The BNP would expel all illegal immigrants, and  encourage Britons of other ethnicities to migrate through a new system of grants (

Protecting ‘indigenous Britain’ is the BNP’s number one priority, and they would spare no expense or effort on their quest for a return to a white Britain. The result would be tear liberal tolerant, Britain to shreds.

-          Fortress Britain. As totalitarian countries in the past such as East Germany or the Soviet Union have discovered, shutting down a country’s borders is not as easy as it sounds. If the BNP are serious about preventing all illegal immigration, then Britain’s borders will need to be completely locked down. There will be naval patrols, restrictions on visas, DNA checks at border control, no vehicle allowed in or out. The costs and red tape for doing international business will explode, as visas become difficult to get. Trade costs soar as each shipping container and lorry is extensively searched before entry to the country

-          Big Brother Britain. No loose ends could be left as BNP authorities scoured the country, trying to root out every last illegal immigrant. Houses would be searched, warehouses ransacked. Presumably, the BNP’s plan to abolish identity cards would not long.

-          Schools turned into incubators of hate. The BNP would ban schools from promoting racial harmony. Instead, they’d rather use teachers to indoctrinate our children with their twisted ideology, turning Briton against Briton.  

-          Britain erupts into civil war. Understandably, Britain’s ethnic minorities – it’s blacks, Asians, Europeans and Jews – would feel more than a little under threat by the election of a BNP government. With children being taught to hate anyone of a different skin, and obligatory ownership of  assault rifles as part of the BNP’s law and order strategy, it would take not a much to spark major inter community conflict. The results would be bloody.

The BNP’s racist policy would turn liberal, cosmopolitan, tolerant but proud Britain into a authoritarian chaotic warzone.

Nineteenth century Germany was one of the most tolerant countries in the whole world, until extremists turned its people against each other.

We should not let the same happen here.

Share on Facebook

There’s a growing backlash against the British National Party’s attempts to hijack the military and the honour of Britain’s Armed Forces in the run up to the 2010 General Election.

Saturday’s The Sun reported our story about the BNP’s attempts to exploit the image of Fusilier Tom James, who has suffered terrible injuries in Afghanistan.

Despite the campaign claiming it is not political, it has been set up by Simon Bennett, the BNP’s web master, and is supported by the BNP’s reactionary Defence spokesman, Peter Mullins.

The News of the World carried a snippet on the failure of the BNP’s ”Bring them Home” campaign saying it has  ”gone down badly with troops – where soldiers of diverse ethnic background serve alongside each other like brothers.” It goes on to say:

“… they just want people back home to support them. They are also angry after the racist BNP criticised Grenada-born VC hero Johnson Beharry, who saved the lives of 30 comrades.”

The People also featured a story about Jessica Deans, the fiancé of Liam Elms, a former marine killed on New Years Eve in 2008.

Jessica, a 22-year-old nurse, said: “I find it an outrage that an image of Liam’s coffin on the day of his funeral is being used as propaganda for the BNP’s personal gain.”

And Liam’s father Michael, 51, said: “We haven’t give our permission for them to use any coverage of Liam’s funeral on this video. It’s out of order that the picture has been put in the public domain and for the BNP to use it for political gain is not on. It feels like an easy way for the BNP to get people involved in their party and to make money.”

Griffin and Darby claim they have the support of Britain’s Armed Forces and believe that by cloaking themselves in the honour of our brave soldiers and veterans it will help to de-toxify their brand. However, ever since our Stolen Valour campaign the British electorate have publicly stated they don’t appreciate their Armed Forces being crudely politicised.

Griffin & co should cease and desist.

Maurice Cousins

For more information on the BNP’s attempts to hijack the Armed Forces  please read our Stolen Valour report. Also see our information note “Flying the white flag: How the BNP’s policies would make Britain less safe”.

Share on Facebook

The BNP would end all further immigration, expel all illegal immigrants, and encourage Britons of other ethnicities to migrate through a generous system of repatriation grants.

The BNP’s policy remains unclear, as the party continues its attempt to modernise its image, and present itself as a mainstream nationalist party. What seems certain is that at a minimum all further immigration would be halted, and a witch hunt to expel illegal immigrants begun. What seems likely is that all Britain’s ethnic minorities would be first encouraged and then compelled to leave Britain, so that the UK could be left to its “indigenous population.”

