating mass immigration could only lead to terrorism in Britain. The radical Islamists now how a pool millions strong from which to recruit, using as their primary persuasive tool the foreign policy followed by successive Tory and Labour governments.

That Britain has become the nerve centre for Islamist terrorism worldwide gave rise to the French police referring to London as “Londonistan.”

Central to this was the activities of jailed Muslim cleric Abu Hamza, who, coincidentally, has just won an appeal against a bid to strip him of his British passport after a tribunal ruled the move would make him stateless.

Egyptian-born Hamza was jailed in 2007 for inciting his followers to murder non-Muslims, and he currently facing an extradition order to America. Three of his associates, all “British” nationals named Babar Ahmad, Haroon Rashid Aswat and Seyla Talha Ahsan are awaiting extradition along with Hamza for numerous terrorism charges.

They are accused of setting up an Al-Qaeda-style training camp in Oregon, of sending money and “British” recruits to fight for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and for helping kidnappers in Yemen who seized a 16-strong party of Western tourists in 1998.

Hamza, the former imam at Finsbury Mosque in London, provided accommodation for shoe bomber Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, the only team member of the September 11, 2001 attacks to have been arrested and imprisoned, Ahmed Ressam, arrested for trying to blow up Los Angeles Airport, and Nizar Trabelsi, arrested for planning to attack the American Embassy in Paris.

One of the 7/7 Tube bombers had regularly attended Hamza’s preaching, as had two of those attempting to replicate the mission two weeks later.

In 1998, six “British” citizens, described as of “Pakistani and North African descent” along with two other “British residents” were arrested by the government of Yemen and convicted of planning to kidnap a group of tourists and attack British targets in the port of Aden.

In October 2001, the London-based Islamist group al-Muhajiroun claimed that “thousands” of Muslims living in Britain have gone to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban.

At the time, Asian radio station Sunrise canvassed the opinions of 500 Muslims in Greater London, mainly of Pakistani origin and aged between 20 and 45, and found that 48 percent said they would fight for bin Laden or for Islam.

In February 2009, army commanders claimed in an article in the Independent that British soldiers are engaged in "a surreal mini civil war" with “growing numbers of home-grown jihadists who have travelled to Afghanistan to support the Taliban.”

According to that paper, “interceptions of Taliban communications have shown that British jihadists — some ‘speaking with West Midlands accents’ – are active in Helmand and other parts of southern Afghanistan, according to briefing papers prepared by an official security agency.

“The document states that the numbers of young British Muslims, ‘seemingly committed jihadists,’ travelling abroad to commit extremist violence has been rising, with Pakistan and Somalia the most frequent destinations.”

That newspaper went on to add that “MI5 has estimated that up to 4,000 British Muslims had travelled to Pakistan and, before the fall of the Taliban, to Afghanistan for military training.

“The main concern until now has been about the parts some of them had played in terrorist plots in the UK. Now there are signs that they are mounting missions against British and Western targets abroad,” the paper’s source said.

That same month, British army reports revealed that the majority of the detonating devices used in Taliban roadside bombs — which are responsible for most army deaths in that country — are made using British-made electronic components.

Reports revealed that the devices had either been sent from Britain, or brought over to Pakistan by Muslims living in Britain. The components are then easily smuggled into Afghanistan.

In October this year, a Taliban commander in Afghanistan told Sky News the bulk of its funding comes from Britain, where, the commander said, “dedicated fighters are ready to launch terrorist attacks” upon his order.

How much more evidence does Ms May need before she admits that it is her own party’s policies which have created this terrorist nightmare?

Recommended reading: Londonistan: How Britain Is Creating a Terror State Within

By Melanie Phillips. The Times bestseller, now with a new chapter. For years, Britain pretended to be tough on terrorism, while invading two countries. But when it was hit by the 7/7 suicide bombers, the secret was out. Having looked the other way since 1989, Britain has become the hub for Islamist terror throughout Europe and beyond, In Londonistan, Melanie Phlilips reveals herself as that typical breed of journalist who can identify the problem in great detail, but is obvious in her inability to address the cause of the problem, namely Third World immigration. This flaw aside, Londonistan gives a revealing insight into the Islamist threat facing Britain -- and the establishment’s refusal to deal with it. Paperback, 336 pages. Click here to order online.

