MP wants British ban on Islamic veil

A British lawmaker is refusing to meet female Muslim constituents who wear face-covering veils and has proposed a law banning the practice altogether, he said on Saturday.

Philip Hollobone, a member of parliament (MP) from Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative party, wants to see a French-style ban on women covering their faces in public, although his bill stands little chance of becoming law.

However, in his own constituency of Kettering in central England, he is demanding that women who wear veils and want to meet with him at his constituency surgeries remove them.

"If she said: 'No', I would take the view that she could see my face, I could not see hers, I am not able to satisfy myself she is who she says she is," he told the Independent newspaper.

"I would invite her to communicate with me in a different way, probably in the form of a letter."

He added: "God gave us faces to be expressive. It is not just the words we utter but whether we are smiling, sad, angry or frustrated. You don't get any of that if your face is covered."

There are around 400 Muslims living in Kettering, according to the local Muslim association, out of a total population in the town of over 50,000.

Hollobone has also tabled a bill in parliament to regulate certain face coverings, although it will not be debated until December and is highly unlikely to become law due to lack of government support.

This week, French lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to ban the wearing of face-covering veils in public in a bill which will now go to the Senate for approval.

A poll out Friday found that two-thirds of Britons would support a similar ban.

In 2006, former foreign secretary Jack Straw sparked fierce debate by saying he asked Muslim women to lift their veils during meetings with him in his constituency.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the new 'condem' coalition has no interest in the opinions of the people who voted them into parliament.

"...it will not be debated until December and is highly unlikely to become law due to lack of government support"
yet
"A poll out Friday found that two-thirds of Britons would support a similar ban"

So the majoroty of the public support a ban but the condem party ignore this and wont support it.

Remember this the next time YOU get the chance to vote.

Read original article here

Read More

'Nazi' jibe radio host loses legal bid

A radio host who called a councillor a "Nazi" live on air has lost a legal bid to challenge Ofcom's decision to uphold complaints against him.

Jon Gaunt, who made the comments on Talksport in 2008, said the watchdog's stance was an unlawful interference with his freedom of expression.

Ofcom censured the presenter under its rules on offensive material, after receiving complaints from the public.
Mr Gaunt won permission in January to take action against Ofcom.

Investigation
Ofcom received 53 complaints over Mr Gaunt's interview with Redbridge councillor Michael Stark, which took place in November 2008.

The pair had been debating the council's decision to ban smokers from fostering children when Mr Gaunt called Mr Stark a "Nazi", a "health Nazi" and an "ignorant pig".

Mr Gaunt apologised on-air following the exchange, but Talksport sacked the presenter after its own investigation.

The media regulator noted the apology, but in June 2009 upheld the complaint under the rules regarding offensive material.

Mr Gaunt's lawyers argued that Ofcom infringed Mr Gaunt's right to free speech under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and won the right to take the case to judicial review.
 But at London's High Court on Tuesday, Sir Anthony May and Mr Justice Blair dismissed the proceedings.
Sir Anthony said Ofcom was justified in its conclusion.

"The broadcast was undoubtedly highly offensive to Mr Stark and was well capable of offending the broadcast audience," he said

"The essential point is that the offensive and abusive nature of the broadcast was gratuitous, having no factual content or justification."

Human rights
Mr Gaunt was refused permission to appeal although he can renew his application directly to the Court of Appeal.

Human rights group Liberty, which intervened in the case because of its "wider importance to free speech", said Mr Gaunt and his legal team intended to challenge the ruling.

Ofcom's chief executive Ed Richards, in a statement released after the court's decision, said: "We were perfectly happy for this case to be taken to court to review the way in which we interpret our statutory duties.
"We are very pleased that the High Court has recognised that we came to the right decision in this case. This is a thorough endorsement of our judgment in what was a difficult case."

Click to read the original story

Read More

There ARE different races AND they do have different cultures

A councillor has been found guilty of racial harassment after she called a political opponent a "coconut".

Liberal Democrat Shirley Brown called Asian Conservative Jay Jethwa a "coconut" during a debate at Bristol City Council in February 2009.

District Judge Simon Cooper, sitting at Bristol Magistrates' Court, told Brown: "You made a mistake this time. You have to accept responsibility."
He gave Brown a 12-month conditional discharge.
 She was also ordered to pay £620 costs, following the trial on Monday.

The term coconut has been used to accuse someone of betraying their race or culture by implying that, like a coconut, they are brown on the outside but white on the inside. 

