Britain’s Overpopulation Crisis Is Even Worse than the EU Stated

Britain’s population will hit almost 80 million within two generations — with more people living here per square mile than anywhere else in Europe.

The latest forecast, from the UK’s own statistics office, paints an even more alarming picture than last week’s projections from the European Union.

EU statisticians say Britain’s population — currently 60.9 million — will hit 76.7 million by 2060. Actually it will be over three million more, at 79.8 million, just one year later, says the Office for National Statistics -  enough extra to fill three Birmingham-size cities.

And more than half the growth — 10 million people — will be as a direct consequence of immigration, both people moving here and established migrants having families. This is 30 percent more than the EU calculated.

The new figures mean that in just over 50 years there will be 845 people crammed into every square mile, even though Britain is a smaller country than Germany or France. England will be the most affected, with the population expected to soar by almost 18 million — a 34 percent rise — to 69.2 million.

The population of Wales will rise to 3.4 million (15 percent), Northern Ireland to 2.1 million (19 percent), while Scotland will see a fall by 299,000 to 5.2 million.

Sir Andrew Green, of Migrationwatch UK, said: “The impact on the environment and the quality of life for our children and grandchildren hardly bears thinking about.”

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.

Biting the Hand That Has Fed Them

ISN’T it strange how those immigrants who have become influential within particular fields of our society appear to have a chip on their shoulder.

You would have thought that they would be satisfied to have risen to the top of their trade and done so well in spite of the rampant racism and insurmountable anti-immigrant bias that they tell us infects our society from top to bottom.

Take Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur for example. He’s a Ugandan Muslim immigrant who owes everything to Britain -– his education, his career and his current elevated status. Yet he is not a happy bunny and is suing his employers, the Metropolitan Police, for everything he can get, claiming that inherent racism within the Force has stopped him getting even higher up the promotional ladder.

His self-preening performance at the press conference in central London at which he launched his obscene claim was reminiscent of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown at her very worst. She is another Ugandan Muslim immigrant who has made a career as a ‘social commentator’ with The Independent and BBC by savaging the hand that feeds her and denouncing white British people as workshy, ignorant and, of course, “racist”.

But neither of them can hold a light to the great chieftain of ethnic arrogance himself –- Trevor Phillips, the supremo of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Before he joined the Gravy Train, Phillips claimed to be a socialist, although by sending his own children to private schools, he somewhat undermined these credentials. Now Trevor is of Guyanese parents and that country today is a cauldron of racial and religious strife, as various ethnic groups battle for supremacy, and is far from an advertisement for the joys of multiculturalism. Rather than trying to suppress the indigenous White folk of our islands, you would have thought a radical campaigner likes Phillips would have relished the challenge of promoting equality and human rights in his country of ethnic origin.

But, of course, we mustn’t blame the likes of Phillips, Ghaffur and Alibhai-Brown for this almost studied hostility towards the country and the people that have allowed them, albeit in many cases reluctantly, to make Britain their home. Their ungrateful attitude is the fault of the liberal intelligentsia and an orchestrated campaign of brainwashing by the media that everything about immigrants is “vibrant” and wonderful and that the boring old British people should be so grateful that these people have chosen to come and live amongst us.

The ethnic minorities and their cultures have been put on a pedestal by successive Labour and Conservative Governments which haven’t allowed a single word of criticism to be said against them. (I was banged up in Pentonville for three months in 1985 for voicing such criticism.)

Even when immigrants were rioting, burning down our inner cities and hacking to death with machetes PC Keith Blakelock, it wasn’t their fault — it was apparently ours — that of British society for not giving them all the opportunities they were entitled to.

The liberal agenda and a fawning media have made Trevor Phillips, Tarique Ghaffur and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown the monsters they are today. Without that help and if they’d been on a level playing field, they wouldn’t have risen through the ranks and wouldn’t have any influence.

The blame, as always, lies with Britain’s politicians of the last fifty years who have betrayed the interests of the British people. They have made us second class citizens in our own country who have to take it on the chin without comment when bullied and denounced by those whom seem to be our new masters.

Read Martin Wingfield’s blog here.

Muslims Object to Christian Prayer Meeting in Oxford Church

In yet another sign of the increasing Islamification of Britain, a Muslim pressure group in Oxford has demanded — and received — an apology from a Christian prayer group which organised a “Call to Prayer” meeting in St. Aldate’s Church (illustration) in that city centre.

