NorthWestNationalists

2009-12-19T21:34:00.004Z

Chris Jackson resigns from BNP !

DISBANDMENT OF REFORM GROUP.

What is the point of the BNP if you admit foreigners?

Sadly we have come to the conclusion that the BNP is breaking up and there is no practicable likelihood of it recovering.

In our opinion the root cause of the failure is the Constitution of the Party. The Constitution, that is the Party Rules, makes the Party Leader a dictator. The current leader rather than reforming the Constitution toward that of a normal English association has (probably illegally) made alterations to the Constitution making his removal virtually impossible.

The Party is now a nationalist party in name only and has abandoned many of the fundamental principles on which it was founded.

A further major problem is that of money. Under the Constitution, all money is controlled by the Party Leader. The Party Leader appoints the Party Treasurer and Party Auditor. The Leader has carte blanche to dispose of the funds as he pleases.

This has never been a satisfactory situation, and now that the Party is alleged to be turning over a million pounds a year, is nothing short of a scandal. There have been four different Treasurers this year and the 2008 accounts are way overdue. The Party has been fined by the Electoral Commission for late publication of accounts. This is a re-run of last year when the accounts were also late and when published were endorsed by the Auditor as unsatisfactory.

A separate, but related, issue is the Trafalgar Club. This Club raises money directly to support the Party Leader. No accounts for this club have ever been published and they have not been appended to the Party accounts, as clearly they should be.

We recommend that no further money be sent to ‘Head Office’.

Whilst the BNP has been going downhill, the National Front has reformed itself and now is led by a group of reliable people and has the Constitution of a normal democratic association. Consequently, we believe that BNP members should transfer to the National Front.

Mike Easter
Chris Jackson
Kevin Bryan

http://www.jackson4leader.com/

NWN: Kev Bryan is the Rossendale Branch Organiser, and has also resigned from the BNP.

Denken Macht Frei (Thought Sets You Free)

2009-12-18T14:50:00.006Z

The world stirs. The financial crisis has shattered our blind faith in the prevailing economic and political system. But the good thing about every crisis is: it makes you think. Many suspect that the alleged solutions proposed by government are no remedies at all, but merely measures intended to keep the system alive. With justification the idea is spreading that the whole thing actually is a gigantic redistribution of money and power into the hands of a small number of people.

Our system – like all systems – is supported by fundamental principles, that cannot be shaken without putting the whole in danger. Such principles are for that reason always taboo zones. He who wishes to make progress, or even merely be tolerated in our society does well to acknowledge, or at least not to openly dispute, certain core beliefs: To these belong devotion to the free market, as well as the interest based economy and the independence of the banking system, to so-called parliamentary democracy, including the attendant two-party left/right system, devotion to philosemitism, antiracism, homosexuality, and abortion together with the highest praises for the human rights to which one considers oneself part of. It is certainly permitted to belong to whatever religion or philosophy one wishes to – but subject to the tacit assumption that one doesn't really take it seriously. Otherwise, very quickly it begins to smell a bit like fundamentalism. In today's political and media environment, a fundamentalist is anyone who holds his Catholic, or Evangelical, or Islamic, or national perceptions – or whatever feelings of any kind – above those highest of values enumerated above. That is why fundamentalists cannot be tolerated under the ‘globalized’ New World Order that is the central theme of American politics. Incidentally, it is only a very small step that separates the fundamentalist from being maligned as a terrorist. And it is not necessary here to point out to you what sort of treatment awaits terrorists. That has been dealt with by 9/11.

The thoughtful European notes with puzzlement that the taboo zones, identified by Political Correctness and guarded by the judiciary and media, grow more numerous every day. The citizen is condemned to silence by all manner of gag laws and intimidated further by the threat of the grotesque EU arrest warrant. He no longer knows what is punishable by law, nor where, nor why. In 2007, it is said, nearly 14,000 "right-wing crimes"– whatever those might be – were committed in Germany, of which a few hundred were violent. After subtracting the latter group there remain some 13,000 politically motivated non-violent "crimes". That is remarkable, especially in light of the incessant reminders by self-righteous German politicians in China and elsewhere to "uphold human rights." Obviously, the much heralded rights of freedom of expression, academic freedom, freedom of religious or philosophical belief, etc., are valid only if they do not contradict any of the enshrined Stone Tablets of Western Values.

The greatest oddity of all these taboo zones is one of historical nature. And that is as soon as National Socialism or the so-called Third Reich is mentioned then contemporary thinking is abandoned completely. The brain is deprived of its function and quasi religious-like reflexes appear. All powers of reasoning cease, any doubting of the standard practise of ‘Judgement and Conviction’ is regarded as inappropriate, even malign. Here there is only one opinion allowed: the National Socialists – read the Germans - are perpetrators, and exclusively so, and the Jews are victims, and that forever. The uproar about Martin Hohmann and General Reinhard Guenzel, about Erika Steinbach and Eva Herrmann, or recently, Thilo Sarrazin illustrates this point well. For respectable people anyone who doubts this supreme doctrine is no longer a discussion partner, but instead a leper and a heretic rolled into one, subjected instantly to inquisitorial judgment, ostracism, and economic destruction. And everyone who has anything to do with such a person must immediately distance himself.

That is especially true for the Holocaust, the killing zone of this minefield. The never-ending media hype surrounding Bishop Richard Williamson brought this taboo to the forefront once again. Frau Merkel sees it as her duty to instruct the Pope, the Pope sees it necessary to ask the bishop to make a retraction and the German Justice Department was considering issuing an international arrest warrant against the churchman. Eventually, he was fined 12,000 Euro - why? Because he judges a historical fact differently from the way that is usual and permitted. This is heresy. This means nothing other than that part of the field of contemporary history has been removed from scholarly discussion, and is elevated into the sphere of religion, and indeed a kind of world religion that in Germany has unmistakably acquired the status of a semi-official state religion.

While the media campaign against Williamson was in full swing, the revisionist and lawyer Horst Mahler was sentenced in Munich as well as in Potsdam to a total of over twelve years' imprisonment for having denied the Holocaust and for having examined the Yahweh religion. Mahler's assistant, the lawyer Sylvia Stolz, was sentenced in 2007 to 3 ½ years in jail and there and then immediately conducted out of the courtroom. The reason: she defended the German-Canadian publicist Ernst Zündel in court in Mannheim and attempted to prove that the defendant was right. Zündel himself received five years, whereby the two years' detention while awaiting trial in most shameful conditions [in Canada] were not counted. Thus Zündel got seven years because he distributed material over his Internet site that appeared to show there was evidence against the argument of the mass gassing of Jews.

Shortly after Zündel was imprisoned the chemist and author of several books Germar Rudolf, originally a scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, received a jail sentence of 2 ½ years because, on the basis of his personal research in Auschwitz, he believed he had come the same conclusions as other researchers before him, for example, the Frenchman Robert Faurisson, a university professor for documentary research and textual criticism in Lyon and at the Sorbonne in Paris. Faurisson has several times been fined astronomical sums in France, and had suffered bodily injury by unidentified thugs. One of the best-known revisionist researchers and writers, is the Swiss teacher of languages and literature and Scandinavian studies Jürgen Graf, sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment in Switzerland for denying the Holocaust. By absconding to Russia and exile he avoided captivity. Also on the run is the French chemical engineer Vincent Reynouard who is the father of seven children. In Austria, the legal expert Dipl Ing Wolfgang Frohlich is in jail for the second time because he does not accept the official version of the Holocaust. Where is Amnesty International? Where the European Court of Human Rights? Where the outcry from the media? Where the student protests? Where the church?

All these men and women and many others, for example, Ursula Haverbeck, Dipl. Pol. Udo Walendy, Gerd Honsik, Dr. Max Wahl, Siegfried Verbeke, Gaston Amaudruz have committed no offence other than to have arrived at conclusions from their research and analysis that diverge from the official line – and that they admittedly then addressed detailed questions to those who disseminated the alleged false information around the world.

It is the pride of Western science – ever since the Renaissance, and in particular since the Enlightenment – to allow nothing to be sacrosanct, to have no taboos, and to accept nothing short of absolute objectivity. Revision – that is examination, verification and questioning, is a basic principle of science. All else is dogmatism. Science cannot accept religious, political or other social premises. In the sense of the natural sciences, there is no Christian reality nor Unchristian reality, no moral nor immoral truth. The researcher therefore has a right to err, since no one is in possession of absolute truth. Science has replaced the era of confession with an age of knowledge. Applied to research into the Holocaust this means: Research may not be distorted by philo-Semitic nor by anti-Semitic reactions, any more than it may by philo-Germanic or anti-Germanic ones. Whether one likes the Jews or the Germans, or dislikes them is, as far as research is concerned, not a deciding factor and may not be allowed to influence it in any way.

Frau Merkel said in her message to Pope Benedict XVI: There can be no denial of the Holocaust. What does this mean: There “can” not be? Does this mean after all – contrary to all scientific method – that there are global political forces influencing the decision making of both the Germany head of state as well as the highest Churchman of Christendom? At least comments have been made that suggest this. As early as 21 May 1979 Professor William Rubinstein of the University of Melbourne, Australia, wrote in the "Nation Review”: If it was ever proven that the Holocaust was a Zionist myth, Israel would lose its number one propaganda weapon. And after the German lecturer and revisionist Günther Deckert was sentenced to several years in prison, the Feuilleton editor of the Frankfurter newspaper FAZ Bahlers said on 15 August 1994: If Deckert’s view of the Holocaust was correct, then the Federal Republic of Germany was founded on a lie. Each presidential speech, every minute of silence, every history book would be a lie. In denying the murder of the Jews, he disputes the legitimacy of the Federal Republic of Germany. If that’s not enough there would seem to be larger issues at stake: The memory of the Holocaust is central to the New World Order. So wrote Ian J. Kagedan, Director of the Canadian B'nai B'rith in the "Toronto Star" on 26.11.1991.

