BARNSLEY NATIONALISTS

In Defence of Free Speech by Lars Hedegaard

2011-06-15T16:01:00.002+01:00

(Lars Hedegaard’s Address to a Meeting of Die Freiheit in Kiel, June 11, 2011)

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for the opportunity to address this important gathering.

To be absolutely frank, I have to admit that I was in grave doubt as to whether I ought to accept your courteous invitation to speak.

As you know, I am the President of the Danish and International Free Press Societies. Both organisations are entirely and exclusively devoted to the protection of free speech. Apart from that, we have no political or religious agenda.

Every member of our organisation is perfectly welcome to say anything he likes and to argue any point he wants to make as long as he does not say or do anything in contravention of free speech. But as an organisation we stick to one issue only: the defence of free speech where ever and by whom ever it is threatened.

So I am not here to heap praise on your party, Die Freiheit, or on your political programme.

I wish you well as I would wish any democratic and freedom-loving (freiheitlich) political party well – in Germany, in Denmark, all over the world.

It may well be argued – and I am prepared to accept this argument – that the struggle for freedom of expression is a political struggle. No doubt the most important political struggle of our time. But once we have agreed on this point, we in The Free Press Society welcome anyone in our midst.

Whether people are socialists, liberals, conservatives, for or against the war in Afghanistan, for or against the European Union, higher or lower taxes, immigration or whatever is of no concern to us.

We have among our members people of many political and religious persuasions – Social Democrats, liberals and conservatives, adherents and opponents of the welfare state etc. We have Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and atheists. We get along famously because we have one thing in common: freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is the absolute prerequisite for any other freedom. Without it there can be no democracy, no personal liberty, no rule of law, no equality before the law, no equality between the sexes. In fact no social or scientific progress.

Unfortunately, a growing number of people in our Western societies – and particularly in our governments, in our universities, in the press and among church leaders – think that free speech has become a burden. That it is an affront to the sort of decent and well behaved society they prefer. They think that free speech exists and is encoded in our free and democratic constitutions in order that people may say nice things to each other. In particular, people are not supposed to criticise so-called ethnic minorities, by which they invariably mean Muslim minorities.

According to our ruling elites, any criticism of Islam or of unfettered immigration or of the growing trend in our Western countries towards parallel societies should be seen as racism.

Not only are dissidents called every name in the book and evicted from polite company. Their careers are ruined. They are fired from their jobs. They receive threats. They are beaten up and sometimes killed.

Anyone who thinks that political murders belong in our fascist or communist past should ponder the fate of the two brave Dutchmen Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, who were cut down by political fanatics.

And they should remember what recently happened to the Danish artist Kurt Westergaard and his Swedish colleague Lars Vilks. Fortunately they are still alive but only because they are protected by the security police.

And what crime have Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks committed? They have drawn some pictures!

Think about that! What do you think would have happened if forty years ago, some daring soul had suggested that Islam’s implantation in the West would result in this state of affairs? He would have been ridiculed. People would have said that he was ready for the insane asylum. And if he was a politician, his career would have been cut short. That was precisely what happened to the British Conservative parliamentarian Enoch Powell when he had warned against the consequences of mass immigration.

And today – as it is becoming clear for all to see unless they shut their eyes – that orthodox Islam is incompatible with free speech, new methods are being employed in order to shut up anyone who will not toe the line.

We have come to a point where the upholders of the official state ideology of multiculturalism and cultural and moral relativism can no longer defend their position in free and open discourse. They have run out of rational arguments as more and more Germans, Dutchmen, Danes, Britons, Italians etc. realise that all cultures are not equal and that some religions and political ideologies are better than others.

So they mobilise the judicial system in order to indict and punish dissidents for what they call “hate speech”.

That is why we have seen criminal trials like the ones against my friends Geert Wilders in Holland and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria and myself in Denmark.

Geert, Elisabeth and I haven’t threatened anyone. We have not incited violence against anyone. We are neither anti-Semites nor racists.

We have simply insisted on our right to criticise a totalitarian ideology that threatens to obliterate everything that Europe and the West have achieved over the past 350 years.

Let me remind you that free speech is not an institution intended to ensure that people speak nicely. Quite the contrary. Freedom of expression exists in order to protect those who make statements that people abhor. Statements that are shocking, outrageous, unheard of and – yes – plain blasphemous.

Whenever I get the chance, I take the liberty of slightly rephrasing something that the incomparable English author George Orwell once remarked: Free speech is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear!

If you are looking for an easy-to-remember definition of freedom of expression, there you have it!

Anyone who takes the trouble to study the history of Western societies, will notice that any new thought, any novel scientific hypothesis or insight, any new idea that has brought our Western civilisation forward has invariably been condemned as outrageous, evil, contrary to common sense and moral decency if not outright blasphemous.

Scientific progress and advancement in human understanding cannot take place outside a climate of free speech. This means that people must have an unlimited right to advance any crazy idea they please. They must be permitted to offend, ridicule and blaspheme.

It is characteristic of every known totalitarian system – in the modern world primarily varieties of Fascism, Communism and Islam – that it will not permit people to make mistakes or deviate from a truth they consider god-given.

The pioneers of the European Scientific Revolution did not evade their share of persecution. In 1616 – 73 years after his death – the Catholic church condemned Copernicus’ heliocentric world picture as heretical. In 1633 the church basically crushed Mediterranean science by forcing Galileo to retract his contention that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Not that it made any difference in the real world – except that the Catholic Church drove serious science out of Italy and the Mediterranean lands and thereby handed the scientific and soon after the economic, political and philosophical lead to countries in Northern and Western Europe.

What distinguishes Europe – and later European societies across the seas – from the Islamic World is the fact that religious orthodoxy and religious stupidity could not survive the onslaught of free thought and free expression.

Let me emphasize that this entire development could not have taken place without critics who insisted on their right to free speech and more precisely without the hard-won freedom to criticize religion, including the right to express opinions that someone would find blasphemous. Let us recall that every major step of social progress – the abolition of royal absolutism and the prerogatives of the nobility and the religious hierarchy, the freeing of the peasants, voting rights for workers, equality for women, the abolition of slavery and apartheid, prohibition against beating servants and children etc. – has invariably been opposed by reactionaries and holy men as offensive to the god-given order. So there is no progress in human society without a relentless struggle against the very concept of blasphemy.

A few days ago, at a church gathering – the so-called Kirchentag – in Dresden, German President Christian Wulff repeated his earlier statement that Islam is a part of Germany and others at the conference said that more should be done to make Muslims feel welcome in Germany.

President Wulff might have enlightened his Christian audience that if Islam is to be a part of Germany, freedom of expression cannot be a part of it. If a political ideology such as Islam, according to which any criticism of the prophet or the Koran is punishable by death, is to be a part of Germany, then obviously free speech will have no place this brave new land.

Your President might have said that Muslims can become a part of Germany to the extent that they distance themselves from the insane political ideology that has crippled every society where it has taken hold over the past 1400 years.

But that was not what he said.

I am not mentioning President Wulff’s statement in order to single out your President or Germany for blame. I mention it because I am sure that you have all noticed what President Wullf said and wondered what it might mean.

We hear the same sentiment repeated by governments and political and church leaders all over the Western world: We have to make room for Islam in Europe, they say. Islam is an enrichment of our culture.

Strangely enough we never hear Muslim leaders either in the West or in the Islamic countries say that more should be done to make Christians, Jews and people of other faiths or without religious faith feel more welcome in the Muslim world.

We never hear governments or religious or political leaders in the Dar al-Islam (The House of Islam) demand that non-Muslims should have the right to assemble without fear, that they should have the right to build churches or synagogues. That they should be permitted to freely express their religious beliefs in public without fear of physical attacks or discrimination. In other words, that they should enjoy freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Instead we hear of endless and very often vicious and violent persecution of non-Muslims all over the Islamic world. In Algeria, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan. From Indonesia in the East to Nigeria in the West.

Soon the last Christians of Iraq will have been driven out. That is after our troops have liberated the country. Some liberation! In Egypt – which is supposed to have carried out a democratic revolution – the 8-10 per cent of the population that still clings to Egypt’s old Christian religion are still being killed, Christian girls are still being kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam and married off to Muslim men, and their families never see them again.

I think that your President and other Western leaders ought to have pondered this before making statements intended to give their citizens a bad conscience because by and large, Muslims are poorly integrated in Western societies.

We live at a time when free speech is under the heaviest attack we have experienced since the Nazis tried to impose their absolutist rule two generations ago.

At a time when we should be exchanging views and information about the real threats to our civilization and whole way of life, Western countries and international organizations are busy trying to shut down free discourse. Hate speech and blasphemy laws are being brushed off or reintroduced as a means to regulate and discipline what may be said.

It seems to me that what is politically correct ought be determined by the electorate when it has had the opportunity to listen to all arguments and every relevant piece of information.

But we are going about it the other way around. First our governments tell us what is politically correct and then they decide what may be said without fear of ostracism or criminal prosecution.

It is about time that we return to the roots of our Judeo-Christian civilization and to the founding fathers of free speech.

Let me quote from a pamphlet published by the Englishman John Milton in 1644. The language may be a bit dated, but the ideas are as fresh and relevant as when they were first penned:

“ Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.”

“Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

“[Truth] needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious.”

Milton goes on:

“If we think to regulate printing, thereby to rectify manners, we must regulate all recreations and pastimes, all that is delightful to man. No music must be heard, no song be set or sung, but what is grave and Doric. There must be licensing of dancers, that no gesture, motion, or deportment be taught our youth, but what by their allowance shall be thought honest.”

That was John Milton in 1644 at the time of the English Revolution.

How ironic, how sad, how despicable that 367 years later, we should again be discussing the need to license opinions, to regulate and rectify manners and indeed to place upon ourselves “this iron yoke of outward conformity” – to quote John Milton once again.

For that is precisely what we do when we introduce laws on hate speech and blasphemy, when the state outlaws certain opinions and put people in jail for voicing them.

Where does all this end? As Milton pointed out, there is no end to it.

Next they will be regulating the internet, they will be scouring e-mails for wrong opinions.

They will invade the private sphere and listen in to what people say in their homes or places of work.

For make no mistake. If you regulate what may be said in public, you’ will simply drive the frank exchange of opinions underground. So the logical outcome will be a police state with millions of snooping stasi informers.

We have already seen such cases in Europe.

It is high time that we the people put a stop to this. A society that regulates speech is a society that is unable to solve its problems – let alone identify them.

And such a society is doomed.

This is not the kind of world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

We must do away with speech rules and political correctness.

We must repeal all hate speech and blasphemy laws.

We in the International Free Press Society will commit all our efforts and resources to achieving this objective.

The Unity Candidate

2011-06-12T18:38:00.003+01:00

British National Party Member of the European Parliament Andrew Brons has released a campaign video in which he has outlined the platform upon which he will run his leadership election campaign.

Mr Brons said his most important aim in standing in the leadership election was to be a “unity candidate” to bring the large number of members who have dropped out over the past few years, back into activism.

“I believe that if we can win back those selfless activists, then we can get back to the success which we had a few years ago, ” Mr Brons said.

* The video also includes a short message of support from Richard Edmonds.

Click Here To See Andrew's Video & Read The Rest Of His New Website.

Andrew Brons MEP to Stand in BNP Leadership Contest

2011-06-10T15:27:00.002+01:00

Andrew Brons, Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and Humberside, has declared his candidacy for the upcoming leadership election to be held in the British National Party.
Mr Brons’s candidacy will replace and take over the campaign started by Richard Edmonds, with his full support and encouragement.

“This challenge is not an ideological battle, nor is it personal,” Mr Brons said.

“It is primarily concerned with rectifying the party’s internal organisation and ways of handling differences of opinion,” said Mr Brons.

“Our campaign will be based five core principles,” Mr Brons said.

“Firstly, we want to save the party from a haemorrhaging of members, especially activists.

“Secondly we must face up to and deal with the financial mismanagement which has afflicted our party. There is also an urgent need for financial transparency.

“Thirdly, we need to change the party’s constitution to make it more accessible and democratic to the members. It must also embrace a collegiate leadership.

“Fourthly, we need to change the culture of the party with regards to members’ interactions with each other.

“Finally we need to halt the practice of using the internal security and disciplinary procedure as a factional tool,” said Mr Brons.

The campaign staff already assembled for Mr Edmonds’s campaign, including his election agent, Chris Roberts, will make up the core team of Mr Brons’s campaign.

“We have mounted an all-out attempt to save the party,” said Mr Edmonds. “Many of us are of the opinion that the dangers caused by self-inflicted damage could see the British National Party irreparably damaged.

“Mr Brons is the ideal candidate to unite and heal the wounds within our party,” Mr Edmonds continued.

“Mr Brons brings the benefit of his many years of experience and service to our movement. He is a man of integrity and proven selfless devotion to our cause and is respected by all.

“I welcome most warmly his decision to step forward at this time of crisis. We need every person of goodwill if we are to succeed in the effort of saving our party and country.

“I thank all the members and supporters who have helped, aided and encouraged me when I was the challenger. Mr Brons must be supported by all,” concluded Mr Edmonds.

Source

Traitors amongst us

2011-06-08T12:33:00.004+01:00

Regular readers of Sarah maid of Albions blog will be aware of her essays entitled Genocide by stealth. when evil forces set out to erase or “ethnically cleanse” a race of people it is not always necessary to use gas chambers, armies or weapons of mass destruction. There are other more subtle and gradual means by which an ethnic group can, by a mixture cajoling and encouragement, be made to shift, inch by inch towards the precipice beyond the rim of which lies their destruction.

Although all genocide is evil, genocide by stealth, albeit less bloody in the immediate sense, requires true malevolence to carry it off. For it is a crime not committed in hot blood but in cold, and it is committed over a protracted period which may take many decades to complete. Also, unlike most other genocides, the perpetrators of genocide by stealth, clearly do not consider their victims to be a threat to them, neither do they have cause for any personal desire for revenge, which might explain, if not excuse what they do. It is genocide committed merely for the sake of an agenda.

As such, these perpetrators are perhaps even more heinous of other such monsters. They have no redeeming features, no excuse for what they do. They were not caught up in a crazy moment of history, they have no bereavements unhealed wounds or historical grievances to avenge. They have had all the time in the world to contemplate what they are doing without being driven by any emotional trigger or sense of unbearable loss and pain. They are without compassion without morals and without redemption

They have lived their whole lives amongst their intended victims and have benefited greatly from doing so. They are children of the same culture yet they have complete contempt for it and have spent their adulthood working for its destruction.

Some of them take the roles of propagandists and create new fake worlds of lies designed to misrepresent and undermine the civilisation they hate, that is to say, our civilisation. They are the journalists, the movie makers, the commentators and general effluent better known as the media. A new book by a young writer called Benjamin Shapiro entitled Primetime Propaganda The true Hollywood story of how the Left took over your TV exposes the degree of misrepresentation which goes on in America. (yes the writer is Jewish I know that matters to some of you – but this young man appears to be on our side, and we would be fools to allow his religion to blind us to the truth he has exposed.)

For instance in this telephone interview with John Langley the creator of the US TV show “Cops” which claims to portray street crime in America, Langley freely admits he deliberately over represents white crime levels and under represents that committed by “people of colour” by approximately 100% in each direction.
I have written a number of articles on the subject myself and I recommend Ben Shapiro's book.

It would be interesting to read a similar expose in Britain, can anyone doubt for instance that the BBC struggle to balance the ethnic make up of the crimes they portray on Crimewatch or how selective they have to be to ensure that there are at least 50% white villains amongst the "wanted faces" reported on by their BBC approved mixed race policeman come D list, and occasionally half nude, celebrity Rav Wilding.

However, the media are merely the spin doctors, they have a lot of influence but to do real damage you need real power, and over the last half century we have consistently granted power to politicians who are committed to the destruction of our society, and us along with it.

Throughout the western world, we have voted for men and women who actively hate us and who will stop and nothing to inflict as much harm as they can upon us. The American public have not yet realised quite how malevolent the man currently occupying the White House and his administration are, however, we in Britain were, this time well ahead of them in electing our own political assassins.

Amongst the most evil of those politicians elected to power in Britain were those who made up the New Labour party who we voted into power in 1997, and kept there for thirteen long years. It is gradually becoming clear that in those thirteen years New Labour did more deliberate damage to our nation, and to our people than any enemy we have ever faced before.

This brings me to the point of this item, in a superb article published on the Gates of Vienna blog last month writer Paul Weston shone a light on the level of treachery the New Labour party under was guilty of. The link to Paul Weston's article is pasted below,and I recommend you circulate it widely:

Why Is This Not Treason?

Hat Tip Sarah Maid Of Albion.

Your Papers Please !

2011-06-03T16:01:00.002+01:00

I remember back in the days when we were regularly told by the Media that the people of the Soviet Union were enslaved by their governments, not allowed to speak out, elections were rigged or only ever had one candidate, criticise the party and your house, your job, your pension were gone. "How awful it must be to live under such a regime" we were told, not free to travel about, meet up with friends.

Trillions were spent on Defence systems to make sure the evil Reds could never inflict their restrictive authoritarian systems on us, the Free, in the West.

I wonder why we bothered. I just got a press release from West Midlands Police stating that between Friday 27 May to Thursday 27 October 2011, they will enforce an order allowing the dispersal of two or more people if their behaviour is deemed "anti Social".

Freedom of movement and Association have consistently been abused by our beloved "Police Service". From ASBOS banning people from walking the streets of their own town, to super injunctions shutting the mouths of the masses, we are where the Soviets were.

Hyperbole? I think not. Just because the masses ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Government for the Elite, by the Elite. And don't you forget it.

Hat Tip Old Holborn.

The Common Purpose Rogues Gallery

2011-05-30T13:14:00.003+01:00

The poisonous tentacles of Common Purpose reach everywhere. Not just here in the UK, where they are based, but they also operate in France, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden and Turkey. This semi-secret ‘educational charity’ don’t like people, such as you or I, talking about them though. ‘Nothing to hide, nothing to fear’, is the mantra we keep hearing from the government, so I wonder what Common Purpose have to hide then.

Plenty, by all accounts just take a look at this site or this one and you will discover all you need to know about the fraudulent activities, the brain washing and the serial abuse of public funds, as they seek to recruit, train and maintain the commissars and apparatchiks needed to implement the British government’s hidden agenda …. New World Order.

So who are the self-serving traitors who have close connections with Common Purpose and have conspired to corruptly abuse millions of pounds of public money? Do we know any of them? We sure do. A database of Common Purpose ‘graduates,’ and a list of BBC staff that have attended CP Courses, is available here but in the meantime here is a rogues gallery of some of the ringleaders and instantly recognisable fraudsters faces that are associated with Common Purpose:

Source

Has your child been CAFed? How the Government plans to record intimate information on every child in Britain

2011-05-26T13:37:00.001+01:00

When police raided Tory MP Damian Green’s home, they ‘sheepishly’ asked whether children were present before ransacking it. His wife assumed they were being polite. But, under sinister new guidelines, officers must assess all children they encounter – including while ‘searching premises’ – for a police database called MERLIN.

This, in turn, feeds into a giant new Whitehall database on Britain’s children, Contact Point, which goes live nationally in January.

The Tories have vowed to scrap it, arguing that it threatens family privacy and children’s safety. But civil liberties campaigners say we must resist it now, before it is too late.

Since April 1, hundreds of thousands of State employees, from police to teachers, youth and nursery workers, social workers and sports coaches, have been entitled to interrogate children aged up to 19, using the ‘Common Assessment Framework’ (CAF), a creepy, eight-page, 60-section questionnaire.

CAF includes eyewateringly intimate questions about children’s sexual behaviour, their family’s structure, culture and religion, their views on ‘discrimination’, their friends, secret fears, feelings and family income, plus ‘any serious difficulties in their parents’ relationship’.

How has such a terrifying intrusion into private life crept, almost unnoticed, under the radar? The answer is New Labour has cleverly packaged CAF as an aid to ‘child protection’ and delivering better services as part of its Every Child Matters project (ECM).

The £224million programme has been beset by delays, incomprehensible acronyms and New Labour gobbledegook. But let us not be deceived – it is about control, not care, and spying, not safety.

ECM claims that nearly half of Britain’s 11million children have ‘additional needs’, so must continuously be assessed for the giant database at the Government’s Department for Schools and Families.

CAF questionnaires will be kept until they are 19, or for 75 years if they have been in care, and can be accessed electronically by hundreds of thousands of staff in other agencies.

Contact Point will also store information from databases kept by the NHS, GPs, schools, the Child Benefit Agency and the National Pupil Register. The potential for sensitive material about our children falling into malevolent hands is enormous.

Incredibly, parental consent is not often required for this intrusion into children’s lives. Youngsters from the age of 12 are deemed mature enough to agree to being CAF-ed – whatever their parents’ objections. But campaigners stress that families should teach their children to say No: submitting to CAF is, currently at least, voluntary. The Government claims that the database will identify children at risk of poverty, abuse or future criminality. But since when did filling in endless forms release funds for frontline services, rather than divert them?

By bizarre coincidence – or not – this assault on treasured British notions of privacy and propriety was devised by the woman responsible for Britain’s most notorious social-work scandal. ECM was launched in September 2003 by Margaret Hodge, Tony Blair’s shocking choice as Britain’s first Children’s Minister.

Her main ‘qualification’ was being his pal and running Islington Council when its 12 children’s homes were awash with paedophiles and sympathisers of the ‘Left-wing’ Paedophile Information Exchange. This campaigned for sex to be legalised with children from the age of four.

One can only wonder how many Pervy Petes within childcare today will relish being actively invited to ask children about their sexual behaviour (CAF seemingly views this as normal), the ‘sleeping arrangements’ at home and how they feel about ‘changes to their body’.

I have been exposing child-abuse scandals for nearly 20 years and believe that this new Stalinist bureaucracy will not save a single child. Many of the paedophiles I exposed in Hodge’s homes ‘groomed’ children for eventual abuse through precisely such questions. Hodge claimed that constant State monitoring of children was justified by the Victoria Climbie scandal.

Yet adequate powers to protect genuinely endangered children already exist. Why, then, did the appalling mothers of Shannon Matthews and Baby P retain their children? The problem was not lack of paperwork but too many stupid, politically correct people reading it and failing to act.

CAF will not mean that the State now swoops on the demonic families in flea-infested homes with rottweilers and broken-backed babies. No, just as with the Government’s fearless war on pensioner recycling ‘louts’, they will instead target and terrorise ordinary, decent families.

Why? One reason is simply to control people. Many of today’s New Labour MPs are ex-Marxists and radical feminists who still believe that the family poses the greatest potential opposition to the strong State.

The Government’s decreed desirable ‘outcomes’ for children are so frighteningly broad that many decent parents could find themselves labelled failures or abusers.

Everyone involved with children – including volunteers, and police on raids – is now expected to use the Government’s ‘Pre-Assessment Checklist’, to see if they are achieving these five ‘outcomes’ – being healthy, staying safe, enjoying life, making a ‘positive contribution’ and achieving ‘economic well-being’.

Even parents working desperately hard to feed their children and keep them safe could be classified as failing them. The questionnaire asks if children’s parents are ‘over-protective’, and whether work leaves them ‘too tired to pay attention to your needs’. CAF practitioners are also taught specifically to ask if parents ‘promote a healthy lifestyle’ and oppose ‘bullying and discrimination’.

An increasingly rigid State already rejects potentially loving foster and adoptive carers who smoke or have politically ‘incorrect’ views because they are Christian.

How long until natural parents are also found guilty of thought crime?

Might Damian Green have been considered guilty of encouraging discrimination, through challenging the Government on immigration?

The worst thing is that Every Child Matters has made real protection work harder – the highly effective Child Protection Register was abolished in April and social workers are now drowning in paperwork about entirely innocent families.

A suppressed University of York study found it took them a day to enter data electronically on just one child.

Terri Dowty, director of Action on Rights for Children, says: ‘People should fill in CAF questionnaires only if they have a real, defined need – for example, a disabled child and they need equipment – and then answer only strictly relevant questions. Otherwise, parents should teach their children that if they are asked at school to fill in these forms to say that they want first to go home and discuss it.’

Dowty fears that the new State questionnaire is ‘designed to teach children to accept being interrogated and classified from the earliest age, by anyone and everyone. It is truly frightening’. No one, supposedly, can be forced to fill in a CAF. But practitioners are advised to report the family to the local safeguarding children team ‘if a common assessment is refused and you are concerned’. They may also store the CAF centrally even when permission is refused.

Campaigners are considering challenging CAF in the European Court of Human Rights, which has thrown out Britain’s attempts to store innocent citizens’ DNA. But they desperately need benefactors and lawyers prepared to fund test cases and support innocent families under pressure.

Tragically, Britain, the cradle of parliamentary democracy, is becoming notorious worldwide for snooping on its citizens. Professor Nigel Parton, NSPCC Professor of Childhood Studies at Huddersfield University, warned a recent international conference in Finland that the Every Child Matters agenda means what we are witnessing is the emergence of the ‘preventive-surveillance state’, with ‘major implications for the civil liberties and human rights of the citizen, particularly for children and parents’.

Once, people who warned of a growing police state seemed paranoid. The Damian Green raid was a wake-up call. Let us now protect our children, our and our country’s future, with all our might.

From Here

Regime Change at the IMF: The Frame-Up of Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

2011-05-21T12:51:00.002+01:00

The arrest of IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has all the appearances of a frame-up ordered by powerful members of the financial establishment, in liaison with France's Nicolas Sarkozy, whose presidency has served the interests of the US at the expense of those of France and the European Union. While there is for the moment no proof of a plot, the unusual circumstances of his arrest and imprisonment require careful examination.

Immediately following Strauss Kahn's arrest, pressures were exerted by Washington to speed up his replacement as Managing Director of the IMF preferably by a non-European, an American or a handpicked candidate from an "emerging market economy" or a developing country.

Since the founding of the Bretton Woods institutions in 1945, the World Bank has been headed by an American whereas the IMF has been under the helm of a (Western) European.

Strauss-Kahn is a member of elite groups who meet behind closed doors. He belongs to the Bildeberger. Categorized as one of the world's most influential persons, he is an academic and politician rather than a banker. In contrast to his predecessors at the IMF, he has no direct affiliation to a banking or financial institution.

But at the same time he is the fall guy. His "gaffe" was to confront the Washington-Wall Street Consensus and push for reforms within the IMF, which challenged America's overriding role within the organization.

The demise of Strauss-Kahn potentially serves to strengthen the hegemony of the US and its control over the IMF at the expense of what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called "Old Europe".

Very interesting article .... Read it here.

Kenneth Clarke questions whether date rape is really ‘rape'

2011-05-18T13:21:00.002+01:00

Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, is facing calls to resign after suggesting that date rape is not always “rape”.

He said some cases of date rape or sex with under-age children might not qualify as rape “in the ordinary conversational sense”.

He also refused to agree with the statement “rape is rape”.

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, called for Mr Clarke to resign over the comments.

His comments came during an appearance on BBC radio Five Live as he sought to defend plans to halve sentences for criminals who plead guilty early.

One victim of an attempted rape who telephoned the programme broke down in tears as arguing that his plans would be a “disaster”.

In a series of heated exchanges on the programme he was accused of “patronizing” listeners after dismissing suggestions that rapists would get out of prison in a year as “total nonsense”.

He also insisted that building more prisons would be a waste of time and admitted conditions in some were “dreadful”.

The Justice Secretary and former Tory Home Secretary, rejected suggestions that rapists might be excluded from plans to halve sentences if they plead guilty.

But he went on to say: “Assuming that you and I are taking about rape in the ordinary conversational sense, some man has forcefully…”

The presenter, Victoria Derbyshire, interjected: “Rape is rape.”

But Mr Clarke replied: “No It’s not.

“If an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she is perfectly willing that is rape, because she is under age, she can’t consent, anybody who has sex with a 15 year old it’s rape.

“But what you and I are talking about is a man forcefully having sex with a woman and she doesn’t want to, that is rape, a serious crime, of course it’s a serious crime.”

Presented with sentencing statistics showing that the average jail term for rape is five years, Mr Clarke played the figure down remarking: “They include the 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old and they include date rapes, date rapes sometimes can be very confusing.”

Asked whether date rape is not as serious, he said: “Date rape can be as serious as the worst rape but date rape in my, you are quite right to say, very old experience of being in trials, they do vary extraordinarily one from another and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances.

“But I’ve never met a judge who confronted with a rapist as you and I would use the term in conversation would give him 12 months, that would be a crazy sentence.”

Mr Clarke admitted that he had not discussed his plans with any rape victims. Moments later a woman called Gabrielle from London was put on the line to relay her experiences of being attacked as she trained for a marathon by a man on a community sentence for other sexual offences.

