Think you know the answer?

OK, here’s your starter for ten: which political party has as its policy the giving of grants to immigrants to encourage them to return to their home countries? If you think this is a ‘racist’ policy which could only come from the BNP you’d be wrong. The answer is, in fact, the Labour party.

The Labour government have a policy of offering illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals £3,000 to return home. There are however two problems with this policy:

(i) why on earth are we paying people who have no right to be in this country and who should be immediately kicked out with no right of appeal?

(ii) why is there no scheme in place to stop them simply waltzing back whenever they want?

The madness of this policy was amply demonstrated by the case of Hakim Benmakhlouf, an Algerian bag snatcher who was given £3,000 while in prison last July in return for him returning to Algeria. Unfortunately, the very next day he came back from Paris and returned to his life of crime. He has, once again, been sent to prison.

Given that Labour agree with the principle of paying immigrants to leave (even if they are doing so in the most cack-handed and moronic way imaginable), what is their problem with the BNP’s policy of offering £50,000 to those who wish to renounce their British citizenship and return, permanently, to their countries of origin? The BNP’s policy seems much more logical to me since we will only be giving money to those who are here legally and who therefore would not otherwise leave or be deported.

To say that this policy is ‘racist’ is clearly nonsense; it is the policy proposed by the late black Labour MP Bernie Grant, and was the policy of the Tory party back in the days when they were led by Edward Heath – hardly a raving right-wing extremist!

As for the problem of deportees returning to the UK, this could be easily solved by simply fingerprinting them and checking the fingerprints of all non-UK nationals on arrivals against this database. This is such a simple solution that I can’t imagine why on earth it has not been implemented already. The only answer I can think of is that Labour don’t really care about this problem, but that can’t be true, surely …?

Rip their skirts off!

Apparently the Eurovision Song Contest was on the other night, and as usual the British entry flopped – hardly surprising since it was sung by the LOSER of the ‘X Factor’ talent contest. Why we would pick a loser to represent us God only knows. He used to be a dustman, which is appropriate I suppose, seeing as our entry was such rubbish that we finished joint LAST.


Frankly I would rather watch a documentary on tractor production in Uzbekistan than the Eurovision Song Contest these days. The voting is so biased and rigged that it makes British electoral postal voting look like a model of honesty and fairness, and the British entry is always so inane and embarrassing that entering this competition seems like a deliberate exercise in national humiliation.


I think the last time I watched the Eurovision Song Contest was in 1981 when Bucks Fizz performed ‘Making Your Mind Up’ – and won. In those days we had catchy songs, we were not (normally) the victims of an electoral stitch-up, and we could put on a decent performance. The highlight of the act in 1981 was when the two male singers ripped the skirts off the two girls in the band, revealing two very pretty pairs of pins. Of course this is no longer allowed by the feminazis in charge of Britain nowadays, who no doubt regard the showing off of pretty female bodies as ‘sexist’.


The commercial music industry is not stupid however, and hence popular acts – even (indeed, especially) those of female singers – generally involve callipygous girls in revealing outfits shaking their assets around the stage. I therefore say that if we want to win the Eurovision Song Contest again we must return to ripping girls' skirts off. Indeed, this trick was copied by the Latvian Eurovision entry in 2002, and guess what – they won! Once again we in Britain come up with a brilliant invention only to allow foreigners to copy it and be more successful. As they say in Europe, plus ça change …

Charity begins at home

Further to my earlier article about the need to live in the present – and not dwell on the past – when considering our economic relationship with India, I learn that there are now over 50,000 millionaires in India. Yes, you read that right – 50,000. Good for them, but don’t come and tell me that they still need any aid or assistance from Britain. Of course I accept that India has poor people too, but so do all countries, even the US. Does that mean we should now start sending foreign aid to Indiana, USA?


Instead of sending hundreds of millions of pounds in foreign aid to India I suggest that money could be better spent here in Britain. After all, they do say that charity begins at home. Which is I suggest that charity status (with the very valuable financial tax implications which result) should only be given to organisations which spend their money and engage in activities in Britain. Organisations which insist on sending money abroad rather than helping their fellow-countrymen should have their charitable status revoked. That does not of course mean that they could not engage in overseas activities, merely that they would no longer be subsidised by the British taxpayer for doing so.

A Woman’s Right to Kill?

If a woman is holding a little baby in her arms she has a perfect right to let him go and drop him onto the floor, smashing his head in – hasn’t she? After all, it’s her arms, and she has a perfect right to choose what she does with them. It would be patriarchal oppression to tell her she must hold onto the baby and let him live.


