MEP's debate Global Warming at EU Headquarters NOV 16th 2009

MEP's give alternate views to the Global Warming "fixation" of the west.
First speaker, Nick Griffin MEP and Party Leader British National Party.
2nd speaker Godfrey Bloom MEP for UKIP

Where is the protest of Racism over the Governments plan to screen Black and Gay people for HIV?

The Labour Government will begin screening the UK population for AIDS in "routine" tests at GP surgeries and NHS hospitals within weeks, says a report in The Times.

The report says;

"A pilot screening programme, which is expected to be extended across the country if it is a success, will target gay men and black Africans who have a higher than average chance of carrying HIV.

The pilot, to be held at GPs’ surgeries and hospitals in Leicester, in Brighton, where there is a large gay population, and in Lewisham, southeast London, which has a large black African community, will begin in the next few weeks.

Health workers are concerned that some HIV sufferers are infecting multiple sexual partners without knowing they have the virus. If left untreated, HIV — which has few symptoms — can turn into Aids.

Testing is carried out mainly in sexual health clinics at the instigation of the patient. But ministers want it to become more routine and to be subject to an opt-out for those who do not want to be tested.

Gillian Merron, the public health minister, will examine the results of the tests to gauge public reaction.

“We estimate that around one quarter of HIV cases are undiagnosed — so it’s important we reduce this so people can get the treatment they need,” she said.

Hospitals will ask patients, including those with serious illnesses or brought into accident and emergency rooms, to be tested for HIV.

Gay men in Sheffield are to be offered HIV home-sampling testing kits.

The Terrence Higgins Trust, which raises awareness about HIV, said a targeted screening programme would lead to lives being saved. There are believed to be 77,000 people living with HIV in the UK. More than 25,000 people have developed Aids and 18,787 have died."

Comment: Imagine if the BNP released a policy that it intended to screen all Blacks and Gays for HIV. Can you imagine the uproar that would cause, and the protests against xenophobic racism? - Yes of course, There would be a mass outcry. So where is the outcry of protest now?

Gordon and Cameron's Downfall

Bow out Clarke you're out of touch

Tory Minister for Trade Kenneth Clarke says; he'd sooner have a Labour Government than a hung parliament!

Kenneth Clarke is to politics what Prince Phillip is to foreign relations. It's time the media stopped asking him his opinion because it rarely if ever coincides with public opinion yet he speaks like some grandee who knows better. He abhors the idea that people can actually have an intelligent thought, and he lives on the premise that his opinion counts for everything and that others count for nothing. A true master of self-opinionated claptrap, although I did hear that he was once good with figures.

In this case, he is totally out of touch with the electorate. The majority of people I'd think, and going by your polls, want a more representative government. "Anything is better than this" springs to mind.

So a hung or minority parliament may be a good thing. Canada's and Germany's hasn't caused them any problem. It is surely more representative despite that it puts people into parliament who as individuals don't hold a majority. Same too a government.

More representation is required, and the only way to do that is to have second round voting. However the establishment won't do that because that would mean seats for other parties which THEY (not the people), don't want.

I hope Her Majesty appoints Charles to run the country to be honest. At least we'd get some decent housing, and decent green policies which don't ruin our green spaces. We'd also know he's not likely to rip us off, and we'd know that he'd know what to do about our troops and their needs.

I'd vote Charles in if I could and bring parliament to an end, as long as he doesn't give the job of foreign minister to Prince Phillip and he had a place for Nick Griffin as minister for England. But it comes to something I think, when a politician would sooner have the opposition in power than serve democracy. He wants a "strong" government he says, "because the people want that". Do we? We want a strong government to impose more stupid laws on us, send more of our troops to die in pointless wars and we want a strong government to ignore us on the banking bailouts and on Europe? We want that do we? - Like heck we do!

Times they are a changing Mr Clarke. Either get with the people's programme or bow out and let us get on with building Britain for the British.

I'm going to buy me the biggest stick of chalk I can find and scrawl "MINORITY RULES UK" on everything in sight from John O' Groats to Lands End to see if these guys will eventually get the message.

THE SYSTEM IS UNFAIR!!

If a Tory govt is returned at the next election it'll be lucky to win with 32% of the votes. How on earth does that give a government a mandate "to be strong" as Clarke says it should be???

Does he imagine 68% of the country will relish the idea that their voices are NOT ever going to be heard in our present system? Or that due to the lack of representative democracy, such a system would tend to lead a nation to be anything other than permanently DIVIDED? No I guess not.

However if anyone can explain to me given that the last 100 years or so of evidence of this nation being all over the place politically with lunatic fringes popping up literally left, right and center, hasn't yet sunk in to their thick heads, why there should not NOW be a change in the system to a more reasonable one such as that in Switzerland for example, and why without change, the next 100 years won't be earmarked by continuing divisions like those we currently enjoy (sic), then I'm all ears?

