Sunday, 31 March 2019

Britain is ill; Violence is spreading.

Britain is ill; Violence is spreading.



















Political reasons are not the only reasons why tensions are rising beyond safe limits. Violent attacks are becoming deadly serious and more vicious. When somebody decides to launch random attacks against individuals he never met before, against whom he has no personal grievances, we cannot expect to be safe wherever we go.

How can you prevent an unwarranted attack for which there is no clear motivation? The plain answer: You cannot. I believe that mental health issues are a major component of violent attacks in the United Kingdom. It is estimated following major research that one in ten teenagers suffer from some form of mental illness. Only a minute number of them are formally diagnosed and an even smaller number are actually treated before they reach a critical point.

Police Forces were recently given a go ahead to carry out more stop and search operations to try and deter people from carrying knives but the one who gets away is the one that commits the crime with lethal consequences.

We can deal with rational individuals that might listen and stop carrying knives. What about those suffering from mental illness? Will they be able to listen? 


Saturday, 30 March 2019

Jon Snow: Brexit is not a white issue

Jon Snow: Brexit is not a white issue

It is usually said that Britain is a Multicultural Society and countering what Jon Snow from Channel 4 News said - broadcaster that was forced to issue an apology for what the newscaster said - I can say without a shadow of a doubt - because what I am going to say is factual - that peoples of all races and religions support Brexit.

Peoples of all races and religions believe in democratic accountability and in being able to determine their own destiny.

High levels of migration affect the most vulnerable in society because the daily struggle becomes ever harder when you are competing for the same jobs, for housing, for school places and for beds in hospitals. We must be able to meet the needs of the people who are already here - regardless of race or religion. Britain has been made to cope with unemployment from practically every corner of the European Union. Plenty of people who couldn't find a job in the European Union came to Britain looking for jobs that they couldn't find in their own countries of origin.

Prostitution is perhaps one of the best ways to determine how desperate people from other EU countries have become. Firstly, it happened in London. Now, it is spreading across the United Kingdom. Look around. You will find a rising number of prostitutes coming from Western Europe, from Central Europe, from Eastern Europe, from the Subcontinent and from Latin America. Britain has become a huge Red Light District for those that - without proper qualifications - are coming to the United Kingdom taking advantage of EU Membership. Pimps and all those who exploit vulnerable men and women no longer have to worry about passports and visas. 

Uncontrolled migration is a National Security Risk, a Social Risk and a Health Risk. We have more measures to control incoming cats and dogs than we have to deter those coming to Britain for the wrong reasons.





Thursday, 28 March 2019

Brexit: Government tries to get its way via the backdoor

Brexit: Government tries to get its way via the backdoor

Parliament rejected the Deal negotiated by Prime Minister Theresa May twice in a row and the Speaker of the House of Commons indicated that it was against Parliamentary rules to bring back the same proposition to be put to the vote once again.

Since Parliament asked the Prime Minster to negotiate an extension (Britain was due to leave the EU tomorrow March 29th 2019) so that she could try and negotiate with Parliament a new proposition that could break the stalemate. Yesterday, unsuccessfully, the House of Commons debated and voted on a list of proposals that could be a way forward. All proposals put to a simultaneous vote to maximise the chances of arriving to a shared alternative were rejected. There was no agreement on any of the motions put to the vote.

The fundamental condition imposed by the European Union to agree to postpone the exit date was that the Withdrawal Agreement had to be voted and approved before 23:00 on March 29th 2019. For this reason, the House of Commons approved a motion for a debate tomorrow. If the Withdrawal Agreement is not approved by Parliament, the withdrawal date will be officially April 12th 2019. If the Withdrawal Agreement is passed but no Deal is reached then Britain will have until May 22nd 2019 to finish the preparations that includes legislative work that needs to be finalised.

Any further extension will mean that Britain will have to take part in the European Elections due to take place on May 23rd 2019.

.


Tuesday, 26 March 2019

The unforeseen consequences of Brexit War


The unforeseen consequences of Brexit War

What the surveys indicate it is not just Parliament that is divided. The gap between positions involving Leave and Remain is growing. The centre is disappearing and polarisation is growing reaching dangerous levels.

Until now, Members of Parliament on both sides of the argument have complained that they are being targeted by those that hate their stances regarding Brexit. A SNP MP stated that he is afraid for his personal safety. Anne Soubry MP stated that she is afraid of going home. Others stated that they are not walking around but driven in cars in spite of short distances. This is not just about vocal threats. This is about real life threatening threats. It is difficult not to appreciate that the number of armed Police officers deployed in and around the Houses of Parliament is growing. 

