NEW YEAR’S MESSAGE from NICK GRIFFIN.

 “We’re the ones who modernised the BNP – and we’re the ones who intend to keep it modernised.”

“The Griffin clique makes the BNP unelectable.” Needless to say, this isn’t exactly a new smear, nor is it one traditionally only directed at me; as mainstream commentators such as Peter Hitchens and Richard Littlejohn have pointed out so often, smear-words such as ‘Nazi’ and ‘fascist’ have been routinely thrown by the liberal-left at anyone who has warned of the dangers of mass immigration over the last forty years.

What is new, however, is that I’ve recently been called this by a group  of individuals who claim publicly to be mainstream nationalists, but who privately are ‘hardliners’ who loath our paper ‘Freedom’ because it is ‘soft’, who hate BNP members who happen to be Jewish, and who are bitterly hostile to Dave Hannam’s Great White Records operation precisely because it is moving nationalist music on from the grim, raucous, counter-productive hatred of the old neo-Nazi Blood & Honour scene with which they still associate.

A few of the small group currently attacking people like me and Mark Collett on account of things we said or wrote more than a decade ago in my case, or when he was no more than a boy in Mark’s, possibly genuinely believe that we haven’t changed. Most, however, are perfectly well aware of the fact that the real extremists who still infest and discredit the fringes of the British nationalist movement are at present heavily involved in an attempt to work with the far-left (shades of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact!) to discredit the BNP in general and me in particular. If one looks at their blogs, for example, nowadays one can hardly see any difference in the smears between them and those of the far left. Interesting.

Why is this? Why am I so hated by the Blood & Honour skinheads who Kenny Smith and Sadie Graham invite to their ‘socials’, want to bring back into the party, and use to try to intimidate decent nationalists? Because they once believed I was one of them ideologically and spiritually, and have quietly fought me and the other genuine modernisers every inch of the way as we’ve sought to remodel the BNP and make it electable.

Behind the scenes, their little group kicked up a huge fuss when I refused to kick out Lawrence Rustem because his father was a Turkish Cypriot.  Lawrence is now a very well-respected BNP councillor, but they still want him out. The allies of the phoney ‘modernisers’- individuals who have been shown on television as grown men ‘sieg-heiling’ as little as two years ago, in displays of seriously politically suicidal moronicism - tried to force me to sack Martin Wingfield several years ago for the ‘crime’ of quoting in Freedom press coverage of a northern BNP council candidate saying that he wasn’t a racist and loved his mixed-race grandchildren.

Precious diversity

Now, I have done more than anyone else to establish the ‘BNP line’ that holds passionately that human cultural and genetic diversity is as precious as the diversity of the rest of the natural world, and should be preserved, which leads us to reject racial integration and to have far more in common with black separatists such as the younger Muhammed Ali than with liberal-capitalist promoters of miscegenation.

But there is a world of difference between holding as we do that people of goodwill of all races and cultures should preserve our God-given differences through mutually agreed separation, and the brutal and politically disastrous hatred exhibited by the ‘14 Words’ cultists when they describe the unfortunate young victims of propaganda-induced racial integration as ‘muds’ and want to expel a grandfather from the BNP because his grown-up daughter fell in love with an African.

Yes, I expect almost everyone (non-whites included) reading this will agree with me that we wouldn’t want to see it in our own families, but to claim that the Party or the State has the right to interfere in private affairs of the heart displays all too clearly the fanatical intolerance produced by the very un-British totalitarianisms of the bloody 20^th Century. Totalitarianisms of which the worst examples were Hitler and Stalin, whose heirs are now in league running various smear websites to do down the modernised BNP - and those of us who created it.

The cultists’ anger against me and the mainstream BNP grew even greater when Pat Richardson stood for us in Epping Forest and became our first ever Jewish councillor. According to them Pat shouldn’t even be in the party, let alone be one of our biggest council group leaders.

Nazi Militant Tendency

The final straw for this ultra-right Militant Tendency within and on the fringes of the BNP came in March 2006. Concerned about the influence of cranky neo-Nazi conspiracy theories on the Internet, and in an effort to rid the British nationalist movement for good of the taint of Nazism, I published online a ground-breaking article: By their fruits (or lack of them) shall you know them. Read it here.

The introduction set the tone: “If the neo-cons didn’t have the ‘world-Jewish conspiracy’ theorists to hamstring patriotic opposition to their war, they’d have to invent them. Nick Griffin warns against a monumental blunder.”

It was this article more than any other which convinced the neo-Nazi Militant Tendency that unfortunately still lurked in the British nationalist movement that “Griffin must go”, and that they must seek out any conceivable allies, ranging from the far-left to gullible populists, in their bid to pull off a ‘coup’ against not just me but also against the spirit of the BNP’s constitution and the clearly expressed views of the Voting Members at two successive conferences.

Despite having been written nearly two years ago, the article is as relevant as ever, and I urge even those who read it at the time to take the time to re-read it once again. It should have been on our site permanently already but our former web editor, after only publishing it under pressure from me, twice secretly ‘spiked’ the article. Thus the most serious attempt to put behind us the mutually supporting vicious circle of gentile anti-Semitism and Jewish hostility to gentile nationalism since NF founder AK Chesterton published his ‘The Tragedy of Anti-Semitism’ was repeatedly sabotaged by an individual now running an anti-BNP blog propagating the myth that I stand in the way of modernising the BNP.

But at least, by reading the whole of my article that so angered them and their Nazi thug allies, and which so alarmed the Searchlight Zionists who make such a good living out of nationalist anti-Semitism, you will understand what this is really all about: This is a battle for the heart and soul of the British National Party, and perhaps even of nationalism in the entire English-speaking world.

While some of us do indeed have ‘extremist’ pasts, the point is that they are truly in the past, and that we’ve done something truly extraordinary in not just moving on personally, but in bringing the vast bulk of a once institutionally extreme movement with us and into a new era of genuine, principled modernism.

On the other hand, a small clique (relentlessly backed by the far-left) has been plotting behind the scenes to use lies, character assassination and deceit to hijack the BNP and drag it back into an ugly past of mythical ‘Jewish conspiracies’, juvenile cross-burnings and crude race hate.

