Barking at the EDL: East London Protest passes off peacefully

Anti-English activists from ‘Unite Against Fascism’ (UAF) have today gathered in Barking with a view to obstructing a democratic protest by the EDL (for an explanation of why the demonstration is taking place see this post by Esmerelda Weatherwax at the New English Review). Elsewhere, soi-disant anti-fascists claim that they have forced “the cancellation of a planned EDL meeting in a Wetherspoon’s pub in Stoke on Trent”. Now, how would they have done that? It wouldn’t have been via making thinly veiled threats to the landlord over the phone should the EDL meeting be permitted to take place would it? Such tactics have been used in Huddersfield and elsewhere in the past. Confirmation of this supposition seems to have been provided by the following quote later taken from the anti-EDL site 'EDL News': "Weatherspoons have told EDL news that they will be refused entry after EDL News readers tipped the management off." Tipped them off? What possible form could this 'tip off' have taken? You can well imagine the minatory tones in which this will have been delivered.

According to reports on the EDL Forum, about 200 supporters turned out (UAF claims circa 100 EDL compared to their 80 counterdemonstrators) to demonstrate this afternoon, some of them depicted in the first of the pictures below. Their generally youthful opposition from UAF is shown in the second. Although it was a fine afternoon, this looks as if it has been quite a small-scale protest. Tactics are of course under review, and it would behove the EDL to move into the sphere of promoting boycotts of businesses that pass on halal meat to unsuspecting customers as well as other forms of visible protest that do not necessarily rely upon marches and formal rallies. Although there is a place for both, the EDL needs to become more focused to achieve its goals and harness the latent mass public sympathy for its position, whilst being mindful of the potential for violent attack from some emotionally overwrought members of anti-English groups. EDL supporters need to ensure both their own safety and that of the general public whilst campaigning against Islamisation. A promotional video for what should be a large EDL demo in Leicester against anti-white racism on 4 February can be accessed at EDL Promo Video: Rhea Page Leicester Demo.

UPDATE: According to the Casuals United blog the aftermath of the protest was not as peaceful as the demonstration itself, for 15 EDL supporters were later arrested in a clash "involving several hundred people". Interestingly, there were only 15 EDL involved. Would 15 really seek to take on hundreds, or were they hounded down by a mob of Muslim residents? A lot of "Allahu-Akbars!" were chanted last night, and one EDL man was taken to hospital so that his injuries could be treated. The truth however will not necessarily out, not via the NUJ-controlled press at any rate.

Barking EDL/Muslims Against Crusades Video Footage

As can be seen from the following footage, tempers were running high in Barking today when the Muslims Against Crusades group took to the streets to curse the return of the Royal Anglian Regiment. Still, it is heartening to see that support for the troops far outweighed the disparagement that was forthcoming from this nasty group of Mohammedan loudmouths.

Today Programme is Barking Mad

This morning's report on the electoral campaign in Barking was as far removed from the BBC's obligation to be impartial as could be imagined. The Today Programme reporter did his utmost to talk up Margaret Hodge's prospect of winning the seat and sought out as many voters as possible who had something negative to say about the BNP. He also made the most risible comment of the parliamentary campaign that I have heard so far - that many in Barking may be considering voting Liberal Democrat in order to deal with its housing problem! As the Liberal Democrats wish to provide an amnesty to an estimated 1.1 million immigrants and would wish to see many more immigrants flood into the country, any indigenous voter considering casting their ballot for this party should have their head examined. The Liberal Democrats would give priority in housing allocation to any immigrant family/individual which they deemed to have greater legitimate needs than the local population, leaving the latter to rot.

Unsurprisingly, owing to the BBC's unrelenting hostility towards the BNP and its associated tendentious distorted reporting of the party, Richard Barnbrook refused to allow the Today Programme the opportunity of interviewing Nick Griffin or any of the BNP team working in the constituency. The manner in which this report was conducted could readily be interpreted as an attempt by Radio 4 to subvert the democratic process in Barking. My message to the disgruntled voters of Barking is this: if you want your situation to change for the better, vote BNP and return Nick Griffin to Westminster, for the other parties don't give a damn about you and will definitely place the needs of immigrants before yours.

