Monday, 30 November 2009

Danish media puts doubt on Swine Flu -

Swine flu pandemic is yet another conspiracy – Danish media

LINK

Danish journalists claim that the World Health Organization and drug companies producing the swine flu vaccine are in partnership, and that the true nature of their relationship is shrouded in mystery.

“What we do know is that the pharmaceutical companies are present at the meetings of WHO expert groups, but what we don’t know is what they talk about. And another thing is that scientists who appear to be independent are also hired consultants working for the same pharmaceutical companies who produce the vaccines,” says Louise Voller, a journalist at the Danish Daily Information newspaper.

They thought we were dumb!

Thankfully for the human race we had sceptics who refused to believe in:

Flat Earthism
McCarthyism
Stalinism
Maoism
Nazism
Communism
Socialism
Communitarianism
Globalisationism
Multiculturalism
Puritinism
Creationism
Darwinism and even 'BigBangism'.

Now all we have to do is settle disputes about Climatism, Environmentalism, Globalism, Capitalism, Corporatism and Marxism and we can return to Individualism and back to sane politics.

Hopefully, someone like Margaret Thatcher will rise and show us the way out of this mess soon.

I'd also like to know how we are only learning about UN Agenda 21 from the internet, and piecing together ourselves how global warming fits that agenda by a remarkable - nay unbelievable - coincidence.

Anyone who reads Agenda 21 could not possibly agree with it, yet 178 nations agreed it without ever describing it to the people who make up the entire world's population!

When will that be explained? Answer: NEVER - Find out yourself!




When Agenda 21 was agreed, there was no YouTube and it could never have been imagined that the entire population of the world would be communicating with each other and discovering information through the internet.

Politicians hadn't banked on this at all. They could big themselves up on the world stage. The image of politicians upholding our national interests was in no doubt. Yet over the years the people have begun to wake up. They've looked and learned and they've discovered many things themselves and many don't like the things they see. Agenda 21 sets a mark for social change - social engineering - for the 21st century. It establishes a New World Order in which people come last and way down the ladder to their ideology of globalisation.

Only by returning your mind to individual thought can you ever hope to achieve freedom from the oppressors who want your societies to function for THEIR benefit and for YOU to accept it. 'IT' being ANYTHING they tell you is real. Anything like global warming, a financial recession, the need for war or that the country is full of suspected paedophiles or even that we should kill all the cattle because it's bad for the environment if we eat meat!

No part of our lives remain untouched by this. Nothing in our politics remains and nothing of our democracy remains. There are no other ideas because anyone who disagrees with THEIR ideology is branded a heretic, a kook, a racist or a fascist. WE must take control of our lives again.

Quote:

The communitarian plan for reinventing a global government was adopted by the UN in 1992 at the Earth Summit. There were no public votes cast for or against it in any of the affected "free" nations. Average citizens were not consulted. In most free and democratic countries, the nation's taxpayers (who pay for it) were never even told about it. The major media outlets were mostly silent while for thirteen years, the UN's LA-21 laws have been imposed on all 166 member nations.

There were no big discussions of its purpose or ultimate consequences. It just slid into law. It's really pretty amazing. No major editorials, no explanation of how it would be imposed, it was barely announced by the national governments who endorsed it. Only a few enlightened locals understand LA-21 requires a total reorganization of government systems. It eliminates individual rights in the free countries. National systems of political economy are subserviant to LA-21 laws.

Sunday, 29 November 2009

Nick Griffin to represent EU in UN Copenhagen Climate Change conference -

Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, is to represent the European parliament at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, which opens next week.

Last night politicians and scientists reacted furiously to news that the far-right politician and climate change denier should be attending the summit on behalf of the EU.

Griffin, who was elected to the European parliament in June, confirmed last night that he would attend as the representative of the parliament's environmental committee. World leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, are hoping to forge a new global agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.

Without such a deal, scientists warn that world temperatures will increase by more than 2C by the end of the century, triggering ice cap melting, sea-level rises, widespread flooding, the spread of deserts and devastating storms.

In a speech in the parliament last week, Griffin denounced those who warn of the consequences of climate change as "cranks". He said they had reached "an Orwellian consensus" that was "based not on scientific agreement, but on bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics".

