Written by Boadacea
Is one free to object to the political policy of immigration?
Often we hear about the oppressive regimes around the world, the absence of freedom in various countries and the political persecution of dissenters in those places. Frequently we are expected to give political asylum to those people who claim asylum in our country after them allegedly being persecuted for their beliefs in some horrible oppressive country elsewhere. We hear that the Muslims hate us and attack us because they ‘hate our freedoms’. There is a constant stream of statements that reinforce the belief, albeit sometimes by implication, that we in this country are ‘free’.
However, are we free? Are political dissenters persecuted, suppressed or oppressed? Are we free to discuss and hear political policies/ideas/facts?
Well of course we are not free. We live under a massive level of surveillance, with our communications, movements and data monitored and collected. We are forced to work for many extra hours a week to pay our taxes (being forced to work without reward and under duress is not being free). We can be arrested and imprisoned if we offend a member of a more important group(1) (yet us being offended counts for almost nothing(2)).However, here the focus is on the issue of political oppression. Is this country free in a political sense(3)? There are various ways in which political freedom could be examined. For example, may one express one’s political beliefs, proposed policies, etc. without fear or sanction? Are people free to examine and discuss political ideas and related facts (historical or otherwise)? Are certain political ideas suppressed, and their proponents persecuted? Are people scared to express certain dissenting views? Space does not permit a full examination of the concept of political freedom, and this short essay will focus on the issue of whether a particular political idea is suppressed, and its proponents oppressed and/or persecuted. Actually, it is a particular form of dissent – dissenting from the government’s political policy of mass immigration.
Is opposition to immigration inhibited in this ‘free’ country?
In a ‘free’ country a political view cannot be banned – that would expose lack of freedom; the people need to believe they are living in a ‘free democratic’ state, it helps to keep them from rising up against an oppressive regime. However, can a government suppress a dissenting view and/or oppress its proponents to the extent that the dissent poses no effective threat? Can the government with the arms of the state (and media, etc.) effectively suppress dissent to their political policy of mass immigration to the point that there is no effective opposition?
If people face persecution, and even prosecution, for expressing a certain political view and/or dissent to a certain political policy, then this is political suppression. If the arms of the state, including the state-broadcaster (the BBC), the education system, etc. all agree on a particular political policy and propagandise its greatness, then this can act to inhibit certain political ideas. If political parties (and/or their supporters) that object to a certain political policy face persecution by the state, then this is political oppression. If open debate on a government political policy is effectively impossible, then this is inhibition of dissent. If all major media organisations demonise those who express dissent to a political policy, then this has a psychological/emotional effect on the public, and acts to suppress dissent. If the information given to the public in relation to a political policy (and related matters) is distorted or censored, and even untrue, then this can act to manipulate people and suppress dissent.
In relation to open debate and discussion of the political policy of mass immigration, it is almost impossible to hold a rational and fair debate on this topic. Debate is inhibited by various means. One such means of suppressing open debate is that of straightforward banning of debate. Often this is phrased in a saccharin-coated phrase such as ‘no platform for ‘racists’’ or ‘no platform for fascists’ and suchlike rather than openly stating that this idea is banned from discussion.
The National Union of Students (NUS) bans any speech that is labelled by them as ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’; this ban under the ‘no platform’ guise(4). People using these sorts of phrases attempt to deceive others as to what is really going on: really these people are stopping certain political ideas, facts, beliefs, etc. from being stated or heard. This ‘no platform’ also achieves many other matters, including: giving the impression, albeit by implication, that dissenters are not worthy of being heard; achieving an ‘immunity from criticism (or truth)’(5); etc. However, by claiming a ‘high moral ground’ this ban on debate purports to be for some sort of moral reasons. Of course, the nebulous-power-word ‘racism’ is not a proper word, so such cries are not rational(6). Also, the term ‘fascist’ is thrown around in a non-rational manner (see Orwell(7)), in fact, often in an ironic manner; could it not be classed as ‘fascist’ under some of its definitions to ban open debate of dissenting views? Could one not label the banning of certain inconvenient truths as fascist?
This silencing of certain political ideas/beliefs, etc. is found in many contexts. As well as the ‘no platform’ in universities, there is a ban on dissent in many other contexts (including businesses, schools, state organisations such as the NHS, etc.) and only certain views can be heard or stated. Even during our elections such silencing is found to occur. For example, Mr Nick Griffin was not allowed to give his election declaration speech on stage during the 2001 elections, this prompting Mr Griffin and Mr Treacy to wear gags while on the stage with the other candidates(8):
In some contexts gagging of dissenters is claimed to be for reasons of ‘maintaining the peace’ or ‘community cohesion’ or suchlike – this usually prompted by threats or actual instances of violence(9) and other crimes by ‘lefties’ and/or immigrants.