Panorama on Population Growth in the UK

A General Election is approaching so the BBC decides to run a Panorama episode entitled "Is Britain Full?" Given that we have a severe housing shortage that grows worse by the day, continuous mass unemployment and underemployment, a virtually gridlocked road network and overloaded public transport system, schools where English is the minority language and areas of many of our towns and cities where you could quite readily believe yourself to be in Pakistan, Somalia or Nigeria, it is astonishing that the BBC has to arrange these three words in that particular order. My preference would be "Britain is full."

Granted, at least this immigration-driven issue was given an airing, but what was unspoken in the report was as telling as that which was said. It did touch upon the additional strains upon housing, the NHS, schools, transport and water supply, but not once did it mention the social problems caused by the de facto colonisation of a significant part of our urban landscape, and the resultant Islamisation and violent gang culture introduced by different immigrant groups. It did not mention the negative impact on the schooling of native British children caused by these factors and the influx of large numbers of non-English speakers. It did not mention the settlement of asylum claimaints (officially referred to as "seekers" irrespective of whether or not they are genuinely seeking asylum) or illegal immigration and people trafficking.

Even if net immigration were to be reduced to zero, if significant numbers of native Britons were to be replaced by Pakistanis, Somalis and Nigerians etc, this would still have a very negative impact upon the composition of our society and the quality of life of indigenous Britons.

What this Panorama episode did was afford spokesmen from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties the opportunity to talk about their policies on immigration three weeks in advance of a General Election whilst not interviewing representatives of the BNP or UKIP. Thus the Tories were afforded the chance to proffer their bogus 'tough' stance on immigration which allegedly involves an annual "cap" on numbers although they will provide no figures; Phil Woolas was able to lie again and claim that immigration was falling, and Chris Huhne of the Liberal Democrats was able to talk about his party's hare-brained scheme of settling immigrants in areas of the UK that they consider to be relatively underpopulated ('unenriched' in their dreadfully euphemistic parlance). Surely the electorate, who cite immigration as the second most pressing problem, will not be stupid enough to vote for Clegg's bunch will they? Well, alas, this is what the controlled media would like to see happen, and what looks increasingly likely.

As with all BBC documentaries on immigration it contained an obligatory swipe at the BNP and a trip to Barking to speak to a token white working-class mother whose family have to live in housing blighted by mould and damp because social housing is being taken by immigrants. Her children were all suffering from asthma as a consequence. That any of our people have to live in such conditions is a scandal, and whilst any of our own have to live in squalor no immigrant should have any entitlement whatsoever to social housing. What is for certain is that none of our mainstream political parties (the Greens are even worse incidentally) are willing to tackle the immigration issue.

If you desire a peaceful future with a good quality of life for your children, there is no alternative but to shut the door to further immigration. We do not owe the world a living, and those from other parts of the globe should possess no right to settle here. Anyone who is admitted to our country should be given the right to residence only in exceptional circumstances. It should not be the norm as it is now. Think nationalist, vote nationalist. Vote BNP on 6 May.

Barking: BNP Target Seat Number One

Much has changed in recent years, so this seat, which once would have been considered solid Labour territory, now provides the BNP with its best prospect of securing its first MP. Those members of the traditional white working class who remain have been abandoned by a Labour Party that has long since embraced corporate globalism and the cause of ethnic minority special interest groups to the detriment of its own people.

Can Nick Griffin take Barking? That is for the voters to decide. But what proportion of electors in the seat can we now safely describe as English? It is well known that the mass influx of immigrants over the past decade in particular has caused an exodus of those indigenous inhabitants willing and able to find a home elsewhere. Those who remain have felt increasingly alienated and marginalized, but will they vote BNP?

The census figures for 2001 detailed Barking and Dagenham’s ethnic profile as follows: 78.2% white; 10.5% black; 7.2% Asian; 2.4% mixed race and 1.7% Chinese. Almost a decade has since elapsed, so we can anticipate that the white proportion will have diminished by at least 10% owing to native outmigration and the arrival of immigrants. We are also safe to assume that the ethnic minority vote for the BNP will not be significant.

The BNP made an electoral breakthrough on Barking and Dagenham Council in 2006, securing the election of 12 councillors making it the second largest party behind Labour. Subsequently however, one of these seats was lost in a by-election. As for the parliamentary constituency of Barking, its boundaries have changed since the 2005 General Election, but UK Polling Report notes that whilst these changes “appear to reduce the BNP’s support in the seat, the BNP returned councillors in all three of the new wards in 2006 and they are likely to prove fertile territory”.

