Saturday, 29 December 2018

Labour MP turned into ordinary criminal

Fiona Onasanya, who was convicted of perverting the course of justice

Labour MP turned into ordinary criminal

She has the luxury and the privilege of being a Member of Parliament belonging to an ethnic minority at a time when many talk about representation of ethnic minorities in the House of Commons. 

She was accused of driving at more than 30 miles an hour in a 20 miles an hour zone. What would have been the rational and decent thing to do? To apologise, pay the penalty and move on with her life and her political life. 

Instead, she chose to lie and not only that. She accused an innocent man of involvement and gave a false address. It didn't register in her mind that the Police would try and contact the person she falsely accused. The authorities found out that the man in question was not even in the country when the incident took place.

She was rightfully convicted of Perverting the Course of Justice - one the most serious crimes anyone can ever commit in the United Kingdom - and is due for sentencing. This individual has let down the Labour Party, has let down her constituents, has let down herself and those related to her and has become an ordinary criminal with the aggravation of having committed a crime being not just a member of the public but an elected representative.

She has proven that she is not somebody that can be trusted and she has proven that she doesn't have the moral fibre to be a Member of Parliament. 

I am sure that there are many potential representatives of Black communities in the United United Kingdom that could do a much better job than this despicable individual. She is a disgrace to her own race.

Thursday, 27 December 2018

President Obama: Nobel Prize for peace in Palestine? What peace in Palestine?

President Obama: Nobel Prize for peace in Palestine? What peace in Palestine?

As we follow what has been happening in Palestine and in the Middle East in general, we ask the question again: what was the Nobel Prize for Barak Obama about? What has fundamentally changed in the situation being faced by Israelis and Palestinians? What long term beneficial arrangement has been reached?

But lets also look at other issues and one of such issues is Libya and what happened in Libya during President Obama's administration with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The Arab Spring turned into the Arab Nightmare that became Europe's nightmare. The US Administration created refugees and Europe had to deal with the refugees and/or economic migrants (whichever title you want to give to the massive number of people who were displaced or simply decided to move out of their own countries in search for the Christian Paradise that many are trying to turn into a Muslim Dominion.

This is not only about the wisdom of military interventions. It is about the consequences of disastrous US Foreign Policies under a Democratic Administration. USA is far away from Africa, Middle East and Asia Minor, but it is Europe the one that has to deal with the consequences of disastrous US Foreign Policies.

Did President Obama deal with North Korea? No. It was necessary to wait for President Trump to deal with North Korea and he didn't do it with weapons. President Trump did it with words, talking to people and seeking an understanding. There are no more North Korea missiles flying over neighbouring countries. No more talk about missile attacks against the USA. There is a path towards peace between two countries in the Korean Peninsula. No more resources invested in wasteful naval military exercises seen as a threat and justification for nuclear developments. Is there any talk about giving President Trump a Nobel Prize? 

When President Trump talks about immigration, he refers to legal immigration. Is it wrong to say that anybody coming to the USA must have proper documentation? The Democratic Party supports Illegal Immigration. How can Democratic support for Illegal Immigration be compatible with National Security?

The leaders of the Democratic Party are against defending the USA faced with Illegal Immigration and are willing to bring the entire state administration to a halt so that they can get their way. With this behaviour, the Democratic Party doesn't stand for American Values and doesn't stand for US National Security either. Legal means legal. I wouldn't dream about travelling to the USA without proper documentation. 

Wednesday, 26 December 2018

Nostradamus and the Middle East: Are we on the verge of a major cataclism?

Image result for Middle East
Nostradamus and the Middle East: Are we on the verge of a major disaster? In the 1990s and then again in 2003, the issue was Iraq, and Palestine was an ongoing headache that had become a constant and so there were no unexpected consequences believed to be about to come out of it.

What Western military intervention in Iraq in 2003 opened was a can of worms that is now spreading in every direction reaching Europe with very undesirable effects to the point that political stability in Europe is being seriously undermined.

Despite the fact that the major players, US and Russia are decidedly involved in a series of conflicts, the risk is that those trying to fill up the gaps might unwittingly turn regional issues into something major.

When secondary players become involved, there might be not enough reasons for restraint and as the battle of words takes over the unexpected might happen. There are government and there are populations and government playing the tune for internal audiences in an effort to prevent or to counter internal upheaval are most dangerous since external wars are thought to be - a good way to silence internal opposition or to cover up bad governance.

The South Atlantic War initiated by the Argentinian Military Junta was a desperate attempt by the military to play for time when the military were loosing control. They need something that could unite a very divided Argentina. Whatever can be used to counter internal divisions will be used to try and unite public opinion in favour of governments. 

Kurdish struggle towards statehood goes on. Kurdish populations exist in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and also in Syria and Turkey is the one most affected. Israel and Iran have been at odds for a very long time. Israel favoured the invasion of Iraq and now is pushing the US to see Iran as a valid target and to justify military operations within Syrian territory. While many in the European Union favoured the continuation of a nuclear deal signed up with Iran, US withdrew from the pact and has announced that it would be reduced its military intervention in Syria. Israeli action in Syria and elsewhere justify the level of mistrust of Iranian authorities when Iranians who are fighting against Islamic State are being killed by Israeli jets.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are in a proxy war in Yemen. Qatar is leaving OPEC and is not in good terms with Saudi Arabia. Lebanon and Jordan could be brought into conflict due to Israel military operations in the region. And then there is the relationship between European countries and countries in the Middle East. Germany and France announced an embargo on arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Turkey - a NATO country - threatened France - another NATO country - about French military operations in support of Kurdish fighters in Syria.

Where the initial flash will come from that will trigger a major conflict is everybody's guess but there are plenty of possibilities for disaster to strike. The assassination of a Saudi Arabian journalist in spite of the savagery and callousness shown by the Saudi Arabian Monarchy might be seen as insignificant when it comes to a very difficult balancing exercise.

Britain's attempt to defuse the situation in Yemen has to do with putting an end to a human catastrophe but it has also the aim of reducing the chances of a direct confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

We are dealing with a House of Cards. One wrong move and wars will spread in every direction. 

Tuesday, 25 December 2018

There is true British Nationalism but it is nothing to do with labels

There is true British Nationalism but it is nothing to do with labels

I spent many years surrounded by individuals who called themselves Nationalists and Patriots but in actual fact they have done absolutely nothing for what should be true British Nationalism. They spoke against immigration saying "we are being replaced, this country is coming to an end, those foreigners are having too many babies and there are far too many foreigners", et cetera, et cetera.

I went to what were supposed to be political meetings and what I found out is that most of those in attendance were either single, widowed or divorced and that a minute minority actually had husbands and wives and children. On top of that the average age was going up and up and up and at one point the meetings became a gathering of the same faces but older.

I heard people talking endlessly about families and the importance of keeping communities together but most of them didn't have families and apart from attending the said meetings most of them lived alone and hardly mingled with the local communities.

I also found out that amongst the so called Nationalists and Patriots were people filled up with conspiracy theories and personal animosities that from time to time erupted turning into confrontation and declared personal wars that suddenly at an ever faster pace led to people simply walking away to the point that sooner than later the number of those in attendance could be counted with the fingers of two hands.

They were still talking about saving the world but I suspect that many of them couldn't even save themselves as some were already falling into financial difficulties. In my honest opinion, such kind of pseudo Nationalism and Pseudo Patriotism is a social disease because it gives it destroy in peoples' minds the concept and perception of what it means to be Nationalist and Patriotic.