Breaking down in tears she told him: “If he had not received the community sentence for six sex offences he would not have been out on the day he attacked me, if there wasn’t leniency in the criminal justice system and if he had remained in prison and there was honesty in sentencing and sentences were served in full … my life would have been so different.”

Asked about Mr Clarke’s plans the woman said: “It happened to me it is a disaster. Especially with sex offenders it is a known fact that the absolute vast majority … reoffend.

“To let them out early is saying that any other female who is minding gtheir own business, going about their lawful business, can be a victim.

“In my personal view that cannot be justified. I wouldn’t wish what I went through fighting the criminal justice system for 688 days on my worst enemy.”

Speaking during Prime Minister's Questions in the Commons, Mr Miliband told David cameron: "The Prime Minister when he leaves this chamber should go and look at the comments of the Justice Secretary and then he should say to him very clearly the Justice Secretary should not be in his post at the end of today."

Meanwhile in Amsterdam ......

2011-05-09T18:23:00.003+01:00

... Geert Wilders made his final statement in court yesterday where he is still on trial for telling the truth about Islam. This, as often noted, is a judicial outrage, a public nightmare, and an existential threat to liberty as we have known it which doesn't end because bin Laden is dead. There is a raw, ugly fear of Islam in the non-Islamic world, and the grotesque reflex of the frightened power classes is to side with the raw, ugly power of Islam, which, never let it be forgotten, is derived solely from their own fear. The results are to be seen in the travesties around us from the Netherlands' campaign to silence, penalize and make an example of the courageous Wilders, to the USA's grotesque staging of a dignified, Islamically correct "funeral at sea" for a mass murderer whose corpse should have been disposed of as the human trash that it was.

Reading Geert's words is a sobering experience, spoken as they are in the face of a thoroughly craven but still powerful establishment-machine. In this desperate hour for free speech, they sound an SOS we seem powerless to answer. But they are inspiring, too, for the example they set. Here in the 21st century is a man whose allegiance to liberty is paramount.

Geert Wilders:

Mister President, members of the Court. I recently tried to have Your Honors removed from the case for your refusal to register a statement of perjury against Mr. Hendriks. My challenge of the court did not succeed. I must accept that. I do wish to say, however, that I was more annoyed by another declaration of the President of the Court on the day of the official hearing of Mr. Jansen. He said that I was a free man, that I could not be compared to Mr. Nekschot because I was a free man.

Mister President, you could not be more wrong. For almost seven years now, I have not been a free man. I lost my freedom in 2004. I live as a prisoner with guards without you having convicted me. Without protection I am even less certain of my life than I am now. Mister President, you would not use the words “free man” if you could change places with me for one week.

Mister President, members of the court, I am here as a suspect again today. I have said so before: This penal case is a political trial. An attempt is being made here to silence a politician who speaks on behalf of one and a half million people and who already pays a heavy price for that every single day. Formally, only I stand on trial here, but in practice the freedom of speech of millions of Dutchmen is on trial.

This trial is not merely a political trial. It is also an unjust trial. When you look at the order of the court (to prosecute me) it is clear that the verdict has already been passed. The court has issued an order to prosecute me in which it concludes that I am guilty of incitement to hatred. The court has concluded that my statements as such are of an insulting nature. The court has concluded that I am guilty of the most serious charge: the incitement to hatred and discrimination. The court has concluded that it expects that the criminal prosecution will indeed lead to a conviction. Mister President, members of the court, the court has already done your job. Long before I was brought to trial before you, I was found guilty and was condemned. Hence my right to a just trial has been violated.

Alas, this is but the tip of the iceberg. Without any doubt, the judges who presided this case have conveyed a semblance of partiality. I have been denied 15 of the 18 witnesses whom I wanted to call. Every high representative of the judicial power has given his view on this case, and often to my disadvantage. But Counselor Schalken was the worst.

Counselor Schalken, who co-authored the decision to prosecute me, makes a habit of discussing my trial and arguing his case at elegant dinner parties for intellectuals. Counselor Schalken dined with my witness, Mr Jansen – note that he was one of the only three witnesses whom I was allowed to call – three days before Mr. Jansen was to be interrogated by the court. During this dinner Mr. Schalken TRIED to influence Mr Jansen. The fact that he did not succeed is irrelevant.

Mr. President, members of the court, stop this unfair, political trial. Respect our Dutch freedoms. If this trial continues, despite the fact that the principle of the presumption of innocence has been violated, and if I am convicted, not only my freedom will be infringed, but also the right of all Dutch people to hear the truth. The 19th century black American politician Frederick Douglass, the son of a slave, put it as follows: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

Mr. President, members of the court, I end with a quote of George Washington, who said: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Mr. President, members of the court, do not let this warning become reality. Stop this charade, this political trial where I have already been convicted by the court even before I was a suspect. Stop it now. If you do so, and I passionately hope you will, this will benefit freedom of speech as well as the respectability of the judicial power and the rule of law.

Source

2011 Local Election Results.

2011-05-06T11:13:00.004+01:00

Results are as follows:

Central

Martin Dyson, LAB, 1,577

Jack Hetherington, TUSAC, 150

Elizabeth Hill, CON, 281

Damion Krska, BIG, 263

Colin Porter, BNP, 289

The councillor elected is Martin Dyson, LAB hold

Cudworth

Kirk Stuart Dyson, CON, 278

Terry Hubbard, BNP, 444

Charlie Wraith*, LAB, 2,002

The councillor elected is Charlie Wraith, LAB hold

Darfield

David Burnett, BNP, 197

Carmen Hancock-Jones, BIG, 1,091

Brian Key, LAB, 1,541

Gordon Wilkinson, CON, 239

The councillor elected is Brian Key, LAB gain

Darton East

Joni Hood, LIB, 117

Roy Miller*, LAB, 1,660

Garry Bradley Needham, CON, 363

John Race, BIG, 894

Sharon Sutton, BNP, 170

The councillor elected is Roy Miller, LAB hold

Darton West

Linda Burgess*, LAB, 2,041

Ian Sutton, BNP, 435

Clive Watkinson, CON, 769

The councillor elected is Linda Burgess, LAB hold

Dearne North

Alan Gardiner*, LAB, 1,665

Kurt Garner, BIG, 501

Nathan Walker, BNP, 246

The councillor elected is Alan Gardiner, LAB hold

Dearne South

Paul Edward Buckley, CON, 207

Susan Elaine Garner, BIG, 206

Raymond Hinchcliffe, BNP, 270

Ralph Sixsmith, LAB, 2183

The councillor elected is Ralph Sixsmith, LAB gain

Dodworth

Alan Brown, BNP, 222

Dave Leech, LAB, 1,199

Brian Perrin*, BIG, 1,564

Hamish Toon, CON, 494

The councillor elected is Brian Perrin, BIG hold

Hoyland Milton

Sam England, CON, 314

Barry Lipscombe*, BIG, 1,075

Kevin Riddiough, ENG, 290

Tim Shepherd, LAB, 1,630

The councillor elected is Tim Shepherd, LAB gain

Kingstone

Geoff Bowden*, BIG, 870

Howard Grant Pearson, CON, 193

Peter John Robinson, BNP, 195

Tom Sheard, LAB, 1,160

The councillor elected is Tom Sheard, LAB gain

Monk Bretton

Jane Collins, UKIP, 452

Jane Hubbard, BNP, 252

Clive Melvin Pickering, BIG, 560

Margaret Sheard*, LAB, 1,292

Michael John Toon, CON, 135

The councillor elected is Margaret Sheard, LAB hold

North East

Winnifred Dashwood, BNP, 210

Tony Devoy, IND, 122

Gill Millner, CON, 231

Dave North*, BIG, 1,716

Chris Sykes, LAB, 1,388

The councillor elected is Dave North, BIG hold

Old Town

Andrew Barr, CON, 331

Anita Cherryholme, LAB, 1,673

John Curtis, BNP, 211

John Love*, BIG, 951

The councillor elected is Anita Cherryholme, LAB gain

Penistone East

Paul Francis Hand-Davis*, CON, 2,577

Jill Hayler, LAB, 1,811

The councillor elected is Paul Francis Hand-Davis, CON hold

Penistone West

Mick Drewry, IND, 558

Paul James, BNP, 195

Ann Rusby, CON, 1,836

Peter Starling, LAB, 1,298

The councillor elected is Ann Rusby, CON hold

Rockingham

George Hill, CON, 333

Chris Lamb, LAB, 1,846

Peter Shirt, BNP, 210

Steven Sylvester*, BIG, 1,263

The councillor elected is Chris Lamb, LAB gain

Royston

Tracey Jayne Cheetham, LAB, 1,570

Eddie Gouthwaite, SOC, 114

Paul Anthony Harris, BNP, 113

James Johnson, UKIP, 450

Alex Wilkinson, CON, 244

Ben Wilson, LIB, 148

The councillor elected is Tracey Cheetham, LAB hold

St Helen’s

Jenny Platts*, LAB, 1,713

Dean Walker, BNP, 261

Lesley Anne Watkinson, CON, 185

The councillor elected is Jenny Platts, LAB hold

Stairfoot

Karen Dyson*, LAB, 1,75

Susan Joy Harris, BNP, 261

Daniel Pickering, BIG, 222

Chris Pilkington, CON, 233

The councillor elected is Karen Dyson, LAB hold

Wombwell

Keith Tony Jenner, CON, 323

Shane John Parker, BNP, 218

Jane Arnot Townsend, BIG, 440

Dick Wraith*, LAB, 1,887

The councillor elected is Dick Wraith, LAB hold

Worsbrough

Betty Barlow*, LAB, 1,296

Daniel Cooke, BNP, 246

Raymond Levitt, BIG, 1,061

Peter John Murray, CON, 244

Terry Robinson, SOC, 74

The councillor elected is Betty Barlow, LAB hold

* denotes sitting councillor

BIG - Barnsley Independent Group

BNP - British National Party

CON - Conservative

ENG - English Democrat

IND - Independent

LAB - Labour

LIB - Liberal Democrat

SOC - Socialist Labour

TUSAC - Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts

The Reshaped View Of Europe.

2011-05-05T11:26:00.004+01:00

You may remember this from St Georges day 2008 .

EU to carve up UK

GORDON Brown will today fly the flag of St George over Downing Street - as the EU plots to carve up Britain into a United States of Europe.

Secret plans reveal the South of England will be renamed TRANSMANCHE - and governed in part by bureaucrats based in France.

Two more "Transnational" zones are also being set up to "promote the territorial agenda" of the EU.

The ATLANTIC REGION - stretching thousands of miles from the northern tip of Scotland to southern Spain - will take in western England and Wales, along with parts of Portugal and France.

And the NORTH SEA REGION will cover chunks of eastern England and eastern Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, and the Flemish part of Belgium.

The Atlantic will have its headquarters in Portugal, the North Sea in Denmark.

Ironically, news of the carve-up comes on St George's Day - England's national day.

Critics, including the Tories, claim the new regions "ignore thousands of years of history and wipe England off the map".

Spokesman Eric Pickles said: "We knew Gordon Brown had hoisted the white flag of surrender to the European Constitution.

"Now the Labour Government has been caught red-handed, conspiring with European bureaucrats to create a European Superstate via the back door."

Rest Here.

It seems they have already carved up Britain, this is from Monday's Express.

EU chiefs have been quietly pouring around £1billion a year of taxpayers’ money into the regions.

Now they want to significantly raise the profile of Arc Manche, which already has a ruling “assembly” of councillors and bureaucrats headed by a French Socialist Party “president”, Alain Le Vern. At a cost of thousands of pounds, EU officials have commissioned a new “transnational emblem” to be rolled out across southern England. Designers describe the emblem as a “series of concentric circles symbolising the flow of projects and stakeholders” and to “represent so many bridges between territories”.

Full Article Here

Exploring Euthenasia - Government Destruction Of NHS

2011-04-30T10:38:00.003+01:00

The Coalition government's plans for the NHS are revealed in the Health and Social Care Bill now before Parliament.

We, the electorate however have not had a chance to say yea or nay to these drastic changes as neither the Tories or LibDems saw fit to put them in their manifestoes.

Even after the election, their Coalition Programme, published on May 20th 2010, foresaw a gradual evolution of existing structures for the NHS, rather than drastic upheaval, but by the time of The White Paper in July 2010, there had been a significant change of plan.

All of England's 152 primary care trusts (PCTs) will be abolished, as well as 10 strategic health authorities (SHAs). GPs will instead be responsible for buying-in services for patients, overseen by a new commissioning board. The bulk of the £100 billion budget will therefore be in the hands of GPs.

Our current NHS hospitals will become Foundation Trusts and will have to compete for business with the third sector (charities) and private companies. It has been stated categorically that NHS hospitals will have to survive in the competitive market or they will be allowed to fail and will then be taken over by private interests.

Wait A Minute, That Rings A Bell

Just by pure coincidence, a number of Conservative Party donors have got close ties to the healthcare industry. John Nash for one, then chairman of Care UK, which provides GP surgeries, walk-in centres and other specialist services. He and his wife donated £203,500 to the Tories over the last 5 years.

Of this £21,000 went directly to Andrew Lansley to fund his office before the Tories got into power.

Nash is also the founder of a City Firm, Sovereign Capital, which coincidentally runs a number of private healthcare firms. The co-founder Ryan Robson, another major Tory donor has given the party £252,429.45. £50,000 of this got Robson, a managing partner of Sovereign Capital, into the Tory “Leader's Group” which quietly provides cash for access.

Another Tory donor with a financial interest in healthcare is Dolar Popat, who gave £209,000 to the party coffers. He became a Peer shortly after Mr Cameron took office. Dolar Popat founded and runs TLC Group which provides nursing and care homes for the elderly.

Philip Scott, of the Priory Group, most of who's income comes from NHS and local council referrals, donated a mere £20,000. The Priory Group runs hospitals, clinics and special schools.

Your Health Is Of "No Clinical Value "

The major effort to cut the NHS bill by £20 billion is leading to the rationing of healthcare which can only result in unnecessary deaths and greatly increased suffering for many people. Yet in his wisdom, Mr Cameron tells us that his “health reforms” are not about cutting services and damaging the wellbeing of the British people, but about “choice”.

This “choice” means that the NHS will no longer be allowed to carry out 57 different surgical procedures. A government directive has stated:

operations which will only be carried out in exceptional circumstances include, removing tonsils, varicose veins, hysterectomies, fitting grommets, removing skin lesions, haemorrhoid surgery, wisdom teeth extraction, cataracts and joint replacements.

It has been stated that even operations with an 80% success rate will be categorised as of “no clinical value” and stopped. These types of surgery are classed as “elective”, even though they may mean an enormous difference to the quality of life a person may have and can mean that without surgery, a condition will then deteriorate and could become acute or even fatal.

Don't imagine that this policy is hypothetical and may never happen, because it is already being implemented in selected areas which include Bury, Oldham, Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale.

Another area of healthcare which is undoubtedly leading to untimely deaths is the practice of passive euthenasia. Since 1993 in the Bland ruling, assisted suicides which involve omissions, ie the removal of life-saving care are not illegal. This is a very distressing subject, which many of us may not want to even consider, but this is happening now in the UK.

Barrister, Jamie Bogle has said the following about the current BMA guidelines: “In fact the guidelines do not refer only to patients who are dying ... It may also refer to a serious long-term chronic state.

The problem here is that we are talking about withdrawing food and fluids and because in the very narrow circumstances of persistent vegetative state, that has been re-defined as treatment, what these guidelines will do is widen it right out into a whole range of conditions, many of them, non-terminal, in which we will be talking about intentionally terminating a patient's life by dehydration. That must be wrong.”

You might want to read the above again and bear in mind that here in England and Wales, nutrition and even water, if they have to be given medically, are categorised as “treatment” and can be withdrawn in certain circumstances. There is every indication that this is an increasing practice in our hospitals.

Don't Mention The War

Palliative care, often called “comfort care” is carried out by first sedating the patient. This is known as TS, (Terminal Sedation). It is also known as total sedation or palliative sedation, but regardless of it's name it's purpose is “to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness (unconsciousness)”.

Nutrients and fluids are then withdrawn and the patient is allowed to starve and dehydrate. This approach has been adopted in many UK NHS Hospitals.

During the 1930's, Nazi Germany instigated a programme of euthenasia known as Aktion T4, named after Tiergartenstrasse 4, the street address of the headquarters of the Gemeinnutzige Stiftung fur Heilund Anstaltspflege, translated literally as the inocuous sounding “Charitable Foundation for Cure and Institutional Care.”

NICE.

To reassure the German people about T4, the government carried out a campaign of propaganda to change public opinion to be in favour of euthanasia. Leaflets were produced, posters and short films pointing out the costs of maintaining asylums for the incurably ill and insane until gradually the practice became more and more widespread. Recent research based on files recovered after 1990, give a figure of at least 200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people, who were killed by medication, starvation or in the gas chambers between 1939 and 1945.

Is it possible that we are seeing the surreptitious beginnings of such a policy here in the UK?

Operation Overthrow: United Kingdom

2011-04-26T12:31:00.003+01:00

It is time to start looking severely at our own criminal and treasonous government, and remove the whole rotten regime from power, instituting new political structures which serve the interests of We the People and not those of corporate interest groups and the Globalist Elites.

Philip Brennan 20 April 2011:

For the past century or so the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have been committing acts of gross treason against We the People. It is time that we had our own "Arab Spring" here in the UK - perhaps a British Summer, if you will.

Instead of my usual country overview in these posts, I am going to do something a little different. I am going to list a small proportion of the crimes against We the People that I know of so that you all know why the UK Regime needs to be overthrown, and then discuss ways and means of doing so peacefully and lawfully...

In March 2003, Tony Blair put Operation Ore under the official secrets act as it led to the arrest of a parliamentary aid to the cabinet office on child pornography offences. The investigstion threatened to lead to the heart of his cabinet right before the parliamentary vote to go to war with Iraq, and the ensuing scandal would have made a yes vote politically impossible with part of his cabinet answering to child porn charges.

Under a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIR from here on in), UK activists were able to obtain a list of all MPs and Town Councellors who had been convicted, or who where being prosecuted for at the time, of sexual offences against children.

Click Here To Read Full List.

Happy St Georges Day.

2011-04-23T10:35:00.004+01:00

'Child Stealing by the State'

2011-04-20T12:00:00.009+01:00

Brian Gerrish makes a return On The Edge with Theo Chalmers, where he discusses the Social Services corruption throughout the United Kingdom, Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

In Britain today, a secret court system is stealing and trafficking peoples children. The author Jack Frost summed it up in his book Gulag of the Family Courts. Other journalists have described it as Child Stealing by the State. When a small community newspaper, the UK Column was set up in Plymouth to expose massive public sector fraud and corruption, the volunteers had no idea of what was to come. They were shocked at reports of child stealing sent in by parents from across Britain.

Presentation

In the beginning it was hard to accept some stories as true. Some mothers and fathers appeared traumatised. Could their claims be believed? And then the first mother with evidence arrived in the UK Column office. Ring files of letters, emails and court documentation. The evidence was overwhelming lies, false evidence, perjury, false psychiatric assessments, kidnapping, psychological pressure, police threats, blatant collusion of defence and prosecution legal teams against the parent, failure to prosecute the perpetrators of medical incompetence and child abuse, and blatant victimisation of the innocent parent the mother.

Please take the time to listen to Brian , then ask yourself why .... why would the state do this ? Then read these articles.

Harriet Harman’s political judgement has been called into question after it emerged that she once advocated the watering down of child pornography laws.

She was Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for Women and Equality, who also sits on a Cabinet committee on young people’s welfare, she was the successor to Gordon Brown, .

But she faced fresh criticism from Opposition MPs and campaign groups after The Daily Telegraph obtained documents showing that she called on ministers to make sexually explicit photographs or films of children legal unless there was evidence that the subject had been harmed.

READ MORE

Victims of child abuse say Hodge did not listen to paedophile claims by senior social workers .

As two victims of child abuse threatened legal action and a third demanded the resignation of the former Islington council leader, the dream job she boasted of looked like it had turned into a nightmare.

READ MORE

Not only has the Lisbon Treaty made paedophilia into a sexual orientation to be protected from discrimination, in the same way as homosexuality. Judges in Britain too are starting to find ways to avoid giving paedophiles non-custodial sentences.

READ MORE

Think - on .... You get what you vote for !

We Have Heard It All Before Cameron.

2011-04-14T13:29:00.008+01:00

Mr Cameron's speech this lunchtime is the strongest on immigration by a Prime Minister for more than 20 years. He admitted Britain has been torn apart by the biggest influx of immigrants in history and spell out how the Government aims to bring levels back down. Read more:

Now...Where Have We Heard This Before ?

Conservative General Election Manifesto 1979

We will encourage the improvement of language training in schools and factories and of training facilities for the young unemployed in the ethnic communities. But these measures will achieve little without the effective control of immigration.

Cameron Is SCUM !

Immigration hasnt caused 'discomfort and disjointedness' it has caused black on black gun crime, mass criminality, muslim paedophile rape gangs, an epidemic of criminality against the indigenous population, Islamist terrorism and the importation of diseases like TB and AID's.

To say it has caused 'discomfort' is a total slap in the face for every victim of these crimes called a racist for daring to articulate their anguish. It has caused social breakdown, fear, murder, politically correct tyranny and liberal fascism.

Kriss Donald didnt experience 'discomfort', he was stabbed, blinded, castrated and set on fire.

Read More

An insult to Britain and democracy

2011-04-13T10:20:00.002+01:00

In a resounding snub to our democracy, five European judges overrule the emphatic will of Britain's parliament and people and insist that prisoners in the UK must be given the vote.

Just two months after MPs voted overwhelmingly to keep our 140-year-old ban, the European Court of Human Rights refuses even to consider the Government's appeal against its award of compensation to disenfranchised convicts.

And adding a further insult, the five judges issue an ultimatum: If we don't bring forward new laws within six months – and enact them within a time-frame to be decided by Europe – the court will begin ordering payments totalling up to £150million to killers and other convicts.

This intolerable ruling throws down a gauntlet to the Government.

Will ministers now look seriously at the possibility of disengaging Britain from the jurisdiction of a court that, time and again, has affronted our traditions of justice and common sense.

Or will they meekly accept it?

If so, they'll be acknowledging that our status as a sovereign nation is at an end.

THE TOTAL REAL COST OF EU MEMBERSHIP

2011-04-06T17:27:00.002+01:00

I am proud to publish the following financial analysis of UK membership of the EU, compiled by my good friend and long-time supporter Jerry Wraith. If anything, Jerry has been highly conservative in his estimates, using only official or verifiable sources. If his figures are wrong, they err on the downside.

The total of club subscriptions and compliance costs more than account for the UK’s entire public spending deficit. You don’t need to be an Einstein to figure out the obvious conclusion. My congratulations to Jerry Wraith for this masterpiece of analysis.

Ashley Mote

1 WARNINGS

1.1 The whole concept of the EEC/EU has been built up and exists on lies, deceit and false claims. Some of the deliberate and calculated lies are referred to below and are highlighted in italics.
1.2 The current equivalent value calculated for the EU budget payments is based on published values for the net budget payments since joining the EEC in 1973 until 2007 . The annual budget payments have been factored by the yearly interest rates on a cumulative basis.
1.3 The total real cost of EU membership is impossible to calculate as the costs are not clearly defined (for obvious reasons). Hence, the cost of being in the EU cannot be defined with any accuracy. More accurate figures need to be calculated on a proper actuarial basis.

2 DIRECT COST OF EU MEMBERSHIP

2.1 Since joining the EEC/EU in 1973 the UK has contributed over £66 Billion1 net in cash budget contributions up to 2007. However, this figure does not give a true picture of the loss in UK investment over the period which the figures cover. This figure of £66 Billion is worth over £165 Billion at year 2007 values allowing for interest. Hence, the equivalent accumulated cost up to 2007 of our direct contributions to the EU’s budget is

£165 BILLION

2.2 However, this figure does NOT include the costs of administering and complying with EU over-regulation as the EU imposes 80% of the new laws on the UK. (Ted Heath, Conservative Prime Minister “There will be no loss of UK sovereignty when we join the EC.”.) The cost of EU over-regulation has been conservatively estimated by the British Chamber of Commerce1 at £55.66 Billion over the years from 2001 to 2007. The budget contributions over the same period amount to much less than half at £23.4 Billion.

Hence it can be conservatively assumed that the cost of complying with EU over regulation is twice the cost of our budget contributions for this period. (NB. For 2011 alone the cost of EU over-regulation is estimated by the Taxpayers Alliance to be £92 Billion.) Hence the equivalent cost at 2007 values of complying with EU over-regulation would be well over double the figure of £165 billion if it were calculated back to the date of joining. Unfortunately, the figures are not readily available so it will be assumed to be £330 or twice the figure for the net budget contributions. Hence, for the UK the equivalent total accumulated direct

COST OF BEING PART OF THE EU IS £500 BILLION

2.3 NOR does the above figure include numerous other costs of being in the EU such as the CAP which this year alone cost us £5.3 Billion and costs the average family of four an extra £20 per week on their shopping bill or the cost of the CFP which is about £3 Billion/year. Hence the figure of £500 Billion is considered to be well below the total accumulated amount. For a fuller discussion of the annual costs involved see Gerard Battens booklet!

NB The actual annual cost of being in the EU in 2008 works out at about £2000/annum/UK citizen. (This independently calculated figure by the Taxpayers Alliance is over 10 times the figure claimed by the EU! ) This equates to a cost for the UK in 2008 alone of being in the EU of £120 Billion or a cost of nearly £14 Million/hour every hour.

3 TRADE

3.1 The UK’s trade with the EU is frequently quoted by politicians as a good reason for being in the EU. However, our trade with the EU has resulted in a total cash trade deficit of about £360 Billion1 since we joined the EU until 2007. A complete turn-around from an alleged small trade surplus with “Europe” before we joined the EU. If the current accumulated equivalent cost of our EU trade deficit is related to values in 2007 allowing for interest the cost of the
UK TRADE WITH THE EU HAS COST OVER £865 BILLION DEFICIT
3.2 But the UK’s exports to the EU amount to only about 10% of our GDP. (NB The Rotterdam effect artificially increases the trade figures to the EU as trade with the rest of the world which passes through Rotterdam was (is?) included in the total for trade with the EU).

3.3 Trade with the Rest of the World (RoW) is also worth about 10% of our GDP. Over the same period trade with the RoW amounted to a trading cash surplus of £9 Billion. Admittedly our trading position with the RoW has not been good over the last few years, but that can be blamed mainly on the EU. For example;

a) The UK has had to give its trading competitors in the EU cash equivalent to £165 Billion since we joined until 2007.
b) This £165 Billion has meant that other EU countries saved having to find this amount which lowered their taxes and made them more competitive.
c) Similarly, the British economy was taxed the equivalent of an EXTRA £165 Billion to pay the EU, and UK industry also had to pay the costs of EU over-regulation and other EU costs of well over £330 Billion.
d) Hence since joining the EU up until 2007 the British economy and British industry has been saddled with additional equivalent costs amounting to well over £500 Billion.
e) The Tax payers Alliance has estimated that for this year alone (2011) the cost to the UK economy of being in the EU will be £130.6 Billion. If we stay in another 7 years this means that the cost for the last 7 years alone will be over £1000 Billion. By then the UK would have been in the EU for 45 years. Hence we can assume that the cost of being in the EU even up to the year 2007 would easily run up to thousands of £Billions, allowing for interest.

3.4 If the trade figures with the RoW are factored to account for interest our trade with the RoW would be a profit worth £310 Billion.
3.5 The effect of being in the EU from 1973 to 2007 on the UK’s global trading position can therefore be summarised as follows;
COST OF BEING PART OF THE EU: Thousands of £BILLIONs
UK TRADE WITH THE EU: £865 BILLION DEFICIT
COST OF BEING PART OF THE RoW: NOTHING
UK TRADE WITH THE RoW: £310 BILLION SURPLUS
The above statements might appear to give an impartial observer the impression that membership of the EU is not a bargain for Britain. Why pay the equivalent of £1000’s of Billion’s to be tied in with a trading group which costs us a trade deficit of £865 Billion after allowing for interest? However, to politicians in the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties this truth appears either be totally beyond their comprehension, ignored, unknown or just too unpalatable to be mentioned in public. No doubt to David Cameron it makes good business sense. After all, he gave the Irish £6 Billion of our hard earned taxes this year because “they are good customers”. The ultimate stupidity of giving our customers our money to buy our goods is apparently makes good business sense for the Conservative Prime Minister. Added to which there was and is NO guarantee that the money will be used to buy our goods. The effects on UK trade in and out of the EU are discussed further below.

