Tuesday, February 03, 2009

UNITE Running Scared

Unite: Derek Simpson will warn ultra right wing groups that their politics of hate are not welcome on construction sites across the UK

In a condemnation of the British National Party, Derek Simpson the joint leader of Unite, will warn ultra right wing groups that their politics of hate are not welcome on construction sites across the UK.

Mr Simspon said:

"The unofficial action taking place across the UK is not about race or immigration, its about class. Its about employers who exploit workers regardless of their nationality by undercutting their hard won pay and conditions. These are rights that trade unionists have fought long and hard for while ultra right wing groups did nothing but stoke hatred in our towns and cities.
Trade unionists stand against everything the BNP stand for. We have warned union members on construction sites to remain vigilant when it comes to ultra right wing leeches. These right wing groups do not support trade unions. In fact, they're probably taking down the names of trade unionists involved in the unofficial action and adding them to their list of left wing enemies."


ENDS

Ciaran Naidoo 07768 931 315

NWN:

UNITE have neglected to mention that even their pro EU buddy Peter Mandelson stated:

"xenophobia might be the cause of the problem."
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/4096175.Hampshire_workers_to_go_on_strike_again/


THE TRUE FACE OF ANTI BRITISH UNITE

Unite Bringing the Migrant Community Together


Unite, the UK's biggest union are together with Unionlearn hosting an event in Stoke on Trent on Saturday 6th December which will give information, advice and guidance to migrant workers working in the UK.

Workers and their families will be able to take advantage of free information about employment rights, family issues and local community benefits.
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=244351

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't forget Frank Field also said that British workers were asserting their identity.

And why not!

Anonymous said...

Unite are just pissed because the workers have got more guts than the people they pay their subs to.

Anonymous said...

Unite are just pissed because the workers have got more guts than the people they pay their subs to.

03 February 2009 17:56


I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. All of the unions are spineless shits lining their own pockets.

Anonymous said...

Rock posted his position on the BNP on his blog on the Conservative Future website. The comments generated attention in the Conservative blogosphere over the weekend.

Rock was defended by political commentator Iain Dale and criticised by Welsh Assembly Member for Plaid Cymru Bethan Jenkins. Other LSE Students' Union officials reacted angrily to Rock's comments. Union General Secretary Aled Dilwyn Fisher said that it was "politically, historically and morally disgusting" to see the BNP as a far-left party. "If Conservative Future don't want to join us in fighting fascism and racism, we will get on with it ourselves. I am shocked that he is more interested in bogus theoretical debates than the possibility of a fascist being elected in London to the European Parliament," Fisher added.
http://thebeaveronline.co.uk/2009/02/tories-well-only-campaign-against-far-left-fascists.html

politicalsoldier.net said...

The Unions are crapping themselves because they have all sold out to the EU and the EU will assert only the rigts of the Eurocrats.

Anonymous said...

Why should the indigenous population of the British Isles be forced to live traveller style wandering Europe to find work because the Euromaniacs say so? If they love it so much why don't they bugger off and find work there and stop poncing off the British taxpayers? It is quite possible to understand how ancient civilisations disappeared, they must have elected Labour governments!

Anonymous said...

WHY ARE THEY NOT IN AFGHANISTAN!!!!

MP: Arrest British Jews fighting for IDF
Tue, 03 Feb 2009

Lord Nazir Ahmed is one of Britain's most prominent Muslim leaders. This week, he questioned the British government about concerns that British Jews may have served in the Israeli Defense Force during Operation Cast Lead - the three-week bombardment of Gaza.

Lord Ahmed's questions have brought attention to an issue that has significant legal and political implications but which few want to discuss in public.

The following is an exclusive Press TV interview with Lord Ahmed:

Press TV: Lord Nazir Ahmed, you raised question in Parliament about the legal implications of British Jews serving in the IDF. What was the response?

Lord Ahmed: I asked Her Majesty's government if they were aware of British citizens who may have been involved with the war crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Force and Israeli Defense Reserves. Her Majesty's government did not have any figures because dual nationals do not have to inform the government. However, there are reports in the Daily Mirror and The Sun with the names of British citizens who have been fighting in Gaza.

The point I was making is that war crimes have been committed, white phosphorous has been used and if there are people who have broken the 4th Geneva Convention, then whoever they are, when they return to this country, they should be arrested and charged - unlike the Major General who escaped in 2005.

Press TV: Are you certain these are up to date reports about British citizens serving in Israel?

