Saturday, 27 January 2007


Thanks to all you readers who have taken the time to comment on various postings, it is appreciated. To answer a couple of questions -

Yes the friends i stayed with over Christmas have joined the party! Onward and upward!

I do not believe that muslims should be allowed to wear any religous garb they like as some of it causes divisions within communities and has allowed fleeing suspects to escape justice.

Tuesday, 23 January 2007

Muslims Pushing Again

A twelve year old student has been banned from wearing a Muslim veil in lessons because it is not seen as uniform, which seems reasonable to me.
The girl, who goes to a Buckinghamshire school, has been asked to stop wearing her niqab, a veil that covers the face usually leaving only the eyes visible (assuming it is a female as it would not be the first time a male had used one - remember the fleeing "alleged" bomber?).
The school is now facing a court battle about whether she can wear the veil and could be left with a £500,000 legal bill.
The pupil and her father, who do not want to be named (now theres a surprise), are taking their case to court through a judicial review next month, on legal aid (thats you and me paying). The Muslim pupils at the school are allowed to wear a hijab, a scarf which covers the head, but not a full niqab.
Buckinghamshire Council , responsible for the county's schools, are in talks with the family to try to stop the case going to court. The girl, it is reported, is having lessons at home. This is being paid for by the school (for "paid for by the school" read "paid for by the taxpayer"- you and me!).
Apparently, wycombe MP Paul Goodman has written to Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Schools asking for a meeting.
He has said its right that the school should take the religious requirements of its Muslim pupils into account. "It already does so by allowing students to wear the hijab or headscarf, a policy on which it has consulted. It's worth noting that the vast majority of Muslim women in my constituency don't wear the niqab or veil."
"I gather that the school maintains on educational and security grounds that its students shouldn't wear the niqab. I support the school one hundred per cent."
The Council has said it cannot fork out taxpayers money on the case, and the DfES said it does not comment on individual cases (where have i heard that before?). But Mr Goodman thought the two authorities could help.
He added: "I believe that the Department of Education and Schools and Buckinghamshire Council should support the school in principle, and should work together to help fund this court case."
Marion Clayton, county council cabinet member for achievement and learning, said: "I can confirm that a parent has asked for a judicial review regarding his daughter not being allowed to attend a Buckinghamshire school wearing a niqab. A hearing is expected shortly to decide whether that review should go ahead.
"The school and parent have asked for anonymity. Neither the school nor this council feel it is appropriate to comment on the issues of the case until the review, if any, has taken place. We have been working with the school throughout to try and achieve a resolution in the best interests of the pupil and the school."
Now correct me if im wrong, but didnt we have a similar situation a year or so back in Luton? A court case costing a shedload of taxpayers money with no winners? Eh Begum lad. In that instance the girl "lost" her case to wear some obscure item of clothing. These meetings and consultations are a waste of time (surely these people have more important things to be getting on with than being seen to be pandering to the latest Muslim demand, for that is what it is) and the only winners are the legal teams. The Muslim communities are continually pushing at the boundaries, testing the waters of Britain, and pushing further with every concession they receive from our government who are too stupid to realise it will never stop until Britain is an Islamic state.
The BNP would ban the wearing of the full face veil in public places like schools - its divisive to community relations and makes terrorism and illegal immigration easy. VOTE BNP!

Jeremy Paxman - Political analyst & tv presenter
"Those countries which do best in the world - the ones that are safe and prosperous - have a coherent sense of their own culture".
(Extract from his book "The English")

Forget Big Brother - The Real Hate Was Here..........

So is Celebrity Big Brother racist? Who gives a damn? The real racism that week was aired on Channel 4s Dispatches programme where we were treated to the unedifying sight of various muslim preachers of hate (for that is what they are) calling for Jihad against the infidel (thats you and me, folks). I waited with baited breath for the powers that be to spring into action and arrest them on any one of a dozen charges...........................and im still waiting. Big Brothers name calling "racism" was no doubt used as a distraction from the real extremists exposed within the muslim communities, even to the extent of questions being raised in parliament, keeping the chattering classes busy with another red herring, rather than addressing the real issues. Not surprisingly there was no condemnation by muslim "community leaders" or by any members of our government. I understand that some of these mosques are either wholly or partly publicly funded and yet again NO QUESTIONS were raised by anybody with access to the purse strings! To my mind all monies should be withdrawn immediately until the muslim communities get their house in order. In addition all footage collected by channel 4 should be passed to the police for further investigation prior to criminal proceedings being issued against these extremist preachers of hate. I could rail on but those of you who have seen the programme will know how much vile hatred was spewed our way during the programme. For those of you who have not seen it, it is available here :

John Milton (1643) - English poet
"Let not England forget her precedence of teaching nations how to live".

