March 10, 2009
The shocking anti-British army protest by a group of Muslims in central Luton earlier today is a portent of what is to come unless the Islamification of this country is halted, the BNP’s defence spokesman has warned.
“The disgraceful sight of Muslim protestors carrying posters saying ‘Anglian Soldiers Go to Hell’ while parading through town after tours of duty risking their lives is the inevitable consequence of the colonisation of this country by Third Worlders,” Mr Peter Mullins said.
“Luton is well known as a heavily Muslim colonised town, and it is little wonder that there was nearly a confrontation between indigenous British people watching the parade and the Muslim protestors,” he said.
“While the BNP completely opposes the illegal war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we cannot help but think of what would happen to British nationals who would insult a Pakistani army parade in Lahore in this manner; they would be lynched,” Mr Mullins continued.
The 2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment, known as the Poachers, have toured Iraq twice in two years.
As the returning soldiers reached Luton Town Hall, watched by friends and family seeing them for the first time in months, the Muslim protesters shouted “Terrorists” and “Anglian Soldiers Go to Hell”.
The Muslims then had to be protected by police as supporters of the soldiers, some carrying Union and St George’s flags, turned on them shouting “Scum” and “No surrender to the Taleban.”
Mr Mullins said that a recent intelligence community report had warned of large scale unrest this coming summer, spurred on by the economic crisis. “This is bound to be exacerbated by the presence of large numbers of people in Britain who are hostile to everything for which this nation stands,” he said.
“During World War II, British soldiers fighting overseas knew that when they saw the white cliffs of Dover, they were once again on safe ground. Thanks to the mass Third World immigration policies pursued by Tory and Labour governments, this is no longer the case. British army personnel now find that the foe which they fought is also to be found right in the middle of England itself.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Sunday, 22 February 2009
HOW LABOUR'S LIES HAVE DIMINISHED A ONCE PROUD NATION
VILIFIED: Labour labelled workers as xenophobic
THE Soviet revolutionary leader Lenin was a firm believer in the use of fraudulent propaganda for ideological ends.
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth,” he once said. When it comes to immigration, the revolutionary ideologues of Labour have erected a vast edifice of deceit based on two massive lies.
On the one hand, Labour Ministers continually tell us that mass immigration is the only route to prosperity. They claim that, without a tidal wave of foreigners our economy would shrink, our public services collapse and our living standards plummet.
On the other hand, they try to absolve themselves of any responsibility by putting all the blame on the European Union. They like to give the impression that most migrants to Britain are from Eastern Europe and therefore they have no control over such arrivals because of EU rules on the free movement of people around the member states.
'Those who object are smeared as racist'
But the harsh winds of reality are now exposing the truth. The deepening recession has made a nonsense of the Government’s assertion that mass immigration is the recipe for permanent growth.
Just the opposite is true. The destruction of our borders has brought nothing but economic misery, lengthening dole queues and mounting bankruptcies.
Even in the boom years, the vast influx of newcomers, running at a rate of over 500,000 a year since 2004, really benefited only the nanny-employing metropolitan elite. For most ordinary Britons, migration meant lower wages. Now, as the migrants still pour in, the economic pain is being felt ever more intensely right across the country.
Independent research has also demolished Labour’s fabrication that this is essentially an EU issue. A new study by the House of Commons library, respected for its impartiality, shows that of the 3.8 million foreigners who have settled here since 1997, no fewer than two-thirds have come from outside the EU.
So Labour’s pretence that the Government had no control over numbers is false, since all the 2.6 million non-EU migrants would have needed work permits or visas to settle here. Contrary to their mendacious rhetoric, Ministers could have easily stopped the flood if they wanted by re-establishing proper border controls.
Even within the EU, the Government can halt the entry of certain people if it has the political will, as the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith proved last week when she barred the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, a fierce critic of Islam, from coming to Britain.
But in their determination to refashion Britain as a multi-cultural society, the ruling class has never had any intention of reducing immigration. They would rather have an open-door immigration policy than one Geert Wilders.
In pursuing their revolution, the priority of Labour politicians has always been to deceive the British people, not uphold our national integrity. It was the Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels who once said that: “It is vitally important for the state to use all its powers to repress dissent, for truth is the mortal enemy of the lie and thus by extension truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”
Labour has certainly been ruthless in closing down any open discussion about immigration. Those who object are smeared as racist or extremist.
