Thursday, 24 June 2010

London's Immigrant Council Benefits Scandal

The coalition government has announced this week a £400 weekly cap on housing benefit as part of it's benefits reforms. In some areas of London people are receiving upwards of £1,000 a week in housing benefit to help pay their rent.

In this video we see a single woman from Jamaica with 5 children, renting a 4 bedroom house in Islington, one of London's most exclusive boroughs. The house costs her £690 a week rent from a private landlord, of which £583 is paid by the state.

The woman is complaining that under the new £400 housing benefit cap she won't be able to afford to pay the rent. She earns the minimum wage working as a care assistant but doesn't want to move somewhere cheaper because it wouldn't be convenient.

In the news clip we see various people trying to justify and defend her position, including the news presenter. Some might argue this is an absolutely outrage. How can an unskilled foreign immigrant earning the minimum wage and relying on state benefits be living in a £700 a week rented house at the tax payers expense? How many others are there like her across London? With the majority of the UK's immigration population (including 40% of black people) living in London, the total bill for housing benefit must be mind boggling.

A government minister actually talks some sense for once. Lord Freud, the Minister for Welfare Reform said people who are claiming benefits should be living within their means and will be moved into appropriate accomodation. He pointed out the fact that many hard working people who don't claim housing benefits (and have to make do with sub standard council properties), resent the fact that others like this Jamaican lady who earn less and claim state benefits are living in plush private properties.

So basically this woman thinks its perfectly reasonable she comes to the UK and lives beyond her means at the expense of you and I, the tax payers, so she can spend her earnings on things like a nice widescreen tv and plush furniture. Scandalous.

Wednesday, 23 June 2010

Secret Indian-EU Trade Agreement Exposed

BNP's leader Nick Griffin MEP Exposes secret Indian-EU trade agreement

The British government has been secretly working on establishing an Indian-EU trade agreement which will have serious implications for British industry, British jobs and which will allow mass immigration from India into Britain.

The new trade agreement with India which is being discussed behind closed doors, has been heavily pushed by Britain. It started under a Labour government group lead by Labour's ex-Minister Peter Mandelson and former European Commissioner for Trade. The agreement is now being supported by Tory MEP's and the coalition government who are hoping to get it approved by the European Commission quickly by October.

Under the agreement, India is required to give up independence of it's banking system and to open it's markets to EU exports including farming produce which may have a deterimental effect on India's domestic farming industries.

In return the trade agreement will allow multi-national companies based in India to operate in Britain with their own Indian workers being allowed entry to Britain. None of the immigration restrictions and quotas proposed by the Tories will apply to these Indian immigrant workers.

Immigrants from India are expected to pour into Britain as Indian manufacturing takes over British factories, and other Indian companies relocate their operations to Britain.

Speaking to Radio RWB, Nick Griffin MEP said this looks to be an enormous issue and will have a catastrophic effect on job security for British skilled workers in all fields of industry, but particularly in industries where foreign companies have taken over British companies or have vested interests. Companies such as British steel, Jaguar, insurance companies, IT and technology companies to name but a few. Where Indian companies have subsidaries or commercial interests in Britain, they will also be allowed to bring in Indian workers.

Nick Griffin stated that Andrew Brons MEP and himself have been blocked from taking part in discussions as have other MEP's. There is also a conspiracy of silence from the media who are not covering the story.

The BNP will be publicising this secret trade agreement as an attempt to allow mass immigration into Britain via the back door. It is a huge betrayal of the British people and British sovereignty interests. The BNP will be working hard to expose it as part of the globalist agenda of the European Union.

Saturday, 19 June 2010

EHRC start second attack on BNP

The quango government institution who call themselves the "Equalities and Human Rights Commission" have launched a fresh legal attack on the BNP, this time against it's leader Nick Griffin and deputy leader Simon Darby.

First attack fails

Their first legal attack on the BNP came last year and was concerning the BNP's policy of only allowing indigenous British people to join the party. The EHRC had argued this would be racist and discriminatory towards non-white people and that the BNP's constitution would be in violation of new laws. The timing of this legal attack by the EHRC was strategic and was intended to tie the BNP up in expensive litigation in the run up to the General Election. This was obviously intended to drain the BNP's finances and limit it's ability to mount an effective election campaign.

Second attempt wreaks of desperation

The EHRC's first attack failed, so now they have come back with a fresh attack, only this time they are going after the leadership personally and requesting large fines and imprisonment. Their latest complaint concerns the length of time it took the BNP leadership to make the constitutional changes allowing non-whites to become members. However this is unlikely to succeed, as during the court trial of their first complaint they originally had pressed the judge for an immediate judgement on the BNP's constitution, saying it was discriminating against non-whites the longer it remained unchanged. The judge was unwilling to enter into an immediate judgement and even quipped at the EHRC lawyers that he doubted there would be a long queue of black people wanting to join the BNP!