Meanwhile, someone within the same clique has now provided (sold?) the addresses of an unknown number of BNP members to an openly neo-Nazi outfit to send them advertising material for clearly illegal and deeply disgusting extremist propaganda. To those decent BNP members who have in the last couple of days received unsolicited mailshots from one Simon Shepherd I can only apologise and urge them to consign the filth to the bin. Shepherd is the hardcore and unreconstructed extremist who set up and ran John Tyndall’s Spearhead website, and will no doubt have taken malicious delight at the thought of disturbing decent people’s New Year’s Eve with his political pornography. Greater proof of the bad faith of the Smith/Graham/Blake gang, and - apart from our former web editor’s hacking of the private email accounts of national and local BNP officials - a greater betrayal of the trust that was placed in them, it is hard to imagine.

Fortunately, the moment their plotting was uncovered and exposed, they lost not just that battle but the entire war. We are now in the mopping up phase, with a whole team of loyal people working hard not just to return things to ‘normal’ but to improve things (as regular visitors to this site will already have seen over the last couple of weeks) and actively seeking to learn lessons from last year’s near brush with disaster so as to ensure that our new organisation is even stronger and more stable than before.

And, meanwhile, we’re pressing on with the vital tasks for the New Year - particularly organising to win in London in May. That’s why BNP activists from all over the country will be joining our hard-working colleagues in our capital city on our first Weekend of Action on 19^th - 20^th January. I hope to see you there - working to push the electable, modern, moderate, principled British National Party to another record high on our long road to the summit of power that we must scale to save our land and our people.

May 2008 be our best year ever, rid of elements who have sought to hold us back, and filled with the promise of electoral breakthroughs which will see our beloved country pulled back from the brink.  I wish you and yours the very best for the New Year.

Nick Griffin

Leader, British National Party.

Share

Birmingham Never Used To Be Like This!

There are still many people around who remember “inner-city” Birmingham from the days it was a respectable British working class area where people found honest employment in manufacturing - particularly in the motor industry, whose streets were safe to walk after dark and where priests experienced no problems in celebrating Christmas Midnight Mass.

But those days are long gone thanks to the “social-engineers” of the Lib-Lab-Con parties and the largely foreign owned “local” and national media. Today’s “inner-city” Birmingham is a place where drug crime, augmented by firearms and knives, thrives - where the indigenous British working class are a declining minority and where priests fear to conduct Christmas Midnight Mass for fear of assault upon themselves or their dwindling congregations.

In short it is a typical multicultural society - the sort of society that its Lib-Lab-Con-media creators hold up as something to be proud of!

Those of us who remember “old” Birmingham don’t feel any sense of pride over what has been done to our city - only a mixture of anger and shame.

To illustrate what we mean we draw readers attention to a story in today’s Birmingham media that begins:-

EXTRA police patrols have been drafted in across Birmingham’s Aston area after a man was stabbed to death less than a mile from the spot of the notorious New Year shootings.

Victim Leon Francis, a 24-year-old convicted armed robber, was believed to be a prominent member of the Johnson Crew (editor: described by IC Birmingham as one of “Birmingham’s most ruthless and prolific black criminal gangs.”)

pme of the  who went by the streetname of ‘Trickster’ or ‘Trix’. He was stabbed to death outside Ruskin Hall social club, in Victoria Road, Aston, shortly after 3am on Thursday.

Detectives from West Midlands Police’s major investigation unit today appealed for calm in the inner-city suburb and said extra officers were patrolling the beat.

The murder comes five years - almost to the day - since teenagers Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis were gunned down at a New Year’s party in Birchfield Road, Aston, in a shooting between rival gangs the Johnson Crew and Burger Bar Boys.

It is also just days after a 33-year-old man was shot dead outside the King of the Road pub, in Hospital Street, in nearby Newtown, at 7.45am on December 23.

Share

Another Labour Lie Nailed - British Jobs Are For Foreign Workers!

When the BNP first suggested that migration, particularly from Eastern Europe, was reducing wage pressure, thereby gradually depressing the incomes of working families, the Establishment media and politicians called it “BNP scare mongering”. When we said migrant workers were taking the jobs of British workers, the Labour Party and the Labour Party supporting unions claimed it was all “BNP lies”! However research from the House of Commons Library proves once and for all that the BNP has been right – once again – all along!

According to a media report:

“Half a million fewer Britons are in work following the unprecedented influx of migrants from Eastern Europe, it was disclosed last night. MPs said the figure demolishes the Government’s claim to be providing ‘British jobs for British workers’. Research by the independent House of Commons Library found that 24,473,000 people of working age born in the UK held jobs in 2003 – the year prior to the expansion of the EU. But the figure has now fallen to 23,948,000, a dramatic cut of 525,000 in the size of the home-grown workforce.”

The media report also states:

“… the key figure is the fall in the percentage of the UK’s working-age population who have jobs – down from 75.7 per cent in 2003 to 75.2 per cent in 2007. It dispels the Government’s claim that immigrants are not taking jobs from British workers, but filling gaps left by a reduction in the size of the British-born workforce. Instead, the figures suggest that a larger number of Britons of working age are finding themselves out of jobs.”

Clearly the Labour regime doesn’t give a hoot for the livelihoods of British working people – its overriding concern is providing an endless stream of cheap foreign labour for its friends and backers in The City.

A related article can be found here .

Share

England & Wales Cannabis Production News Summary 15th - 30th December

The following are just some of the news reports from the past two weeks concerning illegal cannabis production in England and Wales. We have attempted to delete all duplicate reports and as not all news reports make it to the Intranet, there are clearly many reports that could be added to this tally for the period concerned.

In addition, sharp-eyed readers may spot a pattern!

Milton Keyne News: 27 December. “Cannabis farms grow across city . . . During the last 12 months Thames Valley Police has seen a marked increase in Vietnamese linked cannabis houses.”

BBC Berkshire: 27 December: “Thames Valley Police, said there had been a “marked increase in Vietnamese-linked cannabis houses.”