"The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology… But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao."

Griffin will be one of 15 representatives chosen to speak on behalf of the EU in Copenhagen. The shadow climate change secretary, Greg Clark, condemned the move last night. "It is utterly ridiculous that someone who doesn't even believe in climate change should be seeking to represent Europe in Copenhagen. The BNP does not command the support of the people of Britain, let alone of the rest of Europe," he said.

Nobel Prize Winner, Lord Monckton, "smashes the climate change Scam", tells us why the truth matters and why Al Gore is a "liar" -



Speaking for over 2 hours without notes tells me that he knows what he's talking about. He is after all, ex-government adviser for science policy to Margaret Thatcher.

Man made climate change is a load of tosh.

Question: Why did they name Greenland "Green Land" if it was covered with ice? -

Question: How come 150,000 years ago, Greenland had spiders and lots of foliage we see now in warmer climates?

Question: Why have all the scientists, Nobel Prize winners amongst them, including Lord Monckton and Prof Richard Lindzen and many others, been a) Not heard, b) Written off as deniers, c) Not been able to show to the public their incontestible evidence that global warming is "natural" and NOT man made?

Question: What do politicians know about the climate. Are THEY the experts now?

Question: Can't they find another way to control the masses, tax us until our eyes pop and kill off our belief in science, without returning us to the stoneage with their rabble of Marxist pen pushers telling us not to light a fire, don't eat meat, etc, etc?

JUST STOP IT DO YOU HEAR YOU'RE MAKING ME MAD!

The problem is not climate change it is capitalism and consumerism without influence or social cause. They are the real dangers of our age. Our economic system requires continual growth to survive. Because of this, we require others resources at an exponential rate yet 'we' don't have those resources for 'we' are the 'consumers' and 'we' create the waste.

Due to capitalism without social conscience, 'we' make demands on others and restrict their ability to grow themselves. And we take the best of their people unto us and leave others without the means to develop their own societies and economies.

Our leaders do this to give 'us' the benefits of a good lifestyle and services which we demand. In turn, services are less in other countries which cannot stand on their own two feet because 'we' hold economic control over markets.

The system HAS to change because many millions of people will die for lack of basic needs and lack of drugs to fight disease. Eventually, as our economies improve on the basis of finding ever cheaper resources and cheaper labour, we will see our own societies spiralling downward into a pit without democracy, without the services we crave, and in a pile of debt which will become unsustainable to us. The economic system MUST change and this requires global decision making. It also requires seismic shift in societal aims including a throwing away of our national identities and our cultures and this requires control. Hence Yale University studying Globalisation and Tony Blair selling his Faith and Globalisation which is as cooked as the idea that man made global warming.

It is Marxism.

And who said:

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. // If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. // If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. // If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth. // If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.

Joseph Goebbels

Chief Policy Adviser says they are "deliberately killing people" with climate change programme -

"There is certainly an element of deliberate desire to control population by killing people in large numbers, deliberately if necessary" - Lord Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy Advisor Science and Public Policy Institute.

He's talking with Alex Jones about climate change which he denies is happening. He says CO2 in our atmosphere is "good" and more people survive with more of it than less of it.

His accusations of deliberate killing of people in large numbers, can be heard at 6.45 on the video recorded by Alex Jones.





Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports. Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;

CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;

The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;

The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;

“Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;

Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;

The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;

Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;

In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.


Don't worry, it's just the Munzenburg Franfurt School action plan being put into operation.

Don't worry, it's just the Munzenburg Franfurt School action plan being put into operation. There's nothing to worry about. Everything's under control, now move along please into your next higher quality Labour Safety Zone (LSZ), which has been specially dedicated to our leaders.

We used to call it the "Ballot Box".

Schools vet parents for Christmas festivities says The Times

Parents who want to accompany their children to Christmas carol services and other festive activities are being officially vetted for criminal records in case they are paedophiles.

In the latest expansion of the government’s child protection agenda, parents are checked against a database of people banned from working with children for sex offences and for other reasons.

Parents will have to provide schools with proof of their identity, such as a passport, as well as their address, so their records can be checked.

Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at Kent University and the author of a report on paranoia over child protection, said: “Once you institutionalise mistrust, you incite people to take these things further and further, finding new areas to implement criminal record checks.

“It becomes a badge of responsibility and a symbolic ritual. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make sense.”

A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said some schools were being overcautious: “We want to take a common-sense approach to this and allow head teachers to use their professional judgment and experience.”

A primary school in Norwich is insisting on the checks for parents who want to attend its disco.

Furedi said: “I also know of a primary school with a Christmas disco which is requiring checks to be made on parents who volunteer to help out.”

Anastasia de Waal, head of family and education at Civitas, the think tank, said: “It sets up this really negative relationship, it can put off adults and gives children the message that either adults don’t want to be involved in their lives at all, or that adults have all got to be intensely mistrusted and you can’t have faith in anybody.”

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

Saturday, 28 November 2009

Australian Senate Times Out on Emissions Trading Bill

Stalemate: Govt extends time for Senate
BY DAVID MCLENNAN
28 Nov, 2009 10:13 AM

The Senate will resume debating the emissions trading scheme on Monday morning after the Government agreed to extend its deadline to pass the legislation.
Junior Climate Change Minister Greg Combet had indicated yesterday the Government would pull concessions, in the form of amendments to the proposed scheme, at 3.45pm, saying ''this is a deal for this week''.

Under siege, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull had promised his senators would vote for the scheme by that time. However, Coalition senators effectively defied him and had debated only 34 of the 295 amendments by the 3.45pm cut off, when the Upper House rose for the weekend.

The delays prompted angry accusations from Government Senate Leader Chris Evans that the Coalition was filibustering purposely dragging out debate so the legislation could not be put to a vote and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong accused the Liberals of a ''weasel act'' in reneging on a deal.

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard said last night it was ''deeply, deeply disappointing'' the Liberals had not honoured their agreement, but the Government would not withdraw its concessions yet. Parliament would resume at 10am Monday to keep debating the Bills.

''Now the time has come for the Liberal Party to live up to its responsibilities to the nation and under this agreement. The Government remains committed to securing passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme,'' she said.

''The Senate will sit on Monday and we expect the Liberal Party at that time to honour the agreement and pass the scheme ... if they fail to honour the agreement, then that will tell you that they have been conquered by the sceptics and deniers in their ranks.''

However, the Government cannot force the Senate to end the debate because it does not have the numbers to force a vote.

Canberra Times - LINK

The Global Warming Scam is unravelling in America and Australia



Predicting climate change involves "multiple sciences" NOT ONE, NOT TWO, but ALL Science disciplines. It is IMPOSSIBLE for one person to know in depth ALL the disciplines of science, therefore they rely on a 'computer programme'. However one fact cannot be changed. CO2 does not harm the atmosphere. Fact 2, This twat shouts down anyone who contradicts him and THAT is not science!!!

Lord Pearson new leader of UKIP


Lord Pearson is undoubtedly a decent chap to fill Farage's shoes but I don't think he'll be hi-tech enough for the modern world of politics. Apparently he's never heard of twitter. I think what UKIP amounts to is basically a Conservative club for protest and nothing like a new politic which wants to actually change anything. It is a party based on the policy of "We'll give you a referendum on Europe but if we were asked to run the country then we'd be asking those Tories who didn't join us, to do it" and I think this misleads the public. Heaven forbid they were ever elected to government as all you'd get is a conservative government with the same old same old free market policies and open doors to the world where British people come second to business.

BNP on the other hand is a true nationalist party. It doesn't compromise the fundamental ethic that this country is ours and that our sovereign rights are inalienable. Do people on the outside actually understand what that means? It means that we cannot "vote away" our sovereignty and it cannot be taken from us except by force!!!! - Hence BNP policy is to remove us from the position now where our laws are made by others and where "we sovereign people", are nothing but "subjects to a foreign jurisdiction". It is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, for the people of this country to be bound by laws which are not of their own making, and the idea that a "referendum" will make things alright (and legal), is FALSE!


Imagine if you will that UKIP were elected and gave a referendum. - The decision was 51% in favour of remaining part of the EU. I had my "inalienable sovereignty" removed by half the population who has NO RIGHT TO REMOVE IT!