That, in effect, is the argument in favour of abortion.


Abortion is back in the news due to the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill currently going through the House of Commons, which has once again raised the debate about the appropriate time limit for abortions.


Now I am not an abortion ‘fanatic’. I support, for instance, the use of the ‘morning after pill’. Nor am I motivated by religious fundamentalism – I am an agnostic and support stem cell research. I simply believe that it is wrong to kill another human being – especially one as defenceless as a baby.


This, of course, begs the question of when a baby changes from an undifferentiated bundle of cells into a human being. Baby-killing feminists tie themselves in knots trying to perform contortions to deny the reality of their own eyes. Surely, if it looks like a baby, and feels pain like a baby, then it IS a baby, and I honestly cannot see how any decent person can kill a baby. It might be called a foetus, but a rose by any other name …


As I said before, I am not a fanatic. But, except for its size, at ten weeks a baby in the womb is no different to a baby in your arms. It must take a particularly nasty, ghastly, cruel and self-centred woman to be willing to kill this small child.


As far as I know there has only ever been one virgin birth – and I’m not too sure about that one either! No woman can become pregnant without knowingly having had sex – and normally willingly. For those women who are raped, or who have sex when so drunk they don’t know what they were doing, there is, as I have indicated, the availability of the morning after pill. Having made the decision to have sex – and on top of which having made the decision to have sex without taking the contraceptive pill, a woman must accept the consequences of these actions.


If a woman becomes pregnant then it is through her own actions and having created a baby she can no more kill it while it is in her womb than while it is, after having been born, in her arms. [We should not, of course, forget the role played by the man. The child is half his and he should have half rights, as well as responsibilities, for it. But that is for a separate article.]


As for the argument that some women (especially young girls) ‘cannot cope’ with looking after a baby, then let him be adopted. There are thousands of desperate would-be parents out there who would love the opportunity to adopt a baby - some are so desperate they are even going abroad to do so.


There is no argument that any decent person can come up with for killing a baby. So baby-killing feminists are reduced to chanting mindless slogans such as a ‘woman’s right to choose’. But nobody has the right to choose to kill a baby.

Never trust a Tory

A couple of days ago I was in the West End enjoying a few drinks with some friends as well as a toothsome dinner at Salieri’s restaurant in the Strand. While I was in town I noticed that there are still a handful of traditional Routemasters operating a limited route, mainly for the benefit of tourists. I jumped on one of these, happy to revive memories of my youth, but the dumb conductor sought to remonstrate with me about the danger of getting on other than at the specified stops. What a moron – the whole point of the open door was the ability to hop on and off and the convenience this offered. Obviously I simply ignored the fool. The government, aided and abetted by the media, are seeking to turn us into a nation of milksops, only concerned about ‘health and safety’ and pitifully grateful that the nanny of the nation, living at number 10 Downing Street, is watching over us. Well, I don’t want to be nannied: safety is secondary, freedom comes first.


The experience of riding the old Routemaster however was very enjoyable. That’s why I support the BNP: because I’m a traditionalist - I like my country the way it was. Anyone who knows me will confirm that I’m not racist, or sexist, or any other stupid, new-fangled ‘ist’. Someone once sought to insult me by calling me a ‘1950s throwback’, but in fact they were probably right – and what’s wrong with that?


Anyway, the point is that it reminded me that Bungling Boris promised to eliminate the bendy-buses and bring back the Routemasters. He also promised to bring back conductors. He was, of course, simply copying BNP policies (just as he copied our policy about a Thames Estuary airport), but nevertheless it would have been welcome. Except that he has already started backtracking. The bendy-buses are still with us, continuing to cause mayhem on London’s narrow streets, and now it looks like we may never get the Routemasters or the conductors either.


As the report HERE makes clear, the re-introduction of Rotemasters is being kicked into the long grass. Typical. Never trust a Tory – they will say anything to get elected, they will steal policies from all and sundry (including the BNP) and will promise whatever you want to hear, but as soon as they get elected you will find that nothing has changed. That is why I did not vote for Boris, and advised people to either leave the second choice blank or vote for Alan Craig, of the Christian People’s Alliance.


Why do we need a ‘new generation Routemaster’ anyway? Why not simply use the old ones? No doubt a few minor improvements could be made – such as not having the driver in a separate cabin but having him inside the bus so that he can help the conductor in case of trouble – but these changes are minor and could easily be introduced without the need for a radically new design. And as for dropping the pledge to re-introduce conductors, that is a real disgrace.


Then again, if you were dumb enough to vote Tory, what do you expect? Perhaps this will teach people a lesson – only the BNP will deliver on its pledges: if you like our policies, VOTE FOR US, not for the pale imitation!

