Thank you to everyone that came along. Many people said after that it was the best meeting they had attended in a long time and commented on what a good public speaker Councillor James North was, who received a standing ovation after his talk. Those who didn’t come missed a very good night indeed.

It was announced at the meeting which candidates and seats were being contested by the BNP in the general election so far. They are:

Northampton North: Ray Beasley
Corby: Roy Davies
Kettering: Clive Skinner

More seats may be contested if the  money is there to do so.

The total amount raised for the evening came to £341 which will be split between the East and West Northamptonshire groups.

Rod Liddle, ex-Labour speech writer, home-wrecker and all round twat thinks the proles should know their place and be thankful that the Status Quo can continue to dictate the terms.  Once a NuGov lover, always a NuGov lover, even if it means looking like a total knob-jockey.  If paying attention at school meant becoming a confused-Marxist-minded mug like Liddle, I’m glad I bunked most of my lessons.

Give power to the people and you’d best expect lunacy

The Times, December 6, 2009

The Swiss had a referendum last week in which they were given a chance to ban something. Lord, you think, if only that were us. What would be first on your list? Kirstie Allsopp? Traffic wardens? Health and safety risk assessment forms that ask what race you were “designated” with at birth? Everyone, anywhere, who has ever watched The X Factor? Devil dogs, Alan Carr and Chelsea FC? Hell, we could argue about this all night. But Switzerland, given this free hand, decided to ban … minarets.

You writhe at the wasted opportunity — they’re Swiss! They could have banned cuckoo clocks, mountains and venality and made the world a much happier place. But no, they chose minarets. About as much use as banning chives. For sure, their choice was symbolic of a disaffection with the country’s growing Muslim population, which now numbers 320,000 (a “small” number according to the BBC, but not according to the Swiss). But banning minarets hardly gets to the root of the issue; it’s a bit like banning nan bread, beards and kebabs. If it was intended as a blow against Islam, my suspicion is that Allah, sitting up there watching it all, is a bit nonplussed, much as he was when Jack Straw decided he didn’t like burqas.

This referendum thing, though, does seem to commend itself, superficially at least. And you wonder what Britain might be like if once every few months we were asked to adjudicate directly on some important matter. What would the country be like now, given a taste of true and direct democracy?

To judge by opinion polls, which have for a long time shown majorities of more than 55%, Britain would begin to resemble the sort of country Oliver Cromwell once envisaged: a robust, muscular if somewhat insular nation state that did not pussyfoot around with miscreants. There would be capital punishment, for a start: every poll for the past 40 years has showed that. We would need capital punishment if only to thin out the prison population, which, by referendum number two, would be nigh on 1m. Opinion polls show we believe prisoners should stay in prison for longer and that they shouldn’t enjoy it too much when they’re there. We would be a very white country: British public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to immigration (and it almost always has been).

We would be a straight country too. Even recent public opinion polls have shown that the public is not terribly keen on homosexuals, although it will happily watch Graham Norton for an hour or so. Gays, by and large, would not be banged up, but neither would they be afforded equal rights, and certainly not allowed near the kiddies. The European Union might balk at one or two of these votes, but that wouldn’t matter because the likelihood is we wouldn’t be in it any more — either kicked out for our illiberal transgressions or for voting against treaties, or after a public vote to pull out (the numbers on this are too close to call).

We would begin lots of wars — against the likes of Afghanistan — but we would be disinclined to finish them, preferring to give up halfway through. More to the point, we would be in favour of wars when we were winning them easily against the most ghastly foreigners and there wasn’t an endless procession of bereaved relatives to make us feel bad about the conflict.

We would be in favour of a strong National Health Service and state education sector and the bailout of British industries that have fallen on hard times. However, we would also vote ourselves tax cuts, resenting the amount of money we pay each year to the exchequer. Where does it all go, we would wonder to ourselves as we lined up to mark an X in the referendum that would give us a tax rate equivalent to Grand Cayman’s. Like California, which governs itself partly by referendums and is now bankrupt for precisely these reasons, we would want services without having to pay for them.

On social policy we would be slightly to the right of General Franco. Perhaps this is the answer to how we rehabilitate our politicians: let the people rule the country for the next five years, until we beg for them to come back.

Capital punishment, tougher sentencing, maintaining a untied Nation, putting family first as nature intended and the withdrawal from the EU all sound like common sense to me.

As for the warmongering, unless Our Nation had a direct threat to deal with, and I mean a real direct threat, not a Tony Blair inspired “45 minutes to terror” bullcrap, sure the populace would want to defend itself.

And lastly, to refute his final thought, the day the people have power, the polichickens will be hanging from the lampposts so there’ll be no chance of them returning.

So if the above appeals to you, vote BNP, the only Party that will put Britain first.  Either that or the funeral pyre.

First published 30 October 2009

It has been a week now since the BNP’s Nick Griffin made his disastrous debut on Question Time, and even his own members are calling for him to leave owing to his odious performance.

But he was not the only member of the far-right party in that studio who, instead of opening his mouth, should have burrowed down a hole and veiled himself away from public speaking forever.

The other party cohort who made his BBC-QT debut was one John Clarke. (Continue)

Albion1983 is a blog run by a proud life member of the BNP (see his certificate here) who states he has been ‘active in Nationalism since 1983′ and was present amongst the revellers at this year’s BNP ‘Red, White & Blue’ festival (see his photos here). Now, we all know that the ‘modern BNP’ is ‘not racist’ and has not time for old guard neo-Nazis. However, apparently Albion1983 didn’t get that memo.

Looking at the Albion1983 blog, we get a glimpse into the heart and soul of the BNP and the leanings of its hardcore of true believers. This is exactly the kind of material that Griffin doesn’t want you to see.

Here’s a screen shot of the main page, just in case the blog suddenly ‘disappears’ (click to enlarge):

Let’s unpack what we see here.

‘Love Your Race’

Starting at the top, in the blog’s title image we see a picture of a white woman and child with the slogan ‘love your race’. This isn’t something Albion1983 has come up with himself, and is actually an image used as part of the ‘Love Your Race’ campaign promoted by the American organisation The National Alliance. The National Alliance (NA) was founded by the late and unlamented Dr William Pierce, a former American Nazi Party member, friend of BNP founder John Tyndall, and author of the race war novel The Turner Diaries (a favourite of Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, British neo-Nazi terrorist David Copeland, the neo-Nazi terrorist groups The Order and the Aryan Republican Army, the killers of James Byrd, and numerous others). In 2005, the NA launched its ‘Love Your Race’ campaign and it continues to promote the slogan. The group is an openly pro-Nazi racist and anti-Semitic organisation, as you can see from its publications. The NA site only links to five other sites, one of which is the BNP.

Here’s a selection of ‘Love Your Race’ campaign images (including the image found on the Albion1983 blog):

And here’s the image used by Albion1983 again, this time in a post on Stormfront, in a thread on ‘White Nationalism Awareness Materials’.

Saga

An image that links to the website of ‘white nationalist’ singer Saga is placed prominently on the blog, and Albion1983 has also posted a promotional message for the singer’s site.

Saga is – surprise, surprise – an openly pro-Nazi singer. Her albums include original material which praises David Lane of the neo-Nazi terrorist group The Order, as well as cover versions of songs by Ian Stuart Donaldson, singer of the racist skinhead band Skrewdriver and founder of the neo-Nazi ‘Blood & Honour’ organisation, a group so extreme that Shadow Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones recently wrote to the Home Secretary calling for its proscription.

Here’s Saga performing a song of hers about the threat to ‘the greatest race to ever walk the earth’ at a recent Blood & Honour event in London:

‘Where You Can Find Me’

Should you wish to chat with Albion1983, he helpfully provides links to sites where he posts. They are:

• Green Arrow Forum
• Stormfront
• Prussian Blue Euro Fan Club

The Green Arrow Forum is run by fanatical BNP member and Griffin acolyte Paul Morris, who claims he’s not a Nazi but happily re-posts racist and anti-Semitic material on his ‘Green Arrow’ blog. The oddball Morris believes that ‘we, through Nick Griffin and the British National Party can turn Our Island Nations into the only real paradise on earth for it’s [sic] true people’. He also considers me a ‘rabid Zionist’…

Stormfront hardly needs any introduction, given it is the longest running and most notorious white supremacist forum on the internet.

Prussian Blue are a neo-Nazi singing duo, who are again notorious. Here’s how they explain their choice of name:

Part of our heritage is Prussian German. Also our eyes are blue, and Prussian Blue is just a really pretty color. There is also the discussion of the lack of “Prussian Blue” coloring (Zyklon B residue) in the so-called gas chambers in the concentration camps. We think it might make people question some of the inaccuracies of the “Holocaust” myth.

Their songs cover typical neo-Nazi themes. ‘Gone With the Breeze‘ is an ode to Robert Mathews, founder of The Order. ‘Victory Day‘ looks forward to a coming race war:

Well sit down and listen, to what I have to say.

There soon will come a great war, a bloody but holy day.

