Saturday, 27 November 2010

Yet another new party!

I see that former BNP official Michaela Mackenzie has sent up a new Nationalist political party called British Freedom.

While I have a lot of respect for Michaela she really needs to take a long hard look at what Nationalism really is and the people she associates with.

One of the officials for this new party, it's press officer, is one James Whittall. Former BNP West Midlands deputy regional organiser and the man who cares so much about the cause he won't spend a penny of his own money on it!

If any of us drive to a meeting, a social or a leafleting session it wouldn't occur to us to claim back the cost of the petrol from our branch or region. Not so with Mr Whittle.

In the first 8 months of this year Mr Whittle claimed £531 in petrol expenses from his local South Shropshire group and from the West Midlands regional account.

And lets not forget the new bluetooth phone kit he bought for himself using West Midlands members donations costing £24.98. It would be nice to know if he has returned the new Epsom printer he bought for £57.97 to his local group as he used their money to pay for it.

You'd think that even a blatent money grabber like Mr Whittle could pay 10p to park his car but no he even claimed for that!

So how could he be allowed to get away this?

Quite simple really. His fiancee was the regional treasurer.

My advice to British Freedom: keep a close eye on your money whenever Mr Whittall is around.

So just how Nationalistic is this new party?

Michael Simpkins, the party's nominating officer says of the BNP, on his own blog, that he and his associates were "outnumbered by hard core far right nationalists who long for a pre 1948 Britain. British Freedom on the other hand is attracting the right sort of nationalist."

And what exactly is wrong with wanting the racial make up of Britain to be the same as it was pre 1948?

If this new party thinks that any Negro who speaks English, waves the Union flag and sings God Save The Queen is as British as those of us whose ancesters were on these islands before they became islands then they are certainly not attracting 'the right sort of Nationalist', they're not attracting Nationalists at all.

While this new party may be an improvement on the Lib/Lab/Con it can't be called Nationalist.

They're just another group of right wing Tories.

Wednesday, 11 August 2010

BNP Leadership nominations

The results of the nomination process are out:

Griffin 995
Butler 214
Barnbrook 23
Adams 4
Spoilt 7

Out of 4200 people that were eligible to vote only 1219 did

My opinion that Eddy would easily get enough nominations has proved to be way off the mark.

But why did almost 3000 members fail to return their nomination?

Tuesday, 20 July 2010


I have now received my BNP leadership contest nomination form and have decided to nominate Richard Barnbrook.

This is not because I think he would make the ideal leader but because I think having a third candidate is the best way to avoid a damaging split.

I think it a cert that Eddy Butler will receive enough nominations as his campaign has been running for a while and seems to have gathered a lot of support so he doesn't need my nomination but Richard has only recently declared his intention to contest the leadership and has ground to make up if he's to gain enough nominations to stand.

If Eddy Butler or Nick Griffin were to lose the election in a contest just between the two of them I can't see either being able to work with the other, the campaign has become too bitter. I can see them leaving the party and taking their supporters with them. But I think that Richard is someone they could both work with.

So I encourage everyone who wants to preserve the unity of the party to nominate Richard Barnbrook.

Visit his website at

Sunday, 18 July 2010

BNP Leadership election

So now four people have put themselves forward for the role of leader of the BNP.

As well as Nick Griffin there are Derek Adams, Richard Barnbrook and Eddy Butler.

Eddy Butler is the one we've all been hearing about. His statement is

I believe we need a complete re-launch in order to survive as a Party.I seek a year’s term as Chairman in order to bring in the necessary changes and hold free elections next year than will result in a fresh face.I will bring in measures to ensure financial transparency to restore confidence in the Party’s finances.I will bring in constitutional changes to make the Party more democratically accountable and have a separation of powers between the political Chairman and the administration.I would bring all functions such as the call centre back to the mainland and close the Belfast office.I would terminate the contract of our fundraising consultant and we would become self sufficient.I would ensure that our resources are focussed on the front line and not wasted on bureaucracy.I would ensure that the Party stays together with no recriminations after this leadership election.