Wave Tata to commonsense

In the post I receive a begging letter from Help the Aged for money to send to people in Rajasthan, in India. Drinking water, it seems, is in short supply there, and Help the Aged want £12 to build a rainwater storage tank. This sort of appeal is so common one generally wouldn’t comment on it, but on this occasion it got me thinking and I looked up the amount that the British government gives to India as ‘development aid’ and found that this is £300 million a year.

You might think that this foreign aid and the Help the Aged appeal are both perfectly reasonable. The rainwater storage tank proposal is, after all, sensible and cheap, and no doubt a good idea for the local people. But the question is surely whether this sort of aid is appropriate or whether this type of project should be done by the Indian government.

Just recently an Indian company, Tata, bought both Jaguar and Land Rover for just over £1 milliard [a milliard = one thousand million: I am using British, and not American, English]. India also takes thousands of jobs from Britain, not just in call centres but in all sorts of low-cost factories. Indeed, it is likely that production of Jaguars and Land Rovers will largely be transferred to India. India is, therefore, a major economic competeitor of ours and a country with wealthy companies; it is not an economic backwater.

It is therefore absurd for us to be financing one of our major rivals and competitors, while they drain our economy and industrial base. As long as we are naïve enough to keep sending them money the Indian government will of course gladly accept it (they would be bonkers not to) and this will allow them to keep taxes (including corporation tax) down and hence enable their companies to act as international predators.

Instead of sending money to a country which is clearly perfectly capable of looking after itself the British government should be investing in British industry. Let us finance our car industry to develop the most efficient engines – such as (bio)diesel/electric hybrids – capable of doing well over 100 mpg, thus helping them sell more cars at a time of ever higher fuel prices and helping the public keep their motoring costs down. A modern, forward-looking motoring industry would capture an increasing market share both at home and abroad, and allow Britain to be world leaders, not the world’s bargain basement car boot sale.

The Scottish question

I am a British nationalist – I believe that the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is not only in the best interests of us all, but is also a sensible reflection of our shared identity, heritage, history and culture. I am therefore disappointed that the issue of Scottish independence is once again being discussed, thanks to some very stupid Labour party shenanigans. But let’s just consider, for the moment, exactly HOW a referendum on Scottish independence would need to be conducted.


Some people have suggested that everyone in the UK should be asked, but surely that is wrong. If Scotland wishes to separate it is rather like a couple divorcing, and neither spouse has a veto on the other leaving. On the other hand, nobody seems to have realised that Scots living in England should be asked. After all, if Scotland does become independent then Scots living in England will become foreigners and could, if England withdraws from the EU (a perfectly plausible scenario), be required to leave.


Any referendum in Scotland would therefore need to be preceded by a registration process throughout the UK. People will need to decide if they will want to be registered as Scottish (and subsequently receive a Scottish passport). For the Scottish referendum to ignore these people would be grossly unfair, and yet can you see them voting to become foreigners in England - the country in which they are living?


All opinion polls indicate that Scots in Scotland would themselves vote against independence, and when you add in all the Scots living in England I am delighted to say that the prospect of Scotland leaving the UK is a non-starter.

VICTORY !!!

All true patriots are today celebrating the victory of the British National Party in getting elected onto the London Assembly. The result was almost exactly in line with my original expectations; I had predicted a 50% increase in votes and in the event the increase was 45% (90,365 to 130,714). I did, however, underestimate the increase in turnout, which went up over 20%, so in the end we got elected with 5.3% instead of the 6-7% I had predicted. Oh well, close enough I suppose, and Richard Barnbrook who now sits proudly on the Assembly will be a splendid representative for the party.


The full breakdown of results by constituency is:

Bexley & Bromley: 8.9%
Barnet & Camden: 2.9%
Brent & Harrow: 2.9%
City & East: 9.9%
Croydon & Sutton: 6%
Ealing & Hillingdon: 5.9%
Enfield & Haringey: 3.7%
Greenwich & Lewisham: 6.6%
Havering & Redbridge: 11.5%
Lambeth & Southwark: 3%
Merton & Wandsworth: 3.2%
North East: 3.9%
South West: 4.3%
West Central: 2.4%


These results are broadly in line with what one might have expected, though I was a little disappointed with the results in Merton & Wandsworth and West Central, but conversely I was pleased with the votes in Greenwich & Lewisham and North East. Swings and roundabouts, I suppose, though there is evidence that our support might have been greater still and that the BNP was the victim of election fraud which depressed our results.


ELECTION FRAUD?


