Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Mandy's £21,500 watch: It takes a year to make and drips with gold and diamonds. How VERY New Labour !
Peter Mandelson this week reached out to an important bloc of voters in a bravura conference performance. I mean, of course, that hitherto-untapped reservoir of electoral strength; Britain's community of wristwatch enthusiasts.

Through the wonders of high-resolution digital photography, watch lovers were able to see that, as he walked to the conference, Mandelson was wearing a Patek Philippe watch - and not just any old Patek Philippe but - to give it its full name - a Reference 5146 annual calendar in yellow gold with a dark slate grey dial.

How thrilling to see at last a British politician who is unafraid to brandish a watch that takes more than a year to build and which is powered by the legendary self-winding calibre known as 315 S IRM QA LU. Mandelson is wearing a tiny micromechanical marvel painstakingly assembled from 355 minuscule components.

Reassuring price tag: Peter Mandelson models his Patek Philippe Reference 5146 at the Labour Party Conference - a timepiece worth £21,500

Patek Philippe makes watches for serious collectors. The company was founded in 1839 and Pateks have been worn by Queen Victoria, Albert Einstein, Duke Ellington and Vladimir Putin. So- called 'God's Banker' Roberto Calvi was wearing one when he was found hanging under Blackfriars Bridge in 1982.
Pateks could not be further from the bling of the MTV generation who favour half a kilo of gold and a few carats of diamonds. Instead, a Patek Philippe has all the traditional qualities you would expect of a Swiss watch: accuracy, discretion and a price tag that is perhaps best described as reassuring.
I've visited its factory in Geneva and, while it retains all the artisan craftsmanship you would associate with a master watchmaker, its technology is extraordinary. The workshops are as clean as an operating theatre.

Some of the watches, the minute repeaters, sound the hours, quarters and minutes. But before the chime is considered acceptable, the company's owner, Philippe Stern, listens individually to each one. To ensure he does not reject too many, a computer programme which mimics his ear listens to the watches first.

Patek Philippe watches start at around £10,000; for this you will get the Aquanaut, made of steel and with a rubber strap, or a manually wound yellow gold Calatrava Ref 5199.
One to watch: A Patek Philippe timepiece as sported by Peter Mandelson at conference this week
A watch such as the one worn by Mandelson costs £21,490 - that's with its crocodile- skin strap fastened with a deployant (folding) buckle that closes with a satisfying snap and displays the discreet company emblem of the Calatrava cross, which Patek borrowed from a military order of 12th-century Spanish knights.

But what exactly do you get for your money? Well, the company prefers you to think of a watch as an investment, which will last generations.

Indeed, in its advertising, Patek makes the claim that you never really own one of its watches - you merely look after it for future generations.

The Patek Philippe annual calendar watch that Mandelson wears is so called because it tells the time, the day of the week, the date and the month as well as the phases of the moon; moreover, it is able to discern which months have 30 days and which have 31, so it only needs to be adjusted once a year - at the end of 28-day February.

Super-watch little league: French President Nicholas Sarkozy also wears a Patek Philippe timepiece

Lord Mandelson is not the only European statesman to fall for a Patek. Carla Bruni gave Nicolas Sarkozy a Patek Philippe as her wedding present, and it's a smarter one than Mandelson's - it's a perpetual calendar wristwatch as opposed to an annual one; it not only discriminates between long and short months, but also accounts for February and does not even require adjustment during leap years.

But Sarkozy and Mandelson are, in fact, mere bit players in the super-watch league. Back in Thirties, the American art collector and banker Henry Graves Jr. joined battle with the automobile manufacturer James Ward Packard to own the most complicated watch in the world.

He commissioned Patek Philippe to produce a one-off - the Supercomplication, a pocket watch of yellow gold which took three years to make, secured Henry Graves victory and became the most expensive timepiece ever when it sold for $11million at auction in December 1999. It is now in the Patek Philippe museum in Geneva.

Patek Philippe's most complicated contemporary wristwatch is the Sky Moon Tourbillon Ref 5002, costing around £700,000 (the price fluctuates according to currency movements).