Derek Adams? Leading activist and publican from Manchester. Strongly opposed to the smoking ban. That alone would stop me from voting for him but also because his statement on the party website does nothing more than condemn Eddy Butler.

Unlike Mr. Butler I don't seek to be a disposable chairman or a stalking horse for undeclared and shadowy third parties. I seek election for a full-term. I love this Party and despise those who seek to sow dissent and demoralise our activists. They have provided propaganda for our enemies to throw at our candidates on the doorstep. Real grievances must be dealt with by people with true hearts, not those whose main purpose is to seek position or jobs.Our vote increased at the General Election and we have more enquiries and a larger membership than ever. But some people still think it’s time for a change. If you feel that change is indeed needed, then nominate me, a clean-hands candidate who will be a fresh face but who, unlike Mr. Butler, has not sought to advance my candidacy by working with supporters who spread lies and black propaganda.

Then there's Richard Barnbrook. Member of the GLA and previously engaged to a woman with a mixed race child.

Famed as ‘the man in the beige suit’, dyslexic and partial to the occasional drink, I know my limitations! But I have never wavered from the strength of my convictions and I’ve always spoken direct from the heart.Nick has achieved miracles in modernising the Party; Eddy has electioneering, strategic experience, - but the Party is divided. There’s a real desire for change but we also need time to take stock, and plan how to move forward together with renewed energy. If we act in haste we risk losing all we have built.Our success and unity is more important than the ambitions of any individual. I offer integrity, impartiality and lack of self-interest that will command the loyalty and solidarity of all the membership. I will act as a caretaker leader till elections and end the strife caused by this destructive, divisive and bitter campaign. Choose stability and unity.

And then, of course, there's Nick Griffin

Our tremendous record speaks for itself, which is why our enemies try every trick in their grubby book to smear me and key members of my winning team.To break contracts, sack our young team in the highly popular and successful call centre, and go back to amateurism, would be organisational and financial suicide. The experience and technology we’ve acquired must be used to modernise our election-fighting machine, not thrown away out of spite and personal ambition.We’ve spent time and money modernising our central administration, now we’re going to professionalise our regional and local organisation.In ten years, our activists and I have turned this party from a bad political joke into a major factor in British politics. There is still much to be done, and it is best done under proven, principled and visionary leadership, without futile, time-wasting elections. We’ve come this far, let us go forward together!

So which one to vote for.

Clearly none of them will answer 'yes' to the questions I put to Eddy Butler in my last post.

Adams is an also ran so it's between the other three.

If Nick wants my vote he'll need to explain the party finances a bit better.

According to the party website " in exchange for fees of £165,000 over two years, Midas has generated a fundraising income for the BNP of £2.3 million — and saved us over £156,000 through their procurement techniques and expertise."

Sounds good so why is the party virtually bankrupt now?

I've been told about companies and the tax office threatening court action due to unpaid bills, party staff being paid late, printers refusing to print items for the party because of late payments and money being borrowed from the regions.

So where have they been spending this £2.3 million? Well apparently some of it's gone on Plasma screen TV's for training purposes.

How about paying the bills first and if there's anything left then buying plasma screen TV's?

I also don't like the way Nick has moved the party towards becoming a Christian party. That's not what I joined. Politics and religion should be seperate and any white person should feel at home in the BNP, their religion is irrelevant.

Nominations close on the 10th August so I've some time to decide, which is good as none of them really appeal at the moment.

Saturday, 19 June 2010

Eddy Butler

Two questions for Eddy Butler.

1) If you become leader of the BNP will you guarantee to change the constitution so that the party becomes a white organisation again, no black members, no Asians (of any religion), no orientals, no half castes and no Jews?

2) Will you stop the BNP from moving ever closer to becoming a Christian fundamentalist party obsessed with Islam and acknowledge that the only reason we have a problem in this country with Islam is because of all the non whites living here and if they were all repatriated then a tiny handful of white Muslims would pose no threat?

If you can answer yes to both questions then you have my vote for the party leadership.