Looking at the 2005 results, we can see that then BNP parliamentary candidate Richard Barnbrook came close to taking second place to Labour from the Conservatives: he secured 16.9% of the vote, just 27 votes short of the Tories’ 17.1%. Margaret Hodge, the winning candidate, won the seat with 47.8% of the vote and a majority of 8,883. Can Nick Griffin leapfrog his way to the top? It is a daunting task.

Hodge has played up “the BNP threat” considerably during recent years, but this can be seen as a standard Labour tactic employed in an attempt to mobilise erstwhile supporters who cannot be bothered to vote any longer as they feel (correctly) that the Labour Party no longer listens to them or represents their interests. Hodge, a multimillionaire, has little or nothing in common with traditional Labour supporters. Griffin and the BNP on the other hand, offer the prospect of real hope to the beleaguered indigenous inhabitants of Barking.

The mass media have worked themselves up into a lather about the BNP challenge in Barking, much more so than in Keighley where Nick Griffin stood in 2005. Although the BNP has changed its constitution and won a popular mandate in elections to the Greater London Assembly and the EU Parliament, the mass media and other political parties remain inveterately hostile. Still, the reality of rapid demographic change, a chronic housing shortage and economic dislocation will cause many voters to see through the media lies peddled about the BNP. The real reason underpinning the Establishment’s hatred of the BNP is the fact that it is the only political party in the UK to stand up against globalist corporatist interests in favour of ordinary people.

As in 2005, UKIP are fielding a candidate, so we can expect a small percentage of nationalist votes to be siphoned off by Frank Maloney. However, UKIP only managed 2.8% of the vote last time, and it may be the case that on this occasion some nationalists will hopefully switch to the BNP. Margaret Hodge affects concern about the fact that the Christian Party is fielding a candidate in the person of George Hargreaves, for she along with some other commentators believes that Hargreaves could successfully attract many black evangelical Christians away from the Labour Party. Realistically, can he expect to secure more than 2% of the vote?

Ideally, Nick Griffin will win this seat. However, if he does not, he must secure second place with at least 25% of the vote for the BNP to retain its momentum. I am confident that he will be able to push the Conservatives into third place, but taking the seat from Hodge is a tall order. If we assume that Hodge loses 2% of the vote share to the Christian Party and a further 8% to the BNP, that would still leave Labour with a total of 38% and the seat in their hands. However, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the voters of Barking will express their displeasure with the mainstream parties and Labour's promotion of mass immigration by giving them a bloody nose by electing the UK’s first BNP MP on 6 May 2010. Paddypower.com is currently offering odds of 7/2 for Nick Griffin to take the seat.

UKIP Targets Barking

The Times reports that UKIP is to stand a parliamentary candidate to contest the Barking constituency at the upcoming General Election. Paul Wiffen is said to be its favoured choice, and with Lord Pearson at the helm as UKIP's newly elected leader, it is hoped that it will exert a greater appeal by focusing upon attacking Islamism following Lord Pearson's recent comments on this issue. However, UKIP's decision to stand in Barking with the expressed intention of confronting Nick Griffin is in reality a myopic move, for it will only serve to split the nationalist vote and in all likelihood allow Margaret Hodge to cling to power.

UKIP should not stand in Barking. Its expressed intention of doing so is detrimental to the national interest, and indicates that UKIP is willing to place narrow party interests before those of the nation. If UKIP were truly  interested in confronting Islamism, it would step aside to allow Nick Griffin a clear run at this parliamentary seat, for he stands a real chance of winning and would certainly not be afraid to speak out on this issue at Westminster. A vote for UKIP in Barking will in effect be a vote for the treacherous millionairess Margaret Hodge.

If any of you are thinking of voting UKIP, I would urge you to cast your vote for the BNP instead if the latter are standing in your constituency. If there is a UKIP candidate but no representation from the BNP, then by all means vote for the former, but do bear in mind that only a vote for the BNP will guarantee that your ballot will be counted towards the election of a true nationalist candidate who will not sell out your interests as an indigenous Briton. Vote BNP in 2010.

Reference: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6935779.ece