Consisting of 686 parts, it houses a minute repeater mechanism, a perpetual calendar, and, most striking of all, on the back of the watch, a representation of the heavenly vault in the northern hemisphere.
It shows, among other things, the movements of the moon, the stars, as well as the meridian passages of Sirius and the moon; an extra two hands also show ' sidereal' time, which as the people at Patek Philippe will tell you 'is the period of time between two consecutive passages of a fixed star across a certain meridian - its duration averages 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.09892 seconds'; an altogether more elevated system than your common-or-garden 24- hour day.

I find it hard to think of a man who would appreciate this distinction more than Lord Mandelson.

Read more:

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Is this why Griffin 'caved in' so quickly to the Racial Equality Council ?

"Reverting to Gri££in's decision, I am of the opinion that the "challenge" presented to the BNP by the Equalities Commission was a put up job. Gri££in had long since indicated in media interviews that he accepts the imposition of the multi-racial society on Britain as an unalterable 'fait accompli'; and also accepted that that this would lead to miscegenation ("we can put up with a little salt in the soup").

The elements in the Establishment who have been patronising him, especially via media publicity, felt the time had come to nudge him and the BNP further along the path of being a multi-racial pro-Jewish party and so wanted the more than just symbolic change to the party constitution restricting membership to White British and kindred European people.

The establishment's 'stick-and-carrot' donkey-riders knew that Gri££in could not announce such a development himself of his own initiative. That would make his position as leader of the party vulnerable. Too much had been invested in him for him suddently to be kicked off his perch.

Thus the threat of civil litigation was floated by the Equalities Commission so as to give Gri££in to put up a show of resistance to the idea, before surrendering almost days later on account of "legal costs".

The Establishment got what it wanted and Gri££in's blushes were spared. As a special bonus for him, he would not have to spend any of his Euro-dosh on fighting to uphold the cause of British racial survival.

The time, surely, as come to re-name the BNP? I think the following may fit the bill:

"The Pro-Jewish Multi-Racial Nick Gri££in Enrichment Party". "


Dear All,

Firstly, may I ask that readers forward to their lists, or post with any forums or blogs with which they support, this bulletin and the bulletin I issued yesterday on the subject of Nick Gri££in's surrender to the Equalities Commission. I have never before issued bulletins on two consecutive days, but the issue at hand is crucial.

A veteran nationalist who I have known for 47 years has responded to my ELC "Small Circulation Bulletin" of yesterday headed "Gri££in responds to the Establishment's 'Stick and Carrot' management" by e-mailing me as follows:

From: [deleted]
To: Martin Webster
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:35 PM
Subject: Gri££in


I didn't know that he had "done a deal" but I wondered how he was going to handle it.

In my view no court in the country would defend a situation where a political party had to recruit people who were opposed to or did not support that party's stated policies.

I suppose that if there were Jews, or Blacks who claimed to believe in the BNP's racial policies, (if it still has them,) then they could join but only if they publicly advocated repatriation and undertook, as a condition of membership, to be the first to volunteer for it.

Be interesting to see who would want to join under those terms but it would be in line with that party's stated policies, especially if that fact was widely advertised to the membership and general public, wouldn't it? Or is this just me being too clever by half?


My thoughts exactly. When I was approached by at the end of June by a Surrey BNP branch organiser for my views about this threat of litigation against the BNP by the Equality Board, I responded with an e-mail which I run out below as "Appendix". Beyond that, in the light of latest information, I observe:

1) The Nationalist Movement Was Established To Fight, Not to Surrender:

The Nationalist movement was set up to fight against the political and legal impositions of the multi-racialists, not to surrender to them at the first challenge.

The first prosecution against Nationalists under the first (1967) version of the Race Relations Act was DEFEATED because those involved in the production and distribution of 'Sussex News' had the courage to stand and fight and were willing to mobilise themselves and the movement to find the funds to pay for a first class lawyer.

The lady Suffragettes of the late 19th century, in their ultimately successful battle for 'Votes for Women", showed much greater courage, in the face of much greater adversity, than Gri££in is showing. You can't win battles if you don't fight them.

2) The Equality Board's Proposed Legal Action Is Far From Certain Of Success:

The proposed litigation against the BNP by the Equalities Commission is far from certain of victory.

