The Battle for Barking revisited post Obama

To my surprise I find this evening that I never saw this documentary, although many of the scenes are familiar to me as clips on YouTube, especially the one of Bob Bailey - an impressive streetfighter - in a scuffle with some Asian youths. 

The word elegiac comes to mind  though of course the music was added later after the results were known.

"Always cry out in pain as you strike your enemy" was the tactic clearly being employed by Labour not short of funds or the minds of bright young researchers working for them or large numbers of the immigrant community organised to frighten other voters into not voting BNP.

My memory is a little hazy now, but I remember trying to tell them to be nicer to the immigrants and not frighten them too much with anti-immigrant rhetoric, but as usual, I was ignored. They couldn't have done what Trump did to win the Presidential election by being nice to legal immigrants, because they didn't have it in them to be like that, for class reasons, probably. Anyway, when Margaret Hodge told the immigrant community that the BNP would if elected throw their babies out of helicopters she was instantly believed. (This is actually a very old Labour tactic. In the 1980s I met a Sikh woman - the sister of my BBC journalist ex-friend - who seemed to believe that voting Tory would mean being "sent home on the first banana boat", because this was what the local Labour Party had been repeatedly telling her. Years later, this ex-friend informed me that her mother had moved to Ascot to get away from her West London neighbourhood that now had too many Asians.)

How sullen, abusive and violent the immigrant community were to my mates in BNP activists was quite telling. It is how nasty people might treat abandoned children because they know they can get away with it, because they already know no one cares about them.

"Why did British people die in the Second World War?" one BNP-supporting householder asked.

"They died to let everyone come in and take over."

Victimisation of BNP GLA member by Kangaroo Court

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/09/bnp-blasts-%E2%80%9Cutterly-vile-hypocrisy%E2%80%9D-in-richard-barnbrook-ruling/


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6846492.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/25/bnp-barnbrook-false-murder-claims

http://www.mpacuk.org/story/250909/bnps-barnbrook-face-ban-murder-lies.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/12/bnp-barnbrook-murders

Councillor Richard Barnbrook got his facts wrong when making a point about knifecrime on his blog.



He claimed three murders took place in Barking & Dagenham over a period of time. It turned out that two were attempted murders because the victims subsequently recovered, and the third murder did not take place in Barking but in Newham, though the victim did come from Barking.



When this was pointed out to him, he argued that it was still substantially true, in that this was the average number of murders that takes place in his borough and the real situation as regards knifecrime is even worse, because not all knifings are reported to the police by victims.



The video of him discussing this was placed on YouTube and on his blog and stayed on for four weeks/months(?) after this factual error was pointed out to him.



The action was brought by Labour Councillor Val Rush who claimed that by knowingly lying about these facts, he had brought his office into disrepute and that he was whipping up fear of crime and causing confidence to be lost in the police. The pretext that anyone in this country has any confidence in the police nowadays, when fear of violent crime is so high that we are now a "walk on by" society, is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.



When asked by Councillor Barnbrook how this could have brought his office into disrepute, particularly as no one else had complained about this factual error apart from her, it was merely repeated by Councillor Rush that he had brought his office into disrepute. The impression he had given of knifecrime in Barking was substantially true he suggested, after reading from a list detailing murders on a year by year basis in the borough. The average of 3 was about right, he claimed. In fact, in some years it was even as high as 6 or 8.

"Even one murder is one murder too many," Councillor Barnbrook said.

Councillor Rush repeated her allegation that he had whipped up fear of crime and brought his office into disrepute, without saying how or why (probably because she was unable to), though she was asked this question twice.



The tribunal (or should I say kangaroo court?) unanimously found him to be guilty as charged and punished.



Barnbrook said he would be appealing, and I hope he does.



If he has not brought his office into disrepute (and it was certainly not proven or even explained how he had done so), then he should not be punished.

The enmity between Councillors Rush and Barnbrook as individuals and as members of rival parties is well-established, and is detailed in the documentary evidence. Only Councillor Rush, who had an axe to grind, complained after he mentioned her name in the YouTube video in an aside about how Labour is using taxpayers' money to publish a free local paper which gives an unrealistically rosy view of life in Barking. This attracts advertising away from the local paper which publishes real news, nice and nasty. It would suit Labour to not have the bad news reported by any other paper, Barnbrook was suggesting.

Since no one else has complained about Barnbrooks video, it is certainly arguable that the tribunal was biased. It is well-known that all the mainstream parties regard members of the BNP as "evil", "racist", "fascist", "Holocaust Deniers", "Nazis" etc and an electoral threat.