4 WAR WITH EUROPE

4.1 The fact that there has not been war between the European countries in the EU since the EEC/EU was formed is also quoted by politicians in the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties as a good reason for being in the EU.

4.2 This is a fallacious argument. The main threat in Europe for many years since WWII was the ambition of the nuclear armed USSR. The only effective counter to this threat was NATO.

4.3 The fact that the European countries had to combine in the EU to stop kicking each other’s heads in is all well and good. However, no politician in the Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem parties can apparently explain WHY BRITAIN HAS TO BE A PART OF IT and has to pay equivalent accumulated costs of £Billion’s for the privilege.

4.4 It is abundantly clear that if Britain left the EU war would not immediately break out between Britain and other EU countries or amongst themselves.

5 EU LEGISLATION

5.1 It is sometimes claimed that EU legislation “is good for us” which is why it is good for Britain to be in the EU.
5.1 This must be the most preposterous suggestion ever as we once had (before we joined the EU that is) our own parliament which should have been perfectly able to pass laws which were “good” for Britain.

5.3 In addition, before joining the EU the UK voters could have voted for a party to amend or repeal laws which were not working. This facility has completely disappeared for all the thousands of laws imposed upon us by the EU, none of which has any UK citizen voted for.

6 BENEFIT OF BEING IN THE EU

6.1 From the above it is quite clear that the three main so-called “benefits” of being in the EU, i.e. EU legislation, trade and peace in Europe, are completely spurious as reasons for Britain being in the EU.

6.2 Hence there is NOT ONE BENEFIT FOR THE UK FROM BEING IN THE EU!

7 BENEFITS OF WITHDRAWL FROM THE EU

7.1 The benefits for Britain from leaving the EU are almost too many to recount but a short list is provided.

7.2 Trade.

Quote by Axel Weber, Bundesbank Chief “Europe will become more and more insignificant in the global economy”

a) Out of the EU Britain would be better placed to negotiate better terms for trade deals with EU countries. The EU needs us £865 Billion more than we need them.
b) Out of the EU Britain would NOT have to give its trading competitors the equivalent of £165 Billion or be saddled with costs of over-regulation of £26+ Billions/annum
c) Out of the EU Britain would be better placed to do trade deals with emerging economies like China and India.
d) Out of the EU Britain would be better placed to do trade deals with the USA and the Commonwealth countries and they ALL speak English.
e) The Commonwealth consists of 54 independent states with a total population of 2 billion people.
f) The Rest of the World consists of 168 countries with a total population of 6.5 billion.
g) The EU consists of 27 countries with 500 million people.
h) The EU is reducing in population and the elderly are becoming more numerous. The EU has estimated that by 2050 there will be up to 100 million pensioners in the EU. By then only two people will be working for each pensioner whereas at present there are four.

Clearly there are many more opportunities for trade outside the EU and being outside the EU will not prevent the UK from trading with the EU. (David Cameron, Prime Minister “Being in the EU is good for Britain”. Why?)

7.3 Immigration

a) Out of the EU Britain would not have to legally provide residency and all that implies for 500 million EU “citizens” who can come and live here at any moment they choose. This makes a total mockery of town planning and the provision of schools, hospitals, etc., etc.
b) Out of the EU Britain would regain control of its borders and would be totally responsible for deciding who comes to live here.
c) Out of the EU Britain would be free to deport foreign murderers, rapists, paedophiles, drug smugglers, sex traffickers etc.,. etc., no matter where they came from, including the EU.
d) Out of the EU Britain’s tax payers would not have to subsidise millions of economic migrants from the EU.
e) Out of the EU our borders would be much easier to control. In the EU our borders are many thousands of miles long and uncontrollable for much of it.

Clearly there are many advantages in being free to control our borders. (David Cameron Prime Minister “Being in the EU is good for Britain”. Why?)

7.4 EU Legislation

a) The EU currently imposes 80% of our new laws on the UK. (William Hague, Conservative Party election slogan “In Europe, but not run by Europe”.)
b) None of the EU laws are generated by our elected MP’s or MEP’s.
c) None of the EU laws can be amended or revoked by our elected MP’s or MEP’s.

We have therefore effectively LOST OUR VOTE! David Cameron apparently thinks this is a good thing! (David Cameron Prime Minister “Being in the EU is good for Britain”. Why?)

7.5 Global “Warming”

a) The EU is making Britain reduce its carbon emissions by large and unachievable amounts.
b) As part of this process the EU has told Britain to close 4 coal powered stations by 2015. There is no alternative generating capacity available in the UK.
c) This will make the UK entirely dependent on electricity provided by France if UK industry is not to be shut down through lack of power.
d) This makes the UK hostage to France which is frightening as the French will take full advantage of this.

(NB The French power company EDF recently imposed higher rates on UK customers because President Sarkozy stipulated that price rises in France should not exceed a certain value. EDF was therefore charging UK customers more to subsidise their French domestic customers.)

e) The inevitable prospect for Britain after the power stations are closed is complete black-outs, huge costs to our industry and an increase in deaths from hypothermia amongst the sick and elderly.

(AM note – carbon dioxide is a plant food and global warming a proven myth. It is now merely a means of taxation and imposing more controls on industry to appease the green lobby. Why else do farmers pump pure carbon dioxide into greenhouses if it is not to encourage plant growth? And CO2 is 0.0385% of one percent of the earth’s atmosphere. If it trebled tomorrow no-one would notice, not least because the effect is logarithmic, not arithmetic…the more the change the less the impact.)

7.6 General Comments

a) Although UK trade with the EU amounts to only about 10% of our GDP the EU meddling, interference and legislation affects the whole of the UK’s economy and way of life.
b) From rubbish collections being reduced to every two weeks to the decimation of our Royal Mail and the closure of hundreds of post offices, the EU has had a disastrous influence on our daily lives.
c) Out of the EU the UK would not be liable to being fined £billions for not showing enough of a grovelling gratitude for the funds which are returned to the UK and which we provided (plus lots more) to the EU in the first place.
d) Yet David Cameron says that the EU is “good for Britain”. His attitude is totally incomprehensible and so is that of the voters who continue to vote for the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties.

8 CONCLUSION

If we, our children and grandchildren are not to be subjected to much, much, more of the same thing there is only one answer. That is to support the UKIP and get Britain out of the EU at the earliest opportunity. Only this way will our descendants be able to vote for the government of their choice and at the same time avoid the colossal political and financial costs that are an integral part of being part of the costly, secretive and corrupt EU.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Foot Note :

WHY ARE WE IN THE EU?

THE EU WILL COST US MORE THIS YEAR[1] AND EVERY YEAR

THAN THE COST OF THE JAPANESE EARTHQUAKE[2]
;BUT, since we joined the EU until 2006 and allowing for interest[3]:

Trade with the EU: DEFICIT of £865 billion
COST of being part of the EU; Thousands of £Billions[4]

Trade with the Rest of the World: £310 billion PROFIT

COST of being part of the Rest of the World: NOTHING.

So, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband WHY is being in the EU “good for Britain”? What’s in it for YOU?

When are you going to put BRITAIN first?

[1] Cost of being in the EU this year is £130.6 Billion. Figure from the Taxpayers Allliance, quoted in the Daily Express Special Edition dated Saturday January 8, 2011

[2] “Cost of quake (Japanese Magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami) could hit £113 billion.” Evening Standard headline March 14, 2011.

[3] Trade figures from “How much does the European Union cost Britain”?, by Gerard Batten, MEP. Annual interest rates published by the Bank of England.

[4] Estimate. For example 7 more years of being in the EU will cost over £1000 Billion. By then we would have been in the EU for 45 years.

Secret Report Reveals Sale Of Eldon Centre.

2011-03-21T16:04:00.003Z

The sale of this building is being rushed through, so BBEMI DOES NOT MISS OUT ON A £420,000 GOVERNMENT FUND. A report marked ' urgent '& not for publication until transaction completed has been seen by the Barnsley Chronicle. It states BBEMI was told it would get the money in February.

According to the Leader of the council, Steve Houghton CBE. we haven't got an immigration population. (You can hear Mr Houghton's own words on the video. )So why the need for all the different ethnic minority associations in Barnsley ?

“Politics is too male and too white” - says Clegg, hours ahead of Lib Dem conference in Sheffield

2011-03-11T17:46:00.002Z

‘THE Lib Dem party is too male and too white,’ Nick Clegg has admitted at a gruelling Q&A session ahead of the Lib Dem conference this weekend.

The Deputy Prime Minister made the declaration to a roomful of students at Notre Dame School this morning after one student labelled politicians an ‘elite’ group.

“I agree completely that if we want political parties to represent modern Britain, then we have to represent that within ourselves which, at the moment, we do not,” said Mr Clegg.

The MP for Sheffield Hallamshire also came under fire on hot button topics including students fees and EMA cuts.

Mr Clegg defended the changes by explaining that he was making the best of a difficult situation.

“We didn’t win the election and so there had to be compromises,” he reminded the students.

“Is it what I would have done as Prime Minister? No. Do I think it’s a fair system and superior to the one we have now? Yes.”

Asked what he would do differently if he were elected Prime Minister in three years time, he responded: “I’m still in enough trouble over the last manifesto, I’m not going to start making declarations about the next one before we’ve even started writing it.”

Speaking about the controversial cuts, Mr Clegg said: “I’m not here trying to balance the books for the hell of it, I want to rid this country of this tremendous black cloud of debt.

“I don’t apologise for that and, though I realise Labour are having a lot of fun at our expense, I hope in time the results will speak for themselves.”

16-year-old Joseph Calverley is intending to go to university in two years and took the opportunity to grill the Deputy PM about student fees: “He did explain about the fees and about something called Graduate Tax but I didn’t really follow it,” Joseph told The Star,

“It would be good to hear some of the issues and their solutions from him broken down more clearly.

“On the whole he seemed to anticipate a lot of what we were going to ask him and had answers ready which I thought was good.”

Mr Clegg also touched on the situation in Libya, labelling Colonel Gadaffi a ‘tyrant’ and saying Europe had a responsibility to intervene where human rights were being abused.

“Whatever we do, we will act lawfully. We will not ignore and wriggle through international law like the last government did in Iraq.

“The UK won’t act alone, we’re not about to charge off on a unilateral military adventure to Libya, it’s about what Europe decides but it would be wrong of us to turn our backs on the brutality.”

A Message to the Voters of Barnsley Central

2011-03-03T09:34:00.002Z

The voters of Barnsley Central have a unique opportunity today to send a clear message to the old gang parties by voting for the British National Party’s positive vision for the future of Britain: a land where there is real economic recovery, where there is honesty and truth in politics and where we are all proud of our nation once again.

By voting for the British National Party today, the electors of Barnsley can send a message to the Labour/Liberal Democrat/Tory elite that that are sick and tired of lies over the economy, bankster bailouts at the expense of the taxpayers, lies over immigration, lies over jobs and welfare, lies over asylum, lies over the EU, lies over foreign aid, lies over the cost of living and lies over the future of our nation.

Today is the day when voters in Barnsley Central can put their crosses next to the name of Enis Dalton, the British National Party’s dynamic and striking candidate. Don’t forget to vote today, and send a message to the Westminster gang: “We want our country back.”

Look Here For BNP Policies -V- The Other Parties

Ed Miliband’s Short Memory: Labour is Also to Blame

2011-03-02T14:03:00.002Z

Labour leader Ed Miliband’s whining about a “cost of living crisis” is a new low point in politics, even for the dreadfully mendacious Labour Party, as his party bears just as much responsibility for the economic disaster befalling Britain.

In one of the most shocking displays of hypocrisy seen in Britain for decades, Mr Miliband said that millions of ordinary families face a cost of living crisis as a result of Tory/Lib Dem spending cuts, rises in value added tax and fuel prices and “wage stagnation.”

The reality is that the British economy is in crisis because of Labour Party spending over the past decade.

This reckless and negligent spending includes two illegal wars, the bailout of the banks, ever increasing foreign aid and European Union membership payments, amongst many others.

Mr Miliband’s almost pathological lying is exposed when it is considered that when Labour was in power, budget cuts were also announced by the then chancellor Alistair Darling.

In the 2009 budget, for example, Mr Darling said that public spending growth to be cut from 1.1 percent in 2010 to 0.7 percent from 2011-2012.

As a result, although the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition were the ones to announce extensive budget cuts in 2010, the basis for all these reductions had already been laid by the previous Labour Party regime.

For example, the illegal war in Iraq, started by Tony Blair and supported by the Tories, ran up a direct bill of at least £1 billion every year from 2003 to 2009.

When combined with the cost of the war in Afghanistan, British taxpayers have been presented with an astonishing £20.34 billion bill for these two conflicts alone.

The £20.34 billion total does not include the salaries of soldiers or paying for their long-term injuries and mental health care. It is also on top of the £35 billion annual defence budget.

The bank bailout cost British taxpayers at least £131 billion, and added significantly to the national debt and the economic crisis facing Britain.

The cost of Britain’s membership of the European Union has rocketed by more than 60 percent over the past decade and now costs at least £6.4 billion in direct costs and many millions more in regulatory and other costs.

The foreign aid budget has also increased dramatically over the last ten years, and averages out at around £7 billion per year (the latest increase included).

This means that the British taxpayers have been presented with a £70 billion bill for foreign aid alone over the last decade, a figure which is only set to increase further.

In other words, the Labour Party presided over an outlay in these four policy areas alone of around £230 billion.

While there is no doubt that the Tories and Lib Dems would have acted in exactly the same manner had they been in power, it is hypocrisy in the extreme for Mr Miliband to attack the other two Tweedledee Tweedledum parties for policies which his own party carried out.

Labour is just as much, maybe even more, to blame for the “cost of living crisis” and no amount of pathetic bleating by Mr Miliband can disguise this fact.

You May Have Forgotten Ed .... The People Of Barnsley Have Not !

From Here

UN Tells Britain To Open It's Doors To Refugees

2011-03-02T12:42:00.001Z

BRITAIN faces a wave of migrants from Libya after a demand from the UN yesterday that Europe opens its borders to refugees.

The UN said 140,000 people had fled the troubled state – half of them crossing into Egypt and half into Tunisia.

Officials have warned that the situation in Tunisia is reaching crisis point with thousands of refugees in urgent need of food, water and shelter.

Mark Petzold, Tunisia’s mission chief for the International Organisation for Migration, said: “With thousands of migrants still awaiting authorisation to enter Tunisia, there is an urgent need to decongest the border area which lacks adequate facilities to host large numbers of people.”

Fleeing migrant workers have also been attacked by opponents of Colonel Gaddafi, mistaking them for mercenaries who are being used by the government to quash the rebellion.

It is thought EU nations, including Britain, could see an influx of refugees leaving north Africa.

The number could swell with Egypt and Tunisia also in political turmoil.

The UN Emergency Relief co-ordinator Baroness Amos yesterday told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “In asking for the borders of neighbouring countries like Tunisia and Egypt to stay open, it is important that EU borders also stay open.

“I know the EU countries are going through a difficult financial time but they are still much better off than people who are fleeing a violent and difficult situation in Libya.

“We will continue to ask the EU and neighbouring countries to keep their borders open.”

A new migrant wave is expected from North Africa

2011-02-28T16:24:00.003Z

CHAOS is deepening across north Africa. As Libya plunges into civil war and neighbouring states are gripped by protests and political paralysis, no one can be sure of the long-term outcome. But one thing is certain: the climate of upheaval is bound to cause a new surge of immigration from Africa to Europe.

With a lavish welfare system, fetish for diversity and human rights culture, Britain is likely to be the prime destination for this new flood of arrivals. The political elite of Brussels will no doubt welcome this development as a further step towards creating a new political entity in Europe.

After all, the very existence of the EU is predicated on the abolition of national identity and destruction of borders. The motto of the EU is “united in diversity”. Already we can see signs of the new migration wave sweeping across the Mediterranean from Africa.

In the first two weeks after the overthrow of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia on January 14, more than 5,000 Tunisians reached the tiny southern Italian island of Lampedusa, whose indigenous population is only 6,000. The Italian government fears that more than 300,000 Libyans will descend as the bloodshed in that country worsens.

FIXATED by the dogma of multi-culturalism and contemptuous of our heritage, the EU will do nothing to resist. The idea that the last vestiges of our European civilisation might be protected by the unelected cabal of over- paid mediocrities, traitors and ideologues in the European Commission is simply laughable.

This is an outfit that has recently signed a deal with India to enable around 50,000 Indian IT workers to move to Europe. Inevitably the biggest share of this influx, 20,000, has been taken by Britain. The EU has even opened a recruitment office in Mali to help Africans find work in Europe.

It is planned that the bureau, costing £8million, will be the first of several. Only a politician with a twisted mind and a disdain for public opinion could think of using taxpayers’ money to encourage yet more migrants.The fabric of Europe has already been stretched to breaking point and nowhere is that more true than in Britain.

The gross annual rate of immigration has topped 500,000 in recent years, the vast majority of incomers hail from Africa or Asia. Moreover there are probably around a million illegal immigrants in our midst, tolerated by a government machine that has lost any desire to uphold our national integrity.

That is why the British public is in such despair over mass immigration. An independent survey published yesterday revealed the depth of this anger, with 60 per cent of people describing immigration as a “bad thing” for Britain and 52 per cent agreeing that “Muslims create problems in the UK”. This is not even a racial issue: 39 per cent of Asians and 24 per cent of blacks want a crackdown on immigration.

What is remarkable about these findings is that the public feels this way after all the years of aggressive, institutionalised propaganda about the joys of cultural diversity and the unalloyed benefits of mass immigration. But then, while the politicians live in their ivory towers, ordinary people can see with their own eyes the disaster brought about by the cultural revolution.

Public services have been put under intolerable strain, while the costs of social security have become unsustainable, especially because migrants are far more likely to be unemployed, in receipt of benefits and living in social housing.

Our once peaceful land is plagued by violent crime, tribal warfare, drugs, Islamist terrorism and Asian sex gangs preying on young girls. Democracy has been subverted by mass voting fraud, much of it perpetrated among the ethnic minorities. All sense of social cohesion has been lost.

In urban areas dominated by mosques, burkas and the babble of foreign tongues, many Britons feel like aliens in their own country. Nor have any of the supposed economic benefits materialised. The increase in uncontrolled migration has been accompanied by the deepest recession since the Thirties, while millions have been thrown on the scrapheap as 90 per cent of new jobs go to foreigners.

The British people never voted for this. The lack of any democratic say is one of the factors fuelling the indignation that can be seen in this weekend’s survey. Mass immigration and the elevation of multiculturalism into an official creed of the state were imposed by an unholy alliance made up of two elements.

THE first was employers, including the nanny- employing elitists, who welcomed the chance to drive down wages. The second was the political Left, led by Labour and the chattering metropolitan elite, who used diversity as a wrecking ball to demolish a united British society that they despised.

As Harriet Harman, the high priestess of the revolution, put it, the aim was to build “a new social order”. So borders were demolished and passports, student visas and work permits dished out like confetti. This approach was accompanied bylies, smears and intimidation to create a climate in which any opposition to immigration was portrayed as racist.

Yet as the polls show the public has not been cowed by the state’s Orwellian exercise in brainwashing. We want our country back. Coalition ministers, who have been too supine for too long, have got to listen.

By Leo McKinstry

MPs’ expenses scandal: Taxpayers' bill for police investigation 'could top £1m' (and that's in addition to £2m admin and legal costs)

2011-02-23T18:46:00.003Z

Police probe into abuses of expenses has cost more than £840,000

Commons authorities initially spent around £150,000 fighting disclosure of details - and well over £2 million processing and censoring receipts.

The police investigation into abuses of parliamentary expenses has now cost the taxpayer more than £840,000.

Up to 13 officers have been working on cases since the scandal broke in May 2009, according to Scotland Yard.
The figures, disclosed in response to a freedom of information request, suggest the final bill for bringing errant MPs and peers to justice could be well over £1 million.

So far, former Labour MPs David Chaytor, Eric Illsley and Jim Devine, and ex-Tory Lord Taylor of Warwick have been convicted of fiddling expenses.
But police are still examining other cases, and the costs of bringing the prosecutions are also not yet known.

A Yard spokesman said its bill up to the middle of last month was estimated at £840,000.

Some £820,000 of that was so-called 'opportunity costs', where officers could have been used on other duties.

'There have been up to 13 police officers employed on the MPs and Lords expenses inquiry between May 2009 and the middle of January 2011, which is the most up-to-date financial information available,' the spokesman said.

'No costings are available per case investigated. Not all the officers have been employed on a full-time basis.
'They have worked on a case-by-case basis and as the need has arisen. The time they have spent doing it has been costed on the basis of the percentage that they have dedicated to this inquiry.'

The bill is the latest financial blow to the taxpayer from cleaning up the corrupt system that was operating at Westminster.

The Commons authorities initially spent around £150,000 fighting disclosure of expenses details, and well over £2 million processing and censoring receipts after they finally admitted defeat.

MPs have repaid some £1.2 million since May 2009 - but that is roughly the same amount it cost to carry out the audit of their claims by Sir Thomas Legg.

When the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) was given responsibility for MPs' expenses after the general election, one of the aims was to reduce the cost of the system.

But while claims have dwindled in the wake of damaging revelations about abuses, some politicians complain that the bill for administering allowances has actually risen.

From Here

How Labour let in 3 million immigrants, in defiance of the overwhelming wishes of the British people

2011-02-22T15:50:00.003Z

What Voting For Jarvis Will Bring To Barnsley ....

Official figures to be published on Thursday will confirm that foreign immigration under Labour added more than three million to our population.

At the same time nearly one million British citizens voted with their feet, some saying that they were leaving because England was no longer a country that they recognised.

How could all this have happened in the teeth of public opposition? Even the Labour government’s own survey last February showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced, including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of the public wanted it reduced ‘by a lot’.

There are, of course, good arguments for controlled and limited immigration. Migration in both directions is a natural part of an open economy. And there are many immigrants who are valuable both to our economy and our society.

Mass immigration is an entirely different matter. The question now is how did it happen and what can be done about it. Was it all a Labour conspiracy? Was it sheer incompetence in government? Or was it wholesale retreat in front of the race relations lobby?

The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.

Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000 . . . was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.

He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended — even if this wasn’t its main purpose — to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’

Rest Here

Former MP Jailed For Fiddling Expenses

2011-02-10T16:54:00.004Z

Disgraced former Labour MP Eric Illsley has been jailed for 12 months for fiddling his parliamentary expenses.

The 55-year-old became the first sitting Member of Parliament convicted of abusing expenses.

He pleaded guilty last month to dishonestly claiming more than £14,000 of taxpayers' money.

He faced massive pressure to stand down as the MP for Barnsley Central after his conviction but did not quit until this week.

After Mr Justice Saunders told the dock officer to "send him down", he bent down to pick up his overcoat and brown leather holdall and slowly turned around.

The disgraced former MP made the short walk to the door of the dock in Court 1, which leads down to the cells, and waved over his shoulder to a friend in the public gallery.

Passing sentence, Mr Justice Saunders noted that Illsley received on average £100 a month more than he was entitled to in expenses over a three-year period.

The former MP admitted to probation officers that he did not need the extra money and attributed his actions to greed.

He made the fraudulent claims for council tax, telephone usage, service charges and maintenance, and insurance and repairs at his second home in Kennington, London.

From Here

Ex-MP faces expenses scam sentence

2011-02-10T10:05:00.001Z

Disgraced former Labour MP Eric Illsley faces a possible prison term when he is sentenced for fiddling his expenses.

Illsley, 55, was under massive pressure to stand down as the member for Barnsley Central after he pleaded guilty last month to dishonestly claiming some £14,500 of public money.

But he did not quit as an MP until Tuesday night, and is believed to have received about £5,400 from his £65,000-a-year parliamentary salary since admitting the offences.

Illsley became the first sitting MP convicted for abusing expenses when he changed his pleas to guilty at the start of his trial on January 11.

He had previously denied dishonestly claiming a total of more than £25,000, arguing that lax Commons allowances were designed to "supplement" the income of politicians. But his barrister William Coker QC said his client admitted wrongly obtaining a revised sum of about £14,500.

Illsley, of Westmoor Crescent, Pogmoor, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, pleaded guilty to three charges of false accounting relating to three years of expenses on his London property.

Prosecutor Peter Wright QC said the Crown accepted the revised figure for the dishonest claims.

Despite the questions hanging over his expenses, Illsley was re-elected last May with a majority of more than 11,000. He could theoretically have stayed on as a MP with a jail term of less than 12 months.

However, following calls for him to go from both Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband, he expressed "deep regret" over his actions and said he would quit before the court decided his fate.

The by-election for Illsley's Barnsley Central seat is expected to be held on March 3

The Martyr Next Door

2011-02-08T14:10:00.003Z

Yesterday in a Philadelphia court, a white, suburban American woman calling herself ‘Jihad Jane’ pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoonist who so enraged Muslims a while back with his drawings of the Prophet Muhammed as a dog.

The woman, real name Colleen LaRose, is a petite 47-year-old from Main Street, Pennsburg, PA. Three years ago, she posted a video on YouTube showing sympathy for the Muslim cause, which attracted the attention of recruiters for an organisation linked to al-Qaida. Thus began a process of grooming that in 2009 took her to Sweden, where she began her preparations in earnest.

In an email to fellow jihadis, she proclaimed her readiness to become a martyr: “Only death will stop me here that I am so close to the target!” Fortunately for Vilks, the FBI were monitoring her communications and arrested LaRose and her co-conspirators – including another American woman – before they could carry out the threat. Lars Vilks now lives under armed guard.

The two women are not the only North Americans to have been involved in Islamist extremism. A couple of weeks ago, Asia Times reported the presence of ethnically English and French Canadians at a training camp in Pakistan, where they were learning terror techniques to be used at home. A Taliban source told the newspaper:

“In the first stage of their journey, the Canadians went to Afghanistan in February 2010; there were 12 of them. After nine months, al-Qaeda’s leaders decided to send them to North Waziristan and they reached Darpakhel in November last year.

“In Afghanistan they received basic jihadi training, while currently they are busy doing some special courses. Their main learning is how to use sophisticated weapons, and how to connect with local smuggling networks in North America. They are also learning how to use ordinary material like sugar and basic chemicals to make powerful explosives. These militants will then return to their country to execute al-Qaeda’s plan of targeting big cities in Canada”

A 2007 survey of Muslim Americans found that around 7% of them are native-born white converts, mostly former Protestant Christians. Estimates of the total number of Muslims in the U.S. vary wildly, from 1 to 7 million, but even if the lower estimates are accurate, it still means there is a sizeable pool from which to recruit Caucasian martyrs.

According to a study conducted by the organisation Faith Matters, around 100,000 Britons have converted to Islam. The typical convert is a white woman in her twenties. Clearly, as in America, most of those people will be opposed to violent extremism, but still a small minority of converts may be susceptible to its pull. Converts like Nicky Reilly, the 22-year-old Asperger’s sufferer groomed by extremists to set off a suicide nail bomb in Exeter in 2009; 7/7 bomber Jermaine Lindsay, who was of Jamaican origin; and English/Jamaican shoe bomber Richard Reid.

In the U.S., France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and other countries, native converts to Islam have been imprisoned for planning terror attacks. Six years ago, a 38-year-old white Belgian called Muriel Degauque blew herself up in an attempt to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Evidently Degauque, who came from a respectable, middle-class Christian family, had been radicalised after marrying a Moroccan man and converting to Islam.

In 2008, CIA director general Michael Hayden warned that al-Qaeda is training “operatives that… wouldn’t attract your attention if they were going through the customs line at Dulles [airport]“. Jihad Joes and Janes who can blend in, arousing no suspicion and evading detection.

So next time you’re at the airport, breaking into a sweat because some Arab has just checked in to your flight, it could be that your anxiety is misplaced: that the one you should really be worried about is the blue-eyed red-head you were chatting up at the bar earlier.

The strategy of converting and radicalising disaffected Westerners and then using them to carry out terror attacks must seem to jihadi leaders like a stroke of genius. But for us, it is an evil that can only get worse as more of our people are exposed to radical Islam. Once again, the enemies of the West have shown themselves to be cunning and adaptable.

From Here

Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane? No, it's Muscular Liberalism!

2011-02-05T17:20:00.001Z

He's a canny one that David Cameron. Decades of multicultural nightmare, the Britain we know torn to shreds, and finally, amen, he decides to say something about it. Not the sharpest tool in the box if it took him this long to notice that there was a problem, unless he cynically means to try and hijack a wave of public upset over the failure that is multicultural Britain. He's not even made the speech yet and it's all over the papers, oh the glories of spin.