BNP policy of withdrawal is an honest policy and it is constitutionally legal. It understands the question over Europe and it understands our sovereignty cannot be removed.

The question of immigration relates to our sovereignty too. Why? - Because of religious culture. We are inexorably linked as a country to the Protestant Christian Faith. - Our monarch has sworn an oath to protect the faith and that oath cannot be removed (legally). The Government of course, has however removed the Royal Prerogative over parliament. This act was an unconstitutional act no different to a coup, in that it "cut" the sovereigns head off in a way, as she is no longer able to refuse to place a bill into law, and has no authority to dismiss government. - Her sworn oath to protect OUR SOVEREIGNTY, cannot be exercised.

UKIP has said nothing about this fundamental act of treason and it still offers a "vote" on Europe which is akin to eating humble pie with traitors!!!

A referendum cannot remove my sovereign rights. They are "inalienable". This is why a referendum is wrong as it gives the appearance of legality to an illegal act.

UKIP policy is flawed for that reason, whereas BNP policy of withdrawal is not.


People ask why the Queen does not intervene. Nothwithstanding her constitutional position to not involve herself in politics, she is the monarch and the protector of our sovereignty with a sworn oath to protect our faith. She has authority over our armed forces for this specific reason. However her prerogative over parliament was removed by the labour Govt.

The Liberals voted for this as well and you only have to check what Liberal MP Evan Harris wants to see why. They are federalists and republicans and have gotten into bed with Marxists from the Labour camp.

The ONLY party in the UK which understands the situation and holds an honest policy to safeguard our sovereign rights and cultural heritage, to preserve the crown, our monarchy and our democracy, is the British National Party. - Not UKIP, and not the Lib/Lab/Con.

ONLY the BNP have honest policies on the subject of our sovereignty and on immigration. ONLY the BNP will restore our sovereign rights, our monarchy, our faith, our culture and our powers over parliament. ONLY the BNP understand democracy.

It matters not one jot if Labour get into power again. They may well get in but its policies of crippling the sovereignty, the monarchy, the culture and the democracy of my country are not "forever". They cannot EVER take away the sovereign rights of people to govern themselves. EVER.

They can only give the illusion of this but it cannot last.

As the argument brews and people become aware that their sacred country is no more under the Lib/Lab/Con, a new politic will arise, and that politic will be based on a restoration of our sovereign rights. Only nationalist policies will put off the inevitability of the Lib/Lab/Con, eventually being put out of action.

Only by standing firm with your principles of independent government in growing numbers, will our country be saved, and this does not include fudging the argument with a referendum that has no authority to remove the sovereignty which belongs to ALL the people.

Wednesday, 25 November 2009

A really Low Fly Pass of a British Spitfire 'slightly' unnerves the presenter

I must have played this a hundred times and still find it soooo funny!

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Monday, 23 November 2009

The New Truth about Britain's Past

New archaeological discoveries made by Professor of archaeology Dr Francis Pryor and his team of archaeologists, are re-writing the history of Britain.

New historical evidence shows that British culture has never been eradicated by "invasion". He shows that early Britons developed social and economic independence as opposed to being in a so called dark age, and evidences that before early Romans settled amongst us we had a developed culture which was civilised. Evidence also exists to show that British King Verica invited Rome to Britain rather than as we've learned, that Britain was "invaded". This pretext for this so called invasion of Britain, of a nation which had traded with Rome for decades, is now quite unbelievable. It is more reasonably believed to have been a peaceful relationship at least with some Britons, along with a "celebration" of British cultural power, Dr Pryor says.

Since Dr Pryor made his history programmes for Channel 4, the BBC has produced a timeline of early history which I've condensed a little here below in order to help make more sense of our ancient history. In addition, you can see Dr Pryor's absorbing documentaries below, which prove that British culture has been alive and kicking, and that it was civilised for several thousands of years before the Roman Army even set foot here. You can see it is still prevalent today in the DNA of the native people of these islands who mostly still remain fiercely independent.

