Tuesday, 16 March 2010

Boy, 12, one of youngest prisoners

A 12-year-old boy who has committed more than 30 crimes has become one of the UK's youngest prisoners when he was given a 10-month custodial term. Skip related content

Magistrates in Witham, Essex, heard that the youngster, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had a criminal record which included convictions for assault and aggravated vehicle taking.

They said he had breached "many" previous court orders and committed "many" offences while on bail.

The boy, who lives near Chelmsford, appeared in court to be sentenced after admitting his latest crimes - assaults on a woman and a man and aggravated vehicle taking.

Magistrates said he would be eligible for release after serving at least five months in a detention centre.

The youngster, who was dressed in a combat-style green jacket, sat with a care worker in the court dock during the hearing.

Magistrates refused an application by journalists to lift reporting restrictions and allow the youngster to be named in media reports. Reporters argued that the public should know who the boy was to help police prevent him from committing further crimes But magistrates said the youngster was "too young" and "vulnerable" - and ordered that his identity should not be made public.

Prosecutors said the boy had compiled his "appalling" criminal record before turning 12.

They said he had committed his latest crimes near Chelmsford in early February when aged 11.

The court heard that the youngster had lived in London before moving to Essex and appeared before magistrates in Croydon.

Its about time these habitual criminals names are made public so when he is released in 5 months people who may have the sorry misfortune of having to live near this 'person' will be aware of his criminal tendancies

Labour 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'

Saturday, 13 March 2010

Spot the difference

Yes its the moustache

Monday, 8 March 2010

British Army faces Afghan gag for election

By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:16PM GMT 07 Mar 2010:

British journalists and TV crews are to be banned from the Afghan front line once a date for the election has been set, while senior officers will be prohibited from making public speeches and talking to reporters.
MoD websites will also be “cleansed” of any “non-factual” material including anything containing troops’ opinions of the war, according to a memo leaked to The Daily Telegraph.

The edict comes as Gordon Brown was accused of using British troops as “political props” by visiting Afghanistan the day after giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War.
The war in Afghanistan is likely to be a sensitive political issue in the election campaign.
Last night the MoD confirmed a British soldier, from A Company 4 Rifles, was killed in a fire-fight yesterday bringing the total deaths since the conflict began to 271.
The Prime Minister has been repeatedly accused by former military chiefs of denying soldiers vital equipment.
In the memo, Nick Gurr, the MoD’s director of media and communications, says “embeds” for all British news broadcasters and national journalists will be prohibited during the campaign, expected to begin later this month.

Embeds, where the reporter lives in a military unit or base, are the only safe way to cover the fighting. Foreign and local journalists will, however, be continue to be granted such access, the memo says.
The MoD ruling comes despite the fact that up to 4,000 British troops - and a further 10,000 Americans and Afghans - are in the middle of the UK’s largest full-scale combat operation for seven years.

Operation Moshtarak, which aims to clear Taliban strongholds, is now in its fourth week and is soon to enter a new phase which could see significant British casualties. The only information provided on the operations during the election, however, will be through MoD briefings in Whitehall.

Government departments traditionally curtail their activities during an election campaign, a period known as “purdah”.
But there is no precedent for journalists being excluded from the battlefront for such a long period during operations of such significance. In the run-up to previous election campaigns, British military activity was at a relatively low ebb.

The prohibition on public speeches by senior officers is likely to be seen as a response to the increasing outspokenness of military chiefs, something also not seen in previous pre-election periods.
Beginning with the then head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, in 2006, senior personnel have openly pointed out the tension between the work the Armed Forces are expected to do and the resources provided to carry it out.

Mr Gurr says that allowing journalists to report from the frontline during the election “could call into question [the forces’] political impartiality or give rise to the criticism that public resources are being used for party political purposes.”
But the order has led to accusations that the government wants to hide the true picture of the war in Afghanistan from voters.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said he would table an emergency question in the House of Commons demanding an explanation on Monday.
“Given the recent visit of the Prime Minister, this is a bad joke,” he said. “There is clearly one rule for Gordon Brown, when he wants to use the armed forces as political props, and another for reporters who want to tell the public what is being done in their name.

“It’s a truth blackout. Nothing, especially the truth, is to stand in the way in Brown’s election. Our armed forces can fight and die, but not write or speak. Any critics of the Government are to be banned from having any contact with the press. This is the grotesque endgame of New Labour. They want to bury bad news and bury the truth.”
Colonel Douglas Young, chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation, expressed “surprise” at the decision.

“It didn’t happen in 1945 - there was no question of limiting reporting at that time simply because an election was happening and I don’t see why there should be any questions of that now. Are we to stop operations during this period? Obviously not, and if operations are in process they should be reported upon in the normal way.

