Welcome To Labour’s Sicko Friendly Britain

Regular visitors to this site will be only too aware of our frequent reports on paedophile activity within the Labour Party – with news items relating to their councillors and officials being arrested, charged and convicted in connection with paedophile offences – most commonly downloading child porn – being posted with monotonous regularity. The Labour Party, of course, is infamous in that many of its MPs thieve from the taxpayer on a daily basis in “iffy” allowances and expenses claims - not to mention deliberately inflated constituency office rents!

Visitors can find a selection of “interesting” news reports relating to Labour (and Tory, Lib-Dems and UKIP) people, from just the last six months, or so, here .

Bearing in mind Labour’s apparent pro-paedo disposition, media reports - such as the one we are about to refer you to – should come as no surprise in a country having representatives of this odious party as its government.

The Labour regime, it would appear, believes that paedo’s have rights that we, the public, should respect! The BNP has other ideas on the subject, not least that our kids should have the right to enjoy their childhood – free from the threat of such evil.

We quote:

A MUM has been told to stay away from a mall so the child sex pervert who abused her daughter is free to do his weekend shopping there.

James Bryson - who had charges of raping the five-year-old dropped when he pleaded guilty to other horrifying sex attacks on her - was freed on Thursday.

The girl’s mum was horrified to find he was moving near her family and social workers had agreed he could have “shopping access” to her local centre at weekends.

Last night, the furious mum said she had been told Bryson, who served 40 months of an five-year sentence, had to have his human rights protected.

The woman, who cannot be named to protect the identity of her daughter, now 10, said: “It’s bad enough he’s out.

“But then I found out he was living just five minutes away from us.

“And I was told his conditions allowed him to use the local shops at weekends so I was advised not to go there or I risked meeting him.

“It’s a horrific situation for us and makes me feel sick.

“The social worker who came to my house said it was to do with his human rights. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.”

Former pub bouncer Bryson, 31, originally from Possil, Glasgow, was released from high-security Peterhead Prison this week. Unquote.

The full article from the Daily Herald may be read here .

Another Attack On Our Culture & Heritage

It is reported in today’s media that Britons will lose the ancient right to sell land in acres, under a new Brussels ruling nodded through by the EU-puppet regime in Westminster. We understand that, in what has been described as a “low-key” meeting, a junior Labour minister agreed last week to abolish our centuries-old imperial measurement and replace it with the metric equivalent ‘hectare’ from 2010. Quite who gave this person the authority to erase hundreds of years of English history is not revealed!

From January 1, 2010, Britain’s opt-out from the EU’s metric measurements will cease and the use of the 13th century unit of land measurement will be banned. The requirement, like so much to do with the EU imposition, is buried within acres of small print of the EU directive 80/181/EEC on agriculture and fisheries.

A spokesman for the odious Tory Party – the allowances and expenses-claiming organisation whose former leader, Edward Heath, sold out Britain to the EU (Common Market as was) for the price of a new yacht – hypocritically claimed: “This is this kind of pointless interference into the nooks and crannies of our national life that frustrates people about the EU.”

This person is also quoted as saying: “Whether we use hectares or acres should be a matter for Britain to decide, not the EU” – quite so sir – but it was your treasonous party, in league with the equally unprincipled Labour Party, that railroaded us into the EU in the first place!

Yet this news, the elimination of another part of our culture and heritage, comes less than a year after the European Commission and Parliament announced that it would no longer be seeking the extinction of British imperial measures. So who is actually pushing for the removal of our acre we ask? Is it the proto-federalist EU as claimed or could it be the nation-wrecking, Europhile Labour Quislings in Westminster?

For the record, the first law setting out an exact statutory size for the acre was passed under Edward I’s reign between 1272 and 1307. The word is derived from the Latin ‘ager’, from which we also have words like agriculture.

Typically no one from Labour’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was available for comment!

Allowancesgate - Media Catching Up - Slowly!

Two years ago we began “Allowancesgate” and reported with much frequency upon matters pertaining to, what many would regard as, fraud perpetrated against the taxpayer by “Honourable Members” in The House. In the early days we felt very much like the proverbial lone wolf howling in the wilderness, as few in the media seemed at all concerned by the blatant abuses of the “Privileges of Parliament” being enacted beneath their very noses. How things have changed!