So violence by those supporting the government’s political views is used as an excuse to gag dissenters(10). Surely the police should act to stop the violence? Enforce the law? Would such threats, were they ever to occur, by anti-immigration proponents be pandered to in this manner? Does this mean that the most criminal and violent win? Is this a safe message for the state to be sending out? Is this moral? Interestingly, those threatening and involved in such crime and violence frequently are linked to the government in various ways(11), which might explain the lack of the law being enforced when they break it(12). Such people could hence be being used by the government as a form of informal/unaccountable/deniable enforcers(13). Such people act as state-sponsored enforcers, but with full deniability by the state(14). This all further acts to intimidate the people from dissenting to this government policy.
Another means by which dissent from the political policy of immigration is inhibited is, of course, the fear of being labelled ‘racist’. ‘Racism’ is a nebulous-power-word, not a properly-defined term, and should not be used in rational discourse. However, it is this very fact of low referentiality that largely contributes to the power of this term (as analysed and explained by Dr Thomas Turner(15)). The establishment has contributed significantly to the social construction of this term (see Dr Turner’s book qv). People fear the consequences of being labelled as ‘racist’ – these consequences including the social(16), financial, legal and also the physical fear of being attacked by ‘anti-racists’ and/or immigrants. Most people understand that the law is not properly/fully enforced against the immigrants or ‘anti-racists’ in this context(17) – they have an almost free pass to enforce the will of the state against ‘racists’, including by use of violence (as noted above). Hence, people are intimidated into silence and acquiescence. Dissent is inhibited.
In fact, people are too scared even to state certain truths in relation to immigration for fear of being labelled ‘racist’ – by this means open and honest debate is further inhibited as many do not even have the true facts to consider. Many truths cannot be stated, and ‘racism’ is not the only excuse for suppression of truth – other means including those of ‘causing offence’, ‘stirring hatred’ and matters such a ‘maintaining community relations’ (often code for: not letting the people know the truth in case they rise up; having no riots; there being no challenge or disruption to government immigration policy; etc.). If one states certain matters one can be accused of being ‘an extremist’, a ‘right wing extremist’, ‘threat to security’, ‘dangerous agitator’, or other scary-sounding labels – such labels can, amongst other things, render one liable for various acts of state suppression and the government is currently seeking more legislation to further silence such truths and debate. The government deems such people as a danger to the state. More honest people will be imprisoned. When true facts that pertain to government policy are suppressed, then this is not political liberty. Neither is this moral nor honest. However, in an inversionist manner, those stating the truth and acting with honour will be imprisoned under the manipulative lie of them being ‘evil’. This is not open and honest debate, and this is not freedom.
Political parties and other organisations that object to the political policy of mass immigration are subject to much suppression and persecution. Of course the general factors, including those noted above, apply also here. The mainstream media, including the BBC, make sure that the coverage of such parties is very unfavourable, and frequently the coverage is dishonest (the BBC is not impartial as its charter states). Hence, the unsuspecting public often believe such parties to be dangerous and monstrous. This distorts the democratic political process. However, the persecution and suppression of such parties and organisations also is conducted by many other means. For example, a police officer was forced to resign after being seen while off duty at a football match wearing a BNP badge(18). Have any public servants been punished in any way for wearing other forms of political badges(19) while off duty, e.g. any pro-immigration badges? So it is permissible to support the policies of the government in relation to mass immigration, but not to dissent from them (even while off duty). Many have faced persecution for belonging to or even merely supporting the BNP. For example, a bus driver was sacked for belonging to the BNP(20). The BBC sent an undercover journalist to film Mr Nick Griffin giving a speech and this resulted in Mr Griffin facing two criminal trials – and he was not convicted of any crime(21). During his speech in 2004 he predicted that Muslims would launch an attack on our country and objected to the sexual ‘grooming’ and rape of our children (before any reports such as in Rotherham were released). His predictions and claims were proven to be accurate and true. It is fair to conclude that those organisations (including political parties) dissenting from the establishment’s support for the political policy of immigration do face suppression and persecution. Such suppressive acts not only directly inhibit dissent (and truth), but also others are frightened from dissenting.