At the core of this matter is the suggestion that a political party may not have a policy which opposes multi-racialism, may not organise itself to advance that policy and to protect its security but on the contrary, must admit persons of other races, who have an obvious vested interest in opposing the policy and who, if allowed to join in great enough numbers, would have the power not only to revoke the founding fundamental belief which brought the party into existence but also to inflict other malicious mischief designed to disintegrate the party and thereby prevent its original members from being able to organise to advance their point of view through a political party.

I do not believe that the courts would hold that a political party must regulate its membership in such a way as to facilitate the admission of persons whose likely intention was to extinguish the party's core beliefs which are not in themselves illegal.

Such a proposition is a clear subversion of democracy. The purpose of a democracy is to allow contending ideas advanced by contending parties to place their ideological wares before the electorate. There is no racial discrimination at the ballot box. Nobody is forced to join any political party. Everybody is free to set up their own political party to advance the views which they hold to be correct.

Thus nobody faces exclusion from the democratic process or political life if they belong to a category of person which is excluded by any particular party. They can join an established party which does not exclude them or, if none of those appeal, they can form their own party. In a sense, the whole of politics is about "discrimination".

3) For Gri££in, It's Not About Principle, but about MONEY

The real reason why Gri££in has decided to surrender is because it would need the BNP to mobilise its finances to fight a great and historic legal battle, in the same way that the National Front did in 1967 to pay for the successful defence of the 'Sussex News' defendants. The NF's founding chairman A.K. Chesterton MC, in addition to appealing to NF members and readers of his magazine 'Candour' for funds, dug deeply into his own pockets.

Part of any funds mobilisation that the BNP would be required to make would necessarily involve Gri££in in showing a lead, as Chesterton did, by devoting some of his very large personal income as a member of the European Parliament (and a part of Andrew Brons' MEP income too!) to that fight.

Perhaps he and Brons could use part of their MEP "expenses" -- as distinct from their salaries -- as well. (They might even try putting down the entire cost of instructing lawyers to fight the case on to their "expenses" as a necessary expenditure. It's worth a punt!)

But Gri££in won't hear of any scheme which would involve HIM in having to dig deep into HIS now lavish income because ultimately he's in politics for THE MONEY, not for any Cause.

He has changed his ideological position and his organisational adherence far too frequently over the years for him to claim that he has any fundamental ideological principle. His record shows that the only "cause" to which he has devoted himself is his own personal career and private enrichment.

Evidence of his cynical greed was seen in a bulletin he issued to his members on 2nd September with appeals for cash (repeated with hyperlinks in every paragraph!) to help fund the battle against the Equalities Commission when he had already made up his mind to surrender to its demands!

A subscriber to that bulletin kindly clicked on the hyperlink marked "Send this to a friend", and so I got it. (Thanks, friend, whoever you are!)

> From: Chairman Nick Griffin M.E.P
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:31 AM
> Subject: Equalities Commission Showdown Starts Today!

Anybody who would like the text of this cynical confidence trickster's appeal has only to e-mail me and request the same.

Gri££in himself dug the hole into which the BNP has been pushed by the Equalities Commission.

Don't forget, when on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme in September 2003 Gri££in said:.......

* The repatriation of Coloured Immigrants was "unfeasible and inhumane";
* Certain ethnic aliens -- West Indians, Africans and Indians (as long as they were Hindu or Sikh -- but not Muslim) would be welcome to stay;
* "We can put up with a little salt in the soup"

.........he abandoned the fight to restore "Britain for the British".

I cited the exact details of this BBC interview in ELC a few years ago. But the BNP membership snored on.

Then he promoted half-Turks, in Greenwich and in Yorkshire, to stand as candidates. I drew attention to this in ELC. But the membership snored on.

Then, of course, he exulted when the Richardson Jews became BNP councillors. I commented on this in ELC. But the membership snored on.

Why did these alien anti-British nationalist lawyers of the Equalities Commission think that the BNP will buckle under their threatened legal action?

Because of the progressively multi-racial dance being led by Gri££in, because they rightly surmised that he is money-mad and wwould not be prepared to expend his Euro-cash on fighting to keep the BNP a white Britons' party -- or Britain a white peoples' country.