Surely a modern democracy needs to modernise this sytem before it all ends in tears?

Time for a New British Constitution

I can't see that any ordinary person, nationalist or otherwise, could argue againt our utilities being controlled and staffed by us with the benefits of a "profit" going into the exchequer for the British people.

I can't see that any ordinary person, nationalist or otherwise, could argue the merits of handing out British passports, to people who come here simply to take up one of these mysterious jobs requiring "skills we don't have".

How does that work?......Will the British NEVER have those skills?......Does the Government not have a duty to provide learning centres so our people can acquire them?.........But the Govt is secretly cutting back on youth training and apprenticeships are they not........so what is the ACTUAL truth as to why the government hand out British Passports and create more citizens but take no responsibility for the existing population which IT says is lacking skills?

On the multi-cultural argument, I believe it is irreversible yet it can be diminished by BNP policies of repatriation and immigration. I can envisage a block to immigration totally and that would naturally result in diminishing the effects of it, but couple this with a British Constitution and laws to back it up then I think we have a better start point to retain ONE culture as opposed to hitting on the race issue which as I say would diminish naturally.

I can see no reason why British citizenship should be handed to aliens, or why a government should fail in its duty to provide proper training and education along with necessary skills and experience, in centres that get our people geared for a future we all know is changing.

I believe that a policy to NOT hand out citizenship to others so freely, coupled with an argument to other parties of "what are you actually intending to do for Britain and its people" would leave a gaping chasm of difference between THEM and US, when the government is cutting back on youth training, and other parties have no plans other than to bring in cheap labour?

Attacking them about what future they are planning would be the best option I think, because the country will not support policies which people see as unfair. Many support our policies but are very divided on the issue of race. Our potential for great political power to restore and build our country, its people, culture, institutions, youth and politics, could be lost for want of keeping policies undeniably and unquestionably fair.

The only way to real power rests with PERSUASION and VOTES.
The only way to gain a majority of votes is to give a picture of a bright BNP future which is not considered by some to be "unfair" and a bleak future provided by the other parties which is clearly unfair to Britain in that they fail to deliver what people really want. i.e. Jobs, skills, industry, lower crime, peaceful society, and an end to full scale privatisation of their country's resources when profits are simply making fat cats bigger rather than providing a better and fairer society for all. This is what the BNP can do!

People could give their approval quite quickly but only if they understand that the real future of Britain belongs to them and not to politicians and capitalists, or to an ideology they may misunderstand or not share.

A Nation should belong to The People, and we the people need to look to a future which guarantees our citizenship, our culture, and our rights and goes to the very heart of our sense of fairness for all who reside here.

A new British Constitution which people are asked to vote on in a General Election would achieve this aim.

A new British Constitution would give us a beacon of hope that "Our" Britain can be saved if enough people wish it.

A British Constitution would establish a foundation for the majority of people to rally behind and would give an inspiration to many millions of people that the British National Party cared enough, that it means business, and that it has the ability and the answer to give the British people what they want. i.e. Their identity!

It would also provide a yawning chasm of difference between those who willingly trod on our democratic rights and our sovereignty, versus those of us who want to uphold and protect them.

"Proof" - Deliberate Govt plan to wreck Britain

Hundreds of thousands of "unchecked" immigrants were deliberately let in to the UK by the Labour govt over a 4 year period the Sunday Times reveals. The report confirms Labour's deliberate policy was to change the culture of our country and to put at risk the lives of our people. It stood "illegally" in the way of many requests under The Freedom of Information Act to conceal the true nature of its policies of unbridled, open-door immigration which showed a complete lack of any regard for the lives, the health and the culture of our people, whilst many who have been on the receiving end of unparalleled levels of crime, murder, stabbings, muggings, rapes and gunshot. Whilst our soldiers have fought for 8 long years overseas, fighting to "keep this country safe", our public services including prisons, health services and schools, are crashing under the weight of millions of extra people whilst close to 3 million British people remain jobless, and the lives of our people have been deliberately disregarded for the sake of Labour's ideological plan to ruin us.

LINK

Labour's “open door” immigration policy knowingly risked allowing dangerous people to settle in Britain unchecked, according to documents seen by The Sunday Times.

The Whitehall correspondence, which was illegally withheld by the Home Office for four years, shows how ministers were told by the country’s most senior immigration official that his staff were to be “encouraged to take risks” when granting visas, work permits and extended residency to hundreds of thousands of new migrants.

The cover-up of this policy of risk-taking was so concerted that Richard Thomas, the then information commissioner, sent a team of investigators into the Home Office to trawl all the relevant papers. Earlier this year he rebuked the department for breaking the law and ordered it to release the material under the freedom of information (FoI) law.

The documents help to explain the huge rise in the flow of migrants into Britain as the Home Office rushed to clear a backlog of 45,000 cases.

Officials agreed to fast-track 337,000 applications with minimal checks. This led to a rapid rise in immigration. In 1999, 170,000 visas were granted; by 2002, this had risen to 300,000.