They spoke endlessly about winning elections but when asked about what policies they supported and how they were planning to achieve what they want their faces showed very clearly that they didn't have a clue about how they were going to go about it. Most probably they thought that shouting as loud as possible British Job for the British Workers they were going to achieve some kind of miracle without ever having to do hard work to achieve what they wanted. With regularity I talked about the need to know about the real issues instead of just going around with slogans and fabrications.Not that they were willing to listen or try to engage in real politics.

When the time came, exhausted, I decided that I had had enough of such company. I started to feel that I was degrading myself, fooling myself by thinking that anything worth considering was going to come out of such company. Years passed and little has changed apart from the fact that the old faces are older and that the brains behind those faces are too lazy or incapable of doing anything of value. The infighting goes on but it is now less visible because, after all, there are fewer of the said Nationalists and Patriots. Most of those who were worth something moved on. 

There is a select group of people that I call 'Idealists', the 'True Believers', but there are so few of the Idealists and True Believers that they practically don't stand a chance of changing what needs to be changed because on top of having to struggle to generate some momentum and sense of direction they are burdened and dragged down by those who don't have any intention of becoming a real political organisation with a true sense of purpose. 

Nationalism is about real work. Those who still believe that organising a few meetings, reading newspaper cuttings to an ever dwindling audience, having a collection cap in hand to try and collect few pennies, drink a few pints and do nothing else is Nationalism, they can go and get stuffed. Such looser tactics are ruining everything for those who really Nationalism when they use the word.

Friday, 21 December 2018

President Donald Trump: Some pluses along the way

President Donald Trump: Some pluses along the way

I was one of those who criticised US involvement in Syria that I saw as counterproductive because it meant an illegal intervention in the sovereign territory of another country that would also delay the resolution of a very bloody conflict. Supporting rebels and targeting government forces that were trying to restore control could only benefit Islamic State-linked guerrillas.

The news that the US is reducing or ceasing its operations in Syria is welcomed news because it allows the administration to focus on vital issues. 

North Korea had been a constant concern. The increasing number of missile launches with rockets that reached as far as Japan was a major issue that had to be resolved. President Trump not only managed to persuade North Korea to stop missile launches. It also managed to open the way to create goodwill between the two sides in the conflict in the Korean Peninsula and cancelled a vast expenditure item in the US Defence budget by getting rid of annual military exercises in the region.

The building of a wall to prevent illegal immigration is a fundamental step in terms of National Security. Legal immigration is allowed but the closing of gates that allow regular passage of illegals and drugs is an absolute necessity. In a budget measured in trillions of Dollars, 5 billion Dollars is just peanuts to deal with a very serious problem.

I might disagree with other items of US Foreign Policy, but I totally agree and I fully support measures to support a peaceful way in the Korean Peninsula, a reduction of US intervention in Syria and the construction of the wall for very valid reasons including National Security. Illegal immigration, drugs and other forms of criminality associated with drugs are extremely serious matters.

President Donald Trump is not closed for business. Quite the opposite. He hasn't closed the door to other countries in the Americas. A new deal with Mexico and Canada will be beneficial for all those involved. Asking for fairness is not extreme. 

With regards to Britain, the EU and the relationship with the USA, it is fair to say that taxes applied on US imports are absolutely unfair. Why should an American car be taxed more than an EU made car? Many in the EU talk against protectionism when the EU is nothing more than a gigantic protectionist block that not only damages the US economy but also the economies of many Developing Countries. The anomaly is such that Britain is applying EU Tariffs on products that Britain needs and doesn't produce. Asking for fairness, once again, is not extreme.

Thursday, 20 December 2018

Jayda Fransen was told that she wasn't allowed to live in Northern Ireland but was forced by English Court to live in Northern Ireland

Jayda Fransen was told that she wasn't allowed to live in Northern Ireland but was forced by English Court to live in Northern Ireland

The original sentence after spending nine months in jail was that she could not live in her house in Northern Ireland. She was released and the bail conditions were that she could not live in her own home and had to pay for rented accommodation something that she couldn't afford for too long and the alternative was to start sleeping rough.

At this point, she decided to return to her own home in Northern Ireland. British authorities then requested that she should return to England where she was arrested at Gatwick Airport, taken to Bromley South Police Station, spent the night in a Police Station cell and in the morning was taken to Bromley Magistrates Court that told her to sign a form indicating that she could only live in her house in Northern Ireland.

So what was all this about? She was arrested because she went to live in her House in Northern Ireland and the court in England decided that she could only live in Northern Ireland. 

Police resources were wasted, Court resources were wasted and Jayda Fransen's life was unjustifiably turned into living hell because of the madness of the legal system. As if this wasn't enough, Police Officers who went to Gatwick Airport to arrest her didn't have a clue about the whole affair and asked for her passport when Police Forces themselves had taken her passport and even threatened her with trumped charges.

Gatwick Drone: National Security? What a sad joke!

Gatwick Drone: National Security? What a sad joke!

Prime Minister Theresa May vowed to destroy the network of  Russian Intelligence Operations in the United Kingdom. Mmm..... yes. How much money is invested/wasted in clown security operations? 

Is Britain safe? No, it isn't. Political correctness and sheer stupidity are Britain's greatest weakness. National Action a terrorist threat? Really? Who was in charge when National Action was banned? Amber Rudd. Do you really believe that Amber Rudd is somebody you can trust with the reins of the Home Office? Absolutely not. Do you think Amber Rudd is somebody you can trust with Social Security? Absolutely not.

We have rulers that spend more than an hour shouting at each other because they thought that Jeremy Corbyn called Theresa May 'stupid woman'. Is this the way to spend Parliamentary time? People are dying close to the House of Commons. People are killing themselves because of the failures of the state run by a bunch of idiots handsomely paid by taxpayers to do a job that they are not doing. National Security? Really?

When the entire operation of flights to and from the United Kingdom can be disrupted by a single drone, where is National Security. The British government is a shambles but the Official Opposition is not up to scratch. It cannot keep the Government to account not even when the British government is against the ropes. 

The images broadcast yesterday showing Police Officers that were blissfully unaware that they were asking for an identity document that was already in the hands of the authorities show how idiotic Police Services are. Where is coordination of Police Services? Is this the way Police Services operate across the United Kingdom? The whole saga goes on and on and it beggars belief.

Wednesday, 19 December 2018

Amber Rudd: Take Zero Hour Contract jobs or lose benefits?

Amber Rudd: Take Zero Hour Contract jobs or lose benefits?

She made a mess as Home Office Secretary and now she is making a mess in Social Security. One gaffe was not enough. Here comes another. 

In a country in which the number of people sleeping rough is rising, in which people are killing themselves because they don't have enough to live on, here comes Amber Rudd to tell them that 'they have to take Zero Hour Contract employment not to lose welfare payments'.

Brought back from the cold after taking a bullet that was meant for British Prime Minister Theresa May related to the Windrush Scandal because she didn't know what goes on in the Home Office, she was paid back by bringing her back into the Cabinet. Not enough time went by before there is yet another scandal.

Is Amber Rudd doing it on purpose? Why having such political liability inside the British government?


Project Fear: Jayda Fransen arrested at Gatwick Airport today

Jayda Fransen arrested at Gatwick Airport today and more examples of Police Incompetence

Police officers arrest Jayda Fransen at Gatwick Airport today

From my own research into British Security Services, I know about the lack of coordination between Security Services. Britain is spending vast amounts of money and authorities want to make you believe that you are protected. Protected from what? 