EU acknowledges African immigration has left a shortage of workers in Africa

EU acknowledges immigration has left a shortage of workers in Africa

  Martin Wingfield at Andrew Brons MEP Euro News

 NOVEMBER 2010: 
Andrew Brons has now received an answer to his Written Question regarding the effects of immigration concerning the President of the Republic of Mali.

Andrew asked:
On 7 September, Mr Amadou Toumani Toure, President of the Republic of Mali, addressed the European Parliament.
In his speech he referred to the pernicious effect of EU immigration policies on the economy of Mali. In particular, he stated that his country was being denuded of its university graduates, with as many as 35% of graduates emigrating.
The President also referred to the debilitating effect of emigration on his country's health service, given the shortage of nurses and doctors because of emigration.
In my speeches to Parliament – to which the Commission may or may not listen – I have frequently warned of the damage wrought to the developing countries by the EU Commission's policy of enforcing a multicultural society on the EU Member States, without any democratic mandate.
1. Does the Commission agree with Mr Toure in respect of his concerns, which are also my concerns?
2. Does the Commission consider that its immigration and population policies are depriving developing countries of some of their most valuable citizens, which they can ill afford?
There has now been a response from EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström on behalf of the Commission
"In the Stockholm Programme the European Council encourages the creation of flexible admission systems that are responsive to the priorities, needs, numbers and volumes determined by each Member State and enable migrants to take full advantage of their skills and competence. The European Council also underlines the need to take further steps to maximise the positive and minimise the negative effects of migration on development in line with the Global Approach on Migration.
"Following this approach, the existing EU legislation and the legislation in preparation contain a number of safeguards aiming at preventing "brain drain". For example, Directive 2009/50 on the EU "Blue Card" provides that Member States can refuse applications for Blue Cards in order to ensure ethical recruitment. In addition the Directive does not affect agreements with third countries which list professions suffering from lack of personnel and which are therefore subject to ethical recruitment. Third country nationals who have long term resident status in the European Union can leave the EU territory for up to a year without losing that status, and this period is extended to two years for highly qualified migrants with a Blue Card. These provisions encourage "circular" migration between the EU Member States and the migrant's home country, with the accompanying transfer of skills and money.
"Looking at the specific situation in the health sector, the Commission is particularly concerned about the critical shortage of qualified workers in many African countries. It is estimated that a minimum of 2.3 health workers per 1000 population are needed in order to provide basic health care. Africa, on average, has 0.8 health workers per 1000 population and Mali even less, compared to 10.3 per 1000 population in Europe. Aware of this challenge and of the responsibility of the EU's benefit as destination region of migrant health workers, the EU has adopted a Strategy for Action on the Crisis in Human Resources for Health in Developing Countries, followed by a European Programme for Action. The EU supports health programmes with a human resources for health (HRH) component in 51 countries (including Mali). At the global level the EU is beginning to explore opportunities for stimulating circular migration and for introduction of other mechanisms that would make migration of health workers beneficial for development.
"In addition, the Commission, through geographic and thematic financial instruments, finances a number of initiatives aiming at maximising positive effects of migration on development of countries of origin and transit. They aim, among others, at strengthening capacities of developing countries to integrate migration into their national development strategies, to maximise the development impact of remittances, develop a policy to attract diaspora members, favour circular migration and retain skilled migrants.

Woolas Saddleworth Judgement Opens Legal Door to Crush Lies About BNP (And BNP Will Contest By-Election if Called)

Woolas Judgement Opens Legal Door to Squash Lies About BNP (And BNP Will Contest By-Election if Called)

The High Court ruling today that Labour MP Phil Woolas “deliberately” spread lies about his opponents during the May 2010 election has opened the legal door to finally prevent the Labour Party, the Tories, the Lib Dems and their far-left Communist Party allies from deliberately spreading lies about the British National Party.

August 2008: The Communist crank Gable from Searchlight/Hope not Hate is a guest speaker at a Communist Party function. All the lies issued by these extremists have now been declared illegal by the High Court.In addition, the BNP has announced that it will definitely contest a by-election in Saddleworth if one is called. Mr Woolas has seven days in which to lodge an appeal, failing which a by-election will be held.

