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
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.
Written by Cigpapers
Photos and captions by Watt Tyler
People are always complaining about the Globalist/multiculturalist Government – but what difference would a truly Nationalist Government make? Well apart from no mass immigration, and other positive effects, let’s look at what a Nationalist Government wouldn’t waste taxpayers money on. I have calculated on a UK population of 60 million – I know it is bigger, but as the rest are illegal they won’t be paying anything anyway. So what did they waste taxpayers money on in 2012?
What Did The Globalist/multiculturalist Government Waste Cost A British Family Of Four In 2012?
1. European Union Membership:
In 2012 our membership of the European Union cost £118billion in fees and other financial costs associated with membership.
That is about £1,970 plus interest per person every year.
Cost for a family of four: About £7,880 plus interest
The Nationalist Alternative : Leave the European Union – the only possible advantage is the trade agreements which are legally protected if we leave anyway.
2. The Tax Credit Swindle:
The Tax Credit Swindle costs £30 billion which is £500 per person every year plus interest.
Cost for a family of four: £2,000 plus interest.
The Nationalist Alternative : A decent minimum wage – let Tesco and Starbucks pay their own staff.
3. The PFI Fraud:
The PFI fraud costs about £150 per person every year plus further interest.
Cost for a family of four: £600 plus interest.
The Nationalist Alternative : Cancel the fraudulent debt, throw the fraudsters in prison and keep the buildings.
4. The Big Windmill Rip Off:
The Big Windmill Rip Off costs about £112 plus interest per family of four every year, but is set to rise steeply.
Cost for a family of four: £112 plus interest.
The Nationalist Alternative : Cancel the rip off subsidised deals. Insulate houses to a very high standard and help to replace old boilers with new super efficient ones. There would be costs for a year or two then massive savings in energy use and therefore bills. Also this would be environmentally friendly – not just look “green”.
5. Foreign Aid:
In 2012 it is estimated the UK wasted about £9billion on foreign aid. Hundreds of millions goes to consultancy firms linked to the Politicians who make the payments. We also fund projects such as Local TV Stations in countries such as Iceland, Barbados ( higher per person income than Portugal ) , Turkey and Brazil.
That’s £150 per person plus interest.
Cost for a family of four: £600 plus interest
The Nationalist Alternative : Cancel foreign aid spending.
6. The Olympic Games:
Cost was £9 to 12 billion depending on estimates. This is £150 to £200 per person. We’ll average that at £175.
The Olympic secret tax haven cost another £600million+ . At least £10 per person. Secret tax haven details here https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/the-secret-olympic-corporate-tax-haven-exposed/
Cost for a family of four : £740 plus interest.
The Nationalist Alternative : Let Paris hold it – apart from the elite we all watched it on TV.
7. Illegal Foreign Wars And Occupation :
There are a lot of figures flying around, we’ve decided to go for £5billion in 2012 which looks a believable amount.
That’s about £83 per person.
Costs for a family of four : Approx. £330 plus interest.
The Nationalist Alternative : Bring the troops home and prosecute the war criminals.
8. Mass Immigration :
The worst part of mass immigration is the child sex slave trafficking, racism , violence, fraud and murder. Also mass immigration holds down wages and pushes up living costs. Immigration costs taxpayers a further estimated £15billion in 2012 – please feel free to debate this figure.
That’s £250 per person.
Costs for a family of four : Approx. £1000 plus interest.
The Nationalist Alternative : Stop mass immigration and start deporting illegals. Also consider whether Blair’s mass immigration and ethnic cleansing was legal.
9. Interest On Fraudulent National Debt :
You probably realise we allegedly have £1,377.4 billion in National Debt. This is nearly entirely fraudulent and falsely created by our corrupt Politicians at the behest of their real paymasters. This cost about £40 billion in interest alone in 2012.
That is about £667 per person plus further interest.
Costs for a family of four : Approx. £2,668 plus further interest.
The Nationalist Alternative : Stop paying and cancel the fraudulent National Debt, then throw the corrupt politicians and bankers in prison.
10. Global Corporations Offshoring Profits To Avoid Tax :
Global Corporations such as Amazon, Starbucks , Ebay etc. offshore their profits to lower tax regimes abroad by using “Royalty” deals. The figures for 2012 for this scheme are £7 to £25 billion, so we’ll average that out at a credible £16 billion.