They knew the culprits of July 7th 2005. How many people died or lost limbs because of the incompetence of the Security Services? They knew the men who killed Lee Rigby. Lee Rigby was beheaded in plain view of passers by. They knew the identity of the culprit that detonated explosives in Manchester at a music concert. What happened? Men, women and children were killed.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are not protected at all. Dwindling numbers of officers of  Security Services are being used in political persecution, harassing and playing a role in what is no more than pretence. Numbers of Police officers are falling across the United Kingdom and mismanagement is all too obvious.

Those sent to Gatwick Airport today asked Jayda Fransen for her passport. She explained that she couldn't produce a passport because her passport had been taken by another branch of the Security Services. Later on they got into a frenzy when one of the officers accused her of trying to reach his gun. A grown-up man behaving like an idiot. How can we trust individuals that show such levels of incompetence?

In the face of danger, Britain is naked. The only reason Britain is not brought down to its knees is that those seeking to harm Britain have not decided to launch a lethal attack.

While Ministers in charge of the Defence of the Realm kiss each other and congratulate themselves for the good work that they are blatantly incompetent to do, the Armed Forces are also facing a crisis. The gates have been opened to those coming from the Commonwealth who would like to join the British Armed Forces but, wait a minute, many of those coming from the Commonwealth are Muslims. So now Muslims who might have the intent to harm Britain are going to be trained and armed by the British Armed Forces. What a diabolic idea!

Project Fear: Fear as a Political Tool

Project Fear: Fear as a Political Tool

Since the beginning of time, fear has been a tool to be used to get what you want. You can pretend that you are bigger and stronger than you actually are. One example of such tactic is what Britain did soon after the evacuation operation in Dunkirk in 1940. The RAF was not at full strength. The Army was on its knees with soldiers that barely managed to escape carrying their rifles. The only significant tool at the time was the Royal Navy. But many felt that Britain was playing for time. Suddenly, out of nowhere, pretend weapons, pretend artillery, pretend aircraft started to appear so that enemy reconnaissance crews could see that Britain was not naked but ready to defend itself.

Debates that cannot be won with serious propositions based on factual evidence can be won with fear. You want to make people believe that a threat is very real and your proposed course of action should be adopted as a matter of urgency. You can make people feel that they are weaker than they actually are and that should they try to operate independently from others they will be doomed. The purpose of this is to keep people chained to a particular situation of dependency. Beware! We are facing the abyss! Suddenly, without any real justification and simply because mass media messages keep talking about the impending catastrophe, many are convinced that the threat is real and that something absolutely tragic is going to happen if they choose to go their own way.

The more credible the media that spread fear the more people will believe that a certain threat is real. Orson Welles knew it very well when a radio broadcast told American listeners that the USA was being invaded by extraterrestrials. The radio broadcast was followed by a panic wave.

To counter fear, we need facts and credible force to ensure that if there is a panic reaction the situation is going to be under control. Force does not merely exist to counter a threat if there is a real threat but also to reassure those who might panic and engage in actions that would be counterproductive for themselves and others.

Politics is increasingly dominated by all kinds of project-fear and fear has political consequences. Public Opinion is driven by a mix of facts, personal experiences, rumours, presumptions and half truths and this is why perception is so critically important. To alter perception, political operators, mass media and para-political organisations. There is a vast array of labels that can be used to distort political messages, to demonise those who hold different views and to basically prevent their views from becoming widespread. 

Labels like Nazi, Fascist, Racist, Homophobe, Anti-Semite, Islamophobe, et cetera are widely used with a given political purpose: to discredit political opponents. Those using such labels know perfectly well that audiences can be switched off by eliciting an emotional reaction to the said labels. Individuals not only have the capacity to think. They have emotions and if emotions can be manipulated everybody - even the most bright - can be influenced and made to more in a certain direction. Manipulated reactions can become stereotypical to the point that even the most rational of individuals stops thinking.

If I were to ask an individual in Britain if he/she believes that people should be banned from a certain profession or activity on political grounds, the said person would say: Absolutely not. The grounds for such response would be: in a democratic society no one should be discriminated against on political grounds.

When your enquire becomes specific to a particular group, suddenly the answer changes and all kinds of justifications arise that contradict the initial answer to support discrimination on political grounds. The rational process stops and decisions are made because of stereotypes.

There is little difference between the Nuremberg Laws of the 1930s and the attitudes of Liberals and Marxists of today. In the 1930s, laws were passed preventing Jews from getting involved in certain working activities/professions. Today, people that are loosely called Far Right are discriminated against and not allowed access to certain professions and occupations. The Far Right of today are the Jews of the 1930s.

The striking similarities between the Nuremberg Laws of the 1930s and today's restrictions imposed for political reasons are not mere coincidence. Modern Britain looks increasingly similar to the Weimar Republic. We have reached the point when Anti-Terror Legislation is being used for Political Persecution and the independence of the Crown Persecution Service has been compromised. Influential groups are exerting pressure on the legal system and have become the New Inquisition. Cases discarded by the Crown Prosecution Service and Police Authorities for lack of merit are being re-instated and Probation Services are being used to harass those persecuted and jailed for political reasons.

What is happening is not reassuring and sooner than later there will be dramatic consequences that society as a whole will regret. The reactions that we have already seen are merely the tip of the iceberg of what is to come. 


Tuesday, 18 December 2018

Walker/Jefferson: The Demise of the British National Party

Walker/Jefferson: The Demise of the British National Party

Clive Jefferson and Adam Walker
Reading pages of Hope Not Hate or other pages in Internet referring to what happened to the British National Party, the truth of the matter is that most of what happened to the British National Party has been self-inflicted.

Practically every negative event that led to its fall from grace has been linked to mishandling and bad management of one kind or another.

The organisation came to prominence after winning two seats in the European Parliament on the back of an anti-immigration stance that also led to a Referendum on EU Membership that in 2016, several year later, produced Brexit when the British National Party itself went through a series of scandals, electoral losses and leadership challenges that sent the organisation into the shadows of political activity in the United Kingdom.

Before that, in 2006, the British National Party had won 12 seats in the London Borough of Barking and this was followed in 2008 by the election of Richard Barnbrook as London Assembly Member, setting the tone for what was going to happen during the European Election of 2009.  

After the departure of John Tyndall - former National Front politician - with the arrival of Nick Griffin, for many years the name British National Party was closely associated with its Leader that as a Cambridge University graduate had a taste and talent for mass media. Wherever Nick Griffin went, mass media were not far behind and the organisation was constantly in the public limelight. Nick Griffin made the British National Party a household name and as the popularity of so called mainstream political parties was floundering people who had never even thought about supporting the British National Party voted in rows leading to the election of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons as Members of the European Parliament. All was well. The organisation has established a foothold in London of all places, in Europe, but the House of Commons remained an elusive target.

Having a Member of the London Assembly, 12 Councillors in Barking and 2 MEPs was impressive but in practical terms it couldn't make much of a difference from a political point of view. The struggle had to continue by means of constant campaigning as little could be done with such a small number of elected representatives. The British National Party could bark from behind the fence but the real game was taking place elsewhere in the hands of so called mainstream political parties. It could have made a difference in financial terms as monies were flowing in and this would have allowed important organisational developments that could have strengthened the British National Party to make it able to win more seats to then become a force to be reckoned with.

Infighting and bad decision making exposed the organisation to ridicule as everybody interested in destroying the British National Party could take advantage of all the mistakes being made. Unity in the European Parliament didn't last. Very soon, there were distinct factions that were at each other's throats and this spread downwards affecting the grassroots of the organisation whose efforts had made possible electoral success. 