An army of diversity commissars has been recruited by the state to brainwash the public into full acceptance of the
dogma of multi-culturalism. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, the sinister apparatus of the Orwellian Big Brother state is being erected to monitor the behaviour of every citizen.
The top ranks of the Metropolitan police now think it is their job to enforce political orthodoxy rather than fight crime, so they order the arrest of Tory frontbencher Damien Green for daring to highlight Government failures to tackle illegal immigration.
Similarly, Labour Ministers brand as “xenophobic” British workers in Lincolnshire who recently went on strike in protest at how jobs at a local oil refinery were given to foreigners. Their disgraceful comments showed the twisted mindset of the Labour Government, which seeks to condemn people simply for wanting access to work in their own country.
Moreover, the aim of all this institutionalised oppression is to create a climate where immigration is a taboo subject and dissenters are treated as pariahs.
The economic case for immigration was always an absurdity. A prosperous nation could never be built by importing the poor of the Third World to fill the jobs that should be done by Britons.
The eagerness to throw large swathes of indigenous population on the economic scrapheap has succeeded only in hiking up the costs of welfare, while destroying the skills that once made this country great. The influx of migrants has put an unbearable strain on public services, as well as imposing crippling costs on the taxpayer.
But New Labour politicians never really cared about the economics. In their socialistic contempt for Britain’s heritage, their real objective was to bring about a transformation in the demographics of our country.
Debate about the arrival of Eastern Europeans was just a cover for this fundamental change. Tragically, through its increasing authoritarianism and its open-door immigration policy, Labour had come close to achieving its goal of destroying our traditional nationhood.
We are fast turning into little more than a mass of disparate minorities devoid of any mutual sense of belonging. A once proud nation has been sacrificed on the altar of ideology, its own demise obscured by lies.
THE Soviet revolutionary leader Lenin was a firm believer in the use of fraudulent propaganda for ideological ends.
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth,” he once said. When it comes to immigration, the revolutionary ideologues of Labour have erected a vast edifice of deceit based on two massive lies.
On the one hand, Labour Ministers continually tell us that mass immigration is the only route to prosperity. They claim that, without a tidal wave of foreigners our economy would shrink, our public services collapse and our living standards plummet.
On the other hand, they try to absolve themselves of any responsibility by putting all the blame on the European Union. They like to give the impression that most migrants to Britain are from Eastern Europe and therefore they have no control over such arrivals because of EU rules on the free movement of people around the member states.
'Those who object are smeared as racist'
But the harsh winds of reality are now exposing the truth. The deepening recession has made a nonsense of the Government’s assertion that mass immigration is the recipe for permanent growth.
Just the opposite is true. The destruction of our borders has brought nothing but economic misery, lengthening dole queues and mounting bankruptcies.
Even in the boom years, the vast influx of newcomers, running at a rate of over 500,000 a year since 2004, really benefited only the nanny-employing metropolitan elite. For most ordinary Britons, migration meant lower wages. Now, as the migrants still pour in, the economic pain is being felt ever more intensely right across the country.
Independent research has also demolished Labour’s fabrication that this is essentially an EU issue. A new study by the House of Commons library, respected for its impartiality, shows that of the 3.8 million foreigners who have settled here since 1997, no fewer than two-thirds have come from outside the EU.
So Labour’s pretence that the Government had no control over numbers is false, since all the 2.6 million non-EU migrants would have needed work permits or visas to settle here. Contrary to their mendacious rhetoric, Ministers could have easily stopped the flood if they wanted by re-establishing proper border controls.
Even within the EU, the Government can halt the entry of certain people if it has the political will, as the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith proved last week when she barred the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, a fierce critic of Islam, from coming to Britain.
But in their determination to refashion Britain as a multi-cultural society, the ruling class has never had any intention of reducing immigration. They would rather have an open-door immigration policy than one Geert Wilders.
In pursuing their revolution, the priority of Labour politicians has always been to deceive the British people, not uphold our national integrity. It was the Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels who once said that: “It is vitally important for the state to use all its powers to repress dissent, for truth is the mortal enemy of the lie and thus by extension truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”
Labour has certainly been ruthless in closing down any open discussion about immigration. Those who object are smeared as racist or extremist.