There are various pieces of legislation that act in such a manner as to suppress dissent, this by threat of arrest, (e.g. ‘hate laws’). For example, words that might ‘insult’ and ‘stir up hatred’ can result in imprisonment(22). The application of these laws has disproportionately been such that they act to suppress dissent(23). Of course, as is frequently found in this ‘soft totalitarian’(24) state, this is all wrapped up in a cloak of ‘compassion’ and ‘moral values’. But to whom is the compassion being shown? To those who object to what is fairly described as an invasion of the country? As genocide(25)? Can the indigenous people not object to these hateful acts being perpetrated upon them without being arrested (and, ironically, accused of hatred)? Would hatred not be valid in some such instances? Should one hate those who have facilitated or committed mass rape of children or genocide? Does this situation not alarm and distress normal people? Why should the state think it is acceptable to arrest people for their beliefs and emotions anyway? Does the invasion and mass rape not offend you? Are you not offended, insulted or distressed that, by various means, you dare not object to this? Not even to the genocide? Feel threatened or alarmed? And is it moral to ban the truth? How can proper political decisions be made if based on lies and not on truth? Why should ‘offence’ or ‘insult’ be criminalised – and also only is certain contexts? If a comment were to stir up hatred(26) against a group, then if the statement is true, perhaps that group should not be loved, hey? If there were truths that if stated might offend or insult a group (s), or even stir up hatred, then to ban their statement is still to ban truth and takes away true and useful information from the public.This legislation can act to disempower the true victims in many cases, and to give the false impression that the perpetrators are the victims. Also it can act, inter alia, to protect the perpetrators from truth (in case they don’t like to hear it, and/or possibly face the consequences of it becoming widely known). So if the presence of group X meant a significant increase in rapes of children from group Y by group X, then one could not say this because group X might not like it (never mind what group Y don’t like, including their children getting raped, some groups are more equal than others). Better to pretend we are all the same (and at the same time don’t forget to celebrate the diversity!). If group B get arrested or stopped by the police at twice the rate of group A, then even if this were because group B committed twice the rate of crime, one could not state this fact/truth in case group B were insulted and this fact might cause resentment of group B. Better to let them off the crimes they commit and equalise the arrest figures, never mind if the other people are victimised by the crimes (and not to bother if any of this alarms/distresses/threatens/insults them, or even could be interpreted as inciting hatred against them). This all acts to suppress certain truths and challenges to government policy – and often in an insidious and surreptitious manner.
Hence, by various means there is a lack of freedom in this country in relation to the political freedom of dissenting from the government political policy of mass immigration. People are misinformed and are intimidated by various means. Dissenters are oppressed and are susceptible to prosecution by the state. Organisations and political parties dissenting are liable to much mistreatment from the state – this is political persecution.
You will acquiesce, you will not dissent. It’s called freedom. Orwell warned us about this:
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
2.Even those in government can insult the English and/or the British without sanction – and certainly without going to prison. For example, saying the English are a race too lazy or incapable of working, etc. is fine, but don’t say it about Africans, etc.
3.Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’
5. ‘Immunity from criticism’ refers to the fact that if no criticism, challenge, debate, alternative ideas, etc. are allowed, then those with this immunity can merely state their ideas, beliefs, policies, etc. and do not have to face any criticism or challenge on them. Such people do not need to defend what they say in any way and can merely state what they wish and leave the impression almost as though it is correct and perfect – with no alternatives.
6. See Dr. T. Turner
7. George Orwell is quoted as stating that: ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’’
9. See: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b02_1370111676
11. These links to the establishment, frequently by those purporting to be ‘anti-establishment’, will be examined in a forthcoming essay
12. Ironically and dishonestly, many of these types pose as very ‘anti-establishment’ and rebellious.
14. And of course not all of them are in direct contact with the state in relation to the enforcement, but most of them understand that they will be very unlikely to be held account for threats, violence, etc. against anti-immigration people. Of course, some of them are in direct contact as will be discussed in future essays.
16. Many fear social rejection if labelled as such a ‘witch’
17. Also see: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ec_1269378544
19. Communist badges? Even anarchists badges?
20. But won on appeal as this breached his human rights, e.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229211/Bus-driver-sacked-member-BNP-wins-legal-battle-claiming-dismissal-breach-human-rights.html
22. For further reading on threats to freedom of speech in Britain see:
Johnston, P. (2013) Feel Free to Say It. Threats to Freedom of Speech in Britain Today. Civitas, London.