The BNP claims that any immigration is a vast threat to both Britain’s economy and culture. Near the complete opposite is true. The BNP’s policy would not only remove key workers from our economy, but by shutting us off from the world, destroy many of our world leading industries.

Here are some of the key effects the BNP policy would have:

-          End the global transfer of skills and ideas. Britain is a world leader in universities and research, in finances and business services, in the media, art and fashion. These industries rely on being able to recruit the best and brightest from all across the world, to network in our cities and spark ideas off each other. Take two American examples : in the US, Hollywood is the home of the entertainment industry, where Asian Directors, Australian stars and British writers can work together to produce films enjoyed all over the work. In Silicon Valley, the home of technology, the leaders of the web revolution Google, eBay and Yahoo were all co-founded by immigrants.

-          Destroy our world leading industries. If a British film can’t use an Australian director or a startup an Indian programmer, then those industries will simply lead. Our brightest and best will leave us for climates where they’re more welcome.

-          We’d all lose jobs. Whenever any industry closes, the rest of the economy suffers. It’s not just their taxes we’d lose (although that would bankrupt our treasury), but the demand and money they bring to the economy.  With our high skilled workers no longer buying goods at our shops, hiring plumbers for their house or eating at their local restaurant, then suddenly retailers, plumbers and waiters lose out too.

-          Immigrants do the jobs that nobody else wants to. In reality immigration doesn’t have to be a threat to British workers. It can be a complement to British workers, not a substitute. Polish plumbers, Filipino nannies and Afro Carribean nurses provide jobs that there simply aren’t enough British people who can or want to do.

-          Public services wrecked. The NHS would be devastated without its foreign staff; more than half the newly registered doctors between 1992-2002 qualified outside Britain. The Army would lose 10% of its manpower. Education loses its cleaning staff.

-          Services become more expensive. Just as the BNP’s tariffs and bans on imports would make goods more expensive, their ban on immigration would make services more expensive too. It would become more expensive to eat take out food, hire an electrician or a plumber, or a nurse to look after the elderly. As usual, the BNP’s policy would leave the lives of the rich relatively unchanged but hurt the poor worst.

In summary, the BNP’s policy would devastate the strongest parts of the British economy, cause a wider recession that would hit us all, and raise the price of basic services to levels that only the rich could afford.

Share on Facebook

Another tasteless attempt by the BNP to exploit the warm feelings the British public has towards our Armed Forces arrived in my in-box.

This innocent-looking email purports to be a disinterested appeal for support for a wounded British soldier. But, beware.

• It claims to be a personal plea but it is not signed.
• It claims to be non-political, but the web-version of the email is on the BNP website and the return address is the BNP HQ.
• It claims to be on behalf of Fusilier Tom James, but he is not quoted, nor is anyone related to him.

It smacks of the BNP. Their clumsy attempts to associate themselves with the heroism of Britain’s armed forces are deeply resented by our soldiers who fight for the British values Nick Griffin seeks to destroy: fairness, tolerance and looking out for the little guy.

Give it a rest, Nick.

Share on Facebook

After extensive consultations with the Police on the issue of public safety, university authorities were cowered by the threat of clashes outside the university venue. The National Union of Students promised bus loads of members would be sent to Durham to close down the event, according to the DUS press release.

This is a bad day for the  British value of freedom of expression. And a set-back in the fight against extremism:-

The university should show more back-bone. Carolyn Fowler, the University’s Registrar said: “The University statutes clearly state that any threat to public safety supersedes the importance of freedom of expression”. If even our universities make  health and safety considerations paramount, who on earth is there left to fight for freedom of expression?

The police should do whatever’s necessary to uphold the University’s right to hold such a debate, not advising against such meetings. It defies belief that the police are handing the NUS a veto on debate in this country because of the threat of a few bus loads of students.

The NUS’s “No Platform” policy is a repressive, counter-productive throw-back to the arrogant student politics of the 1960s. Instead of bussing in students for a punch-up, the NUS should be teaching students how to win the argument against extremism.

No one likes the idea of life-long Nazi-sympathisers like Brons and young thugs like Beverley using a venue like Durham University to espouse their hate-filled, neo-fascist, racist ideology. Particularly before an election. But if we do not have the confidence to overcome these bullies on a challenged platform then we can be sure to beat them at the ballot box.

James Bethell

Share on Facebook

Desecrated Jewish graveyard

The CST recorded a record number anti-Semitic attacks carried out against UK’s Jewish community last year – 924 in 2009 up 55% from 546 in 2008.