The significance of the court ruling is that for the first time ever, judicial notice has been taken of the fact that it is a breach of the Representation of the People Act, section 106, to deliberately misrepresent and lie about a political opponent in an election.

The court ruled that Mr Woolas had “published leaflets and newsletters making false statements about [his opponent] Mr Watkins while knowing them to be untrue.”

Mr Woolas had, the judges ruled, used “illegal practices” during the election.

Furthermore, they concluded that statements made by Mr Woolas which were lies, were known by him to be misrepresentations.

“Having considered the evidence which was adduced in Court we are sure these statements are untrue. We are sure that the Respondent did not believe them to be true,” the judges ruled.

The BNP has been the subject of years of the most outrageous lies and smears from the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties, all drawing up on the Searchlight/Hope not Hate lie factory under the directorship of its longtime hardcore Communist Party activist Gerry Gable.

Some of the more recent deliberate lies spewed out by the Communist crank Gable include allegations that the BNP opposes the Gurkhas, that the BNP would throw David Beckham or nonwhites off the England football team, amongst many, many others.

These lies are then printed and distributed by the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems, and repeated in the controlled media.

All these lies are about to come to a screeching halt. Today’s court ruling has in effect made these lies a criminal offence, and the BNP will now certainly use this precedent to close down all the lies and distortions about the party once and for all.

The Communist freaks and their Labour/Tory/Lib Dem allies take notice: the BNP will act legally against your lies.

* BNP National Organiser Clive Jefferson confirmed to BNP News today that if a by-election is called in Saddleworth, the party will most definitely contest it with a high profile candidate and campaign.

Bolton Marxist Left wing Protester Conviction for Assault on Police Officer

AN anti-facist Left wing protester who attacked a police officer at a rally in Bolton has been sentenced to carry out unpaid work by magistrates.

Roger Cox denied assaulting PC Darren Calladine at the English Defence League and Unite Against Facism counter-demonstration on March 20.

But he was found guilty after a trial last month.

Howard Sloane, prosecuting, told magistrates how, on the day of the rally in Bolton town centre, PC Calladine was trying to arrest a man who was kicking out.

Cox and several other demonstrators pulled the man back into the crowd, with Cox hitting PC Calladine in the chest and swearing at him.

Cox, aged 29, of Croydon Road, Newcastle, was then forced to the ground by PC Calladine and a colleague, and was handcuffed.

Mr Sloane added that when arrested, Cox was found to be wearing football shin guards and when questioned at a police station declined to answer.

Andrew Fitzpatrick, defending, told magistrates that Cox has been approachable and cooperative with probation officers preparing a presentence report.

The court heard that Cox had three previous convictions in 2008 for possessing a knife, obstructing a police officer and a public order offence.

Yesterday, for the assault on PC Calladine, magistrates ordered him to do 250 hours’ unpaid work and pay £650 costs

Christians in the West must be ready for suffering

Barnabas Fund says Christians in the West must be ready for suffering.

Barnabas Fund is inviting churches in the UK to dedicate one Sunday in November to the issue of persecution around the world – as well as at home.
The theme of this year’s Suffering Church Sunday, ‘Be on Your Guard’, reflects Barnabas Fund’s growing concerns over the freedom of Christians in the West.
It described as “worrying” the case this week of Eunice and Owen Johns to decide whether their Christian beliefs make them unfit to foster children.
“The outright violence and injustice endured by our brothers and sisters throughout the non-Western world, like the atrocious hostage siege in Iraq on Sunday, is what we tend to consider persecution. But more insidious threats are creeping into Western society – and we need to be prepared," the group said.
It warned that full religious liberty, including the freedom to choose one’s faith, was “under attack”. It said religious liberty was being “publicly undermined” by world leaders on the international stage, including US President Barack Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and British Home Secretary Theresa May, who have adopted the term “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion”.
Its concerns are shared by Ashley Samelson, International Programmes Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, expressed concern over the case of the Johns.
“Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelise, to engage in the public square," she said.
Barnabas Fund is asking churches in the UK to remember Christians in other parts of the world who are suffering for their faith but also equip themselves to be ready for persecution too.
Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of Barnabas Fund, said: “It is understandable in the West – a bastion of freedom and tolerance – Christians tend to think that persecution is something that happens only to believers in far-flung places.
“But it is becoming increasingly apparent that we too need to steel ourselves for suffering if we are going to make a stand for Christ.”
Barnabas Fund is offering churches free resources for its Suffering Church Sunday, including a DVD, sermon outline, Bible study and prayer/response cards.
Visit:www.barnabasfund.org