Also, relatedly, see:
23. One could interpret some of this legislation in such a manner that it would render many politicians guilty of the offences therein. For example the Public Order Act 1986 makes it, amongst other things, a criminal offence to state certain matters that threaten, abuse or insult and are likely to stir up racial hatred. Are not many pro-immigration speeches thus covered? What about those who state that the immigrants ‘do the jobs Brits are too lazy to do’?
26. And how can this be shown to be the case? When would it not be resentment, disapproval or disgust, etc. and actually be hatred? Besides, how could causing hatred even be thought in a sane world #to be illegal?
Written by Cigpapers
Legal Research by Watt Tyler
The Unite Against Fascism are an establishment-financed group who intimidate, bully, threaten to kill, rob and assault anyone (particularly those from the White working-class) who dares to object to multiculturalism and/or Globalisation. Not only do you get beaten, robbed, assaulted and threatened you also get smeared as a fascist.
Here is a detailed description of the UAF and their backers both political and financial:
Here is a report on the Wythenshawe by-election that was seriously disrupted by UAF violence:
Because of the violent and corrupt nature of the UAF this blog is organising a campaign to have them proscribed as a terrorist organisation, and for the British Government to facilitate the seizure of their assets and those of their backers, to distribute to their victims. If you can help please copy and paste the following letter to your MP, MEPs and any members of the House of Lords you can think of on the website (whose address is at the bottom of this article).
Dear (name of MP, MEP, Lord or Lady)
I am writing to you regarding having the so-called “Unite Against Fascism” Group proscribed as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The UAF intimidate, bully, threaten to kill, rob and assault those (particularly from the White working-class) who dare to object to multiculturalism and Globalisation. Not only do you get beaten, robbed, assaulted and threatened you also get smeared as a fascist. A number of people have been unable to stand as candidates and/or leaflet and canvass for elections across Britain because of the violence and threats of violence this group are involved directly in, or have incited. Please visit the link below for an example of their behaviour and total disregard for British law, democracy and freedom. The old man receiving the public punishment beating is a candidate for a Parliamentary constituency seat:
The Terrorism Act 2000 clearly defines what terrorism is:
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2)
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the Government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against the person
(b) involves serious damage to property
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) the use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1) (b) is satisfied.
The UAF are quite clearly a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed as such by the Home Office as soon as possible. The Government should also facilitate the seizure of the UAF’s assets and those of their backers to compensate the UAF’s many victims.
I would expect you to back this campaign and contact the Home Office immediately.
Yours sincerely ( Add your name )
Please send to your MP, MEP and Member of House of Lords at the link below:
Also consider signing a UK Government petition to proscribe the UAF:
Written by Cigpapers
Manchester has long been seen as the “Red Citadel” in the North of England due to the socialist’s violent and corrupt choke-hold on the local people and politics. Globalist groups such as Antifa, Unite Against Fascism, Manchester Anti-Fascist Action, Red Strike Force, Red Army Faction, Hope Not Hate, Love Music – Hate Racism and other assorted violent and deranged multiculturalists had vowed The BNP would never be active in Manchester.
On 1st April 2014 two intrepid BNP activists decided to penetrate deep behind enemy held territory to promote The BNP and their message of hope to the people of Manchester. This is their story:
Tameside 6:00 AM to 8:00 AM
With the reds still festering in their pits a flash demo took place on a footbridge over the M67 in Tameside (East Greater Manchester). A 10 foot by 3 foot banner was unfurled boldly proclaiming “British National Party Say: STOP PAEDOPHILE RINGS”.
The mood in the traffic jams was generally supportive with horns beeped and many thumbs up and waves. A small minority of degenerate reds chose to support paedophilia with various obscene hand gestures. Knowing Greater Manchester Police would soon be on their way, and having made their demonstration, the BNP activists rolled up the banner and made good their exit.
Central Manchester 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM
With Tameside reds still reeling the BNP activists were leafleting in Central Manchester on Market Street by 9:00 AM. A grateful Manchester public lapped up their leaflets and cheers of “Good to see The BNP” , “Keep up the good work lads” and other supportive shouts were soon echoing through Central Manchester.
At about 9:50 AM The BNP activists burst in to the Arndale Shopping Centre. With only one or two demented Globalists refusing BNP leaflets, and their message of hope, The BNP activists had a fruitful half hour in the Arndale Shopping Centre. At about 10:20 AM The BNP activists were approached by two apologetic security guards saying their bosses had ordered them to evict The BNP activists. The BNP activists explained they had no such powers to evict them but would leave as a gesture of goodwill.