Mr Cameron huffs and tuts about "WE" allowed this to happen, but WE didn't. The politicians of successive Labour and Conservative (and now ConDem) did more than allow it to happen, they made sure it happened, they forced it on us against our wishes. Less of the "WE" Mr Cameron, it was "YOU".

But, we'll allow that to slide, everyone already knows who is really to blame for the mess that is multiculturalism. Perhaps, benefit of the doubt, for the time being, Cameron has some answers. He's came a little late to the game, but perhaps he has had some conversion on the road to Damascus, maybe he has some great ideas to extricate us from the mess we're in.

Some hope, all the soundbites in the world do not a lifejacket make, and all that hot air is not enough to change the course that we are set upon.

Mr Camerons great ideas. We'll stop funding for groups that don't promote integration, indeed we'll force them to integrate! Immigrants will be, shock, horror, forced to learn English. Schools will have to teach British culture - Newspeak culture no doubt, where all that is not integrationist and multiracial is evil, and Britain is a kind benefactor to all nations of the world.

And, that seems to be it. He's even got a name for it, "Muscular Liberalism"

"Muscular Liberal" must be one of the most unfortunate choices of labels ever, unless deliberately designed to tip a hat to Britains gay community. It certainly conjures up a most disturbing image of a bewhiskered muscleman in skintight lycra, wrists made weak by the great burden of liberalism he must hold.

But, back on topic after that segue into what could well be the name of a new, homosexual superhero used to educate our children in schools.

Cameron demonstrates a total ignorance of the problem altogether, or a total unwillingness to face up to it, rather concentrating on some soundbites that surely can't fool even the most gullible and zealous member of the Tory party.

His essential solution to the problem of multiculturalism is to try and inflict monoculturalism on a hideously diverse society, and it appears that he acutely has no idea what culture it is that should be inflicted. Some all inclusive, different yet the same, all brothers, all free to do whatever, madness that will only exacerbate problems in the short term. I'll defend your right to say it, free speech and all, so long as it doesn't offend anyone else. We are Borg, you will be assimilated. Good luck making 5 million Muslims embrace Gay Pride.

In the long term it matters not unless something is done, breeding rates and immigration will see to that. Probably the only net result in the long term, if it all works out in line with Camerons ideas, will be a colonised, and most like Muslim, nation who can all speak English. Some consolation, a culture is far more than a language, Britain might die but the tongue will survive. Thank you Mr Cameron.

Cameron grasps upon a few symptoms, misreads their significance totally, yet feels he has to say something. It seems there's a growing disquiet among the public after all, there might be a few votes to be won by appearing to do something. He, like all of Lib/Lab/Con, cannot bring himself to admit that mass immigration and the colonisation of Britain has been an absolute disaster for all of us, instead deciding to blame the way in which it was inflicted. It was not allowing Britain to be overrun by millions of immigrants in the first place that was the problem, rather just that it should have been handled differently.

Hurrah for muscular liberalism! Mr Cameron can keep it, it's just the same old spiel and excuses with a different label and some fresh clothes. For all our muscular liberalism, the march towards white minority, Christian minority, continues, and at tipping point no muscles in the world will prevent our colonisers from casting the deciding vote. When that day arrives, expect no muscular liberalism from them to defend our children and grandchildren, who will have become the white, British, minority.

Hat Tip S/W Nationalists

Lord Ahmed: Muslim Paedophiles Are The REAL Victims

2011-02-03T14:25:00.002Z

What a load of toss!

Do muslims ever take responsibility for their despicable behaviours ?.... NO!

"Lord" Ahmed now wants us to swallow the latest muslim victimology (usually abetted by the media) stating muslim paedophiles --who groomed young, white British girls - some as young as 12 years old - plied them with alcohol and drugs - used these children for sex - then pimped them out-- are the REAL victims.

Ahmed: "They are forced into marriages and they are not happy. They are married to girls from overseas who they don’t have anything in common with, and they have children and a family."

so arranged cousin marriages are the real culprit -(even when the wife loses her head) and - according to Lord Ahmed - adult white women are also to blame:

"He [Ahmed] said Asian men resort to abusing young white girls because they do not want meaningful relationships with adult white women. ‘An adult woman – if you are having an affair – would want your time, money and for you to break up your marriage,’ the peer added."

Lord Ahmed would have us believe in poor, poor muslim paedophiles - suffering in inbred cousin marriages (arranged by muslims) & 'battered' by relationship seeking adult white women are forced to seek out the "easy meat"(Ahmed's term) of young, white British girls.

In regards to the young girl's lives cruelly shattered? - Ahmed is silent.

He has spoken out after a spate of high-profile court cases where groups of Asian men have been sentenced for grooming white girls as young as 12 in Derby, Blackburn and Lord Ahmed’s home town of Rotherham.

Rest Here & Links.

British National Party Appoints Candidate for Barnsley By-election

2011-01-31T15:00:00.003Z

Enis Dalton, a well-known local community worker, has been appointed the British National Party’s candidate in the forthcoming by-election in Barnsley, organiser Ian Sutton has announced.

Speaking before a packed meeting to mark the end of a day of action in the constituency, Mr Sutton said that Ms Dalton’s close connection to the constituency and her standing in the community made her the ideal candidate to carry the party’s banner.

"We needed a local person to represent the local community, and someone who has shown a commitment to this party," Mr Sutton said.

"We are the real working class people and grossly misrepresented in Westminster," Ms Dalton said.

"One of the my hopes is to bring about change in politics. But I hope people looking at me standing in this election, they will think, well, if Enis can do it, then they can as well," she said.

About 150 activists turned out and distributed near enough 46,000 leaflets in the constituency, Mr Sutton added.

“This means that near enough the entire constituency has been covered today,” Mr Sutton said. “This is a fantastic achievement and I want to thank all the people who took part in this day of action.”

Dan Jarvis - a surprise choice for Labour in Barnsley

2011-01-29T11:18:00.004Z

By default, Jarvis must support mass immigration, islamisation, job losses to immigrants and the sell-out of industry, labours illegal wars, the genocide brothers, scum like paedophile Hodge and anti-white Abbott, operation black vote, gun 'n knife crime etc etc.

Well, does he or doesn't he?

No doubt the BNP and locals will ask him .......

For the first time since 1938 Labour has chosen a candidate for the Barnsley Central seat who was not born in Yorkshire.

Dan Jarvis, the surprise choice at last night's constituency selection meeting at the town's Oakwell football ground, is also the first one not to be directly linked to the coal industry.

Labour has chosen him to replace disgraced MP Eric Illsley who is on bail awaiting sentencing after admitting fiddling his expenses in court earlier this month.

Thirty-eight-year old Jarvis is a former army major. He served for 15 years in the Parachute Regiment and was seen to be the outsider of the four-strong shortlist of candidates put to members.

He comes from Nottingham but is currently living in Hampshire.

It is thought there had been at least at least 100 nominations as the South Yorkshire seat has been held by Labour for the past 73 years.

Eric Illsley won at the last election with a substantial majority of just over 11,000.

As they streamed out after the vote members told me that Dan Jarvis's five minute speech had been the strongest of the other candidates which included a Barnsley councillor and two party activists who came from other parts of Yorkshire.

The clearly delighted candidate told me last night that he was delighted and honoured to have been chosen and was ready to start his campaign.

A by-election is inevitable following the fall from grace of Eric Illsley who has held the seat since 1987.

But It cannot be called until Illsley formally resigns his seat. Almost three weeks after his conviction he has failed to quit and remains on full pay. He will be back in court next month for sentencing.

Labour has held what was the old Barnsley seat continuously since 1938 when it was won by local man Frank Collindridge. He remained as MP for 15 years.

Former Northern Ireland Secretary Roy Mason left the pit to be his home town's MP for even longer.

Now, Lord Mason of Barnsley, he served for 30 years from 1953.

Eric Illsley, born on the town's Kendray estate and a former official of the NUM, took what had now become Barnsley Central, in 1987.

In fact in seven decades the only MP who was not actually born in Barnsley was Sidney Schofield. He held the seat for two years from 1951.

Schofield, who went on to become General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, was the only "outsider".

He came from Pontefract. It is 15 miles across the border in West Yorkshire.

Two mothers and their toddler children banned from council-funded playgroup - for being BRITISH

2011-01-19T19:15:00.002Z

'They asked me what race I was and I said British. They said I couldn't come in'
Two mothers who were kicked out of a council-funded playgroup spoke of their humiliation today after being told the group was for immigrant families only.

Emma Knightley, 25, and Kimberley Wildman, 27, turned up at the 'Making Links' playgroup with their children Imogen, 21 months, and Olivia, 18 months.

But they were stunned when organisers at the centre in St Neots, Cambridgeshire, ordered them to leave after demanding to know 'what country are you from?'

Emma Knightley with her 21-month-old daughter Imogen and Kimberley Wildman with her daughter Olivia, 16 months, who tried to join the 'Making Links' playgroup in St Neots, Cambridgeshire, but were told it is only for immigrants

The best friends were told that only foreign mothers and their children are welcome at the council-funded playgroup - which they have accused of discrimination.

Shop worker Emma, who lives in St Neots, booked a place at the playgroup six weeks ago after it was recommended by a mixed-race friend.

She said: 'The first thing I was asked about was my nationality and when I said I was British I was told we had to leave.

'She said are you not aware this is for foreign people only?

'I said I knew it was trying to integrate people into the community but didn't realise that meant British people and their children were banned.

'I felt humiliated. It shouldn't matter what nationality you are we shouldn't be discriminated against.

'You wouldn't get away with a British-only mum and children's group.

'We want to welcome other nations to the community but turning British people away is not the way to do this.'

Trainee midwife Kimberley, also from St Neots, chose the group because it was free - whereas other groups in the area charged £2.

She said: 'They asked me what race I was and I said British. They said I couldn't come in. It's ridiculous.

'Surely if this group is about making links in the community they should let all people in, regardless of race or nationality.

'It's a real shame. I want my children to play with children from other races and integrate in the community because that stops discrimination.

'I can't believe we were discriminated against because we are British.'
Making Links, which is based at the Priory Centre in the town, is funded by a £1,000 annual grant from St Neots Town Council.

The community group is staffed by church volunteers and also receives money from the Co-operative community development fund and the Open Door Church in St Neots.

According to Making Links' website the group 'seeks to operate in the spirit of the Commission for Racial Equality'.

Its targets include: 'bringing communities together and facilitating interaction between them'.

The website claims about 50 women attend the weekly sessions every Thursday.

It adds: 'Making Links frees them from feelings of isolation, helps them build multicultural friendships and empowers them with knowledge about the local community.

'Thus Making Links presents a friendly St Neots face to people who might otherwise be outsiders.'

Roger Owen, administrator for Making Links, said that the group is not a 'typical' playgroup and is funded entirely for women from other nationalities.

He said: 'We believe there are plenty of other alternatives for British mothers in the town.

'We have had an issue with men turning up before and back then we told them the group is strictly for mothers so it's nothing to do with racial discrimination.'

According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission website, under the Equality Act 2010 it is not unlawful to set up a group especially for a particular ethnic or national group.

Under the act discrimination based on colour is unlawful.
No-one from St Neots Town Council was available for comment.

MPs' expenses: David Chaytor sentenced to 18 months in prison for false accounting

2011-01-08T10:47:00.003Z

The former Labour MP David Chaytor has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for falsifying his expenses claims.

Chaytor, 61, became the first politician to be convicted and sentenced over the MPs' expenses scandal revealed by the Daily Telegraph.

The judge said the scandal had angered the public and "shaken public confidence in the legislature".

How the Telegraph revealed the phantom claims

How the Telegraph revealed the phantom claims (ii)

Chaytor submitted bogus invoices to support claims totalling £22,650 for IT services and renting homes in London and his Bury North constituency.

He was convicted last month at the Old Bailey of three counts of theft by false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968.

Looking gaunt and wearing a charcoal suit with a grey shirt and a black tie with white polka dots, Chaytor stood calmly in the dock and made no reaction as he was sentenced.

Court sources said the former MP would be taken to Wandsworth Prison in south-west London to spend his first night in custody.

A Labour Party spokesman said: "David Chaytor had already been suspended from the Labour Party and following his custodial sentence he has now been excluded from the party."

The former MP is now facing a large legal bill for both his defence and the costs of bringing the prosecution against him.

Chaytor made the false claims in order to "siphon off" public money to which he was not entitled, the court heard.

But he has now repaid £19,237, more than the £18,350 he received from the House of Commons fees office based on his fraudulent claims.

Chaytor submitted claims totalling £15,275 and was paid £12,925 for renting Flat 152 Hide Tower in Regency Street, Westminster, central London.

But it turned out that he and his wife had bought the property in 1999, two years after he was first elected to Parliament, and paid off the mortgage on it in 2003.

He used the first and two middle names of his daughter, Sarah Elizabeth Rastrick, on a bogus short hold tenancy agreement submitted to the Parliamentary authorities.

Chaytor also falsely claimed £5,425 between September 2007 and January 2008 for renting a cottage in Castle Street in Summerseat, near Bury, Lancashire.

A police investigation later revealed that this house was owned by his elderly mother, Olive Trickett.

Mr Justice Saunders added that people who make fraudulent claims for public benefits are "rightly condemned" by others.

He said many of these fraudsters are poor and added Chaytor cannot claim this in mitigation.

The judge said: "The whole expenses scandal has shaken public confidence in the legislature, it has angered the public.

"Chaytor only bears a small part of responsibility for that erosion of confidence and the public anger.

"But it is important because he has accepted his conduct was dishonest.

"These kind of offences are difficult to detect because of the trust placed in an individual to be honest in his or her claim.

"When they are discovered it is necessary significant penalties should follow so people realise how important it is for people to be honest in dealing with public funds.

"That is the only way public faith in the system can be restored and maintained."

Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, rejected Chaytor's claim that he produced the fake invoices in order to simplify the expenses process.

He said: "It is maintained by the defence that his purpose in creating those documents was in fact to short-circuit the route by which expenses could be claimed.

"We, on behalf of the Crown, do not accept that."

James Sturman QC, mitigating, said Chaytor pleaded guilty out of "deep and genuine remorse" as well as to apologise to everyone he had let down.

He said the former MP had already paid a "quite devastating price" for his errors and stressed that there was no loss to the public purse.

Mr Sturman said Chaytor was entitled to at least as much as he claimed and displayed "inexplicable stupidity" in submitting the fraudulent documents.

"We submit that the sums he received, if he had gone about it transparently, honestly and frankly, he would have been entitled to every penny, if not more than he claimed," he said.

"The fact that he would have been entitled to claim for a second property has been somewhat lost in the clamour and hysteria surrounding the case."

Chaytor has forever lost his "hard-earned reputation for integrity" and is almost certainly suffering from depression as a result of the negative publicity surrounding his prosecution, the court heard.

Mr Sturman condemned the media coverage of the case, saying: "It has been gleeful, gloating, mocking, and many sections of the press have not paused to consider the impact on the man."

Chaytor is the first of three former MPs to face criminal trials to plead guilty.

Elliot Morley and Jim Devine will be tried separately at Southwark Crown Court.

The Supreme Court announced last month that that all three had lost their appeal against being tried in a criminal court because parliamentary privilege does not cover “ordinary crimes”.

Force the well-off to take a lodger. New year, new fascist-egalitarian proposal from the Guardian

2011-01-05T16:36:00.005Z

I hope you enjoyed your holiday. I’ve had about 10 days off away from the world of politics, shunning the papers and Radio 4, and my blood pressure is down, my skin has returned to normal, and my Chief Inspector Dreyfus-style twitch has gone. And then I switch on a computer and saw this:

Let’s take the housing fight to wealthy owners with empty spare rooms
Those who insist on under-occupying their homes should be forced to pay for the privilege, or take in a charity lodger

George Monbiot’s solution to the housing crisis makes me wonder if the time might be right to join a gun-nut militia in Idaho. He writes:

While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource. Either we ensure that it is used wisely and fairly, or we allow its distribution to become the starkest expression of inequality. The UK appears to have chosen the second option. We have allowed the market, and the market alone, to decide who gets what – which means that families in desperate need of bigger homes are crammed together in squalid conditions, while those who have more space than they know what to do with face neither economic nor social pressure to downsize.

I suggest a new concept: housing footprints. Your housing footprint is the number of bedrooms divided by the number of people in the household. Like ecological footprints, it reminds us that the resource is finite, and that, if some people take more than they need, others are left with less than they need.

I would also like to see an expansion of the Homeshare scheme, which could address several growing problems at once. Instead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project – help elderly homeowners with shopping, cleaning, cooking, gardening or driving. Typically they agree to spend 10 hours a week helping out, and to sleep in the house for at least six nights out of seven. This helps older people to stay in their own homes and lead an independent life, gives them companionship and security and relieves some of the pressure on social services and carers. It provides homes for people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford them.

Sorry to intrude on your train of thought, George, but the last I heard it was none of the Government’s damn business what I did with my home, and if I wanted to keep a room entirely comprised of my Sylvanian Family collection that was my concern, and no one else’s.

It’s funny how Lefties get more authoritarian as they get older. Last May George suggested that the best way to fight privilege in universities would be by only allowing one pupil from each school to attend Oxbridge, regardless of grades, with the second best going to the second best university, third to the third etc. The great mystery is how someone can be intelligent enough to graduate from Oxford and yet be unable to visualise the problems such a scheme presents (or he just doesn’t care, and the total ruination of the university system is a price worth paying).

The word “fascism” is thrown about liberally in the political arena; this morning a Radio 4 correspondent described the Front National as “fascist”, when they are actually Right-wing populists. Racism and fascism are two different things altogether, and though the Left uses the two interchangeably, George Monbiot’s school and housing schemes are far closer to fascism than the ethno-centric populism of the European radical Right.

Fascism in the name of equality or the environment is still fascism; that anyone takes Monbiot’s ideas seriously, or the authoritarian wartime-style proposals outlined in The Spirit Level, shows how fragile freedom is. The state has no business in people’s bedrooms – ever.

From Here

Wishing You All A Merry Christmas.

2010-12-21T14:28:00.002Z

Don't Say You Wasn't Warned

2010-12-17T12:07:00.001Z

This is the real reason for all of the cuts going on across the globe. Have you noted the riots all over are now escalating - the latest was in Rome.

Inflation here, has just hit 4.7% which is way over the treasury target of 2% (well they will keep printing money!). Sooner or later interest rates will go up to try and stem inflation, which will increase mortgages when people have little money and then house repossessions will begin to creep up again. Under the socialist One World Government they do not want people to own their own property, thus being dependent upon the "state." Still, thats what the sheep vote for. Bah

Hat Tip Lincolnshire Voice.

Let them pick fruit: Tory councillor says unemployed Northerners should pick fruit rather than claim benefits

2010-12-14T13:40:00.004Z

Unemployed Northerners should replace Eastern European immigrants and 'pick cherries on fruit farms' instead of living on benefits, a senior Conservative council chief has suggested.

David Shakespeare, leader of Buckinghamshire County Council and head of the Conservative group in the Local Government Association, said people from poorer parts of the country affected by the rising joblessness and public sector cuts should go to work in orchards.

Mr Shakespeare made his 'let them pick fruit' comment during a LGA debate about the prospect of councils being allowed to keep the business rates they collect rather than being redistributed to poorer areas.

'The North may replace the Romanians in the cherry orchards,' he said.

'That may be a good thing.

His remarks were immediately seized on by Labour, who likened them to Norman Tebbit’s infamous advice to the unemployed in the 1980s to 'get on your bike'.
Tom Blenkinsop, Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, said the remark undermined David Cameron’s claim to be a 'one nation' leader by portraying Northerners as second-class citizens.

'These types of comment prove [David] Cameron hasn’t reformed his party one bit. To see northerners in this second class, undermining and disrespectful way is typical for a very southern-orientated political party like the Conservatives. The Tory Party certainly can’t claim to be the party of one nation,' he said.

Michael Dugher, Labour MP for Bansley East, has now written to Mr Cameron asking if he will condemn the comments.
'Do you appreciate how out of touch, insensitive and insulting these comments are? Doesn’t it just demonstrate that the Tories are still the same old nasty party?” he said.

And even Conservate colleagues condemned Mr Shakespeare's comments. Dame Margaret Eaton, chairman of the LGA, immediately reprimanded Mr Shakespeare and called his comments 'horrible'.

Rob Light, leader of the Conservative group on Kirklees Metropolitan Council and an ally of Mr Shakespeare’s on the LGA Executive, distanced himself from his colleague.
'I’m assured it’s the view of an individual and not of Conservatives in local government. It’s certainly not the view of Conservatives in local government in the North,' he said.

Mr Dugher said Mr Shakespeare - one of the most senior Conservative figures in local politics - should resign. A Conservative Party spokesman said there would be no disiplinary action, but added:'This is an unacceptable use of language and does not represent the views of the Conservative Party.

The budget cuts are likely to hit the North far harder than the South, with many northern areas reliant on the the public sector for their jobs.

In October, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research found the north-east would lose 4.1 per cent of its jobs over the next four years, compared with 3.1 per cent in London and the south-east.

D's Comment.

... and all the muslims and rainbow colonisers on benefits will work alongside "lazy whitey" ... all in the English fields together, all singing and dancing and celebrating their vibrant diversity ..... especially as whitey goes to the back of the queue and knows his place etc ......
.... the rich Tory boy knows nothing of work, and much less cares about what the indigenous British feel about his fat mouth, or of anything else.
Just take away "lazy whitey's" benefits, and all will be well.
They don't need any of lifes luxuries anyway, and those they do have can be taken away and replaced with endless debts, fines and other instruments of 'correction.

But Labour is waiting to garner their votes.
Unless a party that truly cares for them speaks to them first.

Some EU schemes to Islamify Europe

2010-12-09T16:53:00.002Z

This is not a titillating novel nor a light read but a serious attempt to uncover EU schemes to destroy our European civilisation and replace it with islam. I have put lots of links because I want others to research this too and I hope write up what they find.

There were a series of secretive European Union-agreements with ten European and North African Countries. It is a series of meetings from The Barcelona Agreement to the Euro Mediterranean Declaration of 1995. The following is an abstract with links so readers can check my sources and I hope pursue their own research and writing.

The Euro Mediterranean Declaration was agreed by the EU, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Israel and comprises(1) comprehensive political partnership, among other things about:

Establishing a free trade area and economic integration to begin in the year of 2010
Considerably more money for the partners
Cultural partnership.
Respect for Islam Is Guaranteed by the EU

Multiculturalism is to be respected in order to promote tolerance between different ethnic groups in society. The importance of a resolute common campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance is emphasized. This was predicted by Vladimir Bukovsky from secret documents he filmed in The Kremlin

Close mutual European-Muslim influence on radio, television, newspapers and magazines is to bring about cultural understanding. The EU will actively promote such mutual influences. Youth exchange is one of the instruments for cooperation between future Euro Mediterranean generations. Barcelona declaration adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference [27-28/11/95] Secret EU-deals with 10 Asian and North African countries (2)

The EU Offers the Populations of 9 Muslim Countries Free Movement of Goods, Services, Capital and People into the EU.

In return for concrete political and economic changes the EU offers integration in the expanded internal market of the EU and the possibility to obtain free movement for goods, services, money and people.

Association agreements have been made with all partner countries except Syria Euro Mediterranean Foreign Minister Conference in Naples 2.-3.12.2003. (3) This document should give you an idea of who runs the EU.

Here

Field McConnell speaks to Brian Gerrish, London, 5th Nov 2010

2010-12-03T21:43:00.005Z

The interview continues here

In Black & White At Last

2010-12-02T17:45:00.002Z

The row over tuition fees has stirred up more than one hornet's nest. Finally, a mainstream newspaper has joined the dots for those who couldn't be bothered to do it for themselves:

This inequality exists because nations are required under EU law to charge European students the same rates as home undergraduates. But Brussels is not thought to have powers to stand up for English students. Since England is only a constituent part of the UK, its students are not officially ‘an EU nation’.
Read it again: " ...not officially an EU nation."

Perhaps the people who ignored bloggers' warnings will now sit up and take notice.

Get this into your heads: ENGLAND DOES NOT EXIST. WE HAVE BEEN WIPED FROM THE FACE OF MAPS AND ARE ONLY A COLLECTION OF REGIONS.

Were we asked, consulted, about this, about becoming a non-people? Of course not. It was done by stealth and manipulation, drip, drip, drip, by people not worthy of the epithet 'Honourable Gentleman' and undeserving of your vote. They never represented you at all. Parliament is a sham. Democracy is a sham. The whole kit'n'caboodle is an illusion.

Do you still think it's coincidence that England has been the major recipient, above Scotland, Wales or N.Ireland, of immigration from other countries? What better way to weaken a people and their culture. Remember Jack Straw's words that the English aren't worth saving as a race. Do you take him seriously now? Even Cameron himself has used the term 'Little Englanders' to denote something offensive.

Check out Campaign for an English Parliament, sign the English Claim of Right, write to your MP, write to Cameron, write to the Queen, kick up a stink. How much more proof do you need? Why aren't we on the streets?

Law is being used to prevent criticism of Islam

2010-12-01T16:36:00.001Z

Andrew Brons

1ST DECEMBER 2010: This was a speech on the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability or sexual orientation I was going to deliver to my Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE), yesterday morning.

However, the debate in LIBE co-incided with my voting in AFCO on the citizens' initiatives Contribution, so I was unable to attend.

But this is what I would have said:

"This is a splendid liberal proposition that tries to be kind to everybody but succeeds only in displaying its own internal contradictions. Most religions, however much good liberals might disapprove, insist on having strong opinions on human conduct of which they approve and human conduct of which they disapprove. They often seem to be particularly concerned with sexual conduct of which they disapprove. In these areas, we can either have freedom of religion for their adherents or we can have freedom of sexual minorities from being offended. We cannot have both.

The principle with which we have been presented with is of equal treatment of persons regardless of religion or belief. It does not say that religious doctrines should be immune from criticism or attack. However, the law is increasingly being used in member states to prevent such attack on one religious doctrine - Islam. Geert Wilders, somebody for whom I hold no particular brief, is being prosecuted in the Netherlands for criticising Muslim political and religious doctrines. In England a fifteen year old girl was arrested last Thursday for burning a copy of the Koran and positing it on Facebook. I can see no particular point in buying a copy of a religious book of which one disapproves and then setting fire to it. However, to criminalise such conduct is to protect religious doctrines as distinct from religious adherents. Furthermore, it shows scant regard for the beliefs of the book burner.

I have little sympathy even with individual book burners. However, book burning by states is an admission of totalitarianism. If we thought that book burning had disappeared with the unlamented demise of totalitarianism of the right and the left, we were quite wrong. Book burning is alive and well in many EU states."

The Time That is Given Us

2010-11-29T16:17:00.002Z

The International Free Press Society sponsored a conference today in Copenhagen. Below is the speech that was given during the event by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff;

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I stand here before you in the city of Copenhagen in the year 2010. This is widely considered to be an enlightened country in the heart of an enlightened continent.

Our basic freedoms have long been guaranteed — first by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as passed by the United Nations in 1948, and then buttressed by the Council of Europe in 1950 through the European Convention of Human Rights, which was later affirmed by the European Union. Our individual countries have additionally codified the same basic rights in their own constitutions.

These rights include the freedom of individual conscience, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to practice our religion freely, or to have no religion at all. And, perhaps most importantly of all, they include the right to voice our opinions freely and to publish them without hindrance.

Yet freedom of speech is under attack today here in Denmark, as it is in my own country Austria, and indeed all across Europe. Today, in 21st century Western Europe, our right to free speech is being shut down quietly and systematically with an effectiveness that the commissars in the old Soviet Union could only dream of.

A milestone in this ominous totalitarian trend will be reached tomorrow, 28 November 2010, when the member states of the European Union are required to implement an innocuous-sounding legal provision known as the “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”, or, more fully, the “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” According to the final article of the Framework Decision, “Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 28 November 2010.”

Why does this matter to the cause of free speech in Europe?

If you read the full text of the Framework Decision (which may be found in the legislative section of the EU’s website), you will learn that “Each Member State shall take the measures necessary… to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable.” Such “intentional conduct” includes “conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.”

Based on what has recently happened to Geert Wilders and me — and earlier to Gregorius Nekschot, Jussi Halla-aho, and numerous others — we can all guess who will be punished under this provision of the Framework Decision: those who criticize Islam.

Even worse, a complaint made by a member state does not have to be “dependent on a report or an accusation made by a victim of the conduct”, nor does the alleged offender have to be “physically present in its territory”.