Lord Ahmed: These are very new reports, dated January 2009, of British citizens who have gone out to fight against the Palestinian people as part of the IDF. Their names and ages are mentioned in these reports.
We know that there are student unions that have been actively recruiting young people in Britain to join the Israeli Defense Force and we also know that there are young Jewish students who go and serve on the kibbutz and also in schools, who are also then doing national service in Israel.

ENGLISHMAN said...

The ordinary workers must negotiate for themselves,without "union" interference,the "unions" are just another layer of eu repression which are designed to subvert the power of the workers into channels more easily controlled by the eussr,and derail any chance of gaining justice for the indigenous workers of this country,they are already playing the race card ,do not accept it,neither must you accept the foreigners "right" to be here in the first place,they have no such right,unless consented to by the ENGLISH people,and they have NEVER been asked,stand strong accept nothing less than 100% indigenous workforce,and if the filthy poles and other eastern degererates had not already stolen my job and any chance of getting one ,i too would be on STRIKE for as long as it took to rid my country of this vermin.

RS said...

Trade unions (apart from Solidarity) and the Labour party are synonymous with one another and inseparable
from each other. If one is opposed to the Labour Party and their
policies then they should not support or be members of a trade union.
Trade unions may have be guardians of workers during the early 20th
century, but times have changed and trade unions no longer stand up for
the interests of workers in the face of globalised capitalism and EU
legislation, because every trade union is committed to laissez-faire
global free trade and Britain's membership of the EU. This is
highlighted by the total inability of trade unions to save Rover from
bankruptcy because the EU and international legislation prevented the
British government from nationalising Rover or offering them a loan
because it would fall foul of legislation on subsidies to industry.

Anonymous said...

http://www.forward.com/articles/14148/

Anonymous said...

http://globalfire.tv/nj/09en/religion/abrahamowicz.htm

Anonymous said...

I published this in a recent e-mail to DN supporters and friends under the heading 'Shambolic - isn't it !'

Everyone must be aware of the recent unofficial industrial protests about contractors bringing in foreign workers and the monstrous gaffe Gordon McStalin made speaking about 'British Jobs for British Workers'. The whole issue is getting more serious by the day. McStalin and Mandelson are criticizing the protestors and demanding they obey industrial relations law. That's right, NuLabour Ministers whose Party is heavily funded by the unions are ranting about strikers obeying industrial relations law introduced by . . Thatcher ! Many commentators and MP's particularly the excellent Frank Field are suggesting that this issue is one that will turn many voters to voting Nationalist and that BNP will soon be involved on the picket lines. What is happening in reality ?

At the end of last week a BNP Truck Truck, actually a truck towing a trailer with advertising boards on it appeared at the Lyndsey Refinery where the protests started. It appeared late Friday afternoon, after the pickets had gone home and drove around a car park. How do I know ? Channel 4 News (C4) televised it ! The other channels did not cover it (maybe they went home same time as the pickets ?). On the Monday a single person in an anorak is seen telling pickets he is the 'Wakefield Organiser of the BNP'. This was also on C4 who then showed pickets leaders telling police 'We do not want to be involved with the BNP. Please move him on'.

What the f**k. A truth truck arriving late two days after the protest started ! A single non local BNP member, with no other members supporting him, with no bundle of freshly printed BNP leaflets covering the issues the strikers are protesting about. No members attending from local branches ? No RO's attending ? Collett lives in Leeds, Hannan in Hull, yet neither could get a local printer to print out a relevant leaflet over the weekend !!

There are three possibilities here :

a: BNP are incompetent - couldn't run a piss up in a brewery
Or.
b: Griffin only wants 'events' where he has decided to hold the event, BNP are advertising it, BNP are printing the material for the event, Griffin is lead speaker etc etc. Unofficial protests are not prebooked events by their very nature.
Or.
c: Griffin is away (holiday in Croatia ?). No-one dares to take any initiatives in 'der Fuehrer's' absence. These protests and the issue(s) they are bringing to the fore are an absolute godsend to Nationalism in the UK but Griffin cannot be bothered to disturb himself and take any action.

Ivan the tea drinking yid from Bradford

Anonymous said...

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/02/looks-like-glenrothes-election-was.html

Anonymous said...