So the Equalities Commission knew that they were pushing on an open door. Gri££in only put his shoulder against it for a few moments for display purposes so as to con his stupid-dolt-ignoramus and/or cowardly followers to cough up a bit more cash.

This legal action could have had one good effect. It could have prompted the those among the BNP membership who are not totally brain-dead and/or minus a spine to ask themselves -- and to decide:

"Are we a party of White Britons or are we merely a multi-racial Populist party whose sole purpose is providing cash for the con-man Nick Griffin and his coterie of hangers-on?"

As ever: regards to my friends -- and a murrain on my enemies.

Martin Webster.

P.S.: I have also had a reaction from the author and businessman Ian Henshall whose "Crisis Newsletter" prompted by bulletin of yesterday:

From: Ian Henshall
To: Martin Webster
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Gri££in responds to Stick & Carrot management

Dear Mr Webster,

I didn't take you off my list, I just don't send much out nowadays. I have no problem with you criticising me, I got some useful information from your newsletter, the link to the Telegraph about Israel's office in the BBC was extremely interesting.

I have no idea what your overall political perspective is nowadays, but on the Israel question, where you took issue, I am in the camp that says that although the government of Israel uses its influence highly effectively in many ways and often emotionally blackmails Jewish people into helping them, ultimately they act in the service of Washington and London.

I would concede that I cannot prove this as all important decisions within the elite are taken in secret, so I assume we will never agree.

Ian Henshall

Let's hope Mr. Henshall gets back to more frequent bulletins (in which there was always much useful information) so that however much we may disagree on certain points, there is a mutually useful exchange of facts.


From: Martin Webster
To: [deleted]
Cc: [deleted]
Bcc: [deleted]
Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:07 PM
Subject: Law case for force BNP to take Black/Asian members

Dear P,

I don't see how the Race Act can compel people who have formed a club to serve the interests of a particular category of people, and whose membership has been restricted to that particular category of people, to accept into membership other categories of people who cannot, by definition, share the same interests or objectives as the founding membership for whom the club was set up in the first place. That would seem to be to conflict with a "right of association".

As you suggest, will they force the "Ulster 'Kick the Pope!' Flute-Playing Brotherhood" to admit into membership Roman Catholics, even those who proclaim membership of "Opus Dei" or "Friends of the Inquisition"?

I seem to remember that attempts by white police officers to join the "Black Police Association" were rejected by the leadership and membership of the association. Further, I recollect that the top cops of Scotland Yard and the Home Office let it be known that it would be a very bad career move for any white police officers to follow up the idea of forming a White Police Association. So this whole area (as you know) is a confusion of humbug, hypocrisy, inverted-racialism and political intimidation.

How would the "Black Police Association", "the Southall Indian Workers' Association" and myriad other such associations fare if political parties formed by people who belong to the indigenous ethnic stock of the British Isles ("the ethnic British") for the purpose of serving the interests of the ethnic British were compelled to accept into membership persons from other ethnic groups? The law would have to apply to all unincorporated associations, unless by act of Parliament, political parties contesting for public office were specifically brought into the remit of race relations legislation.

If Parliament passed such a law it would in effect be the state announcing that citizens can only form a political parties if those parties have policies are in accordance with the political objectives of the parties currently in parliament. That would seem to be to be a fundamental contradiction of democracy and of human rights which I don't think would be upheld in the higher British courts and/or such European or international courts to which we have access.

I think this proposal has been dreamed up not such much because its proponents have any realistic hope of getting their case accepted ultimately, but because they know that such a case would have to be fought up through various levels of the High Court, perhaps to the House of Lords, and perhaps onwards to the European Court of Human Rights or wherever else. This would cost a lot of cash and, thus, absorb the cash money Gri££in hopes to conjure out of the European Parliament. That, I think, is the name of the game. The Equalities Commission has access to endless state and cash.

I would have thought that compliance with the aims and objectives of a party would be a party's best defence in the event that it was found to be unlawful (or at some later date, legislated to be unlawful) to restrict the membership of political parties on ethnic grounds.