If you cannot then what is the point of supporting you. The main problems in the party will not change.

Friday, 18 June 2010

The EU

It will come as no surprise to Nationalists but the findings of a new poll (Angus Reid Public Opinion Published on Jun 01 2010) shows that the majority of British people, even those that vote for the pro EU Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, do not want to be part of the EU or the Euro currency.

Here are the findings:

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,984 British adults, 51 per cent of respondents say EU membership has been moderately negative (26%) or very negative (25%) for the United Kingdom.

Conversely, seven per cent of Britons say the EU has been very positive for the UK, and 31 per cent regard it as moderately positive.

If a referendum on the UK’s permanence in the EU were called, two fifths of Britons (42%) would vote in favour of pulling out, while 35 per cent would vote to stay.

If a plebiscite on the UK adopting the euro were called, a large majority of Britons (79%) would vote against abandoning the pound as the national currency. Only nine per cent of respondents would welcome the euro.

Overall, party allegiances make some difference in how people in Britain feel about the EU. Conservative voters are largely inclined to say EU membership has been detrimental for the UK (66%), but so are many Labour (41%) and Liberal Democrat (41%) voters.

Almost half of Labour (48%) and Liberal Democrat (46%) followers would vote in favour of remaining in the EU in an eventual referendum, while a majority of Tories (57%) would vote to pull out.

Adopting the euro is out of the question for most Britons of all political stripes. At least seven-in-ten Liberal Democrats, Labour and Tory supporters would vote against embracing the EU currency.

Friday, 11 June 2010

Smoking ban and heart attacks

A new study has shown that the smoking ban has helped reduce the number of heart attacks suffered by people in England and saved the NHS over 8 million pounds.

The study, which was carried out by researchers from the University of Bath, has reported that there were 1,200 fewer hospital admissions for heart attacks in England in the year after July 2007 - when the smoking ban came in. The researchers suggest that this may be due to the general population being exposed to less second-hand smoke since the legislation came in.

The study looked at whether there was a difference between the number of people admitted to hospital with a heart attack in the five years before the smoking ban began in England compared to the 15 months afterwards and was the largest, most comprehensive study to date on the effects of smoke-free legislation anywhere in the world.

Separate research by the London Health Observatory carried out on the basis of these figures suggested a saving to the NHS of £8.4m in the first year after the ban on smoking in public indoor spaces was introduced in England.
A similar kind of study was done in New York. According to this study, heart attack rates have dropped by 8 percent following the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2003 that prohibits smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places. The report, issued by the state Health Department, found that hospitals admitted 3,813 fewer patients for heart attacks in 2004 than would be expected in New York without the indoor smoking ban. Studies elsewhere have reached similar conclusions. In one case, the rate of admissions for heart attacks returned to normal after the ban was lifted.

Similar results were obtained in Scotland. Following the introduction of smoke-free legislation the health of individuals has improved significantly and the heart attack rates have dropped dramatically. Hospital admissions for heart attacks have dropped by 17 percent after the legislation was introduced in Scotland.

The number of acute coronary events such as heart attacks in adults also dropped significantly after a smoking ban in public places in Italy. Researchers in Rome compared acute coronary events in the city for five years preceding a public smoking ban with those occurring one year after the ban. They found an 11.2 percent reduction of acute coronary events in persons 35 to 64 years and a 7.9 percent reduction in those ages 65 to 74.

As a result of smoking in public places, passive smokers or non-smokers are the ones that are mostly affected as they tend to inhale all the dangerous chemicals released due to tobacco burning. Most of these chemicals have been reported to cause cancer and heart attacks. Physiological effects of tobacco smoke on cardiovascular functions include stiffening aorta, platelet activation resulting in damaged artery lining, disturbed heart rhythm and vasoconstriction. Smoking also causes development of plaques inside blood vessels leading to heart attacks. The smoking ban has reduced the exposure to smoke in the general population.

So there we have it. Yet more evidence that the ban on smoking in public places is good for all of our people.

How can anyone still oppose it?

