Iraqis Accused of Murdering British Soldiers Get Legal Aid-And May Claim Asylum Here Too

Two Iraqis who stand accused of murdering two British prisoners of war have been granted thousands of pounds in legal aid so that they can fight being handed over to Iraqi authorities to face trial.

Faisal Al-Saadoon and Khalaf Mufdhi are accused of killing Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth and Sapper Luke Allsopp in cold blood at the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003.

The British government wants to hand the Iraqis over to the Iraqi government for trial but the couple’s British lawyer has initiated a High Court challenge on the basis that such a trial would breach his clients’ human rights.

The two Iraqis are currently being held in British custody in Iraq. If their lawyer’s challenge is successful, they would be brought to the UK to face trial and senior British government figures are worried that they will claim political asylum if they are tried in Britain.

SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Luke Allsopp, (pictured above) both of the 33 Engineer Regiment, were travelling as part of a convoy when they were attacked by militiamen in Al Zubayr in southern Iraq in March 2003.

Half of the company managed to escape but SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp were taken to a Ba’ath party headquarters and then onto an Iraqi intelligence base where they were shot dead. Photos of the dying soldiers, surrounded by a mob of Iraqis, were later shown on Arabic TV station al-Jazeera.

The judicial review of the Iraqis’ case has been launched by the company Public Immunity Lawyers. The couple’s lawyer, Mr. Phil Shiner, confirmed that the review was being funded by legal aid and will claim that if his clients were to face trail in Iraq, it would be a breach of their human rights under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Shiner said: “The IHT (Iraqi Higher Tribunal) have a track record of sentencing people to death and we, the UK, have a policy of not handing over people to a jurisdiction if there is a risk of the death penalty being applied.”

Senior members of the Ministry of Defense, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Justice have been given assurances “at the highest level” that the two Iraqis will receive a fair trial and fair treatment.

Margaret Cullingworth, 83, the mother of Simon Cullingworth, (pictured above) said: “They should be tried and brought to justice in their own country. It was a horrible crime. We could have accepted it if they had been killed in battle but they were prisoners and were murdered.

“We do have confidence in the UK authorities and believe they will do the right thing. Simon’s widow has been left to bring up the children on her own and she has found it very hard - we all have.” 

EU Usurping British Law Once Again

In yet another example of how the unelected EU Superstate bureaucrats in Brussels are steadily usurping British law, Europe’s ‘human rights watchdog’ has warned that any attempt by this country to tighten up on asylum-seekers and immigrants will “breach their human rights.”

The Council of Europe has formally expressed concern about the impact of new fast-track processing procedures, and urged British immigration authorities to consider “drastically limiting” the policy of “administrative detention” of migrants.

The council’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, headed delegations to inspect British immigration centres in February and April this year, including the Colnbrook and Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centres. He also talked to non-governmental groups, and “state authorities” including Home Office Minister Liam Byrne.

Their report, just issued, declared: “Improvements must be introduced to strengthen effective respect for the rights of asylum-seekers and immigrants in the UK.”

“The UK authorities should consider regulating the so-called ‘Detained Fast Track’ by introducing special legislation fully in compliance with the standards laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights.”

“This type of detention should in particular be forbidden for vulnerable persons, such as unaccompanied minors, for whom alternative measures should be provided.”

Mr Hammarberg praised efforts in the UK to improve asylum system efficiency, but says he is concerned about dangers for human rights which might result because of the complexities of refugee law and protection.

Reductions in legal aid were another concern, and Mr Hammarberg emphasised that asylum seekers should be kept in reception centres, and not in detention or removal centres.

The report also cautioned against plans by the Home Office UK Borders Agency to expand immigration detention facilities which, Mr Hammarberg said, was likely to increase the practice of “administrative detention.”

The report added: “The Commissioner urges the UK authorities to consider the possibility of drastically limiting the practice of administrative detention of migrants, one problematic aspect of which is the high degree of discretion and broad powers of the immigration officers.”

Mr Hammarberg recommended a maximum time limit for detentions be introduced into domestic law, while immigration staff should be subject to “ongoing education” in human rights protection.

Mystery Prisoner Refuses to Leave Jail

Fancy a break, free for as long as you want? All meals provided free of charge, en-suite bathroom, use of television and Playstation, gym and leisure facilities on-site and medical and dental needs covered.