And after that purging, our people will be free, and sing up in the bright skies, a sun for all to see.

…

You are my brother and in war we proudly sing.

Our Cause shall never tire.

Our gift to you we bring: A holy creed of Racial purpose, as a mighty Race to defend.

And when we fly our holy flag

Their oppressive reign shall end…

And here’s a popular Prussian Blue t-shirt:

Recommended Blogs

Albion1983’s recommended blogs section reveals yet more extremism.

Day Of The Rope

‘Day Of The Rope‘ takes its name from a chapter of The Turner Diaries in which ‘race traitors’ are executed following the victory of whites in a race war. Here’s an excerpt:

August 1, 1993. Today has been the Day of the Rope – a grim and bloody day, but an unavoidable one. Tonight, for the first time in weeks, it is quiet and totally peaceful throughout all of southern California. But the night is filled with silent horrors; from tens of thousands of lampposts, power poles, and trees throughout this vast metropolitan area the grisly forms hang.

In the lighted areas one sees them everywhere. Even the street signs at intersections have been pressed into service, and at practically every street corner I passed this evening on my way to HQ there was a dangling corpse, four at every intersection. Hanging from a single overpass only about a mile from here is a group of about 30, each with an identical placard around its neck bearing the printed legend, “I betrayed my race.” Two or three of that group had been decked out in academic robes before they were strung up, and the whole batch are apparently faculty members from the nearby UCLA campus.

In the areas to which we have not yet restored electrical power the corpses are less visible, but the feeling of horror in the air there is even worse than in the lighted areas. I had to walk through a two-block-long, unlighted residential section between HQ and my living quarters after our unit meeting tonight. In the middle of one of the unlighted blocks I saw what appeared to be a person standing on the sidewalk directly in front of me. As I approached the silent figure, whose features were hidden in the shadow of a large tree overhanging the sidewalk, it remained motionless, blocking my way.

Feeling some apprehension, I slipped my pistol out of its holster. Then, when I was within a dozen feet of the figure, which had been facing away from me, it began turning slowly toward me. There was something indescribably eerie about the movement, and I stopped in my tracks as the figure continued to turn. A slight breeze rustled the foliage overhead, and suddenly a beam of moonlight broke through the leaves and fell directly on the silently turning shape before me.

The first thing I saw in the moonlight was the placard with its legend in large, block letters: “I defiled my race.” Above the placard leered the horribly bloated, purplish face of a young woman, her eyes wide open and bulging, her mouth agape. Finally I could make out the thin, vertical line of rope disappearing into the branches above. Apparently the rope had slipped a bit or the branch to which it was tied had sagged, until the woman’s feet were resting on the pavement, giving the uncanny appearance of a corpse standing upright of its own volition.

I shuddered and quickly went on my way. There are many thousands of hanging female corpses like that in this city tonight, all wearing identical placards around their necks. They are the White women who were married to or living with Blacks, with Jews, or with other non-White males.

There are also a number of men wearing the l-defiled-my-race placard, but the women easily outnumber them seven or eight to one. On the other hand, about ninety per cent of the corpses with the I-betrayed-my-race placards are men, and overall the sexes seem to be roughly balanced.

Unsurprisingly, the ‘Day Of The Rope’ blog contains numerous racist and anti-Semitic posts, as well as Holocaust denial.

Covert Undercover Nuisance Tactics

This blog is currently unavailable (probably because of legal issues arising from this recent complaint to the police) but was covered in detail in my Centre for Social Cohesion report The BNP and the Online Fascist Network. A pro-BNP and Blood & Honour promoting blog, Covert Undercover Nuisance Tactics’ main contributers are Tommy Williams and Dave Howard. Here they are:

Covert Tactics contributers were present at this year’s BNP Red, White & Blue festival. You can see their reports from the festival in the cache of their blog here. And here’s a video they shot at RWB:

Here’s another video of theirs:

The Albion1983 blog is run by a self-declared BNP life member who has been involved in ‘nationalism’ for 26 years. Nick Griffin claims the BNP has changed and no longer has any links to neo-Nazism and extremism. Albion1983 became a life member of the Party in October 2009. Clearly he feels quite at home in the BNP, despite his obvious pro-Nazi views.

This is the true BNP on show. Behind the ‘moderate’ facade, nothing has changed.

Tonight my parents have had a dinner party, with a small band of their friends encircling our dinner table to laugh and talk about various things with a few bottles of wine handy. As seems inevitable, the conversation turned to politics. Having been invited in to grab some pudding, I found myself unwittingly dragged into the conversation (I hesitate to use the word “argument”), and found myself understanding so many things about the frustrations of the older generations.

To say I became scared of some of the stuff they were saying is perhaps taking it too far, but, through the course of the hour or so I spent listening, there was a frightening amount of stuff that the BNP’s publicist would have been proud of. Starting off with the premise that there are simply too many people in the country, thus necessitating a dramatic cull (we moved from Nazi Germany – with echoes of Nick Griffin’s comment about Hitler going just a bit too far with the Jews – to modern day China in the conversation), one particular member of the party exhibited his own take on the state of the country. Those we kick out of the country (roughly the 15 or so million people which would see our population be taken back down to about 50 million) would have to go somewhere else. Anywhere else. It doesn’t matter, as long as they aren’t on British soil. Look after your own first, then see what’s left to share with the rest of the world.

From there we moved through the problems of industry, religion, education, and class. The continuing theme was not, as I was perhaps expecting it to be, the fault of the current government in these issues; but was instead the larger issue of the psyche of the population. The phrase “white underclass” was one which was casually tossed around and seemed to be the common denominator in the matters. Laziness is to blame for the lack of industry in Britain (we have the know-how, so why don’t we do it anymore?). Religion is emphasised by varying gang cultures which is a product of the “underclasses” (I must have spent roughly ten minutes trying to explain that not all knife and gun crime is committed by black people). The education system is too saturated with children who know too much about the dole, about how to play the system to maximise laziness and reward. So ran, in a nutshell, most of the points that were made.

However, it was not only the fault of the white underclass, it is also the fault of immigrants (we take in way too many for our resources to cope). Having tried to explain Malthusian principles of a checking factor to the group, the response was that it will not be disease as we will simply find a cure. In short, for too many years we, as a country, have been to lax with too many things that we are now at a point where we are going to suffer greatly. Our import/export ratio is woefully imbalanced, our manufacturing industry is all but gone, and our gas and oil reserves are all used up. Or, to put it another way, we’re doomed.

Nor is the future any better, as younger generations are being taught too much in the way of other religions (apparently being indoctrinated into them) by our schooling systems, and they are being taught about gay rights from the age of four. They are becoming adults too quickly, a problem exacerbated by shops selling clothing which encourages them to grow up and act more like an adult from a younger age. Kids aren’t allowed to be kids any more. Apparently.

The problem was, that despite all these problems there were no real workable solutions offered. Getting rid of 15 million people to somewhere else and looking out for ourselves was the ideal principle. Cutting our imports down to provide a stimulus for our manufacturing was another suggestion (but failed to ignore the knock-on effects that that would have on various other trades and indeed, other countries who then grow disillusioned with the severence of economic ties). Starting again and establishing British industry once again to its former levels should be the aim. This industry which grew out of the industrial revolution will be pretty east to kick start as we have all the know-how, it’ll just take a bit of hard work. Apparently.

And yet, despite all this, they all freely admitted that they would not be joining their local political party. They would not be taking any actions as there is simply nothing they can do to stem this tide. And it was at this point I began imagining the same conversations happening in living-rooms, kitchens, dining-rooms, or over the garden fence up and down the country. Whilst the BNP are still largely discredited, it suddenly became so much clearer to me why people would want to vote for them. I maintain it would still be a protest vote, but it is not, as I’d thought, a protest vote against politics, it is a protest vote against the country. And it was then I began to feel uneasy. I’m pretty sure most of the party tonight would not vote BNP, as, for all their gesturing and posturing, they are not racist fools. The tide with which politics is battling is not against the BNP, as I’d have thought. Instead, politics must grapple with the consequences of the last 50 or so years, the decline of the empire, the industry, the rising dissatisfaction at all that has come to pass.

The Conservatives will likely come to office next year, and will be faced with the same problems. Industry will still be gone, the number of migrants will still remain “too many”. Bureaucracy and red tape will have to continue as a definition of our society. What seems to be needed is the foundations of stability need to be relaid. Industry played such a large part in British life for so many years, something needs to replace it, or it needs to be re-grown. I’m really not sure what the solutions are, if indeed there are any.

Tonight was an interesting eye opener, and it was nice to have another view of the world. However the hugely annoying uneasy feeling with which I left the conversation as the coffee arrived still lingers in my stomach, and I’m really not sure how to combat it.

With a few more candidates announced for the opposition parties over the past two weeks, I thought I would give you a run down of who is standing where.  At this moment in time the BNP will be contesting at least three of these seven seats, if we can get more finances in place it may well be more.

The BNP candidates will be announced at the Joint East and West Northants meeting this coming Sunday, so be there for the exclusive scoop.