Maidenhead Advertiser: 27 December: “Chief Constable George Wilson, said: “During the last 12 months, Thames Valley Police has seen a marked increase in Vietnamese linked cannabis houses.

Newbury Weekly News: 27 December. “Vietnamese drug barons moving into Thames Valley after drug downgraded, says top officer”.

IC Wales: 26 December: “Police appealed for help after a Vietnamese teenager, who was brought before magistrates in Neath to face charges of growing more than 160 cannabis plants.”

This Is Lancashire: 26 December: “A POLICE hunt is underway for a Vietnamese illegal immigrant accused of supervising a £100000 cannabis factory in Blackburn.”

Oxford Mail: 25 December: “Vietnamese drug growers have moved on from Oxfordshire after police seized about £750000 worth of cannabis this year.”

Asian Week: 25 December: “Vietnamese marijuana producers are springing up in the United States, Canada and the UK.”

Northampton Chronicle: 24 December: “Two Vietnamese men have been jailed for their involvement in running a £90000 makeshift cannabis factory from a Northampton home.”

Basingstoke Gazette: 23 December: “He comes from a respected family in Vietnam. His father is a university professor and his mother works for the city council.”

Jamaica Observer: 22 December: “it is also associated with illegal Vietnamese immigration. Nobody knows how they came to dominate commercial cannabis- growing in Britain.”

Lancashire Evening Post: 20 December: “A desperate mum-of-two who was lured thousands of miles from Vietnam to Lancashire by a “Mr Big” has been locked up for cultivating cannabis.”

BBC News: 20 December: “This way of growing cannabis was invented by the Vietnamese and they now control an estimated 60% of the UK’s cannabis supply.”

IC. Birmingham: 20 December: “a 45-year-old Vietnamese man had been arrested in connection with last night’s raid. carried out at about 7pm by a team of officers”.

Times Online: 19 December: “most cannabis consumed in the UK is grown on our shores in an industry often controlled by Vietnamese cultivators.”

Reading Evening Post: 17 December: “TWO Vietnamese illegal immigrants who helped cultivate 700 cannabis plants at a house in Purley have been jailed.”

This Is London: 15 December: “neighbours reported spotting two young Vietnamese men running away. Commercial cannabis cultivation just like this is everywhere.”

Peterborough Evening Telegraph: 15 December: “Ho made full admissions to the charge of producing cannabis, telling police she was paying back a debt owed to her Vietnamese smugglers.”

Epoch Times: 13 December: “After dominating the illegal cannabis trade in Canada, Vietnamese gangs have filtered over to Britain.”

South Wales Evening Post: 12 December: “Judge has ordered the deportation of two illegal immigrants from Vietnam who were involved in growing cannabis in Port Talbot.”

Share

Rickets, Burkas and Public Health Expenditure

According to the Department of Health, rickets, a disease long associated with poverty, malnutrition and lack of exposure to sunlight, is becoming increasingly common among children in Asian, African-Caribbean and Middle Eastern communities across England.
.
Doctors widely believed the disease, which was commonplace in Victorian England, to have been all but eradicated in Britain some fifty years ago. Now Health Authorities are reporting a resurgence in some ethnic minority groups – with the DoH claiming: “Incidence of the disease could be as high as one in 100 children in ethnic minority groups.”

This latest revelation on the upsurge in rickets follows a report in a Birmingham newspaper from last year that claimed:

“Better nutrition and improved health led experts to believe that it had died out in the 1980s. But the tradition of Muslim women wearing burkas is thought to have contributed to its recent resurgence. A spokesman for the Heart of Birmingham Primary Care Trust, which is heading the campaign, said: “Anecdotal evidence suggests that mothers and babies from some minority ethnic communities may be more affected. “This is because women traditionally do not expose their skin to sunlight.”

And, of course, combating the return of this disease is as much an educational issue as it is a medical one, both coming at a price to the public purse!

Today’s report may be read: here .

The Birmingham report may be read: here .

Share

DWP budget not signed off by Audit Office

 

The UK Audit Office has not signed off the UK Works and Pensions budget since before Nu Labour came into Office - and nobody told us!

On November 10th this year, the ‘Taxpayers Alliance’ sent a letter addressed  to  five West Midlands MEP’s, (Michael Cashman MEP, Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP,  Neena Gill MEP, Liz Lynne MEP, and Mike Nattrass MEP),  expressing concerns over monies from UK taxpayers being given to the EU, when the EU’s accounts have not been signed off for the last 12 years.

Only one of those MEP’s replied to the letter - Philip Bushill-Matthews.

The Lib/Dem MEP’s didn’t respond.  No doubt because they collectively refuse to accept that there are any problems within their beloved EU.

The UKIP MEP didn’t respond.  Given the subject matter, one would have though a response would have been forthcoming  - but no!

Clearly this pseudo defender of Britain (Mike Nattrass) was, as per usual, asleep on the job, and unfit for purpose!

In his reply, Mr Bushill-Matthews, made a most interesting comment (a comment, that upon reflection, he probably wishes he’d not written, for it is more than a little embarrassing to his ‘Leader’, ‘Call em Dave’ Cameron).

This comment, which is not directly connected to the original questions on the EU accounts, is of far more immediate importance!  For it demonstrates just how the political/media establishment in this country works hand in glove to ensure that you only learn what they want to to learn!

The comment in question:

“…it is curious that while our own UK Audit Office has not signed off the UK Works and Pensions budget for any single year since Labour came to power, this never seems to hit any headlines…”

Curious indeed!

No, it’s more than curious, it’s outrageous! 

Outrageous that it hasn’t been reported and outrageous that it has been allowed to happen.

Can any fair minded person really believe that of the very many financial analysts within the UK media, not even one of them spotted this appalling state of affairs?  Of course not!

And why haven’t our so called ‘opposition parties’ at Westminster not asked, year in year out for an explanation?

The Tories?  Undoubtedly because this particular piece of ‘bad news’ originated back when they were last in power - but the Lib/Dems?  What’s their excuse?

Could it be that because they are also part of the cosy Westminster troika, they, not wanting to rock the boat, also preferred that you remained in the dark?

