Teens "groomed" for sex exploitation in Manchester

It is notable that the Party That Dare Not Speak Its Name has been trying to alert the public about this for decades.

I have a teenaged cousin in Cheshire I'm quite fond of, and the thought makes my skin crawl.



~

Where do we begin?

~

So, it turns out that the Party That Must Never Be Named was right. Muslim Asian men in Manchester and other places in the north are in fact "grooming" young teenage white girls for use as prostitutes.

Why?

Well, Labour MP Ann Cryer is ready with the correct spin an answer.

It's all the fault of traditional Muslim Asian culture and their arranged marriages, see.

Because these men are all from "traditional" "conservative" Islamic families, they have their marriages arranged for them. This means that they can't sleep around when they're young like normal people, so, naturally, they turn to kidnapping, drugging and raping 14 year old girls, and forcing them into prostitution...

as you do.

"I am merely pointing out fact in saying that all the victims of these terrible crimes are white girls and all the alleged perpetrators are Asian men," she said.

"That is a significant fact and needs to be addressed."

In her view, young Asian men in traditional communities were unable to pursue casual relationships in the manner of their white peers because they were tied to arranged marriages.

Caught between two cultures, a small number were tempted to target vulnerable young girls, she said.

She was criticised by Muslim community activists, and a subsequent Channel 4 documentary focusing on the problem was pulled amid fears that it would hand political ammunition to the BNP Party that Must Never be Named.

~

No comment needed...

Rajinder Singh is flicking through the Pakistani channels on his Sky box from his sofa in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Dressed in a crimson turban, he sits a metre from the enormous screen, translating the odd phrase for my benefit. He's trying to show me why he's determined to join the British National Party – the only party he considers "brave" enough to "break out of the burkha called political correctness".

...

He says he's been loyal to the BNP since he first heard BNP leader Nick Griffin on television in late 2001. "He used the word 'Islam'. And I thought, 'He's brave, he has conviction,'" Singh says. "I thought, 'It's amazing what you've said: I've always been thinking that, since my childhood.'" He wrote Griffin letters of support and eventually provided him with a character reference at his 2005 trial for inciting racial hatred. Singh has voted for the BNP in every local and general election since discovering them. "I couldn't keep away."

Oops!

Fell of my chair laughing there for a second.

Better now.

Hannan on the "far-left BNP"

The single reason for voting for them, is that when they hear the Margaret Hodges...and the Harriet Harmons...saying "oh, whever else you do, you mustn't mustn't vote for this party," there are some people who say to themselves, "Right, well if that's what you swine least want us to do, I'll bloody well go and do it".

Yep.

Fear the Light

The problem for the ruling political class with the BNP is not their policies, but the fact that the BNP lays bare their moral and philosophical poverty, and indeed criminal levels of corruption and anti-democratic impulses.

And apparently, I'm not the only one to have noted this.

Dr. Sean Gabb is a writer, academic, broadcaster and Director of the Libertarian Alliance in England.

The party believes in the expulsion of illegal immigrants, an in some voluntary repatriation of non-whites who are legally here, and in dismantling the Equal Opportunities police state from which people like Mr Wadham benefit. Other than this, a BNP Government might easily show more respect for the forms of a liberal constitution than have the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown—after all, this would not be difficult.

If I can have no longing for a BNP breakthrough at the next but one general election, neither can I regard the legal proceedings against it as other than a classic illustration of how to run a post-modern tyranny.

The British State has no Gestapo, no KGB. But why would it need one when it has the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

Of course, it's all about the morality of racism...

nothing whatever to do with politics...

Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), has commenced county court proceedings against the BNP on the grounds that its constitution and membership criteria are illegal because they appear to restrict recruitment to people who are white.

Gerald Warner is not, apparently the only one thinking that there might be a leeeetle bit of political motivation for this:

So, why has the EHRC not gone for so obvious a target long before this?

Even a kindly BBC inquisitor was moved to ask the Commission if this was a politically motivated move inspired by alarm at the BNP’s winning two seats in the European parliament. Not at all, was the response, contradicted almost immediately after by the observation that as the party was now becoming more influential it merited such attention.

...'and we're offended at the very suggestion!'

Nothing to see here. Move along...

While the British National Party is seen as a far Right group some of its policies are more akin to the Left.

Its stance on immigration, Europe and law and order is firmly rooted in the Right but pledges on nationalisation, the NHS and income equality sit just as comfortably at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

It shows two things, I think. First, most of the British press (and political establishment) don't know very much about political theory. They've got the new paradigm firmly in place: "Gay pride, abortion, European Union, Nationalized medicine, unlimited immigration = left = good; immigration restrictions, pro-life, family values = right = bad."

And anything, (like the old fashioned proto-feminists who vigorously opposed abortion, or the pre-Thatcher Labour MPs who voted to retain the death penalty and restrict easy divorce) that doesn't fit the paradigm, simply doesn't exist.