Friday, 28 May 2010

Sadie Graham and Matt Single

Sadie Graham and her husband Matt Single were quite happy for the addresses of BNP members to appear on the internet, click here for details, so I'm sure they wouldn't object to their details appearing on here.

Title MRS
Gender Female
Occupation Housewife/husband
Date of Birth 17 December 1978
Last Known Address 46 Harebeating Drive
East Sussex
BN27 1JE
This person may also
be known as

Friday, 21 May 2010

Autism and immigration

Researchers at St George's Hospital, London have discovered an increased risk of autism in children whose parents had migrated to Britain from Africa, the Caribbean and Asia.

The size of the increased risk was five times greater for Caribbean people. The risk was also very significant, but slightly less, for African people and much lower, but still present, for Asian people.

The research covered 428 children diagnosed with autism during a six-year period. They found no increased risk in children whose parents who had migrated to the UK from other European countries.

Autism is a severe lifelong developmental condition which affects people's ability to communicate, form relationships and interact socially.

The lifetime cost to society for someone with autism is estimated to be £4.7m.

The Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities says that Autism costs the UK almost £28bn a year. Adults with autism cost £25bn a year, while for children the figure is £2.7bn.

If immigration can increase the risk of autism in children from the third world then this is yet another good reason, if another should be needed, for stopping all non white immigration into Britain.

Friday, 14 May 2010

Religion and politics

In his Easter message BNP chairman Nick Griffin stated that "After the General Election, all BNP leaflets will carry a Christian Cross to demonstrate our commitment to maintaining and preserving our Christian heritage as a nation" and he believes that "In the past too much emphasis has been placed on the ethnic aspect of our present national dilemma, whilst the longest running feature of our identity has been overlooked: the fact that our country has been held together and guided for millennia by our common, ancient religion: Christianity."

Now that the election's over I presume we'll see these new religious friendly leaflets appearing.

This conversion to Christianity by Mr Griffin is quite astonishing as I recall attending a meeting only a few years ago where Mr Griffin stated that he didn't believe in God.

Clearly then this is just a campaigning tactic but will it work?

Less than half of the British people believe in a God and 66% of the population have no actual connection to any religion or church. Between 1979 and 2005, half of all people who describe themselves as Christians stopped going to church on a Sunday. Religion in Britain has suffered an immense decline since the 1950s, and all indicators show a continued secularisation of British society in line with other European countries.

In a large poll in August 2006 of year 9 and 10 teenagers in Cornwall, only 19% said that they 'have a religious faith'. It seems certain that if these teenagers reflect the future (only 22% said they believe in God), religious affiliation is going to continue to drop. A wider mori poll commissioned by the British Library found that nearly half of teenagers in Britain are atheists (2007).

In a poll in 2003 only 17% of the population responded that religion was one of the most significant factors in their lives.(Mori poll results Aug 08-17 2003).
Only 33% of the British public consider that 'religion is important'.(stats compiled by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, Feb 18 2003 )
Only 33% describe themselves as religious - 63% say they are not.(ICM Poll)

This all shows that rather than encouraging people to vote promoting religion will turn people off.

The BNP should stick to its roots of promoting traditional British values as these are important to people, religion is not.

Friday, 7 May 2010

Election 2010

There were high expectations for the BNP going into yesterday's general election.

A lot of people had convinced themselves that Nick Griffin would be elected as the first BNP MP.

That was never going to happen.

Our first past the post electoral system makes it very difficult for smaller parties to breakthrough the stranglehold of the big two. Though it's not impossible as the Greens proved in Brighton. The ever increasing numbers of African immigrants moving into Barking and Dagenham also made a breakthrough there unlikely.

Beyond the Barking seat, in which it was very disapointing to come third with a reduced share of the vote, the party had a fantastic election getting 563,743 votes which was an increase of 1.2% overall. And if that doesn't sound a lot remember than the Conservative vote only went up by 3.8%.

Listening to the election coverage on Radio 4 at 3am they asked their politics expert his opinion on how the smaller parties were doing. He said that the BNP was having the best performance of the smaller parties. At the time the BNP vote was up 2% in constituencies that the party had fought at the last general election.