“It is ridiculous to expect the forces to be hiding away just because there’s a general election.”
Cdr John Muxworthy, chief executive of the UK National Defence Association, said: “To put a situation in place where the press is effectively going to be gagged, so it is not going to possible for people to see the real news from the front line, is incredible.

“Afghanistan is not a political issue - it’s a matter of national importance,” he added.
Col Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, said: “It is wrong to gag the media, which is what this is. This is a critical campaign and the public have a right to be told what is happening.
“It is also wrong to prevent senior officers speaking.”
Gordon Brown has received considerable personal criticism for the way he funded the Armed Forces during his time as Chancellor.

Former chiefs directly contradicted the Prime Minister’s claim at the Chilcot inquiry that the Forces had been given everything they asked for.
Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb, former director of special forces, told The Daily Telegraph last week that the Armed Forces were “doomed” and were “clearly in decline,” while General Lord Guthrie, former chief of the defence staff, said that Mr Brown had been “disingenuous”.

Mr Gurr’s memo, written last week, is entitled “Purdah - Key Principles for Defence Communicators.”
It details a string of steps the MoD is taking to minimise the chance of embarrassing disclosures. Information on MoD and armed forces websites, it says, must be “cleansed.” Offical blogs and websites must “report factual information only”.

Even internal MoD and service journals, Mr Gurr says, must be “submitted for approval before publication” with “controversial issues avoided” because “these get into the public domain.”
An MoD spokesman said: “During the period between an election being called and taking place, communications activity across government is considerably constrained by the need to be fair to all political parties.

“The MOD recognises that it is vital to continue to tell the public about the efforts and achievements of our forces in Afghanistan during this period and has agreed principles with the Cabinet Office that allow this.”


Is there no end to the measures Gordon Brown will take to hang on to power?
Was WW2 a political issue?
Was the Falklands conflict a political issue?
Was the invasion of Iraq a political issue?

I consider any war my country is involved in a very important issue in a general election and want to hear waht EVERY partys policy is on the subject. I DO NOT want the issue 'hushing up' and be told what the important issues are.

Thursday, 4 March 2010

UERSS: The Council of Europe requires of the United Kingdom the dissolution of the B.N.P.!

Translation of:
http://www.nationspresse.info/?p=79540 by Babelfish: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/

According to an official report published on March 2, 2010 by the European commission against racism and intolerance (sic), the Council of Europe requires of the United Kingdom the dissolution of British National Party (BNP).

It is about an obvious illustration of the totalitarianism europeist whose political persecutions are connected more and more with those into force in the late USSR. Servile servants of the New americanized World Order, the euro-mondialistes stateless people are likely to use all the possible subterfuges in order to destroy the Resistant ones attached to the State-Nations and the enracinées identities. The United Kingdom: Towards a dissolution of BNP on order of the euro-mondialistes?

According to a public report/ratio distributed in the afternoon of March 2, 2010 by the European commission against racism and intolerance (ECRI), the Council of Europe requires of the United Kingdom a dissolution of British National Party (BNP). Under the terms of a terminology worn down into force in the dispensaries be-saying antiracists, the United Kingdom is summoned “to take measures to cure the exploitation of racism in policy”.

This Commission europeist rests on one of its recommendations of general policy stipulating that “the law must envisage the possibility of dissolving organizations which promote racism”. It is about a news and scandalous totalitarian interference of a body europeist in the interior matters of a sovereign nation. The ECRI is composed members named in each of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe which includes islamo-preserving Turkey.

For the euro-mondialistes stateless people of Brussels, any political opposition with the massive immigration-Islamization of the Third world must be banished and reduced with silence, initially in the United Kingdom then in each nation member of the EU of the 27. Once again, national preference (British jobs for British workers) legitimates it is scandalously amalgamated with an alleged racism. The vocabulary, the semantics and the rhetoric of be-saying antiracists europeists are skewed, canted and trapped. The aggressive ethno-communautarism and the virulent Islamism, which progress daily and gangrènent the British company, do not seem to worry the pharisees funkers and friqués of this Commission liberticide. Adversary relentless of all the forms of sovereignty and rooting, the European Union (EU) is only one footboard towards the New World Order.

Why this eagerness against National British Party? For several years, BNP has recorded a growing popularity at the time of local and/or partial polls (communes, districts and counties). Nations Presse Information devoted some articles to the remarkable electoral performances of BNP in rural areas relatively saved by the pangs of the immigration-Islamization of the Third world, in the old industrial bastions disaster victims by the ceaseless delocalizations, the structural unemployment and an inescapable economic turning into a desert and finally in the large urban metropolises devastated by the aggressive ethno-communutarism and virulent Islamism.