The documentation was substantial and lawyers were of course instructed to prepare them. I therefore wonder how much taxpayer money has been used to facilitate the victimisation of this BNP councillor who was expressing concern about knifecrime and exploring ways of dealing with it, in the face of the ruling party's understandable desire to pretend that nothing is as bad as the media says it is and its anxiety to assure us that everything's under control.

London Muslims "suicide voting" for the BNP?

My recommendation on how to make the best use of your second vote, ie to vote for Ken and BNP, is based on the fact that they are both anti-establishment and AGAINST INVADING IRAQ FROM THE START, which is good enough for me, and perhaps for any Muslims reading this.

Personally, I do not see why Islam could not become the happy medium between capitalism red in tooth and claw and an overweening nanny state, the happy compromise between a male-dominated society and the over-feminised society we have become, mutatis mutandis.

DO EUROSCEPTIC MUSLIMS EXIST?


If so, they may wish to read this with particular attention.


If the BNP do well, they will be keen on doing even better.


If they become keen on maximising their support, they would have to consider lifting their colour bar, if to do so would significantly increase membership and win over those who are currently in UKIP and voting for UKIP.

The local elections last year (or was it the year before?) revealed that the BNP commanded 14% of the vote. UKIP had 12% and the LibDems 28%. If UKIP and the BNP merged and became a party that no longer operated a colour bar or wished for the repatriation of non-white citizens, they would very probably receive around 26% of the vote, if not much more, AND BE IN A POSITION TO INFLUENCE EVENTS.



If support for UKIP collapses after the BNP modernises itself, then the voter would at last have ONLY ONE Eurosceptic party with which to demand a referendum, rather than the current vote-splitting choice of two. (Unless there is a revolution, the BNP will have to play by the rules of the current system, and there is no imminent danger of a BNP government in any case.)

If the UK leaves the EU as a result of a referendum, then there is a chance Britain will once again become a sovereign nation state operating commonsense government, rather than remaining part of the EU, led by a discredited and ineffectual out-of-touch liberal elite, who are too dishonest and disorganised to tackle the urgent problems facing us now.

REASONS TO VOTE BNP EVEN IF YOU ARE MUSLIM

Because they were against invading Iraq from the beginning. Anyone who was at the anti-war demo in Hyde Park 2003, as I was, will know that the BNP marched with the Muslims, Jesse Jackson, Ken Livingstone and assorted groups, including the Socialist Workers' Party against the Iraq invasion.

Had there been a BNP government it would not have invaded Iraq - not in the national interest and "none of our business", you see!



Neither would a BNP government have supported the Israeli government unconditionally at the expense of the Palestinians. Many in the BNP cannot decide between whom they dislike more - Jews or Muslims. Therefore a BNP government would have been isolationist and non-interventionist.

What is important is that Boris (who voted for the war and has made Islamophobic comments) does not become mayor.

Muslims can safely vote for Ken and BNP because

(1) both were against the Iraq invasion

(2) both are anti-establishment (Ken is supposedly Labour but that is only because they know any rival Labour candidate would be a dead duck, as Frank Dobson was in 2000 -Ken had 40% of the vote, Dobson around 12%)

(3) it will upset and frighten all those of our ruling classes who pursue insane foreign policies that do no one any good


Any Muslims who can bring themselves to do what might be described as "suicide voting" should have the courage to declare his intentions and let it be known that this is what they have done, by posting a comment here and joining http://www.1party4all.co.uk/ where there is a poll on precisely this issue.

http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=105
Vote: Should Londoners vote BNP on 1 May 2008 to upset and alarm our ruling classes?



Remember, it was Tory and Labour who voted to invade Iraq and are even now planning to curtail our liberties further by using this "war" on terrorism as an excuse.


Think about it. Is the enemy of your enemy your friend? Is the government and its opposition your "friend" when it operates an insane foreign policy that is bad for all Britons and even now won't admit it?


Is the BNP really your enemy when it has committed no atrocity or messed up anyone's country? OK, they don't like you, but are you that surprised when they have seen their part of the country changed out of all recognition within such a short space of time?


Are you so sure you wouldn't join BNP if you happened to be working class and indigenous?


No? Then consider the evil already done by Labour and Tory (who voted for the war) whom you are supposed to trust. Compare and contrast that to the probability of the evil that might befall you if you used your protest vote in the way that would most upset the Tory and Labour warmongers (and those who would acquiesce with their war-mongering).


There is only one way to stay safe, be brave and make a point - vote Ken and BNP!

The most rousing rendition of Jerusalem I have heard

JERUSALEM - THE BNP ANTHEM

It is now abundantly clear why the Dean of Southwark Cathedral Colin Slee has decided to ban Jerusalem.