Corby

Phil Hope (Lab) – Current incumbent hoping to get re-elected despite paying back over £41,000 in expenses.

Louise Bagshawe (Con) – First time candidate and children’s book author. One of the so-called ‘Cameron Cuties’. 

Portia Wilson (Lib Dem) – Lib Dem website describes her as a ‘Nurse’, even though she is a Lib Dem Councillor for Parklands in Northampton.

Ian Gillman (UKIP) – Since Mr Gillman announced he would be contesting Corby for UKIP again, he has stood for the UK First party in the Euro elections, so his allegiance may change.

Daventry

Chris Heaton-Harris (Con) – Chosen following Tim Boswells decision not to re-contest. Contested Leicester South 1997, Leicester South by-election 2004. Former MEP for the East Midlands from 1999-2009. Was Conservative chief whip in the European Parliament from 2001-4.

Paul Corazzo (Lab) – Educated at Huddersfield University. Currently a Kettering Borough councillor. Extremely arrogant.

John Latham (Lib Dem) – Has stood as a candidate in several local elections.

Kettering

Philip Hollobone (Con) – Current incumbent. Bromley councillor 1990-1994. Kettering Borough Councillor 2003-present. Contested Lewisham East in 1997 and Kettering in 2001. First elected as MP for Kettering in 2005.
 
Phil Sawford (Lab) – A Labour left-winger and member of the Campaign Group. Member of Kettering Borough Council 1979-1983, 1986-1997, Leader of Kettering Council 1991-1997. MP for Kettering 1997-2005. Contested and lost Kettering in 2005.

Northampton North

Sally Keeble (Lab) – Former journalist and head of communications for the GMB. Leader of Southwark council 1990-1993. Been as MP for Northampton North since 1997 when elected as one of ‘Blairs babes’ – where’s the sick bag.

Michael Ellis (Con)  -  Former Northamptonshire county councillor.

Andrew Simpson (Lib Dem) – Northampton Borough councillor since 1995. Deputy leader of the Liberal Democrat group from 1999-2004. Contested Northampton South 2001, Northampton North 2005.

Jim MacArthur (UKIP) – Retired, teaches Martial arts in his spare time.

Malcolm Mildred (Ind) – Former Conservative and Lib Dem Councillor, resigned from Lib Dems mid October but still an Independent councillor on Northampton Borough Council.

Northampton South

Brian Binley (Con) – Won this seat in 2005 from Tony Clarke who was at that time representing Labour.

Clyde Loakes (Lab) – Waltham Forest councillor since 1998. Leader of Waltham Forest council since 2003. Unpopular with local Labour party.

Paul Varnsverry (Lib Dem) – Financially challenged Northampton Borough councillor and slimeball.

Tony Clarke (Independent) – Labour MP for Northampton South 1997-2005. Independent Northampton councillor since 2007 and County Councillor from 2009.

Derek Clarke (UKIP) – Retired teacher, MEP for East Midlands since 2004.

Northamptonshire South (New seat)

Andrea Leadsom (Con) – This seat looks like a shoe in for Andrea. Contested Knowsley South in 2005, came 3rd with just 12.3% of the vote

Matthew May (Labour) – Former Wellingborough Borough Councillor for Irchester.

Scott Collins (Lib Dem) – Northampton Borough Councillor for Eastfield Ward.

Wellingborough

Peter Bone (Con) – Elected in 2005. Briefly involved in expenses scandal for claiming more than entitled to on food – greedy bugger.

 Jayne Buckland (Lab) – Another Labour candidate imported from London, she is currently a serving councillor in Enfield.

Kevin Barron (Lib Dem) – Contested Northampton South 2005.

If you are unable to make the meeting but would like to make a contribution to our election campaign, please send a cheque made payable to ‘East Midlands BNP’ and send it to PO Box , 7501, Wellingborough, NN8 9FZ, alternatively contact us and ask for a Standing Order form.

IPSWICH: Bouncers at an Ipswich pub are today under investigation for allegedly barring Asian drinkers.

Shocked councillors heard last night how two Asian men were turned away from a live music night at a pub in the town.

The story as written in the Evening Star appears to have got edited into oblivion.

The original cites a  a number of cases barring Asians.

Those who know Ipswich will realise that the pub’s name is The Plough.

Here.

The British National Party (BNP) has claimed that the National Union of Students (NUS) is  unfairly discriminating against their student representation.

  The NUS No Platform policy does not allow any student organisations that promote racist or fascist views to stand in any NUS election or function. It was instituted to prevent the BNP candidates from being elected in a student election. The policy prevents any minority groups from being victimised or subject to any hate crime or violence.

A BNP spokesperson claimed that although the party had student support and had representation of over a million people there were no official student societies because the NUS would “push them out” and claimed because of this they were “denying education.”

A spokesperson for the NUS responded:

“Policies such as our No Platform or Equal Opportunities clearly state that any group that receives support, funding or interaction from the Students Association must adhere to these policies and that requires giving an equal space, respecting diversity and not discriminating against any students whether it be gender, race, sexuality or disability.

“The NUS cannot tell individual student associations what to do, we cannot tell our student members what to do. To say that the NUS can prevent a member of the BNP from studying is frankly not true; we also have no control over admissions and cannot dictate anything to institutions regarding people being allowed to study.

“However our No Platform policy excludes groups that promote racist or fascist views; we cannot support or fund a student group that does not adhere to our policies of equal opportunities. It is an issue of safety, there is significant evidence that where there are BNP are active, the amount of racial hatred will be increased. I think it’s a very important policy that we have that protects students from racial or fascist hatred or views.”

Photo from a South London BNP meeting report.

Click image to view full size:

As you probably know, next week the world’s leaders will meet in Copenhagen for the climate change summit. It’s a critical moment – the outcome is far from certain – and you’ll be as depressed as I am to know that Nick Griffin will be attending.

The BNP claims that climate change is a “global Marxist mantra” designed to “impose a one world government” and describes the Copenhagen Summit as an “anti-white guilt hatefest which will see billions more taxpayers’ cash poured into the Third World.” Apparently Griffin has said that he’s going to expose the “somewhat dodgy” evidence surrounding climate change.

Nice.

If like me you’d like to let the Copenhagen representatives know that Nick Griffin doesn’t speak for the UK, you can sign a letter from Hope Note Hate denouncing Griffin and the BNP, and urging the need for a comprehensive deal.

Sadly, it’s not enough to denounce the BNP’s lies once – we have to keep doing it whenever they appear. So please take just a moment to add your name to this letter and stand up to the BNP. Again.

Another mindless musing.  The Establishment so fear the British National Party that it isn’t just the “third-party groups”, “stooges’ outfits” and other “charity events” fronted by various questionable groups  such as the UAF, Hope not Hate, Searchlight et al trying to derail Nationalism (thus helping Internationalism) in this Nation but the Bastards that Be also oversee an organisation whose sole goal should frighten all non-blacks and is the most odious one I wish to rant about.

Operation Black Vote.

So not only did the Establishment open the doors and the ‘Official’ Opposition keep quiet, they openly encourage the newcomers to not just vote, but to specifically vote AGAINST the BNP, the only Party opposed to the State-enforced multi-culture ideology.  The Big Three are colluding with one another to secure their place at the top table so the Bastards that Be can continue selling this Nation into oblivion.

So in essence, the Establishment who have promoted and enforced (although not next-door to them) multi-cuture are also urging those very same Gov’t invitees to continue voting for the Deconstruction of Britain into nothing more than gerrymanded-to-death rotten boroughs.  And to top it all off, the Bastards that Be wish to enact various draconian laws to make sure us peasants comply.

And remember, it isn’t multi-culture.  It is multi-probmatic, multi-ethnic, multi-faith, multi-custom, multi-national and is a political tool, not a humanitarian gesture. To see it’s effects just have a gander at the European Project’s progress.  If the Nation was still Patriotic, we would never be involved, yet the populace have become disenfranchised with the land of their ancestors due to the fact that large swathes of Britain have been overcome by alien cultures, so logically think, “What’s the point?”.

So in the interests of fairness (and retaliation), may I suggest this:

Operation White Vote.

To all those non-blacks who feel disenfranchised with the Fabian-inspired ‘Divide & Rule’ type of British Gov’t, vote BNP.

To all those non-blacks who are sick and tired of ‘positive discrimination‘, vote  BNP.

To all those non-blacks who think there is no other party to vote for, think again and vote BNP.

If you don’t want your community to get the Peckham makeover as above, vote BNP.  It is as simple as that.  It isn’t racist to oppose massive cultural changes, it’s common sense.  When I went to Cork years ago, I was greeted at every pub with the statement, “I’ll take your money but I won’t take your shit”, it’s common sense (although very rude, I knew where I stood).  Surely we should adopt China White’s selective door policy instead of the current Rum & Duck pub of pack-em-in.

And to all those non-whites thinking about voting against the BNP, remember, if the British Establishment care so little about their own white working class, what makes you think they care anymore for yours’?