EHRC tells BNP how to run its party

The EHRC are also making even more absurd complaints, the first one relates to what they say are unfair discriminatory constitutional changes introduced by Nick Griffin which means that new members joining the party will not be able to attend meetings or vote until they have been members of the party for at least 2 years or have been vetted by BNP officers in their homes to ensure they are of good character. Even though this requirement applies to both white and non-white members alike, the EHRC still maintains it's discriminatory towards non-whites. The BNP also have a valid reason for introducing this measure. Opponents of the BNP such as United Against Fascism (UAF) have stated publicly they intend to join the BNP on mass and disrupt the party meetings and voting process to paralyse and close down the party.

70 lawyers can't click a mouse??

Another complaint being made by the EHRC is farcical beyond belief. They claim that their legal team (which comprises some 70 lawyers) were unable to find the BNP Constitution anywhere on the BNP website. They accuse the BNP of making it intentionally difficult to access. However it only takes 2 clicks to access the Constitution and there is a link to it on every page on the BNP website called (rather appropriately) "Publications".

Abuse of power and blow to democracy

There are two issues here with the EHRC's latest absurd legal attack on the BNP. The first concerns the wasting and misuse of tax payers money, and the second concerns their blatant attempts to destroy a legal and lawful democratic party, chipping away at the last remaining vestige of British democracy.

Update: The EHRC have changed their case at the last minute (probably because they know they won't win). They have dropped their request for a fine and prison sentences, and are now requesting the court make an asset seizure order on the BNP. This will mean that if the court finds the BNP in contempt of court, they can seize the assets of the BNP or the leader Nick Griffin, and key officials. However such an order would only allow the temporary seizure of assets. Once the court was satisfied the BNP was in compliance of the law, any assets seized would be released.

Sunday Times behind bogus £5,000 donation to BNP

Details of a sting operation have been released by the BNP after allegations by the Sunday Times of financial impropriety by Nick Griffin concerning a £5,000 donation to the British National Party.

Sunday Times allegation

The allegations were made after it was alleged that Nick Griffin had cashed the cheque through his own personal bank account and had not declared the donation which is a legal requirement on political parties for donations of £5,000 and over. The allegation quickly spread through the media and was seized upon by the other main political parties and an investigation was carried out by the Electoral Commission.

The story is still circulating in the biased-media in an attempt to smear the BNP with false allegations.

Here I report the facts of what actually happened.

BNP carries out investigation

The cheque was made payable to Nick Griffin personally and was sent to a Post Office with a letter proporting to be from an elderly BNP member who was being harassed for being a BNP member. The letter stated she wanted to help the party by making the donation, but wished to remain anonymous. The cheque was collected by the BNP who immediately became suspicious and carried out their own internal investigation into whether it was genuine. If it were genuine, there was the issue of how to protect the lady's anonymity. In the letter, it instructed Nick to use the money were it could be put to best use.

Although the elderly lady in question was in fact a member of the BNP and indeed had been harassed for her membership, she had not made the donation. The whole thing had been orchestrated by the Sunday Times newspaper with the intention of catching the BNP out taking undeclared large personal donations.

BNP faced a dilemma

After the BNP had discovered from it's own investigation that the donation was not genuine, Nick Griffin had the choice of either declaring it as a donation using the name given, and risk exposing the lady to further harassment, or to give the money away to an outside cause, or simply to tear up the cheque and not cash it.

Nick decided to cash the cheque and pass the donation onto Solitary, a nationalist trade union, who represent and defend BNP members who find themselves victimised or fired for their political beliefs. By doing this he had not broken any laws or rules concerning political party donations, as Solitary is not a political party.

All of the evidence is available to show this is what happened.

Sunday Times scores a home goal

So it seems the Sunday Times little plan not only back-fired, but £5,000 of their funds went to support the nationalist cause! Nice one.

If the Sunday Times were carrying out a legitimate piece of investigative journalism, why did they single out the BNP to receive a bogus donation? Why not send cheques to all the main political parties to see if they also complied with the rules?

Wednesday, 16 June 2010

Bloody Sunday, Bloody hypocrisy

Finally the outcome of the "Bloody Sunday" public inquiry has been concluded. And as everyone expected, it finds in favour of the Irish nationalists and against the British army. Our Prime Minister, David Cameron apologised on behalf of the British government for the events 40 years ago, saying the deaths of the 13 men was "unjustified and unjustifiable". Almost £200 million of tax payers money the inquiry has cost, taking 10 years. I honestly don't know why they even bothered.

I watched the news coverage of the events in Londonderry, Northern Ireland yesterday with absolute disgust. The real facts and realities of what happened back then seem to have been conveniently forgotten as the British government continues it's policy of appeasement of Sinn Fein, an organisation with very close ties to the IRA, allowing them to effectively re-write history.

