At last, a party worth voting for!

[Steve Greene]

Rebuilding British Democracy
General Election 2005
Manifesto

Contents

Introduction: Freedom; Security; Identity; Democracy
1. Leaving the European Union – The sine qua non
2. Democracy – Resolving the crisis of our highest value
3. Immigration – A crisis without parallel
4. Abolishing multiculturalism, preserving Britain
5. Culture, traditions and the civil society
6. Tough on the causes of crime – Criminals
7. Social inclusion – One healthy nation
8. Education for a British future
9. Britain-first economics – The antidote to globalism
10. Extending ownership and responsibility
11. Abolition of income tax
12. Public service, not corporate profit
13. Transport – Life’s too short to spend in a traffic jam
14. Food production – A radical shift
15. The environment – Our ‘blessed plot’
16. Britain and the world – Good fences, good neighbours
Conclusion: Popular nationalism – The idea whose time will come

Introduction

"Rebuilding British Democracy" is the title of our general election
manifesto for a very good reason. As British voters, we are repeatedly
told that we live in an elective democracy; whereas in truth what
exists is a sham and an illusion. Genuine democracy, where the
population's will is given expression by the elected representatives,
is starkly absent from Britain.

Decisions are made by institutions over which the electorate has
little or no control. National parliaments and assemblies in
Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast are little more than
rubber-stamping closed shops for rule by diktat from Brussels and
Strasbourg. In addition, decisions are rarely made by those
representatives with the interests of the majority of British voters
in mind. Vociferous lobbyists and pressure groups blackmail and cajole
to get their way; the corporate industrial and commercial giants have
the money to buy and influence individual representatives and entire
political parties.

A whole raft of repressive legislation has been enacted in the past
thirty years to stop the social experiment of multi-culturalism from
falling apart. Even more repressive legislation is planned as the
reality that multi-culturalism cannot work, sinks in to even the most
ideologically blinkered politician.

It is the "average" man and woman who suffers from the failings of our
politicians to grasp the issue and restore genuine democracy. It is
the taxpayer who funds the vast State instruments of repression and
the wasteful paperwork that keeps unproductive bureaucrats in their
positions.

It is the pensioner who suffers by living isolated, behind bolted
doors, fearful of being a victim of crime. It is the schoolchildren
who suffer from obesity and ailments associated with a poor diet. It
is the hourly paid worker who suffers when he or she is sacked as
their job is exported to a call-centre in India.

Freedom

The British National Party exists to put an end to this injustice. We
will return power to the men and women of Britain, the taxpayers,
pensioners, mums and dads and workers, and remove it from the
unelected commissioners in Europe. We will provide a safe environment
for all, where there is freedom from fear of crime, freedom from
repression of the State, freedom of association and freedom of speech.

Security

The British National Party believes that security means the well being
of life, limb and property. This means safe neighbourhoods with
vibrant communities, working towards a common goal; it means security
and safety while using our transport systems. It means security of
long term employment after a decent education without the fear that
factories, offices and shops will be closed and jobs exported to the
third world.

Identity

The British National Party believes in genuine ethnic and cultural
diversity and the right of ALL peoples to self-determination and that
must include the indigenous peoples of these islands. The British
peoples are embroiled in a long term cultural war being waged by a
ruling regime which has abandoned the concept of " Britain " in
pursuit of globalisation. We are determined to win that cultural war,
and to that end, we must take control of our national borders. We must
also stop further attempts to enforce multi-culturalism on an
increasingly sceptical and unwilling populace. The future of our
culture is not up for debate - it is part of our individual and
collective existence on this planet and we are under an obligation to
pass on to generations yet unborn, the collected knowledge, wisdom and
lore, which we ourselves have inherited.

Democracy

The wishes of the British electorate cannot be made manifest until we
have the powers restored to our national parliaments and assemblies
and put an end to the blackmail and underhanded tactics to buy
influence. Honesty, integrity and transparency will be restored to
civic and public institutions.

Summary

This is the largest and most comprehensive election manifesto the
British National Party has compiled. It clearly illustrates that we
are neither a single issue party, nor an ephemeral protest group. The
BNP is serious about winning our nation back and this manifesto sets
out our plan to achieve this goal.

Leaving the European Union – The sine qua non

The European Union is an aspiring super state which would deprive the
British people of their right to democratic self-government; subject
us to alien rule in the interest of a bureaucracy which has no loyalty
to the United Kingdom and bring about the eventual liquidation of
Britain as a nation and a people.

The federal European project is incompatible with many of the most
deep-rooted of our traditional national and personal freedoms, and our
hard-won democracy: The fundamental basis of a democratic national
state that its people elect their own representatives, whose job it is
to rule in the national interest; the principle that no Westminster
parliament may bind its successors; trial by one’s peers; the
presumption of innocence, habeas corpus; our currency and the ability
to reward or replace our political masters for their handling of the
economy – these are just a few of the most important rights we will
lose forever unless we withdraw from the EU.

Even today, our elected national parliament is little more than a
rubber-stamp for rule by diktat from Brussels. This is why we have
placed this section first in this manifesto: The freedom of action of
the governing party at Westminster is so restricted by European rules
and regulations that there is effectively no point any party putting
forward any proposals in any important area of policy. Whether these
concern ambitious schemes for the economy, or Tory promises to ‘get a
grip’ on the asylum shambles, all are essentially empty soundbites
because our own elected government no longer has the power to act on
our democratically expressed wishes.

Withdrawal from the European Union would therefore be the most
important single foundation stone of our rebuilt British democracy.
Without it, virtually nothing can be achieved.

Fortunately, the present price of withdrawal would not be anything
like as high as the Europhile scare-mongers claim – although it will
become higher the longer and the deeper Britain is immersed in the EU.
The present regime claims that membership is necessary to our
prosperity is a myth. European nations such as Switzerland and Norway
sustain higher standards of prosperity than Britain without belonging
to the European Union. In fact, the EU is a liability to our economy
because of its tendency to strangle business with unnecessary
regulations whose sole purpose is to increase the power of the
Brussels superstate that wishes, for the purpose of aggrandising its
own power, to rule Britain. This is wholly unacceptable.

It is also untrue that leaving the EU would cut Britain off from the
commercial markets in which our industries sell their goods. Not only
does the EU have free-trade arrangements with several non-member
states, but its average tariff on non-EU trade is approximately 1.5%,
an insignificant barrier. Furthermore, the EU would not be permitted,
under World Trade Organisation rules to which it is signatory, to
discriminate against British products in retaliation for Britain
leaving the EU.

It is estimated that complying with the vast thicket of EU regulations
costs Britain approximately £40 billion per year. This is 2% of GDP,
roughly half what we spend on the NHS, and could fund numerous
improvements in public services if it were recaptured. The Common
Agricultural Policy alone is estimated to impose a 26% tax on food.
(source: Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign Bulletin , Sept. 2004).

Unaccountable

The EU is spectacularly corrupt, as is only natural in an
unaccountable institution. According to Marta Adreasen, former Chief
Accounting Officer of the EU, 95% of EU funds are not properly
accounted for and there has not been a proper audit in 14 years.
(Source: Ashley Mote press release , 21 October 2004).

Britain’s net contribution to the EU is now widely estimated to run at
around £1.2 million every hour of every day of the year. In simplistic
terms, this endless haemorrhage of wealth goes a very long way to
explaining how the transport systems of France and Spain are so much
better than ours, or why British pensioners are among the worst
provided for in Europe. How could the situation be any different, when
our Masters have spent decades giving our money away in pursuit of an
unworkable imperial fantasy?

Finally, the greatest single threat posed by the European Union comes
from the plans (supported by the Conservative Party) to expand further
into Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, and subsequently into Turkey. The
former expansion would give eight million Sinta gypsies the right to
move into Western Europe, the latter would at a stroke increase the
EU’s Muslim population by more than 75 million. This would mark the
end of Europe's ancient and historic close identification with
Christendom, and the beginning of the end of secular democratic
government in the West.

From Edward Heath onwards, our political and liberal media ‘elite’
have lied and conned us into “ever greater union” with a federal
European superstate. That deceit will end on the day the British
National Party win a British general election and ceremoniously tear
up the Treaty of Rome on the following morning.

Democracy – Resolving the crisis of our highest value

This country is the birthplace of modern democracy. This is no
surprise; it is clear from what is known of the way in which free men
and women among Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Norse ancestors had a
significant say in the running of their societies that personal
freedom has deep and strong roots among the native peoples of our
islands.

Even when those freedoms were suppressed, as under the time of feudal
darkness that followed the Norman Conquest, and again during the
pauperisation of the yeomanry and creation of an urban proletariat
during the Enclosures and Industrial Revolution, our people have
always fought and even died to secure them again. From Magna Carta to
the Peasants’ Revolt, through the Levellers, the Chartists, the early
Labour movement and the suffragettes, we have defied the executioner,
the rack, and the prison door to wrest liberty of conscience, speech,
action and political association from monarchs, barons and bosses, and
from popes, priests and censors.

Now our dearly-bought birthright of freedom is under mortal threat
once more. The political elite are nearing the end of a process which
will outlaw any expression of opinions deemed to be politically
incorrect. This despite the fact that it is central to the very idea
of democracy that all views be allowed to be espoused and that they
stand or fall only in the marketplace of ideas.

In addition to this savage attack on free speech, recent decades have
seen an unprecedented increase in the power and ‘reach’ of the State.
The surveillance technology which theoretically protects us from the
nihilistic tyranny of terror in fact threatens to subject us to the
perpetual tyranny of Big Brother.

Fortunately, a variety of the policies proposed later in this document
– particularly British neutrality vis-ê-vis the Middle East and the
US-led ‘Clash of Civilisations’, our rejection of mass immigration,
and the reintroduction of the death penalty for terrorists – will so
reduce the threat of terrorism that it will no longer be plausible for
us to be asked to submit to this monstrous growth in State power in
order to avoid becoming terrorist targets.

Our forefathers fought two World Wars partly so as to ensure that,
except for the duration of those wars, they and their families would
not have to prove who they were to any agent of the State who decided
on a whim to ask for such information. This is an enormous difference
between the traditional British system whereby the police and similar
officials are the servants of the people, rather than the hired hands
of the central State with power over the law-abiding, which is the
underlying norm which helped make possible all the excesses and
horrors of totalitarianism on mainland Europe throughout the
20thcentury.

Just as the terrorist threat which their actions have largely created
is used by the political elite as an excuse for taking away our
freedoms, so they use the lack of faith in politicians for which they
are responsible as an excuse to subvert our democracy. The widespread
use of electoral fraud by Labour activists - recently described by a
senior judge as behaviour suitable to a corrupt banana republic - was
made possible by a massive expansion in the availability of postal
voting which was ‘justified’ in part as a means of increasing the
proportion of electors voting.

The reality is that falling turn-outs can only be reversed by efforts
by politicians to show that they can make a difference, and that
between them they provide a real range of genuine alternatives. The
prevailing choice of “More of the same or none of the above” is the
reason for voter apathy, and the problem that must be addressed if
the low turnout trend is to be reversed.

The ‘justification’ offered by Labour peers as they struggled in 2004
to persuade even the crony-packed House of Lords to introduce
all-postal voting across the whole of the north of England was even
worse: In this case it was openly admitted that the main reason for
the change was that the higher turnout would help to “stop the BNP.”

Making artificial changes to electoral boundaries or procedures
carried out in order to disadvantage one particular party is known as
‘gerrymandering’. Resentment over the practice when carried out
against the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland in the 1960s is
widely regarded as having been a key factor fuelling the growth of the
IRA and thirty years of terrorism there.

It is utterly unacceptable that law-abiding majority communities on
the mainland are now being subjected to the same denial of their
democratic rights. And while the British National Party has no
intention of being provoked or driven into any kind of illegality, the
fact remains that by showing such contempt for democracy in England –
while simultaneously giving way at every turn to terrorists in Ulster
- New Labour are inviting angry young men in multi-cultural cities to
conclude that violence pays.

Dismantling the repressive State

Add to this the growing and relentless persecution of the BNP, both
collectively and as individuals, in ways ranging from denial of
banking facilities to dismissal from jobs and unions, and it is clear
that Britain is already a long way down the slippery slope to being a
fully blown totalitarian state. Even if we inherit the mechanism of
such a repressive State on our election to national power, we pledge
to dismantle it by the following means:

1. All laws against traditional free speech rights will be repealed,
starting with the vague, politicised, and hypocritically-enforced laws
pertaining to race and religion, which are virtually never enforced
against foreigners attacking the racial and religious groups
indigenous to Britain.

2. Guarantee the right of organisations and individuals who espouse
unpopular opinions but have not broken any laws (other than
illegitimate laws against free speech) to organise and campaign free
from interference from or discrimination by, the police, other state
institutions, and bodies such as trades unions, employers’
organisations or commercial entities.

3. Guarantee the rights of individuals to join, and organise according
to their political beliefs in, trades unions and professional bodies.

4. All political parties should be protected by a new law which makes
the employment of violence or intimidation for political purposes a
serious offence carrying a minimum of two years in prison, or a
doubling of the usual sentence for the offence, whichever is the
greater.

5. We will disband all government-sponsored attempts to exploit ethnic
minority voters by means of such programmes as Operation Black Vote.

6. A ban on postal voting for all except the seriously sick and
elderly. No use of electronic or other non-polling booth voting
systems, as none will yet command the confidence of the electorate in
the way which the traditional ballot box does.

7. Instruct the Electoral Commission to deal as a matter of urgency
with the way in which organisations which do not themselves contest
elections are at present permitted to denigrate individual candidates
or parties, thereby allowing their rivals to circumvent the proper
spending limits on election material.

8. Ban the conducting or publishing of opinion polls in the last three
weeks of an election campaign, as these can be used to ‘stampede’
voters and manipulate the democratic process.

9. In order to ensure that vested interests cannot ‘buy’ political
parties, we will legislate to ensure that political parties must
organize and function only with such funds as they are able to raise
from their own members and supporters. State funding, corporate
donations by businesses or pressure groups, and political dues from
trades unions will all be outlawed.

10. The rejection of ID cards – the core technique and expression of
the repressive Surveillance State.

Democracy and the media

A separate danger to genuine democracy comes from the concentration of
ownership and control of the mass media in too few hands, particularly
when the hands concerned are those of foreigners whose primary loyalty
is not to Britain, or media barons who have so much wealth that they
can seek to turn it into political influence and power.

The great problem with the power of the media, the ‘Fourth Estate’, is
that it is at present not subject to any democratic check or control.
We will address this danger as part of our campaign to strengthen and
extend genuine democracy.

The BNP stands for the revolutionary principle that the printing
presses and broadcast channels of the media must tell the truth in
their reports. We will enact laws that will ensure that the
dictatorship of the media over free debate in our society is
dismantled and a truly democratic system is created that allows all
sections of our society free and unfettered access to the media.

The era where the big media barons and news corporations could control
public opinion through printing lies has to end. The abuse of the free
press by the media corporations to propel political parties to power
through promoting them in their papers subverts democracy itself. We
are very reluctant to deal with this problem through expropriation,
since such interference with legitimately acquired property rights –
however justified on one level – would create an immensely dangerous
precedent on another level.

On the assumption of power we would therefore hold meetings with the
proprietors in question in an effort to thrash out ways in which they
would agree to ending any possibility of abuse of their power, in
exchange for being left to enjoy the purely financial benefits of
their ownership, albeit probably at more realistic levels of taxation
than they are allowed to get away with at present.

The BNP has been the victim of media lies and smears and has been
denied justice by the Press Complaints Commission. We will replace the
PCC – an organisation dominated by those upon whom it is supposed to
sit in judgement – with a truly independent body with the power to
grant the victims of media falsehood the Right of Reply with equal
prominence, plus financial compensation.

For particularly bad cases, we will create a new criminal offence of
“The deliberate dissemination of falsehoods about an individual or
organisation for financial or political gain” by any media outlet.

Bringing power closer to the people

In addition to defending democracy against creeping totalitarianism,
we also intend to introduce sweeping reforms to strengthen and extend
it. Once again, we reiterate that it is essential to withdraw from the
European Union, but unlike most other Eurorealist groups we are not
content with repatriating power back from Brussels just to hand it
back to a group of inherently distant politicians in Westminster – not
even if we are the dominant party within that body.

A key factor is that we no longer have the luxury of just returning
without much thought to straight-forward London-based government. From
the moment it took office in 1997, the Blair regime set about
demolishing the traditional British constitutional settlement. The
combination of this giant act of vandalism with pressure from the
European Union intended to break the United Kingdom up into bite-sized
pieces, has left the old UK as broken as Humpty Dumpty.

For all the resentment against the soaring costs of their Parliament
and Assembly buildings, the Scots and Welsh now have devolved
administrations wielding very significant powers (albeit within a
tight EU straight-jacket) as, whenever Sinn Fein/IRA aren’t robbing
too many banks, does Northern Ireland. Such devolution of power is,
to an extent, in keeping with the democratic nationalist principle of
subsidiarity. Furthermore, even if that were not the case, any attempt
by a central BNP government – which will almost certainly be elected
primarily by voters in England – to abolish these local parliaments
would probably spark a powerful reaction in their favour. Returning to
rule from one British parliament in Westminster is not an option.

Neither, however, is muddling along with the wholly unsatisfactory
situation which pertains at present, whereby the elected
representatives of English voters quite rightly have no say over many
decisions affecting the people of Scotland, Wales and Ulster, whereas
MPs from those places are able to vote on issues which affect the
English. There is also the problem that much of the power wielded by
these local parliaments has not been devolved down from Wesminster,
but concentrated upwards by robbing it from our traditional counties.
Thus this is not an exercise in bringing power closer to the people,
but in putting it in the hands of a faceless and relatively remote
bureaucracy and a class of minor but pompous and overpaid professional
politicians.

Such a typically New Labour shambles is a recipe for friction and for
future division among the British Family of Nations, particularly if
Labour’s plan to carve up England into artificial areas of regional
government goes ahead, thereby arousing English nationalist anger at
the fact that “everyone else gets recognition and self-government, but
not us.” Knowing the terrible damage caused by such division on the
island of Ireland, we must at all costs deal with this problem to
everyone’s mutual satisfaction.

Meanwhile, of course, there still remains the Irish Question itself,
waiting to explode into bloody life once again on account of a bogus
‘Peace Process’ that rewarded terrorists and institutionalized
sectarianism at the very heart of government.

Starting, as all true democracies must, from the grass-roots up, our
solution to this interlocking group of problems is as follows:

1. Devolve all the powers properly capable of being exercised at local
level to revived County Council government, returning to the
traditional pre-1974 boundaries. These powers to include control of
Planning applications;

2. Add a specifically English parliament, sitting in Westminster, to
the family of devolved parliaments already in being, including
Stormont. Each of these should deal with such functions of the present
devolved administrations as cannot sensibly be given to the county
Councils, plus as many of the powers repatriated from Brussels as can
be dealt with at this level. We envisage a particularly strong brief
in terms of cultural development for this level of government;

3. Create a pan-British parliament to deal with overall economic
policy and provide the authority and accountability required for the
Ministry of Finance, and matters such as foreign policy on which it is
clearly essential for the British nations to speak with one voice.
This body would have its formal base on the Isle of Man, though it
would sit in rotation in each of the national parliaments.

The role of a House of Lords stripped of its Blair cronies as a
revising chamber is still in need of assessment. At this stage,
however, we can state that we see an opportunity to bring in not a
simple elected duplicate of the Lower House, but a body which gives
more weight to experience in certain fields, involvement in charities
and community groups and such like. This offers the opportunity to
bring to bear on government the objectivity of non-party political
experts and individuals chosen on the grounds of talent and service.
Clearly further work is needed on this concept in order to make the
most of this opportunity for better government at the expense of the
present bastard offspring of ancient and modern patronage and
cronyism.

There would be a permanent standing invitation for Eire to join the
pan-British parliament as an equal partner. It would be a matter for
the citizens of each of the British nations to decide for themselves
if they wished for the reigning head of the House of Windsor to be
their Head of State, but he or she would not be head of the
pan-British parliament, thereby making it realistic to hope that the
Irish would find it possible to rejoin the British Family of Nations,
taking their rightful place side-by-side with the representatives of
England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster, and ending for ever the Brothers’
War which has been our Achilles Heel, tragedy and shame since our
Masters set us at each others’ throats generations ago.

Citizens’ Initiative referenda

We believe that such constitutional changes would lead to
significantly better government. That said, history warns the prudent,
and those who love freedom, to beware of all governments and all
ruling elites – not least those that strive towards perfection.

Accordingly, we propose as a vital check and balance on the political
class the introduction of Citizens’ Initiative Referenda on the Swiss
model. Under this, individual citizens only have to collect the
requisite number of electors’ signatures on any given petition – the
wording of which they decide themselves – in order to compel either
the local or national government to hold a referendum on the subject.

If passed by between 50% - 66% of those voting, such a referendum
result would in turn trigger a full-scale council/parliamentary debate
on the subject, with heavy moral pressure on the politicians to follow
the wishes of the majority. If passed by more than 66% of those
voting, however, the result of such a referendum would automatically
be binding on the authorities, who would have no choice but to accept
the will of the people and enact their wishes as law.

This is the vital factor which turns the Citizens’ Initiative
referendum into a sword for genuine democracy, as opposed to the
government-created plebiscite beloved of dictators from Hitler to John
Prescott.