That is about £267 per person plus further interest.
Costs for a family of four : Approx. £1,068 plus further interest.
The Nationalist Alternative : Make these Corporations pay UK taxes on UK profits.
2012 TOTAL FOR FAMILY OF FOUR : £16,998 PLUS INTEREST
You may want to dispute some of the numbers on here or add other spending items – feel free to do so. I can appreciate the costs of foreign wars and mass immigration will be hotly disputed – I had to go for a guesstimate based on a few figures. However this is just a quick list I did of things a Nationalist Government could do differently. Why not do your own list with spending decisions and amounts?
Written by Anonymous
Photos and captions by Watt Tyler
Brian Gerrish of UK Column discovered Common Purpose when he was involved with a group in Plymouth, in the West of England, helping people find jobs and one of their projects was repairing wooden boats. He said they had lots of public support and backing from the local authorities and everything was going fine. But then it suddenly changed and the council support was withdrawn.
When they tried to continue alone, he said that within a short time key people were being threatened: ‘When we started to explore why we were being threatened we were absolutely staggered to find a very strange organisation called Common Purpose operating in the city. And we were absolutely amazed that there were so many people involved but they were not declaring themselves … ‘[Common Purpose] was operating throughout the structure of the city, in the city council, in the government offices, in the police, in the judiciary.
Essentially we discovered what is effectively, at best, a quasi secret society which doesn’t declare itself to ordinary people.’
Further research has led Gerrish to establish that Common Purpose is recruiting and training leaders to be loyal to the objectives of the organisation and the European Union and preparing the governing structure for what it calls the ‘post-democratic society’ after nations are replaced by regions in the European Union.
‘They are learning to rule without regard to democracy, and will bring the EU police state home to every one of us’, Gerrish says. Common Purpose ‘graduates’ are increasingly everywhere, as you will see from the partial list at the end of this article. When the organisation was given an award in 2005 by one of it clients, Newcastle University in the North East of England, it was revealed that among its graduates in that area were: Michael Craik, Northumbria Police Chief Constable; Andrew Dixon, Executive Director of the Arts Council England, North East; Glyn Evans, City Centre Chaplain; Chris Francis, Centre Manager of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust; Anne Marshall, Chief Officer of Age Concern; Anthony Sargent, General Director of The Sage Gateshead; Miriam Harte, Director of Beamish Museum; and Sue Underwood, Chief Executive of NEMLAC (the North East Museums, Libraries and Archives Council).
Brian Gerrish has found them to be throughout the government structure with more than £100 million of taxpayers money spent on Common Purpose courses for state employees. It has members in the National Health Service, BBC, police, legal profession, religion, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries,! Parliament and Regional Development Agencies. The official founder and Chief Executive of Common Purpose is Julia Middleton who in her profile at the Common Purpose UK Website (www.commonpurpose.org.uk) fails to mention a rather relevant fact: she was also Head of Personnel Selection in the office of John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister to Tony Blair.
Prescott has been the man with responsibility for creating ‘regional assemblies’ around the United Kingdom which are part of the plan to abolish Nations and bring their powerless ‘regions’ under the jackboot of the European Union. He has, of course, sought to sell this policy as ‘devolving power to the people’. Prescott has common purpose with Common Purpose and Julia Middleton because they are all committed to the same end. The European superstate is designed to be centrally controlled and managed at lower levels by bland and brain dead ‘leaders’ who are all programmed to think the same.
This is where Common Purpose comes in.
You can always tell an Illuminati front by its desire to centralise everything and that includes the centralisation of thought as diversity is scorned, ridiculed and dismissed in favour of a manufactured ‘consensus’; you will also see the Orwellian Newspeak technique in which the organisation claims to stand for what it is seeking to destroy – Common Purpose says its aim is to develop ‘diverse’ leaders; and Illuminati fronts always tend to use language that actually says nothing when describing what they do. When you look at the propaganda for Common Purpose it is bland and without specifics, just as you would expect. So what does this organisation teach its ‘leaders’? You wouldn’t know by reading its blurb and with its courses costing thousands of pounds it would be expensive to find out. But for sure it will manufacture consensus among its ‘diverse’ clientele.