As I was walking nearby the Houses of Parliament I look at the memorial plate of a Police Officer killed by a crazed fanatic Muslim convert. The dangers Members of Parliament face when dealing with Brexit are much greater. What happened to Jo Cox is just the tip of the iceberg. More and more people dislike politicians and despise Members of Parliament that they no longer trust. This is much more than the expenses scandal. It is much bigger than the sexual harassment scandal that has divided Members of Parliament. 

The Brexit Process is reviving British Nationalism and also English Nationalism and there are plenty of those around who would take matters into their own hands as Parliament is seen as going against the will of the people expressed in the EU Referendum.

The Prime Minister has stated that she will not accept any decision by Parliament that goes against Brexit. Theresa May carefully tries to avoid another European Parliament Election for very good reasons. If there is an extension that goes much beyond May 23rd 2019, Britain will have to take part in European Elections and UKIP and others are ready for it. The backlash against parties represented in Parliament will lead to a vast number of seats of the so called Far Right in the European Parliament that added to the number of seats that it is foreseen similar political parties will gain in May 2019 will turn the European Parliament into a gigantic nightmare for the Establishment. Getting seats in the European Parliament will strengthen British Nationalists beyond everything that they have been able to achieve until now at a time when support for both Labour and Conservatives is at an all time low.

Cancelling Brexit, Parliament will unleash forces that have until now being kept under check. Words like 'Traitor' and 'Nazi' are now being used against those called Remainers and anger is growing. This could be the last drop of patience after a long list of scandals, failures and deceit.








Sunday, 24 March 2019

Adolf Hitler: If you can take it and keep it, it is yours

Adolf Hitler: If you can take it and keep it, it is yours

The words of Adolf Hitler taken from Mein Kampf reflect the reality of Israeli politics supported by the United of America,

While the United States of America has publicly stood against territorial acquisition by others in the past, the United States of America was based on Adolf Hitler's idea that you could take somebody else's land and make it yours. Based on the Doctrine of Predestination, starting with the thirteen colonies that were the original foundation of the USA via following wars against Spain and against Mexico, the United States of America took land by force and made it part of the United States of America. There were failed attempt like the Walker's Adventure in Mexico where the USA flag was planted for a brief time before the attempt turned to absolute failure but the intention has always existed to continue such expansion by force.

When territorial acquisition by force is not a feasible option, comes colonisation using the economy as a tool for territorial domination. Israeli occupation and annexation obviously follows Adolf Hitler's doctrine. Building settlements in occupied territories is nothing new. Do you remember Sudetenland and the M√ľnchen Pakt of 1938? If you increase your population in occupied territories you can then claim that the land is yours and you can take with little opposition. This is what is actually happened in what is known as the West Bank. So there is little new there. If you can take it and keep it, it is yours. 

The approach towards Syria is very much part of the said approach by weakening any opposition of Israeli expansionist campaign based not just in political and financial convenience but also on religious ideas. The whole concept of the people of Israel being the chosen people by God is nothing more than the Aryan Doctrine of power and control of the Third Reich. Recent legislation passed by the Israeli Knesset is exactly the affirmation of Jewish superiority over the Arab population of Israel that states the Jews are the Master Race and Arabs are there only to serve the Master Race.

In the meantime, any criticism of the policies of repression, occupation, annexation and colonisation is classified as Anti-Semitism. 



Thursday, 21 March 2019

EU Referendum Campaign:Who spent the most?

When you listen to those talking about spending on the EU Referendum Campaign, you hear voices telling you that so and so spend more and that because of what was spent the outcome was what it was. The Electoral Commission itself is at fault and having to backtrack when it comes to spending on political campaign. Here are the facts. You can judge for yourself without the BBC, SKY News, Channel 4 or any other creepy crawlies telling you one inaccurate bits of information after another.

According to the Electoral Commission itself, those campaign against Brexit spent more than a million more in their political campaigning and this without adding tax payers moneys paid to the BBC and Channel 4 which - unknown to many - is also publicly funded.

Thursday, 14 March 2019

Brexit: What if Parliament cancels Brexit?

Brexit": What if Parliament cancels Brexit?