So contemptuous have “Honourable Members” grown towards the public that they started to actually believe they were “untouchable” and that they could continue with their widely perceived thieving with impunity. Unfortunately for them their greed and arrogance has sickened even media stomachs, not an easy prospect at the best of times, to the extent that stories concerning the activities of the inhabitants of “Troughminster” are now almost daily events.

However there is one issue that the media have largely steered clear of, choosing to concentrate on the “John Lewis List” instead. That subject is, of course, MPs selling off second homes purchased, maintained and furnished, in all too many cases, through “iffy” allowances and expenses paid from the Public Purse - i.e. from our taxes! These properties are then, at a later date, sold - with the MPs concerned pocketing the profits without even having to pay Capital Gains tax!

We suspect the Establishment media have avoided this extremely lucrative aspect of Troughminster free-loading for one very simple reason – some of the biggest political names in the country have their trotters well and truly immersed in this particular trough.

And so it is with a little surprise, but no little pleasure, that we read the following in today’s Sun:

Quote: Drastically reducing the amount MPs are allowed to lavish on furnishings was a good start, but what about the vast profits they can make from property deals at our expense? At present, MPs can continue to claim up to £24,000 a year under the controversial “additional costs allowance”. So while the amount they can spend on furniture has been capped, they can still make up the difference by claiming back rent or mortgage interest on second homes.

You might think that’s fair enough . . . after all, not all MPs live within commuting distance of Westminster.

But is it right that MPs should be allowed to keep the profit from the eventual sale of their second homes when you and I have paid the mortgage interest?

In my view, this is a far bigger outrage than the prospect of them spending £350 of our money on a washing machine. Even with the economy in disarray, you can still expect to make a killing on the sale of property in the capital.

Surely that money should go back into the coffers of the Inland Revenue, not the pockets of some grasping politician. Unquote.

More here .

Ombudsman raps MEPs over allowances

Who could disagree with the EU’s Ombudsman when he says: ‘Europarl continues to fail to comply with transparency rules. Nobody?

Well not exactly, for theLib/Dem MEP ,Diana Wallis, who happens, so it would appear, to be Vice President of that pseudo  parliament responded by saying:

“publishing complete details of individual payment expenses and allowances would breach [Parliament's] duty to protect personal data […] and could compromise the free and independent exercise of the mandate of an MEP,”

So it’s official.  It’s more important for MEP’s to keep their ill gotten gains hidden, than it is for those  extravagances to be revealed to those who pay for the feeding troughs!

Ombudsman raps MEPs over allowances

Published: Wednesday 16 July 2008

EU Ombudsman P. Nikiforos Diamandouros has stressed that the European Parliament is continuing to fail to comply with transparency rules regarding the allowances its members receive. But the institution’s Vice President Diana Wallis yesterday (15 July) insisted that reforms are already underway to address the bulk of his concerns.

But British ALDE MEP Diana Wallis, who is responsible for transparency, yesterday stressed that recently adopted “major reforms” to its allowances system “amount to a substantial increase in transparency and will largely address the spirit of the Ombudsman’s remarks”.

Transparency issues rose to prominence recently following last month’s resignations by UK Conservative MEPs Giles Chichester and Den Dover following allegations that they broke the European Parliament’s rules by making payments to companies linked to family members from their expenses.

In response, UK Conservative leader David Cameron announced a “deep clean” of “unacceptable” European expenses, launching a new code of conduct for his party’s MEPs which requires more detailed disclosure of how they spend their allowances. The new measures, which will only affect Tory members, come into force on September 1 2008.

Meanwhile, the changes being introduced by Parliament include:

* The entry into force of a new MEPs’ statute after the 2009 elections with a common salary, coupled with a new system for travel expenses based directly on reimbursement of ticket prices.
* MEPs’ assistants employed in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg must be employed within the EU staffing system from after the 2009 elections.
* No close family members will be given new contracts as assistants with immediate effect, but existing contracts can be extended if this is noted in the member’s declaration of interests.
* The publication of information on the expenses and allowances of MEPs on the Parliament’s website.