As officials were being ordered to take risks, several potentially dangerous people entered the UK. In late 2001, more than 20 Taliban, who had fled from Afghanistan after their defeat by American and British forces, were allowed to stay in the UK.

The documents cast new light on the row over past immigration policy, highlighted by the recent rise of the British National party.

Last week Alan Johnson became the first Labour home secretary to admit the government had made mistakes in its handling of immigration. He said ministers had ignored problems about failed asylum seekers and foreign national prisoners. They had also failed to grasp public unease about the growing pressure on jobs and public services.

Johnson’s remarks signalled the government’s belated recognition that its immigration policy has alienated its white working-class vote, tempting a significant minority to back the BNP. The documents indicate that, far from being a mistake, there was a deliberate policy — apparently endorsed at the highest level in the Home Office — to promote concerted risk-taking by immigration staff whose job was to decide whether non-European Union migrants applying to work, study or marry in Britain were genuine.

A key figure in the scandal was Sir Bill Jeffrey, who was the director-general of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Britain’s most senior immigration official. He is now at the centre of controversy as the senior civil servant in charge of the Ministry of Defence.

The other key figure was Beverley Hughes, then minister of state for citizenship and immigration. She was later forced to resign after it emerged she had misled MPs about whether she had been warned that Romanian and Bulgarian crime gangs might want to exploit the UK’s decision to open its borders to those seeking work from eastern Europe.

In March 2003, shortly after the 2001 entry permits to the Taliban had come to light — to an outcry in the press — Jeffrey spelled out the policy in a note to Hughes.

“We are still in a situation where some risks have to be taken, and staff should feel that if they are encouraged to take risks they will be supported when something does go wrong,” he wrote.

The minister’s office replied by e-mail three days later:

“Beverley Hughes has seen and noted your submission of 7 March . . . Beverley feels the basic point is that while staff have to take some risks, this was a decision that flew in the face of common sense.”

The e-mail was copied to David Blunkett, then home secretary, and Sir John Gieve, his most senior mandarin. The words “to be withheld” were later scribbled across the top, an apparent instruction not to comply with an FoI request for its release.

The same words appear on a note, prepared by Jeffrey, sent to Hughes a few day later. In it, in response to Hughes’s insistent complaints about the need to clear the 45,000 backlog, he outlined the new “risk-taking” policy. This involved fast-tracking all 337,000 applications, with little or no regard as to whether they were merited.

The policy, codenamed Brace, meant that officials had to make quick decisions based on the paperwork in an applicant’s file, regardless of whether it was complete. No further follow-up checks were to be made.

Jeffrey said staff were given guidance that “Brace is about pragmatic (ie not pursing every angle that could conceivably justify refusal) grants rather than pragmatic refusals”.

In other words, the official policy was in principle to grant applications rather than to refuse them.

This telling exchange — and equally significant evidence of a concerted cover-up — is buried deep in a batch of documents that ministers tried desperately to prevent being made public.

Their illegal activity followed an application by a Whitehall whistleblower, Steve Moxon, to force them to release the material under the Freedom of Information Act.

An immigration case worker whose ultimate bosses had been Jeffrey and Hughes, Moxon was sacked after telling The Sunday Times about the fast-tracking process in 2004. He has spent five years trying to obtain the truth about the policy, which Hughes always claimed publicly was implemented by junior officials without her knowledge.

Not only do the papers expose her claim as untrue; they go further in showing that Hughes and Jeffrey were happy to encourage the culture of deliberate risk-taking.

When an FoI application was made to see their exchanges, ministers argued that the material was exempt from disclosure because policy advice given by officials to their political masters should remain confidential.

In official correspondence with the information commissioner, the Home Office said that “a Home Office minister” had ruled that the documents should not be released.

But in March this year, Thomas ruled: “The public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

“The commissioner requires the (Home Office) to disclose the information which has been withheld . . . In failing to release information, the commissioner finds that the (Home Office) breached sections 1 and 10 (of the Freedom of Information Act.”

The government reluctantly conceded, placing the documents on an obscure part of the department’s website, apparently in the hope that nobody would notice.

Yesterday, the Tories said they would be demanding an urgent explanation of the documents from the government.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: “This is shaping up to become one of the major political scandals of recent times. Ministers quite clearly broke the law and deliberately misled the public to cover up a policy which most reasonable people would say was utterly irresponsible.”

Whiff of a smoking gun

Why did new Labour secretly open Britain’s borders, while pretending to control the numbers under its so-called “managed migration” policy?

Two weeks ago Andrew Neather, a former speechwriter for Tony Blair, wrote an article saying Labour had allowed immigration to rocket in order to turn Britain “truly multicultural” and “to rub the right’s noses in diversity”.

The heart of his claim was that uncontrolled mass immigration had been a deliberate, covert policy to change the country’s demographics.