These nondescript newspaper reports enable us to understand why Frau Merkel has not convened her own International Holocaust Conference in Berlin and subjected the assertions of the revisionists to public discussion and appraisal. If she did the ‘sorry affair’ would once and for all be laid bare and the "pseudo-scientific shambles" of the Holocaust deniers would be exposed for all to see – and indeed by scientists, not merely by journalists. But this would require argument and counterargument to be discussed. Is it to be feared that such a discussion might produce results other than those that are politically desired? Is this why revisionists are doing time in jail? Is this why their books are banned? Is this why the public is being denied the means of evaluating the state of revisionist arguments? Courtroom practice has apparently suffered a similar fate that “government approved science” has. Thus nowadays in court – something that the public regretfully never learns – is that there is never an inquiry into whether the accused may be right. The judge does not accept the admission of evidence and if the accused should try to explain his position, he is liable to additional charges, as is his lawyer! A judicial monstrosity. The fact of the genocide of millions in gas chambers is simply assumed to be "manifestly obvious" and the court has then only to decide whether the defendant has denied this manifest obviousness – and then to determine his sentence. A historical event is simply raised to the status of common knowledge, i.e. a verifiable natural law, while at the same time, factual verification of it is forbidden!
Is somebody here afraid of the truth?

The voices are becoming more numerous that advocate ending this appalling situation. After Martin Walser criticized the "Auschwitz club" more than ten years ago, now according to the Frankfurter newspaper FAZ on 10.07.2008, the former federal judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem has declared: As a lawmaker I would not make denying the Holocaust a punishable offence. And 10 June 2008, the Süddeutsche Zeitung quoted a statement by Winfred Hassemer, former Vice Chairman of the Federal Constitutional Court: I am not a supporter of the criminalization of Holocaust denial. This means in plain text: The notorious § 13 paragraph 3 of the German Criminal Code “Volksverhetzung“ (Incitement of the Masses), as well as the Swiss "Antirassismusgesetz” (Law against Racial Discrimination) and the Austrian "Wiederbetätigungsgesetz" (Law against the Return to National Socialism) should be deleted entirely as anti-democratic special laws.

In 2007 Prof. Karl Albert Schachtschneider, (University of Erlangen), gave a brilliantly clear answer in a lecture in Salzburg. To the question: Do we have freedom of speech here? He answered: A country in which free speech is suppressed by severe punishments is not a free country. The great Immanuel Kant said about freedom of speech that one must be free to say anything, whether it is true or untrue. Regarding the Holocaust, this or that may be true or not true; I wasn't there. But the reason I don't discuss it, is because it is forbidden. One is not allowed to discuss it, not even scientifically. The offence as defined by „Volksverhetzung“ (Incitement of the Masses) prevents that. This is not a free country.
(YouTube link to Prof. Dr. Schachtschneider)

If we are not free, then we must free ourselves. We should not greet Gessler’s hat [part of Swiss “William Tell” tradition]. Free speech - free country! The first step is to examine the central historical and judicial taboos of the "New World Order", according to the principle "Where everyone condemns, one must verify; where everyone praises, too.” One can only free oneself from an enemy who is identified.
How true the sentence: Thought Sets You Free!

November 2009

This is a translation of a flysheet handed out at a talk held by Bernhard Schaub on the 31 October 2009 in St. Gallen (Switzerland) at the 5th Anti-Censor-Coalition-Conference (AZK-Conference) organized by Ivo Sasek. At the event Mr. Schaub discussed the fundamental difficulties surrounding restrictions to freedom on expression in today’s Western democracies particularly with regard to Switzerland’s Anti-Racism Law (Paragraph 261bis of the Swiss Penal Code – Racial Discrimination, in force since 1st January 1995).
Here the wording of the law:

Art. 261bis StGB
"Racial discrimination
Anyone:
- who makes public appeals for hate or discrimination against another person or a group of people on account of their race, ethnicity or religion,
- who spreads ideologies, which are directed to systematically belittle or slander the members of another race, ethnic group or religion,
- who organises, promotes or takes part in propaganda campaigns with the same intent,
- who publicly by word of mouth, in writing, in pictures, by gestures, by acts of violence or in any other way belittles or slanders a person or a group of people on account of their race, ethnicity or religion in a manner offensive to human dignity or for these reasons denies, grossly trivialises or attempts to justify genocide or other crimes against humanity,
- who of his own accord offers a service to the general public at large but withholds this service from a person or a group of people on account of their race, ethnicity or religion will be punished by imprisonment or a fine.”

Source: Denken Macht Frei

Letter from Paul Ballard, Croydon BNP

2009-12-18T00:48:00.004Z

EGM MEMBERSHIP VOTE SWINDLE

Our votes will be counted AFTER Griffin has been to Court

The BNP members' EGM has been delayed until the 30/ 31 Jan, i.e. a couple of days after the court hearing on the 28th, so he will not have BNP constitutional backing when he is due to formally surrender to demands for black membership.

Nick Griffin is preparing to commit the party to a change without having resorted to a membership vote, as the party's Constitution requires. How can it be lawful to change the party's Constitution in a way that is UNLAWFUL? Any such unlawful change, if put to a Judge, would be ruled unlawful. That would leave Griffin and the party in a double-fix. Any member or members have the right to challenge a change to the Constitution if implemented in a way that was contrary to the Constitution.

When Griffin attends the EGM he will say something along the following lines: "We couldn't organise the EGM for before the Court hearing due to administrative problems. I had to go to Court on the date fixed for the hearing and I felt obliged to commit the party to accepting this change or face a huge cash fine. Sorry folks, but you are going to have to accept this and vote to support it. You are going to have to back me up. You surely wouldn't leave your leader in an embarrassing situation. Sorry, but it's a done deal....."

In other words he will demand that the membership fall in and support him, otherwise he will appear to be discredited and a liar, as he has already publicly committed the party to irreversible changes in membership policy.

The reason he is pulling this trick is because he feels that while he might get a simple majority (50 per cent plus) for his motion to make the BNP multi-racial, he fears that he might not get the necessary 66 per cent plus of the vote (a so-called "two-thirds majority") which is required for a Constitutional change to be carried. Thus he is relying on a fait accompli to stampede the membership, who have only the vaguest idea of these constitutional requirements.

I was informed that two blacks at the bar in the pub, that Croydon BNP always use for functions in South Croydon, poked their heads round the door and invited themselves into the Croydon BNP meeting on December 16th. One of the blacks said his father was one of the first black policemen in Britain, so I don't think it would be 'paranoid' of me to say this was a State sponsored intrusion.The young chairman did not have presence of mind to stop them, as Nick Griffin has not yet formally complied with the 1976 Race Act . Guest speakers Richard Edmonds and Richard Barnbrook and the rest of the meeting just carried on as if nothing had happened.

I have subsequently heard that there were several other blacks at the bar in the Croydon incident, apparently acting as back-up, so it would appear that a degree of coercion was involved and that the fairly small number of members present felt too intimidated to act. Clearly Griffin's reluctance to make any real attempt to resist the legal action by the Equality Commission is sending all the wrong signals to our adversaries and they regard the lack of resistance to coercion as extreme weakness.

I would be grateful if all recipients forward this message to all useful contacts as soon as possible.

Regards
Paul

NWN supports this post circulating in opposing Griffins multi-racial plans for the BNP.

Minarets verboten in Switzerland

2009-12-11T19:38:00.002Z

A proposed solution :-)

2009-12-11T14:49:00.007Z

Traitor Nick Griffin to offer 'fait accompli' ?

STOP PRESS! VERY IMPORTANT.

BNP January EGM has been 'stitched up !

(This message has just been sent in to us.)

I've just received the December Members' Bulletin, Griffin is going to pull 'a fast one', he has organised the EGM for weekend of January 30th & 31st, which is TWO DAYS after he has to appear in court to give the judge the decision on the party's non-Whites constitution change, what a f**king b'stard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The weekend which should have be given over to the EGM Jan 24th is instead an Organisers' Conference, how bloody convenient ?

11 December 2009 12:41"

NWN: How very convenient . Griffin will then just tell the EGM, "Oh I had to do it, it was forced on me ! "

The members will then meekly vote accordingly, and Griffin will be oh so pleased.

2009-12-10T18:27:00.004Z

Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize

OSLO – President Barack Obama entered the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize winners Thursday with humble words, acknowledging his own few accomplishments while delivering a robust defense of war and promising to use the prestigious award to "reach for the world that ought to be."

A wartime president honored for peace, Obama became the first sitting U.S. president in 90 years and the third ever to win the prize — some say prematurely. In this damp, chilly Nordic capital to pick it up, he and his wife, Michelle, whirled through a day filled with Nobel pomp and ceremony.

And yet Obama was staying here only about 24 hours, skipping a slew of Nobel activities. This miffed some in Norway but reflects a White House that sees little value in extra pictures of the president, his poll numbers dropping at home, taking an overseas victory lap while thousands of U.S. troops prepare to go off to war and millions of Americans remain jobless.

Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Obama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on the use and prevention of war. He crafted much of the address himself and the scholarly remarks — at about 4,000 words — were nearly twice as long as his inaugural address.

In them, Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership, saying defiantly that "I face the world as it is" and that he is obliged to protect and defend the United States.

"A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms," Obama said. "To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history."

The president laid out the circumstances where war is justified — in self-defense, to come to the aid of an invaded nation and on humanitarian grounds, such as when civilians are slaughtered by their own government or a civil war threatens to engulf an entire region.

"The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it," he said.