Easy enough to fit the BNP into the category if you read nothing about them but the Guardian's hysterical rants. Read their actual policy sheets and you get a slightly more, dare I say it, nuanced view.

And second, that the entire political spectrum, everywhere in the world but particularly in European politics, has moved so far to the left that the term "right-wing" has simply become meaningless. All it means now is, as Mark Steyn put it, slightly to the right of the extreme radical left. For which another name is: the Left.

As I said, if the BNP were really right wing, I might support them, but they're just a little to far on the squishy socialist side for my taste. And I've not got much time for British republicans.

Long Live the Queen!

Power to the People!

Michael Coren writes about the "BNP victory" in Britain,

...the British National Party received around 6% of the vote and returned two members to the European assembly. It is most unlikely that it could ever elect an MP in the House of Commons but the result has managed to introduce a new sound into the British governmental symphony.

Panic.

...which is the part I'm enjoying. Politics is a sport best enjoyed from the bleachers and lately it has been almost as much fun watching the journalists/pundits doing their sideshow clown routine as it has been to watch the game itself.

Michael continues,

The British National Party does not goose-step. It has worked diligently to expunge the Nazi image of previous rightist parties, claiming to be nationalist rather than Fascist. It’s both true and false. Almost every believing right-wing extremist supports the BNP, but most BNP supporters are not right-wing extremists. [Which, BTW, describes the Republican party pretty well, don't you think?] Indeed, while the party is not trusted by the vast majority of minority groups, it does has a Jewish municipal councillor and some support in elements of the black, Hindu and Sikh communities.

Something interesting about the way Michael writes about this is quite telling about the difference between the reaction to the BNP and related political phenomena of Anglo-Canadians (me) and that of Raised-in-Britain British. He, an English guy who is still English enough to have a recognisable accent but who has lived in Canada for decades, looks at the BNP and examines its policies, membership, leaders and actions. He makes a few distinctions and comparisons and examines some historical precedents, quotes Orwell, and comes to a conclusion.

This in interesting contrast to the reaction to the BNP by Raised-in-Britain British. This more closely resembles the last scene in the 1979 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers when Donald Sutherland points at the last real human and lets out an unholy alien pod-person screech.

What that means, surprisingly, is that while Canada is so far gone into the socialist Matrix as to make its post-colonial existence more or less moot, there is still more rational capacity per capita (per journalistic capita I suppose) than in Britain, the homeland and cradle not only of democracy, but of journalism itself.

Nevertheless, I digress.

Something I've been meaning to mention.

Everyone keeps calling the BNP the "far right" party. But actually, I've read their manifesto and it strikes me as, well, a little too far to the left for my taste.

They still have this idea that it is a good thing for governments to take money away from private citizens for forcible redistribution to The Poor (and possibly also The Needy,) which necessitates the existence of that gargantuan taxpayer-funded black hole known as the welfare state. This seems to be comprised of gigantic tribes of doublethinking socialworkers who's only purpose in the appratus is to decide who qualifies as the P n'N. It has turned the British people into a nation of parasites where the first thought in times of personal trouble is always, "compensation". A nation of perpetually adolescent victims looking for ways to get their hands on other people's money.

The BNP, for example, propose to retain Britain's murderous experiment with "socialized" "health" "care". This is the system which has given us the wonders and joys of a board of government bioethicists who decide whether patients are worth the expense of keeping alive after they have ceased to be useful to the state. (Don't ever EVER forget the name Leslie Burke.) And that's quite apart from the general deterioration of the system that is plain to anyone who has rashly approached within fifty yards a British Casualty ward (when you can find a hospital that still has one).

Oh, and let's not forget that Britain's government funded medical system has given us one of the highest rates of abortion in the world, right after Russia and Quebec. Yeah, we need more of that like we need a kick in the head from a skinhead's Doc Marten.

There's a name for all this, kiddies:

"socialism".

I ain't on with socialism.

So, let me get this straight,

Nick Griffin ("hack, spit") was democratically elected to a seat in Brussels, so he held a press conference to talk about it, since it is pretty news worthy. A bunch of hooligans break up the press conference and pelt those assembled with eggs. The BBC was there (because it was, you'll note a press conference) and they ask Mr. Griffin, "To what extent, do you think that whenever you appear you're not going to be able to do that without causing trouble...?"

Ah, say again?

Nick Griffin, a democratically elected Member of the European Parliament called a press conference.

You know,

a press conference?

And who, exactly, was it that was "causing trouble" again?

If I were a feminist, (God forbid), I might be inclined to talk about "blaming the victim".

And, way to go on that whole "not giving the BNP a platform" thing. How's that working out for you hey, you pin-headed imbeciles?

Let me spell it out to you in words of one syllable or less.

Each time you do some dumb thing like this, Nick and his friends get to go on the BBC and say their piece again.

It's called "news".

As Simon Darby said on his blog, "I wonder how much the resultant publicity from today's aborted press conference would have cost?"

As a consequence of today's intolerance from the tolerant, Nick has done interviews for virtually all television outlets today culminating with a live appearance on the main evening news.