4500 BC to 3000 BC
Small permanent settlements are developed

There are fewer earlier Neolithic (Late Stone Age) settlements in England and Wales - which may reflect a more mobile lifestyle among early farmers in these areas - than in Scotland and Ireland. Most earlier Neolithic settlements in Britain were of about one to three houses with possibly a few outbuildings. They were rarely defended, except in Cornwall. Most settlements were placed at some distance from areas of barrows.

3807 BC to 3806 BC
Europe's first wooden trackway (footpath) is built

The Sweet Track in the Somerset Levels consists of a wooden footpath raised above boggy ground on crossed timber supports. It extended across a marsh between what was then an island and an area of high ground. It was excavated between 1970 and 1982 and its precise age revealed by tree-ring dating (dendrochronology).

3000 BC to 1500 BC
Settlements proliferate and more land is cleared for farming

Technology changed at the start of the Bronze Age (2500 BC in Britain), but the basic way of life continued much as before. The greater frequency of known settlements, allied to evidence for increasing clearance of land for farming, indicates steady population growth. From circa 2500 BC, roundhouses were the main form of domestic building. From circa 2000 BC there is evidence of field systems, often aligned on pre-existing barrows which suggests they followed earlier systems of land partition.

2500 BC
Metalworking develops with improvements in furnace technology

Following the introduction of pottery two millennia previously, the appearance of metalworking was another important technological step in the control of heat and the production of ever-higher temperatures using small furnaces and hide bellows. The earliest British metalwork was made of pure copper, bronze (an alloy of about 90% copper, 10% tin) or gold. Gold was used for ornaments and jewellery, bronze and copper for spearheads, axes, knives and daggers.

2500 BC to 800 BC
Metalwork becomes increasingly sophisticated

Early Bronze Age (2500-1500 BC) saw the regular production of more sophisticated metalwork, consisting mainly of axes, daggers and 'tanged' spearheads (attached to the shaft by a prong).

'Specialists' create highly decorated 'beaker' pottery
While household pottery was probably produced domestically, the appearance of metalwork and new, highly-decorated forms of drinking vessels called (by archaeologists) 'beakers' indicate the presence of 'specialists' in Britain. The very first makers of beaker pottery probably came from the continent, but after a short interval these specialists were local. It seems probable that with metalworking went certain religious practices that may have marked the smiths out from other members of society.

Elite leaders are buried with elaborate grave goods
A series of burials of individuals beneath round barrows and with elaborate grave-goods, including special funerary pottery, bronze and copper daggers and gold and amber objects, were discovered in the 19th century in the Wessex area (Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire), and then in the 20th century as far afield as Norfolk. There are strong parallels with Brittany, France, suggesting regular contact between the two areas.

1800 BC
First industrial-scale copper mines are dug

Shortly after 2000 BC the first deep copper mines were dug. Two of the best known are at Mount Gabriel in County Cork, Ireland, and Great Orme, north Wales. Another major area of prehistoric mining was in mid-Wales. Most Bronze Age mines went out of use in the Iron Age. The scale of metal production was truly industrial. Mount Gabriel is thought to have produced about 370 tonnes of copper and Great Orme 175 to 235 tonnes.

1500 BC
More sophisticated metal weapons and ornamentation appear

In the Middle Bronze Age (1500-1200 BC) smaller forms of axes (palstaves) began to appear alongside the first 'socketed' spearheads (attached to the shaft by a hole in the base). Thrusting weapons (dirks, rapiers) appeared, as well as elaborate bronze pins and bracelets.

Major lowland valleys are extensively settled
The scale of later Bronze Age settlement was poorly understood until about 1970, when it became possible to differentiate pottery of the period from that of the Iron Age. This coincided with increased aerial survey data and excavation ahead of commercial development. Current knowledge suggests that this was the period when the major lowland river valleys were extensively settled.

1200 BC to 800 BC
Celtic culture and tribal kingdoms start to emerge

Changes in religion, ceremonial and burial practices imply social change. The new structure persisted through the Iron Age and has been labelled as 'Celtic'. It seems probable that the later Bronze Age controlling elites comprised a larger proportion of society and may have been centred upon a 'warrior aristocracy'. This is the period when the numerous tribes of Britain began to combine into the larger groupings that became the named tribal kingdoms of the Iron Age.