He also spoke bluntly of the cost of war, saying of the Afghanistan buildup he just ordered that "some will kill, some will be killed."

"No matter how justified, war promises human tragedy," he said.

But he also stressed the need to fight war according to "rules of conduct" that reject torture and other methods. And he emphasized the need to exhaust alternatives to violence, using diplomatic outreach and sanctions with teeth to confront nations such as Iran or North Korea that defy international demands to halt their nuclear programs or those such as Sudan, Congo or Burma that brutalize their people.

"Let us reach for the world that ought to be," Obama said. "We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace."

In awarding the prize to Obama, the Nobel panel cited his call for a world free of nuclear weapons, for a more engaged U.S. role in combating global warming, for his support of the United Nations and multilateral diplomacy and for broadly capturing the attention of the world and giving its people "hope."

The Nobel committee's announcement came in October when he wasn't even nine months on the job, recognizing his aspirations more than his achievements.

Echoing the surprise that seemed the most common reaction to his win, Obama started his 36-minute speech by saying that others who have done more and suffered more may better deserve the honor.

"I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage," the president said. "Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize ... my accomplishments are slight."

The list of Nobel peace laureates over the last 100 years includes transformative figures and giants of the world stage. They include heroes of the president, such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and others he has long admired, like George Marshall, who launched a postwar recovery plan for Europe.

Earlier, Obama had said the criticism might recede if he advances some of his goals. But, he added, proving doubters wrong is "not really my concern."

"If I'm not successful, then all the praise in the world won't disguise that fact," he said.

The timing of the award ceremonies, coming so soon after Obama's Afghanistan announcement, lent inspiration to peace activists.

The president's motorcade arrived at Oslo's high-rise government complex for Obama's meeting with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg as a few dozen anti-war protesters gathered behind wire fences nearby. Dressed in black hoods and waving banners, they banged drums and chanted anti-war slogans. "The Afghan people are paying the price," some shouted.

Greenpeace and anti-war activists planned larger demonstrations later that were expected to draw several thousand people. Protesters have plastered posters around the city, featuring an Obama campaign poster altered with skepticism to say, "Change?"

The debate at home over his Afghanistan decision also followed the president here. He told reporters that the July 2011 date he set for the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan to begin will not slip — but that the pace of the full drawdown will be gradual and conditions-based.

"We're not going to see some sharp cliff, some precipitous drawdown," Obama said.

Obama's first stop in Oslo was the Norwegian Nobel Institute, where the Nobel committee meets to make its decisions. After signing the guest book, Obama told reporters he had penned thanks to the committee and noted the pictures of former winners filling the wall, many of whom gave "voice to the voiceless."

In the evening, Obama was expected to wave to a torchlight procession from his hotel balcony and then stroll with Norwegian royalty to a dinner banquet, where he will offer a second set of remarks and cap his brisk jaunt to Europe. Having left Washington on Wednesday night, Obama was due back by midday Friday.

The Nobel honor comes with a $1.4 million prize. The White House says Obama will give that to charities but has not yet decided which ones.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091210/ap_on_re_eu/eu_obama_nobel

NWN: So Obama goes to war, and gets Nobel peace Prize ? I am sorry, I don't get this !

2009-12-06T20:28:00.002Z

David Irving speaks in Spain

GRANADA
Viernes 11.12.2009 a las 19,30 lugar conferencia
BARCELONA
Sábado 12.12.2009 a las 18,30 lugar conferencia LIBRERÍA EUROPA, calle Séneca 12
MADRID
Domingo 13.12.2009 a las 12,00 lugar conferencia

David Irving

LA DESTRUCCIÓN DE DRESDEN

Dígase lo que se quiera sobre el polémico historiador británico, sus documentadas obras no dejan impasible a ningún interesado y mucho menos a los profesionales, que en muchos casos se limitan a leer cuatro libros sobre un tema para escribir el quinto.

David Irving profundiza en los archivos rusos, alemanes, británicos y norteamericanos para analizar los documentos originales y exponer lo que estos reflejan y no las interpretaciones políticas de los mismos.

Perseguido, procesado, encerrado en prisión a causa de sus investigaciones, boicoteadas sus conferencias en España, Irving no ha tirado la toalla…

LIBROS LIBERADOS: El autor firmará ejemplares de sus libros recientemente publicados en español “La destrucción de Dresden” y “La guerra de Hitler”.

(Click image to enlarge)

2009-12-05T16:57:00.001Z

Protesters and police clash in Nottingham

Police in Nottingham move to keep control of a demonstrations in the city by the English Defence League.

Police have clashed with members of the English Defence League during a protest in Nottingham city centre.

Some 500 demonstrators from the EDL marched through the city centre shouting: "We want our country back."

Earlier there was a stand-off between the EDL and Unite Against Fascism, who held a counter protest in the city.

Police mounted on horses were forced to hold back some of the demonstrators with batons and punches were thrown at police on the cordons.

Many of the EDL demonstrators had their faces covered with hooded tops and scarves and shouted anti-Islamic slogans.

'No surrender'

Other protesters had Union Jacks and St George's flags which they either waved or wrapped around their shoulders as a police officer barked instructions at the crowd from a helicopter circling overhead.

Some of the group waved placards which read: "Protect Women, No To Sharia" and "No Surrender".

The EDL insists it is not a racist organisation and has no links to the BNP and is simply standing against the threat of Islamic extremism.

If we don't have a protest then it's letting them come into town and say 'this is our place for the day', which it isn't

Michael Vickery
Unite Against Fascism
A spokesman said they had planned the demo for Saturday as the Second Battalion the Mercian Regiment were holding a homecoming parade in Nottingham following a recent tour of Afghanistan.

Earlier the EDL and UAF exchanged hostile words in the city's Old Market Square.

Four people had been arrested for minor public order offences, police said.

As the Mercian Regiment paraded through the city in the morning thousands of Christmas shoppers gathered to watch the 500 troops.

'Anti-British'

The homecoming parade followed a six-month tour of duty in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan, where the regiment lost five soldiers and dozens of its men were injured.

A 43-year-old EDL member, a serving soldier who did not want to be named, said: "We came here to support our lads, and the UAF and other militants have turned up.

"I think it's disgusting. I look at their protest and there's a Pakistani flag flying with a Muslim symbol. Their protest isn't against the EDL, they're protesting against the troops and it's anti-British.

"They haven't got one Union Jack or St George's Flag. I'm not a fascist, I'm not a Nazi but I am British."

Michael Vickery, from the UAF, said: "It's not good enough not to have any kind of a response (to the EDL presence) because basically, if we don't have a protest then it's letting them come into town and say 'this is our place for the day', which it isn't, it belongs to everyone in Nottingham."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8396994.stm

2009-12-05T00:43:00.001Z

This cartoon seems to have put the cat among the pigeons in the USA !

2009-11-28T00:12:00.010Z

Tommy Williams and Dave Howard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West Yorkshire Police were called today after Tommy Williams and Dave Howard turned up at 2.35pm on the Leeds doorstep of National Front Director of Information Eddy Morrison. Williams spoke while Howard stayed in the background filming. (We look forward to seeing if a video appears on Williams' blog.)

Eddy was at home with a NF comrade, three other members having left about half an hour ago. Tommy Williams knocked at the door and, when it was answered, said "Come outside, Eddy, and I'll do you." This was mingled with much swearing and more specific threats. Eddy and his comrade have informed the police that they saw either a knife or cosh in Williams' right hand. When Eddy and the other NF member attempted to shut the door, Williams stuck his foot in to prevent this. They only left when the NF member said he would call the police and Williams kicked the door as they departed. As they drove away, the NF members were able to take down the registration number of Howard's car, which has been supplied to the police.

When the police arrived, they were extremely concerned that such an incident had taken place in an old persons' residential complex and stayed for several hours. They took statements from Eddy and the comrade who was with him at the time, as well as other residents of the complex. They were also shown a threatening email sent by Williams a few days previously (see Eddy's blog), which shows a prior intent to intimidate and harm the recipient. When they were told about the many threats which have appeared on the Covert blog, they asked to see it and requested many printouts which they took away with them. The opinion of the police officers present was that the actions of Williams and Howard warranted, at the very least, a charge of threatening behaviour, and a file will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.

The police were also interested to learn that an elderly female NF member had been threatened and abused over the phone by a man with a South Yorkshire accent and will be speaking to her also.

National Front members are greatly angered by today's events and all of us regard an attack on a single member as an attack on the entire party.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=661107

NWN: No surprises here with these two thugs. However the links to Nick Griffin should be cause for concern to Griffinite BNP people.

Breaking News
The Covert Blog has been closed (not shut down).
Presumably the owners want to hide some of the more incriminating stuff from the police while the investigation is under way.

2009-11-22T00:29:00.003Z

Griffin speaks in Madrid - gets attacked by Spanish nationalists !

28 arrests at Spanish event attended by BNP's Griffin
(AFP) – 3 hours ago

MADRID — Spanish police Saturday detained 28 members of a far-right party who tried to disrupt an event held by a rival far-right group attended by British National Party leader Nick Griffin at a Madrid hotel.

The detained are all members of Spain's far-right Patriotic Socialist Movement and they were arrested after they attacked doormen at the hotel who were trying to prevent them from entering, a police spokesman said.

Four people were lightly injured in the scuffle but did not require medical care, he added.

The National Democracy Party which staged the event said it had requested police protection because of fears that far-left groups might try to disrupt it as has happened in the past.

It was not immediately clear why members of the Patriotic Socialist Movement tried to disrupt the event, which featured in addition to Griffin, the leader of Italian far-right party Forza Nuova, Roberto Fiore, and National Democracy leader Manuel Canduela.