Electoral gains based on slogans couldn't last long without serious political hard-work. Central Office sucked the life out of the branches of the organisation that had made success possible and disintegration followed. Some blamed Nick Griffin for all the ills of the organisation but they seldom paid any attention to the fact that far too many people were merely interested in slogans as they had no inclination in getting involved with the laborious workings of politics. For a organisation to remain a meaningful political force it is necessary that after promising the Earth there is some kind of delivery to justify trust in the organisation.

Unavoidably, all electoral success was quickly wiped-out and lessons were not learnt. Infighting continued. Today, the British National Party has invisible Leader (Adam Walker) and invisible Deputy Leader (Clive Jefferson). Its Central Office has been practically dismantled. Local and Regional Organisers have been dismissed or have walked away. The organisation has less than 500 members. Even the man that stood as Candidate in several elections including the 2016 London Assembly Election (Dave Furness) and was also its main speaker in dealings with mass media as Press Officer has been banned from speaking to mass media.

The BNP Leadership - Adam Walker and Clive Jefferson - will be challenged in court accused of financial irregularities and of changing legally protected areas of the party's Constitution but unless the faithful find a Messiah to deliver them from political evil the chances of being able to revive what was a very successful organisation hang in the balance.

With Adam Walker as Leader (a Karate instructor and former military man with no political experience and no mass media experience whatsoever) -  and with Clive Jefferson as Deputy Leader and National Treasurer (a retired engineer of whom two companies were closed down by the Inland Revenue for failure to produce proper accounts), the organisation has no hope in hell of achieving political prominence any time soon.

In spite of all odds, the grassroots made up of members and former members of the British National Party remain hopeful. They are not just praying for a miracle but actively working to turn things around for good in an organisation that is being used by Adam Walker and Clive Jefferson to supplement their incomes using legacies, donations and membership fees to support themselves. 

Monday, 17 December 2018

Brexit: The climate of political uncertainty could lead to the unthinkable

Brexit: The climate of political uncertainty could lead to the unthinkable

This evening while travelling I asked an elderly passenger on a train going home if in his own personal experience he had witnessed a political crisis like the one Britain is facing right now. You can ask a politician, a journalist, an ordinary member of the public and nobody has the faintest idea about 'what next?'.

The House of Commons is due to consider on January 29 2018 a deal negotiated by Prime Minister Theresa May that will be presumably exactly the same deal that many Members of Parliament said that they would reject because they think that it is a very bad deal for Britain and its relations with the European Union, a deal that does not respect the will of the British Electorate expressed in the 2016 Referendum on EU Membership.

There are those who push for a Vote of No Confidence against the present British government headed by Theresa May. Some see it as a way to force Prime Minister Theresa May to resign. Some talk about a General Election and others talk about a new Referendum on EU Membership.

One wonders about what could happen if Theresa May - that has just been confirmed as Leader of the Conservative Party after a Leadership Challenge - loses a Vote of No Confidence in the House of Commons. Even if the Deal the Prime Minister negotiated by Parliament, Theresa May would continue as Prime Minister because of regulations of the Conservative Party that prevent any challenges. She could stay as Prime Minister for another year.

Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn hesitates about asking for a Vote of No confidence. Having done the political sums, he knows that a Vote of No Confidence is a risky option. Members of Parliament from all political parties - including the Labour Party - could vote against it. It could unite the Conservative Party and produce an embarrassing defeat for the Labour Party under his leadership. Moreover, most Labour Constituencies across the country voted to Leave the European Union.

At Committee Level, enquiries have continued about the level of preparedness to face a No Deal outcome. The legality of the Deal proposed by Prime Minister Theresa May has been questioned since it goes against legislation passed by Parliament that determined that Britain will be leaving the European Union on March 29th 2019.  

In May 2019, about a month after Britain is set to leave the European Union, there will be European Parliament Elections that would produce a new political reality in the European Union. What kind of EU Parliament and what kind of European Commission would the said elections produce? Would there be a more favourable environment in terms of a better agreement with the United Kingdom?

Prime Minister Theresa May was severely criticised for not putting her Deal to a vote on the day it was supposed to be put to a vote. Some say that it happened because she was afraid of yet another significant defeat in the House of Commons that could end her political career. Others say that she is playing for time trying to get further concessions from the EU.

Wednesday, 12 December 2018

Brexit, Theresa May and Votes of No Confidence

Brexit, Theresa May and Votes of No Confidence

If the 2017 General Election and threats of deselection in the Labour Party tell us that even if there is  Leadership Challenge in the Conservative Party or No Confidence vote in the House of Commons the outcome of such events is by no means certain.

Given the rules of the Conservative Party, if the 48 signatures needed are gathered there will have to be enough Conservative MPs willing to support the challenge against Theresa May. Another calculation that needs to be made is if there are suitable replacements. Is there one Conservative MP willing to stand up with enough support from all factions of a very divided Conservative Party? If the number of MPs ready and willing to support the challenge is not found, Theresa May will be confirmed as Leader and a year will have to pass before there can be another challenge.

After the experiences of what happened in the 2017 General Election, many Conservative MPs will think twice or thrice before challenging the present status quo for fear of losing their seats and opening the door to a Jeremy Corbyn government.

In the Labour Party, the threat of deselection of Labour MPs is very real. Will those Labour MPs standing against Jeremy Corbyn want to take the risk of opening the door to a Jeremy Corbyn government and lose their seats in the process? They might also choose to maintain the status quo for fear of losing their seats and of seeing very unpopular policies implemented by a government led by Jeremy Corbyn. Many Labour MPs feel more secure in their seats having a Conservative government and have more in common with certain factions of the Conservative Party than with their own colleagues of the Labour Party.

The SNP and the Liberal Democrats tried to push Jeremy Corbyn asking him to put forward a Vote of No Confidence. Because he knows that despite the fact that many Labour MPs are against Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn knows that a vast number of Labour voters support Brexit. So for the moment, there is no enthusiasm for a Vote of No Confidence. Moreover, the Labour Party has no credible alternative and is very much stuck and unable to offer a solution. All they have been able to do is to attack the Conservative Party to try and hide divisions and lack of alternatives within the Labour Party.

The Labour Party can say that they are very much in favour of General Election but in reality many Labour MPs fear that the prospect of a General Election could lead to a purge of the Parliamentarian Labour Party. To avert the danger of deselection some prominent MPs have said that they would stand as Independent Labour Candidates, trusting that voters would give them the support that they don't have from their own Labour branches.

Tuesday, 11 December 2018

So called Heritage and Destiny is a organisation launched by Searchlight to torpedo Nationalist Movement

Heritage and Destiny is an organisation launched by Searchlight to torpedo the Nationalist Movement

UPDATED on December 14th 2018

Peter Rushton, Michele Renouf and Richard Edmonds are some of the personalities linked with Heritage and Destiny, an organisation that portrays itself as Nationalist but its origins are linked to Searchlight - a long-time concern of Gerry Gable and his wife Sonia Gable. Gerry Gable was dedicated to the fight against organisations like National Front.

Sonia Gable
Gerry Gable
Sonia Gable spent considerable time "mole-ing" with almost every single high ranking member of National Front  so that she could get "first hand" information about National Front members, activities and intentions. 

Peter Rushton
Peter Rushton wants to present himself as a respectable Nationalist but, incidentally, a dossier compiled against him tells a completely different story. Two other pieces of the puzzle are Michele Renouf, former celebrity, and Richard Edmonds that at times has been member of National Front and of the British National Party. Michele Renouf attended practically all court trials of those accused of anti-Semitism presumably to support those standing in the dock but then again appearances might be deceiving.