700 BC to 43 AD
Small farming settlements with networks of fields start to develop

Throughout the Iron Age there is evidence for extensive networks of fields associated with small farming settlements. A mixed farming economy is suggested by cattle, sheep and pig remains and the processing of cereals including wheat, barley and oats. Improved cereal crops and breeds of domestic animal were developed and introduced during the Iron Age. The best surviving areas of Iron Age farming can be seen on Salisbury Plain, the Marlborough Downs, the Cheviot Hills and other upland areas.

330 BC
Pytheas of Massilia circumnavigates Britain

Pytheas of Massilia (now Marseilles), a Greek merchant and explorer, circumnavigated the British Isles between about 330 and 320 BC and produced the first written record of the islands. He described the inhabitants as skilled wheat farmers, usually peaceable, but formidable in war when they used horse-drawn chariots. He also described the Cornish trade in tin with the Mediterranean.

Built on large timber platforms, these settlements were set on the edge of a now vanished area of marsh and open water. Excavation has recovered thousands of wooden and other organic artefacts that rarely survive from dry-land settlements, and which provide greater insight into the skills of Iron Age woodworkers. In Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, smaller lakeside settlements called 'crannogs' are known. Many of these survived into the Roman period and later.

100 BC
Coins are used and produced for the first time

The first coins found in Britain were gold and minted in France. Around 80-60 BC, production started in Britain and by 20 BC silver and bronze were used in south east England. Coins began to bear the names of rulers, some titled 'Rex' (Latin for king) and some naming the place they were minted, such as Camulodunum (Colchester). These inscriptions suggest a growing level of literacy and familiarity with Latin. No Iron Age coins were produced in northern England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland.

55 BC
Julius Caesar raids south east England


54 BC
Julius Caesar launches a full-scale invasion of England - Was it really an invasion?


"Cheddar Man" and Mitochondrial DNA testing
In 1996, Bryan Sykes of Oxford University first sequenced the mitochondrial DNA of Cheddar Man, with DNA extracted from one of Cheddar Man's molars. Cheddar Man was determined to have belonged to Haplogroup U5a, a branch of mitochondrial haplogroup U. U5a, the specific haplogroup of Cheddar Man, is known to be the oldest truly modern human (not Neanderthal) mtDNA haplogroup in Europe.

Bryan Sykes' research into Cheddar Man was filmed as he performed it. As a means of connecting Cheddar Man to the living residents of Cheddar village, he compared mitochondrial DNA taken from twenty living residents of the village to that extracted from Cheddar Man’s molar. It produced two exact matches and one match with a single mutation. The two exact matches were schoolchildren, and their names were not released. The close match was a history teacher named Adrian Targett.

Sykes argued that this modern connection to Cheddar Man (who died at least three thousand years before agriculture began in Britain) makes credible the theory that modern-day Britons are not all descended from Middle Eastern migratory farmers, but rather modern Britons are descended from ancient European Palaeolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer tribes who much later on adopted farming.

As stated by Dr Pryor and his team, our ancient ancestors are still with us today in an unbroken line of DNA which spans at least 9,000 years.

Britain AD

"In the year 407AD, the Emperor Constantine III, led the last few Roman troops from these islands", says archaeologist Dr Francis Pryor, as he explains a TRUE historical account of "Britain AD and "King Arthur's Britain". In the following video Dr Pryor makes a compelling case to suggest history has held a distorted view about Britain after the Romans which it called the Dark Ages. I'd say the view we've been given is anything but the truth when you listen to Dr Pryor's interesting historic account of our islands history. "This version of our history is wrong", says Dr Pryor, who exposes archaeological evidence which proves "ancient British culture was strong", and that we have ALWAYS had a strong and independent culture of our own which "we did not get from the Romans". In fact, the way it looks, is that the Romans and others, have simply tried to crush it. Dr Pryor says; "Britain's culture survived the Romans intact", as he shows Medieval axes and swords along with remains of ancient causeways, iron age spears, and an array of many archaeological finds, which give testament to the fact that ancient Britons were indeed very well advanced for hundreds of years before Britain was invaded, and for a long time after they left. "Archaeologists are beginning to re-think the history of ancient Britain", says Prof Pryor.