Parliament approved the public consultation - Referendum on European Union Membership. Parliament and political parties stated that they would all accept the outcome of the public consultation. When the outcome of the public consultation was known, Parliament voted to implement the constitutional processes of what we know as Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon in terms of exiting the European Union. Up to this point all went well. Soon afterwards, several politicians and public figures started to plot against the will of the British People publicly stated on the Referendum on the European Union Membership.

Some openly state that they want Britain to remain as an European Union member. Others use all kind of excuses and justifications with the same purpose. They talk about delays. They talk about motions that will prevent Britain from actually leaving the European Union.

What does this mean for trust in Democracy in the United Kingdom? If Parliament asks the Electorate and the Electorate expresses its choice and Parliament refuses to accept the will of the Electorate, what does this say about the health of Democracy in Britain?

Saturday, 9 March 2019

2008: BNP seen as Anti-Semitic - 2019: Labour seen as Anti-Semitic

2008 - Anti-Semites?
2019 - Anti-Semites?
How times change! In 2008, Hope Not Hate (aka Hate Not Hope) and UAF (United Against Freedom) and other political and para-political organisations were shocked by the news that Richard Barnbrook (former Labourt Party member) had won a seat at the London Assembly. Oh God! The Nazis, the Fascists, the Racists, the Anti-Semites have entered the London Assembly. The BBC, Sky News and others called about the shocking rise of the Far Right, although no-one seemed to have paid attention to the fact that the Far Right had a very similar platform to the Labour platform including nationalisation of public services including public transport and shared the views of many Labour Party grassroots - the old working class - that expressed their discontent because the Labour Party was moving farther and farther away from the interests of working men and women and favouring a Globalist Agenda that supported Multinationals.

Some ten years later, the heat is turning towards the Far Left but the arguments are exactly the same. Listening to Luciana Berger and others explaining that they left the Labour Party because the Labour Party is Racist and Anti-Semitic shows that the Labour Party seems to be the new British National Party in the minds of many politicians and mass media, including those like Amber Rudd that used racist vocabulary even when she is desperately trying to show that she is not Racist. The "Coloured Lady" is not "Coloured". She is a British citizen of African descent. But the former Home Secretary who is back in the cabinet who knows for how long doesn't seem to get things right. She seems to have created a new political label. Amber Rudd is not Far Left nor Far Right. Amber Rudd is Far Wrong.

Interestingly enough, the CAA and Mr Falter are proving what they so vigorously deny both in their statements via the mass media and in the courtrooms. They are showing the massive influence of Zionist Lobbies in the United Kingdom and playing a political game. Why they target Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party? Because under its new Leadership the Labour Party is strongly denouncing the atrocities and abuses committed by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu with its policies of occupation, oppression, annexation and aggression in the Middle East. When you see Orthodox Jews being attacked on the streets of Israel by Jewish servicemen that follow orders of Benjamin Netanyahu you are tempted to believe that this is not 2019 Israel but Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. It is a scandal. It is grotesque. If you replaced Stars of David with Swastikas, you could be led to believe that this is not the State of Israel but some Totalitarian Regime of the 1930s and 1940s. 

While the Labour Party is being attacked by those who claim that it is Anti-Semite, the Conservative Party is being attacked by those who claim that it is Anti-Muslim. The British political scene is being used as a battlefield to deal with foreign agendas and in the meantime time is being wasted that should be used to solve the many problems that Britain is facing on a daily basis. 

Some say that Europe is becoming more and more Anti-Semite and others say that Europe is becoming more and more Anti-Muslim. Sooner than later the political imbalances created by Muslim issues and Jewish issues is going to turn into a gigantic nightmare and  violence is already spreading.

What looks like a potpourri of different issues is actually the representation of different pieces of the same political puzzle. 

Tolerance is being replaced by ideologically driven intolerance and this inevitably leads to violence. The gap between rulers and the ruled is growing and growing. Real dialogue is vanishing being replaced with repression. Proper governance is vanishing and in its place we have water cannons, guns and brutality. What is happening in French streets is not reassuring. 

Is this what we call Democracy? To have the high moral ground to criticise other countries, we must ensure that we don't engage in the same kind of actions that we criticise. France is a mess and in such environment it is no wonder that all kinds of Extremist views can prosper. Europe is no more Anti-Semitic nor Anti-Muslim than before. What we are seeing is the rise of intolerance and discontent that can have many faces.

  


  


Thursday, 7 March 2019

Plot to destroy Jeremy Corbyn

Plot to destroy Jeremy Corbyn

Zionists are out to destroy Jeremy Corbyn and this coincides with their agenda to prevent any criticism against the expansionist and colonialist policies of Benjamin Netanyahu who - incidentally - is wanted in Israel on corruption charges. But there is more.