UK Conservative “Immigration Cap” Lie Finally Collapses

Tory “Immigration Cap” Lie Finally Collapses

The BNP National Newsroom

The Conservative Party’s much-vaunted “immigration cap” policy has finally collapsed and that party has given up all pretence of controlling immigration with David Cameron’s announcement that intra-company transfers are to be “exempt” from all immigration rules.

Mr Cameron made the announcement before a surprised group of Tory MPs yesterday, who had all fought election campaigns on a promise to bring down immigration.

“Intra-company transfers shouldn’t be included in what we are looking at,” Mr Cameron said in a discussion on the immigration cap.

The exemption of intra-company transfers from any immigration cap makes a complete mockery of the Tory election promise to slow down the immigration invasion of Britain.

Nearly 100,000 work related visas were issued last year, a significant number compared to net immigration of 196,000. Furthermore, over the past three years, intra-company transfers have allowed almost 350,000 non-EU workers to enter the UK.

The intra-company transfer system allows businesses (even foreign owned ones) to bring in as many workers as they like from outside, without having to fulfil all the normal immigration criteria.

Such criteria include checking to see if there are any British people qualified to do the job, what the salary levels are and what the standard of living levels are for these immigrants. The jobs do not even have to be advertised.

In 2009, over half of all intra-company transfer visas issued went to Indian IT workers, with 10,000 going to just three companies, Migrationwatch chairman Andrew Green said in a statement.

“They are clearly undercutting tens of thousands of unemployed UK IT workers while computer science graduates suffer the highest unemployment of any discipline, currently 16 per cent,” he added.

His opinion was reinforced by Marilyn Davidson, of the Association of Professional Staffing Companies (Apsco), which represents recruitment firms.

“The immigration cap will largely be an empty political gesture that will do little to restrict the influx of non-EU IT workers to the UK,” Ms Davidson said.

According to data obtained by Apsco from the Home Office under the Freedom of Information Act, 35,430 non-EU IT workers came to work in the UK in 2008 alone.

“Most of these were low to mid-level workers, which goes against the grain of why this system was set up and these suppliers are taking the mickey,” said Ann Swain, chief executive of Apsco.

The collapse of the Tory “immigration cap” lie comes hot on the heels of a Westminster home affairs committee report which proved that even if fully implemented, the “immigration cap” would only cut overall immigration by as little as 1 percent.

Only 20 per cent of the 500,000 migrants who arrive annually will be covered by the cap, let alone barred from entering the UK, the report said.

Are there any Tory MPs left with even a smattering of a conscience? If so, now is the time to speak up

Hate by any other name ot the Crime the Will not Name

Hate by any other name 

Sarah Maid of Albion 

I wonder how many white Americans know that if they were attacked by a gang of Blacks, Hispanics or Asians, who beat them to the ground and then set about them with machetes, Clubs and bats, while shouting “We hate you you white [expletive] Cracker, we are doing this to you because we hate you and your whole [expletive] white race!” their attackers could not be charged with a hate crime. Even if the gang then pulled out guns and fired a dozen bullets into their heads while screaming “We hate you, hate you, we hate you!” Their murder would still not be a hate crime.

They could be murdered, raped, tortured, even dismembered alive, but, no matter how much actual hate was involved in their dispatch from this earth, it would still not count as a hate crime.

Meanwhile, however, the act of tugging a headscarf, could well be a hate crime even if no physical injury occurred. That is provided, of course, that it was not a heterosexual, white Christian wearing the headscarf at the time it was tugged, in that case, it would not be a hate crime, even if the headscarf tugging were accompanied by an assault with a 50 pound mallet.

The reason for this is that as white people, unless they are gay (since October 2009), disabled or, in some limited circumstances, female, are not a “protected class” under US anti-discrimination legislation, they are therefore, not protected by the current hate crimes legislation, and, as such, can not be the victim of a hate crime.