But Labour’s core vote, the white working class, were drawn to the BNP at the resulting pressure on jobs, homes and schools.

Alan Johnson, the home secretary, has said Labour was “maladroit” on the issue: the immigration door was left wide open because of “cock-up” not a “conspiracy”. But Neather’s account may be only half the story.

Chris Mullin, a former minister, recalled in his memoirs that ministers had “barely touched the rackets that surrounded arranged marriages . . . terrified of the huge cry of ‘racism’ that would go up

. . . There is the added difficulty that at least 20 Labour seats, including Jack (Straw’s), depend on Asian votes”.

With up to 80% of ethnic minorities voting Labour, it is obvious that the more immigrants who get the right to vote, the greater is Labour’s electoral share. Perhaps Mullin has stumbled on a smoking gun.

David Leppard
From The Sunday Times November 8, 2009

Conservative Shadow Minister tackles Govt "deceit"

BBC Video

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling has accused ministers of trying to "deliberately deceive" people about immigration policy.

He accused them of breaking Freedom of Information laws and trying to cover up a policy of increasing immigration.

His claim relates to notes between officials and ministers released more than four years after an FOI request.

Minister Phil Woolas denied that laws had been broken and said the details had been published months ago.

Mr Woolas told MPs the notes and e-mails related to a policy to clear a backlog of immigration cases between 2002 and 2004 - into which there had been a full inquiry at the time.

'Free and frank'

Whistleblower Steve Moxon prompted the row in 2004; it resulted in the resignation of then immigration minister Beverley Hughes. He then requested details of documents in January 2005.

Mr Woolas said that, under FOI law, ministers were allowed to withhold some details if there was a risk publishing them might prejudice the "free and frank exchange of views" between ministers and officials.

Mr Moxon appealed and the case went to the Information Commissioner who, in March 2009, ruled more details should be released.

"We then released that information in April 2009," Mr Woolas said.

But Mr Grayling said: "More and more evidence is now emerging to suggest that this government broke Freedom of Information laws and tried to cover up a deliberate change of policy designed to encourage much higher levels of immigration, very probably for party political purposes."

'Some risks'

He said the documents showed that in 2002 rules were relaxed to clear immigration applicants waiting for more than 12 months "without any further investigation into their cases".

The then head of Immigration and Nationality had e-mailed a minister to confirm the policy of "pragmatic grants", which meant "some risks would have to be taken", Mr Grayling said.

Explaining his accusation of a cover-up, he said some copies of documents outlining the policy change were "clearly marked 'withhold' at the top".

"Will he tell the House why ministers did break those [FOI] laws, laws this government itself passed?" asked Mr Grayling.

"This is a government that has set out to deliberately deceive the British people and a government that has proved utterly incapable of telling them the truth about its policies on accusation."

Mr Woolas told MPs the accusation that the government had broken the law was one "I absolutely reject".

He said the policies in question had been the subject of a "thorough" investigation at the time and he dismissed Mr Grayling's attack as "his latest political gimmick".

Staff 'took risks'

He added: "The allegation has been made, very seriously, that we broke the law - that was the phrase you used.

"In fact, the ruling from the Information Commissioner was issued on March 5 2009 and on April 9 we disclosed, in line with that ruling, the information."

The Sunday Times reported that the government had published the released documents on an "obscure" part of the Home Office website.

It said the documents released showed ministers knew immigration staff were being asked to take risks when granting visas, work permits and leave to stay.

For the Lib Dems, Chris Huhne said public confidence in immigration policy would only be sustained if controls were effective.

"There is clear evidence here that immigration policy was to grant applications rather than refuse them, a policy that was never made public or debated in this House, giving the benefit of doubt to the applicant," he said.

He added that exit checks should have been reinstated to show whether people issued short-term visas were leaving the UK.

Yet more lies from Labour

In complete contrast to Gordon Brown's announcements of plans to provide extra help for the country through a recession, and with self congratulatory plans declaring a plan to give extra assistance to young unemployed people who are and lacking in skills, and whilst accusing the Tories of wanting to cut back. The Guardian today accuses the government of "misleading" the public, and union bosses and opposition MP's say he has tried to "dupe" young people.

Its headline reads; "Secret Labour plan to axe spending on training for young people", and its report refers to leaked official papers obtained by its sister paper The Observer, which reveal Labour are really planning cuts of £350m.

Gordon Brown has gone to some lengths to accuse the opposition of "willingly wanting to cut back" in a recession. He's said "now is not the time". He's made lots of fuss over the fact (sic), that in a time of recession he will "not walk on the other side" - "We will help people through these difficult times". Yet these cuts go to the very base of recovery for the country as they will stop new apprenticeships and training in its tracks. The very thing industry needs!

Furthermore, if that wasn't enough to make your blood boil. The Telegraph has a report today telling us that jobless figures for our youngsters have never been so bad and are the worst in Europe!