BNP’s Griffin is not a twat – I will not have any part of my body insulted in that way.

Facebook status of mine that I would like to enshrine in glory for its wit

You don’t want to keep a system as diabolically disproportional as the current British system. For instance, under FPTP, it’s possible to win the election while taking a minority of the popular vote.

The only reason that you could want to give for keeping it is that it’s advantageous to you – in other words, if you’re Labour or Conservative and you’re heading for a large majority. In 1997, Labour won the election with 43.2% of the popular vote, but they actually took 63.4% of the seats in the House of Commons. Similarly, in 1983, the Tories took 42.3% of the popular vote, but 61.1% of seats.

As an example of how grossly biased toward the larger parties this is, how susceptible to any kinds of gerrymandering, how ridiculous it is and how transparent your intentions are if you oppose electoral reform, it’s worth looking at third and fourth party performances. Most notably, these would be one of the several Liberal incarnations – in 1983, the SDP-Liberal Alliance took 25% of the popular vote, but gained only 3.5% of seats, and in 2005, the Liberal Democrats took 22.1%, yet currently have only 9.6% of the seats in the Commons.

It’s no shock then, that as Labour promise legislation to promote electoral reform, the Tories have long since rejected any idea of reform. It’s silly suggesting that you’d like reform when you have the most to lose.

The recent history of the debate, as played out in the political spectrum since 1997, is pretty much as follows:

1) The Labour manifesto from 1997 says:

“We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.”

2) In 1997, after a landslide victory, Labour put together the Jenkins Commission, who, after reviewing all the options, suggest a system called Alternative Vote Plus (or Alternative Vote Top-Up, or AV+). This is a mixture of preferential voting and party lists set up to both retain local constituencies (within redrawn boundaries) and increase representation in the Commons by way of replacing some constituencies with party lists.

3) Labour do nothing for 11 years. The Tories do nothing for just as long, but it’s okay because they’ve never bothered doing anything about electoral reform.

4) In May 2009, David Cameron says:

“a Conservative government will not consider introducing proportional representation, as many participants in A New Politics have demanded. The principle underlying all the political reforms a Conservative government would make is the progressive principle of redistributing power and control from the powerful to the powerless. PR would actually move us in the opposite direction, which is why I’m so surprised it’s still on the wish-list of progressive reformers. Proportional representation takes power away from the man and woman in the street and hands it to the political elites.”

Fairly sure that he’s going to be able to have the biggest swinging majority in Parliament, Cameron wants to redefine what PR means so everyone can see he’s fairly sure that Labour are going to lose under FPTP, and there’ll be no need for a Tory government to consider it because they don’t need it.

5) In June 2009, David Cameron stands up in the Commons, introduces himself as the pot, and calls Gordon Brown a big black kettle:

“In 12 years there has not been a squeak about electoral reform and now he has being trashed in the polls he wants to put it on the agenda.”

Everyone thinks this hilarious, especially because Cameron clearly doesn’t want it because he won’t win as many seats if PR were introduced. Cameron even suggests that PR is a bad thing because the BNP won two seats at the European Elections. This makes Cameron’s grandstanding over political elites being involved in secret backroom deals especially funny, because it’s clear that Cameron would attempt to exclude minority parties under PR, be they horrendously right or horrendously left.

6) In December 2009, facing a landslide election loss, Labour throw the idea out there. It’s reported in the Guardian as simple Alternative Vote, rather than the Jenkins recommendation. Alternative Vote, a simple preferential system which maintains the constituencies, isn’t very proportional. It needs a party list element to be proportional.

Electoral reform shouldn’t be politicised. In the UK, it’s being thrown from party to party, and it’s not coincidental that each party favours a position as their current level of representation dictates. The Liberal Democrats have always believed in PR, because they’ve always had the most to gain from it. The others have always promised, then sidestepped the issue once they gained their unfair majorities.

It should be taken out of the hands of politicians, who should ask whether or not the UK wants the choice, and then give them the choices. It’s rare that I believe in a plebiscite, but electoral reform is essential, and so is a series of choices. The politicians at the forefront of this argument shouldn’t be able to use it as a way to grab voter attentions.

They just need to offer the choice.

Two referendums: the first is a vote to keep or bin FPTP. If they choose to bin FPTP, then there should be a selection of alternatives from the disproportionate AV, to mixed systems, to STV systems.

It’s a perfect opportunity for voter engagement – and a better opportunity to redraw the political landscape in the UK.

The Union Flag to the left offends Martin Smith, one of the UAF hierarchy, so for his fairyfied sensibilities I will only use a teeny weeny picture.  This one man shows the stupidity of the White Guilt the ‘royal we’ are encouraged to feel.  Sure, We as a Nation did bad stuff but it was a different era back then and We have more than atoned for our past misdeeds, for one, We STOPPED THE TRANS-ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE (although sadly we didn’t have much luck persuading the African and Arabs to stop).

Many thanks to JustProud2 for uploading

Since the end of that “evil colonialism”, it is the Africans who have suffered most under the rule of tribal dictators who were (and still are) ripe for corporate corruption.  Even worse, it is usually British Foreign Aid that props up this ineffective governments in Africa while the Corporate world short-changes them.  And yet for the second time in my life, Ethiopia is starving and holding out the begging pot.  Last time We were asked to feed less than 40 million, this time they’re asking Us to feed 80 million…  come on?  Are they really serious?

If Martin Smith is the epitome of the UAF, can’t wait until his next waffling of hatred.  I would gladly have him exiled to Cuba, he can live out his commie dreams there instead of trying to spread that crap here.

Baroness Warsi, the token Tory, had a run-in with some ‘Islamists’ in Luton while on a walkabout in Luton with a small contingent of her own token-tories.  Many reports have been flown about but sometimes it is better to see it than read it.  And for once, I have to agree with the Islamists.  She is a traitor.  Not to Islam but she has had a hand in selling this Nation down the river along with her other political masters.

Many thanks to 6MadeInEngland9 for uploading

In the video we hear Miss Warsi not only condemned the “minority Muslims” but manage to lump the Sharia Law Lovers to the Patriotic BNP.  The cheek of the woman, comparing those who wish to install a foreign law onto these isles to a democratic party fighting to preserve British democracy.

The Daily Mail comment section is once again the highlight with some angst-ridden rantings while the article mentions the BNP once only this time, and surprisingly, without the usual derogatory remark to accompany it.  What will the NUJ have to say about that I wonder.

Muslim protesters pelt Tory peer Baroness Warsi with eggs during walkabout in Luton

Daily Mail, 1st December 2009

The country’s most powerful Muslim woman was pelted with eggs by a group of young Islamists yesterday.

Baroness Warsi, the Conservative shadow minister for community cohesion and social action, was visiting Luton with one of her party’s election candidates.

But during a visit to the Bury Park area, she was confronted by protesters who shouted her down before throwing several eggs, one of which hit her and another landed on a supporter.

With egg yolk running through her hair, the Baroness attempted to reason with the members of outlawed extremist group Al-Muhajiroun  -  only to be harangued.

The young men of Al-Muhajiroun, which in March this year took part in protests against soldiers from 2nd Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment during a homecoming parade, accused her of not being a proper Muslim and supporting the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan.

The Baroness  -  who appeared on BBC TV’s Question Time with BNP leader Nick Griffin  -  retreated into a nearby sari shop with supporters, including Nigel Huddleston, Tory candidate for Luton South.

She said later: ‘What you saw there was the distinct conflict between real British Muslims  -  they are these guys walking around with me  -  and people who are actually bringing the faith of Islam into huge disrepute.’

Self-styled leader of the Luton branch of Al-Muhajiroun, Sayful Islam, denied the group was behind the attack but refused to condemn what had happened.

‘I won’t condemn these people. It shows the frustration of Muslim youths in Luton,’ he said.

‘Baroness Warsi needs to be exposed. She is somebody who pretends to be a practising Muslim but from her views and statements she is clearly against Sharia.’

Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi of Dewsbury is one of David Cameron’s rising frontbench stars and a high-profile champion of Muslim women’s rights.

Earlier this year, she was named Britain’s most powerful Muslim woman in the Power List chosen by a panel of judges led by Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Still the pussy-footing around the main cause of this problem.  The State, under Fabianistic influences promoted multi-culture, which meant they encouraged newcomers to keep their traditions, culture, language, nationalities and not only that, encourage them to complain against any perceived injustices, real or not, to create division.  Until we rid ourselves of the false utopian values of multi-culture, we shall have to put up with ever more draconian laws to maintain order.

Order out of Chaos.

Mummylonglegs has spun an excellent piece of work, picking up on Nick Griffin’s shrewd and laudably cheeky move of getting to represent the EU at the Copenhagen Climate Change talks, from an Anti-AGW position.

The reason it’s shrewd is that in the wake of #Climategate, the Anti-AGW bandwagon is just now starting to pick up members of the general apolitical public, who are realising they’ve been had (again!) and none of the other politicians are willing to stand up and say what so very many of us are thinking on the topic of AGW.