The Armed People – the ultimate protection against invasion or tyranny

The exploitation of the 1996 Dunblane Massacre of sixteen
school-children and a teacher by a homosexual paedophile to provide an
excuse to disarm many thousands of law-abiding citizens was one of the
most breath-takingly cynical acts of the Blair regime. Put simply,
guns do not kill people, criminals kill people – especially when
innocent people do not have guns with which to defend themselves.

We would restore to the legitimate and law-abiding sportsmen the right
to possess and shoot all the varieties of weapon they were entitled to
before New Labour’s 1997 totalitarian gun-grab.

That, however, is only the start. In a world where modern technology
automatically and almost irresistibly gives the State powers of
surveillance, analysis and potential repression that past
dictatorships could not even have managed, it is more important than
ever that the citizens of a modern Britain have at their disposal the
means, in extremis, to resist any totalitarian government that has
managed to get control of those powers.

This would be all the more necessary once we have re-established the
once taken-for-granted fact of significant government direction
(albeit through a non-party political Ministry of Finance) of the
commanding heights and overall direction of the economy.

Such an increase in the power of the State is clearly necessary if we
are to compete against Far Eastern economies whose use of similar
organisational techniques gives them a long-term edge over
old-fashioned Western capitalism. But if we are not to drift towards
an over-mighty State which could all too easily lose sight of its own
limitations and role as facilitator rather than master, then such an
increase must be balanced by a corresponding decrease in the authority
of the State elsewhere. It is primarily for this reason – although
defence against violent criminals and some at present unforeseen
potential foreign aggression are also important considerations – that
we advocate the adoption of the modern Swiss model for a responsibly
armed citizenry. Under this all law-abiding adults who have
successfully completed their period of military service are required
to keep in a safe locker in their homes a standard-issue military
assault rifle and ammunition.

It is clear that this system contributes to Switzerland's very low
rate of burglary and violent crime, as well as having helped make that
tiny country extremely unappetising to foreign aggressors throughout
the last century. The people of Switzerland have not had occasion to
use their arms to bring to heel any home-grown tyrants either, and
the fact that the State does not possess a monopoly on the potential
use of force in a struggle between slavery and freedom means that they
are unlikely to have to do so. This state of affairs has a great deal
to commend it.

A Bill of Rights

The rights of British citizens as they are confirmed emerge from the
details above must be set down in a formal Bill of Rights, the
starting point for which should be those parts of Magna Carta and the
Bill of Rights of 1689 which are still relevant to modern times.

We propose this not because we believe that a written document
necessarily prevents future governments from seeking to undermine or
distort the guarantees. The point is that, by setting everything down
in readily accessible print in a document of universally-known
importance, it provides a tripwire to alert a future generation to
the fact that, as is the way of the world, a ruling class has arisen
that has once again come to think of itself as more important than
those in whose name it governs.

Immigration – A crisis without parallel

Britain’s very existence today is threatened by immigration. As a
nation we must rebuild trust in the immigration system amongst the
British electorate whilst simultaneously ensuring that National
Security is maintained in this era of global terrorism.

We are proud of the fact that at a time when several other political
parties and many sections of the media are finally awakening to this
issue we alone of all the political parties have a decades-long record
of pointing it out. If even Tony Blair can say that it is "neither
racist nor extremist" to raise "genuine concerns" about the flood of
asylum seekers, then it is no longer feasible to pretend that this
crisis does not exist. All those persons and organisations who have
endured years of abuse for telling the truth are owed a serious
apology by their critics.

To take just one example, it is a hard fact that, according to
official figures, 15% of the UK’s male prison population is black,
despite black people accounting for only 2% of the total population.
Victim-reported figures concerning the race of criminals give the lie
to the leftist argument that this is due to discriminatory
prosecution. It is an inescapable statistical fact that immigration
into Britain increases the crime rate.

Figures for unemployment, welfare dependency, educational failure, and
other social pathologies tell a similar story for most other foreign
ethnic groups. There is simply no escaping the fact that choosing to
admit such persons into the country in significant numbers means
choosing to become a poorer, more violent, more dependent and
worse-educated society.

Our programme:

1. In any society claiming to be based on the rule of law, it must be
beyond serious controversy that all illegal immigrants must be
deported as soon as they are discovered. We will increase the funding
and political will behind such operations by the police and the
courts.

The present regime propagates the myth that such deportation could
only be accomplished by authoritarian police tactics, alien to British
values. This is obviously false, as even under the present
unacceptably lax deportation policies, tens of thousands of people are
deported from the UK annually without incident.

2. Every nation, no matter how open or closed its immigration policy
may be, has the right and duty to maintain sovereign physical control
of its borders. We will begin by increasing the funding of existing
border controls by 500% and shall continue to increase budget and
personnel until our borders are secure against significant intrusion.
In particular, the first company of British troops to be withdrawn
from Iraq on the day a BNP government assumes office would be
redeployed to secure the Channel Tunnel and Kent ports against illegal
immigration.

The regime propagates the myth that Britain cannot, in the face of
modern international travel and trade, secure its borders at
reasonable cost and convenience. This is also obviously untrue, as the
border control example of other advanced nations (the most relevant
being that other great island state, Japan) proves.

3. Under present circumstances we would abide by our obligations under
the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees. We recognise the
existence of legitimate international refugees from persecution and
war, but point to the fact that international law provides that such
persons must be given – and must seek - refuge in the nearest safe
country. So, unless a flood of refugees from a civil war in France or
Denmark shows up on our shores, these refugees are simply not
Britain’s responsibility and have no right to refuge here.

This is not a position of callousness: it is a principled stand that
all the problems of the world are neither Britain’s fault nor our
responsibility – or even in our capacity - to solve. In order to
further the proper handling of refugees in the appropriate place (not
in the advanced Western societies to which they gravitate out of
economic self-interest) we will be prepared to contribute funds to
refugee relief programmes which respect these principles.

4. We will reform the laws and law enforcement of the UK so that, with
respect to refugees and illegal immigrants, there are no blind eyes
turned to violations, no amnesties to reward law-breaking, and no
extensive appeals against legal decisions. We will place the burden of
proof upon the claimant to prove his or her legitimate presence in
this country. We will require persons whose cases are pending to be
held in refugee centres, not at large in the community.

5. We will impose a permanent lifetime ban on re-entry into Britain
for any reason on any person found guilty of having violated British
entry or immigration laws, enforced by instant deportation.

Our Agenda for Change

On current demographic trends we, the native British people, will be
an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. By 2020, an
extra 5-7 million immigrants will have entered Britain,
whilstimmigrant communities already resident here are having more
children than the indigenous British people. The estimates for the
numbers of illegal immigrants resident in the country vary from
250,000 to over a million.

To ensure that we do not become a minority in our own homeland, and
that the native British peoples of our islands retain their culture
and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further
immigration, the immediate deportation of all bogus asylum seekers,
all criminal entrants and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of
a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants and their
descendants who are legally here are afforded the opportunity to
return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a 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’, the vast majority of whom are either bogus
or can find refuge much nearer their home countries. Britain is full
up and the government of Britain has as its first responsibility
the welfare, security and long-term preservation of the native people
of Britain.

One of the most important rights that any nation possesses is the
right to decide who shall enjoy citizenship and residence within its
national borders. In a time of global terrorism, asymmetric warfare
and open trade borders, the issue of illegal immigration must be
considered as an aspect of National Security and not just an issue of
social policy.

The liberal consensus on immigration must be balanced by the interests
of National Security. Recent arrests of cells of Islamic terrorists
living in the country plotting mass murder in Britain illustrate the
link between illegal immigration and terrorism. The link between
illegal immigration and crime in our communities – including the
ruthless exploitation of the immigrants themselves - is also well
documented.

We are the only political party that is pledged to take action on
illegal immigration. We do not dodge the issue by using vacuous sound
bites and shallow headlines, as the old parties do with their
‘promises to do something’ but intentions of doing next to nothing. We
will do what it is required and we have firm plans as regards our
policy on ending illegal immigration immediately, and reversing the
tide of immigration in the longer term:

1. Our first step will be to shut the door. A BNP government would
accept no further immigration from any of the parts of the world which
present the prospect of an almost limitless flow of immigration:
Africa, Asia, China, Eastern and South Eastern Europe, the Middle East
and South America would all be placed on an immediate ‘stop’ list.
This would later be subject to review in the case of genuine students
accepted for training as part of our long-term policy of helping to
build up Third World economies in order to facilitate the voluntary
return of their nationals or their descendants under our long-tern
resettlement programme.

2. Inform the general public of a BNP government’s immigration policy.
This Primary Information Phase will consist of a full year of
information and education publicity campaigns to explain to all
sections of the British public exactly what the policy is going to be,
and why it is needed. These high-profile information campaigns will
be community-based and will use the languages of all the ethnic
communities resident in the country, as well as English. This will
also create the time to prepare the necessary state structures and
resources that will be used to actively enact the policy once it is in
operation.

The intention of the BNP Immigration Policy is to remove all illegal
immigrants present within the United Kingdom in an orderly, lawful and
humane manner through a planned Two Phase procedure. The First Phase
will be dealt with by the Civil Courts and regarded as a civil matter,
whilst the Second Phase will be dealt with by the Criminal Courts and
regarded as a matter of National Security.

The First Phase: Voluntary Registration

Those illegal immigrants who truthfully declare their illegal status
to the authorities during the registration period will be able
toclaim, in the case of skilled and key workers, extended leave
toremain in the United Kingdom as long as they are benefiting the
UKeconomy and stay as residents until such time as we have had time to
train British personnel to replace them.

During this period we would also strive to provide these regularized
illegal key workers with extra training intended to increase
theirvalue to their home countries on their return.

All other illegal immigrants, including visa over-stayers, casual
workers and exstudents will have one year to register their presence
and assets they wish to liquidate and take with them. Upon
registration they will become entitled to free flights home, and time
before they leave to put their affairs here in order, including
selling property and other legally acquired assets so as to be able to
take the full value of their property (less any unpaid taxes and
medical bills) with them when they and their families return home.
This voluntary registration policy will last for a year. There will be
no extensions.

Voluntary Registration cases will be dealt with by the Home Office
through the Civil Courts in the event of any disputes arising over
asset liquidation.

The Second Phase: Assisted Registration

Those illegal immigrants resident in the UK who fail to register with
the authorities and declare their illegal status when the First Phase
of the policy ends, will be dealt with solely by the Ministry for
National Border Security and the Criminal Courts.

Registration will be an issue of National Security as regards those
who, for whatever reason, do not declare their illegal entrant status
to the authorities before the First Phase deadline expires. Those
assisting illegal immigrants to stay in the UK will also be dealt with
under the criminal law. Those who have failed to declare their illegal
status will be immediately arrested and held in police custody until
they are deported. Those illegal immigrants arrested with children
born in the UK will be able to apply to be tagged in their own homes
until a hearing in court as to the citizenship status of the children.
No appeals on decisions of the Courts on matters of national security
will be allowed.

The lack of registration status also involves the withdrawal of access
to all civil legal remedies and procedures available to those with
Registered Status and also withdrawal of the right to use State
welfare provisions and institutions. All persons resident in UK
territory from the expiry date of the First Phase who cannot provide a
legitimate and verified National Insurance number on demand and
provide full citizenship status or registered status documentation
will be liable for immediate arrest and to be held in custody until
proof of citizenship is proved.

Those who have been arrested will not be allowed to remove any assets
from the country when they are deported.

Abolishing multiculturalism, preserving Britain

The present regime is engaged in a profound cultural war against the
British people, motivated by the desire to create a new ethnic power
base to replace the working class which they have abandoned in pursuit
of their enthusiasm for globalisation, justified by a quasi-Marxist
ideology of the equality of all cultures. We intend to rebuild the
basis of democracy in Britain , which is the right of all free-born
Britons to debate in public the facts as they see them by restoring
true freedom of speech to Britain.

Furthermore, when we speak of ‘British democracy’ we do so in an
ethnic as well as a civic sense. We do not accept the absurd
superstition – propagated for different though sometimes overlapping
reasons by capitalists, liberals, Marxists and theologians - of human
equality. Whether the now totally discredited feminist argument that
men and women are innately the same, to the partly refuted egalitarian
claim that everyone within a given population is born as a blank slate
with the same innate potential, or to the still dominant Politically
Correct denial of the existence of differences on average between
members of different races – we reject all these irrational myths.

This must not be taken to mean or imply that we believe that any
particular ethnic group or race is ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’; we simply
recognise that – as any biologist would be able to predict, and the
new medical science of pharmacogenetics is now confirming – human
populations which have undergone micro-evolutionary changes while
being separated for many thousands of years have developed differences
in many fields of endeavour, susceptibility to health problems,
behavioural tendencies and such like.

To deny such differences on the grounds of egalitarian dogma has
always been wrong, but to continue to do so in the light of the latest
medical evidence is to condemn people to unnecessary suffering on
account of racially specific health problems. We therefore believe
that the myth that “we are all the same under the skin” will soon be
as discredited as its feminist equivalent, and that all political
parties will have to drastically amend their thinking to reflect the
new reality in the not too distant future.

Taking these facts into account, we believe that it is far more likely
than not that the historically established tendency (and we do not
claim that it is any more than that) of the peoples of Western Europe
in general - and of these islands in particular - to create and
sustain social and political structures in which individual freedom,
equality before the law, private property and popular participation in
decision-making, is to some extent at least genetically
pre-determined. Such tendencies would, naturally, both shape our
culture around such institutions, and in turn tend to be reinforced by
that culture.

If this is the case, then the idea that it is possible to allow large
numbers of people from very different ethnic groups and cultures to
settle here, on the assumption that it is just something about our
bracing sea air that tends to make us natural born democrats, is
fatally flawed. Just as is the idea that we can export our enthusiasm
for representative government to other peoples, either by example or
by carpet-bombing their countries into giving up their penchant for
strong government or theocracy.

Hence, in order to guarantee the continued existence of our British
democracy, we also intend to take long-term steps to guarantee the
continued existence, as the clearly dominant ethnic, cultural and
political group, of the native peoples of these islands – the English,
Scots, Irish and Welsh – together with the limited numbers of peoples
of European descent, who arrived as refugees or economic immigrants
centuries or decades ago, and who have fully integrated into our
society.

Multi-racialism – a recipe for disaster

We are further encouraged to see this as essential by two other
factors. The first is the truly gruesome record of multi-ethnic
societies breaking down into hatred and mass murder. From Bosnia to
Rwanda, Indonesia to Northern Ireland, one only has to scratch most of
the conflicts in the world – ranging from low-level loathing to
outright genocide – to find that at the root of the problem is the
juxtaposition by past migration or strategic decision by a ruling
class of two or more different peoples in the same piece of territory.

Again, this is no surprise. Scientists studying various primates have
now discovered that murderous ‘wars’ against different groups of the
same species are as frequent among our non-human relatives as they are
among us. The tendency to conceive of our relationships with other
human populations in terms of ‘in-groups’ and ‘outgroups’, is older
than humanity itself. ‘Racism’, in other words, is not a consequence
of ‘false consciousness’, economics, imperialism or the work of evil
agitators, it is part of human nature.

The last idealistic egalitarian attempt to ignore and override human
nature, Marxist economic determinism, led to disaster and human misery
on an almost unimaginable scale. The lessons of history, and the
growing tensions in the multi-ethnic society that the left-liberal
elite have imposed on us in recent decades, all point to the
likelihood that the closely-related egalitarian ‘multi-racial
experiment’ will end in the same way. Our determination to avoid such
a human tragedy is what drives us to risk imprisonment and
persecution, and it is what allows us to say with confidence and
sincerity that we are not ‘racists’, but realists.

Multi-culturalism – the enemy of human diversity

Even if, against most prior historical experience, it proved to be
possible to assimilate and integrate huge numbers of immigrants from
other ethnic and cultural groups into Western societies without mayhem
and bloodshed, we would still oppose it. This is because we believe
that the principle that bio-diversity is an innate good – accepted
by liberals for every form of life on this planet except Man – also
applies to human cultures and populations.

There is clearly a deeply ingrained human need to ‘belong’ and to
identify with people with whom one shares special things in common; we
all have a need to feel ‘at home’. While this is generally met at one
level by membership of a family, this is clearly not enough. But the
idea that this need can be fulfilled by identification with the entire
human race is an intellectual fantasy.

The human need to belong is best met at a ‘tribal’ level, and the best
way to avoid such tribalism leading in turn to clashes with other
tribes is to encourage its realization at the level of a genuine
nation-state, particularly one whose dominant political elite regard
their primary duty as being to mind their own nation’s business and
looking after their own people. This half-way house between the
expansionist Empire and the nihilistic football gang is the best hope
for peace.

This is not something we desire only for ourselves, we recognise the
right of all people to belong to a specific culture and to preserve
the local particularisms which make us truly and fully human.

For most of human history, the existence of such ethnic and cultural
diversity among humanity was so obvious and apparently unchallengeably
natural that the political theorists and philosophers of past
generations simply took it for granted. Only in the last few decades
has this been changed forever by the advent of mass passenger travel,
the insatiable desire of the globalised capitalist economy for cheap
labour, and the worldwide reach of US consumerist culture through film
and television.

As a result the entire world – or at least every nation of
predominantly European descent – is now in the grip of a set of
assumptions and prejudices about race, culture and integration that,
however well-meaning in theory, are increasingly antihuman and even
genocidal in practice.

While the often subtle differences between similar cultures make it
hard for an outsider to tell where one ends and another starts, it is
generally easier to distinguish between languages. Hence these are a
very good indicator for the health or otherwise of human cultural and
biological diversity.

So it should be deeply worrying to anyone who values traditional
cultures and the rich patchwork of human variety to read what Prof.
Bill Sutherland, Population Biologist at the University of East
Anglia, has discovered about the status of the 6,800 languages
of the world: Over the last five hundred years, they have been
disappearing faster than species - 4.5% of total number have been lost
over the last 500 years, compared with 1.3% of bird species and 1.9%
of mammals.

None of which sounds too drastic. The real problem, however, is from
here onwards. According to Prof. Sutherland at least half of mankind’s
6,800 living languages will be dead by 2050, and 90% of them will be
extinct by 2100. Every one of those extinctions will mean another
group of people who are cut off from their roots and their ancestors
by an unbridgeable chasm. Every single one diminishes the variety
which makes our world such an interesting and wonderful place.

Among those at gravest risk are Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic.
And although English is one of the 10% of ‘safe’ languages, the fact
remains that all the vanishing tongues should alert us, like so many
miners’ canaries, to the existence of an invisible but deadly poison
which threatens every culture and distinct ethnic group in the world.

That poison is in large measure the blind economic force of global
capitalism, with its insistence on the unrestricted flow of goods,
capital and labour to wherever in the world they will make the maximum
short-term profit. This, rather than a misty-eyed post-Christian
fantasy about ‘equality’, post-Marxist fixation on turning refugees
and immigrants into a surrogate proletariat, or post-Holocaust
suspicion of European consciousness, is the real driving force behind
multi-culturalism. It is not about ‘love’ and ‘tolerance’, it is about
profit.

There is no conspiracy of wicked plutocrats or sinister Elders of Zion
at work here, the unique cultural and ethnic groups that are being
destroyed are not so much specifically targeted for elimination, they
are just in the way of a conscience-free global money-making machine.

If this juggernaut is to be resisted, and the diversity which does so
much to make us fully human preserved, then politicians of all hues
have to rethink their attitudes to culture and identity. The natural
resistance of all native peoples to the arrival of huge numbers of
outsiders in their territory – whether loggers in the Amazon jungle or
Third World settlers in Europe – must cease to be demonized as
‘racism’ and understood as a natural and laudable survival mechanism.

We must learn to avoid the temptation to allow arguments about
short-term economic expediency to prevail over the rights of
indigenous cultures and peoples to preserve their territorial and
cultural integrity.

These considerations, rather than intolerance and bigotry are what
informs the British National Party’s determination not simply to stop
any further mass immigration into the British Isles , but also to
reverse the tide which has transformed vast areas of our country out
of all recognition over the last fifty years. We, as the sole
political representatives of the Silent Majority of the English,
Scots, Irish and Welsh who formed and were formed by our island home,
have one overriding demand: We want our country back!

The proposals outlined below represent the only practical way to move
towards that long-term goal. We recognise that a reversal of the tide
of immigration can only be secured by negotiation and consent, and
that it is probably now too late to anticipate a return to the status
quo ante 1948.

On account of that, and also in the understanding that genocide
through integration is a threat to all peoples across the world, we
also intend to develop a model of ‘multi-culturalism’ which combines
peaceful co-existence with the maintenance of cultural and biological
separation. In parts of the world where mass immigration is
irreversible, the only thing that can prevent human diversity
vanishing into an antheap of rootless coffee-coloured consumerism is
the celebration of difference.

Simply put, relationships between different ethnic and cultural groups
sharing the same places need to settle down on lines closer to those
practiced for centuries in Persia or India, than to those preached in
Hollywood and on MTV. Different groups can live side-by-side and at
peace for generations. They can even enjoy each other’s cultures, but
they must stick to their own, or ‘diversity’ will be but a short-lived
stepping stone to nothingness.