At the time of the organized municipal elections of London on May 1, 2008, the list of BNP taken along by dynamics Richard Barnbrook crosses the fateful threshold of 5% (5,33% and 130.714 votes) what enabled him to take down thanks to the poll proportional one of the eleven municipal seats of the London metropolis (Great London Assembly). The comfortable election of Richard Barnbrook caused a true electric shock within the British politico-media Establishment.

The elections comtales and European were organized on Thursday June 4, 2009. At the time of the poll comtal, BNP gained for the first time three seats. Sharon Wilkinson was elected with 1.155 votes in at one time industrial district of Padiham & Burnley West (county of Lancashire, the North-West). Graham Partner was elected with 1.039 votes in the district of the old mining bastion of Coalville (county of Leicestershire, the Midlands of the East). At the time of a first candidature, Deirdre Gates was elected with 783 votes in the semi-rural district of South Oxhey bordering on Large London (county of Hertfordshire, Is).

Although BNP took down only the sixth place at the time of the European poll, it obtained for the first time two eurodéputés (6,26% and 943.598 votes). With 8% (132.194 votes), the owner of BNP Nick Griffin became one of the eight eurodéputés of the North-West. With 9,80% (120.139 votes), the reprocessed academic Andrew Brons became one of the six eurodéputés of Yorkshire & Humberside. In spite of the heinous and nauseous campaigns of be-saying antifacists, the election of two eurodéputés of BNP was a formidable snook vis-a-vis the British politicians of the System and with the eurocrats stateless people of Brussels. Using 10% their monthly allowances, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons reflect in place of the funds intended to support various valid causes in their respective euro-districts. The serene and increasing dediabolisation of BNP near many British voters of the North-West and Yorkshire & Humberside undoubtedly frightens the totalitarian europeists, worthy heirs to the most coercive political regimes of the XXe century.

The concrete initiative of six eurodéputés French and Hungarian supported the birth at the end of October 2009 of the Alliance of the European National movements (AMNE) from which the statutes aim at protecting “Europe from the religious imperialism, political, economic and financial”. Although they did not obtain any seat in the European Parliament, the Swedish National-Democrats, Belgian Front National and Fiamma Tricolore (Italy) take part in the AMNE and express their determination to fight against “the euro-mondialisme and the decline”.

Whereas BNP integrated this alliance intended to defend the concept of State-Nations vis-a-vis the road roller of the mondialism stateless person, the FPÖ (Austria) as well as Spanish representatives (MSR) and Portuguese could join it soon. Nations Presse Information evoked at the time of three articles this saving initiative which strongly irritated the lobbies europeists and atlanto-mondialists (1, 2,3). The official site of BNP wrote even a long article devoted to with the genesis of the AMNE.


Comment by CharlesM on March 3, 2010 @ 19:36
The Council of Europe is worst organizations mondialists, fortunately it does not have any real capacity.!! they are nevertheless the European nations (extended to others) which pay the members of them grassement to vote with length of year of motions of this kind. It is necessary to dissolve this thing worse than UNO!

Comment by L' Eaglet on March 3, 2010 @ 19:57
it is all the EU who should be dissolved, earliest will be best, for our Public Safety! to see the analysis of Vladimir Bukovsky:
It is eloquent!

Comment by Pierre on March 3, 2010 @ 20:09
Exactly this thing should be dissolved there. That takes the way of it. See the article Why Greece will leave the Euro; There is not any doubt that Greece will leave the euro shortly. The solutions which could make it possible to maintain it there all are excluded. The first would be that Europe guarantees the Greek debt of State which thus would become a debt of all Europe. The payment of the euro does not allow it and that for obvious reasons: the precedent would be unacceptable. Greece did not ask for Europe the permission of make deficits, quite to the contrary, it made a part in its back of it. If each country could thus draw from the accounts - cheques on the European unit, one would go quickly to generalized laxism. And besides even if this dealt with were possible, the German opinion would not allow it knowing that at the end, it is L `Germany which should pay. See the continuation it is instructive:

Comment by fredx on March 3, 2010 @ 21:14
Supports total at BNP, today BNP, tomorrow the FN?

Comment by JCL31 on March 3, 2010 @ 22:23
@fredx Exactly, if the regional elections are used as clamp in Front National to climb towards the presidential ones, it will occur the same thing. If it were the case, I think that we would have the support of the population because it will become aware in its majority of the organized treason of which it is victim.

British National Party

News from the Liberal Democrats

Green Party News

Conservative Party News

Labour Party News

MPs' expenses Updates