After leafleting along Deansgate The BNP activists leafleted outside Manchester Town Hall (AKA The Kremlin) with no problems, many council workers gratefully accepted The BNP leaflets. The BNP activists had their photos taken by a passerby who claimed to be ex-Labour.
South-East Manchester 11:15 AM to 12:30 PM
At around 11:00 AM The BNP activists were approached by a contingent of up to 10 foul-mouthed Red Strike Force thugs. The BNP activists decided to head to the student area of South-East Manchester. By around 11:15 AM The BNP activists were hard at work leafleting student accommodation door to door. By 12:30 PM The BNP activists decided to call it a day and twenty minutes later were enjoying a couple of well-earned pints of “Hobgoblin Ruby Ale” in a local pub staffed by Nationalists. In total around 500 to 600 leaflets were distributed and around 1,000 people saw the banner over the motorway.
The Next Day (April 2nd 2014) In Tameside Greater Manchester:
Here is what happened the next day (April 2nd 2014) in Tameside Greater Manchester when these two BNP activists were approached by Greater Manchester Police while doing another “Stop Paedophile Rings” banner drop over the M67 motorway:
Written by Cigpapers
Photos and captions by Watt Tyler
This is a campaign to make Lee Rigby’s mother a Baroness, award her an OBE, compensate her and build a £10 million “Lee Rigby Community Centre” in her home town. After all that is what the mother of the rather worthless street thug Stephen Lawrence received. Lee Rigby on the other hand was a serving soldier in the British Army.
Please send a letter, or email, to all your MEPs and MP as soon as possible. If you’re not much of a letter writer feel free to copy and paste the letter below.
Dear ( name of your MP/MEP)
Doreen Delceita Lawrence is the mother of murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence. She was awarded an OBE in 2003 and made a life peer (Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon) in 2013. £10 million was spent on the “Stephen Lawrence Community Centre” which opened in 2008 in Deptford, London. There has also been an e-petition to rename Heathrow Airport as “Stephen Lawrence Airport“. Baroness Lawrence is the Honorary President of anti-White race hate group the UAF which promotes racism, violence and intimidation across Britain.
Lee Rigby was not a street thug like Stephen Lawrence, but was in fact a fine young man doing his duty in the British Army. I do not see any valid reason why his family, and in particular his mother, should receive less from the British Nation than Stephen Lawrence’s did. I therefore suggest that his mother is made a Baroness and awarded an OBE. I would also like £10 million to be spent on a “Lee Rigby Community Centre” and an e-petition organised to rename Manchester Airport as “Lee Rigby Airport”.
As my elected representative I expect you to give this campaign your full support and public backing. Could you please clarify whether you will be supporting this campaign, or not, as that will clarify mine and my family’s voting intention.
Yours sincerely ( your name )
You can email this to all your MEPs and MP free of charge via https://www.writetothem.com also consider sending to any members of the House of Lords you can think of at the same address.
If you would prefer to write a paper letter then ( no stamp required) address to:
(Name of your MP), House Of Commons, London, SW1A OAA
(Name of member of House of Lords), House Of Lords, London, SW1A OAA
For MEPs you will need to look up their addresses.
Replies To This Campaign:
27th February 2014: Brian Simpson (Labour) MEP North West England has refused to support the campaign.
28th February 2014: Nick Griffin (BNP) MEP North West England has given this campaign his full support.
March 2014: Sir Peter Luff MP (Conservative) MP Worcestshire had a Pensioner constituent who emailed him arrested for racism . He also refused to support this campaign. Video below:
Please copy the emails from your MPs / MEPs in reply to this campaign in the comments section so we can put all replies up on here.
Written by Cigpapers
Photos and Captions by Watt Tyler
There was a by-election in Wythenshawe and Sale East constituency on February 13th 2014 following the death of Labour MP Paul Goggins on January 7th 2014.
There Were Seven Candidates:
John Bickley (UKIP)
Captain Chaplington-Smythe (Monster Raving Loony Party)
Daniel Critchlow (Conservative)
Mary Di Mauro ( LibDem)
Mike Kane (Labour)
Eddy O’Sullivan (BNP)
Nigel Woodcock (Green)
Manchester Evening News:
The reporting of the by-election by the local paper the Manchester Evening News was a disgrace to journalism and democracy. The Labour Party was promoted heavily and the M.E.N didn’t even print Eddy O’Sullivan’s (BNP candidate) biography, even though they printed everyone else’s including the candidate for The Monster Raving Loony Party. The M.E.N. also failed to report on the electoral fraud, violence, intimidation, robberies and death threats that were present during the election against The BNP and UKIP. A Freedom Of Information Act Request has revealed a possible reason for this bias. The Labour Party controlled Manchester City Council spends heavily with the M.E.N. on advertising. Their direct spending, of Council Taxpayer’s money, on advertising with the M.E.N. in the last five years was as follows:
Manchester City Council recruitment advertising with M.E.N. £179,384.30
Manchester City Council non-recruitment advertising with M.E.N. £2,024,015.00
TOTAL SPENT ON M.E.N. = £2,203,399.30
This total must also be added to the amount spent by the other nine Councils that make up Greater Manchester resulting in a bought and paid for local press.