In June Griffin and another BNP member won seats in the European Parliament elections, a first for the party which advocates the voluntary repatriation of immigrants. It has no seats in the national parliament.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iQp_VHNlkIvxB-vthWZiFOUO1NoA

NWN: It takes Spanish nationalists to see what he is up to ?

2009-11-20T01:10:00.005Z

With all this 'nonsense talk' due to Nick Griffin wanting non-whites into the BNP.

What the BNP party founder John Tyndall wrote the last time Griffin tried this 'con-trick'.

---------------------------------------------------

Membership I am pledged to maintain the present rules of party membership as defined in Section 2 of the BNP Constitution. This means that membership would continue to be restricted to persons of British or kindred European ethnic origin.

The only event in which I would consent to an alteration of these rules would be if it were forced upon us by an act of law. This has not yet happened and unless and until it happens the rules should remain as they are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Party I Want

John Tyndall sets out his vision for the future of the BNP

As reported in these pages last month, I have decided to throw down a challenge to Nick Griffin for the leadership of the British National Party. This challenge will probably be made in the summer of 2005, though a final decision on the timing will be made later.

The challenge will be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the BNP Constitution.

Many factors have brought me to this decision. I never had confidence that Nick Griffin would lead the BNP in the direction desired by its founders, nor that he would exercise prudent judgement in the making of decisions affecting the party, nor that he would be able to hold the party together as a unified force free of factions and internal quarrelling. His entire record prior to his assumption of the BNP leadership in 1999 made this very clear. The only question was how long it would take for these realities to become obvious to the membership of the party as a whole. I believe that this is beginning to happen. Hence my decision to stand against Mr. Griffin in a leadership election.

Whether people support my challenge or whether they support Mr Griffin, they have to admit one thing to be glaringly obvious. The BNP at the present time is a deeply divided party, with a great deal of controversy raging over leadership and policy. It is time for this controversy to be put to the vote of the whole membership. Which way do the members want the party to go? I want to give them the opportunity to decide.

Two things in particular have illustrated failures of leadership which portend disaster for the party if the situation is allowed to drift on unchanged.

First, there was the fiasco of the June elections. After months in which Mr. Griffin was repeatedly telling the party that we were on course to get four or five MEPs into the European Parliament, the final result was that not one single one was elected. In an election analysis in our July issue I condemned this failure, not because on the day we were faced, in UKIP, with a rival anti-EU party with far greater resources and with considerable media backing and we were therefore unable to compete, but because, knowing of this probability long beforehand, Mr Griffin made the decision to make a flat-out bid for seats in Europe in the first place. The correct strategy would have been to concentrate efforts on winnable seats in local government elections up and down the country, so many of which were up for grabs this year, and on the one winnable seat on the Greater London Assembly. The result of Mr. Griffin's decision to give overriding priority to his and others' campaigns to win unwinnable seats in Europe was that these other elections were grossly neglected in terms of active and financial input and leadership focus.

In other words, Mr. Griffin stands condemned, not for the party failing to win seats in Europe, but for targeting the impossible and wasting huge resources in so doing.

Aside from my own critique of this election strategy, an excellent analysis of the same shambles was provided in an article by Peter Rushmore in the Autumn issue of Heritage and Destiny magazine, obtainable for £2.50 post-free from PO Box 331, Blackburn BB1 2WU.

Then when the ink was hardly dry on the June election ballot papers Mr. Griffin put forward a proposal that was certain, had it been carried through, to split the BNP in two. This was his crazy scheme to alter the party constitution to let in non-white members. He only backtracked after massive grass-roots opposition to the scheme had made itself manifest. In a declaration on the BNP website on the 23rd July he announced a complete about-turn, saying that the plan had been abandoned and that the membership rules would stay as they were, employing arguments in support of this that were an almost exact replica of those that I and several others had put forward against the change only a few days previously! This was not leadership; it amounted to a pathetic blowing with the wind.

Notwithstanding this volte face by Mr. Griffin, I am not convinced that we have seen the end of his ambition to bring non-Whites into our party. In statements to journalists he has been confessing his support for the idea for at least two years. I fear that we will witness a replay of the project before very long, albeit perhaps by means of different tactics.

These two recent developments have convinced me that a change of leadership in the BNP has become a matter of urgency.

What are my own qualifications for the job? I was founder of the party and, together with a solid core of colleagues (now mostly sidelined by Mr. Griffin), built it up gradually to the point at which, in 1993, it won its first council election seat in East London. From 1994 to 1996 the party's progress slowed, mainly due to internal subversion carried out by agents of Scotland Yard's Special Branch (a diagnosis incidentally concurred with by Nick Griffin in Patriot magazine, Issue No. 4, Spring 1999). After 1996 our progress picked up again, and in 1997 we fielded 54 candidates in the general election of that year, earning TV time. During the final two years of my time as leader BNP membership increased by nearly 90 per cent - and this before riots in certain northern towns in 2001 substantially changed the political climate in Britain to the advantage of the BNP.

I owe it to the members of the party whose support I am seeking to set out a vision of the future BNP as I see it and desire it. In what ways will I change the party and in what ways will I keep things as they are? Below I shall take the issues one by one and explain how I view them.

Articles of faith
I am pledged to maintain the BNP as a party of 100 per cent racial nationalism. That is to say that our aim must be an all-white Britain, with a population of British stock, varied only by the mingling of people of compatible and assimilable European ethnic groups.

This, it will not need stating, will involve a massive transfer of non-European populations to their ethnic homelands in the Third World. As far as possible, this should be achieved by negotiation, including the provision of generous financial aid and incentives to resettlement. This means that the process would start on a voluntary basis. However, it would be essential to hold in reserve the option of alternative means of resettlement, employing the force of law, should the first policy prove inadequate. This is in accordance with the terms on which I agreed to a change in the BNP's repatriation programme in 1999, and which were set out in Chapter 15 of my book The Eleventh Hour. In effect, and despite all protestations to the contrary, the change was merely one of presentation, not of substance.

Contrary to what Mr. Griffin has claimed, I do not believe that the distinction between voluntary or obligatory repatriation is of concern to the average voter. My experience of doorstep canvassing certainly confirms me in this view. For this very reason I do not believe that the party should go out of its way to 'talk up' the repatriation issue, either to emphasise the first (voluntary) phase or the contingency policy of enforcement by law if this fails. There will be times when we will be obliged by media questioning to address the issue, in which case we should stress the first as the first option, while not denying the second if asked but stressing it as being, at the moment, hypothetical.

What we must certainly not do is speak, as Mr. Griffin has done, of an all-white Britain being an unrealistic 'utopia' or of non-white immigration being "the salt in the soup", in other words a little is OK but not too much. This wins no friends in the media or among the public, while it demoralises many in our own party.

This principle of a White Britain is laid down as the core belief of our party entirely without hatred. We would continue, as in the past, to express our racial convictions reasonably, moderately and with strict avoidance of insults or abuse towards other ethnic groups, though maintaining the right to speak critically of these groups, or sections thereof, where called for and within the law.

This question aside, I see no reason for any substantial change in the party's political objectives as defined in Section 1 of the present Constitution, though I believe that some modifications of wording should be made in Sub-section (b) so as to make clear the objectives of an all-white Britain as previously outlined; and in Sub-section (c) so as to avoid the impression that the party is fully committed to a programme of Distributism, as defined in the doctrines of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc.

Membership
I am pledged to maintain the present rules of party membership as defined in Section 2 of the BNP Constitution. This means that membership would continue to be restricted to persons of British or kindred European ethnic origin.

The only event in which I would consent to an alteration of these rules would be if it were forced upon us by an act of law. This has not yet happened and unless and until it happens the rules should remain as they are.

I give this pledge concerning rules of membership confident that the members of the party will believe it to be a firm one. Unlike Mr Griffin, I do not change position politically from week to week according to the requirements of expediency.

Associated groups
The BNP should be willing to consider schemes of co-operation with non-white ethnic groups towards the achievement of our repatriation programme, but this should not involve granting them any special status with regard to the BNP, whether as party members or in any kind of formal association. I therefore would immediately dissociate the BNP from any groups that have been formed over the past five years which grant such association. This would include the so-called 'Ethnic Liaison Committee' and any others of its kind. If those comprising such groups wish to maintain them in operation, that is their affair. However, they would no longer be permitted any association with our party.

The party image
Contrary to widespread belief, fostered within the party by Mr. Griffin and his allies and outside it by some sections of the mass media, I am every bit as concerned and committed as he claims to be to maintain the best possible public image for the BNP, so as to achieve for it the maximum electability.

This was my policy before Mr. Griffin took over the party and it will be my policy in the future.

I am as strongly opposed as is anyone to the use of language, slogans, visual images or campaign tactics that connect the party with movements and ideologies rightly or wrongly considered alien by the majority of the British public. At the same time, I do not think it sensible or right to try to dictate to members what their private opinions should be on such matters.

I want to do more than has been done in the past to project for the BNP an image of smartness, tidiness, cleanliness, good behaviour and overall efficiency. I am committed never to permit again the appalling public relations failures that occurred in the making of the TV documentary Young, Nazi and Proud, broadcast in November 2002 - some of which could have been avoided by stricter supervision of interviewers and camera teams. I would introduce more rigid rules as to which members should be permitted to speak to media reporters, whether of press, TV or radio.

At the same time, I am opposed to the numerous gimmicks that have been employed by the Griffin leadership to convey an image of 'liberalisation' in the party. I include here: the selection of Jewish election candidates (who would not be permitted membership anyway); the featuring of ethnic minority group members on TV broadcasts and as writers of regular columns in party publications; and news items in these publications which might be taken to glorify racial intermarriage and cross-breeding. I oppose these things because they are utterly contrary to our principles as a party of racial nationalism; but I also oppose them for essentially practical reasons. I do not believe that they make an iota of difference to our support among the voters, while at the same time they cause a great deal of internal division, demoralisation and unrest. It seems that Mr. Griffin has yet to understand that a party's internal solidarity and morale are every bit as important as its external popularity.