Jeremy Corbyn has been instrumental for several decades to put a stop to policies of aggression that include the illegal invasion of Iraq that created Islamic State and completely destabilised the Middle East to the advantage of one country - namely Israel or the Jewish State of Israel as it is now called.

As if this was not enough to mobilise the Huns, Jeremy Corbyn has also called for a moderate and rational approach in Venezuela and this makes the America for the American Huns very angry since as they wanted to seize Iraqi oil they also want to seize Venezuela's oil and every single resource they can get their hands on by plotting against democratic governments, destabilising countries, creating violence to then justify putting in place an useful idiots that will allow them to do whatever they want with the resources of the conquered countries.

There is no coincidence. Looking at what has been happening in the Middle East and Asia Minor and now happening in Latin America the intention is self-evident. The warmongers don't want anybody to stand on their way. This is the geopolitical angle. Not, let's look at the national angle. For an embattled Conservative Party under Theresa May, this comes like hand in glove. Instead of talking about contract for ferry services provide by companies that have no ferry or about the messy business of the Home Office that might be about to produce yet another Windrush Scandal that could fatally wound Britain's reputation and literally destroy lives - the issue of the rights of EU citizens and the processing of applications that could lead to deportations from Britain with the rest of the EU replying in kind when it comes of UK citizens living in the EU.

The rights of UK and EU citizens is by far the most important issue because of the implications for both national and geopolitical reasons in terms of creating animosity between European countries. This is quickly brushed aside when convenience and short-termism are much of a priority.

If they cannot destroy the Labour Party in the polling stations, they will try and destroy the Labour Party in the courts in the very same manner that they have sought to destroy individuals and organisations that do not sing their tune. The struggle is not about Anti-Semitism. It has nothing to do with Anti-Semitism. This is about geopolitics, expansionism and colonialism and about silencing any kind of criticism.   



Tuesday, 5 March 2019

Roberta Woods: Speaking on the Judiciary and legal inconsistencies



Roberta Woods is a prominent and very coherent and consistent writer and presenter of what is usually known as Far Right, a segment of public opinion that is 
usually depicted as 'skin heads and street fighters constantly looking for trouble'.
Reality couldn't be more different. Roberta is no skin head or street fighter. She offers a different insight into what happens in British Courts and about how so called mainstream media and  what is known as the political establishment approach very public and very lamentable events. 


This happens at a time when the number of those injured or murdered on British streets is on the rise. Every human life counts. Every family, whatever their race, religion or nationality suffers the loss of a loved one to crime.  
Roberta Woods is not just a writer and presenter despite the fact that she introduces herself to the audience in a very humble way. She is politically active and has stood in elections both local and London-wide. 