If at an AGM the membership were to amend the party's constitution along the following lines (I am not a lawyer, so I do not have an exact wording worked out) then the following might prove to be the party's best defence. I find it hard to believe that the courts and/or parliament would feel they had the power to prescribe political parties' policies or aims and objectives. That would be contradictory to the purpose of multi-party democracies.:

"Persons whose ancestry is not wholly of the indigenous ethnic stock of the British Isles or of kindred European ethnic origin may secure membership of the party providing:

"(a) they sign an undertaking that they will within 12 months of joining the party voluntarily remove themselves from the United Kingdom on a permanent basis and resettle themselves in the homeland of their ethnic forebears or, in the event of their ethnic forbears being of differing, mixed or confused ethnic ancestry, to any other state of their choice that will receive them as a resident;

"(b) renounce all claims on the British exchequer other than such contributory pension rights as they may have accrued;

"Full compliance with these terms shall be a necessary condition of membership of the party. Such persons as comply with these terms shall upon their departure from the United Kingdom be granted 'Associate Member' status within the party. Such persons as fail to comply with these terms, for no matter what reason, shall be removed from membership of the party and all rights which pertain thereto and no further application for membership of the party from them will be entertained under any circumstances."

Monday, September 21, 2009

"F*** off white boy", says footballer.

El-Hadji Diouf in ‘race row’ with Blackburn ballboy

El-Hadji Diouf was at the centre of a race controversy last night after a teenage ballboy accused the Blackburn Rovers winger of making a derogatory remark towards him during yesterday’s match against Everton at Goodison Park.

The Senegal player was questioned by Merseyside Police after the game and is likely to be interviewed by them again this week.

“Merseyside Police is investigating an allegation of a 28-year-old man using racist language at the Everton match today at Goodison Park,” a spokesman told The Times. “Inquiries are under way.”

The alleged incident occurred during the early stages of the match when Diouf went to take a throw-in, only for the ballboy to roll the ball away from him.

Words appeared to be exchanged between the pair, prompting an outcry from the Everton fans in the nearby Gwladys Street Stand. It was claimed that Diouf told the youngster to “F*** off, white boy”.

It is not the first time that Diouf has been at the centre of a controversial incident during a match.

In March 2003, while playing for Liverpool, he was accused of spitting at a Celtic fan during a game at Celtic Park in the Uefa Cup. He was charged by police and fined £5,000 after pleading guilty to the offence during a hearing at the Sheriff’s Court in Glasgow.

Diouf was also given a two-match ban by Uefa and fined £5,000 by Liverpool, although he did issue a public apology and invited the supporter to attend the second leg of the tie at Anfield as his personal guest.

In November 2004, while playing for Bolton Wanderers, he spat at Arjan de Zeeuw, the Portsmouth defender, and was banned for three matches by the FA after pleading guilty to a charge of improper conduct.
NWN : Well that's his career over then. The Police will be beating a rapid path to his door. Being a racist is the worst crime ever in our society !

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Freedom for Josue - Libertad para Josue !