Well, you know now!  So ask your MP, the journalists on your favourite newspaper, and the pundits on the TV news shows, why they’ve not reported on this long running scandal!  A scandal which is clearly more than on a par with the party funding scandals, with which we are all too familiar!

Together, we really must try and find out just how many other financial skeletons are lurking in the cupboards of Nu Labour!

If you are privy to such information, don’t sit on it,  pass it to the BNP, and we’ll make sure that your story gets out!

 The full correspondence referred to above may be read via this link

http://tpa.typepad.com/campaign/2007/11/eu-accounts-whi.html

Share

“Political Failure” is the Cause of Public Risk from Early Release System – British Medical Association

  The public is being put at risk from drug addicts and mentally ill offenders released from prison without treatment, doctors leaders have warned. According to the British Medical Association (BMA), a year of “political failure” has left people vulnerable to the effects of an inadequate system.

Prison doctors who are members of the BMA have called for a raft of new measures to tackle the growing problems. They said 2007 had been a year of continuous crisis for the English and Welsh system. Overcrowding in prisons led to the Government to introduce a range of measures this year, including the early release of more than 11,000 inmates. (Is it a coincidence that just more than 11,000 prisoners in the British jail system are of “foreign” origin, according to the government’s own figures?)

Many of those being freed are let out without treatment for their problems. Dr Redmond Walsh, a prison doctor in London and member of the BMA’s Civil and Public Services Committee, said: “An estimated two thirds of prisoners who enter custody are drug dependent and seven out of 10 have one or more psychological disorders.

“The priority for the prison system after custodial punishment should therefore be to treat individuals, where possible, so that when they are released they are no longer a threat to themselves or the community. “However, this responsibility is being neglected in many areas of the country.”

“Many prisons are currently swamped by illegal narcotics - a situation that makes it close to impossible to wean some prisoners off their habit or protect susceptible prisoners from becoming addicts. “The UK’s appalling re-offending rate, where two thirds of prisoners commit a crime within two years of release, is clear evidence of this terrible failure.”

“Political failure” - that is the code phrase for Labour once again ignoring the rights of the British people. Doubtless they will claim that “there is not enough money” for such a programme, but all British people are aware that this same Labour government has spent more than £4 billlion on the illegal and immoral Iraq War, while denying British people proper services at home.

There is a word for such “political failure” - it is called treason.

Share

Politically correct ‘non jobs’

Politically correct ‘non jobs’ cost the taxpayer £600million a year

 Gordon Brown promised three years ago to cut non-essential jobs - he lied!

Evidence of his deceit is all too clearly explained in a report from the ‘Tax Payers Alliance’

Indeed, you may be surprised to know that Politically correct ‘non-jobs’ - 15,700 of them, costing the taxpayer almost £600million have been advertised in the past year.

All 15,700 posts were offered by local councils and quangos, and advertised in the Guardian newspaper’s controversial ‘Jobzilla’ Society section.

These posts pay an average salary of £38,000 – a fifth more than in the private sector!

Examples range from a community empowerment network programme manager at Thurrock Council in Essex – paying almost £30,000 – to assistant chief executive (value for money) at Charnwood Borough Council in Leicestershire.

The latter post – supposed to save the taxpayer money – pays £55,000 a year.

In November alone, Hackney Council and the East London NHS Foundation Trust each offered three separate equality and diversity jobs paying £39,030 each – a total salary bill of more than £225,000.

The phenomenon, which has continued despite a promise by Gordon Brown three years ago to cut non-essential posts, was branded Jobzilla after the all-devouring screen monster Godzilla.

Peter Cuthbertson, research fellow for the TPA, said: ‘The public sector is clogged with these ridiculous jobs, draining huge amounts of resources away from essential activities.

“It’s insulting to expect taxpayers who struggle to meet the taxman’s demands to foot the bill for unnecessary roles.”

Every Wednesday, the Guardian’s Society supplement fills its 40 to 50 pages with adverts for public sector jobs.

The TPA said that, over the past 12 months, 15,678 jobs have been offered by councils and Government bodies, with a total salary bill of £585million.

The final cost to the taxpayer will be even higher when the cost of advertising the posts is factored in.

Each council spends an average of £394,000 a year on job adverts. Across the country, the total spend would be £185million.

The salaries paid for the ‘non-jobs’ are described as ’staggering’ by the TPA.

The average full-time position on offer in the Guardian’s pages is £38,508, which is £7,606 more than in the private sector.

The benefits listed range from a ‘£3,053 location allowance’ to a ‘£1,000 essential car user allowance’ and a £675 environmental allowance.

Some of the job descriptions are vague or meaningless, according to the TPA.

The advert for Charnwood’s assistant chief executive (value for money) says: “We emphatically don’t want a one-off, cost-cutting approach; instead, you’ll create a mainstream culture of asking the right questions, persuading people to embrace the issue of VfM rather than avoiding it.”

The TPA’s annual non-jobs report said: “We would have thought a cost-cutting approach was exactly what was needed!”

TPA spokesman Tim Aker said: “It’s now inexcusable for anyone to say tax cuts mean fewer frontline services.

“Each non-job representing bureaucratic, politically correct council over-staffing is taxpayers’ money diverted from essential services.

“Taxpayers should demand lower tax bills and an end to these non-jobs.”

Earlier this year, the TPA revealed the number of council ‘fat cats’ earning salaries of more than £100,000 has risen by a third, up to 578 in 2005-2006, from 429 in the previous year.

The full report can be read here:

http://tpa.typepad.com/waste/2007/12/council-spendin.html

Share

Asian Gang in Glasgow Using Fraud to Raise Money for Tribal Warfare in Kashmir

  An Asian gang is bankrolling terrorist attacks in Kashmir, raising hundreds of thousands of pounds each year through counterfeiting and mortgage fraud, the Scotland on Sunday newspaper has claimed.

According to the paper, MI5 sources say around 50 Asians - most of them in Glasgow - are raising funds for Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a Kashmiri separatist group responsible for hundreds of deaths and reportedly involved in the kidnap and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

Much of the cash raised in Scotland is sent first to Dubai, where it is laundered, and then passed to JeM terrorists operating in the Kashmir region, say security sources.