In other words, if the dhimmi Austrian government objects to a cartoon published by Kurt Westergaard here in Denmark, Mr. Westergaard may be extradited by the Austrian Ministry of Justice to answer to hate speech charges in Austria. The European Arrest Warrant guarantees that the Danish government cannot legally interfere with such an extradition, and the 800-strong “European Gendarmerie Force” would be available to fetch Mr. Westergaard out of his bed and bring him to Vienna — with impunity.

As of tomorrow, the above scenario becomes a real possibility. It is not a paranoid fantasy. These legal provisions are detailed in the EU’s public documents, and they will enjoy the full force of law in all EU member states as of midnight tonight.

The death throes of free speech in Europe begin tomorrow morning.

As most of you already know, nearly a year ago I was made aware that “hate speech” charges might be filed against me — I had “denigrated religious teachings” by giving one of my public lectures on Islam.

The possibility of my prosecution was not communicated to me directly, but through articles in the press.

It was not until last month that a court date was set for my case. Once again, I had to discover this fact in the press — in NEWS, the same left-wing newspaper that brought the original complaint against me. I was not officially notified of my hearing date until several days later.

The evidence used against me this past week was a transcript of a tape of my lecture, provided to the court by the same socialist newspaper. It included words that were not spoken by me, and words that were not spoken in public, which therefore were not a violation of the law.

But my case is not really about the law. It is a political trial, and like the trials of Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho, it is intended to silence someone who speaks out against the barbaric nature of sharia law.

Above all else, it is intended to discourage anyone who might consider following in my footsteps. The oligarchs who rule Europe are determined to prevent any frank discussion among their citizens of Islam and its legal doctrines.

These are the methods of a totalitarian state.

They are more successful than those of the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists because they are accomplished quietly and peacefully, with no need for concentration camps or gulags or mass graves or the shot in the back of the neck in the middle of the night.

They are surgical strikes executed via our legal systems, and they are quite effective. Between the summary punishment carried out against Theo Van Gogh and the Framework Decision applied though our courts, there is no room left for us to maneuver.

We are systematically being silenced.

I admire the provisions of the First Amendment that all Americans enjoy as their birthright. Its free speech provisions will make the imposition of sharia that much more difficult in the United States.

But here in Europe we are not so well-protected. Our constitutions and the rules imposed upon us by the EU allow certain exceptions to the right to speak freely, and those little rips in the fabric of our rights are enough to tear the entire structure to pieces.

We desperately need our own version of the First Amendment. We need leaders who are wise and courageous enough to compose and implement legal instruments that affirm the same fundamental rights that are guaranteed to all citizens by the United States Constitution.

We do not yet have any leaders of this caliber. But they are beginning to appear on the scene, and one day they will be the real leaders of our individual European nations, replacing the internationalist totalitarian usurpers who oppress us today.

Our nations will be governed by their own people, by those who truly represent them. Their leaders will be true patriots, people like Jimmie Åkesson and Kent Ekeroth in Sweden, or Oskar Freysinger in Switzerland, or Geert Wilders and Martin Bosma in the Netherlands, or Filip Dewinter and Frank Vanhecke in Flanders.

We are going to reclaim our continent and our nations. We will take our countries back from those thieves who sneaked them away from us while were lulled into somnolence by our wealth and our pleasant diversions.

This will not be an easy task. Our path will be strewn with obstacles and great dangers. But we must travel it nonetheless, because if we do not, European civilization — the heart of Western Civilization — will be destroyed.

What were formerly our nations will become regions with indistinct boundaries, populated mainly by people of foreign cultures and administered by corrupt totalitarian bureaucrats. The natives — the original inhabitants, our children, the descendants of those who created the greatest civilization the world has ever known — will be reduced to curators and costumed actors in a quaint theme park.

Call it “Euro World”. Authentic cuisine, ethnic dancers, and fireworks at ten o’clock.

This is what we will face if we give up our cherished freedoms. If lose our freedom of speech, then we are lost forever.

I am not a victim. I intend to stand up for what is right. I will defend what needs to be defended. Above everything else, I will exercise my God-given right to speak freely about what is happening. Freedom of speech is the single most important freedom we possess.

I am doing this for my daughter, and for her children, for those who will have to live in the world we are now preparing for them. I am doing what our grandparents should perhaps have done during the 1930s, when their own freedoms were under threat.

This is our time. This cup will not pass from us.

I am reminded of a passage in J.R.R. Tolkien’s famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.

It is an exchange between Frodo the hobbit and Gandalf the wizard, and it concerns the perilous quest on which Frodo and his friends have been sent.

Frodo says: “I wish it need not have happened in my time.”

Gandalf responds: “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

It is time for us to decide what to do with the time that is given us.

If I were to speak these same words tomorrow morning, I might be subject to arrest. I could be charged under the provisions of the Framework Decision, and extradited to the country that charged me using a European Arrest Warrant, escorted by the European Gendarmerie.

This is not an imaginary scenario; it is a very real possibility.

It is true that only a few people are likely to undergo such an ordeal. But it only takes a few people.

How many people have to endure what Mr. Wilders and I are enduring before everyone else gets the message?

How many examples have to be set before the rest of the European population understands the new rules, and is cowed into submission?

And we must remember to whom they will be submitting in the end. They will be submitting to our successors in Europe. They will be submitting to our replacements.

We must remember that the word for submission in Arabic is Islam.

When there are enough Muslims living in Europe — and it doesn’t have to be a majority of the population, just somewhere around fifteen or twenty percent — we will be living under Islamic law, and not the laws that presently govern us.

We will no longer enjoy what constitutional rights remain to us now. Our rights will be completely prescribed and delimited by sharia. Women will become the virtual chattel of men. Christians and Jews will be driven out or forced to convert to Islam. Atheists and homosexuals will be killed.

The European Union would consider these words to be “hate speech”. Under the Framework Decision, they would be classified as “racism and xenophobia”, and I could be prosecuted for saying them.

But they are in fact the simple truth.

Anyone can verify them by studying history. Anyone who chooses can read the Koran and the hadith and the Sunna of the Prophet.

Widely available official treatises on Islamic law confirm that my description is not “hate speech”, but a plain and accurate reading of the tenets of Islamic law.

It has become obvious that to tell the truth about Islam is now considered “incitement to religious hatred”.

It is now clear that non-Muslims who reveal the tenets of sharia law to the public are “denigrating religious teachings”.

If we meekly accept these rules, then we are acquiescing in the imposition of sharia law in our own nations. And I, for one, will not sit silently while this happens.

I don’t want my daughter to live under sharia.

Our time is short. If you and I do not envision an Islamic future for ourselves, then we must speak out now.

If we wish to preserve the right to speak and publish freely, then we must exercise it now.

I wish this need not have happened in my time. But it has.

We must make full use of the time that remains to us.

Thank you.

Hat Tip Gates of Vienna.

Stay Calm: Think For Yourselves

2010-11-26T18:19:00.002Z

As news seeps into the British consciousness about a possible meltdown in the Euro-Zone and what it means for us, the Daily Express becoming openly ”Nationalist” all of a sudden, saying let’s get out of the EU, and the utter greed of the gravy-guzzlers new £3000 per year rise, many of us nationalists and patriots could become too optimistic. We’ve already warned, and been warned, of massive job losses, tax rises, and crime exploding as criminals are let out early and those doing time allowed to vote. We knew, that one day the whole usurious money scam would implode, and that ”whitey” would ultimately pay the price in terms of blame, costs, and oppression. But we must see all this for what it actually is: An opportunity to realign the whole scam, and break our nations in the process.

It is nothing but a social engineering plan gone slightly off the rails. Let us remember for instance who owns the Daily Express, and his interests in porn. £226 Billion of exposure to the banking world by just five Euro-Zone nations, not including Britain, is not going to be easily left without payment by the private club to which Richard Desmond belongs. Readers may be aware that it was his paper, that published the alarmist headline, complete with our photographs in them: ”Vote These Nazis Out”. Not bad when you consider that Desmond’s filth files included ”Asian Babes”, and various publications which were anti-white, showing blonds etc, but oddly enough, nothing degrading about Jewish Babes. In addition, he still apparently owns ”Television X”, a TV based porn site.

The only voice constantly opposing the EU, the bankers, and alien ownership of our once national assets and much loved businesses, including many iconic names, is the British National Party. But where was it’s support base amongst the ”new patriots” and media barons? Where was the mainstream press when they new full well, we were heading towards the biggest deficit and debt crisis two years ago? Nowhere to be seen. Germany is supposedly booming, but if that is the case, it proves that the ”one size fits all” basis of the Euro, is complete nonsense. The whole project was doomed when it was originally invented, supposedly on the basis that nations could trade without fear, and that the Economic Union would make us more prosperous… immigration was key to all this, and now each Euro-Zone nation has no limits on immigration, at least not in any real way.

It will be interesting to see what another month does, as regards to the media representation of Britain being once again independent. It will be even more exciting to see David Cameron’s reaction, after he let the cat out of the bag last week, by saying ”We cannot allow Globalisation to stall”. Whatever the outcome, and whatever promises are made, think for your selves, as we have said many times recently and in the past: We are alone, and only the BNP can take us through this, and future crisis’ as we continue along the road to complete bankruptcy. What our national leaders will do, and what the media will say, are not open to debate or flexibility, as much of the action will be behind closed doors, where the winking and nudging, hand shakes that look funny, and the Bilderberger’s take corrective action to halt any crushing defeat.

They will continue to move money around. The media will take steps to sell papers with any headline, but under no circumstances, will any of them come to our rescue, nor will they openly give the British National Party a ”pat on the back” for it’s continuous and unrelentless attack on those whom would destroy our nation, and oppress our freedom of speech. In fact, it would not surprise many if us, if the duplicitous Mr Cameron and his posse of claw-hammer loving political prostitutes, actually made the relevant noises that echo the Daily Express… after all, that ”Birdcage liner” tried to parody New Labour’s stance, and decided it was the ”Voice of New Britain”. Whatever it says it is now, just think for yourselves, and remember the old adage: ”Newspapers need a good headline to sell newspapers”. So in six months time, it could be a ”different story” excuse the pun.

National debt can never be repaid, compound debt and fractional banking is in a sense, the same hole we found ourselves in, when paying back the bankers of America for all that wartime debt. If Britain, and all those unfortunate countries in the Euro-Zone are intending to pay back massive debts, but are bereft of manufacturing and decent products to offer others, then forget it. We are all too poor to ever get out of it, after all, you will remember we just got to the last payment of our debt to the American bankers, when what happened? Yes, we once again ”found” ourselves with a need to borrow billions upon billions. The crisis in the Euro-Zone, could in fact facilitate a sort of Plan B for the elites. What would happen for instance, if the Korean crisis escalated? The ideas of a Europe wide, ”American led” attack on the north, along with a long expected Iranian attack, could once again see the ”allies” in action to oust those leaders who will not surrender to the NWO idea of ”Democracy”. Then we’ll see yet another debt based, money and power orientated war that will supply the required ”united front” in Europe, to oppose the world’s new enemies… Stay calm: Think for yourselves, and let’s unite against the whole damn lot of them.

Hat Tip London Patriot

Sharia lessons for pupils aged six: BBC uncovers 'weekend schools' that teach pupils how to hack off thieves' hands

2010-11-22T08:19:00.002Z

Pupils asked to list the 'reprehensible' qualities of Jews
Around 5,000 children attend a network of 40 schools
Diagrams show children how to hack off hands and feet

Children in Britain are being taught brutal Sharia law punishments, including how
to hack off a criminal’s hand or foot.

So-called ‘weekend schools’ for Muslim pupils as young as six also teach that the penalty for gay sex is execution and that ‘Zionists’ are plotting to take over the world for the Jews.

One set textbook challenges youngsters to list the ‘reprehensible’ qualities of Jews.

Another for six-year-olds asks them to answer what happens to someone who dies who is not a believer in Islam. The answer being looked for is ‘hellfire’.

A BBC Panorama investigation, to be screened tonight, identified a network of more than 40 weekend schools teaching around 5,000 children, from age six to 18.

The schools – which offer the hardline Saudi National Curriculum – are run under the umbrella of ‘Saudi Students Clubs and Schools in the UK and Ireland’.

They are not state-funded, and do not use Government buildings. They are able to exploit a loophole which means weekend schools are not inspected by Ofsted.

Last night, experts at the Policy Exchange think-tank warned that similar extremists could seek to exploit the Government’s policy of giving greater freedoms from state control to free schools and academies.

Clear message: Education Secretary Michael Gove has said he would not tolerate anti-Semitism and homophobia in English schools
They call for the establishment of a due diligence unit to check whether those applying to open the schools have an extremist background.

Current checks are largely limited to fraud, criminal convictions and funding.

Education Secretary Michael Gove, who is believed to be supportive of the idea, said he would not tolerate anti-Semitism and homophobia in English schools.
The Panorama investigation identified a book for 15-year-olds being used in the classes which teaches about Sharia law and its punishments.

It says: ‘For thieves their hands will be cut off for a first offence, and their foot for a subsequent offence.’

There are diagrams showing children where cuts must be made. One passage says: ‘The specified punishment of the thief is cutting off his right hand at the wrist. Then it is cauterised to prevent him from bleeding to death.’

For acts of ‘sodomy’, children are told that the penalty is death and it states a difference of opinion whether this should be done by stoning, or burning with fire, or throwing over a cliff.

Panorama alleges that a building used for one of the schools, in Ealing, West London, is owned by the Saudi government .

Mr Gove told the programme: ‘I have no desire or wish to intervene in the decisions that the Saudi government makes in its own education system.

‘But I’m clear that we cannot have anti-Semitic material of any kind being used in English schools. Ofsted are doing some work in this area.

‘They’ll be reporting to me shortly about how we can ensure that part-time provision is better registered and better inspected in the future.’

The text books for 15-year-olds revive the so-called ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, which teach that Zionists want to establish world domination for Jews.

The Saudi text books instruct pupils: ‘The Jews have tried to deny them (the Protocols) but there are many proofs of their veracity and their origin among the elders of Zion.’

The text books say the ‘main goal’ of the ‘Zionist movement’ is ‘for the Jews to have control over the world and its resources’ which, the book allege, Zionists seek to achieve partly by ‘inciting rancour and rivalry among the great powers so that they fight one another.’

Rest Here

A wake for Ireland – May all who loved her remember her fondly

2010-11-20T09:41:00.002Z

Ireland is now well and truly dead. All we need to do now is bury the corpse, and give her some kind of respectful funeral. The High Treason of the Daíl has sealed her fate, and short of the resurrection she will never rise again.

As you may already know, the International Monetary Fund has been let in to sort out her "financial problems" which were caused by the same Big Six Beast Banks that own the IMF that have been sent in to pick over her corpse.

The Big Six Beast Banks took over the banking system of Ireland shortly after she got her independence from Great Britain, took the issuance of currency and credit away from the Daíl, where it belonged, and into private banking hands. Over many years they have deliberately kept Ireland down in a state of near poverty. Then in the early 2000s they set up all the Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps and loaned her money she could never hope to pay back.

She was never meant to.

She brought their honeyed lies about a Celtic Tiger Economy, all the while the Big Six Beast Banks were betting against the Derivatives that funded the deception and against Ireland herself. The crash of 2008 came, and the Big Six Beast Banks engineered crisis after crisis while offering her the solutions that would slowly kill her, not cure her.

Some in the Daíl had not been bought out by their bankster masters, and tried to resist gallantly. They tried to revive the dying economy as the vultures encircled her, but there is treason within the Daíl, and the two vultures of the European Union and the International Monetary Fund landed beside her corpse and are now extracting their pounds of flesh from her side.

It is time that her children woke up and smelled the faecal corruption of High Treason. It is time they rose up and overthrew the Traitors in the Daíl who have just sold Ireland's children into eternal slavery.

If they do not rise up now, they will find themselves as slaves within the land their forefathers fought and died for. The IMF is a hard task master, and the IMF will extract every last piece of wealth from Ireland's bosom and leave her children with nothing but slavery and death.

But the IMF will not be satisfied with killing Ireland and enslaving her children. Already their beady, vulture gaze is upon Portugal and Spain. May God have mercy upon them also.

Hat Tip Phil Brennan

Time To Deliver The Death Blow!

2010-11-16T17:11:00.002Z

Ireland's debt crisis could kill the European Union stone dead, EU president warns

The debt crisis facing Ireland, Greece and Portugal could threaten the future of the whole European Union, EU President Herman Van Rompuy warned today.

'We must all work together in order to survive with the eurozone, because if we do not survive with the eurozone, we will not survive with the European Union,' said Mr Van Rompuy.

He spoke out as finance ministers tried to keep Ireland's market turmoil from triggering a domino effect that could topple other vulnerable nations and rock the region's currency union.

Only months after saving Greece from bankruptcy in May, the 16-country eurozone has been shaken by concerns that Ireland will be unable to sustain the cost of its banks' failure.

European nations are worried the tension is making borrowing more expensive for countries like Portugal and Spain, threatening to push them to the brink of default.
Stifling the contagion - a market panic that jumps from one weak country to the next - is the priority.

Behind Ireland stands Portugal, one of the eurozone's smaller member with 1.8 per cent of its economy but one that is considered by some to have done less than the Irish to bring debt and deficits back under control.

Next comes Spain, with a proportionally smaller debt burden but a dead-in-the-water economy that is so big - 11.7 per cent of eurozone output - that it could present a much larger challenge if it needs help.

Rates on Irish bonds rose again today as investors' expectations ebbed for an early decision on an Irish bailout - which would be expected to guarantee they will get paid back on their holdings.

The yield on 10-year Irish treasuries rose to 8.16 per cent from Monday's closing yield of 7.94 per cent.

Ireland's minister for European affairs, Dick Roche, concedes that Irish banks are having trouble drumming up operating cash, but insists no bailout agreement is in store.

He suggested that others in the EU were panicking over how to manage Ireland's £49 billion bank-bailout bill and its deficit, which is forecast to reach a staggering 32 per cent of GDP this year, a record for post-war Europe.

'I would hope that after the meeting this afternoon and tomorrow there would be more logic introduced to this. There's no reason why we should trigger an IMF or an EU-type bailout,' Roche said.

'There is a problem with liquidity in banks, but I don't think the appropriate response to that would be for European finance ministers to panic.

Analysts suggested that Ireland should cut a deal now with EU colleagues and not wait until next year, when the country could rapidly reach the edge of bankruptcy.

Ireland says it has sufficient cash to fund government services through June 2011, and has postponed returning to the bond market until early 2011 in hopes that the interest rate demanded by investors will have fallen by then.

Ireland has already nationalised three banks - Anglo Irish, Irish Nationwide and the Educational Building Society - and has taken major stakes in Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland.

Allied Irish is expected to fall under majority state control within weeks.

Rest Here

WE WILL REMEMBER THEM.

2010-11-14T09:51:00.001Z

They shall not grow old as we who are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
WE WILL REMEMBER THEM.

'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII

2010-11-13T08:42:00.003Z

Sarah Robinson was just a teenager when World War II broke out.

She endured the Blitz, watching for fires during Luftwaffe air raids armed with a bucket of sand.

Often she would walk ten miles home from work in the blackout, with bombs falling around her.

As soon as she turned 18, she joined the Royal Navy to do her bit for the war effort.

Hers was a small part in a huge, history-making enterprise, and her contribution epitomises her generation's sense of service and sacrifice.
Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the experience, physically and mentally.

But was it worth it? Her answer - and the answer of many of her contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s - is a resounding No.

They despise what has become of the Britain they once fought to save. It's not our country any more, they say, in sorrow and anger.

Sarah harks back to the days when 'people kept the laws and were polite and courteous. We didn't have much money, but we were contented and happy.

'People whistled and sang. There was still the United Kingdom, our country, which we had fought for, our freedom, democracy. But where is it now?!'

Sarah Robinson, who joined the Royal Navy when she was 18, says the Britain she once knew no longer exists.
The feelings of Sarah and others from this most selfless generation about the modern world have been recorded by a Tyneside writer, 33-year-old Nicholas Pringle.

Curious about his grandmother's generation and what they did in the war, he decided three years ago to send letters to local newspapers across the country asking for those who lived through the war to write to him with their experiences.

He rounded off his request with this question: 'Are you happy with how your country has turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades would have made of life in 21st-century Britain?'

What is extraordinary about the 150 replies he received, which he has now published as a book, is their vehement insistence that those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war would now be turning in their graves.

There is the occasional bright spot - one veteran describes Britain as 'still the best country in the world' - but the overall tone is one of profound disillusionment.

'I sing no song for the once-proud country that spawned me,' wrote a sailor who fought the Japanese in the Far East, 'and I wonder why I ever tried.'
'My patriotism has gone out of the window,' said another ex-serviceman.
In the Mail this week, Gordon Brown wrote about 'our debt of dignity to the war generation'.

But the truth that emerges from these letters is that the survivors of that war generation have nothing but contempt for his government.

They feel, in a word that leaps out time and time again, 'betrayed'.
New Labour, said one ex-commando who took part in the disastrous Dieppe raid in which 4,000 men were lost, was 'more of a shambles than some of the actions I was in during the war, and that's saying something!'
He added: 'Those comrades of mine who never made it back would be appalled if they could see the world as it is today.

'They would wonder what happened to the Brave New World they fought so damned hard for.'
Nor can David Cameron take any comfort from the elderly.

His 'hug a hoodie' advice was scorned by a generation of brave men and women now too scared, they say, to leave their homes at night.

Immigration tops the list of complaints.

'People come come here, get everything they ask, for free, laughing at our expense,' was a typical observation.

'We old people struggle on pensions, not knowing how to make ends meet. If I had my time again, would we fight as before ?.... Need you ask?'
Many writers are bewildered and overwhelmed by a multicultural Britain that, they say bitterly, they were never consulted about nor feel comfortable with.

'Our country has been given away to foreigners while we, the generation who fought for freedom, are having to sell our homes for care and are being refused medical services because incomers come first.'

Her words may be offensive to many - and rightly so - but Sarah Robinson defiantly states: 'We are affronted by the appearance of Muslim and Sikh costumes on our streets.'

Rest Here

Poppy-burning Muslim protesters mar Armistice Day commemorations as millions fall silent to remember war dead

2010-11-11T16:02:00.003Z

Islamic protesters sparked fury today after they burned a model of a poppy and deliberately broke the silence at Armistice Day commemorations in central London.

As millions of Britons fell silent to remember those who have died in war, members of a group called Muslims Against Crusades clashed with police during an 'emergency demonstration' in Kensington, west London.

As the clock struck 11am, the Islamic protesters burned a model of a poppy and chanted 'British soldiers burn in hell'.

They held banners which read 'Islam will dominate' and 'Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell'.

Rest Here

We Will Remember Them

2010-11-11T08:32:00.002Z

They shall not grow old as we who are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

WE WILL REMEMBER THEM.

Labours Fifth Column: ‘Muslims Against Remembrance Day’

2010-11-10T11:25:00.002Z

Islam and Muslims are on the march in the UK and across Europe. Taking over churches and schools assisted by the quislings in the Labour Party and their various sock puppet front groups Searchlight (Nick Lowles and Gerry Gable) and Unite Against Freedom (Ken Livingston, Martin Smith, Weyman Bennett) these traitors are playing with ordinary British citizens lives. With the recent seizing of power in the London borough of Tower Hamlets its time for their ‘shock troops’ to flex their muscles.

Muslims Against Crusaders which is connected with various Mosques and political groups in Tower Hamlets in the East End of London is planning a ‘Demonstration Against Remembrance Day’ on Exhibition Road, Kensington, SW7, on Thursday the 11th of November from 10-12pm.

http://muslimsagainstcrusades.com/

Hat Tip London Patriot.

The EU are Running Scared of Nationalist Parties

2010-11-08T18:07:00.001Z

The rise of nationalism in Europe is good news for the ordinary citizen but is a threat to the arrogant and unaccountable European bureaucrats, they are finding it more and more difficult to carry out their evil plan of destroying the Nation states of Europe and create a new world order of Nationless mongrels.

Unreported by MSM in the UK, there is the news that six European ‘far-right’ parties are planning a European referendum with the aim of preventing Turkey joining the EU.

What follows is an article written by Bernard Guetta that shows the contempt the EU elite has for us ordinary citizens.

Mr Guetta is a journalists who writes for Liberation, a French version of The Guardian and therefore is the classic example of a self-loathing white marxist.

This article is worth a read Nationalists will see how out of touch these marxists are and I must say it is always a pleasure to watch them squirm.

Press Europe
Bernard Guetta

It should have made the headlines, but it didn’t. Meeting on 23 October in Vienna, representatives of five of Europe’s new far-right parties [the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), the Flemish nationalist Vlaams Belang, the Danish People’s Party, the Italian Northern League, the Slovak National Party and the Sweden Democrats] decided to campaign for a referendum on Turkish accession to the EU.

For the moment they have simply announced their intention, and the task they have set themselves will not be easy. Under the terms for citizens’ initiatives in the Lisbon Treaty, the campaign for a referendum has to meet a number of conditions, some of which are very vague. One key requirement is the presentation of a petition with one million signatures from a “substantial number of member countries,” and these signatures have yet to be collected. But if a referendum were to take place now, there is no doubt that a majority of the citizens of the EU would vote “no” to Turkish accession.

The prospect of this initiative will be a comfort to national governments who do not want Turkey to join, and act as an additional brake to enlargement. Negotiations with Turkey, which are almost at a complete standstill, will be further compromised, because at a time when Islam-baiting has become an easy vote-winner, no one wants the extreme right to instrumentalise European direct democracy and hog the limelight on a theme that will garner support from voters across the political spectrum.
Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders have broken the mould

The plan for referendum has not made the headlines, but it should for two reasons. First and foremost, the time has come to evaluate the danger posed by this new nationalist and Islamophobic threat that is gaining ground everywhere in Europe, and which has little in common with the small-time crypto-facists of yesteryear. In some European countries, the extreme right has close to 25% of the vote, and where it has yet to reach this level, it already posts double-digit scores.

Buoyed by a wave of social discontent that has swept across the continent, it is in the process of mounting a platform that brings together the defence of the welfare state, an aspiration for protectionism, and an attachment to liberal values that are supposedly threatened by Muslims. Represented by pleasantly urbane leaders, who appear wholly contemporary, it has attracted a hefty swathe of the working-class and urban youth vote.

It has also demonstrated a significant tactical ability that is no longer confined to brass-knuckle politics: to wit, the clever manoeuvres in Sweden and Italy, the stereotypical moulds broken by Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, and its appropriation of the procedural innovation offered by Lisbon, which it is the first to use.

In other words, the new extreme right is only just beginning to upset the balance of power in the EU’s 27 member states, and that is not all. The second problem is that it will also seriously complicate how the EU works: in Parliament where it continues to win more seats, and in the Council and the Commission where its increased influence on national governments, which now depend on it to sustain their majorities, will soon be apparent. Not only will it undermine the compromises between left and right, which are essential to the running of the Union, but it will also fight to block any advance towards European federalism, which it wants ditched with a restoration of national borders and the paradise lost of strong protective nation states.
We too can petition to create a European democracy

The plan for the referendum has not made the headlines, but it should, because it will add to a climate of mistrust that could ultimately stymie the development of Europe. Fear of Islam could deprive us of a historic opportunity to build bridges with Turkey, and in so doing demonstrate our support for democracy and secular government in the world’s most dynamic and Muslim country. If it prevails, it will limit our access to an important developing market, and more importantly undermine the credibility of a positive model for Middle Eastern countries, which are increasingly drawn to political Islamism.

Fear which identifies the post-war social compromise with the borders of nation-states is now the main obstacle to the construction of a federal union that will be needed if we are to exert any influence in a century where the mid-sized powers of the past will now be ignored.

Fear has prevented us from recognising that we too can petition Europe’s institutions to create a European democracy where the Commission would be controlled by a parliamentary majority. In so doing, we could re-establish a public power that has the capacity to put an end to the dominance of capital over labour, and transform the eurozone into a political entity that will ensure the continued enlargement of the union. But we are blinded and paralysed by fear, and therefore it comes as no surprise that the parties who have made fear their core business are fast gaining ground.

Jörg Haider's party to expand into Germany

2010-11-08T18:02:00.001Z

Austria's far-right Freedom Party has announced plans to expand into neighbouring Germany, where it hopes to join forces with another militant anti-Islamic group and campaign against Turkey's accession to the European Union as part of a widening bid for political power.

The party, which swept to power in Austria under the leadership of the late Jörg Haider a decade ago, made huge gains in Vienna elections earlier this month when it won 26 per cent of the vote and overnight became the city's second most powerful party.