Youth unemployment worst in Europe - as jobless rate reaches a million
By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
Published: 3:46PM GMT 08 Nov 2009

The number of jobless university leavers is predicted to have reached the 100,000 mark when the latest unemployment figures are released on Wednesday, up from 70,000 last year, raising the prospect of a 2009 “lost generation” of out of work graduates.

Research by Keep Britain Working found that four out of five voters said that the parties’ policy on tackling youth unemployment would influence their choice at the next general election.

The Government will attempt to cushion the blow from the unemployment statistics, which experts predict will almost certainly show youth jobless rates at more than a million having reached 946,000 in August, by unveiling thousands of new jobs as part of the Backing Young Britain campaign.

A comparison of youth unemployment across Europe based on the July figures and released by the Conservatives shows that Britain has more out of work youngsters that any other country in the European Union.

Spain, in second place, has a smaller population than the United Kingdom, but both France in third and Germany, fourth, are larger.

Theresa May, shadow work and pensions secretary, said: “Labour has failed on unemployment. We desperately need to get Britain working again and make sure that a generation isn’t scarred by Gordon Brown’s recession.”

The Government accused the Conservatives of "spinning disingenuous nonsense" by failing to take population differences into account.

Jim Knight, the Employment Minister, said: "The Tories' use of these figures is ignorant and misleading.

"It won't come as a shock to anyone to learn that the UK - with a population of 62 million, has more people out of work than Luxembourg with its population of less than half a million.

"If you compare like with like you will see that the action government has taken means that the UK is in fact 13th out of 24 in the EU when it comes to youth unemployment - better than not only Luxembourg, but also France, Italy and Spain."

On Wednesday, Yvette Cooper, the Work and Pensions Secretary, will announce that more than 30,000 jobs will be created in roles such as health care, insulation fitting, and computing.

The jobs will be part of the innovative Future Jobs Fund, a £1 billion pot of money available for councils, charities and voluntary sector organisations to create posts for 18 to 24-year-olds and those in areas of particularly high unemployment.

Around 300,000 graduates left university this year, with numbers seeking higher education qualifications increasing as the recession bites. Nearly eight per cent of graduates under the age of 25 are now without a job.

They think they can break the British people but they're in for a surprise

Times writer supports British National Party argument

From The Sunday Times November 1, 2009

Labour’s secret scheme to build multicultural Britain Minette Marrin

“There was a reluctance ... in government,” he wrote, “to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote.” The social outcomes that ministers cared about were those affecting the immigrants. This, Neather explains, shone out in a report published in 2001 after these confidential deliberations.

LINK

Can the recent success of the British National party be explained by the misguided immigration policy of the government? That was the killer question from the floor during the notorious episode of Question Time 10 days ago. Four times it was put to Jack Straw, the justice secretary, and four times he avoided answering it. Until that evening I had thought Straw was a fairly decent sort of bloke, for a politician. No longer. In a man so central to the new Labour project, who has served in cabinet under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who has been home secretary and foreign secretary, evasion on such an important subject is shocking.

In his first evasion Straw waffled about Enoch Powell’s recruitment of immigrants to work for the National Health Service. But that was more than 40 years ago and, as David Dimbleby pointed out, Labour has been in power for the past 12 years and Straw should answer the question. Again he waffled irrelevantly, this time about identity.

Dimbleby challenged him for a third time: “Are you saying there is no worry about the scale of immigration in this country? Is that the point you’re making? I can’t get out what you’re saying.” Straw responded by saying that new figures show a reduction in the rate of increase in migration and added something about the new points system, all of which was offensively irrelevant.

So, for a fourth time, Dimbleby pressed him to answer the question. Again Straw failed to do so, but concluded by saying: “I don’t believe it is.”

It was a farce. As Baroness Warsi, the Muslim peer, protested: “That answer is not an honest answer.” Watching Straw’s face, I was puzzled about what he was thinking. Was he knowingly dishonest or had he somehow blinded himself to all the facts about the mass immigration of the past 10 years and its consequences?

An answer emerged the next day in a London evening newspaper. I then learnt that giving Straw the benefit of this doubt had been naive: the explanation is much more sinister. In an astonishingly insouciant article Andrew Neather — a former adviser to Straw, Blair and David Blunkett — revealed that Labour ministers had a hidden agenda in allowing immigrants to flood into the country.

According to Neather, who was present at secret meetings during the summer of 2000, the government had “a driving political purpose” which was: “mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”.

What’s more, Neather said he came 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”.

Ministers longed for an immigration boom but wouldn’t talk about it, he wrote. “They probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”

The revelations get worse. “There was a reluctance ... in government,” he wrote, “to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote.” The social outcomes that ministers cared about were those affecting the immigrants. This, Neather explains, shone out in a report published in 2001 after these confidential deliberations.