It is estimated that up to £50,000 a month is raised in Scotland. As well as money from mortgage fraud, around £15,000 of this total is raised by selling counterfeit DVDs, CDs and clothing at market stalls and in pubs and clubs across Scotland.

Last week, a British citizen and JeM suspect, Rashid Rauf, wanted in the UK for his alleged part in a plot to blow up 10 trans-Atlantic airliners last summer, escaped from custody in Pakistan.

JeM militants have been waging a war for Kashmiri independence since the group was formed in 2001 by scholar Maulana Mazood Azhar. They have been a proscribed terror group in the UK for years.

MI5 learned about the Glasgow fundraising operation from the Pakistani secret service, the ISI, which became aware of large amounts of money being paid into suspects’ bank accounts.

The Scottish-based organisers of the group have, so far, managed to keep a relatively low profile, making it hard for the authorities to act against them.

But ever since the ISI tip-off a few months ago, security services have been urged by their bosses to turn up the heat on individuals they suspect are behind the scams.

All of the suspects are British-born but remain fiercely supportive of their roots. There are also hot-beds of support for Kashmiri militants in London and Birmingham.

The security source added: “The people involved in the mortgage frauds are only too aware that the banks and lenders are none too keen on prosecuting anyone caught up in this charade, as it will mean them having to answer a lot of awkward questions in court.”

In a recent Law Society report, it issued a warning about the risks of mortgage fraud: “The recent slowdown in the UK property market has exposed a rise in mortgage fraud by organised criminals and the potential vulnerability of professionals to be exploited by organised crime syndicates.”

Share

Oldham Whites “Not Represented” says Labour Councillor

  Oldham’s white population is badly represented by a stranglehold of Asian councillors in inner parts of the borough, according to Labour council leader David Jones.

In a memo sent to a national commission looking at how to make councillors more relevant to the communities they serve, Jones said “all three political parties on the council need to decide how to break the pattern by talking together, or risk increasing support for . . . the BNP.”

Some members of his Labour group, especially the Asian councillors, are said to be furious because he has not consulted them before sending the paper off in their name.

Councillor Jones, who has been group leader since 2000, said he had had no feed back or criticism from group members, and added: “It is a distillation of talks we have been having over some time. It is a purely factual report. “If the truth upsets people, they have a problem.”

He told the woman heading the commission, Dame Janet Roberts, that in Coldhurst, Werneth and St Mary’s wards, candidates in this year’s elections were 100 per cent Asian but white people make up around half the local population.

Councillor Jones said: “It is not that people are not represented - their representatives are not representing the community they live in. This imbalance cannot be right.”

Apathy among white groups has been made worse because white candidates think their chances of being selected are non-existent, claimed Councillor Jones. “This behaviour could lead to a rise in support for . . . the BNP,” he said.

Tracking voting patterns is also hard, he said, adding: “Allegiances among Asian heritage groups changes from year to year, dependent on the clan of the candidate selected and the support they bring with them.”

And in regenerated inner urban areas, which are attracting more white residents, he said: “As a result of the stranglehold Asian groups have politically in these areas, we are therefore seeing a rise in numbers badly represented by the democratic process.”

Share

Unemployment Caused by the EU — Update

  Half a million fewer Britons are in work following the unprecedented influx of migrants from Eastern Europe, it has been revealed. The figures demolish the Government’s claim to be providing ‘British jobs for British workers’.

Research by the independent House of Commons Library found that 24,473,000 people of working age born in the UK held jobs in 2003 - the year prior to the expansion of the EU.

But the figure has now fallen to 23,948,000, a dramatic cut of 525,000 in the size of the home-grown workforce. The library’s research did not cover the number of jobs taken by foreigners over the same period. But the drop in the number of UK workers has been matched by a surge in arrivals from Poland and other former Eastern Bloc nations.

Since May 2004, when the EU expanded eastwards, 700,000 have registered with the Home Office to work here. This will fuel suspicions that some UK workers are being forced out of the jobs market by migrants.

The key figure is the fall in the percentage of the UK’s working-age population who have jobs - down from 75.7 per cent in 2003 to 75.2 per cent in 2007.

It dispels the Government’s claim that immigrants are not taking jobs from British workers, but filling gaps left by a reduction in the size of the British-born workforce.

Instead, the figures suggest that a larger number of Britons of working age are finding themselves out of jobs.

The British Chamber of Commerce has already warned that a generation of British children is at risk of going ‘from school straight to welfare.’

Share

Tories Would Keep Criminal Bribes

  Just in case any readers actually thought there was any difference between the Tories and Labour, here is something to dispel that notion: Labour government ‘bribes’ to persuade failed asylum seekers to return home would be kept by a Conservative government, that party has announced.

In addition, the Tories also announced that they will “resist the reintroduction” of the Primary Purpose Rule, a law which required migrants seeking to enter the UK on the grounds of marriage, to actually prove that this was their intention and were not just using it as a means of entering the country.

The recommendations have emerged from a major policy review by Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green. They will be seen as proof of David Cameron’s determination to position the party on the “centre ground.”

More than £36 million has been paid to failed asylum seekers who have used the grant to open ostrich farms, a vineyard and even a beauty salon back in their homelands.

Other Tory policies include diverting some of the £100 million spent on translation services each year into English classes for migrants.

Share

PC-Loony Left Madness in our Schools

  Schools have been told to encourage boys to play netball and take dancing lessons in a bid to promote “gender equality”. The move which sees boys moving on to the traditionally female netball court is part of a Government drive to ensure that school children are more ‘gender balanced’.

Every local authority in the country had to publish a “gender equality scheme” earlier this year to meet new anti-discrimination legislation. As a result hundreds of schools have adopted schemes that suggest boys should take up traditionally female pursuits - and vice versa.

Schools most also ensure that more girls study traditionally masculine subjects such as science. In preparing their guidelines for schools, a string of councils around the country, including Plymouth Leicester, Nottingham and Buckinghamshire posed the question: “Do you encourage girls to participate in rugby, cricket, football and basketball and boys in netball, rounders, badminton and dance?”