Technically white people over 40 are protected from discrimination, but only when the discrimination relates specifically to age, which isn't much help when they are being battered around the head by a 200 pound Negro.

Believe it or not, the same distinction does not apply in Britain, however, the effect is the same, as we all know, the police and crown prosecution service would rather crawl over red hot coals than charge a non-white person with a racially motivated crime against a white person. The terrible killing of Kriss Donald was an exception only because the authorities could not deny the racial motive of his killers, who went out looking for a white boy, snatched an innocent child from the street and tortured him to death for no reason other than the colour of his skin.

Even the CPS could not find a way to ignore that, although they certainly tried, and the media have been busily burying all memory of the case ever since.

In America that would have made no difference. In the USA, Kriss's skin colour, the very thing his murderers killed him for, would by law have prevented his murder being treated as a race hate crime. The law deliberately denies white males protection from hate crimes.

The hate crimes legislation was recently extended to include hate crimes against gays and lesbians. This move was strongly opposed by the so called Religious Right, and by many Nationalists. By doing so, they again demonstrated their seemingly suicidal instinct for picking the wrong target.

It matters not a jot that an additional minority group has been included amongst the preferred groups who have been selected for protection, what matters is that the legislation deliberately denies protection to another politically chosen section of the population.

By opposing the extension of the legislation, the Right left themselves open to, in some instances legitimate, accusations of homophobia, whilst by their very actions appearing to imply that the hate crimes legislation, as it stood, was acceptable, when it was most certainly not.

The Right allowed themselves to appear beset by irrational prejudice, whereas, in fact, the law itself was drafted on that very basis. The iniquity of the US hate crimes laws are that they exclude selected groups, based on race, gender and (now) sexual orientation, the Right should be challenging the left to defend their anti white racism and bigotry, rather that providing them with diversion to hide behind, not to mention an open goal through which they could and did call us bigots.

A law should protect everyone, or it is a bad law. The current hate crimes legislation in both its prior and post October 2009 forms is a bad law because it enshrines racial and sexual discrimination into US law, and it is that iniquity which the right should have been fighting.

Those who opposed the Matthew Shepard Act in the manner they did were defeated, because it is indefensible to argue that a law should not protect a particular group, however, that is what the law already does and why the law itself is indefensible. The exclusion of whites from the protection of hate crimes legislation is indefensible, and results entirely from bigotry and racial prejudice on the part of the left wing zealots who drafted the law.

The exclusion is based on the politically and racially motivated fantasy that most hate crimes are committed by young heterosexual white males, which is patently untrue. In fact young white males are most likely the main victims of hate crimes, statistically they are the main victims of interracial violence, and it denies all credibility to suggest that the majority of that violence does not have racial animus at its root.

There are vast areas of many US cities where an unarmed white man dare not go in peril of his life, there are far fewer, if any, areas where a black man would be at similar risk, yet it is the black man, not the white who the law protects.

Everyone knows that to send a young white man to an unsegregated American prison is cruel and unnatural punishment, the lowlife scum in Hollywood, who out sick society treat as heroes, laugh and joke about the multiple gang rape and violent abuse of white men in prison, crimes which are far less likely to be inflicted on a black man. Yet, at the same time political correctness bars the authorities from even acknowledging this let alone protecting the victims, for no reason other than that the victims are white and their abusers black.

America is littered with hidden hate crimes which are not acknowledged as such because the law is not intended to protect white people.

In 2002, the Carr brothers, Reginald and Jonathan, raped, sodomised and tortured five young whites in Wichita, inflicting acts of extreme violence and humiliation on them including forcing the three young male victims to perform involuntary sexual acts both on each other and on the female victims, before taking them naked into the frozen winter countryside and shooting each, execution style (amazingly one of the two female victims survived). Shortly after killing four of their victims the Carrs attempted to hijack another woman, again a white one, almost certainly with the same motive.

Despite the fact that the brothers were black and all their victims white and in the face of the obvious hatred involved in their crime, the authorities laughably (should that be contemptibly?) declared that “race played no part” in the crime and the brothers did not face hate crimes charges. This was of course a charade, they could not have been charged with a hate crime because of the skin colour of their victims.