The BNP and Islam
I have always been opposed to the current policy of Mr. Griffin of singling out Islam as a special enemy of Britain and concentrating most of the party's fire on that religious creed, rather than dealing with the overall threat of multi-racialism to our country, of which immigrant groups happening to adhere to the Islamic faith are only a part.

If the Middle Eastern and Asian ethnic communities which have brought organised Islam to Britain are repatriated to their ethnic homelands, the problems posed to the country by Islam will disappear. Putting it another way, these problems are not primarily religious but racial.

As long as the Islamic communities are confined to their native continents and countries and do not attempt to impose their religious customs on the people of the United Kingdom, we have no quarrel with them.

The Islamic terrorist threat is another matter. Obviously, as long as Britain contains large Muslim communities there is a large sea in this country in which would-be Islamic terrorists can swim. But what we also need to do is withdraw British support from the Zionist-inspired policy of President Bush leading to the occupation of Iraq and the incurring of the hatred of the Islamic world against the United States and Britain. The threat of Islamic terrorist attacks on Britain will be removed if the reasons for them are removed.

Mr. Griffin claims that we are menaced by a militant Islamic imperialism. I content that by far the greatest menace is the imperialism of Zionism. I intend that in the future the BNP will focus its attention on this much more and on Islam much less.

Electoral strategy
As stated previously, the decision to make a major commitment of party resources to the contesting of Euro elections proved a disaster. I do not believe that the BNP should involve itself anymore in elections of this type for the foreseeable future.

Instead, our main focus should be on elections to local government, where up and down the country there are, as demonstrated, winnable seats. Here our branches should receive, much more than in the past, assistance and encouragement from the party leadership.

At times in the recent past, the party has been careless in its selection of council candidates, resulting in one or two of inferior calibre becoming elected. In the future we need to be much more rigid in our selection process, particularly in those areas where there is a good chance of the candidates winning.

And even where our elected councillors have comprised sound human material, they have often lacked guidance from above in the carrying out of their council duties. There must be much greater effort, not only to get councillors elected, but to assist them to become better councillors when elected. This an area where there needs to be close liaison and collaboration between branch, regional and national leadership.

Apart from local government elections, the party should of course participate in parliamentary elections, which offer the facility of free distribution of party literature through the postal service and are thus an excellent aid to recruitment. It should go without saying that where there has been intensive activity in local government elections in a particular area, with good results, that obviously enhances our prospects in a parliamentary election in the same area. Constituencies should, as far as possible, be selected in areas where this has been the case.

Personnel and discipline
Two features have characterised the BNP under Nick Griffin's leadership, which are interrelated. There have been many signs that appointments to positions of responsibility in the party have been decided not on merit but on subservience. I have seen people promoted to senior posts who bring with them very inadequate qualifications while others, more qualified, have been passed over or, as in some cases, driven out. It seems that Mr. Griffin wants to be surrounded by people who share his desire for an ideologically emasculated BNP and who will seldom, if ever, argue with him, rather than by those of strong convictions and independent minds.

A particular case in point here has been the treatment of the North West region of the party, in electoral and growth terms its most successful. A very able and well-respected organiser, Chris Jackson, suffered intolerable interference from people at party Headquarters and was driven to resign. His place was taken by a person clearly not up to the job, lacking the confidence and respect of large numbers of branch organisers and members, and prone to make decisions seemingly calculated to please the Griffin-Lecomber axis rather than to advance the party in the region. The consequence of this is that the level of morale and the rate of activity in the North West of England, which not long ago was very high, has declined depressingly over the past year.

Right now there is a very large amount of talent going to waste in the BNP, with people who could make tremendous contributions to the party being sidelined because they are not thought 'safe', whether through not having shown sufficient enthusiasm for Mr. Griffin's 'liberalisation' of the party or by demonstrating that they are strong characters who are not prepared to be lackeys.

There is much evidence that the same criteria of selectivity have been employed in the administration of party discipline. People who are thought to have 'incorrect' opinions on issues of party policy and leadership have been subjected to grossly excessive disciplinary punishments, sometimes excommunicated from the party, sometimes shunted to its margins, usually for quite trivial transgressions, if any at all. In the meantime others, apparently favourites of the ruling circle, seem to have been completely immune from any disciplinary action, though on occasions deserving it.

I am as strongly committed as anyone to the rule that a party must have discipline - perhaps the more essential in the BNP than in any other party because of the enemy trip-wires that are constantly placed in its path, as demonstrated by the recent Secret Agent TV documentary. But in an organisation of volunteers there are two essentials if discipline is to be maintained: (1) It must be enforced by people who command the necessary respect among the rank and file; (2) It must be seen at all times to be impartial and to fit the requirements of the case. Once an idea gets around that there is one law for one category of member and another law for another category, discipline is certain to collapse.

Party finances
In the time when I was previously head of the BNP party finances were run in a manner that was indisputably makeshift. This was because of the unavailability of personnel able to attend to the job properly and because the law as it stood then did not make more rigid procedures a matter of urgency as they became later. Recent legislation concerning the financing of political parties renders a return to that practice out of the question. Finances must be administered in a thoroughly professional way so as to comply with the requirements of the law as overseen by the Electoral Commission. This is something on which everyone in the BNP can agree.

Nevertheless, I am not happy that the present financial administration of the party is being run as effectively as it could and should.

I intend, if elected party leader, to look into the current highly centralised accounting system to see if and where it can be improved. It would be premature at this stage to make precise commitments as to change: a closer study of the system, together with consultation with organisers and fund-holders, would be necessary first. One aspect of the system which most certainly does require looking into is the lack of any regular statements which inform branch fund-holders as to the state of their finances. I will also examine the question of whether the keeping of party funds needs to be as centralised as it is at present - though again, precise pledges of change would be premature.

One thing can be stated with fair certainty, and this is that the system as it is at the moment is not working. The very fact that the party has defaulted in getting its accounts in to the Electoral Commission on time is evidence of this. Absence of an auditor willing to do the auditing does not sound a convincing explanation. There are many thousands of such people and companies up and down the country. Has any serious effort really been made to locate them?

The accounting system as it is has been defended, against much criticism within the party, as being necessary to comply with the Electoral Commission's rulings. And yet despite all this that has not been achieved!

Another area in which I am determined to see change is the presently grossly inflated payroll whereby some thirty-plus people in the party are currently receiving some kind of financial emoluments for their services. Some of these are employed on a full-time basis, while others work mainly in outside occupations but have their incomes 'topped up' in the way of hand-outs in reward for their services to the party.

This practice is bad from two viewpoints. First, it results in a crippling financial burden on a party the size of the BNP. To get an idea of comparisons, in the time of my leadership three people were paid by the party on a full-time basis, while one more was paid part-time. Even if we accept that the party and its workload have grown in the ensuring five years, I am quite sure that it has not done so to the extent that would warrant this huge increase in paid personnel.

Secondly, I believe that the tendency is not healthy. It creates the impression of a 'gravy train' which attracts people of mercenary mentality, would-be party officials lured by financial inducements rather than motivated by the desire to serve. It also fosters subservience - which I firmly believe is one of its purposes. Not least, it causes great resentment among those in the party who give up many of their spare hours entirely without payment but just out of dedication to race and nation - people who in many cases do just as much as their paid colleagues but get no remuneration because they do not belong to the 'magic circle'.

It is essential that in a party like the BNP some people are engaged full-time and paid. On this we can all be agreed. But the number currently paid has reached a quite unacceptable level. I am pledged to reform this whole system so as to reduce vastly both the number of paid personnel and the financial burden on the party resulting from this payroll.

Nationalist unity
This is a term that has been employed over many years, often more in idealism than out of a sense of sober political reality. People who are in agreement over essential principles of faith should be united in one single party. That is the way things ought to be; in the real world it is seldom that they are that way.

But I nevertheless have strong reason to believe that nationalists in Britain could be much more united than they are at present. A very strong reason - probably the main one - why they are now divided is the considerable opposition among many of them to the current BNP leadership.

I have made it a policy to keep up contacts with nationalists presently outside the BNP with a view to bringing at least some of them, eventually, into the party. Some of these were never in the BNP. Many were in it but left in disgust at what they believed to be the betrayal of nationalist principles by Mr. Griffin and his associates. A few were pushed out of the BNP in the numerous paranoid 'purges' that have taken place. One intended victim of these purges was - me! They tried to expel me last year but they were forced to back down by the promise of a court action which they most certainly would have lost. Other have been less fortunate - or perhaps just less determined!

Some of these nationalists outside the BNP are unsuitable for membership. They are of the wrong attitude and character. They lack self-discipline. They are too prone to political self-indulgence. A few are congenital misfits and trouble-makers. Some are plain loonies.

But the majority are good patriots who would be assets to the party if they were allowed to join or could be induced to join. By their joining we would have as near to a unification of nationalists in Britain as it is ever realistic to hope for.

I believe that I would be able to achieve this unification in a way that Mr. Griffin has not been able. Many nationalists now outside the BNP have declared their willingness to join if Mr. Griffin is removed and I am restored. I am pledged to work for this with all the means within my power.

A great future
Britain stands at the threshold of tremendous political events. The long-awaited popular backlash against immigration, the EU, political correctness and other evils is getting stronger every day. The mainstream parties are utterly discredited. In elections nowadays even minor nationalist parties, with a fraction of the resources of the BNP, are winning votes that would have been beyond their wildest dreams of just a few years ago. The future for nationalism is greater than ever.