Greater Manchester Police:
Greater Manchester Police always compete with the Metropolitan Police for the most corrupt Police Force in Britain. They have a history of supporting, if not organising, political violence against any Party seriously opposing the Labour Party in Greater Manchester. Their complete inaction in combating political violence gives a green light to the Labour Party, and their attack dogs the UAF, to commit any act of violence against the Labour Party’s political rivals.
During the by-election masked gangs of Labour/UAF thugs were openly roaming the streets attacking, robbing and threatening BNP (and to a lesser extent UKIP) canvassers and activists. Any attempt to fight back against these Labour/UAF political tinkerbells is dealt with firmly by G.M.P. At the election count, at the G-Mex Centre on February 13th 2014, a gang of about 20 deranged multiculturalists tried to stop BNP Party members entering the count. G.M.P. Officers were present but took no action as usual. A number of complaints were made to G.M.P. about political violence but no arrests were made because of reasons such as the CCTV not working due to sunlight reflecting on the lens.
Postal Voting, Electoral Fraud And Intimidation:
As usual the Labour Party relied heavily on postal votes to get elected. Out of a total of 24,024 votes cast 10,141 were postal votes – just over 42% of total votes cast. There were instances of up to 15 voters registered at some addresses and no proof of identity is required. Judge Richard Mawrey QC, an election commissioner in Birmingham, has criticised postal voting in a report and described it as “hopelessly insecure” and warned electoral fraud would “continue unabated” unless changes were made.
The BNP were the only Party in the by-election not allowed to have seals on the ballot boxes, with no satisfactory reason given as to why not.
During the by-election campaign I spoke to a number of elderly voters living in residential homes who stated they were pressured in to postal voting. Their votes are collected by their “carers” who are all virtually Labour supporters and largely immigrants. Several confided in me they were too scared to vote anything but Labour.
A number of residents, mostly on Wythenshawe, have reported being threatened for showing BNP or UKIP placards on their homes. This usually entails visits by gangs of masked men at night telling them to take down election placards.
The Unite Against Fascism (UAF) :
The UAF (Unite Against Fascism) are a type of organised gang who attack, bully, intimidate and assault anyone they consider an opponent of Globalisation and zio-multiculturalism. Their leader is Weyman Bennett (UAF National office on 07734032314 / 020 78334916). A fuller description of the UAF, their links to organised paedophilia and who funds them can be found here:
On February 1st 2014 Mike Killian (Manchester UAF Spokeperson 07903586191) had called for a day of action against UKIP and BNP activists, canvassers and supporters involved in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. They had superficially organised a table top demonstration outside ASDA in Wythenshawe at 1p.m.and called for supporters to come along. However their table top demonstration never materialised and instead UAF supporters were roaming Wythenshawe and Sale attacking BNP and UKIP activists, canvassers and supporters. There were a number of assaults, robberies and a death threat to a Lady Pensioner by so-called “anti-fascists”. Whether the UAF had ever intended to have a table top demonstration isn’t known.
Greater Manchester Police claim they are investigating a number of serious criminal offences committed against the BNP and UKIP on 1st February 2014, and civil proceedings are being brought by numerous individuals against the UAF for damages. The GMP Police Officer in charge of this alleged investigation is Sergeant Phillips (telephone 0161 856 4882).
Here are some of the alleged supporters of the UAF believed to be involved in “anti-fascist” action on Wythenshawe on 1st February 2014.
Chris Haddon is believed to be born around 1990 and claims to be a Wythenshawe resident. He is the lead singer of a seemingly unknown band called “The Minx Band”, he works as a receptionist at Blueprint Studios, Elizabeth House, 39 Queen Street, Manchester, M3 7DQ (0161 8172520). Haddon claims to be a “top boy” on Wythenshawe Estate, although no one we spoke to on Wythenshawe had ever heard of him. Chris Haddon was involved with two other males and a female in some sort of bizarre staring match at a BNP organiser on Wythenshawe Civic Centre Car Park. The BNP organiser fearing for Haddon’s mental health telephoned the authorities.