Only Black Lives Matter

I have chosen this name for my talk as this definitely seems to be the case today in mixed-race murders.
You will all be aware of the glaring difference in the way the media report on white on black crime (default is, it’s a racist crime) and black on white (default it’s just a crime, race is kept out of it). Where a defendant is non-white, it is all too easy to deny murder with a claim of racism. The media rush to report at length any perceived racist murder, while more or less ignoring white victims of non-white violence. Then to compound the injustice, they will demonise any support offered to white victims by, what they call ‘right-wing’ groups, as ‘stirring up hatred’ , when all the while they continually stir up hatred themselves, with their non-stop references to the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. The result of this is that the grieving white families are isolated from their only source of support. Our genuine wish to help is guaranteed to be made ‘toxic’ by the media. The legal fraternity will argue against deporting a foreign criminal back to his home country, in case he may not receive a fair trial, while we natives cannot get a fair trial in our own country despite our supposedly superior legal system.
 I would like to speak to you of just such a case and highlight what I see as serious flaws in the jury system, and also contrast the different outcomes for the two Greenwich families involved.
·        I am certain that all of you will have heard of one Greenwich mother, Doreen Lawrence whose son Stephen was murdered in 1993, in a supposed ‘racist’ killing. You cannot fail to forget this particular murder as you will have been reminded of it on a daily basis over the past 26 years, by a media obsessed by that ONE victim.
How many of you will have heard of another Greenwich mother, Sue Gregory whose two sons were murdered by non-natives, almost 2 years to the day apart. One perpetrator West Indian, the second Vietnamese? Sue was just getting her life back together following Terry’s murder, when a tragic quirk of fate, saw her elder son Billy, murdered almost 2 years to the day after Terry, in the Earl of Chatham pub in Woolwich on Dec 25th 2005 aged 23, by a Vietnamese immigrant For this talk I will concentrate on the case of Terry Gregory as there was some measure of justice for Billy, with his murderer, Thu Nguyen being sentenced to 14 years imprisonment in October 2006, although he almost certainly will be out of prison now and free to commit more violent crime – he had attacked another drinker with a glass not long before murdering Billy.
·        Sue Gregory was always at pains to say that the family were not claiming a racist attack in the case of Terry, although all it requires for an attack to be deemed ‘racist’ is for someone to claim it was and Terry’s murder seems to have almost certainly had black aggressive elements of feeling disrespected, especially in front of 3 young black women. Billy’s murder may also have been racist, as Vietnamese, like blacks, have fragile egos and are also easily disrespected. Who can know what was in the mind of the murderer and whether he was having racist thoughts as he plunged the knife? Why the disparity of media and police attention? The CPS were not even prepared to seek a third trial in the Gregory case, although the evidence appears compelling, while the law of double-jeopardy was changed in order to pursue Lawrence’s murderers and that case goes on to this day.
Is Doreen Lawrence’s grief for her one son any more than Sue Gregory’s for her two sons, simply because one murder was deemed to be racist?.
·        On the night of Sat 27th December 2003, Terry, his girlfriend Louise Reed and his friend Sam Nelson went to the Pullman pub in Woolwich for a night out. They were probably all quite merry by the time they left, catching the N1 bus to where they lived in Charlton – crucially there was no CCTV footage available although all buses have these cameras.

Terry felt sick and they got off the bus so he could get some air. There was an umbrella lying around which Terry started fooling around with – he was soon confronted by a black man who claimed it as belonging to one of his 3 female companions. A scuffle ensued in which Terry, being the younger, fitter man unfortunately seems to have got the better of his antagonist. Some Asian men stopped in a car and seemed to have been successful in defusing the situation as the black man and his companions got on a bus and disappeared. Terry and his friends continued walking home along Woolwich Church Street and as they approached The Albion pub, about half a mile from Terry’s home, the black man from the umbrella incident reappeared. In the following minutes, in a frenzied attack, Sam Nelson sustained a deep knife wound to his hand and Terry in attempting to protect his friend, was stabbed 9 times including twice in the back. Terry was rushed to hospital but did not survive.

·        A description of a man wanted for questioning was circulated and on 30th December, 65 year-old George Edwin of Maryon Rd Charlton gave himself up at Shooters Hill police station. He was charged with Terry’s murder and GBH in relation to Sam Nelson.

·        CPS must have been confident in a murder charge as opposed to manslaughter, as the evidence showed clear premeditation (time lapse between original altercation and defendant reappearing armed with a knife)

·        The first trial was in August 2004, at the Inner London Crown Court, and not at the Old Bailey as the Gregory family expected. The defendant George Edwin, admitted Terry had wound him up during the umbrella incident and when he saw the three friends again later, he feared HE would be attacked. He claimed this second encounter was near Prospect Vale and not the Albion. In my opinion, this was done in order to give the impression that the other three had followed him, and not vice-versa, as this would be nearer his home in Maryon Rd, whereas The Albion was nearer to Terry’s. Not only did Edwin admit to being in possession of a knife – he went as far as admitting drawing the knife, but supposedly to frighten off HIS would-be assailants. He denied stabbing Terry. The murder weapon was never found but the pathologist estimated it as being at least 10cm long.

 Edwin had no criminal convictions and it was easy for the defence to portray this supposed law-abiding black pensioner as the victim rather than the aggressor. The jury was unable to reach a majority verdict on the murder charge and were dismissed and a new trial ordered.
Someone mentioned double-jeopardy, but this case was outside the remit of double-jeopardy, as there was no verdict or acquittal.