Likewise, none of those charged and currently standing trial for the brutal 2007 rape and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Knoxville can face hate crimes charges, despite the level of brutality involved. Brutality minimised and suppressed by the national media, who even denied that genital mutilation had been inflicted, until one lawyer fainted in court at the sight of the photographs.

I defy anyone to suggest that the killers in both the Wichita and Knoxville cases would not have been automatically charged with hate crimes had the races been reversed.

The abject hypocrisy was exposed n the Knoxville case when the prosecution argued that racism could not be involved because one of the defendants had previously dated a drug addled white girl. This ignored the fact that he had actually beaten the woman, and also than out in Virginia, Bobby Ray Brewster faced hate crimes charges for allegedly beating and raping his own black girlfriend, a crime the alleged "victim" now claims never occurred.

in ways such as this the authorities will perform somersaults to avoid charging a non white person with a hate crime against a white person, because they don't want to admit that the law does not permit them to do so.

Some actually argue that whites are not entitled to such protection because “whites have power”. This echoes that deeply evil and unpleasant old bigot Jo Brand's claim that you can't be racist against whites for the same reason. These claims completely ignore the fact that in numerical terms both in America and in Britain there are more deprived white people living beneath the poverty line than all other racial groups .

The lying media will throw statistics at us to suggest otherwise, but in terms of the numbers of people officially living in poverty, there are more whites than any other group, in America it is more than twice as many.

They have no power, why are they not entitled to protection?

The left will no doubt claim that even deprived whites have power because other whites do. However, this is like claiming that the average citizen in a third world dictatorship has power because those at the top of their society have billions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts and enjoy more power over others in their country than a white man has dreamed of since the Romanovs were shot in Ekaterinburg.

The assertion is not merely hypocritical it is deceitful, and deliberately so.

The reason that “Hate crimes” do not protect white people because they are designed to fit a fake world view within an entirely fake world, which exists only in the agenda deluded minds of the true believers and and possibly the script writers of CSI Vegas and Law and Order Special Victims Unit. A politically correct fantasy world where all hate victims are black or brown and all hate criminals are white, male and preferably “preppy”.

As the left in Britain cling to their tiny number of totem white perpetrator hate crimes, such as the tragic murders of Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker, whilst ignoring the far higher number of crimes which do not fit their chosen narrative, the American left have their celebrated handful of anti-black hate crimes, which they constantly roll out whenever they need to distract the public from what is really happening. The most famous of this relatively small number of white perpetrator hate crimes is the truly terrible murder of James Byrd Jnr.

However, even that awful crime is not exactly what it seems. The main perpetrator in the killing of James Byrd Jnr, a man called John King, had himself been the victim of multiple hate crimes, having been subjected to repeated gang rapes by black men in prison not long before the killing.

King had shown no previous evidence of being a "racist" before he went to prison, but he had become one by the time he came out. This does not, in any way excuse what was done to James Byrd Jnr, but who can doubt that had a black man been repeatedly raped and brutalised by white men, this would most certainly have been held up as mitigation no matter how awful a crime he then went on to commit.

It is not my purpose to defend John King, merely to point out our society does not permit him the claim to mitigation which they would willingly grant a black man, merely because King is white.

The fact hate crimes legislation enshrines anti-white racism into US law is hardly surprising in a country where a Hispanic anti-white racist and feminist bigot has just been appointed to the Supreme court, and where the legal system conspires to deny “standing” to anyone attempting to question the highly dubious eligibility of their affirmatively appointed president. However, the prejudice behind this law goes further, as anti white racism has become an increasingly prominent feature in popular culture.

In music hip-hop and rap are not only valued above blue grass, but they is now valued above the classical greats, and certainly never mocked and disparaged in the same way. When the public watch the popular soaps they see dim and dawkish whites confronting bright and confident blacks and their cop shows are all about white crime, black heroes and politically correct victims.

All the while Americas superpower strength is falling away, its streets are less safe and its infrastructure is crumbling. As its once great cities like Baltimore, Cleveland and St Louis follow New Orleans and Detroit into crime ridden decay and social collapse one is left to wonder if this was somehow the aim.