Brown, who is black, had pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The councillor, who represents the Ashley ward of the city, has faced calls to step down from the council.

So it seems that councillor Shirley Brown has no interest in the white race or its problems, and has no interest and does not consider herself part of English culture. Infact she will call any nonwhite person who does ignore race and who does embrace English culture as their own 'a coconut'.

Where are the EHRC or Trevor Phillips when you need them? oh yes, they are busy taking the only political party who do stand up for the white race and who do want to preserve and nurture English culture to court for doing exactley these things.

Read More

Publicly-Funded BBC Actively Discriminates against White People

The BBC has been revealed as pursuing an active anti-white recruitment policy and even takes photographs of potential employees so that their race can be recorded, (in true Nazi fashion), it has been revealed.

According to a Freedom of Information request, as reported in a daily newspaper, nearly half of the places on the BBC journalism trainee scheme have gone to non-whites.

The total number of places available was 51, for which some 5,816 people had applied. Of the 51 selected, 24, or 47 percent, were non-white.

Even more shockingly, candidates who were turned down reported that their photographs were taken in an obvious measure to determine their race.

Candidates were also asked if they had “experience in writing stories that would appeal to people from different racial backgrounds.”

This put white candidates at an immediate and implicit disadvantage, as confirmed by several people interviewed in the press on the issue.

The percentage is way in excess of the current non-white proportion of the population, and is a breach of the Race Relations Act which demands “parity.”

Deliberately favouring one race over another for jobs is illegal in terms of the law, and the BBC’s criterion for selecting its trainee journalists has clearly breached the Act.

The trainee journalist scheme is a three year course which offers on-the-job training, tuition and assessment.

This is not the first time that the BBC has engaged in overt anti-white discriminatory practices.

Apart from the corporation’s unflagging support for immigration and the multicultural disaster, its former director general Greg Dyke famously described his staff as “hideously white.”

The plot to flood the BBC with non-whites is no coincidence and was deliberately planned, a fact revealed by Equality and Human Rights Commission head Trevor Phillips.

In a newspaper interview early in 2010, he said “One of my friends chaired the board for BBC trainees. Thousands apply.

“He went in and said, ‘I’m going to make sure this year it’s not all white boys from Oxbridge’.

“So they advertised in the right way, sifted the candidates in the right way and actually it worked.”

Another newspaper article quoted an unsuccessful white applicant to the scheme as confirming that the recruitment process was biased in favour of non-whites.

“One of the questions the assessors from the BBC asked was to do with what experience I had in developing stories that would be of interest to ethnic minorities,” the unnamed applicant was quoted as saying.

“I thought asking the same question to my ethnic minority would be very unfair as they will have a natural advantage, being from such a background, which then obviously would lead to a better answer, and overall interview.

“I was shocked later to learn — from a friendly Muslim girl who was also at the interview — that she was asked the question and freely admitted it was ‘easy to answer’ because of her community background,” he said.

“I did also think also think it strange that the BBC organisers took photos of all the candidates during the assessments.

“They said it was to “remember our faces” — but now I think it was possibly to confirm what race candidates were when considering who to take onto the scheme.”

Only in Labour and Tory Britain could a publicly-funded corporation actively discriminate against its own indigenous population.

Read More

The number of problem drug users has not fallen despite the Government spending more than £1 billion

Ministers have no idea what impact the money has had, they warned.

The scale of serious drug addicts has remained stable at around 330,000 since 2004 and they cost society around £15 billion a year, virtually all of which is related to crime.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee said the Government spends £1.2 billion a year tackling problem drug use but does not know how effective measures are.

The MPs also called for more drug addicts to be met at the prison gates to ensure their rehabilitation continues outside jail and signalled the worst addicts may be better dealt with in secure residential units than being returned to their communities.

In a report today, the PAC added that the Home Office did not know whether a cross-Whitehall strategy launched in 2008 reduced the cost of crimes committed by problem drug users.

The PAC found that problem drug users typically relapse several times during or after treatment, and that about a quarter resisted any help at all.

Deaths among problem drug users increased in the past five years, to 1,620 in 2008/9.

Edward Leigh, chairman of the PAC, said: "Given the amount of public money being spent, it is unacceptable that the Home Office does not know what overall effect this spending is having.

"It does not carry out enough evaluation of its work and does not know if its drug strategy is directly reducing the overall cost of drug-related crimes.

"It is of particular concern that measures to cut problem drug use by young people are having limited effect.

"Preventing the young from descending into problem drug use is an essential part of bringing down the number of problem drug users in future."

Read More