Kudos to the Daily Mail for..

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

Sounds rather like something a particular political party has been saying for quite some time.

Funny how it has taken a certain appearance on Question Time for someone else to publicly say so too..!

Question Time..

The most talked about edition of Question Time has been and gone - yet the fuss and furore surrounding the inclusion of Nick Griffin shows no sign of abating.

To be fair, given the circumstances (i.e. the BBC/programme-producers threw him to the hounds by hand-picking the audience and encouraging those who were selected to speak to be as hostile as possible), I don't think he did too badly.

It is all very well for various commentators (e.g. Libby Purves in The Times, alongside every other media outlet going) to pan Nick Griffin's performance, but the simple fact was that for the most part he wasn't allowed to finish answering the questions put to him without being interrupted by either a panel member, David Dimbleby or the audience. If he had been allowed to speak, he would have come over a lot better - but then, that wouldn't have been what the programme producers wanted.

I cannot recall a previous edition of Question Time where successive members of the audience were allowed to take it in turns to launch into prepared attacks/diatribes on a panel member without admonishment of some form - but then, this was no ordinary Question Time.

The audience was the most ethnically diverse QT audience I can remember seeing - the producers even managed to find a Jewish child, complete with skull cap, to jump in with a Holocaust question..! Hurrah for the farcical pantomime the programme rapidly became.

Whilst it is all very well for the media/commentators to loudly proclaim that the programme 'revealed the BNP for the horrid organisation it really is', that isn't what happened -and isn't true. Nick Griffin was barely given an opportunity to speak without being interrupted or shouted over by the audience or the panel. What was revealed by the programme, though, is that even Jack Straw found himself unable to defend New Labour's track record on immigration..!

Whilst Bonnie Greer was only too keen to try to pick apart the BNP's version of 'what is British', all she really achieved was to show that she absolutely no understanding of why we want to defend what remains of the 'British' way of life and our cultural heritage. She does not even seem to appreciate why we perceive our way of life/heritage to be under attack - which seems ironic for the deputy director of the British Museum(!)

Happily, it seems a fair majority of observers take the view that the BBC/programme-producers skewed the show so as to allow the audience, panel and chairman to gang-up on Griffin - hence demonstrating what appears to be the institutional bias of the BBC and thereby presenting Griffin as a victim. Surprisingly, even the broadsheet newspapers have reported this view, which lends credence to the BNP's position that it has historically been the victim of media bias, hostile reporting, etc.

So, all in all, it does not seem the Question Time appearance has done the party any harm - whereas it has damaged the reputations of those who seek to supress it. In the circumstances it has been grossly unfair for those who have set out to criticise Griffin's performance to do so - he did the best any one could have done in the face of overwhelming hostility.

It will be interesting to see what happens next. It has been widely reported that 22% of people questioned following the programme in a YouGov poll said that they would 'seriously consider' voting BNP in future elections. However representative that may have been, it seems things are heading in the right direction..

BNP membership list leaked 'again'

"Oh no, not again" pretty much sums up my thoughts here. The party says the 'new' list (published on Wikileaks) is a forgery and that a lot of the information it contains is fictitious - but seems to concede that it contains details of some who have made enquiries about membership/the-party-in-general in the run up to the European elections.

The question has to be *how* has the additional information (assuming it is valid) been extracted from the party's records. I had thought that the party would have learnt any necessary security lessons the last time round and could manage to avoid further information falling into the public domain - but apparently not.

It pains me to say it, but I feel let down. The party needs to recognise (and act on the fact) that whilst a lot of people are willing to support it in whatever way they can, it needs to repay the favour by ensuring that their details remain secure.

I'm sure it's not as if the party takes data protection lightly, but if data is still escaping, something still isn't right and it needs to be fixed.

Slight u-turn..

Ah, okay - so it turns out funds *are* an issue and it seems (judging from the emails sent to supporters) the court case is going to be conceded and the party's constitution tweaked. Didn't see it coming - but, to be fair, massaging the membership rules wouldn't do any harm and it makes much more sense to have funds available to contest some general election seats, rather than waste them in trying to delay the inevitable in Court.

The party's current membership policy is too vulnerable to attack on the basis that the people permitted to join, i.e. those descended from 'British' stock (i.e. those whose views the party exists to represent) will most likely be white - which is all too open to being twisted round and positioned as 'whites only'. So, there we go.