We in Europe should tremble as we watch, because what happens in America today will most likely happen here tomorrow and the same dark forces that steer our course steer theirs. There is an agenda to what is going on and it is not an agenda designed to serve us of European origin well.

As with so much else, the true hate behind the hate crimes laws lurks in the hearts of those who drafted them, and they have only just begun.

UK Government ConDem Regime Prefers War over Education

ConDem Regime Prefers War over Education

The British National Party Newsroom

The ConDem regime has put aside more money for the Afghanistan war than for university education for British kids, and the new increase in tuition fees means that our youth face the highest cost of education in the world.

According to an analysis of the cost of the Afghanistan war published last year, the direct military cost of that conflict was in excess of £12 billion.

In the spending review cuts announced by Chancellor George Osborne, the higher education budget was cut from £7.1 billion to £4.2 billion.

The practical effect of this cut has now come home to roost. Universities have been granted the right to unilaterally increase tuition fees up to £9,000 per year. Fees are currently £3,290 a year.

This means that 75 percent of students will see the cost of a university education rocket. The hardest hit will be the middle classes, who will pay up to six times more for a degree than before.

The increase in fees means that British kids will now be saddled with a personal liability which is the highest individual education debt in the world.

Furthermore, the total bill, plus interest, will dog young people for most of their working lives, with many paying off the fees well into their 50s, an analysis has shown.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), universities would be free to charge less than £6,000 a year, but are extremely unlikely to do so as on average, they would need to charge £7,000 a year just to replace the lost income from teaching grants.

“Overall, the total amount of upfront support is more generous than the Browne recommendations for student with household incomes below £37,500, and less generous for students with household incomes above this,” the IFS report said.

In addition, changes to the way in which loan repayments are calculated will “significantly increase the administrative burden of applying for and administering loans,” the IFS continued.

“In particular, it is hard to justify why students from households with incomes of £42,600 should face larger debts than all other students doing similar priced courses,” that body concluded.

In real terms, the ConDem budget cuts will mean that undergraduates will be saddled with debts of up to £43,500 each, which will rise far higher with interest charges over the years.

For example, a graduate with a debt of £30,000 who goes on to earn in excess of £45,000 will have to pay back more than £2,000 every year for 30 years, while a sliding scale based on income will apply to graduates earning less.

This means that most will be repaying debt well into their well into their 50s.

Meanwhile, other figures show the £12 billion spent on the war in Afghanistan does not include the nearly £1 billion spent in foreign aid given to Afghanistan to “rebuild” that nation after it was destroyed by the Labour-Tory warmongers in the first place.

Other hidden costs of the war include support for injured troops, veterans and the families of soldiers killed in action. Figures from the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) show an increase in claims from £1.27 million in 2001 to £30.2 million in 2008.

The awards come with further "guaranteed income payments" which will cost a further £100 million.

UK Govt Spending Cuts British People to Face Greatest Unemployment Crisis Since Great Depression

Spending Cuts: British People to Face Greatest Jobs Crisis Since Great Depression

The British National Party Newsroom

The spending cuts announced by the ConDem regime are set to plunge Britain into its greatest jobs crisis in modern history and will see more unemployed than even during the Great Depression, according to estimates produced by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).

The CIPD said the cuts, estimated by Tory Chancellor George Osborne to cause 500,000 public service job losses, will have a far greater residual impact throughout the economy.

According to CIPD chief economic adviser, Dr John Philpott, the “full impact of the Coalition Government’s planned fiscal tightening has been understated.”

He estimated that the private sector will be hit harder by the cuts in the public sector and that in excess of 1.6 million jobs will be lost in both sectors.

Furthermore, Dr Philpott said, the CIPD estimates that the real number of jobs to be lost in the public sector will be around 725,000.

As earlier predicted by the British National Party, the job losses will not be confined to the public sector. Many companies depend on state contracts for their staple diet and cutbacks in the public sector invariably impact the private sector as well.

The CIPD has predicted that the total number of jobs which will be lost in the private sector due “directly and indirectly from the cuts” will be of the order of 650,000.

To make matters worse, the CIPD has said that it believes that an additional quarter of a million jobs will be lost as result of the VAT increase, which is due to take effect in January 2011.

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the number of unemployed males reached 1.44 million in August 2010, and the number of unemployed females reached 1.01 million in the same period, making a grand total of 2.45 million.