Schools are encouraged to develop “open-minded attitudes” and promote positive role models for boys and girls.

They are also asked: “Does your school challenge gender stereotyping?”

The requirement to publish a Gender Equality Scheme came into force in April this year and each local authority must revise and adapt its plan every three years.

The plan is a response to updated sex discrimination legislation that says it is unlawful for schools to provide classes for only one sex where this would amount to less favourable treatment of the other sex.

It has been taken by some cautious schools to mean that not offering netball lessons to boys is discriminatory.

However, some head teachers fear that council guidelines suggesting sports lessons be expanded to offer the same options to boys and girls could be a step too far.

Last night Mick Brookes, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: “It doesn’t make sense to promote things to boys that they don’t want to do, simply so you can tick a box on a form.”

It is legal for schools to confine competitive sports to single sexes where strength, stamina or physique puts a girl at a disadvantage to a boy. It appears, however, that some schools may be reading too much into guidelines

Share

Police Effort to Curb Knife Crime Fails to Prevent another Attack

  The much-vaunted police effort to curb knife crime has failed to prevent yet another attack on the streets of London. The latest attack happened in Upper Street in Islington at about 1430 GMT on Thursday, police said.

They said officers who were called to the scene found two black teenagers, believed to be aged 16 and 17, who had both been stabbed. The 16-year-old was pronounced dead at the scene. The other youth is being treated in hospital where his injuries are not life-threatening.

The police said an 18-year-old man from Islington had been arrested nearby in connection with the attack and was due to be questioned by detectives investigating the death.

A police spokesperson added that efforts were currently being made to identify the stabbed victims. The latest death brings the number of young people killed in stabbings and shootings on London’s streets in 2007 to 26.

Share

EU Constitution/Treaty = the Soviet Constitution!

 No apologies are made for returning to the subject of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. For it is a topic of supreme importance to our country. Whatever your political beliefs, whether you support the BNP, or whether you’re just looking at our site out of idle curiosity, the latest EU Treaty is a subject that you simply cannot afford to ignore!

Even though much has already been written about this ‘Treaty’, as well as copious air-time allocated to its dissemination, the average person is still utterly unaware of what is planned.

For instance, do you realise that this document [written so that its true intentions were made as hard to understand as it was possible to make it], signed by Gordon Brown, is almost a carbon copy of the Constitution of Soviet Russia!

Not only that, but this so called ‘Treaty’ also reflects many of the laws of repression from Hitler’s Third Reich!

Indeed, you could, without fear of serious contradiction, describe The Lisbon Constitutional Treaty as the EU’s version of Hitler’s Enabling Act which gave him total power within the German Reich, with catastrophic results for the entire world!

Yet because of the behind the scenes manipulation of the media by our political elite, too many people still simply cannot believe that this could be the case. Too many still, naively, retain some trust in our politicians.

‘Surely Gordon & Dave, whatever we might think of them would never sell us out in this way’ say the disbelievers.

To those people - maybe you are one of them -do please look again at what is being planned for you. For if you don’t, you are in for a very rude awakening. A very rude awakening indeed! For not only will they sell you out - they’ve been conspiring to do so for decades past!

For history teaches that wherever tyranny, has reared its ugly head during the past few centuries, the tyrants have always developed their own version of the Nazi ‘Enabling Act’. The UK version is called the, ‘Civil Contingencies Act 2004′. Supposedly enacted to protect us against terror attacks, it is in reality there to protect our political establishment - from their own people!

The ‘Lisbon Treaty’, its foundations built on totalitarian principals, lays the framework for a ‘Pan-European Enabling Act’ to be put in place.

Indeed the EU, as it nears its goal, is revealed to be a hybrid of Nazi and Communist methodologies for making the ‘State’ supreme!

Do realise that the EU is now on the verge of securing total political authority, and once vested with supreme power, it will never, willingly, divest itself of that power.

Time is short - demand that your MP refuses to vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty when it comes before Parliament for approval. Tell him or her that you’ll vote for the BNP if they don’t listen. Better still tell your MP that you’re going to join the BNP and support it - because they support Britain’s survival. Let’s face it no other national political party gives that promise!

In conclusion may we draw your attention to the analysis of the Lisbon Treaty by Professor Anthony Coughlan. The Professor is regarded as a left winger and not a rightist, so it will be difficult to smear what he writes, as the ramblings of him a right wing extremist!

The Brussels Journal Thu, 2007-12-13 — An analysis by Prof. Anthony Coughlan

Today the European Union leaders signed the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty gives the EU the constitutional form of a state. These are the ten most important things the Lisbon Treaty does:
1. It establishes a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State.
2. It empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-à-vis other States and its own citizens.
3. It makes us all citizens of this new European Union.
4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name - European Union - will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union.
5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union’s new citizens.
6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union.
7. It creates a new Union political President.
8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union’s citizens.
9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union.
10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers.

1. The Lisbon Treaty establishes a legally quite new European Union. This is a Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State:
The Treaty gives this new Union a State Constitution which is identical in its legal effects to the EU Constitution that French and Dutch voters rejected in their 2005 referendums.
It does this by amending the two existing basic European Treaties, the “Treaty on European Union” (TEU) and the “Treaty Establishing the European Community” (TEC). The former retains its name, while the latter is renamed the “Treaty on the Functioning of the Union” (TFU). These two amended Treaties become the de facto Constitution of the new Union which they constitute or establish, although they are not called a Constitution. The EU has thus been given a Constitution indirectly rather than in direct form, as had been proposed in the Treaty which the peoples of France and Holland rejected in 2005.
The provision of the Lisbon Treaty that “The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community” (Art.1.3, amended TEU) makes absolutely clear that the post-Lisbon Union will be quite a new entity, as the European Community of which our countries are all currently members ceases to exist.