My views on AGW are pretty clear: http://aljahom.wordpress.com/category/global-warming-my-arse/

As are my views on the BNP: http://aljahom.wordpress.com/category/bnp/

Now, I still wouldn’t vote for the BNP, but I can’t deny thinking that Griffin is onto a winner here.

And another way to look at it is this: Years of pressure from, and mounting success of, the BNP has forced the major parties, particularly Labour, to finally face and admit the problems of mass immigration.

If Griffin can get up a head of steam on this Anti-AGW thing, it may just, may just, force the other parties in to coughing up the green-pills they gobbled down like John Prescott in a bukkake video.

Good news.

AJ

Salma Yaqoob

The General Election is a matter of months away. Once again, this is an election in which only two parties are competing to form a government – Labour or the Tories.

A series of opinion polls have pointed strongly to the defeat of the Labour government. The outcome, however, is not a foregone conclusion. A recent poll suggests that the result will be finely balanced, with a hung parliament a real possibility.

Respect is neither neutral nor indifferent to the outcome of this election. We think that a Tory victory would be a disaster for working people. Yes, New Labour has betrayed the aspirations of its traditional electorate in working class communities, among Black and Asian communities, and among trades unionists. But its strongest support still comes from these communities and the vast majority of the trade union movement will support Labour at the next election. Despite the efforts of the New Labour clique that now dominates the Labour Party, it is still seen by millions of people as a party that looks after the interests of working people – albeit a disastrously right wing example of such a party.

A Tory victory will lead to a massive assault on public services

A Tory victory in the context of a deep economic crisis will herald a deep attack on the welfare state. The Tory obsession with cutting the national debt not only risks a deeper and more prolonged recession, but will inevitably lead to a massive assault on public services and public sector workers. It will represent a much more profound shift to the right in the political agenda. Respect therefore stands with the vast majority of the labour movement in seeking the defeat of the Tory challenge at this election.

Labour has demoralised much of its traditional support

Under Blair, and now Brown, Labour have demoralised large parts of its traditional support. Many people have broken from Labour to the left in disgust at Blair’s support for the Iraq war, and New Labour’s subservience to the bankers and privatisers. Respect was born out of the movement against the Iraq war, and we have successfully built a real base in limited parts of the country. We believed then, and believe now, that there is an urgent need for a radical left wing party that can help shift the political consensus towards an agenda of peace, anti-racism and social justice.

In 3 parliamentary seats in Birmingham and East London, Respect is fighting to win. We do not know what the outcome will be, and we are well aware of the difficulties in the way of small parties under a first past the post electoral system. But in these 3 seats we have a genuine chance of victory. We have deep roots and credible candidates. There are only a handful of seats up for grabs in the general election that could conceivably be won by parties to the left of Labour (including the challenge by Caroline Lucas for the Green Party). The most important contribution that we in Respect can make to the left as a whole in the immediate future is to do everything within our power to win these seats.

Caroline Lucas

We do not believe, however, that a radical alternative can be built by acting in way that allows the Tories – or the BNP – to be the beneficiaries of discontent with Labour or our efforts to build an alternative. In areas where we are highly unlikely to win it is important that we are not seen to be reckless over the consequences of standing in marginal seats where the likely beneficiary would be the Tories. Where we do stand, we want our supporters to know they can express their discontent with the Labour government without handing seats on a plate to the Tories.

United against the BNP

We are also in favour of the maximum possible unity against the BNP. Nick Griffin has announced he is standing in Barking and Dagenham. His election to the European parliament was an historic breakthrough for British fascism. But it would be nothing in comparison to a BNP MP. Hard choices have to be made. There is absolutely no prospect of a candidate to the left of Labour winning this seat, and any such candidate could only split the anti-BNP vote.

Abjol Miah is standing in East London

Respect will therefore not consider standing in Barking and Dagenham, and call on other left wing parties to do likewise. We are well aware of the way in which New Labour have created the conditions for the BNP to grow, and equally aware that Labour’s candidate, Margaret Hodge, is one of the least palatable New Labour MPs. Nonetheless we call for a vote for the Labour candidate as the only practical way of defeating the BNP.

Respect believes that the interests of working people are best served by working for the maximum unity against a Tory victory in the General Election, while continuing to build left wing alternatives to the Labour Party in the most tactically effective manner.

Salma Yaqoob will be appearing on BBC1’s Question Time, 10.35pm Thursday December 10.

Here are the pdfs for the 2nd edition of The Grey Matter:

page 1

page 2

Print! Copy! Distribute!

*The graphic used has been taken from www.schnews.org.uk *

Earlier this month, Mr Justice Michael Burton ruled that employees holding philosophical views based on science and reason should be afforded the same legal protection from discrimination as those with religious beliefs. The case concerned Tim Nicholson, the former head of sustainability for Grainger, the UK’s largest listed residential property company. Nicholson claimed that he had been sacked due to his environmental beliefs. But Grainger’s lawyers contended that environmental views are political and a “lifestyle choice” which cannot be compared to religion or philosophy.

Mr Burton ruled that Nicholson’s views were entitled to the same protection as religious views and that the case should go before an employment tribunal. The written ruling, which looked at whether philosophy could be underpinned by a scientific belief, quoted from Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy and ultimately concluded that a belief in climate change, while a political view about science, can also be a philosophical one. Interestingly, Mr Burton ruled last year that Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth was political and partisan as he assessed whether it should be shown to schools. (You can read about the case here and here.)

Camilla Palmer, of the legal firm Leigh Day and Co, suggested that the ruling opened the doors for an even wider category of deeply held beliefs, such as feminism, vegetarianism or humanism. Palmer commented: “It’s a great decision. Why should it only be religions which are protected?” However, perhaps not everyone will be so pleased by the ruling. Trade unionists campaigning for BNP members to be banned from public sector employment might fear that this ruling will also serve to protect far-right extremists. Indeed, might this fear also be what lies behind the government’s decision to remove protection for “political beliefs and beliefs in scientific theories” in it’s new equality bill, currently before parliament? Paragraph 10 of the new bill states:

“Communism, Darwinism, Fascism and Socialism are not beliefs that fall within the definition; nor is adherence to a particular football team. However, beliefs such as atheism and humanism would be covered.”

You can read the entire bill here.

Related articles: Teaching & Learning Guide for Business Ethics: An Overview
By Jeffrey Moriarty, Bowling Green State University
(Philosophy Compass 2009, May 2009)
Philosophy Compass
Related articles: Precedent
By Grant Lamond , Balliol College, University of Oxford
(Vol. 2, July 2007)
Philosophy Compass

Much has been made of the use of social media in politics. Barack Obama’s highly-polished use of social media technology such as Facebook is a notable example; Conservative leader David Cameron caused a stir with his regular YouTube webcasts; and here in Southend, local councillors and prospective Parliamentary candidates use Twitter to keep the electorate informed.

There is no science that converts Facebook friends or Twitter followers into concrete voting figures, but it would be foolish to assume that use of social media has no effect whatsoever on how the public votes. To say the least, a local election effort without a social media presence is at an instant disadvantage. With that in mind, anyone looking for proof of BNP support right here in Essex, and even Southend, need look no further than Google.

The controversial British National Party has received huge attention in 2009, first due to the party’s victories during the EU elections, and also because the presence of its leader Nick Griffin on Question Time. Despite this, there are still arguments over whether or not the BNP demonstrates any real threat to democracy, human rights and equality. In some cases, the lack of concern over or objection to the BNP is based on a simplified view of UK politics. Just because it is highly unlikely that we will elect a BNP prime minister next year does not mean that BNP councillors, BNP MPs and BNP MEPs are not important. The presence of BNP representatives in local and regional authorities will affect everyday life, and that presence is already being felt. It is grassroots support that has put these people in the positions they are in, which, for opponents of fascism, is plenty to worry about.

Social media plays a huge role in this grassroots support. Do an internet search for “Southend BNP” and you will return plenty of results. Particularly prominent is the blogspot site, Southend Patriot. The site is emblazoned with this disclaimer:

“This blog has not been endorsed by the British National Party. This is an independent site for Southend nationalists, it is not a British National Party site.

“We fully support and will promote the British National Party as we believe it is the only serious vehicle for the advancement of Nationalism in Britain.

“However, any opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the British National Party.”

Despite this distancing from the BNP in any official sense, the photos of Southend BNP meetings and events would suggest that the author of the blog, Victor, is at least a member of the party.

The content of the site is partly fascist history, partly news about Southend BNP activities. It has regular features on historic English fascists (and there are many), as well as photos and commentary on protests and clashes with Unite Against Fascism. It also has links to various nationalist websites such as Green Arrow, as well as a profile of Thurrock’s prospective BNP MP for Thurrock, Emma Colgate. There are regular assertions on the site that “ethnics” [sic] should leave the country and “shut the door behind them”.