The Muslim Education Centre of Oxford (Meco) accused Witney-based Christian “Open Doors UK” of preaching “evangelical propaganda”, despite that organisation holding an indoor meeting in a Christian Church, and not forcing anyone to attend.

Pathetically, Open Doors UK immediately apologised and insisted the prayer meeting had been taken out of context, although it “regretted” any offence that had been caused. On the contrary, a spokesman for the Christian group said the meeting’s aim “was to reduce fear of Islam.”

Meco chairman Dr Taj Hargey said he was “shocked by their theological self-righteousness. They assume the self-appointed task to ‘pray for Muslims’. They also say that each year there are incredible stories about how God answers these prayers, revealing Himself to Muslims around the world, and bringing many to faith in Jesus.”

He added: “Not only was this evangelical activity ill-conceived and insensitive, it was grossly insulting and inflammatory to Oxford’s Muslim inhabitants. At Meco our aim is to bring people of all faiths together, not divide them further. Things like this only serve to break people apart.”

A joint statement from Open Doors UK and St Aldate’s Church said: “Open Doors and St Aldate’s very much regret that offence has been taken by Meco at an event designed to encourage church-going Christians to engage positively with Muslims. Hundreds of Christians responded to an invitation that had been sent to churches to a series of meetings held in a church aimed at ‘reducing fear of Islam, increasing love for Muslims’. Thus we would emphasise that it was not a meeting targeted at Muslims. Before the event we emphasised that we were not denigrating Islam or criticising Muslim beliefs. At the same time we do believe that having discovered God’s love in Jesus and made a choice to become Christians ourselves, everyone has the right to explore religious faiths and make decisions based on their exploration.”

Incredibly, Dr Hargey said that “while Meco had been offended, it would not hold a grudge.”

Is this what Britain has become? A country where Christians are now browbeaten and criticised for holding prayer meetings in Christian Churches? Where Muslims can demand ‘apologies’ from Christians simply for practising their religion?

Every day, Sharia law draws nearer for Britain. One day, if this immigration invasion is left unchecked, the new Muslim rulers of this country will outlaw other religions, as is the case in Saudi Arabia and many other countries they rule.

There is only one party which will halt, and reverse this demographic invasion: the British National Party.

Senior Asian Police Officer Scores Poorly on Test, Claims ‘Racism’

One of the two senior Asian officers suing the Metropolitan Police for racial discrimination has seen a court reject his claim that he was overlooked for promotion after performing poorly in comparison to white colleagues.

Commander Shabir Hussain, 45, who is one of the highest-ranked ethnic minority officers in the country, blamed ‘racism’ for his inability to score better, and brought an employment tribunal case alleging he had been repeatedly overlooked for promotion because “my face did not fit and did not fit because I am not white.”

The employment tribunal had found there was “no substance” to Hussain’s claims after it emerged that during a promotion assessment in 2006, Hussain was given a mark of 3+ while four of the five remaining candidates were given “exceptional” marks of four or five.

Hussain then alleged that a “golden circle” of white officers had been chosen to run Britain’s largest force. The Yard said:  ”We are pleased to be vindicated of racially discriminating against Commander Hussain and we are disappointed that he felt it necessary to bring this case.”

At the three-day hearing at the tribunal in Stratford, east London, Hussain said he had been rejected for promotion from his rank of commander to deputy assistant commissioner an “unprecedented” four times, compared to white colleagues he described as being Sir Ian’s “favourite sons and daughters”, who had succeeded after two attempts.

Hussain, whose lawyers said his assignment to take charge of the police training college at Hendon in north London was evidence that he was in a “career cul-de-sac”, said his claim had “highlighted deficiencies in the Met’s promotion system” — in other words, he still believes that it is white people’s fault that he performed less well than his white colleagues.

He said: “I’m disappointed but the hearing did expose the shortcomings of the promotion process. I aim to carry on with my career as normal.” He had demanded £500,000 compensation for this alleged ‘racism’.

Promises and Reality

It is just over 12 months since the formidable, blue-rinsed Tory ladies and their elegantly dressed, moisturised, smugly grinning, smooth male counterparts made their 4 yearly appearances, canvassing and leafleting for their positions on local Borough councils.