Thursday, 18 January 2007

The Crusades - Our History

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. According to Muslims they are a stain on the history of the Church in particular and Western civilization in general. The Crusaders introduced aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins?
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Much can said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them.
Islam was born out of war and grows the same way. From the time of Mohammed the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the World of Islam and the World of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under strict Muslim rule. But in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion. It spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years and beyond, even up to today.
The warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their fellow Christians in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the born of an ambitious pope or fanatical knights but as a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be overun by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Pope Urban II called upon the Knights of Christendom to push back the Muslims at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of Christian warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war.
Urban II gave the Crusaders two aims which would remain central to the Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’"
The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The reconquest of Jerusalem was not colonialism but an act of restoration.
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslims far outnumbered the Christians. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence, as characterised by the Muslim occupations.
The Crusades were wars. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars).
By any reckoning, the First Crusade was a long shot. There was no leader, no chain of command, no supply lines, no detailed strategy. It was simply thousands of warriors marching deep into enemy territory, committed to a common cause. Many of them died, either in battle or through disease or starvation. It was a rough campaign, one that seemed always on the brink of disaster. Yet it was miraculously successful. By 1098, the Crusaders had restored Nicaea and Antioch to Christian rule. In July 1099, they conquered Jerusalem and began to build a Christian state in Palestine. The joy in Europe was unbridled. It seemed that the tide of history, which had lifted the Muslims to such heights, was now turning.
But it was not. When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.
When Edessa fell to the Muslim Turks and Kurds in 1144AD there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continuing growth of Muslim power but the belief that God was punishing the West for its sins.
Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were called to risk their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin had forged the Muslim East into a single entity, all the while preaching Jihad against the Christians. In 1187AD at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of Christian ports held out.
The response was the Third Crusade. It was led by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa of the German Empire, King Philip II Augustus of France, and King Richard I Lionheart of England. The aged Frederick drowned while crossing a river on horseback, so his army returned home before reaching the Holy Land. After recapturing Acre, the king of France went home. The Crusade, by default, fell into Richard’s lap. A skilled warrior, gifted leader, and superb tactician, Richard I led the Christian forces to victory after victory, eventually reconquering the entire coast. But Jerusalem was not on the coast, and after two abortive attempts to secure supply lines to the Holy City, Richard at last gave up. Promising to return one day, he struck a truce with Saladin that ensured peace in the region and free access to Jerusalem for unarmed pilgrims. The desire to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule and regain the True Cross remained intense throughout Europe.
The Crusades of the 13th century were larger and better organized. But they too failed, mainly due to political in-fighting. In the Fourth Crusade (1201-1204AD) the Crusaders captured, and sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the Crusade, denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do.
The remainder of the 13th century’s Crusades did little better. The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem. He was a much older man in 1270 when he led another Crusade to Tunis, where he died of disease. After Louis’s death, the ruthless Muslim leaders, Baybars and Kalavun, waged a brutal Jihad against the Christians in Palestine. By 1291, the Muslims succeeded in killing or ejecting the last of the Crusaders, thus erasing the Crusader kingdom from the map. Despite numerous attempts and many more plans, Christian forces were never again able to gain a foothold in the region until the 19th century.
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. No. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. That did not happen. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a staging point for his invasion of Italy. But the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plans died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany would have been at their mercy.
Yet even as these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in history. The Renaissance. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Reformation made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was finally neutralized economically, as Europe grew in wealth and power. The once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worthy of a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe" limped along until the 20th century, when it finally collapsed, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.
Both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Admire the Crusaders or not, it is fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women, not only survives but flourishes. Without the Crusades, it might well have been pounded into extinction.

Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
"Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar."Churchill in his first broadcast as Prime Minister to the British people on the BBC - May 19, 1940, London.

Heckling of a Sanctimonious Sod

I dont know whether this is a true story, but it sounds about right for Bonio............................

At a U2 concert in Glasgow , Bono asked the audience for some quiet. Then in the silence, he started to slowly clap his hands. Holding the audience in total silence, he said into the microphone, "Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies" A voice from near the front pierced the silence........... "Well, stop f***ing doing it then!"