Accordingly, Diamandouros welcomed the Parliament’s announcement that it “plans to re-assess its position after the entry into force of the new statute for MEPs in 2009″. “But that cannot excuse its failure to comply […] now,” he stressed.

The Ombudsman stressed that his role in the Maltese affair “concerned the principle of transparency and not the principle of financial accountability, which is the responsibility of the budget control authorities”. “I maintain my finding of maladministration, but unlike the Court [of First Instance], I have no power to annul Parliament’s decision,” he added, closing the case.
Positions:

Responding to the Ombudsman’s latest pronouncement, European Parliament Vice President responsible for transparency Diana Wallis (ALDE, UK) said “Parliament has noted with interest the comments of the European Ombudsman in his decision on a complaint from a Maltese journalist”. “The report comes at a time when major changes to the expenses and allowances system are being introduced,” she added.

Nevertheless, “publishing complete details of individual payment expenses and allowances would breach [Parliament's] duty to protect personal data […] and could compromise the free and independent exercise of the mandate of an MEP,” read a European Parliament press release yesterday.

More

Allowances, Expenses & Pensions

Revised figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) indicate that nearly two-thirds of single pensioners have to get by on incomes of less than £10,000 a year.

In addition it is revealed that pensions are providing people with only modest incomes, with 61% of single pensioners receiving less than £10,000 a year from them during 2006/200.

Meanwhile 45% of pensioner couples received less than £15,000, according to the ONS.

Furthermore, the figures for 2006/2007 suggest that 66% of pensioner households had a private pension, such as an occupational one, generating an average income of £11,059 for pensioner couples, £6,812 for single men and £5,519 for single women.

Yet 64% of single women who received a private pension got less than £5,000 from it during the year, as did 58% of single men and 39% per cent of couples.

It is also stated that the majority of people had their income topped up by state benefits, such as the state pension and other related benefits.

The figures also show that pensioner couples received an average of £10,191 from the state in 2006/2007, while single men got £6,911 and single women received an average of £6,700.

Meanwhile, during the fiscal year 2006/7, the following legislators, claimed in expenses and allowances from Parliament, the following sums:

David Cameron (Con) - £143,385
Gordon Brown (Lab) – £135,525
Boris Johnson (Con) – £134,306
Alistair Darling (Lab) – £136,854
Caroline Spelman (Con) – £132,855
Edward Balls (Lab) – £157,076
Bob Spink (UKIP) – £152,938
Keith Vaz (Lab) – £148,235
Shahid Malik (Lab) – £185,421
Ann Cryer (Lab) – £149,195
Nick Clegg (Lib-D) – £146,022
Barry Gardiner (Lab) – £160,464

Do we detect something of an imbalance in the disbursement of public money?

Allowancesgate: Even More On ACA

As regular visitors to this site will know, your news team has been highlighting what we consider to be one of the many abuses of Parliament (the so-called “Privileges of Parliament“) for some two years now. When we began our criticism of the cavalier attitude of many “Honourable Members” towards the claiming of our tax money, it was something of a lonely experience - as similar stories in the national media were few and far between. How times have changed! Today we note yet another airing of this issue in one of the country’s leading newspapers - one which has become, quite rightly, party-politically blind on this issue - in response to the growing national revulsion over what many consider to be the theft of their money by our elected representatives. This morning, in the Sunday Telegraph, a Parliamentarian is quoted as saying:

“To use the ACA in this way is incredible. It may be within the law, but it’s like people doing dodgy tax deals which are just about legal but go against the spirit of the tax legislation. MPs should not just play within the letter of the law but also within the spirit of the law. The people opposing reform of this system are bringing democracy and Parliament into disrepute.”

“Bringing democracy and Parliament into disrepute” is exactly what they are doing and consequently, one of the many Herculean tasks of the BNP must be to cleanse the Westminster Augean Stables of the accumulated corruption that so befouls it. However, the claiming of our tax money in “iffy” allowances and expenses claims is but one manifestation of the cancer gnawing away at the very heart of our democracy - another is the willingness of Establishment MPs to enact legislation that is clearly contrary to the wishes of the electorate - legislation detrimental both to the well being of the people of these British Isles and to their ancient rights and liberties. But that’s another issue.