The dramatic resurgence followed an anti-Islamic election campaign in the Austrian capital's traditionally white working-class districts, which now have big immigrant communities. The party's vote-winning tactics included distributing a free computer game that allows players to shoot at mosques, minarets and muezzin.

The party's current leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, said at a right-wing political congress in Vienna at the weekend that his organisation's growing appeal meant it was now time to move into Germany. The party plans to open its "German office" with the little known Pro-Deutschland ultra right-wing movement, which recently gained seats on Cologne city council.

"We have a lot in common," said Hans-Jörg Jenewein, the Freedom Party's general secretary. "The Pro-movement should achieve in Germany what we have in Austria." Both parties will hold a press conference in the west German town of Leverkusen this week to announce what was described as a "patriotic movement at federal level".

The Pro movement won five Cologne parliament seats last year after campaigning fiercely against the construction of a new mosque in the city's suburbs. Mass protests prevented the party from holding a political rally and the organisation is under surveillance from Germany's Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

Mr Strache's plans for expansion were unveiled at a conference in Vienna attended by delegates from far-right parties across Europe. Declaring that he wanted to combat "bad developments" within the EU, he claimed that Turkey's proposed accession threatened to turn Europe into a "Euro-Asiatic-African Union," which "cannot be allowed to happen".

Other far-right parties at the meeting included the Sweden Democrats, who entered parliament for the first time in Stockholm last month, Italy's Lega Nord and the Danish People's Party. Bruno Valkeniers, the leader of Belgium's far right Vlaams Belang was also reported to have been present.

Although these parties are opposed to the EU reforms contained in last year's Lisbon Treaty, they have announced plans to make use of one of the treaty's clauses which opens the way for a Europe-wide referendum on issues such as Turkey's admission to the EU. Attempts to form a far-right bloc within the European parliament have so far failed as a result of inter-party disagreements.

In Germany concern about the far right had, until recently, been limited to the activities of the openly racist neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. However, worries that Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives have become too left-wing on key issues such as immigration, have prompted talk about the possible formation of a new right-wing conservative party.

Nationalist Victory in Ukraine

2010-11-05T20:44:00.002Z

Ukranian nationalist party Svoboda, our partners in the Alliance of European Nationalist Movements, registered a very significant result in the local elections held last Sunday (31st October).

Their best results were in Lviv, Ivano-Frankiuvsk and Ternopil, where they gained over 30% of the votes cast, making them the strongest party in these areas.

Overall Svoboda came in 5th place in these elections. The governing Regions Party of President Victor Yanukovych came in first place, followed by Batkivschyna, which is the party of Yulia Tymochenko, of Orange Revolution fame. The Front for Change party of Arsenyi Yacenyuk came in fourth place, followed by the Communist Party.

The rise in support shown for the nationalists on Sunday means that groups of Svoboda councillors will be entering a significant number of local and regional assemblys for the first time.

This was in spite of alleged vote rigging in a number of areas, for instance in Kiev, the country's capital.

Earlier today, in a press release from Svoboda's deputy leader Andriy Mokhnyk, the party demanded that all votes in the city be recounted and that the heads of the Pereyaslav-Khmelnytsky city and district election commissions and the Bila Tserkva city election commission be arrested.

Svoboda are also calling for Kiev's Regional Governor, Anatoliy Prysiazhniuk, be sacked for failing to ensure the constitutional right of citizens to freedom of expression and a fair counting of the votes.

"Svoboda demands that votes be recounted at all polling stations in Kyiv region, and it will insist that criminal proceedings be launched against all those involved in vote rigging," the statement continues.

It is a credit to Svoboda that even in the face of such underhandedness, the party still managed to achieve a great result.

Hat Tip Chris Beverley.

The entente frugale: Cost-cutting 50-year deal that will see French take command of the SAS and Britain share nuclear secrets

2010-11-02T14:21:00.004Z

Britain and France will sign a new entente cordiale today which will put the security of the UK and her overseas territories in the hands of the French for 50 years.

The ground-breaking agreement will even see French generals taking command of the SAS as part of a rapid reaction force.

Nuclear secrets - which have been preserved for five decades – will also be shared under unprecedented plans to merge the testing of warheads.

Senior defence officials claim the historic deal, dubbed the ‘Entente Frugale’, will save millions and boost the fighting power of both countries.

But critics claim that the pact has been forced on Britain by budget cuts and will leave the Armed Forces dependent on their historical rivals, who opposed conflicts in Iraq and the Falklands.

David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarzoky will sign two treaties designed to end years of mutual suspicion and bind the Armed Forces of both nations together for 50 years.

The historic deal will see Britain and France:

Share aircraft carriers from 2020, so that at least one is at sea at all times, leaving Britain dependent on French support to defend the Falkland Islands
Launch a brigade-sized Combined Joint Expeditionary Force - about 6,000 troops – including the SAS, SBS, Marines and Paras, to deploy on civil and military operations together.

Britain will surrender testing of nuclear warheads which will be done at Valduc, near Dijon, from 2015. The Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston will focus on developing new technology.

Share more intelligence, air-to-air refuelling and cyber-warfare capabilities
Work more closely on counter terrorism, particularly with regard to the Channel Tunnel .

Force British and French defence companies to collaborate on future missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox insisted the move makes 'perfect sense' and stressed: 'This is not a question of our military assets coming under the control of any other power than the United Kingdom.'
He claimed it would not stop the UK acting alone if it had a disagreement with France over policy.

'There is nothing in this treaty that restricts either country from acting where we want to in our national interest,' he told the BBC.

'We're talking about joint expeditionary forces with our forces in all three services working together to develop common practices, better inter-operability and to look to see where we get better common equipment. That makes perfect sense in a world where resources are tight but our interests are increasingly common.'

Dr Fox said the deal was not the same as allowing the European Union to have responsibility for defence.

'Defence has to be a sovereign capability,' he said. 'If we decide to make a defence deal with France, where we operate together when it's in our interest to do so but retain our capabilities to act independently when our nations require it, that's very different from having a European Commission rule in our defence.'

Two years ago, a leaked French government document revealed most of France’s tanks, helicopters and jet fighters were unusable and its defence capabilities were on the verge of ‘falling apart’.
Under the terms of the defence pact, Britain’s only aircraft carrier capability for the next decade will be the French flagship the Charles de Gaulle.

From 2020, when the UK has its own new carrier, the two countries will agree to keep one of the two at sea.

But that means when Britain’s carrier is in refit, about 30 per cent of the time, the defence of the Falkland Islands could depend on help from the French government, which sold Exocet missiles to Argentina during the 1982 war. And they could simply say: ‘Non.’

Commander John Muxworthy, a Falklands veteran who is chief executive of the UK National Defence Association, branded the plan ‘utterly irresponsible’.

He said: ‘This compromises our operational integrity completely. If we need to send a carrier to protect one of our territories, and ours is in refit, and the French say, “Well, we don’t agree – you’re not using ours”, we’re not going to be doing much protecting.

‘It is not in the best interests of the nation. The Government is trying to paint the picture that this is the smart way to do defence, but the reality is that ministers are trying to disguise the cuts and have defence on the cheap.’

British and French forces earmarked for the rapid reaction ‘expeditionary force’ will train together from next year.

The plans will have serious implications for Nato because Britain and France could carry out operations outside the alliance, but officials say it is better than allowing the EU to develop military capabilities.

Mr Cameron said yesterday: ‘I do seriously believe that this link-up with the French is in the long-term interests of both our countries.

‘And to those who worry that this might in some way lead to sort of European armies – that is not the point. The point is to enhance sovereign capability by two like-minded countries being able to work together.’
New Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards said: 'From a purely practical military perspective, we have been working very closely with the French ever since the First World War, but particularly in Nato,' he said in a BBC interview ahead of the summit.

'We lost some of that in the 1990s and the last 10 years or so, so we are almost going back to the very close co-operation we had in the Cold War era.

'It makes absolute sense, from my perspective, as we are going to fight alongside the French, which has been our plan for a long time, to be as good at it in training as we possibly can be.'

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said: 'I support the Government's emphasis on international co-operation, taking forward the good work of the last government.

'We share common threats with countries such as France, from terrorism to privacy to cyber-attack. Deepening military ties is an essential part of modern defence policy.
'Interdependence, however, is different from dependence, and binding legal treaties pose some big questions for the Government.
'We know British aircraft carriers won't have a strike force on them for a decade. Is today's treaty going to usher in an era where we are reliant on our allies to fill in the gaps in the Government's defence policy?'

Will we ever really trust the French?Commentary by COLONEL TIM COLLINS

Horatio Nelson famously instructed his officers that, ‘you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil’.

The Duke of Wellington proclaimed: ‘We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France.’

Well it seems now we are to be one with them – at least militarily. I must admit I am sceptical.
I have served with the French many times; in Berlin during the Cold War, with their special forces on numerous operations when I was in the SAS and in Bosnia, both with the UN under French command and with Nato.

I recall serving alongside the French Foreign Legion in Bosnia when I was deployed with the SAS. They could not speak workable English and our French was basic to say the least.

In the hunt for war criminals, joint operations with France often ended with the blighter getting away – almost as if he had been tipped off. Yet acting alone or with the U.S. we usually got our man.

But the language barrier is not the only potential snag. The ‘advantage’ of sharing aircraft carriers – which would allow us to have a carrier available to us when our own is in for refit – is in fact nothing of the sort.

The problem is that, if we want to use a French aircraft carrier, we then have to seek the permission of the French.

That could present insurmountable difficulties. If, for instance, the Falklands crisis were to flare up again, would they agree to their aircraft carrier braving the French-made Exocet missiles they sold to the Argentinians to recover our islands?

I very much doubt it. After all, they were opposed to our Task Force setting off to recapture the islands in the Falklands War.

As for sharing nuclear secrets and research facilities with France, and merging the testing of nuclear warheads, what impact will that have on our relationship with the United States?

The fact that our Trident submarines currently act as an integral part of a collective global nuclear deterrent with the U.S. is a main pillar of the special relationship.

We are told that the U.S. is relaxed about this new arrangement with France, and that they regard the new Anglo/French relationship as a means of bolstering France’s global military engagement.

But what if the people of France object to an enhanced role for the French military in world affairs? Has anybody told them what happens when the French government do something the French people don’t like?

Last week in Boulogne, the evidence of burning barricades was still very visible on the blackened roads around the town. And that was about an increase in pension ages – not an unpopular war in a faraway land.

The truth is that for years, the French have punched below their weight. They have committed far fewer troops to Nato’s UN-mandated operations in Afghanistan than the British.

We have more than twice the number of service men and women in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the British have 10,000 fewer full-time Army personnel than the French.

The U.S. commander of the first Gulf War ‘Storming’ Norman Schwarzkopf jibed that ‘going to war without the French is like going duck shooting without an accordion’.

In the second Gulf war against Iraq, it was the U.S. which dubbed our new best friends ‘cheese eating surrender monkeys’ and rebranded French Fries as ‘Freedom Fries’ when they failed to support the 2003 invasion.

I hope I am wrong. I hope the mutual suspicion that has existed through the centuries has gone – a mutual suspicion, incidentally, that hampered our operations in Bosnia where the French had a relationship with the Serbs we never fully understood. But I can’t be sure of it.

Cat Stevens school promoted “complete submission to Allah on the level of the individual, the community and humanity at large”

2010-11-01T17:40:00.002Z

We’ve been discussing whether Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam has mellowed with old age, and may now no longer support the creation of an Islamic State, the extradition of apostates to that state for execution, and the stoning of women. As far as we can tell, he has not publicly retracted these views.

However, people are entitled to believe whatever unpleasant nonsense they want, as long as they do not act upon it.

What I’m more concerned about is the mission statement of the Islamia Schools, whose Chair of Governors and founder is Cat Stevens. The school received state funding, from 1998 onwards.

This was its mission statement up until at least 2006:

The aim of the School is to produce total Muslim personalities through the training of the child’s spirit, intellect, feelings and bodily senses. Education at Islamia caters for the growth of students in all their spiritual, intellectual, imaginative, physical, scientific and linguistic aspects, both individually and collectively, motivating all these aspects towards goodness. The ultimate aim of Islamic education is the realization of complete submission to Allah on the level of the individual, the community and humanity at large.

I have to confess, I’m slightly taken aback by this. The purpose of education should be to turn out happy and balanced children, with skills which enable them to play a full part in our diverse society. Not the “complete submission to Allah” of “humanity at large”.

This statement is now not on the admissions policy website or in their admissions policy. Inquiry ought really to be made to discover whether the Islamia School has dropped this purpose completely from its constitutional documents, and whether its staff continue to believe that they are engaged in such an enterprise.

Hat tip: Harry's Place

List of the Traitors to Britain - the greatest crime in a thousand years

2010-10-30T09:01:00.001+01:00

The abolition of Britain is illegal under the British Constitution, and the criminal acts of the Queen and her Ministers have included the worst acts of treason in history. They secretly repealed the treason laws in 1998 (hidden in s36.3 of the Crime and Disorder Act) to save their own necks. The criminality of our ministers and parliament won’t save us - the EU’s Constitution will automatically abolish the British one, and they will have got away with the greatest crime in a thousand years.

List of Traitors to Scotland the United Kingdom

Since 1972 five European Union treaties have been signed abolishing our nation. As this is illegal under the British Constitution, our nation needed to be undermined with the methods listed below. The EU is succeeding exclusively through subversion by British traitors from inside the UK.

The EU has the laws of a police state, and a constitution that hands absolute power to unelected dictators; it specifically hands all military power (and that includes the nuclear weapons of Britain and France,) to these dictators. It is the Soviet system,
and creates a sham EU parliament with no power; it will abolish the nations of Great Britain and England.

The list of traitors according to the severity of their crime:

Traitor number 1. HM the Queen. Has committed five acts of treason signing EU treaties that abolish our nation. She is the only monarch to have broken her Coronation oath. Failed as the ultimate check and balance, failed to insist on a national ballot for the abolition of our nation.

Traitor number 2. Edward Heath. Committed an act of treason by passing the 1972 EU Communities Act, which is the enabling act to abolish our nation. He then lied in his White Paper and in his speeches this Act would not abolish our sovereignty. He started the entire illegal EU process. The fact he was a lifelong member of the Deutsche VersicherungsDienst intelligence department was not discovered until his death.

(http://www.worldreports.org/news/6_brussels_accounts_ar)

Its very important to understand the legal basis for treason. Firstly it has always been the most serious crime on the statute book, worse than murder. Treason
has long been the only crime punished by "hanging by the neck until dead." Murderers only get life. The definition of treason is "a crime that undermines one's government" or "the offence of acting to overthrow one's government." Philby, Maclean, Blunt,
Burgess committed treason, by selling secrets to the Russians, and would have got perhaps 15 years if they had returned. What Heath did was the ultimate act of
treason, not just undermining our nation, but abolishing it. If a court case had been brought, he would have got the ultimate penalty.

3. Tony Blair Committed three acts of treason, with three EU treaties. He is also an enthusiastic implementer of EU laws disguised as British laws, the latest being ID cards; he's an enforcer of crippling EU regulations. Blair is the chief manufacturer of the EU police state in Britain (Scottish rite 33rd degree mason of Studholme lodge 1591 ).

4. John Major committed Treason with the Maastricht treaty; he also sold our main military and nuclear port, Devonport Dockyard, to Dick Cheney's Haliburton Corporation for peanuts, his bribe was to be European MD of the Bush family's Carlyle Weapons group, and $1 million pa for life, so he is definitely on the other side.

5. Margaret Thatcher committed Treason with the Single European Act. She is the only Prime minister who now regrets signing it. She's still guilty - a murderer who apologises only has a mitigating circumstance. She'll remain a traitor until her death. Like many top people on our side, she's developed heart problems and is too ill to help.

The above four people have all committed treason, and prosecutions were pending. Tony Blair's risk was the full force of the law for signing the Amsterdam Treaty amongst others. But in a stunning abuse of power, Tony Blair secretly repealed the treason laws, hidden in the Crime and Disorder Act, and the Queen signed it in
1998, saving both their necks.

There can be no worse criminal abuse of the law than this. .......To get off your own execution as a Prime Minister by repealing the law you are charged under........The newspapers and media missed it entirely.

6. John Prescott, John Reid, Peter Mandleson, Alan Johnson, about a dozen, now cabinet ministers. Communists who's allegiance in the 1960's was to the Soviet Union, switched their loyalty to the European Union in the 1970's; they've implemented the EU's Frankfurt school subversion, and the 111,000 EU regulations that are criminalising us all. Took control of the Labour party away from patriotic traditionalists.

7. Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd, Michael Hesletine, Geoffrey Howe, Chris Patten, Francis Maude, David Cameron etc. Pro-Europeans who have seized control of the Conservative leadership, imposing their own agenda, ignoring the wishes of Conservative voters; they sabotaged representative democracy. A vote for the Conservatives has been a vote for the EUdictatorship for 34 years, these are the traitors responsible.

The leaders of our three political parties get their orders from the European Union, not the British electorate, whom they neither serve nor care for. They've created a one party state: the three parties have almost identical policies, and all agree on the
abolition of Britain by the EU.

8. Julia Middleton, Managing Director of the Common Purpose government agency. Trained 19,500 local government, quango and NHS "leaders" for what they chillingly call the "Post democratic era." Close to destroying the NHS, and local democracy, by
transferring power from councillors to the council executives, in preparation for the abolition of councillors with the EU regionalisation plan.

Common Purpose is the number one subversive body outside Parliament. Its graduates include Janet Paraskeva, head of the law society and Cressida Dick, the senior police officer who, with the backing of EU corpus juris, single handedly threw away our right to life and common law with her shoot to kill policy, which is still in force today. She was responsible for the killing of Jean de Menezes in Stockwell tube amongst others, and, although she's a nobody and might be considered a murderer outside the police force, is getting breathtaking promotion, presumably to be appointed Chief of Police in this EU police state.

9. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). In charge of the handover of power to the EU, controls Common Purpose. Has put a "Monitoring Officer" into
every council in the land; they suspend councillors who speak out for the truth.

10. The Law Society, which I would prefer to call the Fraudulent Lawyers Protection Society on a local level, and the Constitutional Law Breaking Society on
the national level. Top lawyers have refused to uphold the British Constitution or enforce our laws where the EU is concerned; the Law Society is a home for
traitors. The very fact they had Janet Paraskewa, a Common Purpose leader at their head, shows how rotten they are.

11. Baroness Warnock, and a couple of hundred other dedicated senior subversives. Ruthless implementors of the German Frankfurt School's subversion on behalf of
the EU. Over the last 40 years our churches and families have been undermined, with single parent and same sex parents encouraged, teachers have had their authority removed, sex and homosexual education is forced on many under 13s, and decades of political correctness have dumbed down our ability to speak out. The results fill our newspapers every day.

12. Our slovenly press and media. It is stunning that the press has missed all this, the biggest story in a thousand years. Truly the quality of our journalists is abysmal. No wonder the art of investigative journalism is dead. In the BBC's case it's simple
sabotage, with hundreds of Common Purpose people in positions of power.

Only 25,000 traitors versus 60 million. In total there are about 25,000 dedicated subversives at all levels of society in Britain, helped by 100,000 useful idiots. To oppose them are 60 million British people. So why are they winning?

Because the subversion these traitors have so carefully implemented over the last 50 years has worked: The young have no interest in politics; churches are empty; people have stopped speaking out; the public now just accepts every control, regulation, indignity, injustice and rule without complaint.

To defeat the EU you must expose these traitors in their constituencies, at their places of work, in the press, and tell as many people as you can what is happening. Refuse to comply at every opportunity.

Child Rape, Role Models And The BBC

2010-10-11T13:34:00.002+01:00

" Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate.
Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear - values which we should all hold dear. Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around."
- Clawhammer Cameron

The definition of ‘thighing’ explained

I do not apologise to anyone of any particular religion or ‘cult’ for presenting this video, it is apposite to the previous one about the rape of young boys.
Dying to Protect Cultural Paedophiles?

Not only does Islam approve of the buggery of young boys, but it approves of sexual gratification with pre-pubescent girls, nay even babies. The word used to describe the abuse of these babies is called ‘thighing’.
As the dead paedo did, so do his followers.

BBC cover up Muslim paedophile ring in Shropshire.

Nationalists will remember that one of the reasons BNP Chairman Nick Griffin was arrested and prosecuted for was because he talked about Muslims grooming underage British girls for sex exploitation.

This crime has been going on for a long time, but the Police have been reluctant to take action because they didn’t want to damage race relations.

However what is more upsetting is the fact the MSM are refusing to report this crime as this is clearly at odds with the multicultural and multiracial agenda they wish to promote.

Further evidence of this bias comes from the BBC in an article about a child sex ring, and deliberately witholding the identity of the perpetrators:

Rest Here

BBC braced for paedophile row

The BBC is set to provoke the ire of child protection campaigners after giving airtime to a self-confessed paedophile, it has emerged.

Tom O'Carroll, who argues that sex with children is not harmful, has already been shown on the BBC's revival of late-night discussion show After Dark.

Rest Here

Cameron is still a member and signatory -
Here

Rothertham Residents Warned of Prowling "Asian" Pedophiles

2010-10-09T16:57:00.000+01:00

Residents of Rothertham, England have been issued a warning, by police, to be on the alert for "Asian" (aka muslim) men trying to persuade little boys to get into their car. A three year old and an eight year old boy narrowly averted being picked up by these paedophiles.

Rothertham is not new to muslim paedophile rings - just this past September 13(after an absolutely scandalous eight month delay) the trial of eight muslim men charged with serious sexual offences against four girls aged 13 to 17, in Rotherham, was due to finally start. The eight perverts are charged with 15 offences of rape, one of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, and one of sexual touching.

The (BIG) negative side is Rothertham currently has at least three more paedophiles - this time trying to lure little boys. The plus side is the police have actually taken a step forward towards prioritising public safety by removing their politically correct blinders and issuing an alert pointing the finger to "Asians"/muslims as being the perpetrators.

Article in full:

Parents are warned over men in cars

POLICE in Rotherham are asking parents to report suspicious behaviour outside schools after claims men in cars have been stopping and talking to children.
Two incidents, both on Lodge Lane, Aston, have been reported to officers.

The first was reported by a woman who was walking along Lodge Lane with her three-year-old son, who was walking a short distance ahead of her.

She said two men in a darkparked car called the boy over to speak to them.

The woman called her son back but then alleged the men called another boy, aged around eight, over.

The men were Asian, aged in their mid-30s, had short, dark hair, were clean shaven and wearing dark clothing.

They were in a dark blue or black saloon-style car.

The second incident was reported by a woman who said her eight-year-old son was walking along Lodge Lane on his way to school when a car stopped and a man in a small, dark car asked him to get inside but he refused and ran into school.

Patrols around Lodge Lane have been stepped up and letters sent to parents.

Climate Change, the final solution

2010-10-09T13:15:00.000+01:00

Fabians, Socialists,Marxists the lot of em.

Nicked from O/H

Why do liberals call Banning the Burqa ‘racist’ when Muslim countries are banning it?

2010-10-05T13:26:00.002+01:00

While Britain and European countries debate whether to ban the burqa, Islamic nations across the world have been quietly introducing tough anti-veil laws themselves.

A Tory MP has launched legislation for a ban on women wearing full face coverings across the UK, saying we should follow the example set by France and Belgium.

The Sunday Express has discovered a surprising accord between the views of centre right European politicians and Islamic governments. Muslim countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria have banned the wearing of burqas in schools and universities – and they did this with little fuss and widespread public support.

The governments of these Muslim countries, we can reveal, have long attacked the burkha as an outward symbol of religious fervour, with most people against the sight of veiled women on their streets.

In Turkey and Syria, a country dubbed part of the Islamic “axis of evil” by George Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war, the burqa is considered a dangerous threat to secular values. Women who choose to wear it are often frowned upon by society.

The government in Jordan has tried to discourage veils by playing up reports of robbers using them to hide their faces. “It seems bizarre that these countries have been happy to go down this road, when it is proving such a struggle in Europe,” said Phillip Hollobone, Tory MP for Kettering.

He came under intense criticism earlier this year for likening the veil to going around with a “paper bag over your head.”

“I am pleased that the French have changed their law,” he said. “Many Islamic countries have similar bans already, and they did this with no bother at all.”

He has launched his Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill, which is due for its second reading on December 3.

France criminalised the wearing of the full veil last month. Earlier this year, Belgium became the first European country to ban full Islamic dress. Holland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria and Bosnia are all considering similar legislation.

Yet in the non-Muslim world, where few women wear the veil, opinion is deeply divided.

Women in Australia have held demonstrations against recent proposals to ban the burqa in New South Wales. In Canada, there were security concerns last month when a film of two fully veiled women boarding a plane without identity checks was posted on YouTube.

The Hollobone Bill has been widely condemned. Many believe it is an issue over which no government should legislate.

Europe's austerity anger grows

2010-09-30T14:32:00.004+01:00

More than 100,000 marchers converged on Brussels from across the EU to protest austerity measures on Wednesday, while Spanish unions took the extraordinary step of breaking ranks with Spain's socialist government by launching a general strike.

"Workers are on the streets today with a clear message to Europe's leaders," said John Monks, head of the European Trade Union Confederation. "There is a great danger that workers are going to pay the price for the reckless speculation that took place in financial markets. You have to reschedule these debts so that they are not a huge burden and cause Europe to plunge down into recession," he said, reflecting growing bitterness among ordinary people that they are bearing the brunt of austerity while bondholders have been shielded from losses.

Spain's car industry was entirely paralysed with the exception of the Mercedes plant in Vitoria, and transport stoppages caused severe disruption. Ignacio Fernandez Toxo, head of the country's CCOO trade union, said premier Jose Luis Zapatero was committing "political suicide" by carrying out harsh cuts while unemployment hovers at 20pc, or 41pc for youths.

Austerity fatigue is surfacing across a large arc of Eastern and Southern Europe, raising concerns that electorates may start to rebel. The Fidesz government in Hungary has already sent the EU and the International Monetary Fund packing, opting for "economic nationalism". Even the police joined demonstrations last week in Romania, hurling their kit at the presidential palace to protest public sector wage cuts of 25pc.

The pro-Russian Harvest Party is leading the polls in Latvia's election this week, threatening to tear up its EU-IMF rescue deal. Critics say the country should have devalued in order to cushion the blow rather than undergoing to harsh deflation under its euro peg.

Latvia's economy has contracted 18pc since the peak. Unemployment is 20pc, and teachers, nurses and police have seen wage cuts of up to 30pc. Diplomats suspect Harvest may try to play off Moscow against Brussels to extract better terms.

France bowed to pressure for further fiscal tightening yesterday, pledging to cut its deficit from 7.7pc of GDP this year, to 6pc next year, still a modest effort by EU standards.

"Considering the current monetary disorder, investors who finance our debt are attentive to our debt-reduction effort," said finance minister Christine Lagarde, alluding to a rise in spreads on France's 10-year bonds to 55 basis points over German Bunds.

In Italy, premier Silvio Berlusconi warned foes that they were playing with fire as his government faced a confidence vote last night after weeks of paralysis, in part triggered by cuts in grants to the regions. "It is absolutely not in the interests of our country to risk a period of instability at a moment when the crisis is not yet over," he said.

Italy's public debt is 118pc of GDP and the world's third biggest in absolute terms.

The protests in Spain and Brussels came as the Commission proposed plans for automatic sanctions of up to 0.2pc of GDP on states that persistently breach the EU's debt and deficit ceilings of 60pc and 3pc of GDP. The mechanism is tougher than the old Stability Pact since states need a qualified majority to stop punishment. There will also be a 0.1pc fine for states that run trade imbalances, including surpluses – a twist likely to anger Germany.

"The EU politicians think they can somehow wipe away economic reality and the structural differences between these countries by bureaucratic means. It's ludicrous," said Ruth Leae, economic adviser to Arbuthnot Banking Group.

Mr Monks said the proposals totally misguided. "How is that going to make the situation better? It is going to make it worse," he said.

Who's Killing Us ?

2010-09-25T16:08:00.002+01:00

Multiculturalism, antifascism and antiracism = new face of a marxist revolution:

The Origins of Political Correctness

2010-09-25T12:29:00.003+01:00

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about come from – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

Cameron's contemptible little Tory army

2010-09-23T13:28:00.003+01:00

It's not just we euro-realist journalists in British newspapers who have nailed Cameron as the Conservative leader who has led his party into abandoning Conservative resistance to the EU's encroaching powers.

Across the Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal has seen it, too. Today the paper says: 'Almost unnoticed, his MPs have voted for a list of measures that would a few years ago have triggered a full-scale war. There was the expansion of justice and home-affairs powers, involving the extension of the so-called European arrest warrant. The European External Action Service -- or EU diplomatic service -- was nodded through. New regulations for the City of London require the establishment of three pan-European supervisory bodies. This was accepted by the Treasury and if there were protests from the Conservative benches they didn't make much noise. A higher budget for the EU has been approved.