It was sickening to see Martin McGuinness, a so-called Irish nationalist politician, speaking about the events of Bloody Sunday and how "innocent" people were murdered at the hands British army. It was Martin McGuiness who was the commander of the IRA in Londonderry at that time, and who was actually seen with a machine gun on that very day according to some eyewitness reports. This murderer and terrorist, has the audacity to speak about atrocities by the British and justice, when the IRA murdered thousands of people with it's campaigns of terror over the last 40 years in both Northern Ireland and on the British mainland. I lived through the 70's and 80's and remember those campaigns very well. The IRA deliberately targeted civilians and civilian buildings such as shopping centres and pubs. No inquiry has been carried out into those atrocities or the part Martin McGuiness and his other Sinn Fein buddies played in them.

As for the so-called "innocents" who were "murdered" by the British army that Sunday in 1972. You only have to watch the video footage of the scene that day to see how innocent they were. A violent angry mob of Irish nationalists attacking and throwing missiles at British soldiers, intermixed with IRA members armed with machine guns hiding around corners. And all this in an area which was under the control of the IRA with the people overwhelmingly supporting of the IRA. Only two days before the incident, two police officers have murdered in that very area. Innocent people wouldn't of been out on the streets attacking the British army that day.

Whilst perhaps you could argue the shootings were unnecessary, you could also argue the British army were simply defending themselves in a very hostile and confusing situation where it was difficult to tell where firing was coming from and who was an IRA operative and who was not. This situation was typical of the tactics deployed by the IRA.

The IRA have always been quick to point out in the past they are an army not terrorists, fighting for the liberation of Northern Ireland from British rule. They used this argument to get IRA "political prisoners" freed from prison which Tony Blair agreed to, allowing terrorist murderers to walk free in the interests of the "peace process". If the IRA were an army fighting a war, then they wouldn't hide behind civilians, they would fight British soldiers away from civilian areas. And they wouldn't cry foul, when civilians get killed. It's unfortunate, but in war civilians do sometimes get killed. That's the reality of war. The IRA like to be an "army" when it's convenient, and civilian victims of the British army when it's not.

Only last month, Israeli armed forces killed 16 Turkish civilians aboard a boat while hardly anyone batted an eyelid. The British army kills 13 Irish nationalists in what could be considered similar circumstances, and people are up in arms about it.

In my opinion, the British governments of the past and the armed services didn't go nearly far enough towards dealing with the IRA. They should of put them well and truly out of operation instead of appeasing them.

Sunday, 6 June 2010

Why Nationalism?

As a white, working class Englishman living in middle England, I voted Labour all my life along with generations of my family members. I believed that Labour served the majority interests of the ordinary working class person living in Britain, and that Labour offered the best hope for creating a decent and fairer more equal society for all.

The last 14 years of Labour government though, have showed the exact opposite. Not only is Britain much worse off than it was before Labour came to power, but there are now many serious issues which pose a real threat to not only to social and economic well-being, our integrity, freedoms and rights as individuals, but also to the very survival and future of this once great country and it's people.

Labour's continued obsession with all things politically correct and their drive to create a "politically correct society" has resulted in a prejudiced and discriminatory society. While protecting and serving the needs of the minorities, it has trampled over and denied the rights of the majority.

Multiculturalism has been at the heart of Labour's manifesto, and indeed successive Labour and Conservative governments before it. The belief that allowing wave after wave of foreign immigrants to settle in the UK will somehow create a more economically stable Britain and better society. It is what has steered their policies allowing unparalleled levels of immigration in recent years, resulting in a population growth of over 1 million in just the last 6 years.

These immigrant populations have largely remained isolated and separate communities. Bringing with them, their own languages and culture, and all the challenges and difficulties. Successive governments repeat the line that "Multiculturalism enriches our society and our culture, and is therefore beneficial to all". I haven't seen any evidence of this. In fact, all the evidence shows the exact opposite. So why are our politicians continuing to maintain their position on multiculturalism and immigration?

Perhaps because it serves their globalist agenda and short-term political and economic interests. Perhaps because they have gone too far down the road now to turn back. Perhaps because people accept and believe it and do not challenge it. Whatever the reason, like many ordinary British people, I worry for the future of my country and my people. When you look at statistics coming from the government itself, it's not difficult to see why these concerns are warranted and valid. Data provided by the The Office of National Statistics shows that the British indigenous white population will become a minority in Britain by the end of the century, based on present immigration levels and birth rates.

When you look at the political scene in the UK there is no political party that seems to be taking this on board and listening to peoples concerns, with the exception that is, of the British National Party. That is why, and how, I became a Nationalist and shifted my political thinking from the left, to the far. I believe the British National Party are the only political party now representative of the ordinary white working class Briton, defending our rights and future as a cultural and social ethnic people.