One must question whether this is true. Needless to say, Straw has denied all this and Neather has since tried to back-pedal. But I believe he meant what he said the first time, precisely because of where he was coming from as a true supporter of immigration, urging Brown to be more open about its great benefits. His were not the words of someone fearful of immigration or angry at the government’s open-door policy: Neather is the personification of the toxic supporter. As for Straw’s credibility, he lost it on Question Time.

Accepting Neather’s allegations, it is hard to decide which is the worst of these crimes against morality and democracy. To frame a radical social policy, with wide-reaching consequences, just to embarrass and marginalise the opposition party, is grotesquely immature and irresponsible; it is the behaviour of spiteful children mucking about with our destinies just to settle imaginary scores. That’s pretty bad, but it is just as bad for the Labour party to abandon and hoodwink its traditional supporters — the core white working-class vote, those on whose shoulders the Labour party was built — and to ignore their wishes and “social outcomes” in favour of a mass of strangers.

It is little wonder that sensing this abandonment, which we now know was deliberate, many white working-class Labour voters are tempted towards a party that does acknowledge their grievances. Knowingly to impose a transformative policy without truthfulness on the government’s side or informed consent on the people’s side was simple fascism — and to do so with silly propaganda about multiculturalism and unjust sneers about racism has made these injustices only more bitter.

Under these circumstances, Labour’s obvious gerrymandering by mass immigration — black and ethnic minority people are very likely to vote Labour — is perhaps the least of its crimes.

To accuse Labour of failures and worse in its immigration policy is not to exonerate the Conservatives. They have failed again and again to confront the real problems of immigration. They are to blame for abandoning the policy of counting everyone out of the country as well as in, which they did on grounds of cost in 1994. Of course it was expensive, particularly before the arrival of time-saving technology. But it is obvious that if you abandon any attempt to know whether a visitor has left, according to the rules of immigration, then you have given up control of your borders and what would also be a useful security measure.

That policy could and should be reinstated, as should the rule to crack down on marriages arranged to get British nationality; that is a clear abuse that could be restrained by bringing back the primary purpose rule, which Labour abandoned on coming to power.

There are lots of such practical things that could be done to ensure immigration is controlled in future. But the first thing to do is to expose the patronising lies, the seigneurial arrogance and the criminally foolish social engineering of the Blair-Brown regime; it does not deserve the name of Labour government.

__________________________________

Comment:
I think one of the biggest problems of policy is in the mindset of giving nationality to migrants. i.e. A British passport with all that entails. It is clearly ridiculous to suggest someone can 'become British' or English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, simply as a result of government policy. Such policy erodes and always will erode the very basic inherited rights of all others if that government then seeks to diminish the rights of natural born Britons by way of positive discrimination which engenders rights to 'all cultures' as if they are equal.

We've been brainwashed to believe that Britain is a multicultural country. It isn't. We are of one culture which is tolerant to others but not consumed by them. We are to be more accurate, a multi-racial society. Multi-racial poses no real problem unless the different races have different cultures.

This written piece is very welcome in helping to destroy the Labour Marxist myth that we don't have a British culture worth preserving, and it clearly notes that Labour and Tories have been bent on arguing the economics of immigration rather then the social and cultural consequences to Britain of permitting unbridled immigration.

The BNP has it right.
You might also note that India and Israel has already adopted a policy of repatriation and many other countries now see the social and cultural problems being caused by immigration.

This government should stop handing my nationality out to the world in the way of passports. It belongs to me not them.

I will vote BNP and everyone I know will be doing the same. I've had more than enough of these leeches who tell us lies, sell our country, ruin our people, our culture and our society and the future of our children.

I hope many others do the same for the sake of Britains future.

Culture Clash

Does Israel's immigration problem sound familiar?

The Israeli immigration minister Eli Yishai has announced his firm intention to deport all illegal aliens because their presence “damages the state’s Jewish identity, constitute a demographic threat and increase the danger of assimilation.”

The demand of Israel to be a Jewish state underpins the existence of that nation — and is identical to the British National Party’s demand for Britain to remain an ethnically majority British state.

Speaking to the Israeli media after refusing to concede on demands for the children of illegal immigrants to be made exempt from deportation proceedings, Mr Yishai said he was adamant over his decision that all illegal foreign workers and their families must leave the country.

“Minister Yishai is not ready to give a permanent residency to these children. Their parents, who are staying illegally, are using their children to whitewash their presence,” Mr Yishai’s spokesman, Roee Lahmanovitz told the media.

“Allowing this group residency would create a dangerous precedent which could eventually fundamentally change the Jewish character of Israel,” he said.

“We are not a safe haven, period. We should not damage the character of the Jewish state simply out of clemency.”

Allowing these children to stay in Israel “is liable to damage the state’s Jewish identity, constitute a demographic threat and increase the danger of assimilation,” Mr Yishai added later. “We are not an asylum state.”

According to official figures, some 222,000 foreign workers live in Israel, including 107,000 who have exceeded their work permits. These illegal aliens come from countries as widely disparate as Ghana and the Philippines.