2. The Treaty empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-à-vis other States and its own citizens:

To understand the change introduced by the Lisbon Treaty one needs to understand that what we call the European Union today is not a State. It is not even a legal or corporate entity in its own right, for it does not have legal personality. The name “European Union” at present is a descriptive term for all the relations between its 27 Member States.
At present these relations cover both the “European Community” area where supranational European law is operative, and the “intergovernmental” areas of foreign policy and justice and home affairs where Member States cooperate with one another on the basis of keeping their sovereignty and where European laws do not apply.
The Lisbon Treaty changes this situation by creating a constitutionally and legally quite new EU, while retaining the same name, the “Union”. Unlike the present European Union, this legally new EU will be separate from and superior to its Member States, just as the USA is separate from and superior to California or New York, or Federal Germany to Bavaria or Brandenburg.
This new European Union can sign treaties with other States in all areas of its competence and conduct itself as a State in the international community of States. It can speak at the United Nations on agreed foreign policy positions of its Member States, just as in the days of the Soviet Union the USSR had a UN seat while Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia had UN seats also.
The Lisbon Treaty also gives the EU a political President, a Foreign Minister - to be called a High Representative - a diplomatic corps and a Public Prosecutor. The new EU will accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, as all other European States have already done, including those outside the EU.
The Treaty also sets out the principle of the primacy of the laws of the new Union over the laws of its Member States (Declaration 27). The new EU makes the majority of laws for its Member States each year and under the Lisbon Treaty the new Union, which will replace the European Community, gets further power to make laws or take decisions by qualified majority vote in relation to some 68 new policy areas or matters where Member States currently have a veto.

3. The Treaty makes us all real citizens of this new European Union for the first time, instead of our being notional or honorary European “citizens” as at present:
A State must have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a State.
Citizenship of the European Union at present is stated to “complement” national citizenship, the latter being clearly primary, not least because the present EU is not a State. It is not even a corporate entity that can have individuals as members, not to mind citizens.
By transforming the legal character of the Union, the Lisbon Treaty transforms the meaning of Union citizenship. Article.17b.1 TEC/TFU replace the word “complement” in the sentence “Citizenship of the Union shall complement national citizenship”, so that the new sentence reads: “Citizenship of the Union shall be in addition to national citizenship.” This gives the 500 million inhabitants of the present EU Member States a real separate citizenship from citizenship of their national States for the first time. It gives a treble citizenship to citizens of Bavaria and Brandenburg within a Federal State like Germany. The rights and duties attaching to this citizenship of the new Union are be superior to those attaching to citizenship of one’s own national State in any case of conflict between the two, because of the superiority of EU law over national law and constitutions.
As most States only recognise that one can have a single citizenship, henceforth it is one’s Union citizenship which will be regarded by other countries as primary and superior to one’s national citizenship.
Although we will be given rights as EU citizens, we should not forget that as real citizens of the new European Union we also owe it the normal citizens’ duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority, which will be a higher authority than that of our national States and constitutions.
Member States retain their national constitutions, but they are subordinate to the new Union Constitution. As such they will no longer be constitutions of sovereign States, just as the various local states of the USA retain their constitutions although they are subordinate to the Federal US Constitution.

4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name - European Union - will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union. By this means the importance of the proposed change is kept hidden from the people:
The change in the constitutional nature of both the Union and its Member States will be made in three legal steps that are set out in the Treaty:
(a) It establishes a European Union with an entire legal personality and independent corporate existence in all Union areas for the first time, so that it can function as a State vis-à-vis other States and in relation to its own citizens (Art.32, amended TEU);
(b) This new European Union replaces the existing European Community and takes over all of its powers and institutions. It takes over as well the “intergovernmental” powers over foreign policy and crime, justice and home affairs which at present are outside the scope of European law, leaving only the Common Foreign and Security Policy outside the scope of its supranational power (Art.11.1, amended TEU).
It thereby gives a unified constitutional structure to the new Union which it will constitute or establish. The European Community disappears and all spheres of public policy will come within the scope of supranational EU law-making either actually or potentially, as in any constitutionally unified State. (One says “potentially” because further inter-State treaties would be required to transfer the minority of law-making powers still remaining with the Member States to the new Union in the future, or to shift powers back from the supranational level to the Member States - something that has never happened up to now. Supranational legislative acts would not yet be adopted in the sphere of Common Foreign and Security Policy and new treaties would be needed to change that. However the Commission, a key supranational body, will through the High Representative/Foreign Minister gain the right of initiative in the foreign policy field, so that even in the light of Art.11.1 TEU a de facto “supranationality” will be attained here);
(c) It makes us all real citizens of the new Federal Union which the Treaty establishes, with all the implications of that for downgrading our present personal status as citizens of sovereign nation States and superseding it by citizenship of a supranational European Federation.

5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union’s new citizens:
The Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution makes Members of the European Parliament, who at present are “representatives of the peoples of the Member States”, into “representatives of the Union’s citizens” (Art.9a, amended TEU). This illustrates the constitutional shift the Treaty makes from the present European Union of national States and peoples to the new Federal Union of European citizens and their national states - the latter henceforth reduced constitutionally and politically to provincial or regional status.

6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union:
The Treaty turns the European Council, the quarterly “summit” meetings of Member State Heads of State or Government, into an institution of the new Union, so that its acts and failures to act will, like all other Union institutions, be subject to legal review by the EU Court of Justice.
Legally speaking these summit meetings of the European Council will no longer be “intergovernmental” gatherings of Prime Ministers and Presidents outside supranational European structures. As part of the new EU´s institutional framework, they will instead be constitutionally required to “promote the Union’s values, advance its objectives, serve its interests” and “ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.” (Art. 9 amended TEU). They will also “define the general political direction and priorities thereof” (Art.9b).
The European Council thus becomes in effect the Cabinet Government of the new Federal EU, and its individual members will be primarily obliged to represent the Union to their Member States rather than their Member States to the Union.

7. It creates a new Union political President:
The federalist character of the European Council “summit” meetings in the proposed new Union structure is further underlined by the provision which gives the European Council a permanent political President for up to five years (two and a half years renewable once) (Art.9b).
There is no gathering of Heads of State or Government in any other international context which maintains the same chairman or president for several years while individual national prime ministers and prime ministers come and go.
The federal character of the new President is emphasised also by the Treaty provision which forbids that person from holding any national office and which lays down that he/she shall “ensure the external representation of the Union”.