Returning to the subject of ACA, we wonder why it is that so many MPs choose not to live in the constituencies for which they were elected. Indeed, we wonder, how such people can truly claim to represent their constituents when they aren’t even prepared to live amongst them? There are many examples of this - David Cameron, for instance, was elected for Witney in Oxfordshire - yet his main home is in London - as is that of Boris Johnson, formerly Tory MP for Henley! As we say, there are many examples of what we call “absentee landlordism”.

Additionally, we wonder, how many of the dozens of MPs who represent constituencies within easy commuting distance of The House actually stated their intention to use taxpayers’ money to fund second-homes in their election addresses when standing for election? How many will mention it when they stand for re-election? Few - if any - we suspect!

Such is the moral abyss into which the Mother of Parliaments continues to sink.

This morning’s Sunday Telegraph article, to which we refer, begins:

“Taxpayers are funding MPs to run two homes even when they only need one for their parliamentary duties. .”

The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered four cases where MPs are receiving up to £24,000-a-year in “second home allowance” despite one of their two homes being nowhere near either Westminster or their constituency.

Although the arrangement is permitted by House of Commons rules, other MPs called it “incredible” and claimed that it was bringing politicians into disrepute

More here .

Surely Honourable Members Should Do The Honourable Thing?

One would imagine that being a Westminster MP would require the display and maintenance of exemplary standards at all times. After all, MPs are handsomely paid to represent their electorate and should therefore be beyond reproach – particularly in respect of their use of public money. Furthermore, one would also imagine that political parties would be equally keen to maintain standards in respect of those who represent them.

With those thoughts very much in mind we ask whether it is sufficient for a Honourable Member merely to repay public money after being discovered to have wrongfully expended it – surely resignation is in order? The fact that neither MP nor his party appears to be considering this option is, we believe, a matter of concern!

The story at the heart of this matter may be found in the Wimbledon Guardian, which begins:

Quote: “Sutton and Cheam MP Paul Burstow will reimburse Parliament after being found to have misused parliamentary allowances, using House of Commons pre-paid envelopes to mail out political newsletters.

Parliamentary Commissioner John Lyon found Lib Dem Mr Burstow breached House of Commons rules by including the newsletter that criticised a political opponent - Conservative Party candidate Philippa Stroud.

“He has told me that he very much regrets this error and he has taken steps to put the matters straight and to refund the expenditure incurred,” Mr Lyon said.

In a statement to the commissioner, Mr Burstow said he accepted he should not have sent the letter using the House of Commons envelopes.

“I should not have used pre-paid envelopes for this purpose and I am making arrangements to reimburse the full cost of the envelopes and stationery,” Mr Burstow said. Unquote.

The full story may be found here .

Peace Be Upon Them!

A gang of Muslim “asylum seekers” reportedly stole £200,000 by faking insurance claims for car crashes. The seven-man gang, which includes Iraqi and Kuwaiti nationals, had been granted asylum status by the Government - after they claimed they had been tortured in their homelands.

The gang is reported to have submitted at least fifty bogus insurance claims on previously written-off high-value cars which they subsequently claimed were involved in “accidents”. Claims included £23,000 for a Toyota, £10,000 for a Mercedes 300, more than £8,000 for a Mazda MX3 and £4,000 for a Ford Mondeo saloon.

Amazingly, since being investigated by police, five of these fraudsters have been granted British citizenship by the Nu Labour regime – no doubt desperate for new Labour voters!

London police initiated an investigation into the case when insurers reported their suspicions after noticing the same names, addresses and vehicle details appearing on different claims. It would also appear that some gang members were “ahead of the game” and had changed their names by deed poll and were renting empty flats to use on fake insurance claims.

The cars used in the scams were purchased from salvage yards for a pittance.

It is further reported that when police arrived in June 2006 to arrest the fraudsters that they found a Volvo parked outside one of the gang’s addresses that had been the subject of no fewer than five insurance claims.

To make matters even worse, not only were gang members defrauding the insurance companies but at least two of them were also claiming disability allowances from the British taxpayer – for the treatment they had allegedly received from the Iraqi and Kuwaiti regimes! Apparently these poor unfortunates had suffered torture in their home countries and were receiving medication and treatment for depression from the NHS as a result.