Most interesting is Victor’s coverage of the BNP presence at Southend’s remembrance day events. In 2008, members of the Southend BNP chapter attended the ceremony, taking photographs of themselves laying BNP-branded wreaths at the cenotaph. Victor found it necessary to comment on the Reverend Burdett’s closing speech during the ceremony, which applauded the election of Barrack Obama and Lewis Hamilton’s victory at the F1 championships. Victor wrote “His remarks were inappropriate and an insult to our war dead who fought to keep this country British,” demonstrating his very loose grasp of British motives for both WWI and II (in order; imperialism and defending Europe against Fascism). Victor adds, “ethnics [sic]… were conspicuous by their absence. They expect us to celebrate their culture and their history but they show no respect for ours.” Victor can apparently tell a person’s ethnic origin just by looking, or only objects to black and Asian UK citizens. 2009’s coverage of Remembrance Sunday is notably calmer. Interestingly, however, none of the attendees of the ceremony that Councilbust.com spoke to were aware of the BNP’s presence at the ceremony; it would appear that BNP members did not make their presence known.

Victor regularly uses offensive language and discriminatory jokes to make his point. Underneath photos of people protesting against the BNP, for example, the author has made derogatory comments about their appearance, disability and gender. Under one picture of a little person, Victor has written “is there a circus in town?” Under another photo of a female protestor with a short haircut, he has written “Is this a man or a woman? The jury is still out.”

So, does it matter that there is a BNP website for Southend? Well, look at the statistics. This site has a Google page ranking of 2/10. Page rankings, for the uninitiated, are values that demonstrate how much traffic a website gets, with 10 being the maximum value. For the sake of perspective, Southend Borough Council’s website has a Google page ranking of 5/10; Rochford and Southend East Labour Party’s page has 2/10, and James Duddridge’s page on the Conservative website is 2/10. Despite not being an official party site, this blog has as much traffic as the pages of the two major parties’ Southend representatives, and half that of Southend’s local authority. You do the maths; what does that tell you about support for the BNP in Southend alone?

Aside from Southend Patriot, BNP social media presence is everywhere once you scratch below the surface. Material very similar to that on Southend Patriot can be found on Essex BNP’s Myspace group, which has 220 followers and is growing every day. On Facebook, BNP Rochford has a growing number of supporters too.

Here at Councilbust.com we don’t advocate taking these sites offline. Free speech can’t be given to some and not to others. Free speech aside, however, it would be foolish to say that these sites are just websites; there is no such thing as “just a website” any more. These sites demonstrate the very real and frightening threat of the BNP gaining ground in our town and county, and we ignore them at our peril.

One of the BNPs main activists in 1985 was Tony Lecomber. Lecomber was sent to prison for attempting to detonate explosives at the offices of a rival political organization. He was also caught with hand-grenades and was jailed for three years for assaulting a Jewish teacher (12). He was propaganda director at the time of the latter conviction (13).

Lecomber is not alone:  Many other BNP members  have been convicted for racially-motivated violence.  Kevin Scott, the BNP’s North East regional advisor, for example, has two convictions for assault and using threatening words and behaviour against ethnic minorities (14). In addition, Joe Owens, a former BNP candidate, has served eight months in prison for sending razor blades to Jewish people in the post, and another term for carrying CS gas and knuckledusters (15).

Other BNP members and supporters, that include Stephen O’Shea and Simon Briggs, have been convicted for violent racist attacks (16). In 1998, Nick Griffin received a nine-month prison sentence for inciting racial hatred (17). Griffin subsequently became leader of the party in 1999.

During the early 1990s, much of the BNP”s activities were focused on East London, where, in 1993, it secured a council by-election victory in the Tower Hamlets ward of Millwall. The price to pay was a massive rise in racial attacks (18).

At about the same time, the BNP spawned the violent Combat 18 (C18) as its security force. C18 later emerged as a Nazi terror group, responsible for a letter bomb campaign and a series of murders. C18 thugs, made up of football hooligans and Nazi skinheads, protected both BNP meetings and the BNP leadership during party marches.

In 1993, the BNP became increasingly embarrassed by Combat 18 violence. After its victory in Millwall, it decided it no longer needed the street thugs and banned dual membership. However, most BNP members ignored this plea. In September 1995, four of the five London BNP branch organizers attended a C18 meeting (19).

The Millwall seat was lost eight months later. The BNP lost momentum, with younger members going over to C18. Tyndall reversed the slide by adopting a more hardline strategy, which included bringing veteran US Nazi leader, William Pierce, to London.

William Pierce

Pierce penned the tract, The Turner Diaries, which inspired both the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and the politicised BNP supporter, David Copeland, who was convicted for the bombing of a London pub (20).

During this period in the mid-1990s, the organization began to adopt a more respectable image:

It campaigned on rural issues and, publicly at least, watered down some of its more overt racism, co-opting many of the policies which have traditionally been the domain of the political left (21).

In 1999, it  exploited the debate in relation to proportional representation as an opportunity to begin the biggest racist recruitment drive ever to have taken place in Britain, launching a new party political broadcast and delivering 15 million leaflets (22).

Since this apparent surface shift in strategy in the mid 1990s, the BNP’s support has relatively increased, albeit intermittently. In 2002, for example, the BNP won three council seats in Burnley, and averaged 28 per cent of the town-wide vote. In Oldham, the party came second in four of the five wards it contested, and took an average 27 per cent.

Across the country, the BNP averaged 16 per cent in the council wards it contested – the best election results in its history. However, this must be offset against the fact that it only challenged less than one per cent of all seats up for election. Since then, they have added further seats, a total that currently stands at 46 out of around a possible total of some 21,000.

In the 2005 General Election, the BNP stood 119 candidates across England, Scotland and Wales. Between those candidates, they polled 192,850 votes, gaining an average of 4.2 per cent across the several seats it stood in and 0.7 per cent nationwide – more than three times its percentage at the 2001 election (23). Of these votes, half originated from disaffected New Labour voters (the governing party) consisting of semi-skilled manual workers, pensioners and the unemployed (24).

However, it is important not to exaggerate the overall reach of the BNP: It did not stand nationwide, meaning its national share of the vote was substantially lower than that of other minor parties and exit poll predictions of 3 per cent (25).

Still, indications are that relatively the BNP is increasing its support amongst sections of the UK voting population (26) (27), against a background and climate of increasing racism (28). Consequently, the ugly face of racially-motivated violence appears to be never far away.

In October 2006, for example, Robert Cottage, an BNP candidate to represent Colne and Pendle Council earlier that year, was arrested under the Explosives Act on suspicion of possessing chemicals that may be capable of making an explosion (29).

Cottage was also reported has having in his possession the largest quantity of explosives of its kind found in the country (30).

On 31st of July 2007, Cottage was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment for the charge of possessing explosives (31).

Electorally, the European elections of 2009 resulted in the BNP attracting one million votes, which translated into them winning two seats in the European parliament. One of these seats was won by Griffin, who was elected for the North West region with 8 per cent of the vote (32).

So, how can the current growing relative popularity amongst sections of the British people for the BNP, be reconciled with the organizations historical tendency for racially-motivated violence?

For the answer to that question we need to examine the specific socioeconomic circumstances and conditions which arguably provide the catalyst for such violence.

Historically speaking, the defining characteristic of fascist parties has been their apparent propensity to be able to exploit prevailing unstable economic conditions. To a large extent, fascism thrives on the support it receives from what are frequently perceived as the disenfranchised in society, who suffer disproportionately from any global downturn in the economic cycle.

Thus, the uneven growth or decline in the fortunes of fascist political parties such as the BNP, is mirrored by the economic conditions in society at any given time. In short, during periods of low unemployment and relative economic stability, workers are less likely to vote for, and support, fascist political parties. On the other hand, when workers feel socially and economically vulnerable during periods of economic downturn, then some people are prone to translate their internal frustrations and anger in an external way by terrorizing minority and immigrant communities and/or towards supporting fascist political parties who cynically channel this anger and frustration into violent actions themselves (33) (34) (35).

Moreover, support for parties like the BNP appears to be predicated on the perceived failure of mainstream established political parties in addressing many of the legitimate concerns that working people face in their everyday lives as evidenced by half of the BNP’s support (as of 2005) originating from the New Labour government as highlighted above. One of the main concerns is the lack of availability of affordable social housing in the UK, the construction of which have dropped by 99 per cent in the last 12 years of the New Labour government (36).

The BNP are a major beneficiary of this kind of disaffection which they are able to exploit electorally, as evidenced for example, by their by-election victory in Kent which stemmed from fears over unemployment and issues around immigration and race (37). In this regard, the BNP have been able to play on mainstream concerns about the economy, crime, housing and unemployment, while also exploiting more traditional far right subjects such as immigration and fears about Islamist extremism. Their use of the issue of migrant workers in particular, combines fears about immigration with the reality of rising unemployment (38).

So a direct correlation appears to exist between economic crisis or downturn, the inability of established governing political parties to address the legitimate concerns of a large proportion of the electorate, and the rise of political parties like the BNP. Given that the current global economic downturn is predicted by many experts to be a medium to long-term problem (39), the consequences for ethnic minorities who are the brunt of the BNP’s message (40), appears to be less than a rosy one. The growing popularity for the BNP is echoed in respect to the corresponding mainstream and corporate media coverage and publicity they have increasingly garnered in recent years – coverage that nevertheless, is seemingly disproportionate to the relatively small number of votes they receive (41).