Good to hear the BBC are to invite the BNP to take part in a Questiontime programme - long overdue. It has to be said, no matter what you think of his politics, Nick Griffin is a very credible public speaker and more than capable of giving any Labour/Conservative/Liberal cabinet member a run for their money - improved public profile and credibility should be assured.

The Guardian seems quite worried - here - and rightly so. The ludicrousness of Guardian-friendly views on immigration, social cohesion, migrant integration, etc, are due for a pasting..!

Hurray..!

Finally, the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has commenced legal proceedings in respect of the BNP's membership policy..!

This can only be good news, as it will expose the sheer hypocrisy of the EHRC (i.e. there are sooo many other organisations they could have gone for, such as the Society of Black Lawyers, the Black Police Association, etc), it will bring huge levels of publicity for the BNP and there's a very good chance the EHRC will be unsuccessful - pretty much win-win, then.

As the EHRC action proceeds, the public will become increasingly educated as to what the BNP stands for and the chances are, that set against the hypocrisy and do-gooding-political-correctness that pervades the EHRC, they may even start to sympathise. This level of publicity would have cost huge amounts of money to buy-in - all this, for free..!

Okay, yes - legal fees will be involved, but the BNP has an army of supporters who will undoubtedly dig into their pockets to assist - and if the BNP successfully defends the action, the chances are that the EHRC will have to reimburse the BNP's costs anyway..!

Gerald Warner's piece here summarises things pretty well. All in all, this should make for an entertaining couple of months..!

Red White & Blue 2009

Predictably enough, the success of this year's event has resulted in an unsurprisingly low level of media coverage - (bar a couple of ugly mugs from the UAF managing to get their faces shown (hopefully for the last time) in the press).

In the absence of anything much else to write about, it seems the Guardian and the Independent have been left desperately scraping the barrel in search of something to say.

So, what we have today (or rather, yesterday) in the Guardian's editorial is the somewhat sweeping/provocative statement that 'the near million who voted for the British National Party in June's Euro-elections are certainly angry and no doubt racist [in some varying degree]..'.

Actually, no. Having a sense of pride in the traditions and culture of this country and accordingly wishing to ensure these are protected from the creeping erosion of multi-culturalism and political correctness does not make me a racist. The Guardian's editorial is just another example of lazily written, politically motivated drivel somehow finding its way into print.

According to Rachel Shields in the Independent, Red White and Blue 2009 'both fascinated and appalled in its apparent normality'. Uhm, 'apparent' normality..? Putting conceptual difficulties re normality to one side, something is either 'normal', or it isn't - what Rachel perhaps meant to say is that she was disappointed the event wasn't less normal.. - or put another way, that she didn't find a bunch of skin-headed blokes teaching others the art of regimented goose-stepping. That, after all, would have made a far better story.

I think it's time that people woke up a little and realised that it is hugely misleading to suggest that all BNP supporters/members are racist/fascist thugs - we are not.

Yet again, all Unite Against Facism and the others have managed to demonstrate this weekend is that they are incapable of conducting themselves in public and that they find it impossible to tolerate views other than their own.

Sooner or later, though, they will find that it is their views that come to be considered unpalatable/incongruous with the mainstream. Sooner or later the lunatic-left (or some religously motivated fanatic, perhaps?) will go too far - and the tide of public opinion will turn.

Fingers crossed this will be sooner than the UAF and other smug, self-righteous, 'self appointed guardians of left wing bollocks' believe.

It must be true, the Telegraph says so..!

Finally, a UK broadsheet dares to reveal the truth about the alarming number of immigrants flooding into Europe and how the rate at which they reproduce is going to lead to us becoming a minority in our own countries.

Essentially, the Telegraph isn't saying anything that the BNP hasn't been saying for a good number of years - the only difference being that the BNP has been routinely pilloried for doing so, whereas the Telegraph won't be. If the irony wasn't so frustrating it might be amusing.

Will the mainstream politicians now finally listen to the voice of the electorate..? It is ludicrous that over 50% of children enrolling in London primary schools do not have English as their first language - the composition of London has been transformed; over 40% of people under 20 years of age in London are non British.

Spiralling immigration and nonsensical controls put in place by the Government over recent years are wrecking the culture and composition of our country.