It was not because it suddenly came upon him that “those feet in ancient times” which might have walked upon England's Mountains green” belonged to Nazi stormtroopers, but because the BNP have adopted it as their anthem, which they sing before meetings.

As a non-white member of the press invited to attend their East London meeting on 19 April, I must say that it was the most rousing rendition of Jerusalem I have ever had the pleasure of hearing. A soprano voice filled the chorus, and it sent a shiver down my spine. I said as much to the genteel lady in lilac whose voice it was afterwards and she modestly responded that it was nice to know that she had managed to keep her voice. (Some may be keen to point out parallels to the rousing rendition of “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” sung by an earnest Aryan soldier in “Cabaret”, but I am already aware of it.)

Others may wonder how I comported myself, but it just did not occur to do anything else than to stand up, join in and rather enjoy the unusual experience.

HOW RACE HATE LEGISLATION AGGRAVATES RACIAL TENSIONS

Jeffrey Marshall, the London Assembly candidate from East London, introduced himself and mentioned white locals being attacked and intimidated by Muslim gangs and no-go areas. It is for the police to deal with these incidents firmly and fairly and not the fault of peaceable Muslims if the police are reluctant to deal with multi-racial thugs because they fear accusations of racism and demotion.

The race hate legislation does little to help but everything to muddy the waters. If it is illegal to assault anyone, then it is absolutely illegal. Making it an aggravating factor to assault someone on the grounds of their religion or race only creates a sense of grievance and a headache for prosecutors and enforcers, creating a greater potential for crime, disorder and racial and religious resentment.

But will our ruling classes listen, or continue to shut their ears?

RIVERS OF BLOOD - 4O YEARS ON

Nick Griffin the leader was there to rally the troops for their mayoral campaign.40 years ago tomorrow, he began, Enoch Powell made his famous Rivers of Blood speech. Trevor Phillips has, from the Midland Hotel in Birmingham where Powell made his speech, both agreed and disagreed with the gist of what was said. It has been said by some that Powell in fact equipped the liberals with the means to operate a conspiracy of silence, where anyone complaining about immigration would be accused of racism. The consequences of the "black man having the whip hand" had already predicted been in the 50s, and is dealt with in the latest issue of Identity by John Bean, when the implications of the British Nationality Act 1949 were being examined, but it was Powell's colourful language that gave the issue its incendiary properties.

MORAL COWARDICE OF EVERYONE, REALLY

Perhaps it is not so much Powell's incendiary words but the moral cowardice of the mainstream parties (and those who are too afraid of being accused of racism) that we should blame. It cannot be hard to imagine that there must be a Powell-equivalent in every Western nation now complaining about foreigners, who was also ignored at the time.

WHY WE ARE SWAMPED WITH FOREIGNERS

That they were ignored was because it only affected the working classes, and in any case it suited the governments of all hues to sweep under the carpet the awful truth that it is the addiction to the welfare state that makes our secret addiction to cheap foreign labour inevitable.While everyone complains about foreigners from time to time, the situation is most acute in countries where decades of progressive "education" has produced generations of school-leavers who are undisciplined, innumerate, illiterate and unfit for work.

Of course, sorting this out is outside the remit of the short-termist mind-set of those currently in charge, who will always have more urgent matters to deal with, such as how to stay in power by not offending anyone or doing anything much.

The English, Griffin continued, are invisible in East London, the biggest ethnic minority in their own city.

Once, when there were grammar schools, the indigenous working classes of East London might have bettered themselves, but now they are almost without exception condemned to low-pay jobs and obliged to compete with yet more newcomers for jobs, housing and benefits.Because of the demographic changes, the prospects of electoral success are against the BNP in East London but are looking good elsewhere, for it has been noted that many, in Hampstead, Highgate, Kingston, Richmond – the posh people formerly indifferent to the lot of the lower orders - are now supporting the BNP for saying things that none of the other parties dare to say.

TV TRAILERS DR GOEBBELS WOULD BE PROUD OF

The media now appear insatiable in their appetite to discuss immigration, particularly the broadcast media who are doing TV trailers which he says “Dr Goebbels could not have done any better”.

One was of a white man’s face serving as a "white board" being gradually over-written in a variety of foreign languages. Another was of a peaceful British bulldog in a pleasant English park having his territory invaded, urinated and defecated on by non-bulldog breeds, followed by an orgiastic doggy free-for-all that would only produce mongrels.

Nazi propaganda of Jews being portrayed as scurrying rats was nothing compared to this, he said.

THE BNP AS THE POLITICAL CENTRE?

Something has shifted, he declared. The BNP now appear to be the political centre. Gordon Brown has proclaimed the wisdom of “British jobs for British workers”. David Blunkett has described Britain as a “huge coiled spring of racial tension”.