Our proposals:

1. We would repeal the Race Relations Acts and all other restrictions
on free speech in Britain.

2. We would abolish all targets and quotas for ethnic representation
in all areas of employment, public and private.

3. We would abolish all politically-correct indoctrination of the
police, teachers, and other public employees.

4. We would abolish all government-sponsored ethnicity-specific
professional bodies, housing associations, and other organisations.

5. We would abolish all departments, agencies, or other units of
government whose sole and specific purpose is to deal with ethnic
issues, grievances, or crimes. Such organisations deliberately seek
out the maximum quantity of "racism" in order to justify their own
existence and expand their power and budgets. The law is the law and
must be enforced equally upon all without being politicised over
ethnic differences.

6. We would abolish all laws against racial discrimination in
employment and the government bodies associated with enforcing them.

7. Except for purposes of teaching foreign languages to native
speakers of English, the only languages permitted in official
documents, government business, and schools will be English, Scots,
and Welsh. The use of other languages by ethnic minorities in their
own homes, school and institutions will also be encouraged.

8. A Clause 28-style proscription against the promotion of racial
integration in schools and the media would be introduced.

9. In order to make it clear that the “celebration of diversity” is
something in which the native peoples of our islands can share, each
of our traditional Saints Days would be made Public Holidays in the
nations in question, with Trafalgar Day being an additional Public
Holiday throughout the entire UK.

10. A massively-funded and permanent programme, using and doubling
Britain‘s current foreign aid budget, will aim to reduce, by voluntary
resettlement to their lands of ethnic origin, the proportion of ethnic
minorities living in Britain , for as long as the majority of the
electorate are willing to fund such expenditure. Since the chief
impact of such a programme would be the assistance it would render to
Developing Countries in the Third World, this is described further in
Section 16 – Britain and the World.

11. While accepting the right of law-abiding minorities, in our
country because they or their ancestors came here legally, to remain
here and to enjoy the full protection of the law against any form of
harassment or hostility, we will also seek to emphasise the importance
of the prior status of the aboriginal people. This would be a national
extension of the ‘Sons and Daughters’ policy in priority on housing
and school places lists which BNP councils seek to implement at local
level.

We will publish a list of these British nationals preference proposals
before the next major election.

Culture, traditions and the civil society

We believe that the character of daily life in Britain is being
corroded by the gradual but inexorable loss of many of the things that
make Britain civilized. We believe that these things cannot be
reduced, as the fake-conservative Thatcherite ideology fatally
supposes, simply to economics. Nor can these things be provided, as
Labour and the left imagine, by the expensive meddling of a socialist
nanny-state. Tradition, heritage, and civility must be understood as
goods in themselves, to be defended for their own sake.

This entails the following:

1. We demand the right to be proud of Britain again, and for the
English, Scots, Welsh, Irish and Ulster peoples to be allowed to
celebrate their identity and heritage with as much right as is
accorded to other native peoples. We are entitled to a government that
does not show, with everything it says and does, that it despises our
country and urgently wishes to reshape it into something else.

2. We demand the right to preserve our culture, heritage, and
identity. Our national character and native institutions are a
precious inheritance, for which our ancestors have paid a high price
over the centuries. They are not to be casually thrown away in the
name of a "modernisation" that is often no more than a thinly-veiled
cover for a quasi-Marxist cultural war against all things white,
European and male.

3. We reject the idea that culture is just something to be bought and
sold by corporations. Such a view, while pretending to evince the mere
operation of free public choice in a free market, in fact imposes upon
us whatever culture - frequently of low quality and alien provenance -
multinational media corporations wish to impose, whether we like it or
not.

4. We support a return to traditional standards of civility and
politeness in British life. Standards of politeness must be taught in
school, demanded of government employees in their interactions with
the public and exemplified on the BBC. Soap operas, for instance,
should seek to portray slightly ‘higher’ than real-life behaviour as
the norm, rather than setting out to show ordinary people – in
particular the white working class - in the most negative and
unattractive light possible.

5. We support the restoration of our town centres and a return to
traditional architecture. Broadly speaking, we are in agreement with
the views expressed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in his
book A Vision of Britain. We will aim at the gradual elimination of
tower blocks and the development of wasteland in our urban centres,
according to traditional British urban forms. We will not allow the
proliferation of out-of-town shopping centres to destroy traditional
high street shopping areas. We will impose a special tax on the
supermarkets, the proceeds of which will be used to help small
businesses resist their efforts to monopolise the retail trade, and to
keep our town centres alive.

6. We will ensure that appropriate areas of public life, including
school assemblies, are based on a commitment to the values of
traditional Westernised Christianity. Levels of religiosity have
always fluctuated in Britain, and while our great inheritance of
cathedrals, churches and liturgies has less resonance with the broad
mass of the population at present, the wheel of faith will one day
turn again and they will be fully valued once more.

Art and Culture

Schools in England will be encouraged to celebrate May Day and other
ancient festivals, whilst the other folk nations of the British Isles
will be encouraged to resurrect their ancestral folk traditions.

We will introduce the requirement that all children will be taught
English as their first language in Britain , but also learn about
their local ancestral language as well. This will apply to Welsh,
Cornish, Manx, Scots Gallic, Doric or Lallans in Great Britain, and
Ulster Lallans and Gaelic in Northern Ireland. English children will
also be given an appreciation of the language of the Anglo-Saxon folk
and to appreciate the beauty of Anglo-Saxon culture, such as its
poetry, art and the meaning of citizenship.

Those from foreign ethnic backgrounds resident in Britain will be
given the choice of either having their children educated in Faith or
Folk schools that will teach them the traditions and heritage of their
ancestral cultures, or of attending classes in schools that educate
them about their ancestral heritage. We believe that all children
suffer when deprived of their right to an ancestral identity and
contact with their cultural roots.

We will encourage black and ethnic minority schools and religious
schools run by parents and staff that educate those children as to
their ancestral heritage and instil pride in their culture and
ethnicity.

The handing out of National Lottery funds to so-called ‘modern art’
projects that insult and degrade (as of course they are intended to)
the very name of art, has become a minor national scandal, almost as
bad as the way in which money from the same fund is repeatedly handed
to politically correct rather than popular causes. The boards which
decide on lottery grant applications should be picked by ballot from
lists of individuals who have raised significant sums of money for
local charities, not appointed by the government or other members of
the out-of-touch liberal elite.

Music, including training to play a musical instrument, should be
compulsory in schools between the ages of five and fourteen. From
fourteen upwards, every effort should be made to encourage those
children who have shown musical talent to play for their own and their
peers’ entertainment.

Tough on the causes of crime – Criminals

Despite the unprecedented sums being spent on the police, Britain
today faces record crime rates. Traditional and effective
bobby-on-the-beat policing has been abandoned in favour of expensive
and intrusive technological toys, such as CCTV cameras and
over-reliance on patrol cars. Police management has lost its focus on
preventing crime and has become a variety of politically-correct
social work more concerned with the rights of criminals than with
those of their victims.

We intend to rebuild the social contract where the criminal was afraid
of the police and decent citizens were protected by the law. The
liberal consensus which sees the criminal as the victim and the victim
as the criminal will be abolished, and Politically Correct senior
police officers, who clearly prefer helping the Exchequer squeeze
extra stealth taxes out of Middle Britain to catching burglars, will
be replaced.

1. We will ensure that the main priority of the police be returned to
that of the prevention and punishment of crime, and we will abolish
all politically-correct distractions from this mission.

2. We will return, so far as conditions permit, to traditional foot
and bicycle patrol policing and reduce reliance on police cars.

3. We will end the legal system’s harassment of fathers by means of
the Child Support Agency and change the outdated presumption in favour
of maternal custody in divorce cases to one of joint custody.

4. 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.

5. We believe in ‘Restorative Justice’ - all fines imposed by the
Courts will be given to the victims not the government. Criminals will
be forced to repair any damage they have done in the community.

6. We will abolish the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) rules,
whereby the last Conservative government placed the handcuffs of
bureaucracy on the police. We pay police officers to deter crime and
catch criminals, not to fill in forms or act as uniformed social
workers.

7. We believe that there is a strong argument for making entire
families financially responsible for the cost of crimes committed by
one of their members. This was the ancient Anglo-Saxon system, and
would apply a huge amount of pressure on young tearaways in particular
to mend their ways. Would it be unfair? Sometimes, perhaps, but not as
unfair as the present shambles where millions live in fear of crime,
most of which is committed by a relatively small number of serial
offenders who have very little fear of the present weak criminal
justice system.

8. We will return to traditional police uniforms, as opposed to the
militarised and pseudo-hi-tech costumes that have undermined this
powerful symbol of traditional unarmed civil authority. It must be
remembered that the police are the servants of the people, not of the
State.

9. Directly linked to point 8, we will reverse the trend of recent
decades whereby the State has sought to grant to the police a total
monopoly on the enforcement of the law and acceptable standards of
behaviour. This will entail changes in the law and the ‘culture’ of
law enforcement.

Such changes will range from accepting that adults in a community may,
on rare occasions, clip badly behaved kids around the ear (subject, of
course, as they always were, to commonsense interpretations of Common
Law restrictions and obligations) through to the introduction of a
‘Tony Martin’ law permitting householders to use any force they deem
necessary to deal with a burglar in their own homes.

10. Criminals should be made to serve their full sentences, with time
added for bad behaviour. The only way out of prison ‘early’ should be
a maximum 20% reduction in return for a clear demonstration of the
acquisition of genuinely useful skills, or full rehabilitation in the
case of drug addicts, whereupon Parole Boards should have the power to
release such model prisoners, tagged and under tight restrictions
doing restorative work within the community.

11. Given the role of drugs and addiction involved in so much crime,
the present pitiful provision of a mere 2,500 drug rehabilitation
places nationwide is a false economy, as well as a national shame. We
would oversee a one hundred-fold increase in this figure, to be in
place within six months of coming to office. The staff and money for
this vital social service and anti-crime measure will be provided from
cuts made in various of the parasitic and useless public sector
jobs identified later in this Manifesto.

12. While every effort will be made to help addicts to recover,
individuals convicted of the importation and large-scale dealing of
hard drugs will face the death penalty.

Social inclusion – One healthy nation

As nationalists we are committed to caring for and nurturing all
sections of our national community. We also oppose the tendency of the
other, non-nationalist, parties to set different sections of the
community against each other over problems for which they themselves
as politicians are largely responsible. The creation and maintenance
of an undercurrent of national solidarity is one of the cornerstones
of a true national democracy.

The NHS

We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health
Service for all British citizens. Contrary to popular political and
‘right-wing’ myth, the British NHS is actually very good value for
money – the problem is that we do not put enough money into
‘front-end’ staff. The key reason that our health service is in many
ways inferior to those of other leading industrial nations is that we
spend less on it that they do.

In 2001, for example, we spent 7.6% of GDP on health. The figure in
France was 9.5%, in Germany 10.7% and in the ‘privatised’ USA a
mind-boggling 13.9%. (www.gao.gov/cghome/hccrisis/img11.html )

It is clear that the American system of privatised health care is
extremely wasteful in terms of the cost of fragmented administration
and paying for a vast system of private health insurance companies.

The figures above give the lie to the efforts of assorted old party
politicians and monetarist ideologues to ‘talk-down’ the NHS and push
us towards a national switch to private health care. The real reason
for such efforts is that such people have already made their minds up
to be opposed to the NHS in principle.

This position is also widely spread within both the Labour and
Conservative parties. Since they know, however, that open talk of
dismantling the NHS would lead to catastrophic election defeat, they
dare not advocate it openly. Instead, the plan is to run down the
existing health service until it is in such a state that the public
themselves demand radical change – at which the privatisation ‘option’
will be brought out into the open.

“How hard is it to keep a hospital clean?” Very hard, when the last
Tory government replaced ward-based staff cleaners with contract
cleaning staff as part of their disastrous ‘marketisation’ policy, and
the Blair regime continued with the same dangerous system in order to
keep down costs.

Once again, however, it is necessary to remind ourselves that the
driving force behind such partial privatization and cynical
exploitation of problems to impose desired solutions, is not any
actual financial need, but the complete commitment of the entire
Westminster political Establishment to globalisation in general, and
the World Trade Organisation rules in particular. Under these, all
signatories (including Britain) agree to ensure a ‘level economic
playing field’ between different countries by removing all ‘subsidies’
on labour in their own countries. Many of the social welfare
provisions won for the working class by social democratic parties in
the last century – council housing and state-funded healthcare in
particular – fall foul of this agreement.

In addition, of course, the giant for-profit corporations which are
poised to move into such potentially lucrative ‘markets’ have their
own ways of persuading previously ‘principled’ politicians and media
pundits to come round to their way of thinking and start to promote
the bogus case for such services.

Our belief is that dealing with sickness is not something that can
either morally or economically be done for a profit. As the only
serious party in Britain to oppose globalisation, the BNP utterly
rejects such chicanery, and gives the British people a real choice by
putting the case for a fully-funded NHS, while dealing with the
genuine problems that will otherwise give the globalist politicians
the opportunity they are looking for to do away with it. We will
ensure that Britain has an effective, sustainable and free National
Health Service by enacting legislation to ensure that

1. There is an immediate end to the counter-productive ‘culture’ of
targets in healthcare. All these achieve is to push staff and
administrators to cut corners, find ways to fiddle the statistics and
to deal with insignificant but easily dealt with health problems while
leaving the smaller numbers of the chronically sick to wait for even
longer. All health care should revert to being assessed on the grounds
of patient need, not bureaucratic targets.

2. Staff numbers are boosted, slashing unnecessary bureaucracy and by
addressing the root cause of low recruitment and retention - low pay.
There is no shortage of beds in the NHS, only of staff to look after
the patients who should be in them.

3. Doctors and nurses are given interest free mortgages from the
government to buy houses in areas where their services are needed.

4. The hospital creches which were done away with under the last
Conservative government are re-established, making it much easier for
nurses to return to work after taking time off to have children.

5. Experiments are carried out into the opening of ‘term-time’ wards,
run mainly by staff with school-age children. This would be used to
clear backlogs of minor operations.

6. The asset stripping of the doctors and nurses of the developing
world ends, and all future British doctors and nurses – except for
rare experts required to teach new skills and techniques - are
recruited and trained within Britain.

7. Abolish the bursary system for student nurses and pay them a decent
wage during their training.

8. More emphasis is placed on healthy living with greater
understanding of sickness prevention through physical exercise, a
healthier environment and improved diets. All multi-choice school
canteens should be closed down as soon as enough catering staff have
been trained to return to traditional school meals eaten in properly
supervised dining halls. Hospitals should wherever possible buy
locally produced food, which will be fresher and healthier as well as
supporting local businesses and strengthening the links between
hospitals and their communities.

9. Introduce a programme whereby sophisticated new equipment comes
automatically with proper training for sufficient operators to make
the best use of it. At present it is common for items such as MRI
Scanners, often bought thanks to great efforts by League of Friends
groups, lie unused because there are no staff available to them.

10. We extend the ‘polluter pays’ principle from environmental damage
to the impact of processed foods as well. The link between highly
processed products such as white sugar and flour and a wide variety of
degenerative diseases is so well proven as to make it entirely
reasonable to insist that the producers and vendors of such junk
should pay extra tax to help society as a whole cover the cost of the
damage that goes hand in hand with their profits.

11. An effective fight against MRSA by the immediate replacement of
contract cleaners with ward-based auxiliaries. Also a return to
in-hospital laundries for all staff uniforms, which are rarely washed
at a sufficiently hot temperature now that staff are forced to take
their dirty uniforms home and wash them themselves as part of yet
another short-sighted cost-cutting exercise which typifies what
happens when health services are run by bureaucrats rather than
experienced medical staff.

12. The burden imposed on our NHS by treating imported diseases such
as TB and the new wave of heterosexual AIDS is removed forthwith. In
addition to refusing to allow their carriers entry into Britain , or
deporting those already here, we would also introduce a massive public
health awareness campaign on the danger of choosing high-risk groups
as sexual partners. This may be Politically Incorrect, but it would
save many innocent lives and save huge amounts of money which are
needed for other patients.

13. We support wholeheartedly the nursing unions’ campaign for Zero
Tolerance for violence directed against NHS staff. Such incidents
should carry an automatic prison sentence, and the withdrawal of all
medical care from the culprits for a period which should vary
according to the severity of their attack on NHS staff.

14. Medical research facilities researching the potential for global
pandemics of deadly viruses, and ways in which to combat them, must
receive immediate and massive increases in funding. Finally, there
clearly is a problem building up in the long-term as a result of new
medical technologies making it possible to keep people alive well
beyond previously realistic expectations – albeit at huge cost and
often with very limited quality of life. To state that this issue
needs to be debated and addressed is not to propose euthanasia in any
way, but merely to recognise that death is a natural and unavoidable
end for us all, and that there comes a point at which fighting it is
neither humane nor affordable for society as a whole. This, however,
is not a matter for political manifestos or parties, but for a full
and informed national debate and decision by referendum.

A fair deal for our pensioners

It is a national disgrace that people who have worked all their lives,
paid in to the system and raised families forced to live on the lowest
state pension of any Western European nation except Portugal. There is
also a potential danger in that, if unresolved, the growing pensions
crisis and the steady ageing of the population could lead to damaging
friction between pensioners and people of working age. This would be
particularly dangerous if the pensioners are overwhelmingly native
Britons and the workers are immigrants with no ties of blood or
sentiment to the older generation. The long-term solution to this
problem is the recreation of a manufacturing base capable of
generating the national wealth required to pay for the social benefits
which are a mark of a civilised society and a united nation.

1. We pledge to ensure that all our pensioners receive a minimum £10
increase on the current (April 2005) weekly basic of £79.60 and to
rebuild the national housing stock so as to enable them to live in
comfortable, adequately heated homes. A major part of this increase
could come from the £2–3 billion annual cost of the asylum system.

2. We would also restore the link between pensions and the rise in
national earnings – abolished by the last Tory government and not
restored under Labour - as the current system whereby annual pension
increases linked to the cost of living index has meant that our
pensioners’ quality of life has fallen further and further behind.

3. We would ensure that no-one has to sell their home to pay for
nursing care. This would also remove a source of discontent among
those pensioners who have saved during their working life to look
after themselves in old age and feel that under the present system
“they need not have bothered”. To be forced to sell the family home is
yet another disincentive to work hard and save for the future.

In 2004, £4.26 billion was spent by Social Services for
residential/nursing home provision. However, £1.63 billion was
recovered from pensioners who had to pay all or part of the charges.
Therefore, this is the very maximum amount that it would cost to
implement the BNP policy of eliminating the requirement that
pensioners are liable to sell their home for residential care. It is
expected that those pensioners with adequate private pensions would be
expected to make a contribution to residential care or nursing home
costs. The extra cost to Social Services that ensuring the continuity
of the family home would entail could well come out of the £8 billion
Britain would save annually by withdrawing from the EU.

4. In implementing the above new deal for pensioners we would
eliminate the present means-tested Pensions Credit system. This
involves an expensive bureaucracy to implement and is felt to be
degrading by many proud elderly people. Means testing also hits medium
income people the hardest, as the rich do not need pensions and
benefits such as winter fuel allowance – which the BNP would continue.

5. In order to help to alleviate the alleged labour and skills
shortage which is used by Establishment politicians as a propaganda
excuse for continued mass immigration, we would allow active
pensioners to continue working beyond retirement age without paying
any income tax on their earnings, while that tax is being phased out.
Once the reduced burden of taxation on ordinary people has been
shifted from falling on their income to their expenditure, it will
obviously be necessary to compensate pensioners by giving them very
substantial increases in their pensions. These will be financed with
some of the savings made by not having to operate the massively
expensive system required to collect income tax.

Education for a British future

We are against the ‘trendy’ teaching methods that have made Britain
one of the most poorly educated nations in Europe. These are based
upon neo-Marxist egalitarianism, which has done untold damage both to
the fabric of our nation and to an entire generation whose average
level of attainment is now lower than before the introduction of
universal state education.

We reject egalitarianism, and base our plans for the education system
on the scientific fact that different individuals are born with
different abilities and potentials. All are entitled to the same
chance of realizing their own potential, but this cannot be done be
forcing them all into a low-grade ‘one-size-fits-all’ education
system.

Under the present regime Britain is rapidly becoming the
worst-educated major nation in Europe. This threatens us with economic
decline, a barbaric culture, and a citizenry that cannot think well
enough to govern itself. We intend to rebuild the entire British
educational system in order that future generations of British
children are not lost to illiteracy and selfish ill-discipline.

This has not come about by accident or due to mysterious forces like
"permissiveness" or "the 60’s." It has been the result of deliberate
attempts by the left to abandon the traditional purpose of schools –
to educate – in favour of using them as instruments of social
levelling and politically-correct indoctrination, combined with the
right’s economics-obsessed lack of interest in the problem.

We will end the practice of politically correct indoctrination in all
its guises and 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 abolish student tuition fees – which are a stealth tax
upon education, and create apprenticeships in our rebuilt
manufacturing industry.

We will also seek to instil in our young people knowledge of and pride
in the history, cultures, and heritage of the native peoples of
Britain.

Prior to our forming a government, we will fight tooth and nail
against the looming catastrophe of forced integration within secondary
schools. As a result of the recommendations in the New
Labour-sponsored reports into the riots in northern English towns in
2001, a massive programme of social engineering is about to begin.
This will involve the demolition of dozens – in due course probably
hundreds – of perfectly good schools, and their replacement with brand
new premises in which pupils from different ethnic minorities are
mixed through bussing schemes which will rightly be resented and
resisted by all communities.