This is a key technique of the Illuminati throughout society – to manipulate agreement on a range of issues that then become the norm to be defended from all challenge and true diversity. It has been developed by organisations like the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London which was funded into existence in 1946 with a grant from the Rockfeller Foundation and is one of the Illuminati’s global centres for developing the ‘hive mind’ mentality or ‘group and organisational behaviour’. Tavistock works closely with ‘public sector’ (state-controlled) organisations including the UK government and the European Union and the Orwell-speak on its website could have come straight from the pages of Common Purpose. Or the other way round. Jargon is always the language of the junta: ‘Multi-organisational working, cross-boundary working and the global-national-local interface each raise their own set of organisational dynamics which must be surfaced and worked with if collaboration is to be effective. They also raise particular challenges for leadership (and followership). The Institute’s approaches to organisational consultancy and leadership development, based on organisational theory and systems psychodynamics are particularly appropriate for helping organisations to address these complex issues.’
Like working out what the hell all that is supposed to mean. What we can see is that Tavistock and Common Purpose share the same pod. Both want to develop ‘leaders’ and they do it in the same way by manufactured consensus that then stamps out all diversity by using those who have conceded their right to free thought to the group psyche. Mind manipulation techniques like Neuro-linguistic programming or NLP are also employed in the language employed to engineer consensus. NLP is a technique of using words to re-programme the body computer to accept another perception of reality – in this case the consensus agreed by the manipulators before their victims even register for the ‘course’. Apparently the CIA refers to these pre-agreed ‘opinions’ as ‘slides’.
As one Internet writer said: ‘A “slide” is a prefabricated, “politically correct” blanket “pop” “opinion”, “view” or “take” upon a particular issue of general interest which is designed to preclude further consideration, analysis or investigation of the issue in question. In other words, it is a “collectivised” mental position which is never to be questioned. This is precisely the “product” of the Deputy Prime Minister’s insidious neurological linguistic control programme “Common Purpose”.’ Anyone who resists the programming is isolated and the group turned against them until they either conform or lose credibility to be a ‘leader’. Look at global society in any country and you will see this happening in the workplace, among friends down the bar and in television discussions. The consensus on global warming has been manipulated to be that carbon emissions are the cause and anyone who says otherwise is an uncaring, selfish, racist and quite happy to see the planet and humanity face catastrophe.
The fact that carbon emissions are not the cause of global warming is irrelevant because the ‘truth’ is what the consensus has agreed it to be. In short, if you don’t agree with the extreme consensus you are an extremist. It is the manipulation of consensus that has turned the three main political parties in Britain into one party with their leaders Tony Blair, David Cameron and Nick Clegg all standing on the same ground. They might offer slightly different policies – and only slightly – but they are all agreed on the fundamentals and this makes elections irrelevant. The Conservative Party’s David Cameron, is Blair Mark II and this pair certainly have common purpose. The Tavistock Institute has been working this flanker for decades and Common Purpose seems to me to have the Curriculum Vitae of a Tavistock front.
One of the Tavistock founders, Dr. John Rawlings Rees, who also became co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health, talked of infiltrating all professions and areas of society – ‘Public life, politics and industry should all … be within our sphere of influence … If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity!’ He said that the ‘salesmen’ of their perception re-programming (mass mind-control) must lose their identity and operate secretly. He said: ‘We must aim to make it permeate every educational activity in our national life … We have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church: the two most difficult are law and medicine.’
The common purpose of the Tavistock/Illuminati guerrilla war on the human psyche is to wipe clean any sense of the individual and unique because only that way can they impose the global dictatorship and have the masses accept it. Brock Chisholm, former Director of the UN World Health Organisation, was right when he said: ‘To achieve One-World Government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism’. Enter Common Purpose and its training of ‘leaders’.
If you can get the leaders to think the same it makes it much easier to transfer that to the general population. Julia Middleton’s organisation, and whoever and whatever else is really behind it, has been making dramatic inroads into British society while it has flown below the radar.
It is time we gave it a much higher profile as it goes ever-more international.