In addition, the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) increased by 5,300 between August and September 2010 to reach 1.47 million.

This is the second consecutive monthly increase in the number of claimants, the ONS said.  The increase in the total claimant count was mainly due to a rise of 4,200 in the number of female claimants to reach 431,000. The number of male claimants increased by 1,100 to reach 1.04 million. 

However, long-term unemployment is far worse than the official figures show. The official labour market statistics show that in September, “only” 4,560 people have been continuously out of work for five years, but a recent analysis of JSA figures show that the Department of Work and Pensions’ benefit database shows 183,000 have claimed JSA for three out of the past five years. Seventy-six thousand have claimed for five of the last seven, and 29,000 for eight out of the last nine years.

The figures differ because the DWP’s database measures people who get a job or training for a short time but then go back on the dole. These people are not classified as long-term unemployed when in fact they have not been in continuous employment for years.

If unemployment remains that high, and 1.6 million additional people are added to the figures, it is possible that Britain will look at a whopping 4 million unemployed within the next few years.

This will be almost double the number of unemployed at the height of the Great Depression in Britain. Official statistics show that by the end of 1930, unemployment had more than doubled from 1 million to 2.5 million.

Ironically, the public service job losses are unnecessary if the ConDem regime had merely cut non-essential expenditure, as outlined earlier by the BNP.

Given that none of the Westminster parties have ever shown any interest in putting British people first, it is however unlikely that they would consider any cuts which did not directly harm our nation.

Supermarkets Not Feeling the Pinch as Consumers are Punished by Government VAT Increase

Supermarkets Not Feeling the Pinch as Consumers are Punished

The British National party Newsroom

The distorted state of the modern British economy has been illustrated by the news that food prices climbed at their fastest rate for 15 months in October — while the big supermarket chains continued to show massive profits in the millions, and in Tesco’s case, more than a billion.

At the same time, British consumers face record unemployment rates, pay freezes, rising utility costs, cuts to services and tax increases.

According to the British Retail Consortium-Nielsen Shop Price Index, food prices rose by 4.4 percent in October, up from 4.0 percent in September. Last month’s rise was the highest annual increase since June of last year. 

Non-food items rose by 1.1 percent because of the increase in VAT during the year and the overall inflation rate for goods in shops increased by 2.2 percent.

In addition, the price of petrol has increased steeply, and Britain’s second biggest energy supplier, SSE, has announced that gas tariffs will increase by just under ten percent as from the beginning of December.

The misery to which consumers are being subjected is not however reflected in the ever-increasing profit margins of the ‘big four’ supermarkets, Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons.

Morrisons has just announced a “modest” 14 percent rise in underlying profits for the six months to the beginning of August, taking their profit to a cool £410 million.

Sainsbury’s is set to clock up a £660 million profit by the financial year-end, while Asda’s profits last year rose 53 percent to £798 million, and their figures are set to be even better this year.

Tesco however remains the king of profits. Figures show that for the six months to the end of August, that company’s profits rose 12.5 percent to stand at £1.6 billion.

The British Retail Consortium (BRC), which represents these major supermarkets, tried to cover up their obvious rampant greed which is the primary cause of the food inflation rate by actually claiming they were “protecting” consumers.

In an astonishing display of Orwellian doublespeak, the BRC said in an official statement that its members are “protecting customers against the worst effects of price rises in basics such as wheat, meat and cotton.”

According to the BRC, wheat is up by 47 percent in a year, corn by 61 percent, beef by 17 percent and pork by 16 percent.

While this might indeed by the case — and the endless causes of such increases would warrant a separate study of its own — the reality is that the supermarkets are not “protecting” the consumers but obviously passing them on.

This then, is the cause of the food price hikes and the increasing supermarket profit levels, and it is insulting to consumers for the BRC to pretend otherwise.

The BNP has no problem with private enterprise delivering healthy profits. This is the dynamo upon which job creation and true national wealth depends.

However, with a government that is determined to financially break this country and its people through “spending reviews,” bailouts to banksters, foreign aid, immigration, EU membership and a host of other disasters, it might be prudent of major companies to reign in or at least stabilise their profit margins in the long term interests of their customer base.