His opinion was proved correct by the final results. The BNP's vote was the second best performance of any party contesting the election after the Tories.

Again refering back to the election coverage on Radio 4 both Shirley Williams and Vince Cable stated that their party, the Liberal Democrats, would end up with between 80-90 seats. Despite all the media hype the Liberal Democrats could only increase their vote by 1%, their seat total is 57 which is down by 5.

The other smaller parties: UKIP's vote increased by only 0.9% and the Green vote went down by 0.1%.

Labour's vote fell by 6.2%.

Overall a very good election for the party. Well done to all the candidates, agents and party workers.

The BNP's best six results were:

Barking - Nick Griffin 14.6%
Dagenham & Rainham - Michael Barnbrook 11.2%
Rotherham - Marlene Guest 10.4%
Stoke on Trent South - Michael Coleman 9.4%
West Bromwich West - Russ Green 9.4%
Burnley - Sharon Wilkinson 9%

Wednesday, 5 May 2010

China town protests

Over the past few years Chinese restaurant owners in the UK have been protesting against immigration rules, which they say has led to a shortage of workers, and the raids by immigration officers on Chinese restaurants that have been employing illegal immigrants.

It's very difficult to have any sympathy for the restaurant owners. There are too many unemployed people in this country at the moment and if these restaurants are struggling to find staff they should employ and train some of the local unemployed not employ people who have entered the country illegally.

Just because it's a Chinese restaurant doesn' t mean that the people working there have to be Chinese. It's the food that has to be Chinese not the employees. White people are just as capable of cooking food in a Chinese style as anyone else.

Rather than complaining about non-existant discrimination and victimisation the people who run Chinese restaurants should start showing some morals.

Employing illegal immigrants is just a way of paying extremely low wages and forcing sub standard working conditions on people who have no way of complaining.

The Chinese restaurant owners should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for protesting against rules that exist to stop people being exploited.

Tuesday, 4 May 2010

Fancy something to eat?

An Australian cook book, "The Pasta Bible", includes a recipe for spelt tagliatelle with sardines and prosciutto and amongst the ingrediants are "salt and freshly ground black people."

Think I'll give it a miss!

Monday, 3 May 2010

Shortage of farm workers

The vegetable asparagus has become increasingly popular over the last few years and farmers have had to increase the amount they grow.

Due to our climate British grown asparagus is widely considered to be the best in the world.

One problem that farmers are having though is that they can't get enough local employees to pick the vegetable and so are having to employ eastern Europeans.

A reporter on BBC breakfast (3 May 2010) asked one of the eastern European workers why she thought that British people wouldn't do the job. She replied that she thought they were ashamed to work on the land.

The reporter then revealed the wage paid - £5.80 an hour.

And there we have the real reason that British people don't want the job. The low pay.

By the laws of supply and demand if you can't get enough people to do a job you have to increase the wages paid. If the farmer in this case offered £8.80 an hour he would find that local people would be interested in doing the job but when the government allows him to employ people from eastern Europe on a low wage there is no incentive for him to provide a decent living wage for local people.

And this highlights the whole problem with the recent immigration from eastern Europe. The Polish, Slovakians and Czechs that I've worked with were lovely people but the government should never have allowed them to come here and work for less than local people could possibly accept and still hope to keep up a decent standard of living.

We have to return to a situation where people are paid a decent wage for a decent day's work. Not, as we have at the moment, where our living standards have to be reduced if we are to compete for low paid jobs with people from abroad.

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Who should I vote for?

There is a quiz in the Daily Telegragh that asks you questions and based on your answers advises which party you should be voting for.

Have a go: Daily Telegraph

Here are my results:

Sunday, 4 April 2010

RIP Eugene Terreblanche

Eugene Terreblanche, leader of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement - AWB) has been hacked to death while sleeping by black workers on his farm in north-western South Africa.

The AWB was founded in 1970 by Mr Terreblanche and 6 colleagues.

His movement increased from 7 founder members to 70 000 out of a White population of 3,5 million.