Written by Cigpapers
Photos & Captions by Watt Tyler
Video link of Unite Against Fascism handing out a gang punishment beating to a solitary Nationalist for resisting Globalisation:
The UAF are a Socialist Workers Party front group that intimidate, bully and assault People and Political Parties who speak out against Globalisation and multicultural genocide. The UAF and SWP are both Marxist organisations.
As they bring political/racial/religious violence to the streets of Britain, they are also part of the zionist created ” clash of civilisations” agenda – most UAF supporters are too politically unaware to realise this.
The UAF are financed by big business, Unions, Government and newspapers. The UAF/SWP have a large and shadowy network of bank accounts and front companies. Their primary paid role is to smash any British workers based resistance to Globalisation/multiculturalism – as a bonus they bring the zionist contrived “clash of civilisations” to the streets of Britain.
The National Union of Teachers donated £55,000 to the UAF in 2012 – Christine Blower, General Secretary of the NUT, has been a member of the London Socialist Alliance, a group of far-Left political groups, and describes herself to the left of Old Labour. Like all “champagne socialists” the lesbian Ms Blower takes well care of herself and earned £160,443 in 2013 plus expenses.
The UAF mainly draw their supporters from radical muslims, ethnic power groups, posh White students and Marxists.
They bully Politicians in to supporting them by threatening to smear them as racists/fascists if they don’t.
The UAF have only ever attacked White People resisting multicultural genocide, and should therefore be considered a genocidal race-hate organisation.
Here is a video of Weyman Bennett speaking:
The UAF and SWP are very well organised on British University Campuses by Marxist professors, and have effectively shut up any Nationalist voice there, with their “bash the fash” bullying campaign.
The violence and intimidation of the UAF/SWP on University Campuses often overflows on to the streets of University Towns and Cities in Britain.
The politically correct British Police usually take no action against them because of their political supporters – listed below. The UAF/SWP are heavily involved in Social Services and are alleged to be a major child procurer for paedophile networks. The UAF/SWP have also infiltrated many British Town Halls with the alleged result being large-scale electoral fraud.
Here is a video of Martin Smith and the UAF in action:
At least one of the Woolwich islamic murderers of Drummer Lee Rigby (Michael Adebolajo – now calling himself Mujaahid Abu Hamza) was strongly linked to the SWP and UAF, and had made speeches at their rallies.
The UAF are linked to the “Love Music Hate Racism” and “Hope Not Hate” pro-Globalist and multicultural genocide campaign groups.
The Secretary of Lancaster UAF, Liam Ineson, was jailed for life in November 2012 for multiple rapes of a four-year old girl he threatened to kill if she told anyone. The young girl is still deeply traumatised and receiving counselling. Ineson, of Ryelands Road Lancaster, was known as “Comrade Kilo” within UAF/SWP circles and is believed to have been known to Martin Smith ( Comrade Delta ). The UAF and SWP had supported Ineson throughout his trial. Ineson has the information on high level Establishment paedophile networks that the UAF/SWP procure for, so expect him to be released quietly on parole after a few years.
Bridlington Hope Not Hate Organiser,Adam Hewitt, was jailed for five years for punishment beatings of two babies he suspected of fascist tendencies. One has been left permanently brain-damaged. Hull Crown Court heard how Hewitt would work himself in to a rage about fascism and attack defenceless children. The Judge was lenient on Hewitt because of his anti-fascist work and only gave him five years – he will probably serve less than two.
In 2010 Pendle (Lancashire) UAF removed a wreath laid down by the BNP from the War Memorial in Nelson (Lancashire). Richard MacSween, Leader of the Pendle UAF, said “The BNP have left a wreath and we have removed it because we don’t approve of fascism.”. In response, Councillor George Adam, from the Nelson and District branch of the Royal British Legion, said: “I’m annoyed – they have no right to remove that wreath. The BNP is a legitimate political party and they have a right to lay down a wreath just as any other members of the public do.” BNP Councillor Brian Parker added: “It’s disgusting, and it’s theft.”
Their Official History is:
Unite Against Fascism (UAF) was formed in Great Britain in late 2003 in response to electoral successes by the British National Party (BNP).