Sweetness and Light

Halal meat? click the link - theres really nothing more to say. Barbaric and disgusting treatment. Basra or Bradford, the slaughter is the same.

Tuesday, 16 January 2007

"L" Battery Royal Horse Artillery at Nery (31st August - 1st September 1914)

Further to my post outlining some Great British Military Actions, most since forgotten by all but a few and certainly NOT taught in our multi-culti schools (perish the thought of the British people being taught anything about their own countrys history! - these days its all Negroes and Nazis as my daughter tells me politely).
This post is a brief overview of one of these heroic (in the TRUE sense of the word and not as applied to any fool who can kick a ball!) actions dating from the First World War (1914 - 1918).

On 26th August 1914 General Alexander Von Kluck with the German First Army almost succeeded in encircling the British (II Corps) , after our French allies withdrew under heavy German pressure. Tough fighting ensued and II Corps were able to break free and resume the retreat to the Marne. Von Kluck was intent on destroying the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) and caught up with the British rearguards on 1st September in several towns and villages including Nery.
This last engagement whilst small in scale was to have far reaching consequences for the German First Army. Nery lies about 45 miles northeast of Paris. "L" Battery Royal Horse Artillery (RHA), The Queens Bays, 5th Dragoon Guards and the 11th Hussars were picketed down for the night. German cavalry were observed in the early hours by an 11th Hussars patrol and within minutes the village was under heavy weapons fire from German advance elements, between 600 and 800 yards away, consisting of artillery, rifle and machinegun fire.
The British units could not move under such concentrated fire and were obliged to remain at their posts until help arrived. The enemy were Von Klucks 4th cavalry, screening the right flank of the german advance. Just prior to the german arrival "L" Battery had hitched up in preparation of an early morning move-out and the german artillery batteries immediately targetted four of their twelve guns onto the "L" battery positions. Under a firestorm of shells and small arms fire from the german artillery and dismounted cavalry squadrons, many of "L" batterys men and horses were decimated in minutes. Many of the British gunners were killed before they could respond and the situation was desperate (remember these boys were the rearguard protecting the allied retreat).
With a shout of "Come on! Whos for the guns?", Captain E.K.Bradbury along with three subalterns and the few remaining gunners still on their feet, managed to unlimber three guns and swing them round to face the enemy. Bradbury and Sgt D.Nelson manned one, Lieutenants Cambell and Mundy the second and Lieutenant Gifford and some gunners manned the third. Every round had to fetched from over twenty yards of exposed ground, but there was no shortage of volunteers. Initially "L" batterys three guns verus the german four seemed reasonable odds, but Campbells gun was hit and wrecked and Campbell killed. Two subalterns ran to help Bradbury. Giffords gun received a direct hit, killing Gifford and most of the gunners and badly wounding the other crew of the third gun. Bradbury now face odds of four to one and he was supplied with ammunition by Gunner Darbyshire and Driver Osbourn. They must have inflicted some damage as the eight remaining german guns switched their fire on to the lone gun from "L" battery, as well as the initial four.
For an hour the lone British 13 pounder fired on, one versus twelve, in the midst of a death filled bombardment from the german gunners. One by one the ammunition carriers were hit and the rate of fire from the men at the muzzle became sporadic. By 07.15 AM only Bradbury and Sgt. Nelson (who was badly wounded) remained at the gun. Battery Sergeant-Major Dorrell ran under fire to join them. Bradbury left the gun to go for more ammunition and was mortally wounded. Nelson and Dorrell fired the last few rounds available and the gun fell silent. For a moment it looked like it was all for nothing. However the germans had been deprived of their local artillery cover (which had been engaged with "L" battery) and the British had launched a local counter-attack with two squadrons of the 5th Dragoon Guards, followed by "I" Battery RHA and the 4th British Cavalry Brigade along with infantry units. The Germans were routed, leaving eight of their guns abandoned.
British casualties from this action amounted to 135 officers and men, of which 5 officers and 49 other ranks were from "L" Battery. Captain Bradbury received the Victoria Cross (posthumously) as did Nelson and Dorrell. The battery won the Honour Title "Nery",and one of its guns is on display at the Imperial war Museum in London.

Arthur Wellesley (1769-1852) - the Duke of Wellington
"The scum of the earth. The mere scum of the earth".
(Describing his own army in the nineteenth century)

Monday, 15 January 2007

An Ants Tale - Bitter?