In a democracy, ought not all views, no matter how potentially repugnant, be heard by the population at large, particularly if such views are apparently representative of an increasing amount of people?

If the level of support for the BNP has grown to the extent as to warrant their exposure on the popular television debating programme, Question Time, what possible grounds could there be to censor such views?

This might be a valid argument, if it was the case that the BNP are a political organization whose ideology was not fascist. As distinct from all other UK political parties, the BNP’s leader has denied the reality of the existence of the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews, alongside millions of others, perished (42). Further, unlike any other party, the BNP discriminate against people on the basis of their ethnicity over which they have no control, and openly advocate the repatriation of “non-whites” (43). Up until October, 2009, the BNP required that all members must be of the “Indigenous Caucasian” racial group (44). This requirement was challenged legally by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who won their case against the BNP. Since October, 2009, ethnic minorities have been allowed to join the party (45).

It is for these, and other reasons, such as their use of intimidation and racial violence, that the claims for the legal legitimization of the BNP have been called into question – the case being that the agenda of the BNP is not a political, but a criminal one. All the evidence points to the fact that where the BNP have been politically active, have targeted its election campaigns or have otherwise had a presence, the resulting publicity has resulted in an increase in the amount of race attacks (46) (47).

In 1993, following their local council by-election victory in the Tower Hamlets ward of Millwall, for example, racial incidents increased by 300 per cent in the three months following the election (48). Barking in East London, has seen a 30 per cent rise in racist attacks since the BNP’s successful campaign in the borough (49). Two years ago, Griffin generated a significant amount of publicity following the controversy surrounding Oxford universities decision to allow him a public platform to address students at the universities campus. In the days following his speech, racist attacks in the Oxford area increased significantly (50).

At the time of  Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time, the BBC attracted an audience of almost 8 million viewers, three times its average (51). Following the publicity generated by Griffin’s appearance, The Daily Telegraph newspaper revealed the results of a UK Gov opinion poll which indicated that 22 percent of British people would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP (52). Moreover, the BNP claimed that 9,000 people applied to join them after the programme aired (53).

It is usual for the BBC to announce the line-up of the show one or two days prior to broadcast, but on this occasion it stated that Griffin would be appearing many months in advance of it going to air. This generated further interest from amongst others, BBC Radio One and Channel 4 News.

Was this a deliberate cynical attempt by the BBC to increase their viewing-figure ratings in the almost certain knowledge that such an increase would by turn increase the profile of the BNP?

What does appear inconceivable, is that BBC management would have been unaware of the consequences for Britain’s ethnic minority population of granting the BNP this “gift horse” amount of public exposure.

Was the decision by the BBC to invite Griffin on to the show based partly on the shared professional and educational backgrounds of those concerned?

Many of the individuals who were directly responsible for overseeing Oxbridge-educated Griffin’s appearance, had themselves been educated at one of two of Britain’s elite educational establishments – Oxford and Cambridge. For example, BBC director-general, Mark Thompson was educated at Oxford, where Griffin was granted a public platform to speak. Following his appearance on the show, Griffin, who graduated in law, told the Guardian newspaper that he admired Thompson’s “personal courage” by inviting him (54).

Nicholas Kroll, director of the BBC Trust – an organization that supposedly represents the interests of the viewing public – was educated at Oxford. At least three of the 12 members of the government-appointed trustees, were educated at either Oxford or Cambridge, while the remainder have a background in either law, business or economics (55).

So what were the grounds for the BBC inviting Griffin on the the Question Time programme?

BBC deputy director-general Mark Byford defended the BBC’s decision on the grounds of impartiality, insisting that Griffin’s invitation was not based on boosting viewing figures. Byford said it was “not for the BBC” to engage in censorship, echoing the views of his boss, Thompson, by saying that such issues were a matter for government (56). The Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who was also educated at an elite university, Edinburgh, responded that the responsibility to allow Griffin on to the programme was the BBC’s (57).

In words that would have been music to the ears of Griffin, Brown said:

“I think the days of Britain having to apologize for our history are over….I think we should celebrate much of our [imperialist] past rather than apologize for it, and we should talk, rightly so, about British values” (58).

The “values” that Brown was referring to were not made clear.

After having the ’buck’ passed back to them by Brown, the BBC were effectively compelled to pass the issue over to the government-appointed business-friendly and Oxbridge-educated BBC Trust, after cabinet minister Peter Hain and others, appealed against the decision to allow Griffin on to the programme (59).

Although in principle the BBC Trust is able to intervene in cases like this, in practice the body never interferes in individual programme content prior to transmission. A BBC Trust spokeswoman told MediaGuardian:

“The trust is the sovereign body of the BBC and could, in principle, intervene before a programme is broadcast. However, there is a long-established convention that it does not take a view on the editorial content of individual programmes before transmission, but only reviews them after transmission” (60) – cold comfort for Britain’s ethnic minorities, many of whom would have been verbally and racially assaulted as a direct result of the programme airing.

Does the decision to allow Griffin on to the programme on the grounds that not to do so, would break the corporation’s alleged impartiality guidelines, stand up to scrutiny?

The BBC frequently break their “impartiality” guidelines. This often takes the form of  BBC journalists  accepting the views and pronouncements of those in political power uncritically and as a given. In 2007, for example, Justin Webb, then the BBC’s North America editor, rejected the charge that he is a propagandist for US power, saying:

“Nobody ever tells me what to say about America or the attitude to take about the United States. And that is the case right across the board in television as well” (61).

Webb began a radio programme from the Middle East thus:

“June 2005. US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice flies to Cairo and at the American University makes a speech that will go down in history: “For sixty years my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East; and we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.”

Webb told his listeners in all seriousness:

“I believe the Bush administration genuinely wanted that speech to be a new turning point; a new start” (62).

Nobody had to tell Webb to say these words; he genuinely believed them.

Consider too, the pronouncements of one BBC correspondent, reporting from Iraq:

“This is not promising soil in which to plant a Western-style open society.”

And:

“The coalition came to Iraq in the first place to bring democracy and human rights” (63).

When investigative journalists challenged BBC news director Helen Boaden on whether she thought this version of US-UK intent perhaps compromised the BBC’s commitment to impartial reporting, she replied that such “analysis of the underlying motivation of the coalition is borne out by many of the speeches and remarks of both Mr Bush and Mr Blair” (64).

In March, 2009, BBC reporter Reeta Chakrabarti was asked why she had claimed that Tony Blair had “passionately believed” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. After all, an alternative thesis – based on a mountain of compelling evidence – is that Blair was lying. Chakrabarti responded:

“I said Mr Blair passionately believed Iraq had wmd because he has consistently said so” (65).

In other words, for the BBC it appears to be a given that the unchallenged pronouncements of Western political leaders who speak on behalf of powerful economic interests, are the truth.

In 1999, the BBC  made the clear political decision to allow its own high-profile newsreader, Jill Dando, to present a DEC appeal for Kosovo at the height of NATO’s 78-day bombing campaign against Serbian “genocide” in Kosovo (claims that have since been quietly abandoned). Shortly after broadcasting the appeal, with bombing still underway, the BBC reported:

“Millions of pounds of donations have been flooding in to help the Kosovo refugees after a national television appeal for funds” (66).

This article linked to related reports on the conflict, which included comments from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair:

“This will be a daily pounding until he [the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic] comes into line with the terms laid down by NATO” (67).

This contrasts with the BBC’s decision not to broadcast the Gaza Charity Appeal in response to Israel’s violent 22-day attack on Gaza late last year. The attack resulted in the killing of a minimum 1,300 people and the wounding of 4,200 others. Israeli forces repeatedly bombed schools, medical centres, hospitals, ambulances, UN buildings, power plants, roads, bridges and civilian homes. The BBC’s refusal to broadcast a national humanitarian appeal for Gaza, breached an agreement that dates back to 1963 and left “aid agencies with a potential shortfall of millions of pounds in donations” (68).

The BBC apparently had no concerns that this might damage its alleged reputation for impartiality. The BBC argument is made absurd by its consistent and very obvious pro-Israeli bias. An early version of January 28 BBC online article (since amended) commented:

“Israel has carried out an air attack in the Gaza strip and launched an incursion with tanks and bulldozers across the border….The incursion follows a bomb attack which killed one Israeli soldier and wounded three near the Gaza border” (69). As usual, the BBC presented the Israeli attack as a response to Palestinian violence in which it was falsely claimed that they (the Palestinians) had broken an earlier ceasefire. In fact, Israel forces had already violated the ceasefire at least seven times (70).