They grandly assured all those prepared to listen, that they and they alone, held the key to all local problems and promised they would work harder than anyone else, listen more and give you ‘value for money’ councillors.

Their glossy, professionally PR designed leaflets oozed unctuous election winning promises, as they fought snout and trotter for a place at the trough.

Twelve months later the reality starts to emerge, typically expressed in the councils’ returns of attendances and expense claims.

A prime example can be seen in the Hinckley & Bosworth area where Conservative councillor Jon Cort attended only 4 out of his 28 scheduled meetings (14.29%) claiming  £2949.30 in the process. The cost to local taxpayers was £737 for every meeting he attended — not quite the value for money that they promised.

When approached by the local media he was unavailable for comment, however perhaps the most enlightened (and damning) comment came from Cllr Adrian Smith (Lib Dem) with 56% attendance, who said, “Those figures are a little bit misleading — unfortunately, when you run you don’t realize how many meetings there are.” He pathetically concludes, “Hopefully it should get better.”

So there we have it; they don’t even know what being a councillor involves, apart from claiming expenses.

The impact these wastes of space have on improving local services is negligible; we need to campaign for their resignations.

We also need to run a national campaign to find Britain’s worst councillor. Can anyone beat 14.29% and £737 per meeting at district level? Let’s name and shame them.

Lying Media Forced to Apologise, Pay Compensation for Smearing BNP Candidate

Bradford newspaper the Telegraph and Argus has been forced to publicly apologise and pay compensation of £500 to a charity of the BNP’s choice after falsely smearing a BNP candidate in an article about a local election count in that city.

In May 2008, the Telegraph and Argus claimed that during a count “police were called to quieten down BNP candidate Clifford Cockayne” after he allegedly became involved in a verbal altercation with another candidate giving a speech.

This article was clearly designed to try and portray BNP members as thugs — but the fact was that Clifford was not even present when the altercation took place! The entire thing had just been invented by the Telegraph and Argus out of thin air.

Fortunately, Clifford is not a man to let such things stand, and he actually issued a legal letter of demand against the newspaper. On 20 August, the Telegraph and Argus admitted guilt, and shortly thereafter published a full retraction. In addition, they paid £500 compensation to the MacMillan Nurses Charity, which had been nominated by Clifford as the beneficiary of the damages claim.

Images: Clifford celebrating his victory over the lying media, holding the cheque to the MacMillan Nurses Charity, and insert, the retraction published by the Telegraph and Argus.

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.”

BNP Councillors Expose More Labour Waste at Sandwell Council

The hard-working BNP councillors in Sandwell, Russell Green and Carl Butler, have once again exposed the outrageous waste and unnecessary tax burden being placed upon their communities by the Labour-controlled council.

The great exposure came at a council meeting supposedly held to “outline improved efficiency since 2003″ in which the council was supposed to explain how much tax money had been saved since 2003.

Councillor Green asked how much in real, monetary terms, the savings had been. He was then told by the Labour councillors that it “would be a waste of time and resources for members of the public to be told exactly how much their council tax had increased since 2003.”

Where is the so-called efficiency? Why no direct answer on council tax rises?

Furthermore, was it not a disgraceful, and serious fraudulent act, to spend money, our money, in excess of £58 million to build the ridiculous-looking Public Arts Centre, known derisively a the “shoebox” (pictured).

In addition, to import an Afro-American Director with a large salary to run this pathetic, and tax funded project, is a sheer affront.

Keep up the good work Councillors Green and Butler.

Manchester – Policing Without Pride

On Saturday 23rd August, Manchester witnessed the largest ever gathering of gay police officers during the annual ‘gay pride’ march in the city centre. Officers appeared in public wearing sweatshirts adorned with the slogan ‘Police with Pride’. Regrettably, this bizarre spectacle was just another depressing milestone in the humiliating decline of Greater Manchester police from a once proud force, into little more than a showcase for politically-correct exhibitionism.

The BNP firmly believes that the state should not concern itself with what consenting adults, ‘gay’ or ‘straight’, do in the privacy of their own homes. Equally, state institutions such as the police or prison services should not demean themselves by encouraging their officers to flaunt their private predilections in a public parade. A police officer might be homosexual, but surely he or she should be obliged to present a dignified and smart public persona? Police officers would never be allowed to participate in a ‘white pride’ parade, so why should they be officially encouraged to take part in ‘Gay Pride’?