After seeing "The Squirrel and the Grasshopper" article on the BNP and Me site, i dug this old one out of my files. I hope it entertains you.

The Ants Tale:
CLASSIC VERSION:The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, Building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.The grasshopper thinks he's a fool,and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.(so far, so good, eh?). The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like him, are cold and starving. The BBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home in Hampstead with a table laden with food. The Labour government are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty. The Liberal Party, the Respect Party, the Transvestites with Starving Babies Party, the Single Lesbian One Eyed Mothers Party, the Coalition against Poverty and the We Want What They Have Without Doing Anything To Earn It Party demonstrate in front of the ant's house. The BBC, interrupting a Rastafarian cultural festival special from Grimsby with breaking news, broadcasts them singing "We Shall Overcome." Ken Livingstone laments in an interview with Panorama that the Ant has got rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share". In response, the Labour Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, backdated to the beginning of the summer. The ant's taxes are reassessed, and he is also fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as helpers. Without enough money to pay the fine and his newly imposed backdated taxes, his home is confiscated by Camden Council. The ant moves to France, and starts a successful AgriBiz company (funded by the EU), although within weeks, his business is threatened with compulsory purchase by the state unless he marries a French ant. The BBC later shows the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant's food, though Spring is still months away, while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain it. Inadequate government funding is blamed, Diane Abbot is appointed to head a commission of enquiry that will cost £10,000,000.00. The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose; the Guardian blames it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity. The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders, praised by the government for enriching Britain's multicultural diversity, who promptly set up a marijuana growing operation and terrorize the community.

Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
"the Battle of Britain is about to begin... Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth should last a thousand years, men will still say: This was their finest hour".
(Extract from speech delivered on 18th June 1940)

Sunday, 14 January 2007

Excuse me Mr Brown?

Gordon Browns comments regarding the Union of the UK would be laughable if they were not so serious.
Having jointly presided over 10 years of the systematic dismantling of Britain’s historic institutions, Brown is portraying himself as a champion of the Union and of Great Britain.
As usual for Labour, the reasons are motivated purely by self-interest and power-grabbing politics.
Firstly, the Scots are about to give the Labour party a bashing in the forthcoming elections to Scotland's parliament. The nationalists want to break away from the UK and would use election victory to push for their goal of an independent Scotland. If the results of the Scottish elections give a taste of what could happen in the Westminister elections in the next few years, Labour is in the mire. Due to the fact that the Labour party could not and would not again win a national election without its scottish power base, the situation is fast becoming desperate for them.
Secondly, being a scottish MP himself, he risks being seen as the emperor without clothes when he succeeds Tony Bliar as PM if the scots effectively tell England to ‘go forth and multiply‘. The English are already subjected to the inequity of the ‘West–Lothian’ issue whereby Scottish MPs vote on English matters that do not effect the Scots themselves (a total perversion of democracy).
The English are unlikely to ever want to be ruled-over by a Scots bigot if Scotland is fully devolved.
Further, under the Labour regime, Scotland has become a subsidised state, paid for by, you’ve guessed it, the English (over 60% of scottish funding is from English taxpayers!).
Labour hates England. It has been a characteristic of their years in power never to mention England. England, in the eyes of Britain’s marxist left, represents everything reprehensible about Britain’s past.
The more extreme left-wing intellectual types believe that the English have some kind of inbuilt natural characteristic that leans towards brutish expansionism and look to suppress the indigenous English at every given opportunity.
Labour might see themselves as progressive , but in this they have been driven by their own deep-set prejudice that sees the indigenous English as fair game at the bottom of the Labour pecking order.
The problem here is that talk of British nationalism is irrelevant without the English. Britain is a union of nations and England has always been its driving force.
Brown is not interested in Britain and not interested in its future in any other way than imposing his pseudo-Marxist world view. He is definitely not interested in us English. He cannot bring himself to say something nice about us.
The new Labour experiment has been all about the twin policies of selling our sovereignty to the EU and unbridled mass-immigration: Its intention has been to rid the country of national identity for good.
The EU has never made any pretence otherwise. Indeed, in Brussels they are mightily proud of the fact - has Brown not heard of the policy of splitting Europe into regions?
You would think Brown would be pleased to split up the Union. After all it was Labour that started the process with the tacit approval of our “European partners". They even tried to devolve the North East of England, until voters sent them packing with their tails between their legs (or does he think we have forgotten?)
Brown now also has the gall to speak of the shortcomings of multiculturalism: "What was wrong about multiculturalism was not the recognition of diversity but that it over-emphasised separateness at the cost of unity," he writes.
As if Brown and his party hadn’t invented and imposed it, without consulting us first.
As if the thing just happened on its own.
After ten years of Chancellor Brown, Britain has been subjected to remorseless tax and spend policies in order to re-engineer society to fit a marxist left-wing world view. The break up of the Union is just one of its inevitable consequences.
Now Brown is trying to paint himself as THE champion of British national identity and savior of the 300 year old union. I doubt if this calculated and blatant attempt to save his own backside will succeed.
For Brown to make such a song and dance over the Union indicates that the Labour rats are truly starting to sweat - here in England we have an opportunity in the May elections to give Labour a good kick in the ballots! Dont forget to vote! Vote BNP!