The arrival of hundreds of thousands of foreign workers has already transformed many streets of the once predominantly Tel Aviv into a series of Asian and African food stores, restaurants, Internet cafes and karaoke bars.

Israel issues work visas for nearly 30,000 foreign workers every year and many stay in the country once the visas expire. Several years ago, the Israeli government ordered a crackdown on the illegal immigrant problem, and created a new unit to deal with it.

Further reading: United Nations Charter 21 - Sustainable development a global plan page 15

3.7. Sustainable development must be achieved at every level of society. Peoples' organizations, women's groups and non-governmental organizations are important sources of innovation and action at the local level and have a strong interest and proven ability to promote sustainable livelihoods. Governments, in cooperation with appropriate international and non-governmental organizations, should support a
community-driven approach to sustainability, which would include, inter alia:

a. Empowering women through full participation in decision-making;

b. Respecting the cultural integrity and the rights of indigenous people and their communities;

You will note that Governments are:

a) Empowering women and ethnic groups and any other minority case or head case or nutter with a grievance and a placard in his hands, but that they are NOT adhering to b) To respect the cultural integrity and the rights of indigenous people and their communities.

Instead, they are SMASHING THEM!

Is the Munzenburg 'Franfurt School Conspiracy' really happening?

What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution.

Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted. To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things): LINK

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.

• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls

• abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces

• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.'

The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.

Hat tip: Incog Man

France adopts immigration policy similar to the BNP

France to launch national pride campaign in battle against Islamic fundamentalism
By Peter Allen
Last updated at 1:39 AM on 27th

France is to adopt a series of measures to 'reaffirm pride' in the country and combat Islamic fundamentalism.
They include everybody receiving lessons in the nation's Christian history and children singing the national anthem.
Using words which infuriated ethnic minority groups and Socialist opponents, immigration minister Eric Besson also said he wanted 'foreigners to speak better French'.


He called for all recent arrivals to be monitored by 'Republican godfathers', charged with helping immigrants to integrate better.
His proposed measures contrast sharply with the situation in Britain where 'citizenship education' centres on multicultural diversity.
M Besson, who was born in the former French protectorate of Morocco, suggested a debate on national identity' entitled 'What does it mean to be French?'
He also reignited the debate about face and body-covering Muslim veils, saying they should definitely be banned.
As well as providing civic lessons for adults - including classes about the country's Christian history and liberal political institutions - the government will encourage school children to sing the national anthem at least once a year.
His proposed measures contrast sharply with the situation in Britain where 'citizenship education' centres on multicultural diversity and the European Union, while 'God Save The Queen' is not even taught in schools.

In an interview broadcast on national TV, Mr Besson said : 'It's necessary to reaffirm the values of national identity and the pride of being French.
'I think, for example, that it would be good for all young French people to have the chance to sing The Marseillaise at least once a year.'

Making clear that radical Islam was a threat, Mr Besson said: 'In France, the nation and the republic remain the strongest ramparts against ... fundamentalist tendencies. France is diversity, and France is unity.'


Mr Besson defended a decision to send illegal Afghan immigrants - all of them Muslim - back to Kabul on charter flights organised in conjunction with the British government last week, saying there would be many more.

More than 21,000 people have been deported from France this year - with 27,000 the ultimate target, said Mr Besson.

He also reignited the debate about face and body-covering Muslim veils, saying they should definitely be banned.
'For me, there should be no burqas on the street,' said Mr Besson. 'The burqa is against national values - an affront to women's rights and equality.'

Explaining the apparent shift to the extreme right by President Nicolas Sarkozy's government, Mr Besson evoked the legacy of Jean Marie Le Pen's anti-immigration National Front party, which is struggling massively with huge debts and low electoral support.
Mr Besson said: 'We should never have abandoned to the National Front a number of values which are part of the Republic's heritage. I think that the political death of the National Front would be the best news for all of us.'

But Mohammed Moussaoui, a prominent French Muslim leader, said debates like the one about the burqa were stigmatizing the country's entire Muslim community, which at some five million is the largest in western Europe.

LINK

Klaus asks for referendum on Lisbon Treaty

From The Times today

Václav Klaus, the Czech President, who is the last hurdle to full ratification of the Lisbon treaty, has made a final attempt to derail the agreement.

In a submission to the Czech constitutional court, which will decide tomorrow whether the treaty is compatible with the country’s constitution, Mr Klaus has suggested that it should be subject to a referendum.

The President, who is the only head of state yet to sign the treaty, attacked the EU notion of “shared sovereignty” as a contradiction that effectively means a loss of national control.

President Klaus made his written statement in support of a case against the treaty brought by 17 Czech senators, who have asked judges to rule that the agreement is unconstitutional because it transfers powers to Brussels. He also asked for a ruling on whether the treaty changed the terms of the Czech Republic’s accession to the EU in 2004 so significantly that a new referendum should be ordered.