An army of diversity commissars has been recruited by the state to brainwash the public into full acceptance of the
dogma of multi-culturalism. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, the sinister apparatus of the Orwellian Big Brother state is being erected to monitor the behaviour of every citizen.
The top ranks of the Metropolitan police now think it is their job to enforce political orthodoxy rather than fight crime, so they order the arrest of Tory frontbencher Damien Green for daring to highlight Government failures to tackle illegal immigration.
Similarly, Labour Ministers brand as “xenophobic” British workers in Lincolnshire who recently went on strike in protest at how jobs at a local oil refinery were given to foreigners. Their disgraceful comments showed the twisted mindset of the Labour Government, which seeks to condemn people simply for wanting access to work in their own country.
Moreover, the aim of all this institutionalised oppression is to create a climate where immigration is a taboo subject and dissenters are treated as pariahs.
The economic case for immigration was always an absurdity. A prosperous nation could never be built by importing the poor of the Third World to fill the jobs that should be done by Britons.
The eagerness to throw large swathes of indigenous population on the economic scrapheap has succeeded only in hiking up the costs of welfare, while destroying the skills that once made this country great. The influx of migrants has put an unbearable strain on public services, as well as imposing crippling costs on the taxpayer.
But New Labour politicians never really cared about the economics. In their socialistic contempt for Britain’s heritage, their real objective was to bring about a transformation in the demographics of our country.
Debate about the arrival of Eastern Europeans was just a cover for this fundamental change. Tragically, through its increasing authoritarianism and its open-door immigration policy, Labour had come close to achieving its goal of destroying our traditional nationhood.
We are fast turning into little more than a mass of disparate minorities devoid of any mutual sense of belonging. A once proud nation has been sacrificed on the altar of ideology, its own demise obscured by lies.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
More anti-white discrimination
Greater Manchester Police Chief Wants Preferential Treatment for Non-Whites in Recruitment
October 13, 2008 by Lee Hancock
Peter Fahy, the new chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, has said that the only way to recruit black and Asian police officers is through “affirmative action.”
A decade ago, Mr. Fahy’s predecessor called the force “institutionally racist” so the GMP instigated a recruitment drive with the aim of having 7.2% of its 8,142 staff from ethnic minorities. It has now been shown that the GMP has not met its targets and has 4.25% - 346 officers - from ethnic minority backgrounds.
Mr. Fahy said that affirmative action “should be considered” and that “there is a very strong operational need for us to have a more representative police force to deal with a complex society.”
He admitted, however, that the public would not be happy with such blatant anti-white discrimination, saying that “because of the public mood, affirmative action would reduce confidence in the police.”
His non-white colleagues were, perhaps unsurprisingly, less reticent about bringing in anti-white racist recruitment policies. Yousef Dar, a member of the Greater Manchester Muslim Police Association, said:
“If we are saying that we can’t go out and recruit more black and ethnic minority officers, that is a damning indictment on the GMP. What does that say about people’s trust and confidence?
“In terms of the education system, Asian people tend to be among the highest achievers. Why can’t they also be high achievers in the police - are there barriers there?”
Charles Crichlow of the infamous Black and Asian Police Association was even more forthright in his advocacy of the racist policy of “affirmative action”:
“I think it is time to drop our hang-ups about it and look at those proposals if we are serious about having a more representative force and one which is democratic and accountable.
The Black and Asian Police Association’s plea to have a “democratic” police force in Manchester may come as something of a surprise to recently sacked GMP police officer Stuart Janaway. PC Janaway was the officer with the GMB who was recently sacked for the thought crime of wearing a BNP badge at a football match.
In many ways Mr. Fahy’s comments about the introduction of affirmative action into the police force are moot because it has been proven that it is already in place. In 2006, Avon and Somerset discarded nearly 200 applications from white men simply on the grounds that they were white and males. Ralph Welsman, one of those white applicants, took the force to court over this discrimination and the Avon and Somerset force admitted their unlawful actions and settled with Mr. Welsman out of court.