Ask senior Conservatives about all this and they point to the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, enthusiasts for integration. It necessitates compromise.

But that is the myth designed to make Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg feel good. Mr Cameron had decided long before he failed to win an overall majority at the general election that he was not going to die in a ditch over Europe.

Which just about sums up David Cameron: 'What? Me, die in a ditch to save my country's sovereignty? Certainly not. It would end my glossy career.

Too right Cameron wouldn't die in a ditch for his country.
Last week Britain celebrated The Few. Today Britain is left with The Quisling.

--0 --

Meanwhile the Brussels-based EU Observer reports that the Belgian politicians running the presidency of the European Council for six months plan to hurry up plans to establish an EU-wide public prosecutor. This euro-cop 'would be able to override national investigators or even order them to start an inquiry.' It is all part of the continuing push towards what the Brussels jargon calls a 'common justice area,' known in plain English as the destruction of national control over criminal investigation and prosecution.

This would take the eurocratic power into wiretaps, monitoring of bank activity, access to DNA data bases, and too much of the rest.

The Belgian justice minister -- just think about that phrase, 'the Belgian justice minister,' and then think about the fate of too many Belgian children and the escape from justice of too many sexual perverts: what a country to be talking about justice -- anyway, the minister said that the EU needs 'better instruments' such as this euro-prosecutor to achieve cross-border arrests.

Sorry, do you hear any roaring Tory protests on this one? No, of course not. The party are pretending that they could stop all this with a veto. But do you image a Cameron-Clegg Government is going to start vetoing moves towards 'ever-closer union?' If so, go back and read the top of this post again. It's not going to happen.

Anyway, as the euro-reform think tank Open Europe points out: 'The UK has a veto over the proposal, which would prevent the prosecutor from being established in the UK. However, under the rules of the Lisbon Treaty' -- the treaty Cameron has refused to challenge -- 'nine member states may go ahead with the proposal if they wish, under so-called "enhanced cooperation." While the European prosecutor would not be able to bring cases in Britain' -- here come my italics -- he would still be able to issue European Arrest Warrants to force UK citizens to face prosecution in another member state without asking the permission of the Government or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is contemptible that Cameron doesn't think protecting British men and women from this is worth fighting for. The Tory party, in letting him get away with it, is equally contemptible.

Dhimmitude via capitalism

2010-09-20T18:35:00.002+01:00

Islam will not have to conquer the west, as the scum capitalists and corporations will sell us out to it.

The Dhimmitude via capitalism is a defining feature of the greed of the corporate elite, for they will impose Dhimmitude via the back door as they seek to capitalise on the growing Muslim demographic in the UK.

WE MUST BOYCOTT AND TARGET EVERY INSTITUTION THAT IMPOSES HALAL IN SECRET.

WE MUST PUBLICISE AND THEN DEMONSTRATE EACH TIME A CORPORATION IMPOSES HALAL FOOD ON THE MAJORITY WITHOUT US BEING INFORMED OR GIVEN THE CHANCE TO REFUSE.

Halal meat is being routinely served at some of Britain’s most popular sporting venues, pubs, schools and hospitals without the public’s knowledge, it has emerged.

All beef, chicken and lamb sold to fans at Wembley Stadium has been secretly prepared in accordance with strict Islamic law.

And hundreds of pubs and restaurants in Britain, as well as top racecourses, schools and hospitals, now only serve chicken that has been ritually slaughtered according to Sharia Law.
Dish of the day: Fans at top sporting venues are unwittingly supporting the butchering of animals according to strict Islamic principles as Halal meat is routinely served up without the public's knowledge.

Under Muslim laws, animals are slaughtered by having their throat slit to allow all the blood to drain out. Animals often die a slow painful death because religious slaughter houses are exempt from laws that require animals to be stunned before killing.

Last night there were growing concerns that members of public were unwittingly supporting a cruel form of butchery.

A RSPCA spokesman said: 'The public has a right to know how their meat is produced.

More...

* Poisoned at The Fat Duck...yet I'm painted as the bad guy, says ITV host Jim Rosenthal

'Many people are extremely worried about animal welfare.

'Lots of food products have not got any form of information on them.

'It is similar to battery eggs which used to be the norm but now consumers prefer to buy free range ones because they are concerned about the welfare of chickens.

'The key to a more humane death for these animals is that they are stunned before slaughter.'

Animal rights group Viva! said: 'Other practices which may be undertaken for religious reasons – such as polygamy or the stoning of adulterers – are not permitted in the UK.

'Religious freedom does not override other moral considerations and the suffering caused by this form of slaughter is so severe that it cannot be allowed to prevent action being taken.
what's on the menu? It's been revealed that many schools serve non-Muslim children halal meat as a matter of course

Rugby fans watching fixtures at Twickenham and horse racing enthusiasts visiting Ascot can only buy halal chicken.

School children across Britain are routinely given halal meat with the only alternative a vegetarian option.

In one London borough, Tower Hamlets, in east London, over 100 schools only use halal meat.

Hospitals including the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust in London and the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation also insist all meat must comply with Sharia law.

And Britain’s biggest hotel and restaurant group Whitbread, which owns the Beefeater and Brewers Fayre chains as well as Costa Coffee, Taybarns and Table Table restaurants has admitted that more than three-quarters of its poultry is halal.

However a spokesman last night insisted the firm demanded that all poultry is 'pre-stunned prior to slaughter'.

Rival operator Mitchells and Butlers, which owns the Harvester, Browns and Toby Carvery restaurants as well as pub chains All Bar One and O’Neills also uses halal meat.

A spokesman was unable to give details of what percentage of the meat was ritually slaughtered.

Last night a Football Association spokeswoman said she was investigating the decision to ensure all meat sold at Wembley is halal.

She added: 'All beef, chicken and lamb sold at Wembley Stadium is halal.'

Read more:

Lazy Education In Norwich

2010-09-19T12:23:00.004+01:00

Or. if you prefer, 'Gotty's Piss Boiler of the Week'.

It appears that Norwich County Council have the perfect solution to help bone idle teenage students achieve educational greatness, and deliver outstanding results, in the ever competitive arena of university places and/or full time employment.

The City Academy Norwich, or CAN as it's now become known.
So what the fuck will be going on in this CAN which, incidentally, is set to cost more than 24 million quid to implement? More hard graft? Longer hours? Improved discipline? Better teachers?

Nope.

They're going to give the lazy little bastards even more lie-ins and turn the classroom (oh, sorry that should be 'learning space') into a "well motivated child's bedroom" by chucking out the traditional school desks and chairs and kitting them out with bean bags, round tables and sofas. (No mention of half eaten bits of toast, dirty underwear, shit loads of make up, a roll-on deodorant mountain or soiled tissues - as yet)

And if that wasn't enough, they're not even going to bother teaching the little scrotes anymore either. Staff will 'delivering the lessons' with a 'project based approach to learning' with the aid of 'learning spaces' that have flexible walls (what. the. fuck.) and a giant 30ft interactive screen that students, staff and parents will use to access the internet and check on timetables and lessons online gaming forums.

I don't know about anyone else but my piss has all but boiled dry, after reading that, and there are definite forehead imprints appearing on my desk as I finish conveying it in this post.

Twenty four fucking million quid! For what?

Give me fucking strength.

Nicked from Grumpy.

Seeing Through State Propaganda

2010-09-15T22:13:00.003+01:00

Lions And Foxes

Why has a country that has fought so many heroic battles and been so honourable sunk to its current level of deceit, degeneracy and cowardice? Once noble warriors we have deteriorated to a senior military man General Sir David Richards launching The Armed Forces Muslim Association in October 2009, to “forge closer relationships with Islamic communities across the UK” Richards: was “delighted” and “honoured” to be its first Patron and said it will make a “huge value in raising awareness and mutual understanding” in the armed forces. He added that the Afma would help to recruitfrom the Muslim community. A senior General encouraging those who are at war with us to infiltrate our armed forces!

What were the wheels of decline? Why are we governed by liars, crooks and deceivers who are interested only in making money and clinging to power? Italian Sociologist, Vilfredo Pareto,clarified how this came about. In what follows I shall try to give an insight into how lying, manipulation and deceit are the contemporary methods of managing the population and am not necessarily expressing personal preferences or dislike of persons. Pareto is broadly right in his insights.

In his important book “The Triumph of the Political Class” on the immorality of contemporary politicians Peter Oborne uses the work on elites of Gaetano Mosca. Following Mosca Oborne sees power as vested in dominant elites in our society. I agree and do not think we are in a battle of ideas as some think but battles between groups. However, a dominant ideology, works like a like a dominant religion and people are promoted in society or held back by whether they conform or not and subjected to public Inquisition if they transgress as under Torquemada or Macpherson.

It also influences the type of people who rule or lose influence. Those who come to power promote their own kind and demote those who are different until the one type dominate. The “multiracial or antirascist” ideology is crucial to whether individuals have influence or are removed from power and I call this an “ideological caste” because expressing the right opinions is crucial to obtaining and maintaining one’s position.

Pareto described how power-elites change and developed notions of how rulers change called “the Circulation of the Elites”.
In all societies including Democracies there is a class that rules and a class that is ruled. On weak rulers he wrote, “ Any elite which is not prepared to join in battle to defend its position is in full decadence, and all that is left to it is to give way to another elite having the virile qualities it lacks. It is pure day-dreaming to imagine that the humanitarian principles it may have proclaimed will be applied to it. The knife of the guillotine was being sharpened in the shadows when, at the end of the eighteenth century, the ruling classes in France were engrossed in developing their’sensibility.”

There are two types of ruler - “Lions and Foxes.” This originated in Machievelli’s “The Prince”. Machievelli was formulating a rationalist plan of “how to rule” for new rulers who had no tradition to guide them. He advised the new ruler to be half beast and half man: “So, as a Prince is forced to know how to act like a beast, he should learn from the fox and the lion; because the lion is defenceless against traps and a fox is defenceless against wolves. Therefore one must be a fox in order to recognise traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves.”

The Lions have what Pareto termed Class 11 residues of “Group Persistence”. They have a sense of objectivity and permanence and believe in family, property, nation, church and tradition. They are cautious in economics and value saving and “sound money.” They esteem character and duty over education and wealth and will use force to uphold their values. They rely on their strength, stubbornness.

Foxes, tend to work in the talking professions like journalism or the law, and live by their wits, shrewdness, deceit and fraud. Pareto added Residues. There are six classes of Residues but the first two are characteristic of the era. Class 1 residue is the foxes’ instinct for “combination”. They tend to manipulate words and construct abstruse theories and ideologies. They do not have strong attachment to Church, family, nation or tradition but can exploit these loyalties in others. They are creative in economics and politics and promote change and novelty. They do not plan far ahead and do not look to a great future for their people. They rely on their wits to thwart challenges and ad lib answers to questions.

A feature of Foxes is their distaste for the Martial and a preference for Economics. Our defences are severely cut back and the elites act as if we are in a safe world and have no enemies and think they can buy everyone off with aid and good will both here and abroad!

The dominant anti-British tendency and favouritism for “the other” can be traced to well-named Charles James Fox and his type down to the present. He exhibited the Foxes tendency for abstractions and high-sounding ideals which is evident from his support for the principles of the French Revolution while ignoring the reality. He regarded our war with France as an attempt to crush a noble experiment in human liberty.

In 1786 he said of the Rohilla charge,” by those laws which are to be found in Europe, Africa, and Asia – that are found among all mankind, those principles of Equity and humanity implanted in our hearts which have their existence in the feelings of mankind …”

Why then do things not stay the same? Why are we decadent and longer capable of defending ourselves? Modernist art critic Herbert Read wrote in “Form in Modern Poetry” that the nature of men had changed from character to personality. Character being permanent, solid traits; personality more fluid and changeable.

Pareto suggests that there is a “Circulation of Elites.” The ruling elites are not a stable ruling class but changing. Pareto thought this circulation occurs because each type has inherent weaknesses.

Thus whilst the Lions’ act forcefully they lack imagination and cunning; conversely, Foxes possess cunning but fail to act coercively. Examples are the police negotiating for too long instead of shooting the criminals, kidnappers etc. Pareto disputed that democracy was a progressive form of government;

it was, he said, another form of elite rule. A topical insight was that foxes often ignore invasions until it is too late. We should know. We are living through one!

The radical MP Samuel Whitbread was even more anti-British than Fox and excused the French while denouncing his own people. It was the dawning of our era when abstractions were coming to dominate and practical thinking was losing ground.

Heroes like Nelson and Wellington were still at that time “role models” for young men, for their quiet manly courage, selflessness and high sense of duty.

On the French Revolution Edmund Burke foresaw the decline of Lions’ values: “It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that charity of honour, which felt stain like a wound…The age of chivalry is gone. The age of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded.”

The Duke of Wellington was a famous lion. Like Churchill Wellington had been uninterested in education as a schoolboy. He shows the characteristics of a Lion. He was at the Congress of Vienna when Napoleon returned from Elba but sent to command the Allied armies in the Netherlands, where he cooperated with the Prussian general von Blücher.

Wellington was surprised by Marshal Ney at Quatre Bras and fell back on Waterloo, where he held on until Blücher came to his aid after the Prussian defeat at Ligny. Wellington won one of the most decisive battles in history. He was respected by his troops, who admired his composure under fire and his successes were due to his study of war, careful planning including supply, and realism.

He defeated by Foxes Cobden and Bright who promoted free trade to bring about world peace. In 1846, the year The Corn Laws were repealed, Cobden said” I believe that the physical gain will be the smallest gain to humanity from the success of this principle. I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe – drawing men together , thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and
uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.”

The Victorian historian James Anthony Froude lamented that we had chosen economics over duty as Foxes were taking over from lions and this can be traced through the century as economics replaced values like “nobility”, “duty” and “honour”.

It was Disraeli who turned the Conservatives into an opportunistic party from one of tradition.

Disraeli was apparently determined to obtain independent means, and speculated on the stock exchange as early as 1824. on various South American mining companies he was a progressive Tory and only nominally a Conservative and was sympathetic to some Chartists demands and argued for an alliance between the landed aristocracy and the working class, against the increasing power of the middle class.

He was a founder of the Young England group in 1842 to promote the view that the rich should use their power to protect the poor from exploitation by the middle class.
During the twenty years which separated the Corn Laws and the Second Reform Bill Disraeli sought Tory-Radical alliances though unsuccessfully. His rival Gladstone a Fox, was opposed to General Gordon, who expressed the values of lions in his journal about “honour to his country”.

Lord Kitchener was worshipped by the public but attacked in the Commons as a “butcher” and “Imperialist” by foxes and then pushed out of the War Cabinet by Lloyd George who formed the War Committee, which had dictatorial powers and took over the running of the war.
A reformer,Lloyd George also outmanoeuvred and replaced General Sir William Robertson, Chief of the Imperial Staff with one of his own kind, Sir Henry Wilson, who wrote more of the balls he attended and the dignitaries he met than anything honourable or noble.

Robertson was forced to resign
on 11 February 1918, taking the lesser role of Commander-in-Chief of the British Home Forces (replacing Sir John French). Wilson had connived with Lloyd George to create the Supreme War Council which Robertson had vociferously opposed.

Robertson is the only man in history to rise to Field Marshall from private. A staunch supporter of Sir Douglas Haig, Robertson acted to prevent Lloyd George’s attempts to divert effort from the Western to the Eastern Front; unlike Lloyd George, Robertson was a keen ‘Westerner’, believing that the war could only be won on the Western Front.

In “Soldiers and Statesman 1914 –1916” (1926) Robertson repeatedly stresses “duty”. He highlighted the anti military bias of Foxes when he wrote of how Lloyd George and his war cabinet took a private house to seclude themselves from the Generals “where they sit twice a day and occupy their whole time with military policy, which is my job; a little body of politicians quite ignorant of war and all its needs, are trying to run the war themselves.”

Stanley Baldwin turned the Conservative party from imperialism to offering inducements to voters such as “houses” and “prosperity”. A century of disarmament, on both sides of the Commons, when old Tories spent their time preaching appeasement and dozing in London clubs while Socialists had fantasies about Internationalism, disarmament and submitting to the League of Nations when we were the most powerful country – left us weak and nearly defenceless.

Before being removed or nullified The Lions were first “Stigmatised”. The Lion Churchill spent a decade in slandered obscurity as a “Warmonger” before being needed to fend off Wolves.

A Lion called Enoch was sacked from the shadow cabinet by arch-Fox Heath, who has since admitted misleading Parliament and thus the people into the federal state of Europe, which he claimed was merely a trading arrangement.

Fox John Major deceived us when he pretended that we retained control over our borders after his legal advisors had advised him that had been signed away at Maastricht.

We have constant moral outrages such as Blair’s infamous sending our troops to war on a lie and his habitual lying to the population.

Michael Howard campaigned for election on immigration control when he knew that the European Union would not allow him to implement his plans even had he meant to do so.

In June 2004 it was revealed he is an investor in communications firm Incepta. A subsidiary company Citigate Lloyd Northover won 2 Home Office contracts to develop Websites and communications technology to speed up applications from immigrants to enter the UK.

The company also gained from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website for the Government to facilitate admission and settling of asylum seekers.
Parato’s world has deteriorated even more to our time. He wrote:

“The plutocracy has invented countless makeshift programs, such as generating enormous public debt that plutocrats know they will never be able to repay, levies on capital, taxes which exhaust the incomes of those who do not speculate... The principal goal of each of these measures is to deceive the multitudes.”
When a society’s system of values deteriorates to the point where hard work is denigrated and“easy money” extolled, where authority gives way to anarchy and justice to legal chicanery, such a society stands face to face with ruin.”

“It is a specific trait of weak governments. Among the causes of the weakness two especially are to be noted: humanitarianism and cowardice - the cowardice that comes natural to decadent aristocracies and is in part natural, in part calculated, in “speculator” governments that are primarily concerned with material gain. The humanitarian spirit ... is a malady peculiar to spineless individuals who are richly endowed with certain Class I residues that they have dressed up in sentimental garb.”

Should the great Dead White Male Geoffrey Chaucer return to us he would behold not a Parliament of Fowls, but a Parliament of Foxes.

If You Enjoyed This Click Here For Rest Of Book.

EU referendum: Let the people decide

2010-09-13T19:14:00.002+01:00

Telegraph View: The Government must prevent further erosion of national sovereignty by holding a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

The Conservative Party famously campaigned for a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, only to back down once Irish voters, at a second attempt, had approved it. Now the Coalition Government, of which the Tories are the dominant partner, has indicated where it would draw the line in future. Under the treaty, qualified majority voting (QMV), whereby changes will need the support of 55 per cent of member states representing at least 65 per cent of the EU population, will become the norm from 2014 onwards. Areas in which unanimity will be retained include tax, foreign policy and defence. The Government has made clear that any further extension of QMV or any future EU treaty would be put to the British people in a referendum.

Many will feel that all this is too little too late to check a newly authoritarian streak in the EU. French and Dutch rejection of the constitution in 2005 was blithely disregarded and the Lisbon treaty, an almost identical document, served up in its place. When the Irish rejected that, the same question was put to them 14 months later. Having backed a referendum on the constitution, the Labour government refused one on the treaty, arguing with shameless casuistry that the two documents were fundamentally different. The "ever closer union" specified in the Treaty of Rome means that the drive to limit the powers of the nation state is the EU's raison d'être. The reaction of members to such encroachments has been lamentably weak.

The MEP Daniel Hannan is campaigning for a referendum on our membership of the EU. The Government is stopping well short of that, saying that it intends to be a "positive participant" in Europe. Given the nature of the union, however, it may soon have to take a lone stand against further erosion of national sovereignty by submitting it to popular vote.

Labour's fixed leadership election

2010-09-09T13:17:00.003+01:00

Of the five candidates, the top three runners, David Milliband, Ed Milliband, and Ed Balls are all Bilderbergers, the 140 strong ultra senior freemasons who's job it is to build the EU dictatorship.

They have controlled the Conservative party since 1970, with at least 8 of its senior members Bilderbergers, today including David Cameron, Francis Maude, and Ken Clarke, and the Labour party since at least 1985 through Bilderbergers including Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandleson.

The power of the Bilderbergers is such that since 1970 every British Prime Minister has been a Bilderberger - which they often achive through fixed elections like this one.

Labour Leader John Smith (and later Robin Cook) would not comply. Both ended up dead of surprise heart attacks. Heart attack inducing substances like potassium chloride are their preferred method.

Margaret Thatcher, a naive Bilderberger, realised later on the EU was a dictatorship, and made her Brugge speech opposing it. Within one year the other Bilderbergers in her cabinet had her out on the street, and a compliant Bilderberger, John Major in her place. Margaret has suffered ill health ever since, preventing her from mounting a campaign; that was almost certainly a substance administered in her food.

It is Bilderbergers who force our three parties to insist on being inside the EU police state, and are the reason their policies are indistinguishable in practice (although they may pretend otherwise in rhetoric and manifestos.)

1988 Sep 20 Tu
Margaret Thatcher
Speech to the College of Europe ("The Bruges Speech")

Prime Minister

Prime Minister, Rector, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

First, may I thank you for giving me the opportunity to return to Bruges and in very different circumstances from my last visit shortly after the Zeebrugge Ferry disaster, when Belgian courage and the devotion of your doctors and nurses saved so many British lives.

And second, may I say what a pleasure it is to speak at the College of Europe under the distinguished leadership of its [Professor Lukaszewski ] Rector.

The College plays a vital and increasingly important part in the life of the European Community.

And third, may I also thank you for inviting me to deliver my address in this magnificent hall.

What better place to speak of Europe's future than a building which so gloriously recalls the greatness that Europe had already achieved over 600 years ago.

Your city of Bruges has many other historical associations for us in Britain. Geoffrey Chaucer was a frequent visitor here.

And the first book to be printed in the English language was produced here in Bruges by William Caxton .

Britain and Europe
Mr. Chairman, you have invited me to speak on the subject of Britain and Europe. Perhaps I should congratulate you on your courage.

If you believe some of the things said and written about my views on Europe, it must seem rather like inviting Genghis Khan to speak on the virtues of peaceful coexistence!

I want to start by disposing of some myths about my country, Britain, and its relationship with Europe and to do that, I must say something about the identity of Europe itself.

Europe is not the creation of the Treaty of Rome.

Nor is the European idea the property of any group or institution.

We British are as much heirs to the legacy of European culture as any other nation. Our links to the rest of Europe, the continent of Europe, have been the dominant factor in our history.

For three hundred years, we were part of the Roman Empire and our maps still trace the straight lines of the roads the Romans built.

Our ancestors—Celts, Saxons, Danes—came from the Continent.[fo 1]

Our nation was—in that favourite Community word—"restructured" under the Norman and Angevin rule in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

This year, we celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of the glorious revolution in which the British crown passed to Prince William of Orange and Queen Mary .

Visit the great churches and cathedrals of Britain, read our literature and listen to our language: all bear witness to the cultural riches which we have drawn from Europe and other Europeans from us.

We in Britain are rightly proud of the way in which, since Magna Carta in the year 1215, we have pioneered and developed representative institutions to stand as bastions of freedom.

And proud too of the way in which for centuries Britain was a home for people from the rest of Europe who sought sanctuary from tyranny.

But we know that without the European legacy of political ideas we could not have achieved as much as we did.

From classical and mediaeval thought we have borrowed that concept of the rule of law which marks out a civilised society from barbarism.

And on that idea of Christendom, to which the Rector referred—Christendom for long synonymous with Europe—with its recognition of the unique and spiritual nature of the individual, on that idea, we still base our belief in personal liberty and other human rights.

Too often, the history of Europe is described as a series of interminable wars and quarrels.

Yet from our perspective today surely what strikes us most is our common experience. For instance, the story of how Europeans explored and colonised—and yes, without apology—civilised much of the world is an extraordinary tale of talent, skill and courage.

But we British have in a very special way contributed to Europe.

Over the centuries we have fought to prevent Europe from falling under the dominance of a single power.

We have fought and we have died for her freedom.

Only miles from here, in Belgium, lie the bodies of 120,000 British soldiers who died in the First World War.

Had it not been for that willingness to fight and to die, Europe would have been united long before now—but not in liberty, not in justice.

It was British support to resistance movements throughout the last War that helped to keep alive the flame of liberty in so many countries until the day of liberation.

Tomorrow, King Baudouin will attend a service in Brussels to commemorate the many brave Belgians who gave their lives in service with the Royal Air Force—a sacrifice which we shall never forget.

And it was from our island fortress that the liberation of Europe itself was mounted.

And still, today, we stand together.

Nearly 70,000 British servicemen are stationed on the mainland of Europe.

All these things alone are proof of our commitment to Europe's future.[fo 2]

The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one.

We must never forget that east of the Iron Curtain, people who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots.

We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities.

Nor should we forget that European values have helped to make the United States of America into the valiant defender of freedom which she has become.

Europe's Future
This is no arid chronicle of obscure facts from the dust-filled libraries of history.

It is the record of nearly two thousand years of British involvement in Europe, cooperation with Europe and contribution to Europe, contribution which today is as valid and as strong as ever [sic].

Yes, we have looked also to wider horizons—as have others—and thank goodness for that, because Europe never would have prospered and never will prosper as a narrow-minded, inward-looking club.

The European Community belongs to all its members.

It must reflect the traditions and aspirations of all its members.

And let me be quite clear.

Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.

That is not to say that our future lies only in Europe, but nor does that of France or Spain or, indeed, of any other member.

The Community is not an end in itself.

Nor is it an institutional device to be constantly modified according to the dictates of some abstract intellectual concept.

Nor must it be ossified by endless regulation.

The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.

We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates.

They are no substitute for effective action.

Europe has to be ready both to contribute in full measure to its own security and to compete commercially and industrially in a world in which success goes to the countries which encourage individual initiative and enterprise, rather than those which attempt to diminish them.

This evening I want to set out some guiding principles for the future which I believe will ensure that Europe does succeed, not just in economic and defence terms but also in the quality of life and the influence of its peoples.[fo 3]

Willing Cooperation Between Sovereign States
My first guiding principle is this: willing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states is the best way to build a successful European Community.

To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we seek to achieve.

Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality.

Some of the founding fathers of the Community thought that the United States of America might be its model.

But the whole history of America is quite different from Europe.

People went there to get away from the intolerance and constraints of life in Europe.

They sought liberty and opportunity; and their strong sense of purpose has, over two centuries, helped to create a new unity and pride in being American, just as our pride lies in being British or Belgian or Dutch or German.

I am the first to say that on many great issues the countries of Europe should try to speak with a single voice.

I want to see us work more closely on the things we can do better together than alone.

Europe is stronger when we do so, whether it be in trade, in defence or in our relations with the rest of the world.

But working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy.

Indeed, it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.

We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.

Certainly we want to see Europe more united and with a greater sense of common purpose.

But it must be in a way which preserves the different traditions, parliamentary powers and sense of national pride in one's own country; for these have been the source of Europe's vitality through the centuries.

Encouraging change
My second guiding principle is this: Community policies must tackle present problems in a practical way, however difficult that may be.

If we cannot reform those Community policies which are patently wrong or ineffective and which are rightly causing public disquiet, then we shall not get the public support for the Community's future development.

And that is why the achievements of the European Council in Brussels last February are so important.[fo 4]

It was not right that half the total Community budget was being spent on storing and disposing of surplus food.

Now those stocks are being sharply reduced.

It was absolutely right to decide that agriculture's share of the budget should be cut in order to free resources for other policies, such as helping the less well-off regions and helping training for jobs.

It was right too to introduce tighter budgetary discipline to enforce these decisions and to bring the Community spending under better control.

And those who complained that the Community was spending so much time on financial detail missed the point. You cannot build on unsound foundations, financial or otherwise, and it was the fundamental reforms agreed last winter which paved the way for the remarkable progress which we have made since on the Single Market.

But we cannot rest on what we have achieved to date.

For example, the task of reforming the Common Agricultural Policy is far from complete.

Certainly, Europe needs a stable and efficient farming industry.

But the CAP has become unwieldy, inefficient and grossly expensive. Production of unwanted surpluses safeguards neither the income nor the future of farmers themselves.

We must continue to pursue policies which relate supply more closely to market requirements, and which will reduce over-production and limit costs.

Of course, we must protect the villages and rural areas which are such an important part of our national life, but not by the instrument of agricultural prices.

Tackling these problems requires political courage.

The Community will only damage itself in the eyes of its own people and the outside world if that courage is lacking.