The BBC’s claims of impartiality, are further compromised in relation to the nature of their senior management appointments. These are made by the government of the day. At the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, both the BBC chairman, Gavyn Davies and his director-general, Gregg Dyke, were supporters of, and donors to, the Labour Party. Davies’s wife ran Gordon Brown’s office; his children served as pageboy and bridesmaid at the Brown wedding. Tony Blair has stayed at Davies’s holiday home. “In other words”, noted columnist Richard Ingrams, “it would be harder to find a better example of a Tony crony” (71).

BBC journalist, Andrew Gilligan lost his job after intense government flak in response to Gilligan’s report that the Blair regime had manipulated intelligence over Iraq’s supposed WMD (72).

Consider too, the establishment links of the members of the BBC Trust whose duty it is to uphold its public obligations, including impartiality. Notwithstanding the unrepresentative nature of the trust, as reflected in its members educational and professional backgrounds (see above), the BBC’s claim for impartiality cannot be sustained on the grounds of ideology alone.

One of these trustee worthies is Anthony Fry, formerly of Rothschilds and later the ill-fated Lehman Brothers where he was head of UK operations. Fry boasts on the BBC website:

“Having spent my career in the City as an investment banker, for over a decade specializing in the media industry, it’s a great privilege to bring my commercial understanding of the sector to help the BBC deliver value for licence fee payers in today’s rapidly changing broadcasting environment” (73).

Are we to believe that these individuals are independent of the government that appointed them and of the elite corporate and other vested interests in which they are deeply embedded?

Lord Reith, founder of the BBC, was honest in his assessment of the corporation and its relationship to the establishment:

“They know they can trust us not to be really impartial” (74).

What these clear examples of double standards and bias illustrate, is that the notion the BBC were obliged to invite Griffin on to the Question Time programme on the spurious  grounds that to deny him an invitation could conceivably undermine their claims for impartiality, are clearly bogus.

The BBC’s close ties to the British establishment undermines their credibility for impartiality at the first hurdle.

To recap: Many of their top executives were educated at one of the two elite universities Griffin was educated at and allowed to speak at. Moreover, having clearly made contradictory and politically-motivated decisions in the past – the latest of which was to invite the leader of a fascist political organization, whose existence is legally open to question, on to one of their flagship-political debating programmes - further undermines the BBC’s credibility.

The kind of cosy relationship the corporation has with the government of the day and with people like Nick Griffin and the BNP, makes sense when one considers the British establishments well documented historical links with the political far-right. The Daily Mail newspaper, for example, whose then owner Lord Rothermere, was both a supporter and friends of Hitler and Mussolini (75), propagated anti-Jewish sentiment at the end of the Second World War, as a catalyst for the then government to stem the flow of Jewish immigration into the country (76) (77).

This is the same establishment newspaper which, under the guise of the “war on terror”, regularly sensationalizes anti-Muslim stories on to its front pages, whilst relegating the relatively higher amount of terrorist activities of the far-right in its inside pages (78) (79).

Were the BBC justified in granting Griffin a slot on the programme on the grounds of freedom of expression?

This brings into sharp focus the concept of freedom in a liberal democracy like Britain. Unlike the First Amendment of the US Constitution, Britain does not regard unconditional freedom of expression as a right. In this sense, Britain (and most of Europe) regards such freedoms as necessarily restricted by the interventions of the state. The aim of such intervention is the restriction of some freedoms which are deemed to undermine the public good and society in general. In this regard, a persons freedom to shout “fire” in a crowded public space like a theatre, is limited by the right of other people not to be crushed to death in the resulting stampede.

In theory, existing UK law is designed to restrict the freedom of individuals like Griffin to publicly use inflammatory language that is intended to incite religious and/or racial hatred and violence. Perhaps the BBC thought Griffin’s arguments would be sufficiently ridiculed by the other panelists on the show?

Indeed, this kind of argument is often used by those who defend the right of people like Griffin to be heard. In theory, this might appear to be a plausible position to take. Clearly though, Griffin’s arguments were not adequately challenged by members of the panel on the Question Time programme (80).

Government minister Jack Straw’s performance, for example - whose position on race relations had itself been compromised by his refusal to meet with a female Muslim constituent at his Blackburn surgery - was regarded by many as inept and ineffectual (81) (82).

This begs the question as why it was the government hierarchy made the decision to use Straw as their representative (and therefore, by extension, the people) on the programme?

Could it of been that in the almost certain knowledge of Griffin’s arguments surviving the programme unscathed, they would have been aware of the likelihood of an increasing potential for racial tension and social conflict in the country?

The social policy objective of  ”divide and conquer” implied by such a strategy, has served various governments both past and present very well (83). Thus, there is no reason to believe why such a strategy would not be repeated.

But Straw was not the only guest on the show who failed to expose the policies of the BNP. Many of the audience would have felt alienated by what seemed to be an attack by the whole establishment on one individual. Griffin was attempting to tap into this alienation. The biggest problem with Question Time was the lack of a genuine workers’ representative that could have punctured this attempt. Instead, Griffin was on a panel with establishment politicians, all of whom support anti-working class and pro-big business policies (84).

Whatever the reasons were for the government and BBC establishment deciding on their choices to confront Griffin, the fact that the latter effectively side-stepped the laws relating to conditional freedom of expression by granting him the platform of Question Time, highlights the limitations of applying existing British law in what clearly is a legal ”grey area”.

Such a controversy would not be an issue in a country like the US, on the basis that one of the principles of the US constitution is the notion of unconditional or unlimited freedom of expression. Many people clearly remain convinced of the merits of unlimited freedom of expression and the First Amendment that overrides it, on the basis that all views in a “free” society, no matter how potentially offensive and repugnant, ought to be heard. The American, Michael Harrison, editor of “Talkers Magazine” is one such person.

When questioned by talk show host and British MP George Galloway on this subject, Harrison defended the rights of Nazis and their supporters to provocatively goose-step up and down the streets of a Jewish community in a major city, openly preach support of Hitler and to deny the Holocaust in which the relatives of the people living their would have probably been gassed to death (85).

For Harrison, the clear potential for civil unrest and violence resulting from the state legitimization of such behaviour, was a price he considered was worth paying in the defence of unconditional unlimited freedom of expression (86).

It is worth remembering that Hitler, under the guise of unlimited freedom of the kind espoused by Harrison, came to power as Chancellor in Germany in 1933 with one-third of the vote, only for him to abolish freedom altogether. Democratic freedom and the right to vote was only restored following the overthrow of the fascist regime by the allies over a decade later.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin, in countering this unlimited notion of freedom from which emerged Hitler fascism, put it well when he said:

“One is free to move ones fist in the direction of my face, but ones freedom ends at the point at which the fist makes contact with it” (87).

Sadly, for many of Britain’s ethnic minorities, the price to be paid for allowing people like Nick Griffin on to programmes like Question Time, is an increase in the incidence of the fascist fist and jackboot to their faces.

Copyright: Daniel Margrain, 2009.

For details of specific references applicable to the above article, contact the author at: margrain.daniel@yahoo.co.uk

//

//

// // YAHOO.fcue.IE6 = true;YAHOO.fcue.IE7 = true; // // // // // // Go to Previous message | Go to Next message | Back to Messages
ASCII (ASCII)Greek (ISO-8859-7)Greek (Windows-1253)Latin-10 (ISO-8859-16)Latin-3 (ISO-8859-3)Latin-6 (ISO-8859-10)Latin-7 (ISO-8859-13)Latin-8 (ISO-8859-14)Latin-9 (ISO-8859-15)W. European (850)W. European (CP858)W. European (HPROMAN8)W. European (MACROMAN8)W. European (Windows-1252)Armenia (ARMSCII-8)Baltic Rim (ISO-8859-4)Baltic Rim (WINDOWS-1257)Cyrillic (866)Cyrillic (ISO-8859-5)Cyrillic (KOI8-R)Cyrillic (KOI8-RU)Cyrillic (KOI8-T)Cyrillic (KOI8-U)Cyrillic (WINDOWS-1251)Latin-2 (852)Latin-2 (ISO-8859-2)Latin-2 (WINDOWS-1250)Turkish (ISO-8859-9)Turkish (WINDOWS-1254)Arabic (ISO-8859-6,ASMO-708)Arabic (WINDOWS-1256)Hebrew (856)Hebrew (862)Hebrew (WINDOWS-1255)Chinese Simplified (GB-2312-80)Chinese Simplified (GB18030)Chinese Simplified (HZ-GB-2312)Chinese Simplified (ISO-2022-CN)Chinese Simplified (WINDOWS-936)Chinese Trad.-Hong Kong (BIG5-HKSCS)Chinese Traditional (BIG5)Chinese Traditional (EUC-TW)Japanese (SHIFT_JIS)Japanese (EUC-JP)Japanese (ISO-2022-JP)Korean (ISO-2022-KR)Korean (EUC-KR)Thai (TIS-620-2533)Thai (WINDOWS-874)Vietnamese (TCVN-5712)Vietnamese (VISCII)Vietnamese (WINDOWS-1258)Unicode (UTF-7)Unicode (UTF-8)Unicode (UTF-16)Unicode (UTF-32)
| Full Headers

Mail Search