And in the same year, Gloucester police were forced to pay compensation to Matt Powell who was one of 108 white applicants who had their application forms thrown into the bin simply because they were white.
Avon and Somerset police discarded nearly 200 applications from young white men after a recruitment drive last year to give greater opportunity to women and ethnic minority candidates. It claimed that white males were “over- represented” on the force.
October 13, 2008 by Lee Hancock
Peter Fahy, the new chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, has said that the only way to recruit black and Asian police officers is through “affirmative action.”
A decade ago, Mr. Fahy’s predecessor called the force “institutionally racist” so the GMP instigated a recruitment drive with the aim of having 7.2% of its 8,142 staff from ethnic minorities. It has now been shown that the GMP has not met its targets and has 4.25% - 346 officers - from ethnic minority backgrounds.
Mr. Fahy said that affirmative action “should be considered” and that “there is a very strong operational need for us to have a more representative police force to deal with a complex society.”
He admitted, however, that the public would not be happy with such blatant anti-white discrimination, saying that “because of the public mood, affirmative action would reduce confidence in the police.”
His non-white colleagues were, perhaps unsurprisingly, less reticent about bringing in anti-white racist recruitment policies. Yousef Dar, a member of the Greater Manchester Muslim Police Association, said:
“If we are saying that we can’t go out and recruit more black and ethnic minority officers, that is a damning indictment on the GMP. What does that say about people’s trust and confidence?
“In terms of the education system, Asian people tend to be among the highest achievers. Why can’t they also be high achievers in the police - are there barriers there?”
Charles Crichlow of the infamous Black and Asian Police Association was even more forthright in his advocacy of the racist policy of “affirmative action”:
“I think it is time to drop our hang-ups about it and look at those proposals if we are serious about having a more representative force and one which is democratic and accountable.
The Black and Asian Police Association’s plea to have a “democratic” police force in Manchester may come as something of a surprise to recently sacked GMP police officer Stuart Janaway. PC Janaway was the officer with the GMB who was recently sacked for the thought crime of wearing a BNP badge at a football match.
In many ways Mr. Fahy’s comments about the introduction of affirmative action into the police force are moot because it has been proven that it is already in place. In 2006, Avon and Somerset discarded nearly 200 applications from white men simply on the grounds that they were white and males. Ralph Welsman, one of those white applicants, took the force to court over this discrimination and the Avon and Somerset force admitted their unlawful actions and settled with Mr. Welsman out of court.
And in the same year, Gloucester police were forced to pay compensation to Matt Powell who was one of 108 white applicants who had their application forms thrown into the bin simply because they were white.
Avon and Somerset police discarded nearly 200 applications from young white men after a recruitment drive last year to give greater opportunity to women and ethnic minority candidates. It claimed that white males were “over- represented” on the force.
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
Tory Council Robs Taxpayers to Pay for £1.2 million Immigrant Scroungers
The Tory-controlled borough of Ealing pays a jobless Afghan immigrant mother of seven some £170,000 per year in benefits to live in a luxurious £1.2 million house (illustrated), it has been revealed.
The story of jobless Afghan migrant Toorpakai Saindi and her brood of seven children summarises all that is wrong with Britain, its immigration policies and the criminal tyrants who form the Tory-Labour ruling elite.
All their income is from state benefits, while the rent on their luxurious £1.2million home — a staggering £12,500 per month — is funded by the taxpayer. The Afghan migrant, who arrived int the UK in 2001, and her children, aged between eight and 22, enjoy a quality of life about which the vast majority of British taxpayers, who fund her lifestyle, can only dream of.
The immigrants moved into the Victorian detached home in an affluent street in Acton, West London, three months ago at the bidding of Tory-controlled Ealing Council.
The Conservative-controlled local authority, which rents the seven bedroom property from private landlord Ajit Panesar (what a surprise), agreed to foot the bill, which is around double the market price for property in the area.
As well as their impressive home, the mother of seven receives around £400 per week in child and local tax benefits.
When Saindi, who has three sons and four daughters, approached the council after being made homeless in July, it said it had a legal obligation to find her a seven-bedroom home.
They did not have one large enough, so they rented one privately from Panesar, after checking his price of £12,458 per month with the Rent Service, an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions.
The Tories — working for the interests of British people time and time again.