There are a few curious features about the London elections. Take for instance the fact that 30-50% of the ballot boxes had the seals broken before the count started. This clear evidence of tampering was blithely ignored by the officials who simply dismissed it as a ‘sellotape malfunction’! The whole point of the seals was to prevent fraud, so if the seals are broken it seems pretty obvious that something has gone seriously wrong. The idea that so many of the seals could have failed by accident is utterly absurd. What is really depressing is that in Britain today electoral fraud is perpetrated so openly and with such impunity. Welcome to Robert Mugabe’s Britain.


Looking at the election result in City and East I find it odd that the BNP did not do slightly better in the party list vote. In the constituency member vote the BNP obtained 18,020 votes and the NF 2,350. In the party list vote the NF were not standing so it would be reasonable to expect their support to opt for the BNP. However, our vote was only 18,106 – so what happened to the other 2,000 + votes?


I was also intrigued by the incredibly high number of blank ballot papers across London. In the party list election a total of 32,251 people apparently couldn’t decide who to vote for and put a blank paper in the ballot box. In City and East the total was 2,401 … are you thinking what I’m thinking? Could it be that some of our opponents broke into the ballot boxes, pulled out a couple of thousand of our party list votes in each constituency and replaced them with blank forms? And don’t tell me there is no election fraud in Britain today, since it has been proven in court that this takes place up and down the country.

Who knows what the real BNP vote was? At least our vote is now so strong that we are overwhelming our opponents' ability to defraud us. That’s about all we can hope for nowadays I suppose.

I'm back!

Now that the elections are over so is my self-imposed purdah and I can resume this blog and defend myself from the nonsensical lies of my opponents. As regular visitors will know I stopped writing here after some of my comments were completely distorted and deliberately misinterpreted by lying journalists who wanted to smear me and thus damage the BNP. Well I soon put a stop to their stupid game by resigning from the party, thereby killing the story dead. If anyone actually believed that load of twisted rubbish published by the papers then more fools you.


Those of a nervous disposition, look away now …


It is interesting – and depressing – to compare the media’s attitude to free speech in Britain and on the continent. The media in Britain are so pathetically feminised and politically correct that they recoil in horror whenever a politician says anything remotely provocative. If a British politician upsets or offends someone it is immediately pounced upon and berated as a ‘gaffe’, instead of simply being accepted as part and parcel of free speech. Thus when a Tory politician tells a ‘racist’ joke they are condemned and forced to resign, and when Boris Johnson mocks Liverpool, or refers to ‘piccaninnies’ he is denounced. Why? Why can’t people say whatever they like? Look at Italy, for instance, and their most successful politician Silvio Berlusconi. In Britain Berlusconi is mocked and derided for comparing a German MEP to a concentration camp guard, for instance, or for promoting Italy to foreign investors by saying that Italy has “beautiful secretaries … superb girls”. When challenged about statements such as these however Berlusconi correctly responded “They’re not gaffes”. Of course they’re not; if you say what you want to say and what you are thinking then that is not a gaffe, that is your entitlement in a society which believes in freedom of speech.


Britain’s prissy and censorious media do not, however, believe in freedom of speech (except for themselves, of course), but believe that a politician should never say anything which upsets or offends another. Why on earth not? Anyone who gets upset by what another person says is a complete twat anyway and deserves to be offended. Words are only words. WORDS DON’T MATTER. Words cannot hurt anyone. When I was a child we had a saying in the school playground: ‘sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me’. Some people, particularly in the media, seem to have forgotten this. Sometimes people may want to be provocative, or controversial, in order to stimulate a response, or if people are annoyed or angry they might want to be rude or offensive, and if others cannot accept this then that is their problem.


When it comes to a politician the ONLY thing that matters is his policies. Not what he says, or does in his private life, only his policies. No doubt you will have seen the media smears against Richard Barnbrook. Knowing the way the media lie about anyone in the BNP I don’t believe a word of them, but even if they were all true, so what? I don’t care if a politician has sex with a sheep while dressed in stockings and suspenders and singing a sea shanty – as long as his policies are good for Britain and the British people, what does it matter? Words and thoughts and what people do behind closed doors DO NOT MATTER, only political actions and policies matter because only these actions can affect others.


In Britain today we really do have ‘thought-crimes’. If a Tory politician tells a ‘racist’ joke, so what? It’s only a bloody joke. Do we really want our politicians to be utterly bland and boring? As Berlusconi said: “I have a sense of humour. I’ll try to soften it and become boring, but I’m not sure if I will be able to”. And, in Italy, it doesn’t matter: Berlusconi has just been re-elected prime minister.