King Harold II (1022 - 1066AD)
"I will give him seven feet of English ground, or as much more as he may be taller than other men".
(When asked, before the Battle of Stamford Bridge, what he would offer the invading Norwegian King)

Friday, 12 January 2007

Dhimmocracy in Great Britain

Many readers will be familiar with the story of the Medina (formerly Express) Dairy in Windsor and the recent racial disturbances relating to that site's misuse as a mosque and Islamic centre.The Medina Dairy chain is owned by Medina Property – a company that also owns Technor House – also on the same site. In early 2005 a planning Change of Use application was put before Windsor & Maidenhead Borough Council (WMBC) requesting that the status of Technor House be changed so as to allow its use as a mosque and Islamic centre. After due consideration and in the face of major local opposition to the proposal, the Council rejected the application. A little later the applicants lodged a request for an Appeal against WMBC’s decision with Labour’s Planning Inspectorate, based in Bristol. A public hearing was convened in Windsor for the autumn of last year. As an aside, because of concerns by some officials over possible “BNP disruption” (play the bogeyman card) , it was thought that a sizeable police presence at the hearing was appropriate! To cut a long story short - as they say, the decision of WMBC was overturned and permission granted to allow the use of Technor House as a mosque and Islamic education centre. Local people were far from pleased over the decision and this, together with the attitude of some at the dairy site, contributed to the later outbreak of violence. Rumours abound. One of the complaints subsequently voiced by angry residents opposed to the proposal is that they received precious little support from the local Tories. Another concerns Labour’s Fiona Mactaggart – the MP for neighbouring Slough – where indigenous Britons are in the minority. According to rumour Mactaggart wrote to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol ahead of the Appeal hearing, to request that WMBC's decision be overturned and that permission be granted for the mosque and Islamic education centre! We can now confirm that this is no rumour - but a statement of fact! The text of Ms. Mactaggart's communication – received in July 2006 by the Planning Inspectorate – is as follows:

Dear Mr. P****, Re APP/T0335?A/1188984 Users of Diamond Road Mosque in my constituency have asked for my support on this matter which I am pleased to give. I rarely intervene in small scale planning matters, especially when they are not within my constituency (or to help my own countrymen?) but I believe that this proposal for an Islamic community and educational centre could help community cohesion, reduce traffic congestion and enable the Muslim community of Windsor to participate more fully in the economic life of the town to the mutual benefit of the town and the community. At present many Muslims in the Windsor area come to Slough to worship and for Islamic education, putting our resources under strain and adding to traffic congestion on the roads between Windsor and Slough especially on Friday. Tackling these difficulties would enhance community cohesion as would the offer made by the developers to use the centre to enhance learning across and between religions.Recent figures suggest that Muslim men in this area have experienced an increase in unemployment, unlike all other local communities where there has been employment growth. Enabling people to pray locally helps them successfully to participate in the labour market in a way which may help to reduce the risk of unemployment in this group (Is it me or is that just so much nonsense you have to re-read several times to confirm it is indeed nonsense?). While I recognise that the original reason for refusal was a commendable desire on the part of Windsor and Maidenhead Council to preserve appropriate space for industry and business I believe that this argument is also important to securing a successful future for employment in Windsor. This is an unusual application. It is rare for the resources, a site and a need in this field to come together well and in these circumstances I would urge you to consider that the case for departing from the original decision would be good for the whole community of Windsor and its economic and social success.