Have you heard about the European Union and "Communitarianism" yet?

Communitarianism is a “Big Brother knows best” type of philosophy. Barack Obama is a Fabian Communitarian, although you will not have heard him use the term during his election campaign. Americans will get a shock when the truth of his hidden agenda becomes known and they find out his real intentions. Bear in mind that Obama is simply a front-man for the New World Order Communitarians.

Communitarians want to create a post-modern, post-democratic feudal society run by a small number of rich and powerful people with everyone else working as peasants.

In order to achieve their objectives they must destroy the middle class and the nation state.

For an excellent overview of what is going on, see The EU Communitarian Agenda and The New Feudalists. Matthew D. Jarvie’s “The Fabian Society, Communitarianism and the New World Order” video. An economic overview of the NWO (from a US perspective): The International Forecaster. Slightly OT, here is sound advice from someone who understands the economics of what is going on (also from a US perspective): Europac (Peter Schiff). Quotes “In a communitarian society, which is inherently coercive, it isn’t just the majority view that prevails and becomes policy, the majority view is the only one which can be spoken, the only one which can be even heard.” Medawar “Communitarianism is a collectivist philosophy that explicitly rejects individualism.” Black Crayon “…ideology of ‘civic society’ (or communitarism), which is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence, a refeudalization of society.”

Vaclav Klaus “In general communitarians emphasize society rather than the individual and believe that group responsibilities (to family, community, nation, the globe) should trump individual rights.” Libertarians vs. Communitarians “Communitarianism is not about ‘the common good’. It’s about power and the absolute and dictatorial control of money and people – nothing more and nothing less.” Communitarianism – the dictatorship of everything “The communitarians work behind the scenes. Élite communitarian ‘thinkers’ quietly slide their new laws inside projects and programs few regular folks will think (or dare) to question. And, just so you won’t look any closer, (or open your mouth to ask one dumb question) the communitarians mask their fascist programs behind all kinds of lovely phrasing.

The new phrases work so well that if you do speak up with a debateable question, it means you don’t want to live in a ’safe and healthy community.’ And since everyone has to agree in order to reach communitarian consensus, you will be shunned and excluded from the decision making ‘councils’ that control the new districts. Go ahead and try, but the shifty communitarians will NEVER debate you because their programs are based entirely in a lie called communism.” The Anti-Communitarian League (ACL) “We are witnessing a seizure and redirection of power through legitimate means. This is not a dictatorship but something more complex: the tyranny of popularity.”

Utopian Delusions – Communitarianism “There has been very little systematic criticism of ideological communitarianism, if only because its exact premises and policy consequences are difficult to pin down. Those wary of it tend to be individualist thinkers who worry that self-described communitarians are actually stealth collectivists; or, more plausibly, that the main effect of well-intentioned communitarian rhetoric is to provide cover for collectivists with a much farther-reaching and harsher agenda than the communitarians intend.”

Wikipedia – Communitarianism “The Communitarian pitch to balance rights and responsibilities thus masks an attempt to shift the basic nature of rights and responsibilities from individuals to the community, i.e. to the state.” Rights, Responsibilities, and Communitarianism “The cult television series ‘The Prisoner’ tells the story of a man who, after losing and then regaining consciousness, opens the blinds of his London flat to find that the world outside has undergone a Kafkaesque transformation: the skyscrapers and city streets visible from his window have been replaced with a small and serene village. (2) Accompanying this stark change in his external environment is a sharp decrease in his freedom. Whereas his life in London was his own, he discovers upon venturing out into the village (3) that his decisions and actions are now community property. He is watched everywhere he goes both by neighbors and hidden cameras. (4) He is expected to be an enthusiastic participant in all communal events, and is ostracized as ‘unmutual’ when he instead seeks out privacy and seclusion. (5) The town’s authorities are intent on ensuring that residents cannot opt out of village life: quaint taxis transport people within the village, but never outside of it; phone service is strictly local; maps at the village store show nothing beyond the community’s boundaries. (6) Each showing of independence or defiance by the protagonist brings strong pressure from the authorities to fully account for (and recant) his actions. (7) In short, his familiar urban life is replaced with a communitarian dystopia, hostile to privacy and deeply suspicious of every act of individuality.”

The dangers of fighting terrorism with technocommunitarianism

Hat tip: London Patriot

Labour traitors ignore the British people at your peril

Unbelievable as it sounds, the current Labour government conspired to keep secret from the British people for 10 years, its plans to rid Britain of its own culture by allowing unrestricted control of immigration under the guise of "cultural diversity". It imposed laws to postively discriminate against the British people and it took decisions without mandate from the British people, to rid them of their sovereign rights to govern themselves.



Labour
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 6:42PM BST 23 Oct 2009

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"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."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.

"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.

"It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain."

Ex Labour Minister Frank Field MP asks "Are we as a nation lost"