Sound too good to be true? Ok, the destination is not the Bahamas, it’s Peterborough and there is one qualification you must have to be entitled to this deal of a life-time: no one must know who you are.

One winner of this luxury deal is a mysterious foreign national currently being held in Peterborough Jail. Chairman of HMP Peterborough’s Independent Monitoring Board, Alessio Beschizza, takes up the story.

“He is refusing to give the authorities any information about himself and there is nothing that can be done. We don’t even know if the name he has been giving is correct and he will not confirm his nationality. He has been due for deportation since he completed his sentence almost two years ago, but the prison has no choice but to hold him until we get the information. He could well be in there indefinitely, unless someone takes his case up and it goes through the courts, but I can’t see that happening.”

The Refugee Council are in no doubt as to the reasons for Prisoner X’s silence. “If someone feels they don’t want to be deported so strongly that they are prepared to remain in prison beyond their sentence, then it is likely there are some serious issues at stake. Asylum issues where people have some sort of fear of returning to their country are very complex.”

Or perhaps not that complex at all. Free board, lodgings and entertainment at one of soft-touch Britain’s luxury prisons or the prospect of finding gainful employment? It’s a toughie. But perhaps Prisoner X can ponder his decision by mulling it over with Peterborough prison’s other 173 foreign nationals currently in residence, 15% of the jail’s total. And while he’s taking his time to decide, his continued residence at the prison is costing the taxpayer £30,000 a year.

The Immigration Invasion: 1,000 Invaders Enter UK from France Every Month

More than 1,000 Third World invaders are pouring into Britain from northern France every month, according to a charity providing aid to them.

In the six years since the closure of the Sangatte camp near Calais, 85,000 have passed through French Channel ports to the UK. The figures come from Father Jean-Pierre Boutoille, head of a “refugee charity” in Calais.

The Catholic priest reports that more and more invaders are arriving in northern France every day, intent on getting to the UK. Father Boutoille said Britain’s generous welfare system continues to draw immigrants from the world’s troublespots.

“As long as people can work illegally in England and you keep giving them asylum, houses and passports, they will keep coming,” Father Boutoille said. “The 85,000 who have passed through Calais and other ports to England since the Sangatte camp was closed down includes 4,000 children. Despite everything that politicians in London and Paris have done, more than 12,000 people a year are getting across the Channel to England.”

The priest’s assertions are at odds with Government claims to have made major gains against illegal immigration from France. The Home Office maintains that the number of “refugees” caught entering Britain illegally from Calais has fallen to about 1,500 a year from 10,000 in 2002 when Sangatte closed.

But Father Boutoille says his claims come from official figures compiled by French border police. The priest also warned of a growing surge in the number of invaders arriving in Calais intent on stowing away aboard trucks and lorries bound for Britain.

Father Boutoille, whose charity provides meals, clothes and blankets for migrants in Calais, said: “There are up to 1,000 refugees in the Calais region at the moment. Every day we prepare hundreds of meals but it is never enough. Yesterday we gave out 500 meals at lunchtime and some people went hungry.”

Father Boutoille says people-smugglers charge £800 to ship their human cargo to England, recruiting their clients at his charity’s feeding station.

Why the EU Superstate is the Enemy of All European Nations

A ruling by the European Court of Justice may sound the death knell for Denmark’s restrictive immigration policy by forcing it to ease family reunification rules, and could trigger a government crisis down the road.

The July 25 ruling by the EU’s highest legal body stipulated that under a 2004 European Union directive on free circulation of people within the bloc, EU members may not refuse entry or right of residence to non-EU spouses and family.

This means a Danish citizen can bring his or her spouse to Denmark even if the spouse is a failed asylum seeker or previously resided illegally in the EU.

The ruling has gone largely unnoticed in the rest of the bloc, but has sparked a fiery debate in Denmark, where strict immigration laws block family reunification for non-EU citizens residing in the Scandinavian country illegally and in cases where one of the spouses is under the age of 24.

“The Danish government strongly disagrees with this ruling” which undermines its family reunification policy, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said.

“Denmark determines its own immigration policy and it remains unchanged,” he stressed. “The government will not tolerate having its family reunification rules hijacked,” he added.

He called the EU court ruling “unreasonable”, and has formally expressed his opposition to the European Commission. He is trying to persuade several other member states that share his point of view, among them Britain, Germany and Italy, to have it changed.

