THE British National Party doesn't need a publicity department: its opponents do the job. The incompetent Crown Prosecution Service launched a dodgy prosecution of the BNP leader, and when the jury failed to agree had to back down. Result: triumph for the BNP, with cheering supporters outside the court in Leeds as the leader, Nick Griffin, emerged.
But one look at Griffin's bodyguards could tell you what kind of an outfit the BNP is. The last time I saw expressions like that was on the faces of Nazi Brownshirts in the 1930s.
The party is now trying to put on a respectable front, abandoning r
epatriation, but there should be no doubt that the hardcore are direct descendents of the fascist National Front and similar bodies.
This does not mean that people who vote for the BNP, or the 10,000 members disclosed in a leaked list, are fascists or racists. Many are just people protesting about the failure of the main parties, particularly in the control of immigration.
Until it is banned, the BNP remains a legitimate party and people have a right to support it. The witchunt against them is intolerable: a policeman suspended, a radio DJ sacked, an academic fearing dismissal. There have been threatening phone calls as well.
It is not hard to see the influence of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party, which poses as our "protector" against the Nazi hordes – hence the Anti-Nazi League, which was an SWP front. The BNP and the SWP are equally detestable, but the SWP is more dangerous because of its sabotage of the Labour Party.
WHO says there is never a police officer around when you need one? A father shopping with his seven year old son was scared when the boy wandered off, as it was dark.
He found the boy in a nearby park, smacked his bottom and told him never to do it again. All's well that end's well? Don't you believe it.
Three hours later, four police officers and a specialist child support officer arrived, took the child away in a police car, and arrested his father on suspicion of assault. After an hour in the cells, he was told that they could not carry out an interview because the witness who reported the smacking "was not in a condition to give a statement". The company director had to spend a night in the cells and the child was traumatised by being torn from his family.
The next morning, the father was released after the witness withdrew the accusation. He had originally falsely accused the father of "kicking the boy to the floor".
Many questions arise. Why do senior police officers behave like imbeciles at the behest of politically-correct meddlers? What was the "condition" of the so-called witness which meant he could not give evidence? Was he drunk? Was he ill? The public has a right to know. What guarantee is there that another innocent parent will not be persecuted by over-zealous police acting on behalf of some meddler?
This shows what would happen if the total ban on smacking advocated by pressure groups is introduced. In Scotland, where it is in force, a French tourist who smacked his child for misbehaving in a restaurant was bewildered when police arrived at the behest of another diner and arrested him. I doubt if he will be spending another holiday in Scotland.
Above all, what kind of a country have we become when little children are tortured to death under the noses of police, social workers and paediatricians while a loving father is treated like a criminal?
FIVE children by three different fathers; nine children by four different fathers; six children by three different fathers. These are examples from news items in the past year. In each case, the fathers are nowhere to be seen. They answer the question why people don't bother working in Britain, as this testimony from an angry mother shows. Her daughter has just brought a small two-bedroomed house in a new development with her fiancé. They had to take out a large mortgage to do so. Both have good jobs and work hard to pay the mortgage, but they are worried about being in negative equity. Having children for the foreseeable future is out of the question.
The two houses next to them are "social housing". Both are occupied by single women in their early twenties (though various boyfriends seem to be living there). Each has two children and claims income support and housing benefit, with no council tax. One of the girls is pregnant again and says she's glad because she will now be given a three-bedroom house.
The mother reads in the newspaper about a single mother with three children who has been placed by her local council in a £1.5m house. And the Afghan family, with an absent father, living in a £1.2m taxpayer-funded house: the woman and her seven children receive handouts worth £170,000 a year, including more than £12,000 a month for rent.
Are you surprised that the mother is angry when she sees her daughter, working hard in a stressful job and paying taxes so that other women can keep on having children, with no penalty and no thought of the consequences?