During public gatherings he drew bigger audiences than any other White leaders locally.

In the mid-1980s, the AWB instituted a Voedingskema (feeding program), later called the Volkshulpskema (people's help scheme), to help the very poorest Afrikaner families. The scheme delivered a meal every day to 14,000 poor Afrikaner children in Pretoria. Certain farmers also donated vegetables on an almost weekly basis, and in the final three months of 1986 alone 300 tons of food was donated. In the winter, bedding was donated as well. Sympathetic mine owners and farmers arranged jobs for unemployed Afrikaners on the farms and mines.

During the negotiations that led to South Africa's first multiracial elections, the AWB threatened all-out war. During the Battle of Ventersdorp in August 1991, the AWB confronted police in front of the town hall where President F W de Klerk was speaking, and "a number of people were killed or injured" in the conflict. Later in the negotiations, the AWB stormed the Kempton Park World Trade Centre where the negotiations were taking place, breaking through the glass front of the building with an armoured car. The police guarding the centre failed to prevent the invasion. The AWB then took over the main conference hall.

Mr Terreblanche's murder by black thugs is indicative of the type of place South Africa has become in recent times. More than 3,000 white farmers have been murdered since the end of apartheid in 1994.

RIP Eugene Terreblanche.

Thursday, 11 March 2010

Asylum Seeker Deaths

Three Russian asylum seekers, a mother, father and son, have jumped to their death from the 15th floor of a block of flats in Glasgow.

They recently had their asylum request rejected after arriving from Canada.

Yes, you read that correctly, they arrived from Canada where they had been granted asylum and left there to claim asylum in Britain.

Canada is not the most obvious country to have to flee from. Maybe it was too cold for them or they didn't like the food!

Of course to genuinely be claiming asylum in Britain they must have been persecuted in Canada. They were one very unlucky family. Not only persecuted in Russia but also in Canada!

More likely, their claim for asylum in Britain was not genuine and the decision to reject their claim was correct.

They were yet another group of people who wanted to migrate to the UK and tried to use the asylum rules to do it.

How many more economic migrants are there in Britain claiming to be asylum seekers?

We need to stop allowing people into our country just because they say the word 'asylum'. The only genuine cases of asylum should come from our neighbouring countries. If you've travelled through one or more safe countries or, as in this case, you've already been granted asylum elsewhere, then you're not a genuine asylum seeker. If you were you'd have been glad to stay in the first safe country you reached.

In 2008 the Greater London Assembly backed calls for a scheme to allow illegal immigrants to earn UK citizenship. The motion was put forward by the Green Party and backed by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Only the BNP and the Conservatives opposed it. This just encourages more people from poorer countries to abuse the asylum rules and come to the UK. Even if their bid for asylum is turned down there is the chance of an amnesty and that's a chance that a lot of them will think is worth taking.

Let's make it clear and simple.

If you were not persecuted in one of Britain's neighbouring countries then you will not be allowed to claim asylum in Britain.

If you've been granted asylum elsewhere then you will not be allowed to claim it again in Britain.

If you were not living in your country of birth when you fled persecution then you will not be allowed into Britain.

If these rules had been in place already then the tragic deaths of the three Russians would never have occurred.

Monday, 8 March 2010

Punish The Pigs

Last week it was announced that MP's would be getting a 1.5% pay raise which amounts to £1000 a year. This comes at the time when the rest of us are having our pay frozen or even cut.

From April a backbench MP will get a basic salary of £65,737.

During the same week North Wiltshire Conservative MP James Gray was demanding that MP's be allowed to travel first class on the railways. Funded by the taxpayer, of course.

So it's okay for us serfs to pay their train fares as long as they don't have to sit anywhere near us?

Not that Labour MP's are any better.

The parliamentary Labour Party Woman's committee is demanding that taxpayers should pay for their childcare, up to £18,000 a year. The rest of us have to pay for our own child care, why should MP's be any different?

After all the scandals over MP's expenses you'd think that they might have learnt that ripping off the taxpayer is a bad idea. But no.