There are three possibilities here :

a: BNP are incompetent - couldn't run a piss up in a brewery
Or.
b: Griffin only wants 'events' where he has decided to hold the event, BNP are advertising it, BNP are printing the material for the event, Griffin is lead speaker etc etc. Unofficial protests are not prebooked events by their very nature.
Or.
c: Griffin is away (holiday in Croatia ?). No-one dares to take any initiatives in 'der Fuehrer's' absence. These protests and the issue(s) they are bringing to the fore are an absolute godsend to Nationalism in the UK but Griffin cannot be bothered to disturb himself and take any action.

Ivan the tea drinking yid from Bradford

04 February 2009 17:42


How about the BNP is a state safety valve behaving itself and doing as the state wants?

Richard Chadfield said...

This is
highlighted by the total inability of trade unions to save Rover from
bankruptcy because the EU and international legislation prevented the
British government from nationalising Rover or offering them a loan
because it would fall foul of legislation on subsidies to industry.

04 February 2009 14:11
---------------------------------
let me see. Has'nt our pretend P.M, Gordon Brown, subsidised the banks by several billion pounds and isn't he reported to be considering subsidising them by several billion more pounds? Is'nt it being said that the government may have to nationalise the British banks because they are all insolvant. How come E.U legislation has nothing to say about this? Do special rules apply for the banks? (Yes, of course they do) Why? Because western economies are a scam and the banks are the pillor of that scam. If the banks go the scam goes and so the scammers demand that banks must be maintained--at taxpayer expense of course. Every thinking man and woman should be enraged at the banks being bailed out. Why?
Firstly because banking is a private industry and as such can not ask the public to pay it's debts. (the banks don't share their profits with us do they --but we pay they debts. Is this a SCAM? (Yes it is but it is only a small part of the total scam)
Secondly if the public allow themselves to be made responsible for banks debts then the banks can behave as irresponsibally as they wish secure in the knowledge that the public will pick up their debts and they, the bankers alone, will enjoy the profits.
Thirdly the banks having recieved ,from our joke government, several billion pounds of our money (which should have been spent on services that we need and the gift of which will increase our tax liability) will lend that money back to us and charge us interest on that loan. That is we are being forcefully made to give the banks billions of pounds of our money which the banks will then lend back to us and on which we will then pay the banks interest. We are being made to pay interest to the banks on our own money. Is this A SCAM?
The whole banking system is a usury based scam and we, the public, are the victims. And have no doubt it was designed to be so.
The banks should be left to collapse. Whatever hardships, and there will be many ,consequent upon such a policy , will in my opinion, be worth baring since this is ,again in my opinion, the only way to freedom. Our society is enslaved by and being destroyed by debt otherwise known as usury and in better times shuned.
below is a posting that I made some time ago to another blog site that may be of interest.
**********************************
As someone who has never opened a book on economics I write a few of my thoughts. Constructive critism welcome.
Banking is a centuries old scam. The high street banks lend out, at interest, money that they do not possess. That is they quite literally create the money that they lend. I think I am correct in stating that the banks are permitted ,by law, to lend out ,at interest, ten times the amount of money they have on deposit. The banks create our money and then lend it to us. Wealth is manufactured goods--nothing more.The wealth of the nation increases because of the labour of it's citizens. The citizens by their labour create more goods and ,therefore, more wealth. More money is required to represent this increase in goods. To whome does this new money that must be created belong? It must belong to the citizens since they by their labour created the new goods (wealth) that this money represents. Consequently new money must be created by the government(therefor debt free) --supposedly the elected servants of the citizens--- and 'given' to the citizens without debt. How is this new money 'given' to the citizens? Simply by the government spending the new money on public projects such as new schools, new hospitals, new roads etc. Projects that benefit all citizens. In this way the new money will firstly provide new meterial benefits (schools etc) for the citizens,create more productive work for the citizens (they will be building the new schools , roads etc) and utimately end up in the citizens pockets as wages. There will be additional benefits. Most importantly the governments need to borrow will be vastly reduced, perhaps even terminated. With reduced ,or no, debt to repay taxation can be reduced and the citizens well being again increases. This new money that belongs to the citizens because they, by their labour, created the new goods that it represents is at present created by the banks and then lent to the citizen (government) as interest baring debt. Debt is slavery and it is ment to be such. The banks must be restricted to lending no more than they have on deposit. A futher point. Since banks create our money and since inflation is the result of creating new money out of proportion to new goods created it is the banks that create inflation. Not workers asking for a pay rise
*************************************
As I said I welcome constructive criticism ---which should ,of course, be written in plain English --not jargon.
Constructive criticism can be posted on this blogsite or emailed to richardchadfield@yahoo.co.uk.