Michele Renouf
Michele Renouf has been seen in Germany feeding the rhetoric that portrays genuine German Nationalists as Nazi.

The third protagonist in the story, also linked to Heritage and Destiny, Richard Edmonds is shown with very graphic images. 

John Tyndall
National Front Richard Edmonds
What does the flag of National Front reminds you of? Take the letters NF and replace them with something else. What beggars belief is that both Heritage and Destiny idealise it and idealise John Tyndall that not long ago showed himself with the real thing. 

Heritage and destiny, far from being a true Nationalist organisation, is an orchestrated shambles promoted by Searchlight with the sole intention of presenting real Nationalists as Nazis with individuals that portray themselves as Nationalists. It is their way to ensure that any real Nationalist organisation in the United Kingdom is destined to fail from the very beginning because as soon as the real nature of the individuals comes to the surface, respectable people walk away.

Latest Addition from Historical Records December 14th 2018

Richards Edmonds having occupied several high ranking positions both in the National Front and in the BNP contacted us to tell us that all what has been said about Peter Rushton is untrue.

Subject: Response to gross defamation of Peter Rushton and colleagues, Lady Renouf and Richard Edmonds.

In the year 2002, the then BNP chairman, Nick Griffin issued a members' bulletin, later expanded into a special booklet, in which Griffin defamed Peter Rushton as an "enemy agent". The author of the special booklet defaming Peter Rushton was Arthur Kemp. Kemp claimed that a South African woman journalist, called Jani Allan whom Kemp knew, had told Kemp that she had gone to interview 'Searchlight' editor, Gerry Gable in her capacity as a journalist. Arthur Kemp claims in the booklet that Jani Allan informed him that arriving for the interview, she witnessed Peter Rushton leaving Gable's office. She was able to recognise Peter because she had met him on a previous occasion. Jani Allen was writings articles on the British Nationalist scene during the early 1990s for the South African press..

This is the core of the accusation made by Kemp and Griffin in their booklet accusing Peter Rushton of being an enemy agent. You will notice that the accusation hangs on the claim of what Kemp says Jani Allan allegedly told him. I do not believe any of this.

Firstly Gable does not run his agents and infiltrators from his office; Gable is much too careful to do that. (*)

Secondly, the "witness" Jani Allan is a whore. Jani Allan was the whore who set up the Boer leader, Terre  Blanche, in the honey-trap that ruined him. Kemp had to concede in his booklet defaming Peter Rushton that his one and only witness was Jani Allan who had been involved in "a sordid sexual scandal with Terre Blanche".

In an interview with  the Daily Mail of 17th. April 2010, Jani Allan said of herself, "I will always be known as the tart who slept with a racist buffoon, the white supremacist Eugene Terreblanche."

Frankly who but a scoundrel would attempt to blacken the name of a good man by quoting the lies of some whore ?

The rest of the piece accusing Michele Lady Renouf and Richard Edmonds of being agents of 'Suchlies' (sic) is also disgusting trash of the same gutter-level.

                   F I N I S.

(*) Richards Edmonds begins his statement by saying that 'Firstly Gable does not run his agents and infiltrators from his office; Gable is much too careful to do that'. Gerry Gable, former Communist Party organiser, has worked with branches of Police including the Metropolitan Police.

Together with the message received from Richard Edmonds here is a piece of historical records involving Peter Rushton:


A BNP Booklet

Recently North West members were surprised to hear that occasional speaker Peter Rushton has been identified as a Searchlight spy. While some have been surprised by this, there have been others who have wondered why it has taken so long. Out of considerations of fairness, it has always been the case that people are given the benefit of the doubt – and with regard to the historical ‘cry wolf’ tendency within nationalism – this is undoubtedly the right thing to do.

Peter Rushton was first suspected of being an enemy plant more than ten years ago. A high-level meeting was convened to discuss the affair presided over by the then Chairman of the party, Mr John Tyndall. The view of the meeting was that while there were several grounds for concern, one piece of information that Rushton was privy to – that of an E. European tour of the then National Organiser, Richard Edmonds and up to a dozen party members – had not been shown to have leaked and therefore, Mr Rushton was given the benefit of the doubt. At around this time, other nationalists formed a different view and proclaimed it quite loudly. In the context of faction fighting between different nationalist groups, however, it was felt by the leadership of the party that no credence could be given to such statements.

The case for Peter Rushton being an enemy plant comes primarily from North West Regional Organiser Christian Jackson, former Manchester Organiser Alan Payne and former South African Conservative party activist Arthur Kemp with small contributions from several others. Some of the observations are small things and, taken by themselves, of no great importance. But as anyone who knows how picture building works and where definite proof is hard to find, they add up. Other points made are far weightier and are, of themselves, sufficient testimony.

Chris Jackson has been the party’s NW Regional Organiser for some years and so has been in a position, over a long period of time, to witness events, know those to whom restricted information has been given and draw conclusions. Alan Payne, likewise, has been the party’s Manchester Organiser for many years until quite recently. Arthur Kemp came to Britain in 1996 whereupon he met Peter Rushton. Both Chris Jackson and Alan Payne have said that anyone wanting to know more should phone them – Chris on 01706 814514 and Alan on 0161 794 5013.

The North West Case for the Prosecution
It is believed that Peter Rushton has been a long-term enemy plant from the very outset of his association with the BNP and that ideology – Marxism-Leninism – has been the prime motivation.

Peter Rushton has been proven to participated in a vote and discussions on a Marxist-Leninist website. Rushton admits this but says he was merely ‘mischief making’. However, he made postings on the Usenet using his own name and home email address which suggest going beyond mere mischief making.

1) All these Usenet postings are still available on the Internet, and can be searched by any person wishing to check: all that has to be done is to go to Google (; select ‘groups’ (just above the Google text search box) and then type in ‘Peter Rushton’. This will reveal: a) Rushton’s ‘home’ email address; b) Rushton voting yes to the creation of a Marxist newsgroup; c) Rushton claiming ‘close contact’ with Trotskyites in response to an appeal for information on the UK Marxist scene; d) Rushton saying he knows the people at Living Marxism magazine; e) Rushton lecturing a ‘non-Marxist’ on the Marxist view of the Russian elections; f) Rushton praising a homosexual Labour MP’s election as the ‘best news of election night’ in a discussion on homophobia; g) Rushton declaring the ‘importance’ of a Marxist interpretation of the English Civil War.

Choice snippits include: ‘Your surprise may result from a non-Marxist misunderstanding of the Russian Communist Party and its presidential candidate, Gennady Zyuganov’ (1996).  In other words, the questioner does not understand what is going on because he is not a Marxist – so now Rushton is going to tell him!

And: ‘Steve Twigg’s election was of course the best news of election night (especially for those who remember his tragic defeat in OUSU)’ (1997).

2) Likewise, Peter Rushton has also admitted to being a wide and avid reader of quite obscure and not so obscure left-wing literature. Reading because of an interest in what the enemy say? Or reading for pleasure?

Chris Jackson’s chief observation of Rushton is that he never actively helped the party where he could easily have done so. This is in marked contrast to those known enemy agents within nationalism who joined for all the right reasons, worked hard and were then ‘turned’. Tim Hepple (BNP, 1994) and Matthew Collins (NF, 1998) are the two most recent examples.

3) Peter Rushton was supposed to help form a Tameside unit some 8 years ago but didn’t.