On November the 11th 2007 a despicable extreme left-wing crowd entered the Legazpi tube station platform, in Madrid. They had clear intentions: to assault everyone suspicious of being “Spanish patriots” since at the same time, not far from there, it was held a meeting organized by a nationalist Spanish party allowed and legalized by the Government Sub-delegate’s Office. The members of the extreme left-wing and antifascist group only had in mind to storm the said meeting and attack the more people the better. Those were their intentions.While this crowd took up the tube platforms heading to start violent riots, into one of the coaches it was Josue, a young man whose look could be taken as a provocation by the violent extreme left-wingers. Josue noticed immediately the serious risk for his life (a platform full of extreme left-wingers and antifascists looking for a victim). He was alone and outside the coach there were more than 50 people. He resolved to protect his life.The doors opened and the coach was getting full of this despicable crowd. These misfits immediately detected Josue and were ready to attack and lynch him (in a tube CCTV video widespread by mass media you can see, on second 39, one of the extreme left-wingers located in front of the door drawing a brass knuckle; the rest were just laughing and looking daggers at him due to his look). Josue, in spite of he was ready to protect his life, tried to leave the place when all the extreme left-wing group got into the coach. But one of them, Carlos Javier Palomino, blocked the exit door with his arm and started to ask about Josue’s clothes.Many of us know what’s happen next; many people know they’re not going to discuss about the International Socialism virtues or the nationalization of the banks. No. Many of us know the next step is a huge beating, a brass knuckle beating your jaw or your ribs and even a stab. That’s the truth. And Josue resolved he was not going to let them lead him to the hospital and go into a coma; Josue decided he was not going to be another victim, just like Eduardo Garcia Gelber, killed some years ago in Barcelona by an extreme left-wing group under similar circumstances. No, Josue resolved to protect his life.It doesn’t matter if Josue was into a certain kind of ideology or not. If he liked football or bullfighting. Josue was quietly travelling by tube, ALONE. And he was harassed by 50 enraged antifascists who had only one motivation that morning: to face “fascism” violently.Please, spread the truth of this case. Don’t let the information manipulation, the mass media trial Josue is facing and the hypocrisy displayed by Madrid extreme left-wing has no coverage among your acquaintances (relatives, friends, workmates…). They are playing with the life of a man who simply did what a good person would have done in his place: DEFEND HIS LIFE.¡¡JUSTICE FOR JOSUE!! ¡¡FREEDOM FOR JOSUE!! ¡¡DEFENDING YOUR LIFE IS NOT A CRIME!!

Thursday, September 17, 2009


Shajjadar Choudhury at court
SIX men appeared before magistrates yesterday accused of hurling abuse at British soldiers during an anti-war demonstration by Muslims.

They are alleged to have been threatening and abusive during a Royal Anglian Regiment march to mark the end of a six-month stint fighting in Iraq.

Banners bearing slogans like “Baby killers” and “Butchers of Basra” were waved during the procession through Luton, Beds.

In court yesterday were Jalal Ahmed, 21, Yousaf Bashir, 29, Jubair Ahmed, 19, Ziaur Rahman, 32, Shajjadar Choudhury, 31, and Munim Abdul, 28.

They denied using threatening or abusive words or behaviour and causing harassment alarm and distress at the protest on March 10.

The court in Luton was told a seventh defendant should have appeared alongside them but was unable to attend because his wife had gone into labour.

Ibrahim Anderson, 32, the absent defendant, also denies the charge, the court was told. All seven defendants live in Luton and are due to stand trial in January.

ACCUSED: Yousaf Bashir, Munim Abdul and Jalal Ahmed

The charge was brought under Section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1986.

Barrister Paul Harrison, prosecuting on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, said a trial involving the seven was likely to last five days.

He said that during the trial the prosecution would be playing video footage taken during the protest on March 10.

District Judge Caralyn Mellanby was told that the defence teams for the men would also be playing video footage.

All seven were granted bail until January 4 and they left court without commenting.

Yesterday’s appearance came less than a week after two other men appeared in the same court on charges relating to the disturbance.

On Friday Bryan Kelso, 27, and Kevin Carroll, 40, both of Luton, pleaded not guilty to causing harassment, alarm, or distress.

Both men were released on unconditional bail and will go on trial on November 23.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Jack Straw to take on Griffin

Gordon Brown wants Jack Straw to take on BNP on Question Time

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is being touted behind the scenes in the Labour Party as the man to take on Nick Griffin, the unsavoury leader of the British National Party, on Question Time after the BBC decided to allow him the oxygen of publicity on the programme.

Officially, Labour is now "reviewing" its policy of never fielding members to debate with representatives of the racist party. Gordon Brown is, I am told, taking a personal interest in the issue and favours Straw, a lawyer by training, as the man to take on Griffin.
"We have to put up a heavyweight, otherwise we will be accused of giving Griffin too easy a time of it," whispers my man at Labour Party headquarters.

Still, there is a danger that Griffin may throw back at Straw the comments he made about Islamic veils in 2006.

The Blackburn MP described them as a "visible statement of separation and difference" and called on women to cease wearing them. This allegedly led to ugly instances of yobs pulling veils off Muslim women in streets.