It began as a coalition that included the Anti-Nazi League , the National Assembly Against Racism, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and leading British unions such as the Transport and General Workers’ Union (T&G) (now Unite ) and the Unison Union.
According to Red Pepper magazine, UAF was set up by the Socialist Workers’ Party and the National Assembly Against Racism.
In 2005, the self-proclaimed anti-fascist magazine Searchlight disaffiliated from UAF after an argument over tactics to defeat the BNP.
At UAF’s 2007 national conference, speakers ranged from cabinet minister Peter Hain to Edie Friedman of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality and Dr. Muhamed Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), as well as figures from the major UK trade unions. At UAF’s 2009 national conference, Bari was again a guest speaker.
Concern has been raised that the Socialist Workers’ Party is seeking to dominate the UAF, and that the organisations involved in the UAF avoid condemnation of antisemitism. However, UAF has received support from MPs of all mainstream UK Political Parties
It describes itself as a national campaign with the aim of alerting British society to a perceived threat of the far right — in particular the British National Party (BNP) — gaining a foothold at local, national and European elections, arguing that “there is a real danger that the BNP could get a significant platform in elected institutions.”
Even though multiculturalists are clearly mentally deranged, they can be both spiteful and dangerous – especially when in groups. Keep yourself safe by being aware of hardline reds operating in your area at http://www.redwatch.org They have up to date photos/names/addresses etc. of UAF , antifa and other assorted violent weirdos on a town by town basis.
UAF National Office:
You can get in touch with the Unite Against Fascism office by phone: 020 8971 7426
07734032314 or 07794633097
The Manchester UAF organiser is Mike Killian – 07903586191
Their postal address is:
Unite Against Fascism
PO Box 68229
London SW1P 9WZ
For Any Claims Against The UAF For Violence, Intimidation Or Bullying:
Weyman Bennett claims the UAF’s legal representation is ironically a human rights law firm called Bindmans Solicitors. The head of Bindmans is Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC. Their telephone number is 020 78334433 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
When Bindmans Solicitors were contacted to see if they represented the UAF they sent this email in reply on 18th March 2014:
Dear Mr XXXXX
Earlier today you contacted my colleague Clare Langley to ask whether this firm was acting for Unite Against Fascism in relation to a legal claim you wish to bring against that organisation. I can confirm that we are not. Please correspond with them direct.
Yours sincerely John Halford Bindmans LLP
When I spoke to Weyman Bennett ( 07734032314 ) on 17th March 2014 he claimed to be a lawyer and also suggested anyone with claims against The UAF should contact the House Of Commons – The UAF really are an establishment protected organisation.
You can see that neither Martin Smith, Weyman Bennett nor any other openly SWP member signs the UAF’s Founding Statement. This is despite the UAF being a SWP front organisation.
Signatories To The UAF Founding Statement Include:
Peter Hain MP
David Hanson MP
Adam Price MP
Barbara Follett MP
Diane Abbott MP
John Cryer MP
John Trickett MP
Keith Vaz MP
Peter Bottomley MP
Alice Mahon MP
Alan Meale MP
Ian Gibson MP
Sir Teddy Taylor MP
Harry Cohen MP
Betty Williams MP
Ken Purchase MP
Laura Moffatt MP
Peter Bradley MP
Vera Baird MP
Bill Etherington MP
Edward Garnier MP
Roger Berry MP
Angela Smith MP
Brian Iddon MP
Anthony Steen MP
Colin Pickthall MP
Clive Betts MP
Janet Anderson MP
Neil Gerrard MP
Jane Griffiths MP
Brian Donohue MP
Helen Clark MP
Terry Davis MP
Janet Dean MP
Adrian Bailey MP
David Cameron British Prime Minister
Louise Ellman MP
Eric Illsley MP
Kelvin Hopkins MP
Ernie Ross MP
Rob Marris MP
Martin Caton MP
Jim Sheridan MP
Martin Jones MP
Paul Tyler MP
Colin Challen MP
David Wright MP
Rudi Vis MP
Tony Worthington MP
Derek Watts MP
Julie Morgan MP
Rev W Martin Smyth MP
Diana Organ MP
Doug Henderson MP
Barry Gardiner MP
TUC General Secretary
TUC President and
AMICUS Joint Gen Sec