The good news is that gang members, all from north-west London, are due to be sentenced today after pleading guilty at Croydon Crown Court last month to conspiracy to defraud in more than 30 insurance claims between 2003 and 2006.

The judge will, no doubt, recommend deportation – something, the usual suspects will argue, infringes their human rights!

The gang were named as Nasser Fahad Al Fadhly, formerly known as Nasser Fahad Al Ameri; Razi Kreedy, formerly known as Kazi Al Ameri; Duab Zamel Albadry, Nasser Mihthaf Alfadhly, formerly known as Nasser Fadel; Lafy Al Dafhery, Ahmed Rahim and Khaled Atek Alfadli.

Peace Be Upon Them!

Are YOU Resisting?

Our country is in peril like never before.

Our very existence, as a free people within an independent sovereign nation, is under dire threat.

For the first time in our history we face grave danger emanating from both within and without this realm. In Britain today there is only one organisation resisting the menace of the EU Fourth Reich at our front and the growing Fifth Column at our back. Only recently we have seen the Lib-Lab-Con EU-collaborator parties demonstrating their contempt for democracy and the will of the people by ratifying the Lisbon Treaty and voting to continue their state sanctioned theft of taxpayers’ money in unjustifiable expenses and allowances claims!

Thieves and traitors, whose only allegiance is to the proto-federal EU and their own bloated bank accounts, now run this country – OUR country!

The time for sitting on the fence and grumbling about the state of our nation is over - it’s an indulgence we can no longer afford if we are to survive! We owe it to our forbears - men and women who gave their all in the defence of our island home - as well as to the generations of brethren English, Scots, Welsh and Irish yet to come.

It’s time to stand up and be counted and what other possible way than by joining the BNP - the British Resistance! You can join here .

Westminster: None Dare Call It Corruption?

Whereas the media have had much sport in exposing the allowances and expenses claiming activities of individual MPs, it is evident that they have no stomach for really going for the party political jugular, by pillorying the EU collaborator parties over their conspiratorial defrauding of the Public Purse of around £1.5 million each year.

We are referring, of course, to the fraudulent fixing of rents by these parties, at artificially high rates, on constituency party office accommodation rented out by them to their MPs. A snippet from the Press And Journal website describes the situation thus:

“There have also been questions about millions of pounds of parliamentary expenses which are paid to political parties in office rent.

More than a quarter of MPs hire party-owned constituency accommodation out of their “incidental” expenses at a significantly higher average cost than colleagues who rent from independent landlords.”

This may be found here .

In a rare reference to this scam one commentator claimed that the Tory Party received around £750,000 from the taxpayer last year, through renting party-owned property back to their MPs. The Labour Party is said to have coined around £500,000 and other smaller parties lesser sums. The taxpayer, of course, pays these rents - not the MPs concerned.

The problem for the Establishment supporting media is obvious. Whereas the light-fingered activities of our legislators represents corruption on a personal level - a moral failing if you will; the de facto theft of large sums of taxpayers’ money by the major political parties can only be construed as institutional state-sanctioned fraud. This being an immeasurably more onerous and far-reaching matter, one that demonstrates, quite rightly in our opinion, the stinking corruption endemic throughout the British ruling establishment.

That is why, presumably, the implications of the recent decision to more than double, to £6 million per annum, the amount of money available to MPs to “improve” their constituency accommodation, has received so little analysis. In effect, all that is required for Westminster’s EU collaborator parties to milk the taxpayer cow yet further, is to spruce up their accommodation - and increase the rentals disproportionately. The effect of a lick of paint, a piece of new carpet and a few choice John Lewis furnishings on rental rates over coming months, we suggest, will be truly staggering - resulting in a substantial part of the £6 million up for grabs finding its way into party coffers.

This is neither accidental nor unintentional consequence. It is nothing less than State backdoor funding of EU collaborator parties by fraudulent means!

A related article may be found here .

Note: In respect of the Daily Telegraph article, it is our understanding that the safeguard proposal for an independent surveyor to acquire suitable properties for MPs, rather than the MPs themselves, has not been adopted.

A learned scholar once wrote: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason”. A contemporary version could well be: “Corruption doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why if it prospers, none dare call it corruption”.

Next Page »