Anonymous said...

Richard - I am not an economist - thank God ! I think you will find banks can lend out a multiple of much more than 10 times the amount of funds that they have on deposit. As the recent bank crashes and 'debt writeoff's' show the regulatory authorities (the FSA in this country) permit a much higher ratio. The actual ratio of 'capital reserves' to the amount of money the bank can lend out in a particular loan is set by the FSA and depends (among other things) on the size of the loan, the 'quality' of the debt and the amount of 'cover' such as reinsurance that the bank can get on the debt. As an example if ZYZ Ltd (a company who a bank has never dealt with previously) comes up with a proposed new technology to extract oil from already partly exhausted oil fields and wants £100million to drill a 'trial' hole, this is a dubious poor 'quality' loan and a bank would charge a high interest rate and have to keep high capital reserves to cover it. On the other hand if BAA wants to borrow money towards an airport terminal project this is a 'high' quality loan. Why ? Firstly British Airports Authority has been trading a long time and banks have experience of trading with them. Secondly what if the company 'defaults' on the loan. In the first case the bank would be left with a hole in the ground and some obviously failed technology (and a £100million loss !). In the second case the bank would be able to seize part of an airport terminal if BAA defaulted. The bank would either have guaranteed income: 'airport charges' (on every passenger using the building), 'rent/service charges' on every shop/restaurant in the 'shopping mall'. Of course if the bank didn't want to get involved in day to day management of an airport terminal it could sell the building to one of BAA's competitors and cover the outstanding loan(s).
Sorry to go on at length but this is an explanation of 'required capital ratio's '

Ivan

Anonymous said...

The BNPs lacklustre response to this, with leaflets poorly written, late and full of spelling mistakes is par for the course

Its what collett is paid for, remember,

There have been no special efforts by branches to mobilise over this

RS said...

There are three possibilities here :

a: BNP are incompetent - couldn't run a piss up in a brewery
Or.
b: Griffin only wants 'events' where he has decided to hold the event, BNP are advertising it, BNP are printing the material for the event, Griffin is lead speaker etc etc. Unofficial protests are not prebooked events by their very nature.
Or.
c: Griffin is away (holiday in Croatia ?). No-one dares to take any initiatives in 'der Fuehrer's' absence. These protests and the issue(s) they are bringing to the fore are an absolute godsend to Nationalism in the UK but Griffin cannot be bothered to disturb himself and take any action.

04 February 2009 17:42

The BNP? The Bogus Nationalist Party!

Anonymous said...

'Banking is a centuries old scam. The high street banks lend out, at interest, money that they do not possess. That is they quite literally create the money that they lend. I think I am correct in stating that the banks are permitted, by law, to lend out, at interest, ten times the amount of money they have on deposit. The banks create our money and then lend it to us.'

I'm sorry Richard but they don't. Please consult an economics book.

The money lent gets spent and then becomes a new deposit with the banks to be lent again (unlike you or or me lending).

What is true is that the total volume of cash to loans is then reduced and if the process goes too far the banks can get in trouble. It also means there is scope for excessive lending leading to a crash.

Whatever syatem you have however there can be excessive lending if people get overconfident.

There is no magic cure. There are pluses and minuses.

Too big a subject to do justice in a few lines but one thing I must add.

Under the current system people whose money has been lent can still spend it freely by cheque or card. The reason for that is only a small amount of cash is needed to settle up between the banks with payments and receipts going every whichaway and mostly netting off to little. In that sense you are largely paying with mere entries in an accounts book rather than cash. But the same would apply even if banks merely put your cash in the safe rather than lending it.

There are many deficiencies with the system but some nationalists want to overstate them and pretend there is an easy way out concealed by conspirators.

Anonymous said...

Unite are just pissed because because the workers have got more guts than the people they pay their subs to.

It's about time grassroot Unite members realised that leaders/bosses of Unite and other trade unions are all judas sheep doing the Labour government's bidding while plundering and growing fat feeding on their members' funds/donations.

No doubt when those trecherous judas sheep doing Labours bidding retire or are kicked from post, for their unswerving loyalty to Labour and trechery deserving a hangman's noose, they will be rewarded with Knighthoods, Baronetcies, or a seat in the Lords to milk the system like those four commie Labour Lords who should have all their assets removed then lined-up together against the nearest wall and expeditiously dealt with.

PICTURED: American-Israeli teenager, 19, arrested for making hoax bomb threats against Jewish community centers in the US The unnamed te...