UNISON Gen Sec
TGWU Gen Sec
CWU Gen Sec
Sir Bill Connor
Gen Sec USDAW
FBU Gen Sec
Chief Exec PFA
CONNECT Gen Sec
RMT Gen Sec
CYWU Gen Sec
UNIFI Gen Sec
NUJ Gen Sec
NAPO Gen Sec
GMB Gen Sec
PCS Gen Sec
NATHFHE Gen Sec
ACM Gen Sec
AMO Gen Sec
NUM Gen sec
AUT Gen Sec
Gary Titley MEP
Linda McAvan MEP
Glyn Ford MEP
Chris Heaton-Harris MEP
Claude Moraes MEP
Phillip Whitehead MEP
Stephen Hughes MEP
North West rep Muslim Council of Britain
Dr. Richard Stone
Lawrie & Ruby Nerva
General Sec British Sikh Federation
The 1990 Trust,
Director, Institute of Employment Rights
Director Essex REC
George Anthony-Maggie Bowden
Editor, Red Pepper
Editor, Morning Star
Metrpolitan Black Police Association Chair
Ironically A Human Rights Lawyer
Acting Regional Secretary SERTUC
Essex Racial Equality Council
Liberal democrats North west Region
Coalition Against Racism – Unite to Stop the BNP
Supporting bands include:
The Chemical Brothers
Dan Martin from Electric 6
Fourtet (Kieron Hebden)
Future Pilot AKA
James Yorkston and The Athletes
King Creosete and The Fence Collective
Kings of Leon
Suggs and Madness
X is Loaded
Chair – Steve Hart, political officer, Unite
Vice chair – Christine Blower, general secretary, NUT
Vice chair – Hugh Lanning, deputy general secretary, PCS
Vice chair – Azad Ali
Vice chair – Jennifer Moses, national official for equality and training, NASUWT
Treasurer – Tony Kearns, deputy general secretary, CWU
Joint secretary – Weyman Bennett
Joint secretary – Sabby Dhalu
Assistant secretary – Martin Smith
Assistant secretary – Jude Woodward
Parliamentary Officer – Peter Hain MP
European officer – Claude Moraes MEP
Here is a video of the coach when the EDL girl fell out:
Originally written by M. Meacher
When today even the EU’s leading economic officials Manuel Barroso and Olli Rehn are openly urging growth policies rather than further retrenchment, the game’s surely up. But before he takes a very deep breath, it’s worth bearing in mind that a £40bn programme of infrastructure works and housebuilding could be generated at no cost to the exchequer at all.
The untapped source for this funding would come from taxation of the seriously rich. This group can be variously defined as stretching from the top 0.003% of the population (the richest thousand persons) to the top 10%. Whichever category is used, the wealth of the ultra-rich is far, far greater than most people realise – which may explain why it is never discussed in this era of austerity.
According to the annual Sunday Times Rich List, the richest 1,000 persons now sit atop of £414bn, a sum more than three times the size of the entire UK budget deficit. The richest 1% of the population, about 300,000 persons with an income of more than £3,000 a week, are estimated to possess wealth of about £1tn. The richest 10% control wealth of about £4tn. To put these figures in perspective, Britain’s total GDP is £1.45tn.
Consider first that minuscule group in the stratosphere at the top, Britain’s thousand richest. In 1997 they held assets of £99bn, but they took full advantage of New Labour’s being “intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich” to nearly quadruple this to £336bn by 2010. That process of gargantuan enrichment now means that in order to get access to this exclusive club, one needs personally to command assets of at least £450m to get into the top 200, £750m to get into the richest 100, and no less than £1.4bn to break into the top 50.
It’s not only that the very rich have colossal wealth, they also overwhelmingly monopolise it. The richest 1% of the population own a quarter of total UK wealth, and the richest half control no less than 94% of total wealth. Ownership of land is even more skewed: 69% of it is owned by 0.3% of the population.
Yet in the absence of a wealth tax, a mansions tax, a land value tax, or a supertax on excess gains, the super-rich are being required to make hardly any contribution at all to deficit reduction, even though many of them were directly involved in causing the financial crash in the first place. That is even more remarkable when there has been a real terms 6% drop in the income of the population as a whole since the 2008 collapse, yet over the same period the gains of the richest 1,000 persons escalated by no less than £155bn, considerably more than the current total UK deficit.