Some of Haddons’ Tweets on @HaddonMinx have included:
February 1st 2014: Don’t just sit back and let it happen. I want a war against the BNP.
February 1st 2014: We’re stood in Civic car park having a blazing row with the BNP. We don’t want their van here. There’s only 4 of us. Where are you?
February 1st 2014: Only took 4 of us to unnerve the BNP today in Wythenshawe and get the message across that we don’t want them, or their stupid Monty Python..
..esq vans spouting shite and causing racial tension on our doorsteps. If everyone did the same, the world would be a much better place.
February 1st 2014: That we don’t want their Nazi views around here, to take that shite van and fuck off.
Although there is no evidence yet to directly connect Chris Haddon to the robberies, assaults and the death threat to a British Pensioner he does seem to advocate violence against his political opponents. He has refused to identify who he was with, or provide a witness statement to the Police about UAF criminal activity in Wythenshawe on February 1st 2014.
Andy Evans is a close associate of Chris Haddon and fellow band member (drummer) of “The Minx”. He was involved in the bizarre staring match at a BNP organiser on Wythenshawe Civic Centre Car Park on 1st February 2014 in the photo above.
Yet again there is no direct evidence to connect Andy Evans to the more serious violence and crime on February 1st 2014 committed by self-styled “anti-fascists”. However from reading his Twitter account, @EvansMinx , he was clearly planning on meeting up with UAF organisers at 1 PM at ASDA on Wythenshawe on 1st February 2014.
Some of Evans’ Tweets on @EvansMinx have included:
January 30th 2014: Anti-BNP Leafletting In Wythenshawe This Saturday, Meet At ASDA From 1. Antifa Hooligans.
February 1st 2014: 4 Of Us Here Trying To Fuck The BNP Off, Where Are You Lot?
February 1st 2014: @Joe_Farrardise We Needed You Mate, And More..
Another band member of “The Minx” is called Kieran Perkins. We don’t have any evidence of his involvement or photos of him on Wythenshawe on 1st February 2014 yet. However the “anti-fascists” are habitually pack animals and usually operate with one brain.
Kieran Perkins has a Twitter account, @Kieran_Perkins , and made it clear he supports attacking the BNP, UKIP and any other political party or group he considers fascists.
February 1st 2014: @EvansMinx smash the fash
Vehicle Of Interest:
One of the vehicles used in a violent robbery committed by UAF members or supporters was seen by one of the robbery victims. He has described it as a green/blue small saloon or hatchback. The registration plate he noted down was DE04YWD . However Greater Manchester Police are stating that DVLA have no record of this registration plate and he must have got a letter or number wrong. Let Greater Manchester Police (Sergeant Phillips telephone 0161 856 4882) or the BNP know if you have any knowledge of this vehicle, or a similar one, used by UAF thugs.
Persons Of Interest:
There were a number of other people believed to be connected to the UAF on Wythenshawe on 1st February 2014 that we are still looking in to. If you saw any of the following people please let us know or talk to Greater Manchester Police (Sergeant Phillips telephone 0161 856 4882) at the Wythenshawe Police Station:
Joe Murray has denied having any knowledge of the violent crimes that were committed by the UAF on 1st February 2014, but has declined to identify the persons on the above photo or provide a witness statement.
Another person of interest, at least as a possible witness, is Adrien Parry (born 1st February 1996). Known to a number of UAF supporters in the Manchester area.
Further Disruption Of The BNP In Sale:
With the “anti-fascists” getting more desperate about The BNP delivering their message of hope to the British People, there was a further incident on Wednesday 5th February 2014 at about 2:40 PM in Sale town centre shopping precinct. With the public of Sale gratefully receiving The BNP’s message of hope, BNP canvassers were disrupted by a seemingly preplanned incident.
One man approached The BNP and started asking a lot of questions about BNP policies. While they were being explained to him in detail another man ran up and started screaming “racists” in The BNP canvasser’s face.
As the BNP canvasser put his arm up to defend himself the man started shouting he’d been assaulted and was telephoning the Police.
Interfering with any Political Party to stop it electioneering is a criminal offence and a breach of electoral rules. We need to identify this man, and find out which group and/or party he is with.
Please either let the Electoral Commission know or contact The BNP on email@example.com
with any details you have about this man.