Unbelieveable stuff. I was ware of the problems at the Medina site, including a number of assaults on local indigenous people by muslims, to which our Dhimmi police turned a blind-eye, but to have an MP from another constituency interfere (for that is what it is) and use her political clout to help get the decision overturned is appalling. I wonder what percentage of her constituency is muslim? New Labour in action - NOT working for Britain!

Thanks to the BNP website - link on left

Monday, 8 January 2007

The Religion of Peace

Many European countries were occupied by Muslims over the centuries (either Arabs, Moors, or Ottomans (Turks): Spain for 800 years, Portugal 600 years, Greece 500 years, Sicily 300 years, Serbia 400 years, Bulgaria 500 years, Romania 400 years, Hungary 150 years... Italy, Austria, Bosnia, Croatia, Wallachia, Albania, Moldavia, Armenia, Georgia, Poland, the Ukraine, and eastern and southern Russia - they were all battlefields where Islam conquered or was conquered in violent conflicts marked by cruelty and a fearful loss of life, spread over considerably more than a thousand years... and was only stopped in France (That Islam did not capture all of Europe and wipe out Christianity is owing in part to the Franks' Mayor of the Palace, Charles Martel, his sturdy Merovingian knights and courageous infantry. On October 10, 732AD, Charles met the Islamic invaders between Poiters and Tours in battle. The Franks stood like a wall and the Muslims eventually withdrew defeated. Their leader, Abd-ar-Rahman was killed. In their rout, the Arabs suffered heavy losses of men and equipment. Europe would remain Christian territory.)

European history has remained fixed on the Christian Crusades of the 11th to the 13th centuries, largely ignoring these Muslim attacks and invasions. When accusing the West of imperialism, muslims are obsessed with the crusades, but do not mention their own longer and more gruesome Jihad.
Their leaders, the Caliphs, Sultans, and Ayatollahs had the same powers of any dictator, including their heroes Suleiman the Magnificent and Saladin.
And they still have the same total political and religious power in most Muslim countries today: Gaddafi in Libya, the Kings in Jordan and Syria, in the Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Afghanistan, even in Palestine. Most of these countries have "third world" status, their rulers using their huge oil gained wealth for personal use and for furthering the cause of Islam.
Today they do not have enough resources to conquer their neighbouring countries, nor the world, which is their ultimate aim, and they use instead terrorism and suicide bombers.

However, Muslim wars are still raging worldwide:
The Muslim Palestinians have a continuing war of terrorism against Israel. In the Sudan the Muslim government of the north have already killed over one million Christians in the south. Algeria is wracked by bitter fighting between Islamic Fundamentalists and the military. Nigeria is in the midst of a civil war between Muslims and Christians. In Kenya the Islamic Party has declared Holy War on the government. Colonel Gaddafi and his Libyan army have carried out military operations into Chad, and, like Afghanistan and Iran, Libya is a base for terrorists. In Turkey (looking to join the EU) the secular Muslim government is being challenged by the militant Refah Islamic Party. War also rages between Christian Ethiopia and Muslim Eritrea. The fighting between Christian Armenians and Muslim Azerbaijans (with 35,000 casualties), after which tiny Armenia was shrunk further because of territory gained by the "breeding-with-a-vengeance" Muslim population. A war between the Christian Serbs and the Muslim Albanians could spark at any moment. Muslims in Chechnya, Daghestan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have ignited insurrection against the pro-Russian regimes. Muslims in Indonesia are forcing Christians of all denominations to convert to Islam or have their throats cut. Thousands upon thousands of Christians have been first forcibly converted, and then sexually mutilated with knives and razor blades to make them conform to Muslim "standards". Afterwards, they are enslaved to their local Muslim chieftain. This is not some aberration of Islam, but business as usual for all but the "moderate" factions. They have a history of murder, terror, lies and brainwashing to advance their cause of global conversion and subjugation... Their Jihad!

Unfortunately, most people aren’t aware of this murderous philosophy, or they find it too monstrous to believe.

But the concept of Islam throughout the centuries has always been this:

1- Embrace Islam, become our brethren and you will have what we have.
2- If you refuse that, you will be obligated to pay tribute with humiliation (the Jizya or poll tax). Dhimmitude.
3- Or War, terrorism and suicide bombers.

This is Islam in the 21st century.

Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
"When I warned them (the French Government) that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided cabinet, "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." Some chicken! Some neck!".
(Speech to Canadian Parliament 1941)

Friday, 5 January 2007

New Post

There is a new post below "Standing Our Ground - Great Military Actions" below - i am still new to blogging and it has gone to a lower section of the page. No doubt i will have a few hiccups as i find my way around! Tony.

Our Government Supports England

To hear our "illustrious leaders" talk (ho hum),they are committed to helping us and always endeavour to do their best for our country. I am (as usual) completely sceptical of anything that is "for your own good", or indeed any sentiments of a similar ilk coming from any politician. I have here some quotations from some nu-labour and conservative sell-outs. Have a read, draw your own conclusions as to the integrity of these traitorous appeasers and vote them out! We hear time and time again about how we are a multicultural nation with all the benefits that such "diversity" brings ( which as any reader will know is a complete fabrication with regards to the benefits), but we English are NOT even a people according to these despicable traitors.

1 - John “Two Jags" Prescott - A fat Welsh Politician backing us to the hilt as normal.
“…there is no such nationality as English”

2 -Jack Straw – whilst Foreign Secretary
“The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent. We have used this propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Then we used it in Europe and with our empire, so I think what you have within the UK is three small nations…who’ve been over the centuries under the cosh of the English. Those small nations have inevitably sought expression by a very explicit idea of nationhood. You have this very dominant other nation, England, 10 times bigger than the others, which is self-confident and therefore has not needed to be so explicit about its expression. I think as we move into this new century, people’s sense of Englishness will become more articulated and that’s partly because of the mirror that devolution provides us with and because we are becoming more European at the same time”.
Another one of our beloved leaders once again behind us 100%

3 - William Hague – July 1999
““These are not theoretical problems. They are alive and real, a ticking time bomb under the British constitution…The signs of an emerging English consciousness are all around us. Try to ignore this English consciousness or bottle it up and it will turn into a more dangerous English Nationalism that can threaten the future of the United Kingdom”
Another bright boy on our team. "A more dangerous English Nationalism" eh?

How dare these clowns purport to speak for the English people! How dare they show their faces as "men of the people"! They should hang their heads in shame for their anti-english sentiments ( Two-Jags can probably be partly excused as he has never had an original thought expressed with any semblance of eloquence, and was quite possibly unaware of the drivel he was spouting - it happens quite frequently, im told)

Monday, 1 January 2007

Am I Surprised?

I have just had a festive few days away staying with old friends and family in rural Nottinghamshire. My wife and i had a great time with all the usual excesses that Christmas and the New Year brings. The dinner table talk (as usual) turned to politics. I make no secret of my BNP membership or my views, if asked, and these good people already knew my political leanings. They also agree with some of them, but thats as far as they have gone. What surprised me this time was they were adamant that they would be voting BNP in the forthcoming elections in May. After discussing some aspects of the party three of them pledged to become members immediately. They have no internet access and so i gave them a phone number which was called within a few hours (unfortunately message service only - forgot our people were probably celebrating too!). The point here is that these are normal, solid British people (which as any BNP member can tell you are the backbone of the party) who, after years of being drip-fed a constant stream of lies from whichever lame-duck party has been in power, have awoken!

Its almost de-riguer to these days in my local market-town pubs to talk politics and the BNP are almost always spoken about with respect. Where they are not it is usually (but not always) due to ignorance or pre-formed views from what has been a hostile media. The positive publicity from Nick and Marks aquittal, along with the Guardians "BNP Recruitment Supplement" (i cant believe we didnt have have to pay for that!) and the day to day work of activists throughout the year are paying off.

Finally a few thoughts on the last day or twos news items:
They hanged Saddam - i believe he was a bad man, BUT his trial was a farce and a disgrace to a "civilised" society. Yes, he should have hanged, but not as the result of an externally-driven show trial overseen by western powers.

We are invited to welcome the accession of two new member states to to the EU - our government have stuck an outwardly visible sticking plaster on our worries by "limiting" "unskilled" workers from these countries to 20,000. However there is NOTHING to stop these people from saying they are either tourists or self-employed and coming in anyway to dissappear into the black economy or be hired by unscrupulous employers looking to increase their profits. Even without this sham "limited immigration" another 20,000 immigrants will add yet more strain to our already overloaded infrastructure and will be yet again to the detriment of the indigenous British people.

Gilbert K Chesterton (1874-1936) - English novelist and poet

"But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet. Smile at us, pay us, pass us by. But never forget".