You have to ask why it is that these people decided to stand for parliament in the first place? Was it to help to create a better society for everyone or was it just to feather their own nests?

I think we know the answer to that one.
This year we have a general election and the chance to show them what we think of them.

The problem is that increasing numbers of voters will think "stuff the lot of you" and not bother voting. That won't hurt the greedy pigs. They don't care how many people vote or don't vote as long as enough of those that do vote re-elect them.

At the general election make sure you cast your vote, but not for the greedy pigs from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Vote against them. Vote for any other candidate who may be standing.

If some of the smaller parties were to be elected in place of the old gang then not only would they care but they'd be very worried and might actually change their ways.

Friday, 5 March 2010

Miners strike, the unions and workers co-operatives

This year is the 25th anniversary of the end of miners' strike in 1985. I was in my teens when it was taking place and knew very little about the causes but do remember seeing people with buckets in the city centre collecting money for the miners and their families.

Looking back it's clear that Margaret Thatcher was trying to destroy the power of the unions and in the process destroyed local communities and a vital industry.

The UK used to produce the vast majority of its coal requirements; for example in 1980 it produced 130 million tonnes and imported 7½ million tonnes. Imports were mainly of coking coal or other grades that the UK’s mines could not readily produce. As the UK’s coal production declined, imports rose steadily and a milestone was reached in 2001 when more coal was imported (35½ million tonnes) than was produced in the UK (32 million tonnes). Imports have continued to increase as more coal handling capacity has been installed at British ports and imports reached a record 44 million tonnes in 2005. UK coal production in 2005 was 20½ million tonnes. Britain consumed 62.7m tons of coal in 2007 and of that total 43.3m tons were imported, mostly from Russia and South Africa

During the 1970's the unions were at the height of their power.
There were endless strikes afflicting the Post Office, steel industry, the ferries, steelworks and much more. Car and truck-maker British Leyland was repeatedly brought to a standstill in the Midlands. In 1979 public sector workers went out on strike for weeks. Uncollected mountains of rubbish piled high in the cities, Green Goddesses were on the streets, and bodies remained unburied. The latter only happened in Liverpool, but became an emblem of the chaos inflicted on the public by the unions.

WINTER OF DISCONTENT: Rubbish in Leicester Square, London, in the council workers' strike of 1979

Rather than simply representing their members in the workplace the unions, with their Communist leadership, wanted to bring the country to its knees. The mass industrial action was not for the benefit of their members but an attempt to impose a Communist revolution.

Bringing the unions down was necessary but Thatcher didn't care what else she destroyed in the process. Her destruction of
industries and communities was a tragedy. Let's not forget, though, that the union leadership was just as guilty as Thatcher.

I've never been a member of a union. They just perpetuate the class struggle, workers against bosses. It's in the unions own interest to have an enemy, of course, without the enemy they would be unnecessary and their dreams of Communist revolution would disappear along with their leaders six figure salaries.

Wouldn't our working life be much more pleasant if workers and bosses worked together for the benefit of all instead of this constant battle?

Of course that ideal world doesn't yet exist and there are still bosses out there who exploit their workers at every opportunity. So what's the answer?

How about workers co-operatives?

Worker co‑operatives are businesses that are owned and controlled by their employee members using co‑operative principles. Each of the members - from the manager to the office junior - owns a share of the business. Decisions are made democratically and profits are shared among the members or put back into the business. Conflict and strife are minimised because workers and owners are one and the same.

Isn't that a better way than left wing class war unions or the capitalists' exploitation of workers?

Wednesday, 3 March 2010

Haiti, Madeira and Cumbria

Recently we've been inundated with appeals to give money to Haiti following an earthquake on 12 January. Britons have given £23 million in aid. A charity single has been released and there are still people queuing up to ask for our money.

On 20 February mudslides and flash flooding on the Portugese island of Madiera lead to the loss of 42 lives including 1 Briton. This hasn't had the same impact with the media. No appeals and no charity singles.