Strict immigration policy is a cornerstone of Denmark’s Liberal-Conservative minority government, which has retained power since 2001 thanks to the informal support of the strongly anti-immigration Danish People’s Party (DPP).

Its immigration legislation, broadly supported by Danes, is among the most restrictive in Europe. The strict rules have led to a sharp drop in the number of people who have immigrated to Denmark as part of family reunifications, from about 13,000 in 2001 to 4,500 in 2007.

Integration Minister Birthe Roenn Hornbech said recently the European court ruling “opens the way for widescale approval of illegal immigration” through marriages of convenience. “I wonder if the European court has been given too much power … and if the EU is not determining a bit too much of Denmark’s immigration policy,” she said.

The head of the DPP, Pia Kjaersgaard, has urged the government to ignore the ruling. “Otherwise, our entire immigration policy will fall apart,” she warned.

Political observers see a major conflict simmering for the Danish government. “A conflict between EU law and Danish immigration policy is lining up to be the biggest crisis on the horizon to date for (Rasmussen’s) government,” a political columnist at daily Jyllands-Posten wrote recently.

Rasmussen, whose government voted in favour of the 2004 directive on free movement within the EU, has already said that while he is opposed to the court ruling his government will comply with it.

Six out of 10 voters support Denmark’s immigration policy and the recent EU court ruling has made 37 percent of Danes more sceptical towards European Union cooperation, perceiving it as an infringement of Denmark’s sovereignty.

According to analyst Thomas Larsen, the court ruling means the prime minister has likely “abandoned all plans of organising a referendum on the Danish EU exemptions in the near future.”

Denmark has four opt-outs to EU membership, granted to make the EU’s Maastricht Treaty more palatable after the country initially rejected the treaty. They allow it to remain outside the eurozone, EU joint defence policy, European citizenship and judicial cooperation, under which immigration issues fall.

Rasmussen has urged scrapping all four, saying they were “incompatible with Danish interests” and kept the country from fully participating in European cooperation. He has said one or several referendums on the exemptions would be held in the near future, though no date was set.

Now, “it would be political suicide” if he went ahead with those plans, Larsen said, noting that polls show 39.4 percent of Danes do not want to join the EU’s joint immigration policy and only 30.1 percent do.

BNP Councillors Still Waiting for Police to Investigate Anti-White Attack

BNP Bradford councillors Paul and Lynda Cromie are still waiting, six months on, for any police action after they were attacked by two Asian males in a blatantly anti-white racist attack, despite numerous witnesses and evidence having been presented.

This stands in stark contrast to the rapidity with which the police force always investigates even a hint of any ‘white racist’ activity, which can be as petty as having a golly for sale in a shop window.

Councillors Paul and Lynda were attacked by the two Asians while on their way home in February this year from the annual Council Budget meeting at Great Horton Road, Bradford. The attackers attempted to drag the BNP councillors out of their car — and in the process, left a perfect set of fingerprints on the vehicle.

One of the suspects was subsequently indentified through the fingerprints, and turned out to be a Mr. Marcus Hart from Wilsden, a suburb of Bradford. He readily admitted that he was at the scene, but claimed that the BNP councillors had started the fracas! He also refused to tell the investigating officer the name of his accomplice or the car registration number.

The police officer, PC Dave Gledhill, who interviewed the BNP councillors, told them they were in the wrong area, which he then said that he considered “to be the reason for the attack.” When asked to explain, PC Gledhill said that “Asians regard Great Horton Road as their area” — in other words, a no-go area for whites.

The Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute because “there were no independent witnesses and it was only our word against his,” said Paul. “I bet Kevin Hughes, a BNP activist who was imprisoned purely on the word of an asylum seeker, with no other witnesses, would have wished that it was this simple.”

Now, six months on, Paul and Lynda received and reported dozens of death threats and threatening phone calls — yet there has still not been one prosecution, despite mounds of evidence.

“This clearly shows the anti-white bias of the politicians who control the police,” said Paul. “We can be assured that if BNP supporters had attacked an Asian councillor, the police task force would have been called out, arrests would have been made and it would have been on national TV for months on end. However, because it is non-whites attacking whites, the police refused to do anything, and no media is interested either. This tells us exactly with what we are dealing — anti-white racism.”

Has the Law Lords System Passed Its Shelf Life?