Europe Open to Enterprise
My third guiding principle is the need for Community policies which encourage enterprise.

If Europe is to flourish and create the jobs of the future, enterprise is the key.

The basic framework is there: the Treaty of Rome itself was intended as a Charter for Economic Liberty.

But that it is not how it has always been read, still less applied.

The lesson of the economic history of Europe in the 70's and 80's is that central planning and detailed control do not work and that personal endeavour and initiative do.

That a State-controlled economy is a recipe for low growth and that free enterprise within a framework of law brings better results.

The aim of a Europe open to enterprise is the moving force behind the creation of the Single European Market in 1992. By getting rid of barriers, by making it possible for companies to operate on a European scale, we can best compete with the United States, Japan and other new economic powers emerging in Asia and elsewhere.[fo 5]

And that means action to free markets, action to widen choice, action to reduce government intervention.

Our aim should not be more and more detailed regulation from the centre: it should be to deregulate and to remove the constraints on trade.

Britain has been in the lead in opening its markets to others.

The City of London has long welcomed financial institutions from all over the world, which is why it is the biggest and most successful financial centre in Europe.

We have opened our market for telecommunications equipment, introduced competition into the market services and even into the network itself—steps which others in Europe are only now beginning to face.

In air transport, we have taken the lead in liberalisation and seen the benefits in cheaper fares and wider choice.

Our coastal shipping trade is open to the merchant navies of Europe.

We wish we could say the same of many other Community members.

Regarding monetary matters, let me say this. The key issue is not whether there should be a European Central Bank.

The immediate and practical requirements are:

� to implement the Community's commitment to free movement of capital—in Britain, we have it;

� and to the abolition through the Community of exchange controls—in Britain, we abolished them in 1979;

� to establish a genuinely free market in financial services in banking, insurance, investment;

� and to make greater use of the ecu.

This autumn, Britain is issuing ecu-denominated Treasury bills and hopes to see other Community governments increasingly do the same.

These are the real requirements because they are what the Community business and industry need if they are to compete effectively in the wider world.

And they are what the European consumer wants, for they will widen his choice and lower his costs.

It is to such basic practical steps that the Community's attention should be devoted.

When those have been achieved and sustained over a period of time, we shall be in a better position to judge the next move.

It is the same with frontiers between our countries.

Of course, we want to make it easier for goods to pass through frontiers.

Of course, we must make it easier for people to travel throughout the Community.

But it is a matter of plain common sense that we cannot totally abolish frontier controls if we are also to protect our citizens from crime and stop the movement of drugs, of terrorists and of illegal immigrants.[fo 6]

That was underlined graphically only three weeks ago when one brave German customs officer, doing his duty on the frontier between Holland and Germany, struck a major blow against the terrorists of the IRA.

And before I leave the subject of a single market, may I say that we certainly do not need new regulations which raise the cost of employment and make Europe's labour market less flexible and less competitive with overseas suppliers.

If we are to have a European Company Statute, it should contain the minimum regulations.

And certainly we in Britain would fight attempts to introduce collectivism and corporatism at the European level—although what people wish to do in their own countries is a matter for them.

Europe Open to the World
My fourth guiding principle is that Europe should not be protectionist.

The expansion of the world economy requires us to continue the process of removing barriers to trade, and to do so in the multilateral negotiations in the GATT.

It would be a betrayal if, while breaking down constraints on trade within Europe, the Community were to erect greater external protection.

We must ensure that our approach to world trade is consistent with the liberalisation we preach at home.

We have a responsibility to give a lead on this, a responsibility which is particularly directed towards the less developed countries.

They need not only aid; more than anything, they need improved trading opportunities if they are to gain the dignity of growing economic strength and independence.

Europe and Defence
My last guiding principle concerns the most fundamental issue—the European countries' role in defence.

Europe must continue to maintain a sure defence through NATO.

There can be no question of relaxing our efforts, even though it means taking difficult decisions and meeting heavy costs.

It is to NATO that we owe the peace that has been maintained over 40 years.

The fact is things are going our way: the democratic model of a free enterprise society has proved itself superior; freedom is on the offensive, a peaceful offensive the world over, for the first time in my life-time.

We must strive to maintain the United States' commitment to Europe's defence. And that means recognising the burden on their resources of the world role they undertake and their point that their allies should bear the full part of the defence of freedom, particularly as Europe grows wealthier.

Increasingly, they will look to Europe to play a part in out-of-area defence, as we have recently done in the Gulf.

NATO and the Western European Union have long recognised where the problems of Europe's defence lie, and have pointed out the solutions. And the time has come when we must give substance to our declarations about a strong defence effort with better value for money.[fo 7]

It is not an institutional problem.

It is not a problem of drafting. It is something at once simpler and more profound: it is a question of political will and political courage, of convincing people in all our countries that we cannot rely for ever on others for our defence, but that each member of the Alliance must shoulder a fair share of the burden.

We must keep up public support for nuclear deterrence, remembering that obsolete weapons do not deter, hence the need for modernisation.

We must meet the requirements for effective conventional defence in Europe against Soviet forces which are constantly being modernised.

We should develop the WEU, not as an alternative to NATO, but as a means of strengthening Europe's contribution to the common defence of the West.

Above all, at a time of change and uncertainly in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we must preserve Europe's unity and resolve so that whatever may happen, our defence is sure.

At the same time, we must negotiate on arms control and keep the door wide open to cooperation on all the other issues covered by the Helsinki Accords.

But let us never forget that our way of life, our vision and all we hope to achieve, is secured not by the rightness of our cause but by the strength of our defence.

On this, we must never falter, never fail.

The British Approach

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is not enough just to talk in general terms about a European vision or ideal.

If we believe in it, we must chart the way ahead and identify the next steps.

And that is what I have tried to do this evening.

This approach does not require new documents: they are all there, the North Atlantic Treaty, the Revised Brussels Treaty and the Treaty of Rome, texts written by far-sighted men, a remarkable Belgian— Paul Henri Spaak —among them.

However far we may want to go, the truth is that we can only get there one step at a time.

And what we need now is to take decisions on the next steps forward, rather than let ourselves be distracted by Utopian goals.

Utopia never comes, because we know we should not like it if it did.

Let Europe be a family of nations, understanding each other better, appreciating each other more, doing more together but relishing our national identity no less than our common European endeavour.

Let us have a Europe which plays its full part in the wider world, which looks outward not inward, and which preserves that Atlantic community—that Europe on both sides of the Atlantic—which is our noblest inheritance and our greatest strength.

May I thank you for the privilege of delivering this lecture in this great hall to this great college (applause).

The crimewave that shames the world

2010-09-07T16:58:00.002+01:00

It's one of the last great taboos: the murder of at least 20,000 women a year in the name of 'honour'. Nor is the problem confined to the Middle East: the contagion is spreading rapidly

By Robert Fisk

It is a tragedy, a horror, a crime against humanity. The details of the murders – of the women beheaded, burned to death, stoned to death, stabbed, electrocuted, strangled and buried alive for the "honour" of their families – are as barbaric as they are shameful. Many women's groups in the Middle East and South-west Asia suspect the victims are at least four times the United Nations' latest world figure of around 5,000 deaths a year. Most of the victims are young, many are teenagers, slaughtered under a vile tradition that goes back hundreds of years but which now spans half the globe.

A 10-month investigation by The Independent in Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank has unearthed terrifying details of murder most foul. Men are also killed for "honour" and, despite its identification by journalists as a largely Muslim practice, Christian and Hindu communities have stooped to the same crimes. Indeed, the "honour" (or ird) of families, communities and tribes transcends religion and human mercy. But voluntary women's groups, human rights organisations, Amnesty International and news archives suggest that the slaughter of the innocent for "dishonouring" their families is increasing by the year.

Iraqi Kurds, Palestinians in Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey appear to be the worst offenders but media freedoms in these countries may over-compensate for the secrecy which surrounds "honour" killings in Egypt – which untruthfully claims there are none – and other Middle East nations in the Gulf and the Levant. But honour crimes long ago spread to Britain, Belgium, Russia and Canada and many other nations. Security authorities and courts across much of the Middle East have connived in reducing or abrogating prison sentences for the family murder of women, often classifying them as suicides to prevent prosecutions.

It is difficult to remain unemotional at the vast and detailed catalogue of these crimes. How should one react to a man – this has happened in both Jordan and Egypt – who rapes his own daughter and then, when she becomes pregnant, kills her to save the "honour" of his family? Or the Turkish father and grandfather of a 16-year-old girl, Medine Mehmi, in the province of Adiyaman, who was buried alive beneath a chicken coop in February for "befriending boys"? Her body was found 40 days later, in a sitting position and with her hands tied.

Or Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, 13, who in Somalia in 2008, in front of a thousand people, was dragged to a hole in the ground – all the while screaming, "I'm not going – don't kill me" – then buried up to her neck and stoned by 50 men for adultery? After 10 minutes, she was dug up, found to be still alive and put back in the hole for further stoning. Her crime? She had been raped by three men and, fatally, her family decided to report the facts to the Al-Shabab militia that runs Kismayo. Or the Al-Shabab Islamic "judge" in the same country who announced the 2009 stoning to death of a woman – the second of its kind the same year – for having an affair? Her boyfriend received a mere 100 lashes.

Or the young woman found in a drainage ditch near Daharki in Pakistan, "honour" killed by her family as she gave birth to her second child, her nose, ears and lips chopped off before being axed to death, her first infant lying dead among her clothes, her newborn's torso still in her womb, its head already emerging from her body? She was badly decomposed; the local police were asked to bury her. Women carried the three to a grave, but a Muslim cleric refused to say prayers for her because it was "irreligious" to participate in the namaz-e-janaza prayers for "a cursed woman and her illegitimate children".

So terrible are the details of these "honour" killings, and so many are the women who have been slaughtered, that the story of each one might turn horror into banality. But lest these acts – and the names of the victims, when we are able to discover them – be forgotten, here are the sufferings of a mere handful of women over the past decade, selected at random, country by country, crime after crime.

Last March, Munawar Gul shot and killed his 20-year-old sister, Saanga, in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, along with the man he suspected was having "illicit relations" with her, Aslam Khan.

In August of 2008, five women were buried alive for "honour crimes" in Baluchistan by armed tribesmen; three of them – Hameeda, Raheema and Fauzia – were teenagers who, after being beaten and shot, were thrown still alive into a ditch where they were covered with stones and earth. When the two older women, aged 45 and 38, protested, they suffered the same fate. The three younger women had tried to choose their own husbands. In the Pakistani parliament, the MP Israrullah Zehri referred to the murders as part of a "centuries-old tradition" which he would "continue to defend".

In December 2003, a 23-year-old woman in Multan, identified only as Afsheen, was murdered by her father because, after an unhappy arranged marriage, she ran off with a man called Hassan who was from a rival, feuding tribe. Her family was educated – they included civil servants, engineers and lawyers. "I gave her sleeping pills in a cup of tea and then strangled her with a dapatta [a long scarf, part of a woman's traditional dress]," her father confessed. He told the police: "Honour is the only thing a man has. I can still hear her screams, she was my favourite daughter. I want to destroy my hands and end my life." The family had found Afsheen with Hassan in Rawalpindi and promised she would not be harmed if she returned home. They were lying.

Zakir Hussain Shah slit the throat of his daughter Sabiha, 18, at Bara Kau in June 2002 because she had "dishonoured" her family. But under Pakistan's notorious qisas law, heirs have powers to pardon a murderer. In this case, Sabiha's mother and brother "pardoned" the father and he was freed. When a man killed his four sisters in Mardan in the same year, because they wanted a share of his inheritance, his mother "pardoned" him under the same law. In Sarghoda around the same time, a man opened fire on female members of his family, killing two of his daughters. Yet again, his wife – and several other daughters wounded by him – "pardoned" the murderer because they were his heirs.

Outrageously, rape is also used as a punishment for "honour" crimes. In Meerwala village in the Punjab in 2002, a tribal "jury" claimed that an 11-year-old boy from the Gujar tribe, Abdul Shakoor, had been walking unchaperoned with a 30-year-old woman from the Mastoi tribe, which "dishonoured" the Mastois. The tribal elders decided that to "return" honour to the group, the boy's 18-year-old sister, Mukhtaran Bibi, should be gang-raped. Her father, warned that all the female members of his family would be raped if he did not bring Mukhtar to them, dutifully brought his daughter to this unholy "jury". Four men, including one of the "jury", immediately dragged the girl to a hut and raped her while up to a hundred men laughed and cheered outside. She was then forced to walk naked through the village to her home. It took a week before the police even registered the crime – as a "complaint".

Acid attacks also play their part in "honour" crime punishments. The Independent itself gave wide coverage in 2001 to a Karachi man called Bilal Khar who poured acid over his wife Fakhra Yunus's face after she left him and returned to her mother's home in the red-light area of the city. The acid fused her lips, burned off her hair, melted her breasts and an ear, and turned her face into "a look of melted rubber". That same year, a 20-year-old woman called Hafiza was shot twice by her brother, Asadullah, in front of a dozen policemen outside a Quetta courthouse because she had refused to follow the tradition of marrying her dead husband's elder brother. She had then married another man, Fayyaz Moon, but police arrested the girl and brought her back to her family in Quetta on the pretext that the couple could formally marry there. But she was forced to make a claim that Fayaz had kidnapped and raped her. It was when she went to court to announce that her statement was made under pressure – and that she still regarded Fayaz as her husband – that Asadullah murdered her. He handed his pistol to a police constable who had witnessed the killing.

One of the most terrible murders in 1999 was that of a mentally retarded 16-year-old, Lal Jamilla Mandokhel, who was reportedly raped by a junior civil servant in Parachinar in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Her uncle filed a complaint with the police but handed Lal over to her tribe, whose elders decided she should be killed to preserve tribal "honour". She was shot dead in front of them. Arbab Khatoon was raped by three men in the Jacobabad district. She filed a complaint with the police. Seven hours later, she was murdered by relatives who claimed she had "dishonoured" them by reporting the crime.

Over 10 years ago, Pakistan's Human Rights Commission was recording "honour" killings at the rate of a thousand a year. But if Pakistan seems to have the worst track record of "honour" crimes – and we must remember that many countries falsely claim to have none – Turkey might run a close second. According to police figures between 2000 and 2006, a reported 480 women – 20 per cent of them between the ages of 19 and 25 – were killed in "honour" crimes and feuds. Other Turkish statistics, drawn up more than five years ago by women's groups, suggest that at least 200 girls and women are murdered every year for "honour". These figures are now regarded as a vast underestimate. Many took place in Kurdish areas of the country; an opinion poll found that 37 per cent of Diyabakir's citizens approved of killing a woman for an extramarital affair. Medine Mehmi, the girl who was buried alive, lived in the Kurdish town of Kahta.

In 2006, authorities in the Kurdish area of South-east Anatolia were recording that a woman tried to commit suicide every few weeks on the orders of her family. Others were stoned to death, shot, buried alive or strangled. A 17-year-old woman called Derya who fell in love with a boy at her school received a text message from her uncle on her mobile phone. It read: "You have blackened our name. Kill yourself and clean our shame or we will kill you first." Derya's aunt had been killed by her grandfather for an identical reason. Her brothers also sent text messages, sometimes 15 a day. Derya tried to carry out her family's wishes. She jumped into the Tigris river, tried to hang herself and slashed her wrists – all to no avail. Then she ran away to a women's shelter.

It took 13 years before Murat Kara, 40, admitted in 2007 that he had fired seven bullets into his younger sister after his widowed mother and uncles told him to kill her for eloping with her boyfriend. Before he murdered his sister in the Kurdish city of Dyabakir, neighbours had refused to talk to Murat Kara and the imam said he was disobeying the word of God if he did not kill his sister. So he became a murderer. Honour restored.

In his book Women In The Grip Of Tribal Customs, a Turkish journalist, Mehmet Farac, records the "honour" killing of five girls in the late 1990s in the province of Sanliurfa. Two of them – one was only 12 – had their throats slit in public squares, two others had tractors driven over them, the fifth was shot dead by her younger brother. One of the women who had her throat cut was called Sevda Gok. Her brothers held her arms down as her adolescent cousin cut her throat.

But the "honour" killing of women is not a uniquely Kurdish crime, even if it is committed in rural areas of the country. In 2001, Sait Kina stabbed his 13-year-old daughter to death for talking to boys in the street. He attacked her in the bathroom with an axe and a kitchen knife. When the police discovered her corpse, they found the girl's head had been so mutilated that the family had tied it together with a scarf. Sait Kina told the police: "I have fulfilled my duty."

In the same year, an Istanbul court reduced a sentence against three brothers from life imprisonment to between four and 12 years after they threw their sister to her death from a bridge after accusing her of being a prostitute. The court concluded that her behaviour had "provoked" the murder. For centuries, virginity tests have been considered a normal part of rural tradition before a woman's marriage. In 1998, when five young women attempted suicide before these tests, the Turkish family affairs minister defended mandated medical examinations for girls in foster homes.

British Kurdish Iraqi campaigner Aso Kamal, of the Doaa Network Against Violence, believes that between 1991 and 2007, 12,500 women were murdered for reasons of "honour" in the three Kurdish provinces of Iraq alone – 350 of them in the first seven months of 2007, for which there were only five convictions. Many women are ordered by their families to commit suicide by burning themselves with cooking oil. In Sulimaniya hospital in 2007, surgeons were treating many women for critical burns which could never have been caused by cooking "accidents" as the women claimed. One patient, Sirwa Hassan, was dying of 86 per cent burns. She was a Kurdish mother of three from a village near the Iranian border. In 2008, a medical officer in Sulimaniya told the AFP news agency that in May alone, 14 young women had been murdered for "honour" crimes in 10 days. In 2000, Kurdish authorities in Sulimaniya had decreed that "the killing or abuse of women under the pretext of cleansing 'shame' is not considered to be a mitigating excuse". The courts, they said, could not apply an old 1969 law "to reduce the penalty of the perpetrator". The new law, of course, made no difference.

But again, in Iraq, it is not only Kurds who believe in "honour" killings. In Tikrit, a young woman in the local prison sent a letter to her brother in 2008, telling him that she had become pregnant after being raped by a prison guard. The brother was permitted to visit the prison, walked into the cell where his now visibly pregnant sister was held, and shot her dead to spare his family "dishonour". The mortuary in Baghdad took DNA samples from the woman's foetus and also from guards at the Tikrit prison. The rapist was a police lieutenant-colonel. The reason for the woman's imprisonment was unclear. One report said the colonel's family had "paid off" the woman's relatives to escape punishment.

In Basra in 2008, police were reporting that 15 women a month were being murdered for breaching "Islamic dress codes". One 17-year-old girl, Rand Abdel-Qader, was beaten to death by her father two years ago because she had become infatuated with a British soldier. Another, Shawbo Ali Rauf, 19, was taken by her family to a picnic in Dokan and shot seven times because they had found an unfamiliar number on her mobile phone.

In Nineveh, Du'a Khalil Aswad was 17 when she was stoned to death by a mob of 2,000 men for falling in love with a man outside her tribe.

In Jordan, women's organisations say that per capita, the Christian minority in this country of just over five million people are involved in more "honour" killings than Muslims – often because Christian women want to marry Muslim men. But the Christian community is loath to discuss its crimes and the majority of known cases of murder are committed by Muslims. Their stories are wearily and sickeningly familiar. Here is Sirhan in 1999, boasting of the efficiency with which he killed his young sister, Suzanne. Three days after the 16-year-old had told police she had been raped, Sirhan shot her in the head four times. "She committed a mistake, even if it was against her will," he said. "Anyway, it's better to have one person die than to have the whole family die of shame." Since then, a deeply distressing pageant of "honour" crimes has been revealed to the Jordanian public, condemned by the royal family and slowly countered with ever tougher criminal penalties by the courts.

Yet in 2001, we find a 22-year-old Jordanian man strangling his 17-year-old married sister – the 12th murder of its kind in seven months – because he suspected her of having an affair. Her husband lived in Saudi Arabia. In 2002, Souad Mahmoud strangled his own sister for the same reason. She had been forced to marry her lover – but when the family found out she had been pregnant before her wedding, they decided to execute her.

In 2005, three Jordanians stabbed their 22-year-old married sister to death for taking a lover. After witnessing the man enter her home, the brothers stormed into the house and killed her. They did not harm her lover.

By March 2008, the Jordanian courts were still treating "honour" killings leniently. That month, the Jordanian Criminal Court sentenced two men for killing close female relatives "in a fit of fury" to a mere six months and three months in prison. In the first case, a husband had found a man in his home with his wife and suspected she was having an affair. In the second, a man shot dead his 29-year-old married sister for leaving home without her husband's consent and "talking to other men on her mobile phone". In 2009, a Jordanian man confessed to stabbing his pregnant sister to death because she had moved back to her family after an argument with her husband; the brother believed she was "seeing other men".

And so it goes on. Three men in Amman stabbing their 40-year-old divorced sister 15 times last year for taking a lover; a Jordanian man charged with stabbing to death his daughter, 22, with a sword because she was pregnant outside wedlock. Many of the Jordanian families were originally Palestinian. Nine months ago, a Palestinian stabbed his married sister to death because of her "bad behaviour". But last month, the Amman criminal court sentenced another sister-killer to 10 years in prison, rejecting his claim of an "honour" killing – but only because there were no witnesses to his claim that she had committed adultery.

In "Palestine" itself, Human Rights Watch has long blamed the Palestinian police and justice system for the near-total failure to protect women in Gaza and the West Bank from "honour" killings. Take, for example, the 17-year-old girl who was strangled by her older brother in 2005 for becoming pregnant – by her own father.

He was present during her murder. She had earlier reported her father to the police. They neither arrested nor interrogated him. In the same year, masked Hamas gunmen shot dead a 20-year-old, Yusra Azzami, for "immoral behaviour" as she spent a day out with her fiancée. Azzami was a Hamas member, her husband-to-be a member of Fatah. Hamas tried to apologise and called the dead woman a "martyr" – to the outrage of her family. Yet only last year, long after Hamas won the Palestinian elections and took over the Gaza Strip, a Gaza man was detained for bludgeoning his daughter to death with an iron chain because he discovered she owned a mobile phone on which he feared she was talking to a man outside the family. He was later released.

Even in liberal Lebanon, there are occasional "honour" killings, the most notorious that of a 31-year-old woman, Mona Kaham, whose father entered her bedroom and cut her throat after learning she had been made pregnant by her cousin. He walked to the police station in Roueiss in the southern suburbs of Beirut with the knife still in his hand. "My conscience is clear," he told the police. "I have killed to clean my honour." Unsurprisingly, a public opinion poll showed that 90.7 per cent of the Lebanese public opposed "honour" crimes. Of the few who approved of them, several believed that it helped to limit interreligious marriage.

Syria reflects the pattern of Lebanon. While civil rights groups are demanding a stiffening of the laws against women-killers, government legislation only raised the term of imprisonment for men who kill female relatives for extramarital sex to two years. Among the most recent cases was that of Lubna, a 17-year-old living in Homs, murdered by her family because she fled to her sister's house after refusing to marry a man they had chosen for her. They also believed – wrongly – that she was no longer a virgin.

Tribal feuds often provoke "honour" killings in Iran and Afghanistan. In Iran, for example, a governor's official in the ethnic Arab province of Khuzestan stated in 2003 that 45 young women under the age of 20 had been murdered in "honour" killings in just two months, none of which brought convictions. All were slaughtered because of the girl's refusal to agree to an arranged marriage, failing to abide by Islamic dress code or suspected of having contacts with men outside the family.

Through the dark veil of Afghanistan's village punishments, we glimpse just occasionally the terror of teenage executions. When Siddiqa, who was only 19, and her 25-year-old fiancé Khayyam were brought before a Taliban-approved religious court in Kunduz province this month, their last words were: "We love each other, no matter what happens." In the bazaar at Mulla Quli, a crowd – including members of both families – stoned to death first Siddiqa, then Khayyam.

A week earlier, a woman identified as Bibi Sanubar, a pregnant widow, was lashed a hundred times and then shot in the head by a Taliban commander. In April of last year, Taliban gunmen executed by firing squad a man and a girl in Nimruz for eloping when the young woman was already engaged to someone else. History may never disclose how many hundreds of women – and men – have suffered a similar fates at the hands of deeply traditional village families or the Taliban.

But the contagion of "honour" crimes has spread across the globe, including acid attacks on women in Bangladesh for refusing marriages. In one of the most terrible Hindu "honour" killings in India this year, an engaged couple, Yogesh Kumar and Asha Saini, were murdered by the 19-year-old bride-to-be's family because her fiancée was of lower caste. They were apparently tied up and electrocuted to death.

A similar fate awaited 18-year-old Vishal Sharma, a Hindu Brahmin, who wanted to marry Sonu Singh, a 17- year-old Jat – an "inferior" caste which is usually Muslim. The couple were hanged and their bodies burned in Uttar Pradesh. Three years earlier, a New Delhi court had sentenced to death five men for killing another couple who were of the same sub-caste, which in the eyes of the local "caste council" made them brother and sister.

In Chechnya, Russia's chosen President, Ramzan Kadyrov, has been positively encouraging men to kill for "honour". When seven murdered women were found in Grozny, shot in the head and chest, Kadyrov announced – without any proof, but with obvious approval – that they had been killed for living "an immoral life". Commenting on a report that a Chechen girl had called the police to complain of her abusive father, he suggested the man should be able to murder his daughter. "... if he doesn't kill her, what kind of man is he? He brings shame on himself!"

And so to the "West", as we like to call it, where immigrant families have sometimes brought amid their baggage the cruel traditions of their home villages: an Azeri immigrant charged in St Petersburg for hiring hitmen to kill his daughter because she "flouted national tradition" by wearing a miniskirt; near the Belgian city of Charleroi, Sadia Sheikh shot dead by her brother, Moussafa, because she refused to marry a Pakistani man chosen by her family; in the suburbs of Toronto, Kamikar Kaur Dhillon slashes his Punjabi daughter-in-law, Amandeep, across the throat because she wants to leave her arranged marriage, perhaps for another man. He told Canadian police that her separation would "disgrace the family name".

And, of course, we should perhaps end this catalogue of crime in Britain, where only in the past few years have we ourselves woken to the reality of "honour" crimes; of Surjit Athwal, a Punjabi Sikh woman murdered on the orders of her London-based mother-in-law for trying to escape a violent marriage; of 15-year-old Tulay Goren, a Turkish Kurd from north London, tortured and murdered by her Shia Muslim father because she wished to marry a Sunni Muslim man; of Heshu Yones, 16, stabbed to death by her father in 2005 for going out with a Christian boy; of Caneze Riaz, burned alive by her husband in Accrington, along with their four children – the youngest 10 years old – because of their "Western ways". Mohamed Riaz was a Muslim Pakistani from the North-West Frontier Province. He died of burns two days after the murders.

Scotland Yard long ago admitted it would have to review over a hundred deaths, some going back more than a decade, which now appear to have been "honour" killings.

These are just a few of the murders, a few names, a small selection of horror stories across the world to prove the pervasive, spreading infection of what must be recognised as a mass crime, a tradition of family savagery that brooks no merciful intervention, no state law, rarely any remorse.

Surjit Athwal

Murdered in 1998 by her in-laws on a trip to the Indian Punjab for daring to seek a divorce from an unhappy marriage

Du'a Khalil Aswad

Aged 17, she was stoned to death in Nineveh, Iraq, by a mob of 2,000 men for falling in love with a man outside her tribe

Rand Abdel-Qader

The Iraqi 17-year-old was stabbed to death by her father two years ago after falling in love with a British soldier in Basra

Fakhra Khar

In 2001 in Karachi, her husband poured acid on her face, after she left him and returned to her mother's home in the red-light district of the city

Mukhtaran Bibi

The 18-year-old was gang-raped by four men in a hut in the Punjab in 2002, while up to 100 men laughed and cheered outside

Heshu Yones

The 16-year-old was stabbed to death by her Muslim father Abdullah, in west London in 2002, because he disapproved of her Christian boyfriend

Tasleem Solangi

The Pakistani village girl, 17, was falsely accused of immorality and had dogs set on her as a punishment before she was shot dead by in-laws

Shawbo Ali Rauf

Aged 19, she was taken by her family to a picnic in Dokan, Iraq, and shot seven times after they had found an unfamiliar number on her phone

Tulay Goren

The 15-year-old Kurdish girl was killed in north London by her father because the family objected to her choice of husband

Banaz Mahmod Babakir Agha

The 20-year-old's father and uncle murdered her in 2007, after she fell in love with a man her family did not want her to marry

Ayesha Baloch

Accused of having sexual relations with another man before she married, her husband slit her lip and nostril with a knife in Pakistan in 2006