Jack Straw History:

In another ruling today the committee found Justice Secretary Jack Straw guilty of a "clear, albeit inadvertent, breach" of donation rules for not registering a donation for a dinner to celebrate 25 years as an MP.
The strongly-worded report states: "We are surprised and disappointed that, of all Members, Mr Straw should have broken the rules.
"Mr Straw is an experienced Member - indeed, the incident that led to the complaint was a celebration of his 25 years in the House.

The brother of the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, was convicted yesterday of indecently assaulting a friend's 16-year-old daughter after inviting himself to her house.
The brother of the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, was convicted yesterday of indecently assaulting a friend's 16-year-old daughter after inviting himself to her house.
William Straw, an Open University administrator, had pleaded not guilty at Nottingham magistrates' court to assaulting the girl in April when she was alone at her home in the city.
But after hearing evidence from the girl that Mr Straw asked to see her bedroom before rubbing his hands on her hips, the district judge, Peter Nuttall, found him guilty and fined him £750 plus £275 in court costs. Straw will be placed on the sex offenders register for five years.
The conviction is a further embarrassment to the Home Secretary who is overseeing a government crackdown on sex offenders. In December 1997, Jack Straw's son, also called William, was cautioned by police after he sold cannabis to an undercover reporter while aged 17. In July, the Home Secretary's chauffeur-driven car was stopped by Avon and Somerset police doing an alleged 103mph.

New plans to strengthen the law on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity were announced by Justice Secretary Jack Straw today.
These three types of crime are covered by the International Criminal Court Act 2001. But the UK cannot currently prosecute under the Act those who committed such crimes before that year.

To allow for prosecutions of earlier crimes, Mr Straw said the government has now decided to extend the law so those suspected of committing genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity since 1 January 1991 can be prosecuted in the UK.

Vetoing Freedom of Information Act requests

In February 2009, it came to light that Jack Straw controversially uses his powers as Justice Secretary to veto publication of government documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act: in particular, those pertaining to early government meetings concerning the (back then, forthcoming) Iraq War. This move prevented the British public from discovering the government's motivation for the war amidst claims that the move constituted an effort to save face for Straw's colleagues in the upper echelons of the Labour Party rather than anything in the public's interest. The documents will not be openly available to the British public for nearly 30 years.

Saturday, September 05, 2009

Muslims Attack UAF

An Invitation to the English Defence League

Indeed, Allah (SWT), the One true God, sent the Final Messenger Muhammad (SAW) and the Qur'an as a guidance for all mankind, providing detailed rules on how to regulate the affairs of society. These divine rules are collectively known as the Shari'ah, and are capable of solving all of the ills of society that mankind currently faces.

For the past four months, Islam4UK have successfully launched Islamic Roadshow's up and down the United Kingdom, providing the British community with a unique opportunity to experience the exquisite beauty of the Shari'ah. The latest roadshow, in Woolwich south London, which took place on Saturday 29th August 2009, was particularly fruitful, and effectively demonstrated why the Shari'ah is needed to aid burgeoning problems such as poverty, racism and general corruption.

In light of this, we have recently seen the emergence of a new organisation called, ‘The English Defence League'. On their website they describe themselves as an organisation that,

"...has been formed by English people who are tired of our government letting terrorists preach murder on our streets. It is not an act of fascism to oppose terrorists and the Shari'ah."

As misinformed as they may be about Islam, recent events have also shown that they are being poorly represented in the public arena by various media outlets; incorrect comparisons have been drawn between its members and those from among the British National Party, who are known for their particularly racist views and consequently, we felt it necessary to clarify the reality of the English Defence League to help elucidate the correct method in dealing with a party, which essentially are against those individuals who wish to implement the Shari'ah of Allah (SWT) here in Britain.

One such organisation, which has played a large role in distorting the reality of the English Defence League, is the Unite Against Fascism party. The UAF (Unite Against Fascism) party, who in an attempt to gain popular support among the British community, have taken it upon themselves to hijack protests led by members of the English Defence League to further their own socialist led policies, in a typical ‘underdog' themed campaign.