If control of the situation is not grasped imminently, it will be too late. There is no chance of the mainstream political parties doing anything to reverse, or even to address, this situation.

If you want a party to put a stop to the wrecking-ball of immigration and the erosion of social cohesion, you know which one to vote for, support and join. The time to do so is now, before we run out of time.

Who are the fascists now..?

Well, well, well. I'm sure I cannot be the only one who has noticed the enormous irony in the way the political establishment and the mainstream press have been treating the BNP recently.

Throughout the European election campaigns, the press and leading public figures (and others of more dubious standing, such as Pete Doherty, to name but one) repeatedly bashed the BNP with accusations of fascism and thuggery, among other outright lies.

Funnily enough, though, looking at the evidence of recent days, it seems it is the mainstream political establishment and, in some cases, the press that are employing the tactics of fascism in an utterly shameless fashion.

The example of the UAF (who are backed by leading members of the mainstream political parties) attacking the inaugural BNP press conference with iron bars (and a couple of eggs) is an obvious one and barely needs to be mentioned again here.

However, what about this..?? Why are the BNP to be denied access to the same briefings as other parties receive from the Government in Brussels..? What is the point in excluding them from social events, drinks receptions and other events that other MEPs are welcome at? Exclusion is nothing but an unpleasant and a crude fascist device - the sheer level of hypocrisy here is jaw-dropping..!

Then today, there was this.. I mean, really, why should Buckingham Palace be 'having to answer questions'..?? What's to answer..??

The exclusion of the BNP from activities and briefings in Brussels only serves to show that the political establishment seeks to censure the BNP and to deny them as many platforms from which to speak as possible. If that isn't fascist behaviour, I don't know what is.

The way we're heading, anyone who expresses an interest in, or sympathy for, the BNP or its views will find themselves sidelined and excluded - if that is not already the case. Why are we being pilloried for what are perfectly reasonably formed views? Why can we not hold them..??

It has never been more important to stand up for what we believe in - the press, the media and the political establishment must not be allowed to deny us our voice..!

Oh for Christ's sake.

Will the ultra left-wing liberal media please just get over the fact that (1) the BNP has been democratically elected, (2) it is a legally constituted political party and - (3) let's be frank, it leads on policies that strike a chord with a great many of the British people.

The sheer number of articles published in the Guardian in the vein of this is beyond a joke. It is not racist to seek to protect the interests and welfare of the indigenous people of these islands. It is discriminatory towards these people, however, to increasingly seek to undermine our position in society and systematically dilute our culture and values. Oh, and if we don't like this happening we find ourselves barred from speaking out, lest we find ourselves branded racist, bigoted, etc.

Did anyone ask the majority of the population if we wanted to be multi-culturalised (sic)..? No, they didn't. Yes, it's a noble idea - but it's been taken to an extreme and it is fragmenting communities everywhere. If it were possible to achieve integration between the indigenous population and newcomers, it might work - it could be wonderful.

But, how can this be achieved when frequently newcomers can't speak English, they can't communicate with us, they don't teach their children English - and they don't care for the English. It would be wrong to say this is the case in every instance - it isn't. However, it doesn't seem to be an unusual state of affairs - for instance, read this - it illustrates that even the mainstream media is coming round to the idea that the BNP has a point.

The fact that a vast number of articles in the spirit of this continue to proliferate shows just how out of touch a disturbing number of journalists seem to be with the views of an increasing number of the British population.

It is unacceptable for large media institutions to continue to allege that the BNP is racist - it is not, it merely seeks to look out for our own - after all, none of the other political parties appear to want to do so. For the Equality & Human Rights Commission to seek to injunct the BNP from operating represents the most ironic form of discrimination ever - an organisation in our country, staffed predominantly by immigrants, seeking to outlaw a political party that wants to protect our interests..! It is preposterously outrageous.

Mind you, if the EHRC were able to secure an ability for afro-caribbeans, for example, to join the BNP - and through their membership fees support the BNP's political aims and objectives- then good on them. Can't really see it happening, though - so all in all, it seems to be a massive waste of time, expense and effort. It is nothing more than yet another attempt to cast the BNP in a bad light.

This time, happily, it won't work. The EHRC happily seeking to discriminate against the indigenous British population, using the taxpayers' money from which they are funded to do so, simply will not wash.