Yet at this moment of supreme opportunity our own party is fragmented, beset by bitter internal quarrels and with morale low when it should be sky-high. We have a leader who has even been calling into question whether the BNP can go on existing as a political party! This need not be.

There is no doubt in my mind that our party has a great future - a future which indeed even some of the enemy media think is brighter than apparently does its own leadership!

I believe I can lead the BNP towards that great future, but I cannot do it alone. I need the help of all those who share my faith in what can and should be done. And I need it now! This means that those who support me should not just wait and quietly place a cross by my name in a coming leadership ballot; they should stand up and be counted without delay. Already I have a fine team of colleagues, ready and able to take things over when the moment comes. But we need more of you. Please contact me and pledge your support!

http://spearhead.com/0409-jt2.html

2009-11-19T11:58:00.002Z

Have you had a look at the Nationalists Online forum ?

Why not come along and read/discuss, all the latest issues from within and without the BNP.

This forum is for radical UK nationalists and has members from all UK nationalist parties and groups, as well as many non-aligned people.

http://www.nwn-forum.co.uk/index.php

2009-11-14T16:56:00.002Z

Griffin wins - Blacks at last allowed into BNP - HURRAH !

The British National Party's senior members have voted "overwhelmingly" in favour of allowing a party-wide ballot on membership rules.

A change in constitution would bring the BNP in line with the recent Equality Bill, and would allow non-white people to join.

On the first day of the party's annual conference in Wigan, delegates debated whether its membership policy should discriminate on the grounds of race or religion.

The BNP's leader Nick Griffin was present at the "closed for business" debate, at the Legends Bar in Hindley Green.

Members of the public and journalists are barred from the proceedings, which draw to a close on Sunday.

John Walker, a press officer for the party, said on Saturday: "Today we debated the change and how we are going to move forward. More than 300 of the party's voting membership voted overwhelmingly in favour.

"At a later stage it will be put to the entire membership of the party to vote for, or against, the motion."

On Sunday the delegates will discuss 12 policy motions put forward by the various regions the party operates in. Nick Griffin will then close the conference with a keynote speech in the afternoon.

During the conference, a group of up to 50 protesters marched from a nearby pub to the Swan Lane venue. The complex houses both the Body Image Fitness Centre and the Legends Bar.

Demonstrators chanted "Black and white unite and fight" and "Smash the BNP" as they walked towards the venue. The police prevented them marching past the conference building, so they formed a group in a park across the road. Dozens of police officers were on patrol outside the complex and the surrounding roads.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/140383/BNP-to-hold-membership-rules-ballot?

2009-11-14T01:09:00.002Z

UPDATE ON THIS WEEKEND'S BNP RALLY AND
VOTE ON THE EQUALITIES COMMISSION'S CASE

I have just been sent a most interesting report of an Emploment Tribunal decision. [See below] My correspondent clearly thinks this case MAY provide part of a sound legal basis for opposing the Equalities Commission's attempt to impose a multi-racial constitution on the BNP.

An Employment Tribunal has held that "Environmentalism" can be deemed to be a "philosophical belief" entitled to protection.

My correspondent's suggestion is that surely "Racialism" or "ethnic exclusivity" -- or whatever other description one wants to use -- can be likewise be portrayed as a "philosophical belief" and therefore claim protection, (however controversial it may be in these "politically correct" times).

In a business or other employing organisation, an employee is quite reasonably, expected to comply with reasonable and lawful instructions from an employer.

If an employee's "philosophical belief" can trump and employer's usual rights, then surely political parties can argue that they have at least an equal right as a business employee to protection, on the grounds that political parties are voluntary associations of like-minded people who seek to serve ends which are based on "philosophical beliefs".

Note that my correspondent (a BNP official) informs me that though, as I reported in yesterday's ELC, the BNP is holding a rally at Blackpool this coming weekend, and though the issue of the Equalities Commission's attempt to force a multi-racial constitution on the BNP will doubtless be discussed, the VOTE on that matter will not be conducted at an "Emergency General Meeting" on an unspecified day next January.

No doubt the right of BNP members to attend this EGM will be regulated by Gri££in. As this case affects the core ideology of the nationalist movement, it would be more appropriate that the decision on whether this case should be fought to the end be taken by a postal ballot of all persons who have been paid-up members for a year or more -- the ballot to be conducted by means that protect it from fraud.

As I urged in yesterday's ELC, those BNP members who are allowed by Gri££in's made-up rules to attend this weekend's meeting should ensure that the Equalities Commission law case is on the agenda. They should subject Gri££in to close questioning. Their starting point should be:

1) Did Gri££in obtain a Counsel's Opinion about the legal defences available to the BNP -- and if not, why not?

2) If Gri££in did obtain a Counsel's Opinion, why has he not published the text?

3) Who were these "expensive lawyers" from whom he claims to have received advice; how was that advice solicited (i.e. what issues of defence were suggested by the party) and how was that advice delivered -- verbally or in writing; and how much did the exercise cost?

If no Counsel's Opinion has been obtained, then a resolution should be put to the meeting from the floor requiring Gri££in to obtain such immediately, and to publish it immediately it has been obtained.

The membership (or those qualified by Gri££in to vote on this issue) cannot possibily come to an informed decision until this information has been provided. If such information is not fothcoming from Gri££in, then the party is being subjected to yet another of his swindles.

If they accept that without a whimper, then they (or those of them who don't put up a fight) will deserve all they will assuredly get.

Martin Webster.

=================================================

From: [deleted]
To: Martin Webster
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:38 PM

Subject: Griffin's Conference

Martin,

Thanks for your latest ELC. Griffin will discuss the issue of letting non-Whites into the BNP this Saturday at the party conference, but the EGM where the motion will be properly debated and voted on will be held in January (no date yet given.)

Griffin is back in court with the Equalities Commission on January 28th, and will hand over the EGM's decision then. I want to build up a good case to oppose the motion. Below is a recent Employment Tribunal verdict that may be of interest in this debate? Surely Racialism could be considered a philosophical belief?

[deleted]
--------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8339652.stm
BBC News - Tuesday 3rd November 2009

Eco-employee wins bid to appeal

A man has been told he can take his employer to tribunal on the grounds he was unfairly dismissed because of his views on climate change.

Tim Nicholson, 42, of Oxford, was made redundant in 2008 by Grainger Plc in Didcot, as head of sustainability.

He said his beliefs had contributed to his dismissal and in March a judge ruled he could use employment equality laws to claim it was unfair.

But the firm appealed against this as it believed his views were political.

After the hearing on Monday, Mr Nicholson said he was delighted by the judgement for himself and other people who may feel they are discriminated against because of their views on climate change.

His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations."

Mr Nicholson was given permission in March to make his claim under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 that covers "any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief".

[emphasis in above 2 paragraphs added by MW]

But the ruling was challenged by Grainger plc, the UK's biggest residential landlord, on the grounds that green views were not the same as religious or philosophical beliefs.

Mr Nicholson, who said his opinions affect his whole lifestyle, claimed his views had put him at odds with other senior staff at Grainger and been ignored by managers.

'Redundancy operational'

He said he had tried to set up a carbon management system for the company, but was unable to work out its carbon footprint because staff had refused to give him the necessary data.

Mr Nicholson also accused the chief executive, Rupert Dickinson, of showing "contempt" for his concerns and claimed he once flew a member of staff to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry which he had left in London.

Grainger corporate affairs director Dave Butler said: "This decision merely confirms that views on the importance of environmental protection are capable of amounting to a philosophical belief.

"Grainger absolutely maintains, as it has done from the very outset of these proceedings, that Mr Nicholson's redundancy was driven solely by the operational needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence, which also required other structural changes to be made within the company.

"Grainger rejects outright any suggestion that there was any other motivation relating to Mr Nicholson's beliefs or otherwise."

The case was heard at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London.

2009-11-09T14:50:00.004Z

Extremist Labour MP politicises Remembrance Day service

MP Malik slams protests and extremists

VETERANS got together to mark the contribution of Dewsbury people in past conflicts and to show their support to serving troops.
MP Shahid Malik hosted the second annual veterans lunch at Dewsbury Town Hall, attended by more than 250 people.
And the MP used the event to heavily criticise two organisations which demonstrated in Leeds and London during in recent weeks.
He slammed Islam4UK who demonstrated in London and the English Defence League (EDL) who protested in Leeds.
Mr Malik also attacked the extremists in Luton who disrupted a military parade and shouted abuse at soldiers.
In his speech Mr Malik said that the UK was a multi-faith society and that was part of what made the UK the best country in the world.
Mr Malik concluded by saying that the true defenders of England were those present at the Town Hall event and veterans around the country were the true patriots.

The Dewsbury MP said: “It’s right that we celebrate the truly outstanding contribution that was made by so many local people both during past wars as well as current conflicts.”
During the event, guests were treated to refreshments and a light lunch while listening to a medley of wartime anthems from 40s singer Caroline Romley.
After lunch guests heard contributions from Veterans Minister Kevan Jones MP and Major David Wroe.

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/11/09/mp-malik-slams-protests-and-extremists-86081-25121061/

NWN: There doesn't seem to be any critical remarks by the Royal British Legion or other ex-Forces here about this disgraceful act by Malik. Politics should be kept out of stuff like this.

2009-11-04T00:35:00.000Z

NATIONAL FRONT REMEMBRANCE DAY

Sunday 8th November 2009

Assemble 2.00pm Bressenden Place (Near Victoria Station)

March Off 2.30pm

2009-11-03T13:49:00.002Z

Libraries ban poppies: 'We can't favour one charity above others' says manager

'Scandalous': Staff at 48 libraries in Derbyshire were ordered to remove collection boxes selling poppies

For decades they dutifully sold poppies without objection.
But then staff at nearly 50 libraries were ordered to remove their collection tins and boxes - in the name of equality.
Officials ruled they could not be seen to support 'particular charities at the expense of others'.