The story of jobless Afghan migrant Toorpakai Saindi and her brood of seven children summarises all that is wrong with Britain, its immigration policies and the criminal tyrants who form the Tory-Labour ruling elite.
All their income is from state benefits, while the rent on their luxurious £1.2million home — a staggering £12,500 per month — is funded by the taxpayer. The Afghan migrant, who arrived int the UK in 2001, and her children, aged between eight and 22, enjoy a quality of life about which the vast majority of British taxpayers, who fund her lifestyle, can only dream of.
The immigrants moved into the Victorian detached home in an affluent street in Acton, West London, three months ago at the bidding of Tory-controlled Ealing Council.
The Conservative-controlled local authority, which rents the seven bedroom property from private landlord Ajit Panesar (what a surprise), agreed to foot the bill, which is around double the market price for property in the area.
As well as their impressive home, the mother of seven receives around £400 per week in child and local tax benefits.
When Saindi, who has three sons and four daughters, approached the council after being made homeless in July, it said it had a legal obligation to find her a seven-bedroom home.
They did not have one large enough, so they rented one privately from Panesar, after checking his price of £12,458 per month with the Rent Service, an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions.
The Tories — working for the interests of British people time and time again.
Monday, 8 September 2008
COMMON SENSE SAYS WE MUST CALL A HALT TO MASS IMMIGRATION
OPEN-DOOR POLICY: The Government lacks the will meaningfully to control our borders
LABOUR'S policy on immigration has been a wrecking ball at the heart of our society.
Our borders and identity have been destroyed. The fabric of our towns and cities has been transformed.
A once homogenous, gentle, cohesive nation has been changed into an overcrowded landmass full of conflicting ethnic groups. Thanks to 11 years of destructive rule under Brown and Blair, Britain is becoming a place without soul or sense of mutual belonging.
For too long, the political classes have colluded in the Government’s determination to wipe out our nationhood.
Fearful of accusations of “racism”, they have joined in the official pantomime called “celebrating cultural diversity”, the process by which Britons are meant to express joy at the ruination of their own country.
But at last, some brave voices are saying that enough is enough. Today the backbench Labour MP Frank Field is to join forces with Tory Nicholas Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill, in launching a new cross-party immigration group.
“The damage has already been done to our nation”
The central demand from Field and Soames is that the Government should impose a strict limit on the annual number of migrants in future.
Given the current scale, such a step could hardly be more necessary, with about 600,000 people arriving here every year. But the Government has no intention of introducing tough restrictions.
This is because the top ranks of the Labour party are dominated by socialist ideologues who despise Britain and its past. They see immigration as a vital tool in their project to refashion our society, wiping out the old structure and replacing it with a new multi-cultural entity.
If Labour wanted to stem the tide of immigration it would have done so years ago. After all, other European countries have demonstrated the requisite toughness. Italy has sent in troops to deal with immigrants, while even socialist Spain has introduced drastic new restrictions on visas. But Labour does not even want to try.
The flood of immigrants will therefore only intensify, swelled by such disastrous moves as the secret plan drawn up by the Home Office to grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants living here, a group whose number could be as high as one million.
Such a step will only encourage yet more illegal immigration by signalling that Gordon Brown’s state machine has lost control of our borders.
Even if there were some new curbs, it would be too late for the damage has already been done to the fabric of our nation. The Government’s eager embrace of mass immigration has left Britain in upheaval. More than a third of the babies born here are to migrant mothers, with the figure reaching almost 60 per cent in London.
In many of our big cities, the indigenous population will be in the minority before 2020. Meanwhile, 400,000 Britons are leaving the country every year, accelerating the process of demographic change.
To the social revolutionaries, these statistics are only to be welcomed. “Britain is more racially diverse than ever which is brilliant,” says Ratna Dutt of the Race Equality Foundation. But for anyone who truly loves Britain, the figures represent the slow death of a nation.
There is nothing “brilliant” about the cultural chaos which mass immigration has brought. Economically, our public services are under intolerable strain. Contrary to what ministers claim with their prattle about the economic benefits of migration, the tidal wave of newcomers has actually been a huge burden on the taxpayer, particularly since migrants are twice as likely as the indigenous population to be unemployed or claiming benefits.