Has the time come for the system of Law Lords to be disbanded? This is the question being asked in legal circles after the Law Lords ruled that attempts to control immigration was an illegal violation of human rights.

Making a ruling on the 2004 Immigration Act, and particularly the provision dealing with attempts to curb the number of fake marriages to gain entry to Britain, the Law Lords have ruled that the issue of fake marriages to gain entrance was not the problem and insisted the only issue was the “right to marry.”

They clearly erred in claiming it interfered with the 2004 Act (even though the Act did not stop anyone entitled to live here from getting married in the UK).

In other words, the Law Lords were emphatic that the only relevant question was whether the policy “violated the respondents’ right to marry” — and immigration issues had no bearing upon this.

This ignores the fact that rejected asylum-seekers, for example, may become British residents if they marry an EU citizen — but not if the marriage is a ’sham’ under the Act.

To ensure that marriages were genuine, the Immigration Act required that people whose only claim to legal residence was through their spouse should present themselves to the Home Office. Officials would then decide whether or not to issue a “certificate of approval” for their marriage: no certificate of approval, no right to stay in Britain.

The provision was a response to a very specific problem. Council registrars, who conduct civil marriage ceremonies and issue civil marriage certificates, were reporting large numbers of marriages where the parties did not even speak the same language. They appeared to be taking place purely to let one party claim UK residence.

The police also uncovered ’sham marriage rackets’: EU citizens living in Britain would be offered about £2,000 to marry a man or a woman, usually from a Third World country, who wanted to live here but who was not, under the rules, entitled to.

The organiser of the racket would charge the would-be immigrant £5,000 for fixing up a sham marriage, and pocket the difference — some criminals made themselves millionaires in that way.

The 2004 Act cut the number of sham marriages by at least half. “We got almost no cases in the three years after that Act came into force,” said Mark Rimmer, supervisor of civil marriages in Brent, North London. “Before it, at least one in five marriages — about 250 marriages a year — was obviously bogus.” Brent’s experience was reproduced in councils across Britain.

This country will have a population of more than 70 million in 20 years, according to the projections recently published. Immigration, and the much higher birth rate of many immigrants, will account for most of the growth.

It is little wonder then, that many concerned British people are thinking that the House of Lords is coming near the end of its lifetime.

* Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or Law Lords, are appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 to the House of Lords in order to exercise its judicial functions, which include acting as the highest court of appeal for most domestic matters.

Policies & Manifesto

British National Party Policies.

Download our 2007 Mini Manifesto here.

IMMIGRATION — time to say ENOUGH!

On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years.

To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question.

We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.

EUROPE — back to British independence!

We are opposed to the Single European Currency, and support the overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the Pound and our traditional weights and measures. At the same time, we are for the best possible relationship with our European neighbours and believe that the nations of Europe should be free to trade and cooperate whenever it is mutually beneficial, though without being forced into a political and economic straitjacket – political unification. Accordingly, we stand for British withdrawal from the European Union. In place of the EU, we intend to aim towards greater national self-sufficiency, and to work to restore Britain’s family and trading ties with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and to trade with the rest of the world as it suits us. Following our withdrawal from the EU, the BNP will use the £43 million per day net contribution Britain at present makes to the European Union to fund many far more useful projects at home.

LAW AND ORDER — crack down on crime!

The BNP will crack down on crime and restore public safety and confidence. We will free the police and courts from the politically correct straitjacket that is stopping them from doing their job properly. The liberal fixation with the ‘rights’ of criminals must be replaced by concern for the rights of victims, and the right of innocent people not to become victims. We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute, as by DNA evidence or being caught red-handed.

ECONOMY — British workers first!

Globalisation, with its export of jobs to the Third World, is bringing ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities that depend on them. Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers. When this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish, at last getting our people back to work and ending the waste and injustice of having more than 4 million people in a hidden army of the unemployed concealed by Labour’s statistical fiddles. We further believe that British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people. To that end we will restore our economy and land to British ownership. We also call for preference in the job market to be given to native Britons. We will take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants. Finally we will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes

EDUCATION — discipline, standards, achievement!

We are against the ‘trendy’ teaching methods that have made Britain one of the most poorly educated nations in Europe. We will end the practice of politically correct indoctrination in all its guises and we will restore discipline in the classroom, give authority back to teachers and put far greater emphasis on training young people in the industrial and technological skills necessary in the modern world. We will also seek to instill in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain.