We are opposed to this entire scheme on three grounds: The huge sums
of money involved would be far better spent upgrading existing
schools; it will add to the racial tensions, hatred and violence that
various other old party policies have fostered in these areas, and it
is based on the destructive and anti-human extermination through
integration model of community relations we have already condemned in
our section on multi-culturalism.

Key Policies on Primary & Secondary Schooling

1. All staff at teacher training colleges will face compulsory
re-evaluation and retraining. The egalitarian and anti-British dogmas
that have betrayed a generation will be rooted out and replaced with a
commitment to competition, excellence and British culture.

2. We will reopen every closed grammar school, and will allow every
community that wants such a school to open one.

3. We will restore all of the old exams that have been abolished,
starting with the "A" and "O" Levels, and will reverse the dumbing
down of those that have not been dumbed down.

4. We will reverse the dumbing down of school curricula and teaching
aids, and raise expectations back to the levels of the past.

5. We will replace the study of world history and cultures with a
predominant emphasis on the history of the British Isles, English,
Welsh, Scottish and Irish culture, and their relation to Western
Civilization as a whole. We will prohibit all curricular pandering to
the cultures of immigrants.

6. PSE lessons, which are nothing more than left-liberal
indoctrination sessions, will be scrapped. When it comes to decisions
about civic matters, children should be taught how to think, rather
than what to think.

7. We will systematically eliminate bureaucratic positions in the
schools and reallocate their salaries to hiring actual teachers,
buying textbooks, and other direct needs.

8. We will eliminate nonsense subjects and reallocate funding and the
time of pupils to traditional subjects like reading, writing, and
maths.

9. We will inculcate a meritocratic attitude in the education system
so that pupils of all class backgrounds can rise as far as their
abilities will take them. We will prohibit the promotion of an
expectation of failure for working-class pupils.

10. We recognise that the Labour policy of closing special needs
schools and forcing their pupils through the mainstream education
system is a policy imposed for reasons of egalitarian dogma and
short-sighted cost-cutting. It is harmful both to the special needs
children who are unable to cope in conventional schools, and to normal
children whose education is disrupted or held back by the extra strain
imposed on teachers by having to cope with such mixed abilities. We
would therefore reverse the closure of special needs schools.

11. We recognise that especially gifted children also have special
needs, and would make extra resources available to enable them to
reach their outstanding potential.

12. We will end the dumping of anti-social expelled students on other
districts. Exclusion policies should be in the hands of head teachers
and governors, not bureaucrats.

13. Council education authorities should be abolished and the money
swallowed up by their bureaucracies given instead to each individual
school. Co-ordination between schools should be organized on a county
basis by the head teachers.

14. Competitive sport must be reintroduced and encouraged at all
levels of the education system.

15. In order to combat unhealthy eating, including eating disorders
and the consumption of over-processed junk food, all schools will be
required to provide proper traditional meals, using locally-sourced
ingredients wherever possible. This is an ideal use for the less than
aesthetically perfect fruit and vegetables produced by organic farmers
which supermarkets claim are unsaleable.

16. We will aim to make a good high-school education sufficient for
many professions, eliminating the need for expensive university
degrees where they are not called for.

17. We will re-introduce assemblies based on traditional Christian
values and worship.

Key Policies on University Education

1. We reject the idea that the left is entitled to institutionalised
control of higher education and through this means impose its ideas on
the rest of the nation. We will require ideological balance on
university faculties.

2. We will abolish the Access Regulator and all other
politically-correct attempts to undermine university standards in the
name of social leveling.

3. On satisfactory completion of their period of National Service, all
suitably qualified youngsters will become eligible to receive a
university education (just as the less academic will be entitled to
proper paid apprenticeships or training and aid in running their own
businesses) without fees or debts.

4. We will systematically de-fund nonsense disciplines and will not
provide grants or loans for such studies.

5. We will increase funding for areas of value to the nation, like
high technology and traditional culture. We believe higher education
must serve both our economy and the maintenance of our culture and
national identity.

6. We will use bursaries to encourage students to study difficult,
unpopular, or longcourse subjects that are in the national interest,
such as science, technology and medicine.

7. We will fund industrial-incubator laboratories and other means by
which university research is made useful to industry.

Britain-first economics – The antidote to globalism

The BNP stands for a British national economy and is opposed to
globalism, international socialism, laissez-faire capitalism and
economic liberalism. We stand for rebuilding a strong national economy
operating solely in the national interest. We favour as much national
self sufficiency as is practicably possible. We will trade with
other nations when it is the best interests of our people and nation
to do so.

Although Britain in 2005 enjoys a fragile prosperity redolent of the
"you never had it so good" years of the 1950s, thoughtful citizens
realize that this is built upon a foundation of rising debt and record
trade deficits and is therefore unsustainable. The present regime and
its Establishment opponents have without exception abandoned the
attempt to run the economy for the benefit of Britain, surrendering
simultaneously to the strangling statism of Euro-regulations and to an
international free market that has no loyalty to this country.

We are economic nationalists, and we believe it is the duty of the
government to proactively run the economy for the benefit of the
nation. We reject the current myth that this is impossible, and point
out that there are many examples of nations who follow precisely such
a policy. Economics is a highly-structured body of thought, and this
can be achieved by systematically thinking through what economic
nationalism means and how it differs from the policies of the current
regime. Therefore we present the following Twelve Axioms of Economic
Nationalism as the core of our thinking:

Axiom 1: Economic policy is not a matter of inevitabilities; there is
room for choices and the right choices can be effective.

The reigning myth of economics – which goes under names like
"Thatcherism," "neo-liberalism ," "the Washington Consensus," and
"laissez-faire," is that there is very little a government can do
about its economy other than submit to the dictates of the
international marketplace and its one-size-fits-all model. We observe,
however, that in truth many nations around the world have thrived
economically while defying this model, the most brilliant examples
being the tiger states of East Asia like Japan, South Korea, and
Singapore. No sane nation simply accepts the hand dealt to it by the
forces of international capitalism, but rather seeks to play the game
of the world economy to its own advantage.

Axiom 2: The fundamental concern of the government’s economic
policy-making must be the material well-being of the British people.

This sounds obvious, but recent governments have not believed this.
The Tories have simply surrendered to an international free market
that doesn’t care a whit about Britain over Timbuktu, and Labour is
primarily interested in preparing Britain‘s economy to be soldered
into a European super state.

Axiom 3: The material well-being of the British people is similar to,
but not identical with, Britain ‘s economic well-being.

The key point here is that not all aspects of material well-being are
part of the economy. For example, a home-cooked meal may be superior
to one eaten out, but the economic statistics record the labour of
preparing this meal in a café but not at home. The same is true of a
child cared for at home rather than in a day-care center. This creates
the illusion that we have a higher material standard of living when we
purchase things that used to be produced within the traditional
family, which illusion has been a key part of the attack on the
traditional family.

There are other examples of how the fetish for GNP misrepresents our
material well-being. The fact that environmental degradation doesn’t
show up in the figures is one. Another is the fact that a safe
neighborhood that needs no private security guards shows a lower level
of economic output than a dangerous neighborhood where every business
has to hire them. Hordes of lawyers settling disputes by expensive
litigation are another.

We reject the mistake the current economic establishment makes of
confusing economic output with material well-being.

Axiom 4: The economic well-being of Britain is more-or-less a function
of per-capita GNP, not aggregate GNP.

This little point undoes a huge amount of sophistry that is currently
being put about in economic policy, principally with regards to
immigration. The current Establishment keeps yapping about how
immigration is supposedly good for the economy. All this means is that
immigration increases Britain‘s aggregate GNP, a natural consequence
of increasing the number of persons working here. It does not mean
that immigration increases per-capita GNP. In fact, because immigrants
tend to be cheap laborers who are less productive than the average
Briton, immigration actually decreases per-capita GNP. Furthermore,
because productivity is a function of capitalisation-per-worker,
immigration dilutes productivity by increasing the number of workers
dependent on the given capital stock. We will not try to expand our
economy by dumping foreign labor into it.

Axiom 5: The economic well-being of Britain is more precisely a
function of the income of the average British family.

It is no secret that since Thatcher, economic growth in this country
has tended to flow to the top of the income scale. While this does
increase per-capita income, it means that the beneficiaries of this
income do not include a large portion of this country. Britain has a
much higher level of economic inequality than comparable countries,
and this is inexcusable.

Of course, it is no secret that the old-style socialist methods of
redistributing income down the scale turned out to have harmful
effects, so unfortunately it is not just a matter of taxing income
away from the rich and towards the working class. But there are other
policy tools that can be used to reduce income inequality. The BNP
will use all non-destructive means to reduce income inequality.

Axiom 6: Economic well-being must take inflation accurately into
account.

Rising incomes mean nothing if the cost of living is rising just as
fast. The present government is lying about inflation by excluding
housing costs, which are a significant part of the average family’s
budget, from the inflation rate. House prices in Britain, particularly
in the southeast, have been allowed to skyrocket in recent years to
the point where many ordinary people who don’t own houses cannot
afford to acquire them and those who pay rent must spend an excessive
portion of their income. Can this possibly have something to do with
the fact that over 300,000 foreigners have moved into the southeast
since 1990? Of course it can. Immigration also drives up the cost of
everything else in the economy that has a real-estate component --
everything from shop rents to car prices - - as our supply of land is
finite. The BNP will fight these immigrationdriven rises in the cost
of living and report a truthful inflation figure.

Axiom 7: The income of British workers is a function of how big the
“profit pie” is at the companies where they work and how big a “slice
of the pie” workers get compared with management and owners.

This sounds obvious, but the major parties have tended to forget this.
Tories and New Labour only care about the first, and old-fashioned
socialists care about the second and take the first for granted.
Unions, for example, can fight to extract a bigger share of the pie
for their members at the expense of management, but they generally
don’t do much to make the pie itself larger. The BNP supports strong
unions and strong industries, and the kind of unions that work for the
health of their industries.

Axiom 8: Sustainable income is what counts.

Unlike the old parties, the BNP wants Britain to still be here for our
children and grandchildren. Economic “quick fixes” abound, but they
all exact a price in the long run. For example, unions that exact wage
increases which their employers can’t afford, just produce corporate
bankruptcies and redundancies. Governments that spend borrowed money
just saddle future taxpayers with the need to pay interest. The BNP
will not pursue quick fixes, unlike Labour leftists like Gordon Brown,
who wants to borrow his way to better public services.

Axiom 9: Wages are set by the supply and demand for labour, so
immigration drives down wages by increasing supply.

Establishment economists have this odd quirk: they teach all day that
the price of any given commodity is determined by its supply and
demand, and then they conveniently forget this when it comes to
labour. Why? Because obviously the establishment wants labour to be as
cheap as possible. It is in the interest of the average British worker
to minimize the supply and maximize the demand for his labor. The BNP
will not allow immigration to Britain and will implement the orderly
repatriation of past immigrants.

Axiom 10: Sustainable income is a product of the investment in British
industry.

What makes Britain a first-world country, rather than an economic
basket-case, is the fact that British workers have hundreds of years
of accumulated capital equipment to work with. This means the
long-term prosperity of this country is a matter of having the highest
possible level of capitalisation. Unless the capital flows in from
abroad, which just means that the profits must flow out again, the
capitalisation of British industry is a function of how much money
Britons save. Furthermore, a high savings rate is a good thing because
it helps provide for people in their retirement. The BNP will support
policies designed to raise the national savings rate, like the
replacement of income tax with a progressive consumption tax.

Axiom 11: Owners should work, and workers should own.

If ordinary Britons increase their savings rate and invest the money
in British industry, it will over time transpire that they are the
owners of British industry. This has been called “pension-fund
socialism,” and it combines the efficiency of capitalist private
ownership with socialism’s ideal of worker ownership of the means of
production. It also gives workers an incentive to care about the
long-term health of the companies they work for, as they are part
owners. It is also a pro-nationalist policy, as it tends to bring the
ownership of British industry into British hands. The BNP supports the
gradual assumption of worker ownership through their pension funds.

Axiom 12: Well-educated workers get better paid.

No serious person disputes this, but Britain’s education system still
doesn’t reflect this insight very well. Britain suffers from a
class-based bias in favor of impractical education and against
technology education that is absent in more prosperous nations like
Germany, Japan, and the United States. The BNP supports better
education, particularly in those disciplines and institutions most
relevant to the bulk of British industry, like the polytechnics. We
support the systematic rebuilding of the pure and applied scientific
prowess that supports industrial research.

Extending ownership and responsibility

The current pensions crisis was created largely by Gordon Brown’s
smash-and-grab tax raids on pension funds. But even without that it is
clear that the cost of providing for a steadily ageing population is a
major concern that responsible politicians must address. The facile
UKIP or Sun answer that all such difficulties can be addressed by
spending and re-spending the massive but finite amounts of money at
presented wasted on EU membership or asylum seekers is no real
solution.

In the end, decent pension provision can only be financed from the
productive capacity of the generation which is working at that moment.
Money saved during a worker’s employed life has to be invested
somewhere, and the return which pays the pension comes from the extra
wealth that money generates now.

The provision of long-term sustainable pensions therefore depends on
the rebuilding of profitable and sustainable British industry. This in
turn cannot be achieved simply by assuming that our foreign
competitors will concentrate on traditional manufacturing and leave
the high-tech computer for us to use as our passport to prosperity.
The idea - implicit in the old parties’ tunnel vision on this sector
as the source of future employment and profit – that people in the Far
East are incapable of seeing and acting on the same opportunity is,
curiously, fundamentally racist.

The truth is that Britain will only be able to sustain the social
welfare benefits that are recognised by all parties as the hallmarks
of a stable and civilized society if we rebuild a broad-based
manufacturing economy.

The starting point for this must be the election of a nationalist
government that has not bought in to globalist dogma and which
recognises that it is a primary responsibility of government to
create, preserve and strengthen the overall framework within which
individuals and companies working in a general atmosphere of private
enterprise competition can thrive.

In calling for a nation in which responsibility is prized, we begin
with the fact that the government itself must accept responsibility
for the overall well-being and direction of the economy, rather than
hiding behind the decisions of independent banks, currency speculators
and the people running other nations’ economies.

In the run-up to this General Election, the loss under New Labour of
one million manufacturing jobs has been compounded by the shattering
blow of the collapse of one hundred years of British car-manufacturing
at Rover. Foreign competition from companies with good designs,
excellent products, supportive governments and often lower wages than
ours is the obvious reason, but the real reasons for the slow death
of British manufacturing is to be found at home:

Bad management; high taxation; workforces without a real stake in
their companies; chronic under-investment (largely as a result of a
taxation system that penalizes productivity and saving, and rewards
spending); an education system and salary differentials that push most
of the nation’s best brains into essentially parasitic professions
such as the law, the management of bureaucracies and advertising, and
a succession of governments with a positive aversion to anything which
smacks of a patriotic procurement policy or even national pride in
general.

Turning these problems around and reviving the industrial and
technological base on which our survival as a First World country
depends will require an enormous effort. The resources required can
only be mobilized by a government that sets out to play the guiding
role in our national revival, rather than managing our continued
decline and pretending that tourism and selling each other imported
consumer goods will allow us to keep ourselves in careless luxury.

There is a great deal for us to learn in the way in which the Japanese
Ministry of Finance has overseen and helped to create the conditions
which enabled the tiny, over-crowded and almost resource-free island
of Japan to recover from being utterly crushed in 1945 to being the
global economic super-power which she is today.

Obviously there are many differences between our situations, our
peoples and our cultures, so we do not envisage a direct carbon copy
of the Japanese system, rather the creation of a Westernised version
of it. As nationalists we expect to “do things our way”, but we are
not too proud to learn from others who have enjoyed success in areas
where our Masters have delivered us only demoralizing failure.

In keeping with our commitment to parliamentary democracy, it will of
course be necessary for the British National Bank (based on the Bank
of England) to be directly responsible to the pan-British parliament.
Further details of how this system will work will be published before
the next major election, once our Economic Strategy Group has had the
time to research this crucial matter much more thoroughly.

Britain? Whose Britain?

Past nationalist proposals for reviving British industry have tended
to begin and end with a plan to protect British industry by erecting
tariff barriers, and then leaving conventional capitalist businesses
to take advantage of the newly favourable trading conditions to
rebuild our manufacturing base while making themselves huge profits.

We, however, are acutely aware that tariffs on foreign manufactured
goods are also an added tax on the ordinary families who buy those
goods. And as radical nationalists we do not intend to tax our own
people white in order to benefit the selfsame companies and
businessmen who have spent the last few decades maximizing profits by
shipping in cheap labour and shipping out British jobs. Our new
industrial and technological revolution must benefit the Many, not
just the few.

Since we are not egalitarian socialists, it is not our intention to
run around expropriating existing businesses, but we are determined to
ensure that social justice is done, and the incentive value of
personal ownership is built-in to as much of our rebuilt manufacturing
economy as possible.

Wherever new industries are created, therefore, worker-ownership
schemes will be implemented as far as is practical. In smaller
concerns the presumption will be in favour of workers’ co-operatives;
in larger ones for share-ownership, profit-sharing and management
board places.

This plan to extend personal private ownership is not an optional
whim, but an integral part of our entire vision for Britain. Nor is it
confined to the means of industrial production. The fresh food
sections of supermarkets, in particular, are a prime target for
conversion into owner-run ‘urban markets’. And in view of their
bosses’ long record of exploiting British consumers and farmers, and
of financing political parties and unhealthy technologies guaranteed
to give them even more clout and profits, the supermarkets are
entirely legitimate targets for radical and legally enforced change.

The same is true of land ownership, particularly arable land. As noted
in our section on Agriculture, the creation of an entire new class of
independent family farms is at the core of our plans for Britain’s
countryside, food production and increased health.

We have no intention of setting the disastrous precedent of
expropriation of existing landowners – with the exception of
speculators and such like who are actually guilty of crimes such as
tax evasion and fraud against present laws. But we will undertake a
series of measures intended to create the circumstances in which large
numbers of young people can obtain the training, experience, land,
homes and capital they need to return to the land of their ancestors
as productive owner-farmers.

Apart from the many health, long-term economic and environmental
arguments in favour of such moves to expand the ranks of the owners of
productive property, there is one very important political reason:
This is the fact that the assumption by the government of the
responsibility of directing (though not running) the commanding
heights of the economy will inevitably lead to a very significant
growth in the power of the State.

In order to keep under control the State’s inherent tendency to add
more power to existing power (yes, even our State, for it is the
nature of the beast), it is necessary to look for ways to balance an
increase in the power of central government with an increase in some
other area in the power of ordinary people.

Turning growing numbers of ‘hands’, ‘wage slaves’, ‘workers by hand or
brain’ or middle class contract workers – call them what you will –
into the personal owners of their own tiny share of our national
productive capacity, is one such way to increase the average level of
independence and hence freedom among our people.

A return of pride and purpose

In deciding where to locate new industries, the Ministry of Finance
and the other government agencies and private investors with which it
will work will do their best to ‘match’ the new developments to the
traditional industrial roles of specific areas. Thus, for example, a
plant to build the structure of off-shore wind and ocean current power
rigs would be set up in a community once known for its shipbuilding
yards, while the turbines for the same system would be built in one of
the cities which used to turn out engines when British cars, bikes and
planes were the best in the world.

Such developments must of course be economically viable, but there is
much more to our vision that simple economics. As ordinary people, not
members of the leftliberal elite or the tired remnants of the old
ruling class, we know all too well the terrible damage done by the old
parties’ decision to allow British industry to wither and die. We see
it in the health problems of redundant workers, in the divorce and
crime rate in their communities, in the hurt and bitter eyes of
hopeless young men who turn to crime and drugs in a desperate attempt
to give their lives meaning, and in communities where old ladies once
scrubbed their doorsteps sinking into decay and dereliction in their
own squalor.

In our burning passion to undo that wrong, our greatest motivation is
not to see Britain climbing back up the world tables for GDP or
balance of payments’ surpluses or for harnessing genius to
productivity. More than anything, we want to see men and women who can
hold their heads up high and say to the highest and mightiest people
it is their misfortune to meet: “Well, I’ve got a proper job.”

Abolition of income tax

Under the present regime, the state’s total take in taxes from the
British people has risen by approximately 50%, and now stands at more
than one third of our entire GDP. We are not a Thatcherite party and
do not propose deep cuts in government spending, although we would
massively reallocate it, eliminating entire national and local
government departments which gobble taxpayers’ money to finance
Politically Correct social engineering schemes and State interference
in matter which are not its proper concern.

We nonetheless believe that the present level of taxation is roughly
the limit the economy can bear and we pledge not to increase total
taxes, as a percentage of GDP, above this level. Naturally, we may
alter the mix of taxes so that some activities are taxed more than
they are now and some less, but the total will not be allowed to
increase.

The only exception we must make to this rule is if there is a
recession, which naturally diminishes tax receipts and forces tax
increases to satisfy rising demands for social benefits due to
increased unemployment, or an international emergency beyond our
control similarly impacting the British economy. To keep our pledge on
taxes, we embrace a similar pledge on total spending levels.