·        The second trial commenced on 21st October 2004. On this occasion the jury visited the scene of the crime by the Albion pub. This pub as one would expect from its name, boasts a sign depicting Winston Churchill in the guise of John Bull, complete with Union Jack waistcoat. Lying nearby was a wreath , also in the style of a Union Jack, which had been placed there by a local lady who knew Terry had been a sports fanatic. This was not long after Britain’s Olympic winners victory tour in London and as we all know, sports merchandising is full of Union Jack images, but our national emblem is now used as a stick to beat us and is always seen by the establishment as evidence of that ubiquitous racism, when it comes to whites.
The NF had already laid a wreath at the scene of the crime in January 2004, and this, tragically, served only to strengthen the defence’s claim of Terry’s possible racist connections.
Needless to say, on returning to court, the seeds would have been well and truly sown in the minds of the jurors, that this was perhaps, a racist enclave. The mention by Edwin’s defence, of the proximity (same borough, not really close) to where Stephen Lawrence was killed, the inference being ‘this is an area where blacks are in fear of their lives’ – the character of the victim then being sullied when he cannot defend himself. It is almost OK for a black to kill a white if the victim is portrayed as a racist. If, God forbid, I was murdered by a non-native, regardless of motive, they would have a cast-iron ‘stay out of jail card’ as my BNP membership would be seen as mitigating. The assailant had to be the victim and the victim ‘had it coming’.
Why was the defence lawyer allowed to draw the jury’s attention to the fact that this was not far from where Stephen Lawrence was murdered as though to infer that it was acceptable to overlook white victims as all whites in this part of Greenwich must be racist and it’s ok to murder racists – Isn’t it? It was also easy for the defence to demolish unsophisticated witnesses like Sam Nelson and Terry’s 16 year-old girlfriend Louise Reed, and then attack their conflicting evidence. Louise had been so traumatised by the first trial that she chose to give evidence via video link in the second trial.

This time round Edwin claimed not to remember much of what happened that night, he responded:-

 To my knowledge I never stabbed that boy. I am not a murderer. I am not a killer’

His performance and the underhand tactics of his defence seem to have been sufficient to convince the jury of his innocence, despite the damning evidence.

·        Is it not unbelievable that you can have a defendant who admits to both HAVING the knife and DRAWING it but whose memory then fails at this crucial moment? Did the jury believe that someone else intervened at this point and stabbed Terry 9 times? On this occasion, the jury found Edwin NOT GUILTY on the GBH charge relating to Sam Nelson but again could not reach a verdict in relation to the murder charge. After deliberation the CPS said they did not intend to seek a third trial. On 3rd November 2004, the judge dismissed the murder charge, declaring George Edwin NOT GUILTY, adding ‘You leave this court without a stain upon your character’.

The Gregorys were devastated

·        It is possible that the jury was split over whether it was a case of murder OR manslaughter, NOT as to the defendant’s innocence of either. The second jury should have been directed by the judge to reach a majority verdict on either murder OR manslaughter, but it seems that in our antiquated judicial system, this is not permissible. It is quite possible that George Edwin walked free when both juries believed him guilty and were only split between those believing it was murder and those thinking it was manslaughter. Thus a man who admits to carrying a large bladed weapon and is not averse to drawing it when crossed, was allowed to walk free.

·        In January 2005 the NF planned another wreath-laying ceremony, preceded by a march. On the day, the usual suspects, UAF/Hate Not Hope, came out in force with ‘Stop the fascist BNP’ banners, press reports mentioned the NF having ‘very short haircuts’, some having their faces covered with scarves – Again, everyone here will know that it is the fascist UAF and their-like, who hide behind scarves and masks, not patriotic groups like the NF and BNP, who were there simply to remember white victims of non-white violence. A copy of the Fallen List was laid where Terry had fallen.

·        I would also like to highlight the difference in outcomes for the two mothers:-

Doreen Lawrence feted in the media, a whole pack of lawyers at her   disposal and then a seat in the House of Lords. Her son’s name constantly mentioned by the media and in parliament. Not content with the existing memorials, there is now to be an annual Stephen Lawrence Day and there is also a petition for a statue in Trafalgar Square.

Sue Gregory, ignored by the media, no lawyers coming forward to help her in her fight against a patent miscarriage of justice. Her son’s names forgotten save for on the patriots Fallen List. Greenwich Council dragging their heels dealing with her council house transfer, which meant she came face-to-face with her son’s killer on a regular basis. A lowly job with Greenwich Council from which she is now on sick-leave due to serious illness.

·        I believe Juries generally, and certainly for murder trials, are no longer fit for purpose. They worked when we were a homogenous people being tried by 12 of our countrymen, but now with multiculturalism all sorts of other allegiances and identities are involved race, religion, sexual orientation.