AGRICULTURE — quality before quantity!

We see a strong, healthy agriculture sector as vital to the country. Britain’s farming industry will be encouraged to produce a much greater part of the nation’s need in food products. Priority will be switched from quantity to quality, as we move from competing in a global economy to maximum self-sufficiency for Britain. We will ensure a major shift to healthier and more sustainable organic farming. We are pledged to ensure the restoration of Britain’s once great fishing industry with the reimposition of the former exclusion zones around our coast.

HEALTH — first-class healthcare for all!

We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens. We will revitalise the Health Service by boosting staff and bed numbers, slashing unnecessary bureaucracy and by addressing the root cause of low recruitment and retention — low pay. We will see to it that no money is given in foreign aid while our own hospitals are short of beds and the staff to run them. More emphasis must be placed on healthy living with greater understanding of sickness prevention through physical exercise, a healthier environment and improved diets.

TRANSPORT — time to invest!

Increased investment is needed in Britain’s public transport system to bring it up to the highest standards in the world. The fiasco of rail privatisation with different companies running services and track leading to higher fares and lower safety also needs to be resolved. Congestion of our towns and cities must be eased by the provision of greater incentives to use rail and bus transport instead of private cars. The first step is to end the crime and squalor that puts so many people off public transport. Motorists must not be made the scapegoats for government failure. Fuel tax should be cut, motorway speed limits raised, and hidden speed cameras should be banned. Far more must be done to encourage the development and use of cleaner fuels.

ENVIRONMENT — a cleaner, greener future!

Our ideal for Britain is that of a clean, beautiful country, free of pollution in all its forms. We will enforce standards to curb those practices, whether by business or the individual, which cause environmental damage. “The polluter pays to clean up the mess” must become a fact of life, not an electioneering slogan. In towns we would work to replace the brutalist modernism of 1960s-style-architecture with a blend of traditional local styles and materials and ensure that developments take place on a more human scale.

FOREIGN AID — time to spend our money on our own people!

We reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. We will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, whereby those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The billions of pounds saved every year by this policy will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain.

PENSIONERS — pensioners before asylum seekers!

The conditions in which many of Britain’s old people are forced to live are a national disgrace. We are pledged to ensure that all our old folk are able to live in comfortable homes, and will restore the earnings link with pensions. Elderly people who have paid a lifetime of taxes and reared families should not have to sell their homes to pay for care.

NORTHERN IRELAND — an end to sectarianism!

Britain has shamefully allowed the terrorists in Northern Ireland to come close to winning when the IRA could have been destroyed years ago. Government weakness has led to hundreds of deaths and given those same terrorists a share in government. We would end all attempts to force the people of Northern Ireland to accept foreign interference in their affairs and deal with terrorism — from whatever side — once and for all. No one with links to a terrorist organisation that refuses to lay down its arms should be allowed to enter government. We would abolish state-supported segregation in education. In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles.

DEFENCE — no more cuts!

Successive cuts in defence spending have left Britain’s armed forces perilously weak. We will boost Britain’s armed forces to ensure that they are able to deal with any emergency, and defend our homeland and our independence. We will bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO, since recent political developments make both commitments obsolete. We will close all foreign military bases on British soil, and refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peace-keeping’ missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake — a position of armed neutrality. We will also restore national service for our young with the option of civil or military service.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS — Britain’s interests first!

Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interest and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics. We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. We will maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the ‘international community’, or any other country.

DEMOCRACY — letting the people decide!

The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in recent years the British people have been denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by a Politically Correct ‘elite’ which thinks it knows best. On immigration, on Capital Punishment, on the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other areas, democracy has been absent as Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems conspire in election after election to offer the British people no real choice on such vital issues. The BNP exists to give the British people that choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, not just at national but at regional and local level.

Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them. We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive Governments over the last 40 years. We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people. We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.

Make a Donation to the British National Party

Make a Donation to the British National Party.

We do not receive big business donations, State funding, cash for honours, questions, planning permission or even dodgy ‘think tanks’, so please help us so we can help you!

Online donations:

Click the button below to complete the secure online donation form.

Telephone donations:

We now have a facility for allowing supporters to make donations by telephone.

Call our Treasury team on 0871 0500 234, have your card ready and we will talk you through the quick and easy donation process. Lines are open Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.