However, within this framework of a constant percentage level of
taxation, we propose several key reforms in the mix and manner of
taxes. Any reforms we introduce will be imposed gradually, not
precipitately, in order to allow evidence of their consequences to
correct any defects in the initial scheme. Having seen the fiascoes of
the present and past government, we are not going to rush into untried
schemes.

Income tax – the ‘temporary’ solution that became a menace

One such scheme rushed into by a previous administration is income
tax. This was first introduced in 1799 to finance the war against
revolutionary France. After being abolished and reintroduced, it was
finally imposed in 1842, again as a ‘temporary’ measure.

When it was first introduced, the burden fell largely on the unearned
income of the very wealthy, and thereby had some moral justification.
As it was extended by successive governments, however, more and more
people fell victim to what is in general a tax on the hard work or
ingenuity of each individual. Today we have the ridiculous situation
when even people below the official poverty line pay income tax.

Such obvious injustice, however, conceals far deeper moral and
practical problems with income tax:

The moral point is precisely that it is a tax on people’s labour.
There is actually very little difference between the feudal mediaeval
serf, who was compelled on pain of eviction or violence to work one
day in three for the Lord of the Manor in order to be entitled to till
his own patch of land and to pay for the lifestyle of his ‘Lord’, and
the position of the modern wage slave who must work half the entire
year before reaching his ‘tax freedom day’.

It is one thing entirely to tax people for the use of facilities built
by the wider community, or for taking advantage of opportunities to
profit which are generated by the fact that they belong to a
community. Such taxes are morally entirely justified, for no man is an
island and all should contribute to the commonweal.

The practical problems with income tax, meanwhile, are even greater.

The first is that it can be – and very often is – evaded. The feudal
serf could take the risk of running away and hoping not to be caught
within the year and a day in which he could be dragged back to his
Lord’s village, whipped and mutilated, and set back to work. The
modern wage slave simply slips into the black economy. Of course, the
risk of fines and possibly a term in prison is not as much of a
deterrent as used to exist, but that does not excuse breaking the law.

Tax evasion is not a victimless crime. If Person A dodges paying tax,
then Persons B & C have to pay more tax. Tax evasion robs our
neighbours and undermines the national cohesion that underpins our
democracy. Perhaps most corrosive of all, it inculcates a contempt for
the law and a resentment against legitimate authority.

If income tax evasion was a minor problem, none of this would matter
too much. But Britain now has one of the largest black economies in
Western Europe. It is estimated to involved between 5% and 13% of our
total GDP (Professional Oversight Board for Accountancy, Feb 2005).

According to the Construction Confederation, citing the last available
figures (2001) black economy work in the building industry alone cost
the Exchequer – and hence other taxpayers - £500m in lost tax revenue.
By its very nature the true figure is impossible to obtain, but Prof
Colin Talbot of Nottingham University suggests (February 2004) that
the black economy is worth between £53 billion and £137 billion a
year. That involves somewhere between 1.4 and 3.6 million workers
evading £27 billion in taxes.

In addition to this staggering cost, the collection, and legitimate
avoidance, of income tax is also a huge burden on the productive
economy and the opportunity to do something better with our time and
money. The Inland Revenue employs 82,180 people. Of course, some of
these spend their time collecting other taxes, such as Corporation
Tax, with which we do not take issue, but a huge number are employed
to collect income tax.

On the other side of the line there are 252,000 chartered accountants,
plus a further 140,000 student members of professional accountancy
bodies. There are even more ancillary office staff and book-keepers
working for them, and on top of all that there are the untold millions
of man-hours wasted by individual small businessmen struggling with
the accountancy records. A massive proportion of all this work is
generated by the need to pay – and efforts to avoid paying – income
tax.

Finally, there is the problem that to tax peoples’ work and
productivity is the biggest disincentive possible to hard work and
economic efficiency. To allow workers of all levels to keep the fruits
of their own labour would in itself spark an unprecedented
productivity upsurge which would dovetail with and help to finance the
massive economic rebuilding programme which our overall plan for the
reconstruction of Britain requires.

The reforms we propose are:

1. We will introduce, phased in over five years, a consumption tax on
non-essential goods in place of the income tax. The purpose of this is
to raise Britain‘s savings rate, which is the basis of our capital
formation and thus investment in economic growth. This consumption tax
would be very similar to the present income tax, except that the basis
for taxation would be income spent, not income earned, during the
year. It would be collected by the present VAT authorities, who could
do the relatively limited extra work with only a small proportion of
the workforce currently employed one way or another by the income tax
monster.

2. We are aware that a consumption tax, unless adjusted to compensate
for this fact, favors the rich because they save a higher percentage
of their ncomes. Therefore we will alter the tax code to maintain
present levels of progressivism in taxation by income bracket. In
essence, this means that the spendthrift rich (who spend most of their
income) will pay more tax than they do today, the thrifty rich (who
save most of their income) will pay less, but that the rich as a group
will pay the same as today, and similarly for other income brackets.

3. A relatively small number of the bureaucrats freed from shuffling
tax forms would be redeployed as Customs Officers to guard all points
of entry into the UK. These would primarily prevent attempts to evade
consumption tax through smuggling, but they would incidentally provide
us – at no extra cost – with the proper security on our borders to
protect us from illegal immigration and international terrorists.

4. The hundreds of thousands of professionals and office workers
released by this reform from essentially unproductive income
tax-related jobs would be systematically redeployed to more productive
areas of the economy.

We are aware of the theoretical and practical complexities of the
consumption tax, but given the complexity of the present tax system,
we believe they are no greater and we will address them in a
forthcoming document on our tax policies.

Other tax policies

1. While the present Council Tax system (introduced by the Tories and
increased by 76% under New Labour) is far from perfect, the same is
certainly true of the other likely alternatives, including the
unworkable Poll Tax and the Liberal Democrats proposals for a Local
Income Tax which would be subject to all the criticisms of its
national big brother. We believe that the key to making council tax
bearable is simply to eliminate at a stroke the vastly expensive
network of Politically Correct social engineering projects and
unnecessary (and often EUimposed) bureaucracy which all councils
maintain.

Such operations are the mechanism for both New Labour patronage and
for the long-term development of what Hilaire Belloc rightly termed
the “ Servile State ”. As well as their abolition allowing us to slash
council tax, our country would be a better place without them.

No one minds paying a fair price for essential council services; the
problem is not the tax itself, but the amount of tax being levied by
councils which have expanded into areas which it is not the business
of government, national or local, to interfere. We will conduct a full
audit of the extent and cost of such operations once we take control
of our first Unitary Authority council and so have proper and ready
access to the information required to begin to make a proper
assessment.

1. In order to strengthen the traditional family, we will restore the
married man’s tax allowance, which we will raise to £20,000.

2. We will abolish nuisance taxes such as the BBC license fee and car
licence discs.

3. We will introduce a special ‘level playing field’ super tax on
companies that evade paying other taxes in Britain by out-sourcing
jobs to factories and call centres overseas. If they want to do
business here, they must pay their full share of taxes here.

4. A further major source of central government tax revenue would be
the tariffs placed on foreign-manufactured goods of types which the
Ministry of Finance identifies as being suitable targets for
replacement by items made in British factories. This money would be
ploughed into the rebuilding of our manufacturing base.

Public service, not corporate profit

The present regime has increased public spending by approximately 50%
since 1997, and yet the average citizen is painfully aware that the
quality of public services like the NHS, schools, and public transport
has not improved.

We believe the answer to this paradox lies in the fact that Labour has
spent the additional money, not upon direct providers of services like
teachers, policemen, and nurses, but upon tiers of bureaucrats. It is
no accident that these middle-class public administrators are the core
supporters of New Labour.

The present regime has engaged in a ridiculous pantomime of
pseudo-management in its empty attempts to duplicate the management
techniques of the private sector, such as quantitative targets in
public sector fields where they are not appropriate.

Therefore, our primary programme for the reform of public services
will be to eliminate bureaucratic positions and reallocate the funds
to direct providers of services. We believe in the leanest feasible
bureaucracy and the allocation of funds as close to the end-users, the
British people, as possible.

Furthermore:

1. We will not engage in pointless privatisation of services such as
public transport out of a misunderstood admiration for the successful
privatisations of the 1980s. The decision as to whether a certain
needed service should be provided by the public or private sector is
not something to be made on abstract ideological grounds, but must be
made upon considerations of the feasibility of real competition, the
public’s right to universal service and other unprofitable provisions,
and accompanying factors.

2. We believe that it is absurd that 38% of voters are now recipients
of meanstested benefits while public services languish. While we do
not believe in cutting the welfare state as an end in itself, we will
reduce the number of people receiving benefits and reallocate the
funds to the truly needy (especially pensioners) and to public
services like the NHS, schools, and public transport.

3. As already noted in the section on the NHS (see Social Inclusion),
we recognise that the underlying motives of Labour and Tory moves to
privatise every single institution they can lay their destructive
hands on, are globalist dogma and corporate greed.

In the next few years, it will become clear that this privatization
drive extends way beyond targets which have already been clearly
signaled, such as council housing, the health service and the Post
Office.

From July 2005, for instance, Europe‘s largest media company, the
German firm Bertelsmann AG, is to run the council administration of
the East Riding of Yorkshire. 500 council employees, providing
services to some 350,000 inhabitants, will henceforth be employed and
directed not by elected representatives of the people, but by a
profit-hungry multi-national company.

The takeover plan set out a timetable which shows the company would,
within months be making a profit from running services, collecting
council tax and paying wages and social benefits.

Not surprisingly, Bertelmann and its subsidiary Arvato regard the East
Riding experiment as “a pilot project of strategic importance.” They
believe that the potential British ‘market’ in this field is £6
billion per year. The Arvato board has stated that it was in
“substantive discussions” for the takeover of other local
administrations in Britain.

This begs the question as to why at least one of the thousands of old
party local councilors, who must have had advance notice of this
outrageous scheme, have not explained what is going on to their
constituents and begun a campaign to stop it. The British National
Party is different, and we will expose and lead the popular fight
against such attempts to turn public services into corporate
milch-cows whenever we find them.

Transport – Life’s too short to spend in a traffic jam

Britain’s overall transport policy will inevitably be shaped over the
next few decades by the growing worldwide energy crisis caused by the
peaking and subsequent decline of oil production coinciding with
increasing demand in the rapidly industrialising economies of Asia.

This subject is dealt with in more detail in the section on the
Environment (Section 15, Our Blessed Plot) although the problem is so
vast and all-encompassing that it will take several years of further
work to finalise and perfect our proposals for dealing with it.

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 tracks,
has led to higher fares and lower safety standards. The BNP would end
the nonsense of private transport companies making huge profits
through public subsidies. Those private services which are unable to
operate profitably in the “free market” will have those subsidies
reduced and removed and operations brought back into public ownership.
The British taxpayer will no longer be fleeced to boost profits for
private companies.

Passenger safety and the safe carriage of freight are paramount and
Britain should once again have a world-leading railway industry and
railway infrastructure. We will seek to bring about the
electrification of all existing and re-laid rail lines. We will phase
out diesel locos unless fuel can be obtained cheaply and efficiently
from biorenewable sources. The introduction of super-efficient Maglev
trains is a nationl transport priority. Transport projects must be in
sympathy with the landscape and historical townscapes, and therefore
we will introduce legislation to ensure the use of road tunnels rather
than overland roads through areas of beauty and close to historic
sensitive areas.

The traffic congestion that makes life so hard for millions,
especially in south East England, is partly the result of
over-crowding and immigration, and partly because British membership
of the EU tends to suck business and investment down into one corner
of the country. Our policies on stopping immigration and encouraging a
gradual fall in the overall population will, over the long-term,
reduce congestion. At the same time, ending the distortion of our
national economy by withdrawal from the European Union will reverse
thirty years of over-concentration of business, people and traffic in
the South East.

Proposals

1. A BNP administration would abolish the road fund tax on all private
and commercial vehicles. We view this as an over-bureaucratic and
unnecessary method of tax collection, inherently expensive to collect
and easy for the lawless to evade. In addition, it provides a spurious
justification for the maintenance and extension of the surveillance
state. We would replace the funding acquired from the road tax with an
element built into taxation of the purchase of non-renewable fuels.

2. Congestion of our towns and cities must be eased by the provision
of greater incentives to use rail, bus, tram and Urban Light Transport
(ULTRA) scheme transport instead of private cars. The first step is to
end the crime and squalor that puts so many people off public
transport.

3. Our building plans for human-sized cities will also see a general
ban on out-of town retail/leisure developments. They encourage car
dependence and socially disadvantage pensioners, single mothers and
non-car (poorer) families. Such projects need to make use of
brownfield sites within towns, linked by public transport networks.

4. Motorists will be freed from repressive and restrictive
legislation; we want to see overall motorway speed limits raised, and
made subject to variable speed limits depending on surface/weather
conditions and volume of traffic. A motorway may, for example, have a
40mph limit during heavy rain, but a 90 mph limit during a summer’s
night.

5. We are committed to the maintenance of toll free motorways.

6. Speeding and careless driving kills and injures but we seek to save
lives by making drivers more responsible. A tougher driving test is
needed as well as the introduction of refresher driving tests for
those drivers who have held a licence for 25 years and again after
holding a licence for 50 years.

7. Hidden speed cameras will be prohibited. Speed cameras in places
other than documented accident black spots will be made illegal, in
order to prevent motorists being used as cash cows. Local authorities
and highway agencies will be encouraged to engineer solutions to deal
with accident black spots.

8. Far more must be done to encourage the development and use of
cleaner fuels. An integrated transport system and the creation of new
transport technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells are essential to
the development of our environmental transport policy.

9. Our education system must be reconstructed with the emphasis on
mathematics, science and hands-on experience to prepare the new
generation of engineers and technicians needed to design, build and
maintain new breeds of environmentally friendly, safe and efficient
transport.

10. As a maritime nation we are pledged to keep our busy waterways
moving, safe and environmentally sound. We are pledged to bring the
RNLI into public sponsorship. The generous and courageous efforts of
those lifeboat volunteers perform a valuable service for marine safety
and should not be left to the vagaries of charity giving.

Food production – A radical shift

A healthy nation depends on a healthy environment and on healthy food.
We see a strong, healthy agriculture sector and vibrant farming
communities as vital to the country‘s wellbeing. 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 , sustainable agriculture,
decreased reliance on petrochemical products and more organic
production.

In particular:

1. CAP subsidies will be phased out following our withdrawal from the
EU. The New Zealand experience will be studied closely and we will
work on the principle that if anything is to be subsidized, it will be
increases in food quality (nutritional quality) rather than the
quantity produced as well as environmental sustainability and rural
communities.

2. The first five years of BNP government will see extensive effort
put into researching, running pilot schemes and establishing training
facilities designed to facilitate a massive and irreversible long-term
shift away from giant, mono-cultural agribusiness land-holdings. A
graduated land-tax related to the size of holdings and the quality of
land involved, incentives to new young farmers, and the extensive use
of National Service labour will all be employed to transform the south
and east of England in particular. The current unsustainable practice
of ‘mining’ our soil for what little remains of its fertility in the
industrial production of low quality arable food will be replaced by
sustainable, mixed agriculture based on family farms employing high
technology as well as sound husbandry.

3. We will ensure a major shift to healthier and more sustainable
organic farming. Local farms will supply local schools with fresh
produce for free school meals.

4. Urgent research work will be carried out into the potential
benefits of a massive remineralisation scheme, carried out with
National Service labour.

5. The work of the Countryside Restoration Trust will be publicized
and studied and used as lessons which are more widely applicable in
our pursuit of more sustainable, healthier food production and a more
beautiful Britain.

6. Factory farming and related agricultural practices will be phased
out.

7. Halal and Kosher slaughter, will be banned, following the lead
against animal cruelty given by Switzerland.

8. Animal cruelty and abuse of the land will be punished with severe
prison sentences.

9. We are pledged to ensure the restoration of Britain ‘s once great
fishing industry with the re - imposition of the former exclusion
zones around our coast. The Royal Navy will police the territorial
limit and prevent all foreign fishing fleets entering British waters
by force if required.

10. We will fund urgent research into the replacement of
environmentally disastrous river, loch and estuary fish farms with
off-shore deepwater fish farms, possibly built in conjunction with
wave, ocean current and wind power generation units.

The environment – Our ‘blessed plot’

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 which pollute the environment, whether by business or
individuals, and which cause environmental damage. "The polluter pays
to clean up the mess" must become a fact of life, not anelectioneering
slogan. We will restore damaged environments and rebuild local pride
in local environments.

In towns, we will 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. We will balance utility with beauty and make our communities
more aesthetic and accessible.

The BNP is committed to a policy of National Energy Independence based
on, as far as possible, renewable energy sources supplying our
national energy needs. This must be achieved within a decade of the
BNP taking power. We cannot rely on foreign energy sources such as
Middle East oil and Russian gas supplies, and still pretend that we
are an ‘independent’ nation.

We are the only true ‘Green Party’ in Britain as only the BNP intends
to end mass immigration into Britain and thereby remove at a stroke
the need for an extra 4 million homes in the green belts of the South
East and elsewhere, which are required to house the influx of 5
million immigrants expected to enter the country under present trends
over the next twenty years.

The environmental policy of the current regime is an utter fraud, as
the number-one threat to the British environment is the population
growth driven by the mass immigration that they support. At present
rates, immigration requires the equivalent of a city the size of
Birmingham to be built every five years, and implies that by 2050,
Britain will have a population of 90 million people, reducing our
country to a tarmac desert.

We will ensure that the traditional crafts and trades which are needed
to preserve the unique building styles and landscapes of our country
receive all the financial and infrastructure support we as a
Government can provide. The living treasures of thatchers, dry wall
stone builders, masons, carpenters, farriers and gamekeepers will
be seen as key people in our society. Courses will be available in
many more vocational colleges and livelihoods in these crafts and
trades will be made more appealing than moribund university courses
which lead to a degree but no worthwhile employment. Our programme for
restoring diverse family farms to the agribusiness prairies of much of
rural England will provide greatly increased employment prospects for
many trades connected with re creating an environment and landscape
which is recognisably ‘English’.

Our Key Environment Policies

1. We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land’s population
burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and
their descendants to return home.

2. We will implement "polluter pays" legislation designed to bring the
costs of repairing environmental damage like toxic waste dumps to the
creators of this damage. We will set up an national ‘Environmental
Court’ with powers to investigate and prosecute all those (flytippers,
bush meat importers, factories which pump dioxins into the environment
and so on) who damage the national environment.

3. We will end all intrusions of new development into Greenbelt areas,
except in clear cases of genuine local need.

4. We will support inner-city and suburban infill development to
supply the needs for new housing and commercial space.

5. We will maintain, though not increase, current high taxes on petrol
to encourage conservation of energy. We will, however, compensate the
traveling public by ensuring that this money is spent specifically on
improving our transport network, and does not vanish into a taxation
black hole.

6. We will implement a "feebate" system in which low-mileage cars are
taxed at purchase and the resulting revenue applied as a subsidy to
high-mileage cars.

7. We will fund research into renewable and quasi-renewable energy
sources and transmission systems, such wind power, solar power, wave
power, hydrogen fuel, and the pebble-bed nuclear reactor.

8. We will end the current government’s policy of meeting Britain’s
Kyoto Protocol obligations by building gas-fired power stations, which
are dangerouslydependent on a non-renewable fuel imported from
unstable and hostile nations, and will promote genuinely-renewable
power sources instead, insofar as feasible.

9. We will properly fund and upgrade Britain’s public-transport
facilities to get people out of their cars.

10. We will not permit the growing of GM crops.

Green, but hard green

We are a "green" party, but we are a "hard green" party, meaning that
our environmentalism, though as vigorous as the irrational left,
differs from it in a number of ways, the main ones being these:

1. We believe in environmentalism based on sound science.

2. We believe environmentalism must centre ultimately on the good of
human beings.

3. We believe in economically-sensible environmental solutions. We
accept the need to count costs and make rational trade-offs.

4. We believe in respect for property rights, subject to the
understanding that property owners have duties, too.

5. We believe protecting the British environment must be done with
respect for our national sovereignty. We reject handing control over
our environmental protection to international bodies.

6. We care about the urban as well as the rural environment. People
habitats matter, too!

Britain and the world – Good fences, good neighbours

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 will be neither slave to the Euro or
the dollar but remain a free nation by keeping the pound.

We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten
British interests. We will not act as the world’s policeman either for
the UN, the EU or the United States. 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.

Post-EU Foreign Policy

Planning to withdraw from the European Union naturally raises the
question of what Britain‘s post-EU foreign policy would look like. We
believe that the present regime, despite posturing to the contrary,
has essentially forgotten the very purpose of having a foreign policy:
to safeguard the nation’s security, independence, and interests.

The primary fact which will remain in a post-EU Britain is that the UK
is, despite its superpower past, a medium-sized nation with a number
of key vulnerabilities. Fortunately, these vulnerabilities are easily
identifiable and tractable to feasible policy options.

The number one threat to Britain‘s national independence remains what
it has been since the Romans launched their full occupation of Britain
in 43 AD: a united Europe. Since the Norman Conquest, European
imperialists or aspiring imperialists have threatened to invade this
country, or otherwise extend their rule over it. The long list
ncludes the Hapsburgs, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler,
and now, the EU. We must assume the pattern will continue as long as
continental Europe remains a large centre of demographic, economic,
and political power. Therefore we need a long-term means by which to
resist the "gravitational pull" of the Continent if we are to remain
an independent and self-governing nation. The prosperous nations of
Norway and Switzerland have shown that we can trade and maintain good
relations with our fellow Europeans without being part of the EU.