·        I recalled initially reading of the murder in the local paper in December 2003 and thinking killed because of an umbrella? I then came across the story of the trial and acquittal in November 2004, and the man who almost certainly murdered Terry walking from the court a free man. My own son was a teenager at the time, I felt for the family - it could just as easily have been me in this nightmare situation.
The whole case struck me as a grave miscarriage of justice, having seen on more than one occasion as a juror, the injustice of our legal system eventually walking out of a jury trial in August that same year.

·         Meeting with Sue Gregory in about December 2004, I was determined to do what I could to draw attention to the injustice suffered by her family. When I called at her house in Charlton, her son Billy recalled reading MY jury-walkout story in the local paper – Billy would himself be a murder victim within a year.

I did not have myself have power, or a platform, but I could write letters and send emails. I joined forces with Stewart Rigby, a friend of Terry’s from his time as a lifeguard at Eltham Baths. Stewart had sat through both trials and was shocked at the outcome, he wrote to his local MP and Baroness Scotland, Attorney General at the time (subsequently discredited),questioning a legal system which delivers such injustice. Ironically, at the foot of the Attorney General’s letters was the following line:- ‘Building a safe, just and tolerant society’.
I wrote to several journalists whom I thought were in a position to perhaps take up the case and give it wider exposure:- Simon Jenkins, Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips, Joshua Rozenberg –not one expressed an interest. Simon Jenkins had himself written a lengthy article in the Times calling for the abolition of the jury system. Having served as a juror on 3 occasions, Jenkins, like me, felt they were time-wasting, inefficient and expensive. He argued that jury justice is largely guesswork, as they are denied crucial pieces of evidence, like previous convictions of a similar nature. Juries will agonise over their decision on serious cases, expecting a guilty verdict to attract a prison sentence, which seems to very rarely follow – that seems to have been both Jenkins and my experience. Not only was I unsuccessful in my attempts to draw media attention to the Gregory case, but Stewart Rigby who I had been working with, refused to speak to me on hearing that I was a member of the BNP – thus, I have many unanswered questions and no one to ask.
Evidence of guilt in the Gregory case, seems to have been conclusive, however, this trial was conducted amid blatant appeals to emotion and prejudice, when the jury are expected to make a decision based solely on the evidence. The judge in both trials should have intervened to stop the defence resorting to smear tactics against the victim and inferences that perhaps Terry and his friend Sam were part of a white gang-culture. Juries are all too easily swayed, especially if race is involved and again, I know this from my own personal experience as a juror where one jury was convinced that perhaps the black gang involved suffered racism at the hands of the police who had been called to crime scene, some jurors were quite prepared to believe that the police had planted evidence on the blacks.

I believe that if George Edwin had appeared in front of a panel of judges he would have been found GUILTY.

                                               


·        I was recently reminded that 28th Dec 2018, marked the fifteenth anniversary of Terry’s murder. We must not forget victims like Terry.
A first step would be to have the Terry Gregory case re-examined under the police’s increasingly successful cold case review process (New Tricks TV series).


 Is this asking too much when there is a police team still investigating the Stephen Lawrence case after 26 years?

In 2006, in the first trial under the amended double-jeopardy provisions of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003, William Dunlop was tried for the third time of the murder of Julie Hogg in 1989, this time Dunlop admitted to strangling the victim. Two previous trials in 1991 had broken down with both juries failing to reach a verdict, as in the Gregory case and an acquittal following the CPS not seeking a third trial.

Friday, 1 March 2019

Nick Griffin is the actual British National Party Leader

Nick Griffin is the actual British National Party Leader

When Adam Walker stood on a platform in London promising 'a New Leadership Style', he spoke about a brighter future with lots of visibility. Since then, the Karate Instructor has been practically invisible. Adam Walker is used to carry out interviews with members of the public without telling them who he is and he gets away with it because, unlike Nick Griffin, Adam Walker has no useful political profile apart for a dubious personal profile generated by a very public confrontation with students that made him become very shy and reluctant to appear in front of television cameras.

Nick Griffin was directly targeted because he used to get things done. Under his leadership a so called Far Right political party achieved what no so called Far Right organisation had achieved before or even dream about achieving. Two MEPs, a Member of the London Assembly, effective Opposition in a London local authority and a significant number of Councillors across the rest of the country. 

The spiteful National Front that never ever achieved anything of significance set out to destroy the British National Party. While the British National Party glorified national symbols and national flags, the National Front was either using flags with Swastikas or glorifying a foreign ideology while pretending to be British. National Front might gather around the Cenotaph but their ideals are far from being British ideals.