8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union’s citizens:
All States have codes setting out the rights of their citizens. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will be that. It will be made legally binding by the new Treaty and will be an essential part of the new Union’s constitutional structure (Art.6, amended TEU).
The Charter is stated to be binding on the Union’s own institutions and on Member States in implementing Union law. This limitation to EU law and to the EU institutions is unrealistic however, because
(a) the principles of primacy and uniformity of Union law mean that Member States will not only be bound by the Fundamental Rights Charter when implementing EU law, but also through the “interpretation and application of their national laws in conformity with Union laws” (v. ECJ judgements in the Factortame, Simmenthal and other law cases); and because
(b) the Charter sets out fundamental rights in areas in which the Union has currently no competence, e.g. outlawing the death penalty, asserting citizens’ rights in criminal proceedings and various other areas.
This gives a new and extensive human and civil rights jurisdiction to the EU Court of Justice and makes that Court the final body to decide what people’s rights are in the vast area covered by European law, as against national Supreme Courts and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg - the latter Court serving all other European States, not just the EU members - which are our final fundamental rights Courts today.
The EU Commission can be expected in time to propose European laws to ensure the uniform implementation and guarantee of the rights provisions of the Charter throughout the Member States, even in areas which are basically outside the scope of Union competence. American constitutional history provides ample evidence of the radical federalising potential of the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.

9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union:

The Treaty underlines the subordinate role of National Parliaments in the constitutional structure of the new Union by stating that “National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union” by various means set out in Article 8c, amended TEU. The imperative “shall” implies an obligation on National Parliaments to further the interests of the new Union.
National Parliaments have in any case already lost most of their law-making powers to the EC/EU. The citizens who elect them have lost their powers to decide these laws too.
The provision of the Treaty that if one-third of the National Parliaments object to a Commission proposal, the Commission must reconsider it but not necessarily abandon it, is small compensation for the loss of democracy involved by the loss of 68 vetoes by National Parliaments as a result of other changes proposed by the Lisbon Treaty.

10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers:
These are shown by:
(a) the enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Art.308 TEC/TFU), whereby if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty extends this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union’s policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;
(b) the proposed “Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure” which permits the Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the “Treaty on the Functioning of the Union” (Art.33.6, amended TEU), where the population size of certain Member States is likely to be decisive; and
(c) the several “ratchet-clauses” or “passerelles” which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters (Art.69d.3.2), in criminal matters (Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor (69i.4), and in a number of other areas.

Conclusion:

It is hard to think of any major function of a State which the new European Union will not have once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. The main one seems to be the power to make its Member States go to war against their will. The Treaty does provide that the EU may go to war while individual Member States may “constructively abstain”.
The obligation on the Union to “provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies” (Art. TEC/TFU 269 a), which means raising its “own resources” to finance them, may be regarded as conferring on it wide taxation and revenue-raising powers, although these will require unanimity to exercise. Currently public expenditure and the tax measures needed to finance it remain overwhelmingly at national state level. This is because such social services as health, education, social security and public housing, as well as defence, policing and public transport - the government functions which cost most money - are still mainly at this level.
However the new European Union will have its own government, with a legislative, executive and judicial arm, its own political President, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and Public Prosecutor. It already possesses such normal State symbols as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday.
As regards the State authority of the new Union, it is embodied in the Union’ s own executive, legislative and judicial institutions: the European Council, Council of Ministers, Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice. It is also embodied in the Member States and their authorities as they implement and apply EU law and interpret and apply national law in conformity with Union law. Member States will be constitutionally required to do this under the Lisbon Treaty. Thus EU “State authorities” as represented for example by soldiers and policemen in EU uniforms on our streets are not needed as such.
Allowing for the special features of each case, all the classical Federal States which have been formed on the basis of power being surrendered by lower constituent states to a higher Federal authority have developed in a gradual way, just as has happened in the case of the European Union. Nineteenth century Germany, the USA, Canada and Australia are classical examples. Indeed the EU has accumulated its powers much more rapidly than some of these Federal States - in the short historical time-span of some sixty years.
The key difference between these classical Federations and the new European Union is that the former, once their people had settled, share a common language, history, culture and national solidarity that gave them a democratic basis and made their State authority popularly legitimate and acceptable. All stable States are founded on such communities where people speak a common language and mutually identify with one another as one people - a “We”. In the EU however there is no European people or “demos”, except statistically. The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to construct a highly centralised European Federation artificially, from the top down, out of Europe’s many nations, peoples and States, without their free consent and knowledge.
If there were to be a European Federation that is democratic and acceptable, the minimum constitutional requirement for it would be that its laws would be initiated and approved by the directly elected representatives of the people either in the European Parliament or the National Parliaments. Unfortunately, neither the Lisbon Treaty nor the EU Constitution it establishes contain any such proposal.

By giving a Constitution indirectly rather than directly to the new European Union which it will establish, the Lisbon Treaty sets in place what Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has called the “capstone of a European Federal State”. For the Euro-federalist political elites who have been driving this process over decades this is the culmination of what started nearly 60 years ago when the 1950 Schuman Declaration, which is commemorated annually on 9 May, Europe Day, proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be the “first step in the federation of Europe”.
The peoples of Europe do not want this kind of highly centralized Federal European Union whose most striking feature is that it is run virtually entirely by committees of politicians, bureaucrats and judges, none of whom are directly elected by the people. The Constitutional Treaty setting it up has already been rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy has admitted, the Prime Ministers and Presidents have agreed among themselves on no account to have referendums on the Renamed Constitutional Treaty, for that would be rejected everywhere again.
Only the Irish are enabled to have their say on it because of the constitutional case taken before the Supreme Court by the late Raymond Crotty. That action by that great Irishman stopped the State’s politicians of that time from ratifying a previous European Treaty, the Single European Act, in an unconstitutional manner.

This document has been drafted in consultation with authorities on European and constitutional law by Anthony Coughlan, Secretary of the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland; Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792; E-mail: nationalplatformeuric@eircom.net
It may be disseminated or adapted in whole or in part by whoever wishes to do that, without any need of reference to or acknowledgement of its source.

Share