Green Party Political Violence:
Surprisingly even the Green Party decided to join in the political violence against The BNP with an attack on a BNP lady activist on February 13th 2014 (polling day) early in the afternoon in Wythenshawe shopping centre.
To be fair to the Green Party after a member of the BNP spoke to their candidate, Nigel Woodcock, he did send this character home. However the attacker did then show at the election count that night causing distress to the lady he had previously attacked. No apology has been issued by the Green Party yet.
The result (if it can fairly be called that) of this by-election was:
Monster Raving Loony Party 288
Turnout 28.24% (11.92% postal votes 16.32%ballot box votes)
There was a very low turn out for a Parliamentary by-election with 71.76% of the electorate not bothering to vote. From my personal observations this low turn out was due to complete disenchantment with British politics.
As in nearly all elections The BNP won on a vote per pound spent basis.
Labour won officially because of their postal voting fraud, other electoral fraud, violence, intimidation and bullying.
Without the postal vote there is a good chance that UKIP would have taken this seat which should be safe for Labour.
The political website http://www.stirringtroubleinternationally.com gave this election a score of 12 on a scale of 1 to 10 for electoral dodginess.
Following the disgraceful and totally biased coverage of the Wythenshawe by-election by the Manchester Evening News (owned by the Guardian until 2010 when it was bought by Mirror Group Newspapers) it is time for the BNP to fight back.
As previously reported the M.E.N. has received over £2.2 million of Council taxpayer’s money in the last 5 years from Labour controlled Manchester City Council alone. Further Freedom Of Information Act requests will reveal the amounts from the other 9 Greater Manchester Councils and other Labour controlled organisations.
The M.E.N. is already a shrinking newspaper, now down to 47,633 sold copies per day – I’m currently investigating how many of these are bought by Labour Councils and other Labour controlled organisations. The size of the M.E.N. has also shrunk to 14 sheets (56 pages).
Fightback Against The Manchester Evening News:
The M.E.N. has several obvious weaknesses relating to advertising:
1. Living off immoral earnings – the M.E.N. has an “Adult Massage” section of paid for adverts. These are all quite clearly brothels making it a criminal offence to advertise them in exchange for financial renumeration. Please email the M.E.N. at the earliest opportunity to point this out to them at email address firstname.lastname@example.org this will remove the “We didn’t realise” defence at a later date. Also report the M.E.N. for their criminal behaviour to Greater Manchester Police at http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/feedbackintelligence.html?openform
Below is a letter you can copy if required:
Dear Officer, I am writing to complain about the “Adult Massage” section in the Manchester Evening News. These “Massage Clubs” are quite clearly brothels. Apart from my obvious moral revulsion at the thought of someone making money from a Woman being reduced to selling her body, there is the criminality of the Manchester Evening News in accepting money for these adverts. Living off immoral earnings is a very serious criminal offence in England. After analysing old Manchester Evening News newspapers I realised this has been going on for at least 25 years, if not longer. There is not only the prosecution of these criminals at the Manchester Evening News, there is also the aspect of seizure of the proceeds of crime. By a very rough estimate the Manchester Evening News has raked in about £10 to 15 million from this sleaze over the last 25 years which needs seizing by the authorities. As you are well aware there is no statute of limitations on these criminal offences in the UK and they would be very easy to prove.
2. Their acceptance of millions of pounds of Greater Manchester Council taxpayer’s money combined with their biased political coverage has put them in breach of the PCC Code of Practice on journalistic standards. Why not drop the PCC an email asking for an investigation in to their relationship with Labour controlled Councils and other organisations at email@example.com
Below is a letter you can copy if required:
Dear Press Complaints Commission, Could you please investigate the Manchester Evening News for their blatantly biased coverage of the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. The Manchester Evening News has collected over £2.2 million from Labour controlled Manchester City Council in newspaper adverts alone over the last five years. There are ongoing investigations in to other deals between Manchester City Council and the Manchester Evening News, which may uncover other much bigger financial transactions. I would urge you to look at the relationship between MCC and the MEN and the biased reporting by the MEN of the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election.
3. The M.E.N. still has a number of commercial companies that advertise with it. I will be compiling a full list of these with a view to internet campaigns against these companies and a threatened boycott of them. Not many companies will be interested in advertising anywhere which may be costing them business and creating a bad smell for their company.
4. There are very serious questions relating to the relationship between senior figures in Labour controlled Manchester City Council and the Manchester Evening News relating to rates paid for advertising. I will be publishing all my findings at the earliest opportunity.