From the post-Napoleonic era to WWI, the British Empire largely
fulfilled this role, by giving Britain overseas connections that
enabled us to largely ignore the Continental powers. The sole
exceptions were the mistake of the Crimean War and the 1839 Treaty of
London, which committed us to defend Belgian neutrality in order to
preserve a split balance of power on the continent and thus prevent
the emergence of a hegemonic power capable of threatening us.

Starting in 1917, however, Britain had to resort to an external
counter-weight not under her sovereignty, the United States, in order
to preserve her independence against a dominant continental power.
This became doubly true in 1941, and the whole of Europe fell into our
position vis-ê-vis the USSR in 1945.

Therefore, however much we may dislike the present American regime,
and see the need to resist American cultural imperialism, we still
need the USA as a counterweight against a European super state.
Therefore, while we should politely but firmly refuse to fight
America‘s wars, we would give serious consideration to allowing
the Americans to keep their bases in the UK so long as they refrain
from interfering with our nationalist political agenda along the lines
of what they (and others) did recently in Ukraine.

Under this policy American bases would be essentially hostages to
America‘s good behaviour. (If the Philippines can expel its American
bases, it would certainly be possible for us to do so.) As long as
Britain allows American bases, the American government will have every
incentive to cooperate with a future BNP regime. If Britain threw them
out, they would have every incentive to try to overthrow such a
government to get back in.

Such a policy would, of course, be subject to immediate review if it
was felt that aggressive action or threatened intervention by the USA
anywhere else in the world was turning us into a target at risk of
becoming collateral damage in other peoples’ quarrels.

Returning to our relationship with our former EU partners, we do
envisage certain areas, such as the development of massively expensive
technologies such nuclear fusion and space exploitation, in which we
would engage in joint ventures with other European nations. This
however, would be as sovereign partners on specific projects,
and would involve no diminution of our political, economic or military
sovereignty.

The ‘Clash of Civilisations’

The BNP is widely known as the only British political party warning of
the danger posed to our democracy, traditions and freedoms by the
creeping Islamification and dhimmitude of Britain.

This does not, however, mean that we are against Islam per se. As far
as we are concerned it is simply another foreign mindset whose
adherents are welcome to do whatever it instructs them to do – in
their own countries.

We are utterly opposed to attempts by American imperialists, the
Zionist lobby, the neo-con movement and the US’s British puppets in
the Labour and Tory parties to drag us into a ‘Clash of Civilisations’
with the Islamic world.

We insist on our right to resist and reverse the Islamification of
Britain, and to oppose the ‘Eurabia’ project of the French and Italian
liberal elites. But we also uphold the right of the people of the
Islamic world to resist the attempts by the political elite to
democratise or Westernise the Middle East.

Assisting the Developing World

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 also reject the policy of ‘asset
stripping’ the Developing World of its doctors and nurses due to under
investment in the NHS.

The Developing World has been robbed of its essential services staff
by decades of ‘people plundering’ by the West. It is time that those
doctors and nurses returned home to take care of their own suffering
people with all the knowledge, training and financial support that
Britain can offer. Mass immigration into Britain is triggered by
suffering abroad. If we can help end the suffering of those people in
their own countries without them coming to Britain and claming asylum
or refugee status, then it clearly benefits us to support the
rebuilding of the Developing World.

1. 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.

2. The biggest assistance we can possibly give is to produce a phased
and financially assisted – to both the individuals and countries
concerned – programme under which their skilled people now being
exploited as cheap labour in this country return to take up vital
positions in their home economies.

3. In the case of countries capable of producing imports which we
cannot produce ourselves – such as tropical farm produce - we would
conclude 25-year preferential trade agreements with such nations,
guaranteeing to buy as much as they want to sell us at 10% above the
market rate. Such agreements, together with foreign aid money being
pumped into improving their national infrastructure, would make
returning home to thriving economies an increasingly attractive
option to many immigrants and their descendants.

4. All members of ethnic minorities taking advantage of our voluntary
assisted Homeward Bound schemes would be entitled to receive a British
pension in their own homelands on reaching retirement age. This would
be graded according to how many years they had worked and paid taxes
in Britain.

5. All Homeward Bound settlers would be allowed to take with them all
the legally acquired proceeds of their time in Britain, including the
full profits from any investment in property here.

National Defence

We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten
British interests. We will not act as the world’s policeman either for
the UN, the EU or the US. 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. We will restore the
county regimental system and also withdraw from the European Union
plans for an European Army. We will invest in creating an integrated
defence structure that can respond to all 21st Century threats.

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.

1. We will bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO,
since recent political developments make both commitments obsolete.

2. We will also withdraw all British troops with immediate effect from
Iraq. We will never again involve British troops in any more American
‘ wars for oil’ or neo-con adventures on behalf of the Zionist
government of Israel.

3. We will 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.

4. We will restore the county regimental system and withdraw from the
European Union plans for an European Army.

5. We will invest in creating an integrated defence structure that can
respond to all 21st Century threats.

6. If Britain is attacked by rogue states or terrorists then we will
respond with maximum force until the threat is eradicated.

7. The compulsory National Service system discussed elsewhere in this
Manifesto would begin at the age of 18 with a period of basic training
in the army. This would include full training with the citizens’
assault rifle. Conscientious objectors who refuse to undertake
military service would be allocated other constructive work for the
community, but would not receive the citizen’s right to be armed, or
the right to vote.

8. Individuals would be free to refuse to undertake any form of
National Service, but such a refusal to serve the community for the
common good would result in their not being entitled to free places at
university, on training courses or selfemployment schemes. Whereas
some other politicians mouth platitudes about there being “no rights
without responsibilities”, we mean it.

Conclusion: Popular nationalism – The idea whose time will come

The material contained in this document has been written by a team of
highly qualified experts in their own fields who support the BNP and
who have the political awareness to create and develop a solution to
the problems in our society. The manifesto you have read is very much
a working document. As political, economic and social changes occur,
or as new technological advances are implemented and new knowledge is
uncovered, the material which fleshes out our fundamental core values
may change.

We will however never betray nor change our fundamental core values
which call for national and cultural regeneration. Those values are
our commitment to the principle of national sovereignty, our
commitment to ensure that these islands in the North Atlantic remain
our homeland for all time and that all economic and social structures,
institutions and legislation must be built or developed around the
fundamentals of ensuring the freedom and security of our people and
maintaining our unique cultural and ethnic identity.

We believe that the material contained in our manifesto will strike a
chord with ordinary British folk who are deeply concerned about the
future of their country and the way it is being run today.

Never before are so many Britons awaking to the idea that they are
being betrayed and short-changed; fleeced to pay for public services
which do not deliver, lied to by politicians and ministers, strangled
by bureaucracy and gagged by the repression of political correctness.
Never before have so many Britons contemplated the notion that the
mere acquisition of material goods at great cost to health and family
life is not enough; that the quality of life in their communities is
deteriorating and that the imponderables such as a good education,
clean streets, safe parks for the children to play as well as a green
and clean environment are vital for life and that the quest for
happiness in gadgets and consumer tat is futile, costly and
destructive.

Those Britons who feel this way are ready for our radical but
commonsense program for change.

So despairing of the status quo are the majority of Britons, that time
for a radical change in political thinking is being demanded and
actively sought. The British National Party with its comprehensive,
articulated and common sense approach seeks to be the vehicle for that
change.

Our time is approaching.

British National Party
General Election Manifesto 2005
Published by the British National Party, PO Box 14, Welshpool, Powys,
SY21 0WE

[Bystander]

"Steve Greene" wrote

a lot of wasted bandwidth of propaganda for a single issue party of thugs
and hooligans.

Get off Usenet.

[Periander.]

"Bystander" <byst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:426bb9eb$0$316$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...

>
> "Steve Greene" wrote
>
> a lot of wasted bandwidth of propaganda for a single issue party of thugs
> and hooligans.
>

Oh I don't know, they'd get my vote if they had a candidate in my area. I
was actually quite surprised they didn't get anyone in for the London
assembly.

As it is I'm stuck with a Tory but at least he's decent enough to always
vote against anything giving Europe additional powers.

--

regards,

Periander

[Chris X]

"Bystander" <byst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:426bb9eb$0$316$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> "Steve Greene" wrote

http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/man_menu.htm

Good post. Please repost it regularly !

> a lot of wasted bandwidth of propaganda for a single issue party of thugs
> and hooligans.

Single issue ? Thugs ? You know sod all.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/man_menu.htm

> Get off Usenet.

Netcop alert !

[Fatha-Jack]

"Bystander" <byst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:426bb9eb$0$316$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>

Kiss my white-ass!!!!

FJ

[Devi Jankowicz]

In article <h6bn61thtnum7od6e...@4ax.com>,
Steve Greene <stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Rebuilding British Democracy
> General Election 2005
> Manifesto
>
> Contents
>
> Introduction: Freedom; Security; Identity; Democracy

<snip>

Perhaps the best thing to do with this one if you disagree with it as I
do is to ignore it. Treat is as a troll, in other words.
Kind regards,
Devi

[bluecalx]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:27:40 +0100, Steve Greene
<stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Rebuilding British Democracy
>General Election 2005
>Manifesto
>
>Contents
>

>[pages and pages and pages of scary nationalistic, racist nonsense]

Wow, you guys sure are a bunch of scary racist thugs!

[Chris X]

"bluecalx" <blue...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9kin611g0njdf1cp7...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:27:40 +0100, Steve Greene
> <stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Rebuilding British Democracy
>>General Election 2005
>>Manifesto
>>
>>Contents
>>
>>[pages and pages and pages of scary

LOL ! Diddums was "scared" ;))

> nationalistic, racist nonsense]

Actually, it's pure common sense.

> Wow, you guys sure are a bunch of scary racist thugs!

"Racist" they squawk, time and time again, hoping and praying that someone,
somewhere will listen and take notice. But nobody ever does. Not these
days.

******************************
"To attempt to silence a man is to pay him homage, for it is an
acknowledgement that his arguments are both impossible to answer
and impossible to ignore."

http://www.bnp.org.uk
http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/policies.htm
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://www.nationeuropa.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/
http://www.oswaldmosley.com
http://www.geocities.com/englishgateway/moselyspeech.html
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/audio/greatnations.m3u
http://www.notolls.org.uk/

[Fatha-Jack]

"bluecalx" <blue...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9kin611g0njdf1cp7...@4ax.com...

Flattery will get you everywhere lilly-livered liberal scum

FJ

[Gavin Ayling]

It's a shame you cannot embrace the Conservatives. You know
that the BNP believes in 'repatriating' land and corporate
protectionism?
--
Gavin Ayling

My site:
www.gavpolitics.co.uk

Interesting links:
http://www.thecep.org.uk
What we must all do:
http://12121.hostinguk.com/Save%20the%20Pound.jpg
The future of Britain:
www.conservatives.com

[L Jones]

"Chris X" <Chr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c7WdnYxZDJy...@giganews.com...

> "bluecalx" <blue...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9kin611g0njdf1cp7...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:27:40 +0100, Steve Greene
>> <stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Rebuilding British Democracy
>>>General Election 2005
>>>Manifesto
>>>
>>>Contents
>>>
>>>[pages and pages and pages of scary
>
> LOL ! Diddums was "scared" ;))
>
>> nationalistic, racist nonsense]
>
> Actually, it's pure common sense.
>
>> Wow, you guys sure are a bunch of scary racist thugs!
>
> "Racist" they squawk, time and time again, hoping and praying that
> someone, somewhere will listen and take notice. But nobody ever does.
> Not these days.

You'd know all about people not listening!
Cheers LJ.

[Martin Davies]

"Bystander" <byst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:426bb9eb$0$316$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>

Nice to know that there is a party out there that many of us can vote
against.

Martin <><

[A. J. Moss]

"Chris X" <Chr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Steve Greene" wrote
>http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/man_menu.htm
>
>Good post. Please repost it regularly !

Actually, it saved me from having to download it off the BNP web site,
but if you try to make me download another 3000 line post, I'll have to
kill-file you.

Incidentally Chris, I was going to ask you what the upper age limit is
on your party's National Service proposal. How many people who are
already over 18 (and therefore in a position to vote for you) will be
subjected to it?

I could do with a free gun, but I'm not doing a year's square-bashing
for it!

(Sorry, but you'll have to restore the newsgroups line. Freeserve won't
let me crosspost to more than five newsgroups without trimming the
follow-ups.)
--
"I know what I like, and that's white, white, white!"
-- small boy, Hovis advert

[Chris X]

"A. J. Moss" <ajm...@macpaint.fsworld.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:arln61taomaaqufaa...@4ax.com...

> "Chris X" <Chr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "Steve Greene" wrote
>>http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/man_menu.htm
>>
>>Good post. Please repost it regularly !
>
> Actually, it saved me from having to download it off the BNP web site,
> but if you try to make me download another 3000 line post, I'll have to
> kill-file you.
>
> Incidentally Chris, I was going to ask you what the upper age limit is
> on your party's National Service proposal. How many people who are
> already over 18 (and therefore in a position to vote for you) will be
> subjected to it?

I would have thought that anyone now over eighteen wouldn't be required to
do it, sorry about that ...

> I could do with a free gun, but I'm not doing a year's square-bashing
> for it!

Well, we'll be repealing all firearms legislation made since the (very
convenient) hysterical aftermath of Dunblane and some more besides so the
British people will once again be permitted to keep firearms at home.

[Brian]

*MESSAGE SNIPPED*

Hello,

That message is far too long for anyone to be bothered reading. If you can
make the point in a few sentences then great - if not, I will not be rading
it.
The first few hundred lines don't even mention the party, so if you could
state that clearly at the top then it would give people a chance whether to
bin the message straight away.

[Periander.]

"Gavin Ayling" <sp...@gavweb.net> wrote in message
news:426bd21e$1...@x-privat.org...

> Periander. wrote:
> > "Bystander" <byst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:426bb9eb$0$316$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> >>"Steve Greene" wrote
> >>
> >>a lot of wasted bandwidth of propaganda for a single issue party of
thugs
> >>and hooligans.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oh I don't know, they'd get my vote if they had a candidate in my area.
I
> > was actually quite surprised they didn't get anyone in for the London
> > assembly.
> >
> > As it is I'm stuck with a Tory but at least he's decent enough to always
> > vote against anything giving Europe additional powers.
>
> It's a shame you cannot embrace the Conservatives. You know
> that the BNP believes in 'repatriating' land and corporate
> protectionism?

Absolutely, for the first time in the best part of 50 years we have a
national political party that believes that a British government should put
British interests first. If one of the major parties or even the Socialist
Liberal Party (or whatever their name is this week) came out with a similar
manifesto they'd have a landslide that would put Tony or Maggie's in to the
shade. Facing a predominantly socialist media though they don't stand a
chance.

--

regards or otherwise,

Periander

[bluecalx]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:03:52 GMT, "Brian" <8t...@kcl.com> wrote:

>*MESSAGE SNIPPED*
>
>Hello,
>
>That message is far too long for anyone to be bothered reading. If you can
>make the point in a few sentences then great - if not, I will not be rading
>it.

I'll summarise for you:

"WE HATE DARKIES. WE ALSO HATE FOREIGNERS. NON-WHITES ARE INFERIOR
TO WHITES. WHITES ARE THE MASTER-RACE. ALL BOW BEFORE ENGLAND!
EVERYONE GETS GUNS SO THEY CAN SHOOT FOREIGNERS AND BLACK PEOPLE!
GRRARRR!"

[MrBlueSkye]

"bluecalx" <blue...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:bh0o61tpanmj2ceqe...@4ax.com...

And that is the reply that you expect from a blinkered liberal cretin.
MBS

[Gavin Ayling]

So you think the furore over Mugabe is a little exaggerated and
that all he is doing is putting Zimbabwean "interest first"?

To be honest, the masses will never vote for a party that effectively
calls for the end of free-trade. The world is clearly slowly moving
*towards* free-trade with more and more trading blocs appearing --
globalisation is good for the world, in the interim it is better
for the West, then it will be better for the Third World and, after
that, it will mean a better life for humanity.

While we're on big themes, I suppose you would advocate leaving ESA?

[Welsh Witch]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:40:43 +0100, MrBlueSkye wrote:

>
> "bluecalx" <blue...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bh0o61tpanmj2ceqe...@4ax.com...

>> [quoted text muted]

>
> And that is the reply that you expect from a blinkered liberal cretin. MBS

*************************
AND just how many of the names posting to this thread do you recognise
mostly apparently "new" people ;-)
***********************8

[Periander.]

"Gavin Ayling" <sp...@gavweb.net> wrote in message

news:426c06da$1...@x-privat.org...
...

>
> To be honest, the masses will never vote for a party that effectively
> calls for the end of free-trade.

Of course they would, if "the masses" (or should I say "the poles") were
aware of what "free trade" actually means, industry, jobs, wealth, security
all moved to places where there is little or no regulation of industry, a
world where a country the size of the UK, with supposedly teh 4th largest
economy can't even maintain a single manufaturing industry, steel ... gone
to Europe, shipbuilding ... gone to Europe, ... aircraft manufaturing ...
gone to Europe, car manufacturing ... Europe, the US, the Far East, shoe
manufacturing ... far East, clothing, Far East, light engineering, Europe,
Eastern Europe and the far East, toy making ... gone, bike making ... gone,
farming ... hamstrung, food production (as in who owns it) ... Europe,
Railway rolling stock ... N. America and Europe. FFS even the monkeys who
answer the phones are now based in India.

£26 a week it costs on average each and every household in teh land simply
in additional grocery costs becuase of European trarrifs.

> The world is clearly slowly moving
> *towards* free-trade with more and more trading blocs appearing --

trading blocks = free trade? You're talking complete and utter unmittigated
bollocks. Prior to being conned in to joining Europe we as a nation were
free to trade with teh entire world, now we're in Europe (that's a sort of
trading block don't you think) we are only permitted to trade with such
countries as the EU permits, for such commodities as the EU permits, in such
quatities as the EU permits and such prices as the EU permits. We cannot
employ a British company to conduct work if a Spanish one will do it more
cheeply ... and that's a good one, as the Spanish firm will in all
probability be subsedised by British taxpayers money. Heck British taxpayers
might have been happy to see their own railways fall apart at the seams yet
they still found 8 billion pounds a year to rebuild the Spanish rail system
... oh and pay for olives in Greece and Italy that never existed. Pay for
French farmers to sit on their arses ...

> globalisation is good for the world, in the interim it is better
> for the West, then it will be better for the Third World and, after
> that, it will mean a better life for humanity.

Sorry it's just dawned on me, you're trolling aren't you?

[Periander.]

"Welsh Witch" <w...@nospam.never.cop> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.24....@nospam.never.cop...

I count 7

--

regards,

Periander

[Gavin Ayling]

Periander. wrote:
> "Gavin Ayling" <sp...@gavweb.net> wrote in message
> news:426c06da$1...@x-privat.org...

> ....

> .... oh and pay for olives in Greece and Italy that never existed. Pay for

> French farmers to sit on their arses ...
>
>
>>globalisation is good for the world, in the interim it is better
>>for the West, then it will be better for the Third World and, after
>>that, it will mean a better life for humanity.
>
>
> Sorry it's just dawned on me, you're trolling aren't you?

No, I'm really not.

You'll never find me arguing for the EU - it is the worst thing that the
UK has ever done.

Before the EU, however, the UK had realised the way things were going
and had initiated EFTA (truly a free-trade area). Meanwhile, the
Asians are getting closer to that free-trade idea, with Australia
mooting interest; and of course, there is NAFTA.

With all this movement towards free-trade and with trade being an
important component of the UK's wealth, it seems strangely backward
of the BNP to propose the UK turning in on itself.

Oh, and on Indian call centres, I think you'll find that this will
be a short term experiment which the companies with any sense will
turn their backs on. The call centres are manned by people with an
excellent grasp of English, but only when it is spoken slowly and with
an Indian accent. Service suffers when call centres are moved out of
the back-office and companies with nonce know that. Also, many people
are boycotting banks such as Citibank who's Customer Service is
characterised by the poor service of their call centre in particular.

On manufacturing, I genuinely believe that British innovators need
government support in a more practical sense - less red-tape etc. The
BNP's protectionism is not the answer and will result in massive
loss of money to the UK.

[Periander.]

"Gavin Ayling" <sp...@gavweb.net> wrote in message

news:426c1749$1...@x-privat.org...

> Periander. wrote:
> > "Gavin Ayling" <sp...@gavweb.net> wrote in message
> > news:426c06da$1...@x-privat.org...
> > ....

...>

> >
> > Sorry it's just dawned on me, you're trolling aren't you?
>
> No, I'm really not.

Surely you jest?

Certainly you're giving me the best laugh I've had all week, I thought no
one actually believed that sort of crap anymore.

[Periander.]

"Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d2jinF...@individual.net...

> "Gavin Ayling" <sp...@gavweb.net> wrote in message
> news:426c1749$1...@x-privat.org...
> > Periander. wrote:
> > > "Gavin Ayling" <sp...@gavweb.net> wrote in message
> > > news:426c06da$1...@x-privat.org...
> > > ....
> ...>

Hey guess what I've just found ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4478101.stm

"According to figures from the World Trade Organisation (WTO), China made
17% of the world's textiles in 2003, but this is expected to rise above 50%
within three years."