Postal donations:

Please send all cheques / POs, made payable to British National Party or British Heritage, to:

PO Box 142
Leeds
LS8 9DR

Please note you MUST supply your name and address, otherwise the money goes straight to asylum seekers, the Lib/Lab/Con fat cats and other scroungers.

The Politics

If peak oil is an issue surely it is best left for the energy experts to resolve and the BNP can concentrate on more immediate matters?

Such a question is commonly heard at branch meetings and read in emails and letters sent into the web team and other office holders.

In response we need to be clear about some basic issues. The BNP is not going to achieve political power in Westminster or elsewhere, beyond perhaps a few town or district councils in the next 10-15 years. The current corrupt system will not allow the BNP to win anything more than a token presence in councils and perhaps one or two other elected chambers around the country. However the corrupt system is not going to manage to silence the growing number of Britons who are rightly concerned, fed up and disillusioned by the betrayal of our economy, our communities, our culture and our way of life.

That disillusionment sometimes turns to anger as we saw in the hauliers dispute back in 2000. With petrol prices due to rise yet again, and politicians working behind the scenes to stop the cost going over the psychological £4 a gallon mark, there will be much more manifestations of disillusionment and anger in the years to come. It will not just be hauliers and farmers, but legions of others; employees who are on short working weeks, self-employed tradesmen finding it hard to pay for their fuel, the mums who cannot get a doctor to call on their sick children, the young couples facing repossession of their houses because the cost of living is spiraling out of control. As oil prices rise, it will be millions who suffer, millions of ordinary people who are just trying to get on with their lives, millions of ordinary decent people will be forced into states of anxiety, depression, fear and anger.

The BNP is making peak oil a high profile issue for a number of reasons.

1. The press have portrayed the BNP membership as knuckle draggers, poorly educated, unsuccessful losers who blame minority groups such as blacks/asians/gays/communists (delete as appropriate) for their situation. The fact that our current Chairman, Nick Griffin received a degree from Cambridge University and that more than two-thirds of the Advisory Council have university degrees seems to have missed the assorted hacks, editors and broadcasters who rail against us. We are a party of clever, resourceful and deeply motivated and committed individuals.

We have to work harder than our political opponents to convey the reality that the BNP is made up of thoroughly decent Britons who have a great deal of combined grey matter, are highly resourceful, successful people in their own lives and that we can be trusted to generate some stunning policy ideas to regenerate this country and demonstrate responsible leadership on this and other issues.

2. We are the only political party making this an issue at the moment. We are leaders in this issue just as we have been the ones leading the debate on immigration and asylum. It is because the BNP exists and because the BNP has been seen to win votes from Labour because of our tough stand on immigration and asylum that Labour are now trying to be seen to be tough on asylum, even to the extent this month of ensuring the high profile deportations of distressed asylum seekers back to the murderous hands of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. When we were talking about immigration, 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago we were ignored, pilloried and condemned. We still are polloried and condemned but not ignored. Immigration is high on the list of voters’ concerns and the other parties are now playing “catch up” to the BNP.

3. We are not a single-issue party. While immigration and asylum are important issues, we have no desire to be seen only as the “anti-immigration” pressure group. The BNP has a serious mission to undertake - we have to secure political power in this country within the next 40 years otherwise there will not be a Britain. We must have policies that will work, policies that will cover every aspect of human activity and the complex society that we will be running. We need to find, recruit, train and assist spokesmen and women to develop, to refine and to disseminate these policies on health, education, energy, transport, governance, law and order as well as immigration, Europe, and defence.

4. When the BNP does win political power Peak Oil will not be something that we can postpone. It will be happening at the very time that we come to power. In fact it may well be an important catalyst that helps us to win political power because we are the ones talking about it now, the voters might not like us pointing out that the wolf is approaching the chicken coop but they will identify us as the ones who kept speaking about it back in 2005, bringing it to their awareness and understanding.

Voters take to new ideas, even radically new ideas when the system that they have trusted, worked with, admired and felt comfortable with falls apart. We are going to make a lot of noise about Peak Oil because it is yet another example of how the current political process has failed the people of this country, how the short-sightedness of most of our corrupt, incompetent and downright traitorous politicians is very shortly going to create one awful mess and we rightly identify those individuals, those systems, those institutions that have been responsible for that collapse.

Next Page »