Furthermore, mass immigration has brought a shocking rise in crime, family breakdown, drug abuse and gangland violence. Before the importation of large numbers from the Third World, our inner city streets were not awash with blood from teenage stabbings and shootings.
Similarly, the rapid Islamifi-cation of our land has not only transformed our urban landscape, with the mosque replacing the traditional Christian church, but has also led to the spread of superstition, misogyny and the breakdown in the principle of equality before the law, as sharia law increasingly prevails in Muslim areas.
Above all, mass immigration has poisoned civic life in Britain because every public policy is now seen through the prism of race. As a result, we have a climate of permanent division and distrust between ethnic groups, each of them hyping their grievances and blaming supposed discrimination for any of their failings.
Too many of our state services are now paralysed by this fixation with racism, where more concern is shown over the ethnic composition of their workforces than with meeting the needs of the public. The current turmoil at the top of the Metropolitan Police, where the assistant commissioner Tariq Ghaffur has brought charges of racism against his boss Sir Ian Blair, is a classic example of this trend.
At the same time, ordinary Britons are vilified by the Government for their instinctive love of their country and told that their fears over immigration are nothing but xenophobia.
The wish to destroy one’s country used to be described as treachery. Tragically for Britain, it is now simply Labour policy.
LABOUR'S policy on immigration has been a wrecking ball at the heart of our society.
Our borders and identity have been destroyed. The fabric of our towns and cities has been transformed.
A once homogenous, gentle, cohesive nation has been changed into an overcrowded landmass full of conflicting ethnic groups. Thanks to 11 years of destructive rule under Brown and Blair, Britain is becoming a place without soul or sense of mutual belonging.
For too long, the political classes have colluded in the Government’s determination to wipe out our nationhood.
Fearful of accusations of “racism”, they have joined in the official pantomime called “celebrating cultural diversity”, the process by which Britons are meant to express joy at the ruination of their own country.
But at last, some brave voices are saying that enough is enough. Today the backbench Labour MP Frank Field is to join forces with Tory Nicholas Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill, in launching a new cross-party immigration group.
“The damage has already been done to our nation”
The central demand from Field and Soames is that the Government should impose a strict limit on the annual number of migrants in future.
Given the current scale, such a step could hardly be more necessary, with about 600,000 people arriving here every year. But the Government has no intention of introducing tough restrictions.
This is because the top ranks of the Labour party are dominated by socialist ideologues who despise Britain and its past. They see immigration as a vital tool in their project to refashion our society, wiping out the old structure and replacing it with a new multi-cultural entity.
If Labour wanted to stem the tide of immigration it would have done so years ago. After all, other European countries have demonstrated the requisite toughness. Italy has sent in troops to deal with immigrants, while even socialist Spain has introduced drastic new restrictions on visas. But Labour does not even want to try.
The flood of immigrants will therefore only intensify, swelled by such disastrous moves as the secret plan drawn up by the Home Office to grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants living here, a group whose number could be as high as one million.
Such a step will only encourage yet more illegal immigration by signalling that Gordon Brown’s state machine has lost control of our borders.
Even if there were some new curbs, it would be too late for the damage has already been done to the fabric of our nation. The Government’s eager embrace of mass immigration has left Britain in upheaval. More than a third of the babies born here are to migrant mothers, with the figure reaching almost 60 per cent in London.
In many of our big cities, the indigenous population will be in the minority before 2020. Meanwhile, 400,000 Britons are leaving the country every year, accelerating the process of demographic change.
To the social revolutionaries, these statistics are only to be welcomed. “Britain is more racially diverse than ever which is brilliant,” says Ratna Dutt of the Race Equality Foundation. But for anyone who truly loves Britain, the figures represent the slow death of a nation.
There is nothing “brilliant” about the cultural chaos which mass immigration has brought. Economically, our public services are under intolerable strain. Contrary to what ministers claim with their prattle about the economic benefits of migration, the tidal wave of newcomers has actually been a huge burden on the taxpayer, particularly since migrants are twice as likely as the indigenous population to be unemployed or claiming benefits.
Furthermore, mass immigration has brought a shocking rise in crime, family breakdown, drug abuse and gangland violence. Before the importation of large numbers from the Third World, our inner city streets were not awash with blood from teenage stabbings and shootings.