In November there were floods in Cumbria. 1 person died and more than 200 people had to be rescued in Cockermouth. Again there were no aid appeals or charity singles.


Why the difference?

Is it that the people of Madiera and Cumbria are white and so not as important as the blacks in Haiti?

It would certainly appear so as far as the charity single is concerned. Simon Cowell, the man behind the song for Haiti, is well known as a race mixing piece of filth. No surprise that he did nothing for Cumbria or Madeira.

Does anyone actually know where the £23 million has been spent?

In 1984-1985 there were appeals for the victims of the Ethiopian famine. The UK public gave £5m in three days, there was a Band Aid single, which raised £8 million, and huge Live Aid concerts in London and Philidelphia which are estimated to have raised £150m. We've only now found out that $100 million of aid money went through rebel groups trying to overthrow the government. 95% of it was spent on buying weapons and building up a hard-line Marxist political party within the rebel movement.

If you've considering giving money to relieve the suffering in a third world country because of emotional images you've seen on the TV, do you actually
know where your money is going? Are you funding a war? And isn't it time to look after our own people first?

Tuesday, 2 March 2010

The Smoking Ban

On 1 July 2007 one of the very few decent pieces of legislation introduced by the Labour government, the ban on smoking in public places and workplaces, came into effect.

Previous legislation was to have a non smoking area but this didn't work very well as the smoke simply difted over.

What a pleasure it has been to sit in the canteen at work and eat my lunch without being surrounded by clouds of smoke.

What a joy it is to go to a pub for a drink and a meal and not have to breathe in the fumes from other people's cigarettes nor to have to go home with my clothes stinking of them.

My mum has smoked ever since I can remember, and still does, and I always hated the smell of fags (that's British slang for cigarettes for any Americans reading this). I still remember my first driving lesson. I got into the car and the first thing the instructor said to me was "Do you smoke?". He could smell cigarettes on my clothes.

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 different chemicals. At least 50 are known carcinogens (cause cancer in humans) and many are poisonous. Smoking causes heart disease, cancers of the lung, larynx, oral cavity and esophagus, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Smoking is also a contributory factor for the development of cancers of the bladder, pancreas, and kidney. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma.

So it's a surprise to me that the ban still seems to be so controversial. Why would anybody object to a law that stops people being forced to breathe in these chemicals?

I've read about landlords of pubs being fined and imprisoned for ignoring the law, the most recent I read on the Derby Patriot. True, lots of pubs are closing down but is it really the smoking ban that is to blame?

I think that is much too simplistic. People's lifestyles have changed. The days of the men leaving work and heading straight for the pub while the wife sits at home are long gone. If you want a drink you can buy it much cheaper from supermarkets and the fact is that there were simply too many pubs in this country, a legacy of days gone by when the pub was the only place for socialising.

One idea I've heard put forward is to have smoking and non smoking pubs. Sounds okay until it's examined in more detail.

When a group of people go out the liklihood is that at least one of them will be a smoker. Naturally the smoker will want to go to the smoking pub and his or her friends will go along to keep them happy. Thus starving the non smoking pub of customers.

It also doesn't take into account that pubs are also workplaces. Why should the bar staff in the smoking pub have to breathe in all their customers smoke?

They could choose not to work in the smoking pub but that would restrict their employment opportunities.

I really don't see why stepping into the fresh air for 10 minutes while they smoke is such a problem.

Nationalists believe in a healthy body and a healthy nation and should support the smoking ban.

I look forward to the day when nobody wants to put cancer causing toxins into their bodies through smoking and totally support ASH.

Sunday, 7 February 2010

Coming soon to the EU

Turkish police have recovered the body of a 16-year-old girl they say was buried alive by relatives in an "honour" killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys.

The girl, who has been identified only by the initials MM, was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-metre hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman.

Police made the discovery in December after a tip-off from an informant, the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported on its website.

The girl had previously been reported missing.

The informant told the police she had been killed following a family "council" meeting.

The death reopens debate over 'honour' killings in Turkey, which account for half of all the country's murders.

The earliest date that Turkey could enter the EU is 2013