The ban, which applied to all 48 libraries in Derbyshire, was yesterday described as 'scandalous'.

Staff were sent an email on October 28 warning them to remove any boxes from public areas 'immediately'.
The memo, from Ann Ainsworth, the county council's 'Operations Manager, West', said: 'I need to reinforce that the County Council does not support specific charities and does not provide opportunities for any charities to collect donations via Derbyshire Libraries.

'This ensures it maintains a neutral position and does not favour particular charities at the expense of others.

'Clearly this also excludes collection boxes for the Royal British Legion Poppy Appeal.

'Please ensure that collection boxes have not been accepted for public display during this year's appeal in any of our buildings.'
A source said the order had angered staff at one of the affected libraries, in Whitwell.
Eddie Roper, who used to run the adjoining village community centre, said: 'The staff can't understand the decision. Nobody ever complained about it.

More...Poppycock! Remembrance Day collectors banned from shaking tins to avoid 'intimidating shoppers'
Villagers boycott pub after landlady refuses to sell poppies

'Poppies raise money for the families of our war dead and our injured soldiers. By buying one we are honouring their memory.

'They should be put back in the library immediately.'
Dorothy Reynolds, whose husband Dennis served in the Second World War, said he would not understand why poppies were not being sold
Dorothy Reynolds' late husband Dennis served in the Second World War and ran the Whitwell Royal British Legion for 50 years.
The 79-year- old said: 'My husband would walk five miles to make five pence for the Poppy Appeal. Now he would want to know why on earth the library cannot sell poppies.'
During the First World War, 140,000 men served in the county regiment - the Sherwood Foresters (Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire) Regiment. Some 11,409 were killed.

A further 1,520 out of 26,940 laid down their lives in the Second World War. The county's Rolls Royce factory also played a crucial role in the war effort, producing the Merlin engines used in Spitfires and Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain.

Last night, after being contacted by the Daily Mail, Conservative-run Derbyshire County Council caved in and reversed its decision.
Council leader Andrew Lewer said: 'We are wholehearted supporters of the Armed Forces and I am very happy for libraries to sell poppies on behalf of the British Legion.

'To avoid any confusion about past policies, I will be letting all libraries know they can sell poppies this year.'

On Saturday it emerged that poppy sellers from the Royal British Legion have been banned from shaking their collection tins in case they are seen as a 'public menace'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224811/Libraries-ban-poppies-We-favour-charity-says-manager.html#ixzz0Vnv3c3Ku

Jürgen Rieger has passed away

2009-10-30T12:50:00.016Z

One of the great has departed from us

A giant has fallen

On Saturday 24th October during an executive meeting of the party, the lawyer Jürgen Rieger, deputy chairman of the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany), suffered a stroke. Although a good companion took him straight to hospital his condition deteriorated rapidly. At the age of 63 years his short, violent struggle with death was lost on Thursday 29th October at midday.

With him a man departs who fought a life long for the cause of his people and home country. With him the national movement loses a lawyer who in more than 35 years service defended countless comrades in court and was able to celebrate many brilliant victories.

Goethe teaches us that where there is much light there is much shade. And he who stands high is the target not only of factual criticism, but often also of the envious holding grudges and personal enemies. Jürgen Rieger was a fearless and outspoken fighter for the cause. Especially also, since during the last years he dedicated himself to party policy which led to a polarization of differences. But when viewing the immensity of the achievements of such a man as well as when standing before the majesty of death all of this is insignificant.

The fire of the love of his native people and country burned in him so fiercely and brightly as in no other; so fiercely and brightly that it consumed him long before his time. The deadly blow caught him while still exercising his political office, in the duty which he imposed upon himself and for which he had dedicated his whole life. Long will his fame as lawyer and as political fighter rank high in our memory.

Our sympathy is extended to his children to whom he was an affectionate father.

A giant has fallen.

One of the great has departed from us.

Translated from an obituary by Christian Worch
Parchim, 29 October 2009

2009-10-27T15:12:00.011Z

'Bonnie' to speak to BNP in St Helens, Lancashire ?

In the Voice of Freedom (109) a 'nom de plume' called David Bailey, who apparently hails from Canada, writes in glowing terms that the BNP learn to accept non-whites into the BNP membership.

David Bailey is who exactly?

Is it Mark Collett , or more likely, Nick Griffin himself ?

In the latest issue of IDENTITY we can see that the policy of accepting non-whites into the BNP has been pushed yet again.

In there, we see a 'Mr. Bill Morton' from Hayes, Middlesex, gushing lyrical about accepting non-whites into the BNP, with his "more please" plea for the accepting of the unacceptable.

Of course, Bailey and Morton are 'pen names' of the agenda that Nick Griffin is pushing. Comments like these would never be published if Griffin didn't agree with their sentiments.

At least, the multi-racial pursuer John Bean uses his own name for this policy in the BNP publications.

It is quite clear that the 'die has been cast', and that Griffin has decided that a BNP will not be permitted to continue as it always has done, as the focus of British nationalism.

It is quite clear the direction that Griffin is leading the BNP.

We hear that a black Ghanian speaker is to lecture about the perils of the E.C. to the St.Helens branch of the BNP this week, and that Nick Griffin will be there to promote this new acceptance of the 'new ideology' now being 'pushed by Mr.Griffin'.

Nick might consider taking the black lady speaker to one of the more 'nationalist' units of the BNP, so that he and she, would get more of an understanding of the true feelings of the ideology of British nationalism.

2009-10-26T00:31:00.005Z

Roche

Portes

Straw

Blair

'Dishonest' Blair and Straw accused over secret plan for multicultural UK

Jack Straw and Tony Blair 'dishonestly' concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public, it has been claimed.

The allegation was made after a former Labour adviser said the Government opened up UK borders partly to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration.
Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, claimed a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up forever.

Jack Straw and Tony Blair 'covered up plan to let more immigrants in for political reasons'
It also emerged that:
Home Office Minister Barbara Roche, who pioneered the open-door policy, wanted to restore her Labour reputation after being attacked by Left-wingers for condemning begging by immigrants as 'vile'.

Civil servant Jonathan Portes, who wrote the immigration report, was a speechwriter for Gordon Brown and is now a senior aide to Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell.

Labour chiefs decided to brand Tory leaders William Hague and Michael Howard as racists to deter them from criticising the covert initiative.

Mr Neather said there was a 'driving political purpose' behind Labour's decision to allow in hundreds of thousands of migrants to plug gaps in the labour market.

He said the stance was foreshadowed by a report by Mr Blair's Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) think-tank, which said the nation would benefit from more migrants.
Mr Neather claimed that earlier, unpublished versions of the report made clear that one aim was to make Britain more multi-cultural for political reasons.

'I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date,' he said.

The report, entitled Research, Development And Statistics Occasional Paper No67 - Migration: An Economic And Social Analysis, was published in January 2001 by the Home Office, then run by Mr Straw.

Most of its key statistics came from a PIU team led by Mr Portes. The report paints a rosy picture of mass immigration, stating: 'There is little evidence that native workers are harmed by migration. The broader fiscal impact is likely to be positive because a greater proportion of migrants are of working age and migrants have higher average wages than natives.'

It goes on: 'Most British regard immigration as having a positive effect on British culture.'
Mr Portes remains an enthusiastic advocate of the benefits of immigration. He wrote a report for the Department of Work and Pensions last year rejecting claims that Eastern European workers had stolen the jobs of British counterparts, arguing Britons lacked the skills and motivation.
A former Government adviser told The Mail on Sunday: 'If the Government had been prepared to have an open debate about immigration, we would not have had the problems we have seen with the BNP. But it did not want immigration policy discussed.

'It is not a very honest Government. They knew immigration was a hot issue and they did not want to get into a fight on it.'

The source said Labour deliberately targeted William Hague and Michael Howard when they called for tougher immigration controls.

Mr Hague was accused of 'playing the race card' in 2001 when he said Mr Blair was turning Britain into a 'foreign land'. Michael Howard was called a 'racist' in 2004 after he went to BNP stronghold Burnley, in Lancashire, to denounce Labour's stance on asylum seekers.
A Labour insider suggested Mrs Roche relaxed immigration controls partly in response to the outcry she faced after criticising begging Romanian mothers.

'She was called a scumbag,' said the source. 'She wanted to show she was a genuine liberal.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222769/Dishonest-Blair-Straw-accused-secret-plan-multicultural-UK.html#ixzz0UztrqGOQ

NWN: Of the four who are involved in this act of treachery, pictures above,only one of them is not jewish. Can you guess who it is ?

2009-10-23T03:18:00.002+01:00

Jeered, scorned and ridiculed - still BNP's Nick Griffin milks his moment in spotlight on Question Time

Nick Griffin was booed, jeered and mocked by a hostile television audience on the BBC's Question Time last night.
But the British National Party leader's priceless air time still left the Corporation facing accusations of 'publicity-seeking' naivety.
Senior Labour figures warned of racist attacks in the coming days, leaving the BBC with 'blood on its hands'.

Heckled: Nick Griffin's controversial appearance on Question Time, where he was mocked and jeered

Mr Griffin ran the gauntlet of 1,000 angry protesters who had laid siege to the Question Time studio at Television Centre in West London.

The 50-year-old, who has a criminal conviction for inciting racial hatred, was loudly booed as he went before the cameras under tight security.
Facing angry heckling, and at times looking shaken, Mr Griffin:

Repeatedly refused to give his views on the Holocaust, drawing attacks from Jewish members of the audience.