Some will write off these top-line figures as simply the inevitable consequences of the conflict between Israel and Hamas from December 2008 to February 2009. Certainly, the number of incidents returned to normal rates three months after the intervention ended. But we must all remember that such a conflict, hundreds of miles from Britain, does nothing to legitimise violence, name-calling and graffiti on our streets.

Below the top-line is an important story that Nothing British has written about elsewhere. The authors noted the recent convergence between Islamist and far-right anti-Semitic discourse (and, in a few cases, the far-left). Its authors note:

“One feature of contemporary anti-Semitism is that the use of far-right references is no longer the preserve of neo-Nazis; nor is mention of Israel the Middle East restricted to Muslim or Arab perpetrators of incidents.”

While no one suggests any operational cooperation between the far-right and Islamists, there is an increasingly close ideological proximity on key subjects. It might seem absurd that non-Muslim, white-supremacists would have anything in common with Islamic fundamentalists who regard others as infidels. And vice versa. But both camps have developed strikingly similar critiques on issues of shared concern:-

• Middle East. The BNP’s Middle East policy is an exact replica of the Islamists’ – specifically, the West has waged too many illegal and immoral wars in “Muslim lands” and that the West applies “double standards” towards Israel which has “helped to incite the Muslim world against the West”. The West should withdraw its troops from these Muslim lands immediately. (The two camps also share views on American “imperialism”).
• Contemporary culture. Nick Griffin’s ultra-nationalist view on modernity are very similar to Anjem Choudury’s. Griffin describes it as “a rootless mass of Americanised consumers, without identity, without pride and without a future.” It creates little more than “Spiritual filth, such as abortion on demand and genocide through integration; cultural filth, like MTV; intellectual filth, like the claim that parliament is sovereign in a land where banks create credit and the mass media create governments; physical filth, like fast foods which have no nutritional value whatsoever.”
• Global Jewish conspiracy. By way of an example, the obsession of the BNP’s Legal Director, Lee Barnes, with a conspiracy of Jews buying political influence and running the world’s financial system and media are strikingly similar to the views of Hamas or Al-Qaeda on the same subject.
• Segregation. Both the BNP and Islamists believe the world should be divided. The neo-racist BNP believes in a “fortress Britain” where white Britons get preferential treatment. Sectarian Islamists want a Caliphate where non-Muslims are second class citizens.

It is worth remembering that British values of fairness, tolerance, freedom of expression and looking out for little guy are under attack, and that those who seek to undermine our way of life often resort to the same arguments. The Jewish community is not the only victims of racial abuse in our society. But the CST’s well-organised collection of anti-Semitic figures act like a canary in a coal mine. And today’s figures suggest that the enemies of the British way of life have rarely been more active or inventive.

Share on Facebook

The BNP would abolish income taxes and replace it with increased consumption taxes. (see Monday). The BNP would break up the supermarkets and big retail parks (see Tuesday). The BNP would encourage local food and healthy eating. (see Wednesday). The BNP would nationalise utility and transport companies (see Thursday).

The BNP are very keen to portray themselves as the one party that stands up for Britain’s poor, rather than London’s elites. And in a way they’re right to point out that too often, cocooned away in Westminster, politicians forget the bona fide grievances of Britain’s ordinary families, struggling to deal with the changes and transitions of globalisation.

However….  The BNP is not a friend of the working class, as their policies show. Not only would they not help, they’d raise their taxes and their bills, and reduce their freedom. Their distorted and extremist nationalist ideology shows their real xenophobic priorities overcoming any real concern for helping those who most need it.

This week we’ve looked just at some of the ways the BNP would hit ordinary British families:

-          They’d raise the taxes of the poor. To pay for their tax breaks for the rich, taking away the well off’s income and inheritance taxes, the BNP would sky rocket the tax burden onto the poor.

-          They’d increase your food bill by £2,400 a year. The BNP’s extra taxes on the importing, transporting, consuming and unhealthy foods would all add up to a devastating price increase.

-          They’d increase the price of clothes, furniture, kitchen appliances, toys, gadgets etc etc etc. The last twenty years have seen the price of normal consumer goods plummet, allowing everyone to enjoy the lifestyle that was once the province of the rich alone.

-          No more Tescos, Sainsbury’s, Ikea, Primark or PC World. The BNP would close down the big brands and shops that have made life cheaper and easier, all as part of their nostalgic quest to bring back the age of corner shops.