The most recent incomes data shows this trend is continuing or even growing. Data published in January showed that the bottom tenth of earners got a 0.1% rise in pay in the previous year (that is, they had to take a real terms pay cut of nearly 4%) while over the same period the rise for the top FTSE 100 directors was 49%, nearly 500 times greater. The average annual pay of FTSE 100 chief executives is now about £4.5m, which works out at £84,615 a week. This compares with their low-paid workers on about £240 a week, a ratio of 352:1.
Even this is not the whole story. The very rich also largely monopolise the system of tax reliefs. In the case of pensions, this amounts to £21bn a year, of which two thirds is concentrated on the top 10% of the population. Equally, tax avoidance and evasion is very much the perk of the extremely rich, who command the armies of accountants and lawyers in order to organise it on an industrial scale, which is reckoned to cost the taxpayer £25bn a year.
What, then, should be done? In the short term, the most feasible approach is to impose a capital gains tax charge at the current rate of 28% on the topmost layers of wealth, the £155bn gains amassed by the 0.003% over the last three years. That would yield £43bn, more than enough to generate the public investment to create 1.5 million jobs over the next two years. This could then steadily be extended to the remainder of the top 1%, which would provide the funds to widen and deepen the early recovery.
A wealth tax and land value tax, the details of which would have to be carefully drafted, should then follow in the medium term, and would achieve several purposes. They would resuscitate a public sector ravaged by the Tory ideological assault, curtail the grossest excesses of inequality that have disfigured the last three decades, and lay the foundations for an industrial and technological revival without which British living standards cannot be sustained. And all this without burdening the remaining 99% of the population.
Nationalist Trades Union Congress by Cigpapers
The need for a Nationalist Trades Union Congress is now becoming apparent to Nationalists in Britain to replace the Trades Union Congress following its hijacking by Marxists/Globalists ( Union boss Bob Crow, the General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and a member of the General Council of the TUC has Publically admitted he is a Marxist). Under the Marxist/Globalist control of the TUC, British Workers have seen their wages and living standards decrease in real terms for the last 30+ years. This has mostly been caused by the mass immigration and de-industrialisation supported by the TUC both politically and financially.
The TUC was founded in the 1860s. The United Kingdom Alliance of Organised Trades, founded in Sheffield, Yorkshire in 1866, was the immediate forerunner of the TUC, although efforts to expand local unions into regional or national organisations date back at least forty years earlier; in 1822, John Gast formed a “Committee of the Useful Classes”, sometimes described as an early national trades council.
However, the first TUC meeting was not held until 1868 when the Manchester and Salford Trades Council convened the founding meeting in the Manchester Mechanics’ Institute (on what is now Princess St. and was then David St. ;the building is at no. 103).
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) is a national trade union centre, a federation of trade unions in the United Kingdom, representing the majority of trade unions. There are fifty-eight affiliated unions with a total of about 6.5 million members, around half of whom are represented by Unite or UNISON.
The TUC’s decision-making body is the Annual Congress, which takes place in September. Between congresses decisions are made by the General Council, which meets every two months. An Executive Committee is elected by the Council from its members. The senior paid official of the TUC is the General Secretary, currently Brendan Barber. It was announced in July 2012 that Frances O’Grady will be the next General Secretary. The TUC is affiliated to the International Trades Union Congress.
The TUC, and its Union Members, is the major source of funds for the Labour Party in Britain. However with Nationalist Unions now starting up there is a need for a Nationalist Trades Union Congress as a real alternative for British Workers and their Unions to affiliate to.
Personally I think a new NTUC should not be solely affiliated to one Nationalist Party or Group , but should be supportive politically and financially of all Nationalists whenever it can be.
There would obviously be a public call from a new NTUC for all Union Members in the UK to be given a free vote on whether to affiliate with the TUC or the NTUC. I would be demanding a vote at my Union and believe we would affiliate with NTUC, given a free vote of all Members.
The NTUC would not be expensive or difficult to set up, and in my humble opinion someone of the calibre of Mike Whitby would be an excellent first General Secretary.