"Britons were trading with and associating themselves with the 'New Imperial Order' of Rome years before Rome invaded us", says Prof Pryor. And he says that the invasion by ancient Romans was really a "liberation" under "invitation". Early historians even got the position of the Roman landing wrong, says Dr Pryor and a fellow archaeologist who shows firm evidence that it was in Fishbourne under the request of King Verica who "opened his doors to the Roman troops", says Dr Pryor.

It begs the question why our English history has been given to us that we knew nothing before the Romans, and why our English culture has been subjected to constant and repeated attempts to subjugate and even to try to eradicate it. Dr Pryor's account really re-writes (and re-rights), the wrong's perpetrated against the isles of Britannia and in particular our very own historical cultural heritage which existed "Several thousand years" before Christ, and Britons living in our islands today, still have the DNA to prove it.

See Dr Pryor's video presentations HERE - BC PART ONE - BC PART TWO - AD PART ONE - AD PART TWO






So who exactly were the first inhabitants of Britain?


Geneticist, Stephen Oppenheimer says;

Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands.

"Based on the overall genetic perspective of the British, it seems that Celts, Belgians, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were all immigrant minorities compared with the Basque pioneers, who first ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great ice sheets"

Monday, 16 November 2009

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. Third speaker, a Liberal Marxist plonker yakking about a bloke in Kenya selling his daughter for a "cow" because of climate change. Stupid or what?



Is Global warming a natural phenomenon? LINK Quoting scientists on the subject, there are some who say; "Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum. Before that came the "Medieval Warm Period", in which temperatures were about the same as they are today. Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent. Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily "global".
However, "Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.

But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming. We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?"

I don't know if man is responsible for climate change, but what I do know is that most politicians accept it is man made yet have not given us the scientific arguments like the guys in the above link who ARE actually scientists who dispute it. They say it is simply the sun and earth shift and say that CO2 in the atmosphere is not only not responsible but wish we had more of it!

Where then is the truth?

Well those of us still alive in 2012 will find out I guess and we'll probably be able to ask our politicians, if the earth is warming up to such an extent, why we have gas bills through the roof and why we're all freezing to death on account of poor summers. We can also ask why they are selling all the energy facilities off to private buyers instead of placing them under "emergency control", and why there are buyers wanting to buy energy plants presumably to make money with energy plans through until the year 2025.

However IF our planet IS going into catastrophic decline and 1.6 billion people are going to die, then at least we'll be able to spot our politicians more easily when we ask why they didn't look at this problem much earlier and whether they still think it's a good idea to fleece the people for taxes, cripple their societies with all manner of stupid decisions and whether they plan to reduce my council tax!


Nick Griffin MEP, addresses the EU on the "climate change lie", 24th November 2009



“Everyone agrees that climate change is the biggest challenge facing humanity.”

That`s the constant claim of the political elite – and it’s a lie!

Everyone does NOT agree. Thousands of scientists dispute the very existence of man made global warming, citing natural cyclical changes that saw vineyards in Roman northern England and a Swedish army march over the frozen Baltic at the height of the Little Ice Age in 1658 to Copenhagen.

As an army of global warming zealots marches to Copenhagen, the truth is that their Orwellian ‘consensus’ is based, not on scientific agreement but on bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics.

In the words of leading climatologist Professor Richard Lindzen:

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century`s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections contemplated a roll back of the industrial age.”

In fact, there will be no ‘bemused amazement’, for the reason for this hysteria is clear: It is designed to provide the excuse for the political project of the globalists to replace national democracy with New World Order global governance.

It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with a globalist common purpose to tax and control us, while making Billions for corporations in the Green-Industrial complex.

The anti-Western intellectual cranks of the Left suffered a collective breakdown when Communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology, a secular religious hysteria complete with Pope Al Gore, Carbon Credit indulgences and the persecution of heretics.

"But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen, and the truth will out: Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human Utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao."


Professor Bob Carter torpedoes the “scientific consensus” on the climate HOAX



Sunday, 15 November 2009

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?

Thursday, 12 November 2009

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

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?

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

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.

Sunday, 8 November 2009

"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.

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.

Sunday, 1 November 2009

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 than 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