Another typical EU reaction, it was OK for the UK textile industry to go to
the wall but the moment the French feel threatened.

[Fatha-Jack]

"MrBlueSkye" <MrBlu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fISdnb_ES-O...@pipex.net...

Here Here!

FJ

[Agent Orange]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:27:40 +0100, Steve Greene
<stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote

> The British National Party with its comprehensive,
>articulated and common sense approach seeks to be the vehicle for that
>change.
>
>Our time is approaching.

You know, I don't think I have seen anyone fail that badly for some
time.

Your time is approaching in the minds of then jackbooted thugs and the
daily mail reading 'moderates' that your party attracts. No one else.

Eveyone else realises that the experiment with radical nationalism /
fascism foundered in the mid forties.

Take your unpleasant politics someplace else, fuckwit.

[Agent Orange]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:32:57 +0100, "Periander."
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:

>Absolutely, for the first time in the best part of 50 years we have a
>national political party that believes that a British government should put
>British interests first. If one of the major parties or even the Socialist
>Liberal Party (or whatever their name is this week) came out with a similar
>manifesto they'd have a landslide that would put Tony or Maggie's in to the
>shade. Facing a predominantly socialist media though they don't stand a
>chance.

I presume by 'Maggie' you mean Margaret Thatcher. She is in the upper
house now, and no longer an MP. therefore she can't have a landslide
majority. thus your comparison to 'tony' (Blair?) fails.

[Martin Davies]

"Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message

news:3d2genF...@individual.net...

> "Gavin Ayling" <sp...@gavweb.net> wrote in message
> news:426c06da$1...@x-privat.org...
> ...
> >
> > To be honest, the masses will never vote for a party that effectively
> > calls for the end of free-trade.
>
> Of course they would, if "the masses" (or should I say "the poles") were
> aware of what "free trade" actually means, industry, jobs, wealth,
security
> all moved to places where there is little or no regulation of industry, a
> world where a country the size of the UK, with supposedly teh 4th largest
> economy can't even maintain a single manufaturing industry, steel ... gone
> to Europe, shipbuilding ... gone to Europe, ... aircraft manufaturing ...
> gone to Europe, car manufacturing ... Europe, the US, the Far East, shoe
> manufacturing ... far East, clothing, Far East, light engineering, Europe,
> Eastern Europe and the far East, toy making ... gone, bike making ...
gone,
> farming ... hamstrung, food production (as in who owns it) ... Europe,
> Railway rolling stock ... N. America and Europe. FFS even the monkeys who
> answer the phones are now based in India.

Car manufacturing gone to europe?
Exactly how few car manufacturing plants do you think we have left in this
country? We have more than any other single EU country. And all but a couple
have made profits - one of those that didn't make profits was Rover.
As for the rest - how much did we price ourselves out of the market? Markets
tend to demand cheap goods. Few of us want to pay two or three times the
price we currently do for manufactured items.

>
> £26 a week it costs on average each and every household in teh land simply
> in additional grocery costs becuase of European trarrifs.

I'd love to know where these tariffs are then.
Sounds like my shopping bill for the 3 of us should be £6 a week.
A fair bit of the grocery in season comes from Britain - out of season its
either taken from storage or imported.

>
> > The world is clearly slowly moving
> > *towards* free-trade with more and more trading blocs appearing --
>
> trading blocks = free trade? You're talking complete and utter
unmittigated
> bollocks. Prior to being conned in to joining Europe we as a nation were
> free to trade with teh entire world, now we're in Europe (that's a sort of
> trading block don't you think) we are only permitted to trade with such
> countries as the EU permits, for such commodities as the EU permits, in
such
> quatities as the EU permits and such prices as the EU permits. We cannot
> employ a British company to conduct work if a Spanish one will do it more
> cheeply ... and that's a good one, as the Spanish firm will in all
> probability be subsedised by British taxpayers money.

Will they?
Last I looked, we can employ a British company to make something. Though
whether they can do it as well or as cheap is open to question.

Heck British taxpayers
> might have been happy to see their own railways fall apart at the seams
yet
> they still found 8 billion pounds a year to rebuild the Spanish rail
system

We paid for that?
Or was that paid for out of EU funds?

> ... oh and pay for olives in Greece and Italy that never existed. Pay for
> French farmers to sit on their arses ...

Not forgetting British farmers to sit on their arses too - or are you
forgetting how much has been paid over the years for not producing things?

Martin <><

[Wotan]

"Bystander" <byst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:426bb9eb$0$316$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
|
| "Steve Greene" wrote
|
| a lot of wasted bandwidth of propaganda for a single issue party of
thugs
| and hooligans.
|

| Get off Usenet.

They, whoever it is you are addressing, have as much
right to put their case on Usernet as anybody else.

Communist police state censorship does not apply on
Usenet - and it if ever does - that is when the killing
starts.

And when it starts, it will not stop.

Because free speech is not negotiable with anybody,
anywhere, in any degree at any time. EVER !

YOU GOT THAT ?

[The black fingenail]

"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message news:426d...@212.67.96.135...

Nope. Just run it past me again.

[Periander.]

"Martin Davies" <mart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_c1be.3046$8d4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3d2genF...@individual.net...
> > "Gavin Ayling" <sp...@gavweb.net> wrote in message
> > news:426c06da$1...@x-privat.org...
> > ...

...

> Car manufacturing gone to europe?
> Exactly how few car manufacturing plants do you think we have left in this
> country?

How many are owned by British companies and hence do not send their profits
abroad to bolster their parent compies? And whilst we're on the subject, how
many lorry/LGV plants do we have left and what market share do they have?

... oh and all the other industries I noted and you failed to mention.

> We have more than any other single EU country. And all but a couple
> have made profits - one of those that didn't make profits was Rover.

Again the question remains, how many of them are British owned.

> As for the rest - how much did we price ourselves out of the market?
Markets
> tend to demand cheap goods. Few of us want to pay two or three times the
> price we currently do for manufactured items.

When other EU countries subsidise their industries ... France being perhaps
the greatest example then of course they can produce products more cheaply
than companies that are not subsidised.

I'd like a ship please? No, can't manage it, perhaps a light aircraft? Nope,
how about a pair of cheep of the peg shoes? No, still can't manage it can
you?

> Heck British taxpayers
> > might have been happy to see their own railways fall apart at the seams
> yet
> > they still found 8 billion pounds a year to rebuild the Spanish rail
> system
>
> We paid for that?
> Or was that paid for out of EU funds?

You're masters would be proud of you, the EU doesn't have any funds, it has
money given to it by member nations, the UK pays (and has always paid)
billions a year more than it receives.

> > ... oh and pay for olives in Greece and Italy that never existed. Pay
for
> > French farmers to sit on their arses ...
>
> Not forgetting British farmers to sit on their arses too - or are you
> forgetting how much has been paid over the years for not producing things?

Not so much that, fined for producing food more like. The EU can only keep
German, French and Italian farmers in the lap of luxury by artificially
raising the price of basic foodstuffs. It does that be restricting supply,
farmers/farms in the UK tend to be far more productive and efficient than
those on the continent, to stop UK farmers undercutting continental food
prices their production has to be limited, it does this via the various
quotas.

[Bystander]

>> YOU GOT THAT ?
>>
> Nope. Just run it past me again.

Yeah. Speak up, I can't hear you.

[Fatha-Jack]

"Bystander" <byst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:426d3384$0$311$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...

>
>>> YOU GOT THAT ?
>>>
>> Nope. Just run it past me again.
>
> Yeah. Speak up, I can't hear you.
>

FEK OFF!!!!!!!

Loud enough????????????????????????????????????????????????

FJ

[Fatha-Jack]

"The black fingenail" <the.black....@ntm.org.uk> wrote in message
news:d4j1f4$8s4$0...@pita.alt.net...

Shut it n*gger luvva!!

FJ

[Martin Davies]

"Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message

news:3d4j83F...@individual.net...

> "Martin Davies" <mart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_c1be.3046$8d4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3d2genF...@individual.net...
> > > "Gavin Ayling" <sp...@gavweb.net> wrote in message
> > > news:426c06da$1...@x-privat.org...
> > > ...
> ...
>
> > Car manufacturing gone to europe?
> > Exactly how few car manufacturing plants do you think we have left in
this
> > country?
>
> How many are owned by British companies and hence do not send their
profits
> abroad to bolster their parent compies? And whilst we're on the subject,
how
> many lorry/LGV plants do we have left and what market share do they have?
>

Last I looked, there were few car manufacturers around who aren't owned by
shareholders.
The profits go, among other places, to various companies operating
investment and pension funds for people in the UK. The workforce in the UK
plants get paid too.
Majority shareholders may be in this country, may be elsewhere. Some of the
individual shareholders will be in the UK too.

> ... oh and all the other industries I noted and you failed to mention.

And how many of them are owned in part by you and I?

>
> > We have more than any other single EU country. And all but a couple
> > have made profits - one of those that didn't make profits was Rover.
>
> Again the question remains, how many of them are British owned.

All of them?
The concept that something can be wholly British owned only really applies
to ltd companies that are owned by specific shareholders. Or smaller
companies.

>
> > As for the rest - how much did we price ourselves out of the market?
> Markets
> > tend to demand cheap goods. Few of us want to pay two or three times the
> > price we currently do for manufactured items.
>
> When other EU countries subsidise their industries ... France being
perhaps
> the greatest example then of course they can produce products more cheaply
> than companies that are not subsidised.

We could subsidise our industries. Will you pay more taxes to do it? Or
reduce spending elsewhere to do it?
France also has problems that we don't have to the same degree.

Plenty of British boatbuilders around still, though a lot fewer than there
were a couple of decades ago.
Light aircraft? Talk nicely to British aerospace and they will get one built
for you.
Not sure what cheep of the peg shoes are, I tend to wear walking shoes
myself for the grip and support - a tenner every few years.

>
> > Heck British taxpayers
> > > might have been happy to see their own railways fall apart at the
seams
> > yet
> > > they still found 8 billion pounds a year to rebuild the Spanish rail
> > system
> >
> > We paid for that?
> > Or was that paid for out of EU funds?
>
> You're masters would be proud of you, the EU doesn't have any funds, it
has
> money given to it by member nations, the UK pays (and has always paid)
> billions a year more than it receives.

What masters?
Didn't someone say we were the 4th richest economy in the world? Is our GDP
higher than Belgium or some of the other member states?
Was there ever an agreement that all member states would receive as much as
they paid in? Or was there an agreement that we would receive more than we
paid, us being such a poor economy and all?

>
> > > ... oh and pay for olives in Greece and Italy that never existed. Pay
> for
> > > French farmers to sit on their arses ...
> >
> > Not forgetting British farmers to sit on their arses too - or are you
> > forgetting how much has been paid over the years for not producing
things?
>
> Not so much that, fined for producing food more like.

Plenty of payments for not producing too.

The EU can only keep
> German, French and Italian farmers in the lap of luxury by artificially
> raising the price of basic foodstuffs.

Milk, 99p for a 4 pint bottle. Bread, 65p for a medium sliced loaf.
Potatoes, £3.20 for a 50 pound sack.
If thats the price after artificially raising it, whats the real price for
us consumers? And how are we keeping those other farmers in the lap of
luxury when some stuff we buy is produced here?

It does that be restricting supply,
> farmers/farms in the UK tend to be far more productive and efficient than
> those on the continent,

Bull.
Take into account soil, weather, landscape, fertilisers/weedkillers used and
so on.
A field thats great for growing rape won't have the same productivity for
producing grapes or ducks.
Usually there is also a hefty cost in switching production radically -
switch to wheat and you need some different equipment and staffing than
running a fish farm.

The most efficient farms tend to concentrate on one crop only. So only one
lot of equipment, fertiliser type, weedkiller selection and so on needed.
Not always a good option if something goes wrong though - which is why many
farmers do diversify somewhat.

to stop UK farmers undercutting continental food
> prices their production has to be limited, it does this via the various
> quotas.
>

Yet we still manage to get plenty of food and milk pretty cheap.
Perhaps these British farmers should be talking to you about raising their
prices to meet your expectations. Exactly how often do you buy from the
farms or farmers markets rather than the shops?

Martin <><

[Bystander]

Whooppee!

I am 58 years old, and after an adult life of soggy, left-ish liberalism I
have finally been called a nigger-lover just as if I were in Mississippi in
the 1950s.

Beyond parody, is it not?

[Fatha-Jack]

"Bystander" <byst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:426d41a2$0$313$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...

Parody, Oh now there is a word on looooznet!! (for those who are sad
enough to take it too seriously)

I heard Alabama was bedder fer ya coon hunts in the 50's YEEEEE-HAAAAAA!!!!

FJ

[bluecalx]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:14:37 +0100, "Bystander"
<byst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Whooppee!
>
>I am 58 years old, and after an adult life of soggy, left-ish liberalism I
>have finally been called a nigger-lover just as if I were in Mississippi in
>the 1950s.

I'm a white 28 year-old graduate student and I was repeatedly called a
"nigger" in a similar thread a month or two ago. Nice to meet you.

[The black fingenail]

"bluecalx" <blue...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:6tkq6192v6ve87mop...@4ax.com...

.

If you continue to post to free.uk.talk.sheffield you will get used to it. I
have and now quite enjoy reading John's
posts

tbf

[Fatha-Jack]

"The black fingenail" <the.black....@ntm.org.uk> wrote in message

news:d4ko6r$guk$0...@pita.alt.net...

TNX fer the compliment CUNT!

Just off to to feed mi dog a paki!

FJ

[Richard Miller]

In message <426bb9eb$0$316$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Bystander
<byst...@hotmail.co.uk> writes

>
>"Steve Greene" wrote
>
>a lot of wasted bandwidth of propaganda for a single issue party of thugs
>and hooligans.
>
>Get off Usenet.

Thankfully, it is only a few thousand out of a nation of millions who
think they are worth voting for.
--
Richard Miller

[Fatha-Jack]

"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPbsWJWr...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...

There are many thousands just in Kirklees & Calderdale shitface!!! Hence
the parliamentary seats DICKWIT!

FJ

[bluecalx]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:32:18 +0100, "Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com>
wrote:

Are they all as witty and well-spoken as you?

[marc]

"Steve Greene" <stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:h6bn61thtnum7od6e...@4ax.com...
> Rebuilding British Democracy
> General Election 2005
> Manifesto
>
> Contents
>
> Introduction: Freedom; Security; Identity; Democracy
> <SNIP>
> British National Party
><SNIP>

That must have taken you ages to write.
Did you get a friend to help you. with the spelling
and stuff. F***ING moron.

Marc

[Chris X]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:d4l2aj$d7j$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...

Oh look - another intellectual.

[Fatha-Jack]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:d4l2aj$d7j$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...

Ever heard of cut & paste I.T. illiterate WANKER!

FJ

[Fatha-Jack]

"bluecalx" <blue...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:c23s61td3k1lgsip8...@4ax.com...

Must be better cos they managed to get their local BNP candidates LEGALLY
elected as MP's for their wards! ARSE-WIPE!

FJ

[marc]

"Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com> wrote in message
news:426e0ddc$0$579$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

I like Fatha-Jack's comments - they're neither witty nor informed.
I hope you're just a troll and not actually trying to express your
opinion. Although its this quandary that makes him so funny.

Marc

[Fatha-Jack]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message

news:d4l53f$kc5$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...

Sorry to upset you, but it is my long standing opinion!

FJ

[marc]

"Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com> wrote in message

news:426e0e12$0$561$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

Now thats funny.

Chances are, I wrote part of the NNTP server that you use.

Marc.

[marc]

"Chris X" <Chr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EOOdnZF5b62...@giganews.com...

I didn't come here to debate my political standing.
I came here just to make fun of you.

Obviously; I disagree with most of the BNP's policies.
Look back over the history of our country and try to
justify your xenophobic position in the context of one
of the worlds greatest conquering empires (thats us by
the way).

Marc

[Fatha-Jack]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message

news:d4l59e$1so$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...

What do ya want? A fekin medal?

FJ

[marc]

"Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com> wrote in message

news:426e192e$0$547$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

It's not so upsetting. You have a right to your view as much as the next.

I guess the world would be a boring place if everyone got along.

Marc ( one of the friendly people ).

[Fatha-Jack]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message

news:d4l67e$ki0$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...

Oi Marc! I'm friendly enough with the right people. And for all of your
info, one of the best mates is Jamaican as TSSK will confirm. He IS aware
of my political views before you gabble.

FJ

[marc]

"Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com> wrote in message

news:426e1a86$0$535$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

A medal would be nice. Am i getting that for
being an I.T. illiterate software engineer ( which would be bloody clever )
or for being a wanker? ( I'm pretty good at both )

Marc.

[Cynic]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:38:51 +0100, Richard Miller
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>a lot of wasted bandwidth of propaganda for a single issue party of thugs
>>and hooligans.
>>
>>Get off Usenet.
>
>Thankfully, it is only a few thousand out of a nation of millions who
>think they are worth voting for.

Instead of spoiling your ballot or abstaining, why not register a
protest vote with www.lca-uk.org

If any manage to keep their deposits it would send a pretty good
signal.

--
Cynic

[Fatha-Jack]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message

news:d4lb4b$ns1$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...

OK. I retract the I.T. illiterate bit & treble the wanker element of the
insult. Howzat suit ya then ya self proclaimed puter-geek????
FJ

[Rooney]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:53:00 +0100, "Periander."
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:

>I
>was actually quite surprised they didn't get anyone in for the London
>assembly.

Says a lot about your judgement!
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

[Rooney]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:54:59 GMT, "Martin Davies"
<mart...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And how many of them are owned in part by you and I?

We don't allow pretentious errors in nw-england. Ordinary errors are
fine though.
'Owned by you and ME'!!!!

[Rooney]

Immigration is good for the economy. In our case it's necessary as
well - we won't have enough workers to pay for the upkeep of the
retired population otherwise.
The more the merrier. And variety is the spice of life - so preferably
not all Saxons, please.

[marc]

<SNIP>

> >> What do ya want? A fekin medal?
> >>
> >> FJ
> >
> > A medal would be nice. Am i getting that for
> > being an I.T. illiterate software engineer ( which would be bloody
> > clever )
> > or for being a wanker? ( I'm pretty good at both )
> >
> > Marc.
> >
> >
> OK. I retract the I.T. illiterate bit & treble the wanker element of the
> insult. Howzat suit ya then ya self proclaimed puter-geek????
> FJ
>

Sorry, I'm losing the thread of your argument.

You're insulting me for being both IT illiterate
and a computer-geek; that doesn't make a lot of
sense - unless you're just happy to be insulting for
any reason. Which I guess is the case.

Never the less, you've entertained me in some small way
during my working day - a bit like watching a dog chase it's
tail: you know it's daft - but you find it kinda funny
anyway.

By the way - do I still get my wanking medal?

Marc

[Fatha-Jack]

"Rooney" <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fsos61hshnro90t4r...@4ax.com...

Oh Gaawd. ANOTHER freak of nature!

FJ

[Fatha-Jack]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message

news:d4lov6$dq2$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...

GOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tarra & thanks for being a CRAP opponent

FJ

[Rooney]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:18:52 +0100, "Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com>
wrote:

Ken? Maybe - but he's spot on about the Greens!

[Martin Davies]

"Rooney" <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:boos619j6pfu7u94s...@4ax.com...

I no longer live in NW England. I'm translating into English too.
I, me, does it really matter?

Martin <><

[Rooney]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:27:16 GMT, "Martin Davies"
<mart...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Rooney" <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:boos619j6pfu7u94s...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:54:59 GMT, "Martin Davies"
>> <mart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And how many of them are owned in part by you and I?
>>
>> We don't allow pretentious errors in nw-england. Ordinary errors are
>> fine though.
>> 'Owned by you and ME'!!!!
>> --
>> R
>> o
>> o
>> n
>> e
>> y
>>
>> "I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone
>
>I no longer live in NW England. I'm translating into English too.
>I, me, does it really matter?

Pretentiousness? It matters in nw-england where men are still men.
The use of 'me' where it should be 'I' is acceptably ignorant, or else
correct dialect. The use of 'I' where it should be 'me' is the mark of
someone trying to sound posh but succeeding only in demonstrating
their lack of education.

[Periander.]

"Martin Davies" <mart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:72bbe.150561$Nr5.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>...
>
> Last I looked, there were few car manufacturers around who aren't owned by
> shareholders. ...

<yawn>Who prey tell are trhe majority shareholders in firms such as Renault
and Peugeot?</yawn>

...
> > ... oh and all the other industries I noted and you failed to mention.

>
> And how many of them are owned in part by you and I?

As they no longer exists in the UK I presume your question is rhetorical.

> > > We have more than any other single EU country. And all but a couple
> > > have made profits - one of those that didn't make profits was Rover.
> >
> > Again the question remains, how many of them are British owned.
>
> All of them?

Again unless I assume stupidity or deliberate obfuscation I have to presume
you're being rhetorical?