4) Peter Rushton was given the money to open a PO Box number for the area but didn’t. Local Hyde member Frank Dawber saw him in the street and asked: “What are you doing about opening the PO Box then?” Peter Rushton’s reply was to spit full in his face! There was no provocation, simply copious spittle from Peter Rushton. Mr Rushton is an educated man. Indeed, he is highly intelligent and would not have been at a loss for words. As Chris Jackson said, Rushton’s action betokened hate. It should also be known that Frank Dawber was an OAP even then and so would not have been able to take Rushton to task for this, weedy though Rushton is.

5) Peter Rushton was always given follow-ups by Chris Jackson to do in the Stockport/Hyde/Stalybridge area. He never did anything with them.

6) Peter Rushton was forever going by train to visit the party’s then bookshop in Welling, S.E. London.  Chris Jackson would always ask: “Can you pick up 2,000 leaflets” etc. (to save money on the chronic cost of postage), but Rushton never did.

7) Peter Rushton is a card-carrying member of NUJ as a free-lance journalist. He has a 1st class Honours degree from OxfordUniversity . He has talent in abundance. Yet what has he done to help our cause? The answer is one article for Spearhead in the last 12 years under the name Peter Wilson. (Contrast this to his current “work” for the “Heritage and Destiny” journal where he writes pages and pages of diatribe against the BNP, looking as if the magazine is little more than another version of Searchlight).

The pattern here (points 3-7) is that Peter Rushton never actively helped in any way. Nor has he helped financially through donations or even the act of giving the party membership dues, for Peter Rushton has only ever been a member for one year – 1995.
There have been several meetings to which Peter Rushton has been to and which were leaked to Searchlight, an anti-British hate group. This is an area fraught with difficulty because the number of people who know a particular piece of information from a meeting is usually wide and gets wider in the telling. Nevertheless, Chris Jackson has narrowed down two leaks to Peter Rushton.

8) One occasion was a meeting rendezvous at which the only people who knew about it were Chris Jackson, Peter Rushton, the then Manchester Organiser Alan Payne, Nick Griffin (the guest speaker) and Calvin Richards from Nottingham who was the r.v. steward for redirection purposes. Chris Jackson had given everyone else a different r.v. – precisely because he was unsure of Peter Rushton.

In the words of Mr Richards: “I first met Nick in 1995 or it could have been 1996 at a Rochdale meeting. Prior to the meeting, only five people knew of this particular re-direction point including myself. I was dropped off there by Chris Jackson just before 10.00a.m. Shortly after 10.00a.m. – the time given for the r.v., a car with two Asians plus a cameraman drove past taking pictures. I had seen the cameraman before and I recognised him as Searchlight’s usual Manchester cameraman. Nick Griffin had phoned Chris to say he would be late and would go straight to the meeting venue. Peter Rushton didn’t show up. Chris then picked me up and went back for Rushton later on.”

As an aside to this,  at the meeting itself Peter Rushton spoke to Calvin (who had some wholesome ballad-type CDs and badges to sell at the meeting – and the only time ever that he had done so). Rushton said he knew some wealthy South Africans who wanted to make contact with Paul Burnley, the then lead singer with white rock group No Remorse, to do a CD and ‘get one over’ on Blood & Honour (the co-ordinators of such white rock groups).  Again, in Calvin’s own words: “I told him that I didn’t know Paul Burnley or how to contact him and that the CDs & badges I was selling were a one-off fund raiser, but in the next issue of Searchlight magazine, it was claimed that I was the E. Midlands Organiser for B&H.”

9) At another meeting, the rendezvous was, again, in Rochdale and Peter Rushton travelled in Chris Jackson’s car. It was therefore believed by those attending that the meeting would also be in Rochdale . However, the meeting was in Oldham (at a time when the party didn’t have a group there). The further from Rochdale Chris Jackson drove, the more agitated Peter Rushton became. Upon arrival at the Oldham meeting venue, Peter Rushton said he had to go out and find a post box to post a letter. This is Saturday, early afternoon now. Yes, most of you will have twigged it – Saturday last post is midday! Having got thus far, it takes little imagination to see that what Peter Rushton would have been looking for was not a post box, but a phone box.

The interesting thing with regard to informants is that very often they will boost their snitch money by widening the list of those to whom they inform. After all, the information’s the same and for just a few pennies for a photocopy of a written brief they can also be on someone else’s payroll. So too, apparently, with Peter but he could scarcely have guessed that the party’s influence runs so deep…

10) One of our members in the North West is an ex-policeman. His son still is. His son told his father (who, in turn, told Chris Jackson) that Peter Rushton is on the police list of informants.

With the advent of the Internet, it was obvious that the BNP would eventually get its own domain name as American and German nationalists had done. Amazingly, the party leadership ignored the phenomenon until Peter Rushton got the domain name in the mid-1990s. At the time, Rushton said that he paid for it all himself, but the reality is that it was paid for by Manchester BNP, although he remained the domain name owner. Getting the domain name and giving the BNP a presence on the web is the only thing of note that Peter Rushton has done for the party. Given that, it could be argued that far from being an enemy plant, Peter had only the party’s best interests at heart. It certainly could be argued that way. However, it could also be argued that the net was the future. The party was bound to get on it, even with a technophobe leadership. Therefore to gain control from the outset was the best option.

11) After Peter Rushton got, the site (which he never ultimately paid for) which now points to the current BNP site –, was subject to continual problems stemming from one source - Peter Ruston’s inability to pay the bill for the domain name and the web space – two separate things. When either event occurred, which happened without fail twice yearly, the site would be out of action for weeks until someone within the party – never Peter Rushton – paid for normal service to be resumed. Indeed, it was for this reason that the party moved away from leaving the latter as a mere pointer. Peter Rushton has been asked on numerous occasions to write a letter to his service provider to turn the site over to the party. Despite repeated verbal agreements, he never has.

At a meeting in London ’s Chelsea Town Hall to hear historian David Irving speak, the BNP’s then Manchester Organiser Alan Payne first met Peter Rushton. Alan sat with the then Party Chairman John Tyndall and Peter Rushton. Rushton, as a Manchester boy, wanted to know where the Manchester meetings were held.

12) Having told Peter Rushton ‘the Black Lion’ once a month on a Sunday night, Alan was rather surprised not long afterwards to see on TV’s Northern News a reporter revealing where the party was holding its meetings.

13) Not long after this, Alan Payne started to find himself getting quoted in the enemy Searchlight magazine. Rushton was new and he was suspected. Others were also suspected, but these over the course of time either moved or left the party. Eventually, Peter Rushton was the only one left – and Alan was still being quoted.

14) In the early 1990s, the party held its annual leadership meeting in the Blackpool guesthouse of one of its supporters for two years in a row. Searchlight duly wrote an exposé and unsuccessfully tried to financially ruin this party supporter. The guesthouse owner – Alan – thought the leak was from any of four or five people, but his personal preference was “the reporter” (Rushton had flashed his press card around – he was and is a free lance journalist).

After the 1997 General Election, Alan Payne was given nearly all the enquiries in the Greater Manchester and Merseyside areas as the party was nowhere near as developed as it is now. There were approximately 150 – and all received from the TV broadcast of that year since the party fielded very few candidates in the North West . Alan divided these into two equal amounts and gave half to Peter Rushton along with the requisite number of stamps and Regional bulletins inviting really interested people to get in touch. Alan posted out to those from the west side i.e. Merseyside, Preston etc and Peter Rushton did the East side i.e. Stockport, Rochdale, Burnley and Oldham etc.