Similarly, the rapid Islamifi-cation of our land has not only transformed our urban landscape, with the mosque replacing the traditional Christian church, but has also led to the spread of superstition, misogyny and the breakdown in the principle of equality before the law, as sharia law increasingly prevails in Muslim areas.
Above all, mass immigration has poisoned civic life in Britain because every public policy is now seen through the prism of race. As a result, we have a climate of permanent division and distrust between ethnic groups, each of them hyping their grievances and blaming supposed discrimination for any of their failings.
Too many of our state services are now paralysed by this fixation with racism, where more concern is shown over the ethnic composition of their workforces than with meeting the needs of the public. The current turmoil at the top of the Metropolitan Police, where the assistant commissioner Tariq Ghaffur has brought charges of racism against his boss Sir Ian Blair, is a classic example of this trend.
At the same time, ordinary Britons are vilified by the Government for their instinctive love of their country and told that their fears over immigration are nothing but xenophobia.
The wish to destroy one’s country used to be described as treachery. Tragically for Britain, it is now simply Labour policy.
Friday, 13 June 2008
Where Our Money Goes
Benefits for children living in eastern Europe are costing
taxpayers £28 million a year.
The number of immigrants claiming benefits for children living abroad has also doubled since last summer, according to Treasury figures.
Treasury ministers said 34,000 children in eastern Europe
are now receiving child benefit designed for British youngsters.
taxpayers £28 million a year.
The number of immigrants claiming benefits for children living abroad has also doubled since last summer, according to Treasury figures.
Treasury ministers said 34,000 children in eastern Europe
are now receiving child benefit designed for British youngsters.
Monday, 5 May 2008
The EU Superstate is a Communist State
Listen to the video recording to hear Vladimir Bukovsky talking about communism in the European Union.
Why won't the British wake up from their sleep? Labour, Conservative and Lib Dim are all socialists and socialists are creeping communists, spreading like a plague across the continent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoUJI07a6GI&feature=related
Only the BNP can stop them and they unite to destroy the BNP for that reason.
Why won't the British wake up from their sleep? Labour, Conservative and Lib Dim are all socialists and socialists are creeping communists, spreading like a plague across the continent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoUJI07a6GI&feature=related
Only the BNP can stop them and they unite to destroy the BNP for that reason.
Friday, 18 April 2008
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
Tough On Crime, Tough On The Causes Of Crime?
Straw told he cannot block release of most dangerous robbers, rapists and paedophiles because it infringes their human rights
By JAMES SLACK - 16th April 2008
Justice Secretary Jack Straw's powers have been weakened. A human rights ruling yesterday stripped away the Government's power to block the release of some of the most dangerous armed robbers, rapists and paedophiles.
The landmark court judgement leaves the Justice Secretary with no remaining say over when any criminal can be released from jail.
It completes a dramatic shift of power from ministers to the courts and Parole Board.
Last night, the Appeal Court ruling - which could apply to hundreds of hardened criminals in coming years was attacked by former Conservative Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe.
She warned it could further dent public faith in the criminal justice system.
The case was brought by "ruthless and dangerous" armed robber Wayne Thomas Black - who is serving a 24-year jail term for a string of horrifying crimes.
He once escaped from a prison van, armed with a razor lodged in a toothbrush, en route from the Old Bailey.
Black was also involved in a carefully-planned robbery in 1993 of a pawnbrokers' shop in Golders Green, North London.
A member of the shop's staff and her mother were handcuffed, blindfolded and held hostage overnight in their home before the £200,000 raid.
In July 1995, Black was handed a 20-year jail term for false imprisonment, kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap and robbery.
In January 1996, he was given another four years for the prison van break. He was at liberty for 12 days before being recaptured in his home town of Southend.
In May 2006, the Parole Board recommended Black's release on licence.
But the Home Secretary, whose role in such matters has now been taken over by the Justice Secretary, refused to comply, saying the 39-year-old still posed too great a risk of re-offending.
Yesterday, the court ruled that it was a breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights for a Government minister alone - rather than a court - to reach such a decision. Lord Justice Latham said: "The inescapable logic is that a prisoner serving a determinate sentence is entitled to have the lawfulness of his detention determined, not merely speedily, but by a court".