Unfortunately for Greater Manchester Police (GMP), the ‘Police with Pride’ spectacle coincided with the release of a report showing that GMP missed 13 of its 17 targets between April and June 2008. Burglary, drugs offences and serious violent crime were among the categories where GMP’s results were deemed ‘unacceptable. Greater Manchester Police Authority has also expressed ’serious concerns’ about the force’s performance.

Of course, most ordinary GMP police officers continue to serve their community conscientiously and impartially, just as they have always done. Indeed their ranks have included a fair number of outright heroes, such as DC Stephen Oake, who fell in the line of duty while trying to arrest a Muslim terrorist and was justly awarded a posthumous George Cross. Nonetheless, these fine rank-and-file officers have been increasingly let down by a cadre of senior commanders whose dedication to advancing their politically-correct careers seems to exceed their dedication to upholding law and order.

These senior officers notoriously included the late Chief Constable Todd, whose unexplained death on Mount Snowdon — assumed to be suicide — generated national publicity. Todd was popular with his officers, but the sordid press revelations which accompanied his death cast doubt on his fitness to be a police officer at all, let alone Chief Constable of Britain’s second largest force.

Towards the end of Todd’s tenure as Chief Constable, Greater Manchester Police seemed to lose interest in ordinary policing, in favour of politically-motivated repression. The force adopted an increasingly anti-white stance, and pursued their policy of institutional discrimination against the BNP with an almost missionary zeal.

For example, in May 2007, with massive publicity, GMP launched a prolonged investigation into ludicrous allegations that off-duty police officers had been seen drinking with ‘BNP supporters’ outside a city centre pub on St George’s day. Predictably, the investigation failed to make any headway, but not before vast sums of taxpayers’ money had been wasted. (1)

Greater Manchester Police commanders seem to have a particular problem with Mancunians who dare to celebrate St George’s day. On St George’s day 2008, senior officers saw fit to authorise the baton-charging of exuberant St George’s day revellers in the city centre. The contrast with GMP’s kid glove treatment of overt criminality during Eid celebrations in the Rusholme district of the city has been widely noted.

Senator McCarthy himself would have been proud of Greater Manchester Police’s political witch-hunts. During the local election campaign of 2008, the Manchester Evening News ran a series of stories, seemingly sourced from Greater Manchester Police, describing GMP’s efforts to hound out officers suspected of harbouring political sympathy for the BNP. One officer who supposedly wore a union flag badge was ‘investigated’. Another officer who disclosed that he had purchased a copy of Voice of Freedom for research purposes was disciplined and transferred. The human right of free expression and free access to lawful newspapers obviously ceased to exist a long time ago in GMP! (2)

Most seriously of all, in the city of Manchester itself, Greater Manchester Police attempted to intervene directly in an election campaign. In the district of Blackley, where the BNP always commands more than a quarter of the vote, a senior police officer was quoted in a local newspaper warning about the BNP “latching onto” racism. This unprecedented intervention in party politics was made just three weeks before the local elections. (3)

BNP activists in Manchester suspect that the governing politburo of Greater Manchester Police might be very dismayed indeed if they grasped the true extent of BNP support among GMP officers in general, and sergeants and inspectors in particular. After all, it is these brave officers who deal day and night with the dreadful consequences of Manchester’s failed multicultural experiment, even as they are undermined and betrayed by their own senior commanders.

With Todd’s death, the people of Greater Manchester dared to hope for a return to traditional policing priorities, and a renewed commitment to upholding law and order. Sadly, it seems as if residents’ hopes have now been dashed. Todd’s replacement as the new Chief Constable of Greater Manchester is Peter Fahy, formerly Chief Constable of Cheshire and chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ so-called “Race & Diversity” unit.

Fahy’s main contribution to the national policing debate seems to be his call for overt discrimination against white police officers to be legalised. Fahy is reported to have said, “Clearly, if we are going to be held to account on particular targets based on representation, the only way we can meet that is through affirmative action … to take into account somebody’s ethnic background.” (4)

With all this in mind, it is no surprise that few Mancunians feel any sense of pride in their police, ‘gay’ or otherwise.

Next Page »