15) Alan got 12 replies back (about 1-in-6 of those he posted). Peter Rushton’s ‘posting’ got a nil response. Alan’s conclusion: “He hadn’t done it.” Was it laziness? or theft and sabotage?

16) One edition of the Manchester Evening News ran a story on local BNP man Derek Summers. The information therein was only known to Manchester members including Rushton. Alan asked Peter Rushton whether there’d been anything in the newspaper, knowing that Rushton always took the local paper. Rushton said “no.” A month later, much the same story appeared in Searchlight. At this time, Alan Payne said to Peter Rushton: “Have you seen what’s in here?” only to be told by Rushton regarding the original piece in the M.E.N.: “Oh, didn’t you see it?” Clearly, he had seen it in the first instance and lied about it.

17) On the occasion of Oswald Moseley’s 100th anniversary, five Manchester members attended the 100th Moseley bash. All five were named in Searchlight, but no one else in attendance would have recognised all of them and they were split up all evening. One of the five had to be the informant. Peter Rushton was one of the five.

18) Searchlight magazine always mispelt Rushton’s name as ‘Rushden’. They appear to do this for two reasons. One is to annoy someone by spelling their name wrongly, as they did to Richard Edmonds for years – ‘Edmunds’ – and the other is to protect a source as they have done recently in the case of Londoner Robert Jeffreys a.k.a. Bob James when they mis-spelt his name ‘Geoffries’. Likewise, while there have been plenty of photographs in Searchlight of Peter Rushton, they have all been from the back or, alternatively, not very good.

19) At one Manchester meeting. Chris Jackson turned up fresh from a job and was unshaven for 2 weeks. Only Alan Payne and Peter Rushton knew the details of this meeting in advance. By this time, Alan Payne suspected Peter Rushton and said to him: “If this meeting gets blown, it’s down to either you, or me.” No report of this meeting appeared in Searchlight, but a photograph of Chris Jackson did appear in connection with another story some time later with Chris sporting a light beard and wearing the work clothes from that time. There could have been only one place the photograph had been taken – outside that particular meeting venue.

20) Peter Rushton had not long been to an Oldham meeting. At that meeting, an idea had come forth regarding challenging would be Asian immigrants as to their identity. Just a few days later at a Manchester meeting in the Black Lion, Rushton outlined what had been said. Three days later, the exact same words used by Peter Rushton on that Sunday evening’s Manchester meeting appeared within an exclusive the following Wednesday in the Daily Mirror. The story came from a ‘disenchanted BNP member.’

21) In common with many ‘grasses’, Peter developed a bond with certain members of the target group. A bond that would not let him betray them – others, yes – but not his friends. Searchlight, knowing that it was read at that time by a fair proportion of BNP activists delighted in printing mysterious messages on its back page – usually to a ‘name’ – the whole thing reeking of a WWII BBC radio broadcast to occupied France . One such said: ‘We have paid you plenty of money, we want to know who the north west railway children are.’ The North West railway children were the two members, including the Organiser Alan Payne, and two supporters who used to attend the Manchester BNP meetings. Nothing ever appeared.

The South African connection
Arthur Kemp met Peter Rushton while visiting the old BNP offices in Welling , Kent , in 1996. Says Arthur:

“He seemed friendly enough, and he and I struck up a friendship of sorts. I provided him with a computer disc with the full version of my history of the AWB which I planned to produce as a cyber book, but which at that stage had not yet been published anywhere. Importantly the version of the book which I gave to him contained some important very recent updates, which no other person – on or off the Internet – had ever seen before. At the time, I did not think this important, although later it was to prove vital..

He read through the book, and when he got back to me, he revealed that he was in close contact with Jani Allan, the former Johannesburg Sunday Times journalist who features in the book in a sordid sexual scandal with AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche.  Through Rushton, Allan passed on the request to me to take out a paragraph in the book detailing her addiction to prescription medication – a request I refused.

I was slightly puzzled why Rushton would have such close contact with Allan, as she was hardly the sort of person to be involved with someone from the BNP, but dismissed it at the time as a quirk – only later was I to understand the real reason behind the request.

In addition, I told Rushton where I had obtained a job in London and a few other personal details, including some of my own background. I also discussed with him the possibility of the BNP raising funds by taking over the European distributorship of Resistance Records, and I introduced him to another South African, recently moved to the UK .

The first inkling that something was wrong occurred when my South African friend’s place of employment starting receiving telephone calls inquiring about him, and calls to his boss telling him that he had employed a ‘South African neo-nazi terrorist’ etc, all based on my friend’s past activities in the AWB in South Africa.

I immediately became suspicious – as the only person who knew anything about my friend - in fact the only person who even knew he was in the UK , apart from his boss and myself, was Rushton.

I got my friend to lay charges with the local police, as the caller had falsely told his employers that they were calling from the local tax office, an impersonation forbidden by law (they had sought his residential details, amongst other things - details which the scared employer had sadly provided). I then contacted Rushton, and told him that I had got my friend to lay charges so that if any details ever appeared about him in Searchlight, the police would know who to press charges against. The clearly shocked Rushton vanished, and I never heard from him again.

Then my employer began receiving the same type of calls. Did they know they had employed a South African terrorist etc. etc., very nearly getting me fired, something I only avoided with some very fancy footwork. Within a month, a front-page article on me appeared in the September 1996 Searchlight.

In it, a lengthy article on me:-

(a) announced that I was in Britain ;

(b) ran almost verbatim large parts of the text of the AWB book I had given Rushton on disc. Critically, it quoted sections from a very recent update to the book – updates which only Rushton had ever had access to (if you get hold of a copy of that issue, you can compare it to the actual text of the book -- and then bear in mind that I only put it on the Internet in 1999).

(c) said I was planning to take over the European distributorship of Resistance Records;

(d) contained much personal detail, which I had mentioned to Rushton, including where I held a bank account at the time – known to Rushton as he’d seen the unusual Jersey Island debit card which I had used to pay for a shared meal.

(e) ran photographs of me taken at my place of employment in London ;

And numerous other things that made it obvious that Rushton had supplied the information.

Simply put, there was no-one else who:-

22) (a) knew I was in the UK ,

23) (b) had the full updated text of my AWB book;

24) (c) with whom I had discussed Resistance Records;

25) (d) knew where I worked; and

26) (e) knew where my friend worked.

27) Later, when I returned to South Africa, I established from Jani Allan herself that she had met Rushton when she and her boss, the ex-SABC journalist, Cliff Saunders, had met with the Searchlight editorial team in London when they were planning to make a documentary about the South African right wing. This served to finally confirm what I had already been able to deduce out of the content of the Searchlight article: namely that Rushton was a Searchlight agent.

Saunders has since returned to South Africa . I attach an article which deals with both him and Allan, for your interest.”

THURSDAY, February 15, 2000

Cliff Saunders exposed as apartheid spy
CHRIS MCGREAL, Johannesburg Thursday 11.00am.

SOUTH African television’s top political correspondent during the apartheid era, Cliff Saunders, has revealed that he was a spy for the white regime’s intelligence service.
The confession came to light in unusual fashion when Saunders submitted a demand to the National Intelligence Agency for more than R100,000 in unpaid expenses.
Saunders wrote to Intelligence Minister Joe Nhtanhla threatening legal action unless at least half of the money for work done in London and South Africa was paid immediately.
A ministry source accused Saunders of trying to hold the government to ransom by threatening to tell all in Court. He said the ex-spy had worked for the NIA “for decades.”
The former political correspondent said in his letter that after the transition to democracy in 1994 he moved to the newly formed South African Secret Service, which deals in foreign intelligence. He was posted to London where he claims to have recruited the journalist Jani Allen to spy on prominent members of the Inkatha Freedom Party.
Suspicions about Saunders were first aired during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings when former government agents claimed they had paid him to plant or distort stories. Saunders, who has had little to say about the revelations, has also been accused of informing on colleagues, some of whom were targeted by police for detention without trial.