(Yes, Anastasia, I read Simon Darby's blog. I'll get the smelling salts out for you dear.)

On Notice

I'd say that Gordon's time is up.

Gordon Brown's labour government, already rocked by disastrous local election results, ministerial resignations, backbench plotting and persistent undermining of the prime minister's authority, could disintegrate further when European election results are announced on the evening of June 7.

...and Nick Griffin is an MEP.

...


Ooopp!

Sorry,

fell of my chair laughing for a second there.

Why?

I've noticed a string of editorials lately, most in the Guardian, that have proposed various measures to prevent electoral wins by the BNP.

It's as if, all of a sudden, people are worried they are going to win MEP and council seats.

I just wonder if anyone has asked themselves why, precisely, the BNP are doing so well with the electorate.

Why?

This

In September 2006, a 14-year-old schoolgirl, Codie Stott, asked a teacher if she could sit with another group to do a science project as all the girls with her spoke only Urdu. The teacher's first response, according to Stott, was to scream at her: "It's racist, you're going to get done by the police!" Upset and terrified, the schoolgirl went outside to calm down. The teacher called the police and a few days later, presumably after officialdom had thought the matter over, she was arrested and taken to a police station, where she was fingerprinted and photographed. According to her mother, she was placed in a bare cell for 3 1/2 hours. She was questioned on suspicion of committing a racial public order offence and then released without charge. The school was said to be investigating what further action to take, not against the teacher, but against Stott. Headmaster Anthony Edkins reportedly said: "An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark. We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form."

probably has a lot to do with it.

If you ____, then you're a racist,

and an eeeeeevil, BNP-supporting fascist too.

At a more profound and altogether more explosive level, however, is the fact that all three parties not only refuse to address the issues that concern the public most deeply and emotionally, but also demonise those who express such anxieties as racists or fascists.

In particular, they have colluded in a refusal to acknowledge that nationalism - or attachment to one's own country and its values - is a perfectly respectable, even admirable, sentiment.

Instead, anyone who maintains that British culture and identity are rooted in the history, language, literature, religion and laws of this country - and must be defended as such against erosion, undermining or outright attack - is vilified as a racist or xenophobe.

This effectively presents such people with a choice - between being demonised as racists and standing silently by as their culture evaporates.

Yep. That about summs it up.

Flash!

C of E Clergy Banned from Joining Pro-Abortion Labour Party by Synod.

...

Naw,


just kidding.

Openness, tolerance and diversity

except for when they disagree with us.

(Did I mention that I was planning to go back to pushing people's buttons a bit? I hope "Anastasia" is still listening.)

Next month's General Synod, the church's national assembly, will debate a motion calling on Anglican bishops to formulate a similar policy to that of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) on the BNP.

The Acpo policy states that no member of the police service may be a member of an organisation whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements contradict the "general duty" to promote race equality. This specifically includes the BNP, the policy states.

General Synod member Vasantha Gnanadoss, who works for the Metropolitan police service, will call for a similar ban to apply to all clergy, ordinands and employed lay persons who speak on behalf of the Church of England.

Heh. "General Synod". Truth-by-committee.

I trust they're working as hard at excluding candidates who deny the Divinity of Christ, the clear teaching of the Anglican Church on the sanctity and indissolubility of natural marriage, the right of the unborn not to be murdered by their mothers...

Oh.

Wait.

Silly me.

Thoughtcrime of the Day: "Black history month" is a government-sponsored exercise in racism

Heh.


Nope, no double standard under here. Dunno what you're talking about. Racism is just a white vice, isn't it?

Matthew Collins from anti-fascist organisation Searchlight, said: “This odious campaign reveals the BNP’s true colours. Their views on history have always been selective...

Know what else is "selective"? The media's willingness to identify the ideological origins of certain groups.

But I'm always willing to lend a hand.

Searchlight Magazine (and Searchlight Educational Trust):The magazine is published by political activist Gerry Gable and edited by Nick Lowles, and was founded by the late Maurice Ludmer, a lifelong Communist and longstanding anti-racist and anti-fascist.

Gerry Gable: As a youth, Gable was a member of the Young Communist League and the Communist Party of Great Britain, and worked as a runner on the Communist Party's Daily Worker newspaper, leaving after a year to become a Communist Party trade union organizer. He stood unsuccessfully for the Communist Party on May 10, 1962 at Northfield Ward, Stamford Hill, North London.

Maurice Ludmer: As a young man he was interested in sport and joined the Young Communist League... A Manchester Anti-Nazi League activist recalled that 'Maurice was a firm part of the Labour movement. He was a Communist, and the President of Birmingham Trades Council.

Back in the days before people started forgetting what words mean, we understood that the term "anti-fascist" was a journalists' euphemism for "communist". We also understood that communism was bad.

But of course, in those days we also understood that it was bad to grind babies into sausage meat and kill our grannies when they can't make us cookies anymore. We knew that two and two always equalled four, even when we really really didn't want it to.