-          They’d make it more expensive to take a shower, keep your house warm or take a train. The BNP plans to renationalise utilities would increase bills and decrease choice and the quality service. We’d return to an era of unresponsive bureaucratic faceless giants, over which the consumer would be powerless.

The BNP want to turn the clock back on UK society and manufacturing to the 1950s. In the process, they’d take our quality of life back to 50s Britain too.

If the BNP really want to help ordinary Britons, then maybe they should find some policies that actually put them first.

Share on Facebook

Margaret Hodge is accused of playing dog-whistle politics

Which is worse? It’s difficult to choose between them.

Candidate 1. Margaret Hodge MP Once again, the embattled Labour MP for Barking has reached for the pre-election dog-whistle today to dig herself out of a hole with the voters. Her comments appear perfectly reasonable.

“We need to look at drawing up a point system based on length of residence, citizenship or national insurance contributions which ensures economic migrants can only access social housing and key benefits when they have paid into the system … This isn’t about race, it’s about having a system which is fair.”

Only … the minister for culture and tourism has spent so little of her time fighting for her constituency or engaged in issues that matter to her constituents you’ve got to wonder about her motives. One also remembers her equally-clumsy comments about the BNP shortly before the May 2006 local elections (BNP won 11 seats and the GMB called for her resignation). And her 2007 remarks on housing policy which grabbed headlines but failed to deliver any impact.

Candidate 2. Sarah Teather MP The Lib-Dem MP quickly smeared Mrs Hodge for talking up the race issue, instantly playing into the hands of BNP types who claim the mainstream are too scared to talk about these issues.

“You need to take the BNP on and demolish their arguments not copy what they are saying.”

The opinion polls make it crystal clear that there is a list of issues prioritised by millions of voters that the politicians are too frightened to talk about. Immigration, Europe, cultural identity, fear of Islamist violence and who should get the best public services (especially welfare and housing, but also education and health).

Hodge’s panicky comments today lack plausibility.

Teather’s knee-jerk accusations poison the debate.

You choose which is worse.

Share on Facebook

Taxi drivers have been banned from using this sign

Yesterday, Jeremy Vine hosted a lively discussion with the deputy leader of Southampton City Council and the chairman of the city’s largest taxi firm which provided a vivid insight into the complexities of  doing business in multi-cultural Britain.

The affair centred on the council’s decision to ban taxi drivers from using signs that say “English speaking driver” (see above). Some say it is racist to use such signs (redolent of the “Irish need not apply” signs of the past). To others it is an unnecessary restriction on taxi drivers’ rights to be patriotic and deny local residents their preference for English speaking taxi drivers.

Certainly, we think that people who seek a life in Britain should be expected to learn the language well enough to order a taxi, or for that matter to drive one. The costs of a Babylon culture to our economy and our way of life are enormous.

Incidentally, during the interview both Vine and the council official referred to the term “indigenous” to make the distinction between a non-English speaker and English speaker. Though the term was not invented by the BNP it has nontheless been hijacked by them. The use of this term is a clear example of the nasty effect the BNP’s rhetoric is having on our language. Let’s make sure we don’t lose this word to the fascists.

Share on Facebook

Durham Union Society have challenged the BNP to a debate

Durham’s Union Society, one of the world’s oldest student debating societies, have challenged Andrew Brons MEP and Chris Beverley to take part in a debate on multiculturalism.

The DUS motion is as follows: “This house believes in a multicultural Britain”. For the proposal will be Kulveer Ranger, an advisor to Boris Johnson, and Conservative MP Edward Leigh.

Arguing against will be Brons and Beverley, Brons’ chief of staff.

Last night, Nothing British spoke to an official from the anti-BNP UAF who confirmed they were against the decision of DUS to challenge the BNP.

UAF are reported elsewhere as saying:

“It defies belief. It is a huge error of judgement and they should think about their university’s reputation. It is outrageous.”

UAF’s decision to not to challenge the BNP in a debate is a pity.

Our views on the BNP being challenged in a debate are already well known. We support any democratic attempt to take the BNP’s revolting views on race and identity head on. We also believe other dubious areas need challenging such as their economic policy. Their attempts to hijack British identity and patriotism must also be stopped. The BNP need to hear these messages loud and clear. In a democratic society debate is the only suitable forum to achieve this.  

For more information on Brons please read our briefing note here.

Maurice Cousins

Share on Facebook