Claimed that Winston Churchill would have joined the BNP.
Was branded 'disgusting' by one black member of the audience.
Was forced to deny he had said that black men 'walk like monkeys'.
Was laughed at when he admitted meeting Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and claimed the organisation was 'non violent'.
Was jeered by a lesbian member of the audience who told him: 'The feeling of revulsion is mutual'.
One Asian member of the audience called for a whip round to pay for him to go and live at the South Pole where he could enjoy a 'colourless landscape'.
The BBC was forced on to the back foot over the decision to invite Mr Griffin on to the show.

David Dimbleby, who chaired the session, tried to calm audience unrest by insisting that the programme 'won't be the Nick Griffin show'.

But he refused a request to take an audience vote on the rights and wrongs of the decision.
Unrest: Anti-BNP crowds protested against the appearance of Griffin during the show at BBC HQ

The panel Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, Conservative shadow cabinet member Sayeeda Warsi, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, Dimbleby, Griffin and Bonnie Greer
Baroness Warsi, the Tory panel member, said: 'If you look at the audience and reaction outside, people are outraged by his views and he has been exposed for what he is.'
Justice Secretary Jack Straw said the evening capped a 'catastrophic week for the BNP'.

They were joined on the panel by Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne and black poet Bonnie Greer.

More...Three policemen injured and BBC in lockdown as hundreds protest over BNP leader's Question Time showdown
DOMINIC CARMAN: A deeply disturbing encounter with the BNP's Nick Griffin - and the wife who thinks he's an oddball

Mr Huhne said Winston Churchill would be 'rolling' in his grave if he could hear Mr Griffin speak today.
Earlier Mr Griffin's appearance provoked angry scenes outside Television Centre. Three police office officers were injured and six protesters arrested.

Three officers were injured during the fracas as the BBC prepared to film Question Time
At one stage, around 25 people stormed inside the West London building as they attempted to find the Question Time studios.
Flares were let off and women dragged kicking and screaming back outside by security guards.
Mr Griffin, meanwhile, was smuggled in via a side entrance by up to 40 dark-suited security guards.
Inside, he attacked Mr Straw saying his own father was in the RAF in the Second World War, while Mr Straw's was arrested for refusing to fight.
Disgust: One man takes Mr Griffin to task over his politics
A black man in the audience was cheered when he confronted Mr Griffin.
His voice shaking with emotion, the man said: 'For just one minute could you not think of the benefits my parents brought to this country and other parents from an Asian, Indian or Pakistani background have brought?
'No, all you're thinking of doing is trying to poison politics and poison the minds of people in this country. The vast majority of this audience find what you stand for to be completely disgusting'
Mr Griffin smirked when he was asked whether he denied the Holocaust but refused to answer detailed questions on the issue. Of his previous comments, he said: 'I can't explain why I used to say those things.'
He acknowledged that the BNP had been a 'racist and anti-semitic organisation', but claimed it had changed under his leadership. 'I am not a Nazi and never have been,' he said.
He was wearing the poppy he rarely removes. He says he wears it in protest at the poor treatment of soldiers injured in Afghanistan.
A policeman tries to control the crowds as the show is filmed
Enlarge Shimal Thakrar, 33, from Edgware in London, said: 'It certainly wasn't as controversial as had been made out beforehand. The guy couldn't stand his ground at all.
'He contradicted himself throughout. He had no consistency. It was a needed debate. But he's not a politician.'
Mr Thakrar said the audience hissed and booed during the filming and shouted 'Liar' and 'Get out the door,' at Mr Griffin.
The BBC had received more than 1,000 complaints ahead of the broadcast.

Senior Labour politicians predicted that black and Asian people would face a violent backlash in the coming days.
The BBC insisted it had no choice but to offer an invitation to the BNP following the party's success in the European elections.
But critics have accused the corporation of being naive and driven by a desire to boost ratings.
Higher Education Minister David Lammy, one of Britain's first black ministers, said ordinary people from ethnic minority backgrounds would face violence as a result.
He added: 'This is a seminal moment for the country. I am very worried about the days that will follow.
'Many people across the country, black and white, will be appalled that Nick Griffin has been given a platform on the BBC's flagship current affairs programme for his terrible racist views.
'Many others, a long way from Broadcasting House, will be left very scared.'
However Mr Lammy acknowledged that the mainstream parties had to accept some of the blame for the rise of the BNP.
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett criticised the BBC for 'publicity seeking'.
'To spend the first ten minutes of the Six O'Clock News covering their own decision and the consequences of putting the leader of the BNP on Question Time, was a total distortion of news priority and a deliberate promotion of their own publicity-seeking decision,' he said.
BBC Director-General Mark Thompson yesterday defended the decision to offer an invitation to Mr Griffin.
Mr Thompson said the Government should change the law if it did not want the party to appear on news and current affairs programme.
He said: 'Censorship cannot be outsourced to the BBC.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222331/BNPs-Nick-Griffin-jeered-appears-Question-Time--BBC-faces-Question-Time.html#ixzz0Uin5H3P2

2009-10-20T11:09:00.003+01:00

BNP membership list leaked again ! ! !

BNP membership list appears on Wikileaks

List of thousands of names of BNP members, along with addresses and phone numbers, published on Wikileaks

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, is due to appear on Question Time on Thursday.

A detailed membership list of the British National party containing names, addresses and telephone numbers was published on the internet this morning.

The list, which contains thousands of names, was published on Wikileaks, a website that purports to be a clearing house for information to be published anonymously.

A Guardian analysis of the data suggests the BNP had 11,560 members as of April this year, including one peer and several doctors and military personnel. The party appears to have benefited from a surge in female recruits, with one in eight party members now women.

The list reveals that the highest concentrations of members are in Leicestershire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire, while membership is growing fastest in places such as Wiltshire and East Sussex, outside the party's traditional heartlands.

Wikileaks said this morning: "The lists have been verified to be accurate in all cases examined by Wikileaks, however it should not be assumed that every person with a BNP membership number is a current member of the BNP."

The party's leader, Nick Griffin, said he could neither confirm nor deny that the list was up to date.

"The allegation is that it is complete as of April this year," he said. "We have no way of knowing that as yet, but it might be possible that the new list is a concoction of the old leaked list combined with inquiries up until April. As everyone knows, inquiries are often made out of curiosity or even hostility, and cannot be taken as an indication of membership or support."

He said the leak was part of a "hysterical media-driven anti-British National party campaign which is growing in intensity as the party threatens the corruption and treason of the old Westminster parties".

The BNP's leadership was alerted to the leak yesterday and said it appeared to have been timed to undermine the party ahead of the appearance of its leader, Nick Griffin, on Question Time on Thursday.

The far-right map of Britain: BNP membership by constituency The publication of the list represents the third significant time the details of the BNP's membership have been made public. In November 2008, a list of members' names, contact details and in some cases jobs and hobbies was leaked by disgruntled members said to have become frustrated that the party had become too soft under Griffin.

In December 2006, an undercover investigation by the Guardian revealed that the organisation's members included Simone Clarke, then a ballerina for the English National Ballet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/20/bnp-membership-list-wikileaks

2009-10-16T16:13:00.001+01:00

Richard Edmonds speaks in Barcelona !

Vaclav Klaus Drives the EU Crazy

2009-10-14T15:30:00.010+01:00

Lisbon Treaty: Czechs could lose European Commissioner if president fails to sign Vaclav Klaus (pictured left), the Czech President, has been warned his country could lose its seat on the European Commission unless he stops placing "artificial obstacles" in the way of the EU Lisbon Treaty. The threat followed emergency talks between Jan Fischer, the caretaker Czech prime minister, and the European Commission. Jose Manuel Barroso, the Commission President, told the Czechs that the European Union's patience was running out with President Klaus's continued refusal to sign the treaty. ... "If there is no Lisbon Treaty, there is no guarantee for the Czech Republic to have a commissioner," Mr. Barroso warned. Boyko Borisov, the Bulgarian prime minister, emerged after talks in Paris with President Nicolas Sarkozy to warn that further Czech resistance would not be tolerated. "It must not be allowed, it must not be tolerated. President Sarkozy is of the same opinion," he said. - Telegraph

One of the last real individualists in Europe is whacking the Union once again. It is a beautiful thing to watch. Vaclav Klaus is a one man EU wrecking crew, and from our point of view, he is perfectly justified. The EU was sold as an economic union, but today its leaders have visions of a United States of the West. This is really crazy to us. Europe is a patchwork of tribal allegiances, and many of these tribes fought the Empire of Rome to a standstill 2,000 years ago. Charlemagne spent most of his time fighting as we recall and there was a reason.

We note how much trouble the Western powers are having in subduing the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the untold story of the Middle Eastern war - how a tribal alliance some 40 million strong held off the West over a decade and emerged - or may emerge - victorious. This is no surprise as the same group did the same thing to the Russians 20 years ago.

The Western monetary elite is playing with fire. The EU is entirely undemocratic at this point. Elections go against the leadership and new ones are demanded. The socialists running the show never sought the consent of the majority of its citizens before starting its ambitious growth spurt. Even now, the EU leaders are fairly sure they cannot win popular votes for their policies and seek to go through brow-beaten local legislators instead. As soon as the EU cannot bribe nations by printing money (and that day is coming) the last reason to tolerate the torrent of regulations pouring from Brussels will disappear.

Conclusion: Klaus sees all this and more all too well. He is one of the last courageous statesmen in Europe. When one listens to the threats and bluster coming out of the EU when Klaus launches one of his inconvenient gambits, one is reminded of much worse days in Europe long ago. European leaders are in love with the EU and the power it represents. But that power may be built on a shaky base. And Klaus isn't afraid to point it out. Go Klaus!

Please take a moment to sign the petition to support Vaclav Klaus the Czech President, and to oppose the Lisbon Treaty...

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sptklaus&501