All in all, EHRC - you just go for it. Do your worst - for it is you that is completely, wholly and totally in the wrong.

Financial stimuli...?

Hmmmm. So Messrs Brown and Obama want the UK to commit yet greater proportions of its GDP to further economic stimulus plans. As the Governor of the Bank of England has already said we can't afford to do so, this seems like a great plan.

It seems pretty plain that the 'banking crisis' has precipitated the UK downturn - it's caused widespread panic and evaporation of confidence. Whether or not the banking crisis is responsible for the entire of the global downturn is beyond me - I am not an economist - but it's certainly been a key factor.

The UK 'banking crisis' seems to have been caused, in my humble view, by two things.

The first of these was irresponsible people deriving clever ways of creating 'theoretical profit' from 'clever' deals and then showing it as profit in their trading accounts - these deals being backed up by insurance policies to protect against a loss. Insuring against losses may have been well and good - until the insurers ran into trouble - cue AIG.

So, great - notional profit is all well and good - but it isn't 'money in the bank'. In my view this has to be where things started going wrong - i.e. notional money isn't the same as 'real' money - it isn't available, it isn't tangible - hence some of our banks became reliant on the money markets to generate liquidity. Whilst cash was available to borrow, this worked fine and the banks rode happily on the crest of an artificial wave, posting record profits, toasting stratospheric levels of apparent success.

The second key factor was an abundance of irresponsible lending by the banks - the money being lent all too frequently being provided to the banks by the money markets - i.e. they weren't lending their own money, they were borrowing it.

Once the money markets dried up the banks were left high and dry without any 'real' money of their own to play with - what happened next is history.

The thing to appreciate is that the bank's apparent success in the preceding years (and to a degree our economy's apparent success) was about as 'real' as the profit generated by the bank's incredibly clever yet artificial deals - i.e. yes, we appeared to be doing well for just as long as the whole house of cards managed to stay standing. We rode higher than we should have done for a good couple of years - and what is currently happening is readjustment.

It's similar to what happened with the property market - demand rose, prices soared artificially high - they stayed high - they've come down again.

The problem is that the trouble in the banking sector spooked a lot of people - it caused panic. The panic was amplified by the media - panic caused the run on Northern Rock. The run on Northern Rock precipitated further panic - it led to the UK Government nationalising Northern Rock, which started the whole banking-bailout-ball rolling - cue further panic re the state of the banks and the erosion of consumer and industry confidence.

The economy had ridden artificially high and it was due for a period of readjustment. The likelihood is that this was always going to cause a degree of discomfort in certain sectors - however, due to the incredibly heavy, suffocating amounts of airtime dedicated to the 'impending recession' by the media, panic ensued, confidence evaporated - leaving us in the predicament in which we currently sit.

There is no point in our governments expending huge proportions of our GDPs to attempt to reinstate the economy to the artificially healthy state it up until recently appeared to be in - it wasn't real.

As David Tang has said, the key to our recovery is consumer/industry confidence. This makes perfect sense. Yes, parts of the banking sector were always going to run into stormy water, given the way they had been operating - but there was no need for the panic attributable to parts of that sector to spread to everything else! The fact that the panic spread, there can be no doubt, was due solely to the media and some incredibly reckless reporting - governments ploughing billions into business/economies thereafter (cue further reporting) didn't help - it undermined confidence still further.

It therefore does not make sense for governments around the world to keep stumping up (read: borrowing) billions of dollars/pounds to artificially stimulate our economies. The more money governments plough into our economies, the less confident people/industry will be - i.e. if people see the economy being propped up, given adrenaline shots and wheeled about in its customised Pope-mobile, there is no reason why confidence should return - instead it will erode yet further.

We can only hope that common sense prevails. If people spend, the situation will improve - if our governments continue to spend billions and billions on our behalf, though, it will not. Quite why anyone would listen to Gordon Brown anyway is beyond me - it has been reported that up until recently he was taking advice from the very people who are now thought to have pilotted the banks in their charge into the trouble which they are now in!

Wakey wakey people, it's coffee time....

Well done Canada...!

Congratulations must surely be extended to Canada for declining to allow the outspoken, odious, wretched, 'infandous' George Galloway entry.