It is no coincidence that individuals like Richard Edmonds and Tony Martin went back to National Front. In actual fact, they never left and the National Front since its early days has been at war with itself, a war that was promoted by infiltrators like Sonia Gable who used to get information by mole-ing with practically every single National Front high ranking officer.

National Front Leaders don't last too long. But this doesn't really matter because it has never achieved anything of significance anyway. 
Did John Tyndall actually change when he left National Front to create the British National Party? Not really. And this is precisely why his replacement as Leader by Nick Griffin came as a shock to the system. People like John Tyndall wanted a bit of the same away from the backstabbing routine of the National Front. For John Tyndall, BNP was supposed to be NF Mark 2. His plans were brought to a halt by somebody who is much better educated than he was. The Cambridge Man wanted a completely new organisation without the crappy baggage of the National Front. 

People who were sick and tired of the treacherous practices of both Labour and Conservatives joined the new organisation. Labour voters and Conservative voters decided to support the British National Party and this made possible the landslide that produces two Members of the European Parliament. 

This was a red alert for the Establishment and the Mass Media that immediately decided to infiltrate and destroy the British National Party from within. Police Officers joined the British National Party and went around promoting dissent, engaging in racist talk and making salutes pretending to be genuine British National Party supporters. The campaign against Nick Griffin and the British National Party was planned, organised and implemented by the Political Establishment. To this effect, they used the mass media and para-political organisations like the UAF and Hope Not Gate. Labour Party politicians and mass media including the BBC produced a gigantic cover up regarding the indecent and criminal activities of Muslim gangs mainly of Pakistani descent for many years. In actual fact, Nick Griffin was the first one to denounce organised gang rape including drugs and alcohol and did so in dialogue with the BBC only to be called racist for denouncing criminal activities.

For more than 16 years, the Labour Party and Police knew about gang rape in epic proportions in places like Rotherham and other British cities and did absolutely nothing to protect vulnerable children many of who were being supposedly protected by Social Services that rather than protecting children were actively acting as suppliers of vulnerable children for the rapists.

The flag against crimes against children was later taken by Tommy Robinson - himself a former British National Party member -, Paul Golding - himself a former British National Party Member-, Jayda Fransen and Anne Marie Waters. With the exception of Anne Marie Waters, Tommy Robinson, Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen have all had to serve prisons sentences as campaigners against abuses against children and campaigners against terrorism.

The next stage has been to ban campaigners like Paul Golding, Jayda Fransen and Tommy Robinson from using social media to raise awareness of what is an ongoing problem in Britain. The likes of Gerard Batten and Kate Hopkins have joined the fight against abuses but entire areas of Britain have been taken over by individuals who can carry out attacks while little is being done to prevent such attacks or to punish the perpetrators.

Extremism is being promoted by the Establishment, the mass media and para-political organisations who try to silence those who denounce crime and this is done for political reasons. Certain Members of Parliament need the money and votes of the perpetrators of crimes to keep themselves in the House of Commons. When a Labour MP raised her head to denounce crimes, she was targeted and called racist.

Accusations of racism are the favourite tool of many political operators when they try to cover up abuses being committed. Recently, several Labour MPs left the Labour Party making speeches about anti-Semitism - including amongst them a Jewish MP. They should be reminded of the fact that a white Jewish Lady was told by Muslim leaders that she couldn't stand as local Candidate because she was too Jewish and too white. Any complaints about it? Isn't refusing to support a candidate because she was Jewish and white a flagrant expression of racism and anti-Semitism? What happened to Muslim leaders that engaged in racism and anti-Semitism? Absolutely nothing. Not even a slap on the wrists.

There should be one Justice for all regardless of race, religion or any other consideration. Justice should be Universal. But this doesn't happen in Britain, not even when you are dealing with Social Services that seem to be making decisions based on race, religion and nationality.

When there is so much talk about new political parties, there is the need of a political organisation that really and truly represent the views of a growing number of people who have become disenchanted with so called mainstream political parties. Without a Parliament that is truly representative of public opinion, we are going to go from crisis to crisis and as the gap between those occupying positions of power and the rest of the population grows, British Democracy will become increasingly unstable.

The rise of the Gilet Jaunes in France and elsewhere is no coincidence. Those who have no political representation take to the streets and conflict soon follows. Those wanting to protect a status quo that is not working use repression and bans up to the point when they lose control as a a consequence we see the rise of the number of corpses lying on the streets.

For a true Democratic System to exist and be effective, all views must be represented everywhere and this is includes governing bodies, the administration, education, mass media and social media.