As a result of this clear distortion, which they are fully aware of, we call upon the UAF to cease such baseless demonstrations regarding an organisation that clearly has nothing to do with them; we also call upon those so-called Muslim members of UAF, to hastily review their positions before it is too late, as it is clear that such membership is in direct opposition to the Deen of al-Islam.

As far as the English Defence League is concerned, indeed we are aware of your demonstrations against our aspirations to transform Britain into an Islamic State, and we would like to invite you to a constructive debate to discuss the reality of British law and its suitability to govern the masses.

We would also like to clarify many of the misconceptions you have about the Shari'ah, which unfortunately, as you yourselves have experienced (at the hands of UAF), has been heavily distorted by the media and other deceitful organisations.

Verily, we believe that it is only Almighty God who should be followed, worshipped and obeyed, and we challenge you to prove otherwise.

Friday, September 04, 2009

Muslims Attack ANTIFA

Blackout fears

Blackout fears after power station strikes loom over 'British jobs for British workers'

Britain risks fuel shortages and power cuts following a decision by workers at some of the country's biggest oil refineries and power stations to strike.

The action is the latest offensive by British workers who are angry that employers have opted to bus in cheap foreign labour rather than use locals.

The GMB union claims there is backing for industrial action from its members at seven key locations across the country, including plants run by BP and Shell.

Separately, workers who are members of the Unite union are expected to vote in favour of industrial action.

Any blockade of refineries could bring shortages of petrol and diesel at petrol station forecourts within a few days.

The dispute is the latest evidence of a widening campaign by workers and unions who are demanding that British jobs should go to British workers.

Earlier this year, workers staged a series of unofficial walkouts earlier this year at sites including the Lindsey oil terminal in North Lincolnshire, which is run by Total of France.

Read more:

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

BNP faces member rule court case

A legal case about ethnic restrictions on the British National Party's membership is due in court later.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission has issued proceedings against BNP leader Nick Griffin and two party officials.

It claims the party's policy of limiting its membership to "indigenous Caucasian" people is illegal.
The party has called the action a "pathetic attempt" by the commission to divert attention from its own problems.

According to the EHRC, the party's membership criteria appeared to be restricted to those within certain ethnic groups and to white people, which it says is contradictory to the Race Relations Act.

The BNP has said it intends to clarify the word "white" on its website and that the commission has brought the action "at the behest of the Labour Party".

The case will be heard at Central London County Court.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
The Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. It also "emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations". It "prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples", and it "promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development".

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

BNP Membership Leak Case

Ex-BNP man fined over 'names' blog
(UKPA) – 34 minutes ago
A former member of the British National Party has been fined £200 after he admitted releasing membership details online.
Matthew Single, 37, formerly of Brinsley, Nottinghamshire, admitted disclosing the names, addresses and occupations of some 12,000 members in a blog on the internet.
The charges were dropped against his wife, Sadie Graham-Single.
Graham-Single, 30, a recruitment consultant who has one 14-month-old child with her husband and is expecting twins, was not at Nottingham Magistrates' Court.
District Judge John Stobart also ordered Single to pay £100 towards the cost of the prosecution.
The judge added: "It came as a surprise to me, as it will to many members of the party, that to do something as foolish and as criminally dangerous as you did will only incur a financial penalty. It comes as no surprise to me that somebody to do with an organisation that prides itself on Britishness is in fact living off the British people on Job Seeker's Allowance and that is why the fine is so low as to be ridiculous."
Single, an unemployed engineer, was accused last November of leaking the BNP's membership list in an online blog. It contained the names, addresses and contact details of some 12,000 party members. Among those names were current and former servicemen, teachers, doctors and a police officer.
Wife Graham-Single was also accused at the time but the charges against her were dropped. The court heard that the couple had relocated to the south of England and the judge upheld an order preventing their new address being released.
BNP spokesman John Walker said some of the party's members were now considering civil cases against Single and his wife. Mr Walker added: "There have been some real victims in this case. People had their homes attacked and some people have lost their jobs."
It is understood the maximum sentence Single could have received would have been a £5,000 fine.

Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

Ex-prisoners and dissidents share in €333m EU peace cash bonanza 1 Fruits of peace: From left, Sinn Fein's Pearse Doherty, its...