He concluded: "I would grant a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act."
The result is that Justice Secretary Jack Straw will no longer be able to overrule any Parole Board decision to release an inmate even if he still believes they are dangerous.
The judgment applies to criminals sentenced to 15 years or more, but not life.
Ministers had already lost the power to decide when lifers should be released following a human rights defeat in Europe in May 2002.
There are around 150 Parole Board hearings a year for prisoners serving 15 years or more, of which between 30 and 50 result in a positive recommendation for release.
Each year, around five of these have their release rejected by the Secretary of State.
These convicts - among the most dangerous in the UK - would now go free.
Critics warned of an outcry if any of those who benefit go on to commit a heinous crime.
Miss Widdecombe said: "The Home Secretary or the Justice Secretary should remain responsible for the release of long serving prisoners.
"The public expect to feel confident in the justice system and cannot reasonably hold to account if the Secretary of State has no power."
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We note the Court's judgment and will be actively considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
"No prisoner will be immediately released as a result of this judgment."
Black can be kept in jail because his sentence has yet to reach the point when release takes place.
Christine Glenn, chief executive of the Parole Board, said: "I welcome this decision. I think we should be a court."
By JAMES SLACK - 16th April 2008
Justice Secretary Jack Straw's powers have been weakened. A human rights ruling yesterday stripped away the Government's power to block the release of some of the most dangerous armed robbers, rapists and paedophiles.
The landmark court judgement leaves the Justice Secretary with no remaining say over when any criminal can be released from jail.
It completes a dramatic shift of power from ministers to the courts and Parole Board.
Last night, the Appeal Court ruling - which could apply to hundreds of hardened criminals in coming years was attacked by former Conservative Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe.
She warned it could further dent public faith in the criminal justice system.
The case was brought by "ruthless and dangerous" armed robber Wayne Thomas Black - who is serving a 24-year jail term for a string of horrifying crimes.
He once escaped from a prison van, armed with a razor lodged in a toothbrush, en route from the Old Bailey.
Black was also involved in a carefully-planned robbery in 1993 of a pawnbrokers' shop in Golders Green, North London.
A member of the shop's staff and her mother were handcuffed, blindfolded and held hostage overnight in their home before the £200,000 raid.
In July 1995, Black was handed a 20-year jail term for false imprisonment, kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap and robbery.
In January 1996, he was given another four years for the prison van break. He was at liberty for 12 days before being recaptured in his home town of Southend.
In May 2006, the Parole Board recommended Black's release on licence.
But the Home Secretary, whose role in such matters has now been taken over by the Justice Secretary, refused to comply, saying the 39-year-old still posed too great a risk of re-offending.
Yesterday, the court ruled that it was a breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights for a Government minister alone - rather than a court - to reach such a decision. Lord Justice Latham said: "The inescapable logic is that a prisoner serving a determinate sentence is entitled to have the lawfulness of his detention determined, not merely speedily, but by a court".
He concluded: "I would grant a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act."
The result is that Justice Secretary Jack Straw will no longer be able to overrule any Parole Board decision to release an inmate even if he still believes they are dangerous.
The judgment applies to criminals sentenced to 15 years or more, but not life.
Ministers had already lost the power to decide when lifers should be released following a human rights defeat in Europe in May 2002.
There are around 150 Parole Board hearings a year for prisoners serving 15 years or more, of which between 30 and 50 result in a positive recommendation for release.
Each year, around five of these have their release rejected by the Secretary of State.
These convicts - among the most dangerous in the UK - would now go free.
Critics warned of an outcry if any of those who benefit go on to commit a heinous crime.
Miss Widdecombe said: "The Home Secretary or the Justice Secretary should remain responsible for the release of long serving prisoners.
"The public expect to feel confident in the justice system and cannot reasonably hold to account if the Secretary of State has no power."
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We note the Court's judgment and will be actively considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
"No prisoner will be immediately released as a result of this judgment."
Black can be kept in jail because his sentence has yet to reach the point when release takes place.
Christine Glenn, chief executive of the Parole Board, said: "I welcome this decision. I think we should be a court."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