‘That’ programme

28) The Panorama TV documentary of late 2001 tried very hard to portray the BNP’s RWB as something unwholesome and thuggish. The evening’s entertainment in the RWB big top was to an audience of perhaps just forty people (everyone else having gone to bed). Of those, at least six were involved with the ‘turns’. The Panorama audio recording (except for the bogus SS marching music – which was crystal clear and obviously added onto the tape) was constant in its distortion – none of the entertainers was the audio source, leaving only a maximum of 35 people. Naturally, Peter Rushton was one of the 35.

Yes, the source could have been one of 34 others, but how many more coincidences do you want?

Rushton confronted and more recent events
After the usual late July, 2002 meeting of Oldham BNP, Peter Rushton was taken aside by party Chairman Nick Griffin (who had been the guest speaker) and NW Regional Organiser Chris Jackson and told that it was known that he was acting against the party’s best interests and that he should “clear off.” Down the ages organisations that have been betrayed by those who have pretended to be their friends have dealt with this kind of person in a far harsher manner. Rushton got off lightly and the fact that Peter Rushton has not been a member since 1995 made any kind of disciplinary tribunal superfluous.

Peter Rushton is now, apparently, screaming his innocence and telephoning anyone who will give him five minutes to tell them of the ‘wrong’ done him. He has claimed that “even the IRA would give someone a disciplinary tribunal.” His comparison of the British National Party with a terrorist organisation responsible for thousands of deaths like the IRA is outrageous. Tribunal? The IRA would have taken him out and shot him!

Those individuals who have given Peter Rushton a sympathetic ear and who have read this far should have now formed a different opinion, for he has lied to them too. Equally, it should be understood that there are others with an ulterior motive for wanting to keep the issue alive and cast doubt upon the wisdom of Rushton’s identification as an enemy plant.

As a dedicated opponent of the party, Peter Rushton has only one role to left to play – to win sympathy from the credulous and cause as much unhappiness and dissension as possible over this affair. It is for this reason that Nick Griffin is his subject for attack and Chris Jackson painted as not a bad chap, whereas it was Chris who first identified and wanted rid of Rushton. In addition, upon told of his exposure, Rushton was most hurt by what Chris had to say. For someone to strike back out of a sense of hurt, Peter Rushton should have made Chris Jackson his main target. He has not done so. With true Communist discipline, Peter Rushton shows us it’s the politics which are most important.

Immediately after he was told that he was no longer wanted, he was phoning people telling them that the BNP had ‘kicked him out’ because he dared to speak at an NF meeting. This is not true, but we are grateful to Wayne, a joint member, who has told us so – although Wayne needs to be told to sever his NF links. Another supporter has informed us that since his ‘outing’, Peter Rushton’s business telephone number is no longer operational.

Since then, Rushton has published two counterattacks: one supposedly relating to his exposure and the other attacking the ‘secret witness’ Arthur Kemp, but as everyone who has seen either this pamphlet or the first edition of Considerations for Proscription, there is nothing secret at all.

Rushton claims that in the first few days after his exposure, there was a wave of support for him. Certainly, with no published evidence to hand at that time and only a garbled account available of some of the points made in this booklet, it was easy for Peter to rubbish his exposure. Not so since, however, for when he turned up at an Oldham social club to win more sympathy, he was confronted by angry betrayed Oldhammers who flung accusation after accusation against him. His normal cool demeanour melted into tears as his evasions were uncovered, and his back tracking led to more realisation that he’d lied. Under pressure, he lied on the fly hoping to dig himself out of the hole he’d made, but he tripped himself up again and again. This performance, more than any other convinced those present that Chris Jackson and Alan Payne were fully vindicated in their assessment of him.

Rushton’s other thrust of attack has been to undermine the AWB book story, but the only person who had seen the up-to-date changes, quoted in Searchlight magazine, was… Peter Rushton. He then goes on to smear Kemp in order to devalue anything else he might have to say, namely that he had ‘confessed’ to being an informant for South Africa’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) and that charges were dropped against him in the Hani murder case. These are straightforward lies. No charges were ever laid against Kemp and Kemp was never involved with the NIS – a fact admitted in a retraction by the extreme left wing Weekly Mail and Guardian newspaper in Johannesburg which made the allegation. The full retraction published by the Weekly Mail and Guardian, is on-line and can be viewed at their website.

After alleging Kemp was an NIS agent, Rushton goes on to allege that he was also a sergeant in the South African police security branch. The truth is that Kemp was conscripted into doing his national service in the police, serving as a uniformed Johannesburg beat constable.

After this, Rushton claimed that Kemp ‘gave evidence for the prosecution against his former comrades’. In fact he was issued with a subpoena – and was a ‘forced witness’. Contrary to the liar Rushton’s version of events, Kemp’s forced testimony: (1) made no reference to accused number one (Walsuz); (2) merely backed up Clive Derby-Lewis’ version of events; and (3) served directly to acquit the third accused – Gaye Derby-Lewis, as the presiding judge made specific note of in his final judgement when he acquitted Mrs. Derby-Lewis.

As to the NIS allegations: the reality was that Kemp was being spied upon the NIS , not the other way round. In fact, an NIS agent was monitoring everything that Kemp wrote – and this was the sum total of the “NIS link”, a fact which was revealed in an affidavit by the NIS agent concerned, submitted during the Derby-Lewis amnesty hearing in 1997/1998.

Rushton clearly hopes that no-one will bother to read up the publicly available court records of the case or the transcript of the 1997/98 Derby -Lewis/Walusz amnesty hearing is available on-line at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s official website 

In further trying to smear Kemp, Rushton reveals his own Communist sympathies by following the conspiracy theory promulgated by the left-wing Weekly Mail and Guardian: The ANC/Capitalist nexus (Mohammed Amin Laher never existed!); the second gunman (no evidence – even on the ANC’s own admission); The unsolved Riley shooting (he committed suicide – widely reported at the time); The ‘Riley warning’ (made not by Riley, but claimed as such by his girl friend with no evidence when looking for a story to sell); The missing Hani bodyguards (Hani, although married, was having an affair with a Black air hostess from the then Transkei Airways – and he had dropped his bodyguards off so that he could go and visit her!)

It is also to be expected that those who have a vested interest in the party’s misfortune will make common cause with him. Sure enough, soon afterwards he was at the Rochdale home of Peter Barker who was sacked as Organiser for giving information to the enemy. Also present was John Tyndall, who was staying with Barker prior to speaking in Burnley . John Tyndall’s take on the situation is cynical in the extreme, which roughly translated goes: ‘It doesn’t matter too much whether Rushton’s a plant – the party’s been full of them for years – what matters is whether the affair can be used to damage Griffin.’ Indeed, when Peter Rushton was quite rightly turned away from the Burnley meeting, Tyndall was loudly complaining that the non-member and spy Peter Rushton should be afforded a disciplinary tribunal.

It’s not often that a pamphlet is published regarding one bad apple. The length of time that the Rushton operation has been going, however, provide so many examples of what to look for in an enemy plant, that this pamphlet is much like a training manual in how to spot a ‘wrong ‘un’.