> The concept that something can be wholly British owned only really applies
> to ltd companies that are owned by specific shareholders. Or smaller
> companies.
>
>
>
> >
> > > As for the rest - how much did we price ourselves out of the market?
> > Markets
> > > tend to demand cheap goods. Few of us want to pay two or three times
the
> > > price we currently do for manufactured items.
> >
> > When other EU countries subsidise their industries ... France being
> perhaps
> > the greatest example then of course they can produce products more
cheaply
> > than companies that are not subsidised.
>
> We could subsidise our industries. Will you pay more taxes to do it? Or
> reduce spending elsewhere to do it?

That's a bloody good idea, if perhaps we were to stop subsidising the EU to
the turn of 8 billion pounds a year (to go up after the election) we could
either reduce the burdon on industry by reducing taxes or if you want to
keep taxation as it is actually re-distribute it to where it belongs.

> France also has problems that we don't have to the same degree.

And together with Germany an impending pensions crisis that the EU will
expect us British taxpayers to pay for. usually story, Europe fucks up and
expects Britain to bail them out ... and pay for the privalage.

...

> > I'd like a ship please? No, can't manage it, perhaps a light aircraft?
> Nope,
> > how about a pair of cheep of the peg shoes? No, still can't manage it
can
> > you?
>
> Plenty of British boatbuilders around still, though a lot fewer than there
> were a couple of decades ago.

Boats? We're not talking about plastic dinghies to play around with on teh
seashore we're talking about *ships* to carry trade, ships for fishermen (er
no more fish stocks ... taken by EU over fishing of British waters ... ED),
wealth creating investments.

> Light aircraft? Talk nicely to British aerospace and they will get one
built
> for you.

ROTFLMBO, really? Consider carefully my dear little stool pigeon before you
answer.

> Not sure what cheep of the peg shoes are, I tend to wear walking shoes
> myself for the grip and support - a tenner every few years.

Made in China

> > Your masters would be proud of you, the EU doesn't have any funds, it
> has
> > money given to it by member nations, the UK pays (and has always paid)
> > billions a year more than it receives.
>
> What masters?

I was trying to be kind, the only people you usually hear espousing your
kind of rubbish are those paid to do so, it's hard to reconcile your views
with those of a free thinking independent normally intelligent person.

> Didn't someone say we were the 4th richest economy in the world? Is our
GDP
> higher than Belgium or some of the other member states?
> Was there ever an agreement that all member states would receive as much
as
> they paid in? Or was there an agreement that we would receive more than we
> paid, us being such a poor economy and all?

Without having to subsidise the EU we'd be even higher up the list, if the
continentals want to improve their lot, let them work for it.

...
> > Not so much that, fined for producing food more like.
>
> Plenty of payments for not producing too.
> The EU can only keep
> > German, French and Italian farmers in the lap of luxury by artificially
> > raising the price of basic foodstuffs.
>
> Milk, 99p for a 4 pint bottle.

Produced for less than 5p a pint ... even less if farmers weren't hamstrung
by quotas.

> Bread, 65p for a medium sliced loaf.

Again in real terms commercially produced bread could be produced and sold
for around 10p a loaf.

> Potatoes, Ł3.20 for a 50 pound sack.

32p a pound, don't know how old you are but it wasn't to lang ago when they
were tuppance a pound.

> If thats the price after artificially raising it, whats the real price for
> us consumers? And how are we keeping those other farmers in the lap of
> luxury when some stuff we buy is produced here?
> It does that be restricting supply,
> > farmers/farms in the UK tend to be far more productive and efficient
than
> > those on the continent,
>
> Bull.

best you look at "set aside"

> Take into account soil, weather, landscape, fertilisers/weedkillers used
and
> so on.

Funnily enough cultivation in Roman times produced crop yealds that are
comparable to modern yeilds. Scrap quotas and set aside and this country
could be self sufficient in the staples.

> A field thats great for growing rape won't have the same productivity for
> producing grapes or ducks.
> Usually there is also a hefty cost in switching production radically -
> switch to wheat and you need some different equipment and staffing than
> running a fish farm.

Yes, but you don't find that many wheat farms ituated in duck ponds or fish
farms in the middle of cattle pasture do you?

> The most efficient farms tend to concentrate on one crop only. So only one
> lot of equipment, fertiliser type, weedkiller selection and so on needed.

Funnily enough that's a misconception ... or at least not alwys teh case but
that's niether here notr there with regards to this debate.

> Not always a good option if something goes wrong though - which is why
many
> farmers do diversify somewhat.
>
>
>
> to stop UK farmers undercutting continental food
> > prices their production has to be limited, it does this via the various
> > quotas.
> >
>
> Yet we still manage to get plenty of food and milk pretty cheap.

Ah but it could be cheaper, but we can't have that as that would allow UK
citizens greater disposable income, greater disposable income has a knock on
effect that is generally benfical to the country. Kep the people poor and
needy ... the credo of all socialists since Marx.

--

regards or otherwise,

Periander

[Richard Miller]

In message <8ocs615jnordvj4cl...@4ax.com>, Cynic
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

To coin a phrase, "At last, a party worth voting for!"
--
Richard Miller

[Cynic]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:21:32 +0100, Richard Miller
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>Instead of spoiling your ballot or abstaining, why not register a
>>protest vote with www.lca-uk.org
>>
>>If any manage to keep their deposits it would send a pretty good
>>signal.
>>
>
>To coin a phrase, "At last, a party worth voting for!"

I sent an email of support to my local candidate, and received an
extremely well-written reply by return. None of the candidates (and
some look a tad suspect!) seriously expect to recover their deposit.

I am actually going to vote for them, having become totally
disillusioned that any serious vote could make the slightest
difference given the choice (or lack thereof) that we are faced with.
If the guy wins back his £500, I'll be well pleased!

It was in fact my eldest son who brought the party to my attention.
This will be the first time he is old enough to vote, and has decided
to vote for them, as has my wife. So that's 3 votes in the bag! Yes,
I know I'm being silly, but I really don't care.

Heck, wouldn't it be a hoot if they won a seat! :-)

--
Cynic

[Tony Holland]

"Bystander" <byst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:<426bb9eb$0$316$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
> "Steve Greene" wrote

>
> a lot of wasted bandwidth of propaganda for a single issue party of thugs
> and hooligans.

Oh I dont know, sounds like a little job for our resident pervert
The_ca...@hotmail.com, lets see if he will come to the rescue, OI
Care_taker come out of the gents and give a hand there are a lot of
little boys in here that you can play with

[Martin Davies]

"Rooney" <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:5a7t619pp4jltft7s...@4ax.com...

Ah, that will be my education in the NW of England showing through then.

Martin <><

[Martin Davies]

"Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d7sirF...@individual.net...

> "Martin Davies" <mart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:72bbe.150561$Nr5.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >...
> >
> > Last I looked, there were few car manufacturers around who aren't owned
by
> > shareholders. ...
>
> <yawn>Who prey tell are trhe majority shareholders in firms such as
Renault
> and Peugeot?</yawn>
>

Does it matter who majority shareholders are?
Enough people have financial stakes in the car firms.

> ...
> > > ... oh and all the other industries I noted and you failed to mention.
> >
> > And how many of them are owned in part by you and I?
>
> As they no longer exists in the UK I presume your question is rhetorical.

Bae doesn't exist? Clothing companies don't exist? Light engineering doesn't
exist?
Funny - within 2 miles of where I'm sitting, I can find 2 clothing
manufacturers and over a dozen light engineering firms. All in my village or
next village south.

>
> > > > We have more than any other single EU country. And all but a couple
> > > > have made profits - one of those that didn't make profits was Rover.
> > >
> > > Again the question remains, how many of them are British owned.
> >
> > All of them?
>
> Again unless I assume stupidity or deliberate obfuscation I have to
presume
> you're being rhetorical?

Seeing as the PLCs will be owned by people all over the world, plus banks,
pension companies and other investment groups then we own all of them. Just
to varying degrees.

>
> > The concept that something can be wholly British owned only really
applies
> > to ltd companies that are owned by specific shareholders. Or smaller
> > companies.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > As for the rest - how much did we price ourselves out of the market?
> > > Markets
> > > > tend to demand cheap goods. Few of us want to pay two or three times
> the
> > > > price we currently do for manufactured items.
> > >
> > > When other EU countries subsidise their industries ... France being
> > perhaps
> > > the greatest example then of course they can produce products more
> cheaply
> > > than companies that are not subsidised.
> >
> > We could subsidise our industries. Will you pay more taxes to do it? Or
> > reduce spending elsewhere to do it?
>
> That's a bloody good idea, if perhaps we were to stop subsidising the EU
to
> the turn of 8 billion pounds a year (to go up after the election) we could
> either reduce the burdon on industry by reducing taxes or if you want to
> keep taxation as it is actually re-distribute it to where it belongs.

And that will help industry exactly how?
Even better - scrap all the armed forces, save a lot more than £8 billion.
We aren't facing off against the same enemies as 40 years ago. Oh, and can
we ask for Diego Garcia back too?

>
> > France also has problems that we don't have to the same degree.
>
> And together with Germany an impending pensions crisis that the EU will
> expect us British taxpayers to pay for. usually story, Europe fucks up and
> expects Britain to bail them out ... and pay for the privalage.

You think their pensions crisis is bad?
Have you looked at ours lately? £400 billion bill.

>
> ...
>
> > > I'd like a ship please? No, can't manage it, perhaps a light aircraft?
> > Nope,
> > > how about a pair of cheep of the peg shoes? No, still can't manage it
> can
> > > you?
> >
> > Plenty of British boatbuilders around still, though a lot fewer than
there
> > were a couple of decades ago.
>
> Boats? We're not talking about plastic dinghies to play around with on teh
> seashore we're talking about *ships* to carry trade, ships for fishermen
(er
> no more fish stocks ... taken by EU over fishing of British waters ...
ED),
> wealth creating investments.

Yes, I'm talking about boats. Up to 40 metres - and you don't see many
fishing boats longer than that.
Ships to carry trade - why buy British when you can save a few million
pounds and buy elsewhere?
Oh wait - do you mean for British companies to trade using only British
ships, and have to charge much higher prices to recover the capital
investment in the ships? And expect them to be able to trade exactly how?

>
> > Light aircraft? Talk nicely to British aerospace and they will get one
> built
> > for you.
>
> ROTFLMBO, really? Consider carefully my dear little stool pigeon before
you
> answer.

Yes, they have built light aircraft. Ever been up to Warton on one of their
open days, seen what they are building that they can show the public?

>
> > Not sure what cheep of the peg shoes are, I tend to wear walking shoes
> > myself for the grip and support - a tenner every few years.
>
> Made in China
>

So they produce cheap shoes? Great.
Who wants to spend a fortune on shoes?

>
> > > Your masters would be proud of you, the EU doesn't have any funds, it
> > has
> > > money given to it by member nations, the UK pays (and has always paid)
> > > billions a year more than it receives.
> >
> > What masters?
>
> I was trying to be kind, the only people you usually hear espousing your
> kind of rubbish are those paid to do so, it's hard to reconcile your views
> with those of a free thinking independent normally intelligent person.

I'm a free thinking person. I live in the real world, where the consumer
simply doesn't care about where something is made so long as its the right
quality and price.
You may want out of the EU - great, go ahead. Just don't be suprised if the
voting population doesn't agree with you.

>
> > Didn't someone say we were the 4th richest economy in the world? Is our
> GDP
> > higher than Belgium or some of the other member states?
> > Was there ever an agreement that all member states would receive as much
> as
> > they paid in? Or was there an agreement that we would receive more than
we
> > paid, us being such a poor economy and all?
>
> Without having to subsidise the EU we'd be even higher up the list, if the
> continentals want to improve their lot, let them work for it.

Would we be higher up the list?
I'm glad you know that, because few others seem to be certain of it.

>
> ...
> > > Not so much that, fined for producing food more like.
> >
> > Plenty of payments for not producing too.
> > The EU can only keep
> > > German, French and Italian farmers in the lap of luxury by
artificially
> > > raising the price of basic foodstuffs.
> >
> > Milk, 99p for a 4 pint bottle.
>
> Produced for less than 5p a pint ... even less if farmers weren't
hamstrung
> by quotas.

Yes, and there's people making a profit at various stages before you pay at
the checkout.
Are you sure it would be less if there weren't quotas? I can't see more milk
being drunk or used to create other products if there was more supply
available. The demand isn't unlimited.

>
> > Bread, 65p for a medium sliced loaf.
>
> Again in real terms commercially produced bread could be produced and sold
> for around 10p a loaf.

If you buy direct from the baker, and he does a large enough run with the
right ingredients, yes.
That isn't how the consumer buys goods in this country though - you also
have profit margins. For a small shop to break even, several hundred percent
increase in price is normal.

>
> > Potatoes, £3.20 for a 50 pound sack.

>
> 32p a pound, don't know how old you are but it wasn't to lang ago when
they
> were tuppance a pound.

6.4p per pound.
Must admit, 12 years ago I was paying £2.99 for a 50 pound sack.
Lasts a couple of weeks or so.

>
> > If thats the price after artificially raising it, whats the real price
for
> > us consumers? And how are we keeping those other farmers in the lap of
> > luxury when some stuff we buy is produced here?
> > It does that be restricting supply,
> > > farmers/farms in the UK tend to be far more productive and efficient
> than
> > > those on the continent,
> >
> > Bull.
>
> best you look at "set aside"
>
> > Take into account soil, weather, landscape, fertilisers/weedkillers used
> and
> > so on.
>
> Funnily enough cultivation in Roman times produced crop yealds that are
> comparable to modern yeilds. Scrap quotas and set aside and this country
> could be self sufficient in the staples.

This is despite modern grains giving a lot better yields, weeds being killed
by weedkiller, not having to break fields up into strips in order to hoe,
and fertiliser.
And you think that in Roman times the yields were comparable? Oh, not
forgetting modern machinery to plant the seeds better and harvest more. Not
so much gleaning for the poor these days in the UK.

>
> > A field thats great for growing rape won't have the same productivity
for
> > producing grapes or ducks.
> > Usually there is also a hefty cost in switching production radically -
> > switch to wheat and you need some different equipment and staffing than
> > running a fish farm.
>
> Yes, but you don't find that many wheat farms ituated in duck ponds or
fish
> farms in the middle of cattle pasture do you?

No, but you do find plenty of farms that have diversified - wheat farms that
also have livestock or fish elements - even some that have shifted a field
or two over to pick your own fruit.
Foot & mouth hit a lot of farms, bad weather has hit others (grain sprouting
while still on the stalk isn't exactly a commodity the market wants).

>
> > The most efficient farms tend to concentrate on one crop only. So only
one
> > lot of equipment, fertiliser type, weedkiller selection and so on
needed.
>
> Funnily enough that's a misconception ... or at least not alwys teh case
but
> that's niether here notr there with regards to this debate.

Not a misconception - and as I said, not always the best option.

>
> > Not always a good option if something goes wrong though - which is why
> many
> > farmers do diversify somewhat.
> >
> >
> >
> > to stop UK farmers undercutting continental food
> > > prices their production has to be limited, it does this via the
various
> > > quotas.
> > >
> >
> > Yet we still manage to get plenty of food and milk pretty cheap.
>
> Ah but it could be cheaper, but we can't have that as that would allow UK
> citizens greater disposable income,

You may not have noticed the low interest rates for the past few years then?
Or the low inflation rates?

greater disposable income has a knock on
> effect that is generally benfical to the country. Kep the people poor and
> needy ... the credo of all socialists since Marx.

Ah yes, so when family credit was replaced and payments went up, and again
when working families tax credit changed, there were less poor and needy
around.
Funny how in the past 8 years or so, things have improved for the poorest
groups of society. So less poor and less needy.

Martin <><

[Rooney]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:33:22 GMT, "Martin Davies"
<mart...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The lack of education is perfectly excusable - but not when combined
with trying to sound posh!

[bluecalx]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 01:42:20 +0100, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

They don't have any candidates running in London. What the fuck?
Seems to me that a pro-marijuana party would stand a lot better chance
of getting votes in urban areas rather than rural.

[dan]

i wonder if the BNP would pay this man to go back to the west indies.... i
fucking doubt it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4360461.stm

[bluecalx]

I posted that story here a month or two ago. All of the racist BNP
shitheads still had a problem with him and suggested that he go back
to his own country. Apparently non-white war heroes aren't as
valuable to the UK as, say, chavvy white dole-scum.

[Fatha-Jack]

"dan" <heft...@REMOVETHISBITgmail.com> wrote in message
news:fPKbe.16720$u5.1...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

>i wonder if the BNP would pay this man to go back to the west indies.... i
>fucking doubt it.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4360461.stm
>

NO!!!!! I would not send ANY foreigner back regardless of country of origin
as long as the cunts are paying there way by having gainfull employment &
paying taxes. The ones I target are the scrounging bastards that come over
here sreaming fuckin asylum, when really, MOST of em are coming over here to
permenantly scrounge as much out of the state ie tax payers ie US as they
can. THEY are the ones I would either gas or send home which ever was the
cheapest option!

FJ

[Fatha-Jack]

"bluecalx" <blue...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:990v611g865nrvb7j...@4ax.com...

And they are the mindless arseholes that give the BNP a bad name. People
like that should go join combat 18 or the NF where that is the norm. It is
because most BNP members DO NOT have that opinion that the party has legal
status & MP's!

FJ

[bluecalx]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:30:35 +0100, "Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com>
wrote:

Haha. You said that racist BNP members were giving the party a bad
name.. and then you advocated gassing asylum seekers. Nice one.

[Fatha-Jack]

"bluecalx" <blue...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:qn4v61hp4u8ba1vsv...@4ax.com...

Meant as tounge in cheek, hence the last remark made in post. I just
decided to add a bit of wind up to what was a rare serious post by myself on
this sad NG! They would be put on the 1st available plane with a one way
ticket. But it shows what a twat you are that that is all you could comment
on from the post. It also shows that what I said is common sense as you
have no answers to it. I'll let you totter off now to think some up cunt!

FJ

[Knobrot Underfield]

"Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com> wrote in message

news:426f85e9$0$83044$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

>
> "dan" <heft...@REMOVETHISBITgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fPKbe.16720$u5.1...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>i wonder if the BNP would pay this man to go back to the west indies.... i
>>fucking doubt it.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4360461.stm
>>
> NO!!!!! I would not send ANY foreigner back regardless of country of
> origin as long as the cunts are paying there way by having gainfull
> employment & paying taxes. The ones I target are the scrounging bastards
> that come over here sreaming fuckin asylum, when really, MOST of em are
> coming over here to permenantly scrounge as much out of the state ie tax
> payers ie US

You a Tax payer ....dont make me fucking laugh.
>

[marc]

"Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com> wrote in message

news:426f9594$0$83076$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

Boo, It's me again.

What is your view on "benefit breaders"? Would you also have them removed
from the country, or gassed? Or how about those that just refuse to work?
Would you send asylum seekers back to their own country - even if you knew
that they would suffer as a result? I find it so difficut to beleive that
there are
people (like you) out there with so little compassion.

Here's my solution : Get everyone who thinks like you, put them on the same
island
( America would be good ) and nuke 'm. Problem solved. No more hunger,
no more poverty ( they'd all get some of your and your mates wealth / food /
space to live).
Then the rest of us could live in blissfull happiness.

See, I knew I'd missed my calling.

And I managed to say it all without the need to swear. ( now lets see you
have a go FJ )

Marc

[Fatha-Jack]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message

news:d4o947$161$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...

FUCK OFF, BOLLOX YOU'RE A CUNT!

Hows that for ya????

Just for the record. I hold English perma-dole scroungers in as much
contempt as the foreign ones & would put them on a plane to the nearest war
zone & leave em there.

FJ

[marc]

<SNIP>

What can I say - true to form - FJ strikes back with another mind melting
line
of intillectual argument. What a star !!!!.

And it's got me convinced - I'll be voting BNP ....... No ....... thats
wrong ....... I won't.

Marc

[Fatha-Jack]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message

news:d4obpp$5fb$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...

Thank shite for that!! We don't want the likes of you polluting our party!

FJ

[marc]

"Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com> wrote in message

news:426fb813$0$83087$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

I bet there's not many "readers" in your party.

[Fatha-Jack]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message

news:d4odpn$f1h$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...

You are now really boring me as you do not have the intellect to address any
of the points I made in my post so TTFN

John wins (again)

FJ

[marc]

"Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com> wrote in message

news:426fc600$0$83068$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

I was trying to establish why you are such an arse - not question your
misguided
point of view. Your statements cause themselves to be questioned just by
the
manner in which you express yourself - unless you have Tourette's, in which
case I
apologise.

If I swore more - would that stop you from being bored?

Anyway - I'm off.

[Fatha-Jack]

"marc" <b...@uk2.net> wrote in message

news:d4qasb$npd$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...

TARRA!

Don't forget to shut the door on yer way out CUNT!

FJ

[The black fingenail]

"Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com> wrote in message

news:4270bfcd$0$559$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

>DITTO

[Fatha-Jack]

"The black fingenail" <the.black....@ntm.org.uk> wrote in message
news:d4qv1g$u13$0...@pita.alt.net...

OI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you were fuckin off ya oily little tick!!!!!!!!!

FUCK OFF!

FJ

[The Doctor ToGeR]

Said the skinny homo.

"Fatha-Jack" <f...@fascist.com> wrote in message

news:42714995$0$574$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
> FUCK OFF!
>
> FJ
>

[Fatha-Jack]

Replied the WANKER!

FJ
"The Doctor ToGeR" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:d4rhvm$oqa$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...