Well done indeed for turning away this Islamist-extremist sympathiser and general purpose whipping boy. It's astonishing: straight after 9/11 his comments were akin to saying 'America got what she was asking for, many people around the world will be delighted about this'; straight after the London bombings his comments were akin to 'oh well, you reap what you sow' - and most recently he has headed up a motorcade travelling through France, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt to reach Gaza, to deliver aid and supplies into the hands of Hamas.

Indeed, it seems that Hamas are so chuffed with the efforts of this attention seeking buffoon that they have presented him with a Palestinian passport. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7939480.stm)

How can it be that a member of the United Kingdom Parliament can spend so long campaigning and fundraising to support those behind and those who support an inherently terrorist organisation..?(!) Is this what his constituents want him to be doing? If so, it seems to me that somewhere along the lines something has gone badly wrong - i.e. how can a sector of society that must (if that were the case) support terrorist activities and anti-UK aims be allowed to have a voice in the UK Parliament..? But then, I find it very hard to imagine that the majority of Galloway's constituents do support the activities he chooses to engage in - it seems more likely to me that he is content just to carry on and run his own little agenda. 'What is that agenda?', you ask - well check out the t-shirts promoted on his website: http://www.philosophyfootball.com/product_images/pimg4961644291fcf_front

At the end of the day, for whatever reason, Galloway seems (to me) to have positioned himself as the poster-boy (sorry, alternative words fail me) for Islamist-extremist sympathisers in the UK. Whenever there is an 'outrage against Islam', seemingly Galloway is invariably there, blowing hot air into a megaphone, empathising (apparently) or otherwise making sympathetic noises.

George, if the UK really does so little for you that you'd rather channel your time, energy and talents into promoting, and sympathising with those who support, an extremist, terrorist organisation, how about moving, hey? I understand lycra is pretty popular in Afghanistan at the moment...

Jade Goody.. a Saint...?(!)

I should just start by saying that I have (or rather, had) nothing in particular against Jade Goody/Tweed.

Her relatively short and in some respects tragic life has now drawn to a close. That she faced her final days in the full beam of the media glare in many respects showed a great deal of courage - that she endured her suffering in full public view for the future benefit of her two young sons is nothing but commendable.

However, the suggestion of Archbishop Jonathan Blake on the Channel 4 news this evening that her contribution to society in the latter days of her life was of 'biblical proportions' was stupendously ill-judged. Further, the Archbishop went on to claim that in the last month or so of her life she 'saved thousands of lives' and that she can be considered worthy of 'saint' status(!)

That a (presumably) intelligent man could make such bold (yet loopy) statements left me momentarily aghast and shortly thereafter prompted me to direct some hot air of my own in the direction of the television..!

I simply do not see, that however tragic her demise, anything Jade managed to do in the last few months of her life could have in any way served to elevate her to 'saint' status, or that she achieved anything of 'biblical proportions' - unless we were talking about the amount of cash she generated (supposedly and I very much hope it is the case) for the future benefit of her sons.

Doubtless there will follow a week or so of 'mourning' in magazines of the 'OK' variety - which will sell issues and help to sustain their circulation. What annoys me is that the OK-buying public either do not see how trite and entirely superficial this perpetuation of the Goody phenomenon is - or that they do realise, yet continue to buy the vacuous drivel regardless.

It is worth remembering that the media created Jade and made her its play-thing. It pulled its macabre strings from the outset, poking fun and sneering - then it attempted to annihilate her following the 'Shilpa Poppadom' episode. The media mocked and derided her more often than it didn't - and through it all money was generated for the publications and the PR representatives concerned. To the very end (and indeed beyond) the media and the PR people have cashed in at every step - they created her, they profited from her - and doubtless they are now indeed filled with remorse - remorse, that is, that her life is over so soon.

In many ways it seems the best tribute anyone could make to Jade would be to not purchase the forthcoming series of clichés and crashingly awful metaphors that is inevitably to be served up by the 'coffee-table-glossies' (yuck). I would say that 'in every way' this would be the most appropriate tribute, if it were not for the suggestion that it is her two sons who will benefit from the royalties/publication fees generated.

It is monumentally irritating that the hackneyed, clichéd, flea-ridden carcass of the cheapest, lowest, most shameless form of journalism continues to profit from Jade's life and demise.

Mind you, this would be just a fraction as irritating as it would be if Tweed were to somehow now morph into a media spectacle in his own right.............. heaven forbid!

Over and out...