He wondered how Muslims and immigrants must now feel. [To be honest, it did not occur to me to even feel threatened, just glad that the subject is finally being given the airing it deserves. As for the Muslims, it must now be water off a duck’s back to them by now. After all, they have been the victims of unwanted attention ever since 9/11 2001. The ones I know about are genuinely concerned about the future of religious freedom in this country, aware as they are that there may well be a significant minority who probably want to ban Islam, Muslims and mosques.]

We will know things are really wrong when the foreigners go, before being invited to leave by the BNP. In this scenario, food riots rather than race riots will be more likely.
Griffin then pointed out that he had been correct in predicting 18 months before 7/7 2005 that the bombers would come from Bradford.

GRIFFIN PREDICTS "PEACE" WALLS IN 3 YEARS

The liberal media are now practising a form of perestroika, he continued, of glasnost and reform from within, by more honestly debating immigration, but they have now got a tiger by the tail. The UAF “United Against Fascism” – whom Griffin described as “government-sponsored thugs” who use violence to intimidate the BNP no longer use their more unpleasant methods of intimidation, but government ministers still hold meetings with them.

Within 3 years, he predicted British cities will be on fire from Glasgow to London, Liverpool to Hull, and it will not be long before we have “peace” walls, such as those in Londonderry and Belfast, to keep different communities from each other’s throats.

[Protestants and Catholics are the same race in the sense that they are not racially distinct in appearance, and the situation in Northern Ireland has improved rather than deteriorated. I also like to think that problems can be sorted out in time by good policing and sensible laws that are not tainted by the inequalities and confusion created by political correctness.]

GERRYMANDERING

On the subject of gerrymandering, Griffin commented that it is disproportionate for Dame Shirley Porter to be fined £40 million for moving about 40 yuppies into council flats. A clearer case of gerrymandering would be Operation Black Vote which has been going on for longer and used up more of taxpayers’ money.

He concluded by saying that the BNP are “the right party in the right place at the right time” to enthusiastic applause.I did not applaud because I felt it would compromise my journalistic integrity, nor did I contribute to the collection, but I felt, somehow, that I should have, because I had enjoyed the "entertainment" they had laid on.It may be wondered if one can produce rational and consistent reasons to be not anti-Muslim, pro-BNP, pro-Ken and anti-Boris, but I hope I have managed to do this.

A GOOD USE OF OUR SECOND VOTE

The option of casting a second vote of course makes it perfectly possible to vote Ken and BNP, in order to punish our ruling classes who have been sweeping the problem of immigration under the carpet until now, when the media in its wisdom sees fit to raise the issue.

THE EU'S FINGER IN THIS PIE

Doing anything about immigration would of course require the approval of the EU because we are now its vassal state and require its permission to have our own immigration policy. No doubt this is something our ruling classes would also like to stay under the carpet. They have after all conspired to deny us a referendum on this matter on the EU Constitution AKA the Lisbon Treaty.

BORIS THE DORIS - LOOKING A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH

Boris has already said he doesn't want the second vote BNP supporters were proposing to give him. The Tory candidate, has pronounced Islam “the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers” (which pleases BNP supporters), unlike Ken who has been making all the right noises as far as the Muslims are concerned. That he at least could see the folly of invading Iraq, unlike Boris, continues to stand in his favour as far as I am concerned.

What a fool is Boris to look a gift horse in the mouth - another reason why the bungling and warmongering buffoon does not deserve to win!

http://london.bnp.org.uk/?p=87

for their report of the meeting

www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=105
Vote: Should Londoners vote BNP on 1 May 2008 to upset and alarm our ruling classes?

Balancing Safety and Recklessness on 1 May 2008

Ken or the BNP candidate Richard Barnbrook? Or both? (There is the option of a second vote.)

How should Londoners vote? According to whom they think will probably win, like a punter betting on a horse? (In this case, it has to be for "our" Ken, a smooth operator with his super-sensitive political antennae. He did not want to invade Iraq, unlike Bungling Boris, who voted for the invasion. Ken was right about the IRA, surfing on the crest of Political Correctness and anti-car Environmentalism as he does. Ken at least knows to suck up to the Chinese and Muslims whose powers are waxing, whether we like it or not, and to abandon Uncle Sam whose powers are waning. The US will no doubt be wanting to have a bit of quiet to deal with the effects of the credit crunch and reap the whirlwind that Greenspan has sown. Ken for Foreign Secretary? We could do worse!)

Or, should Londoners vote for what would upset our ruling classes MOST? (In that case, The Protest Party of Londoners can only be the BNP, to cause maximum alarm to our ruling classes!)

What would YOU want to do, as a Londoner? "Win" a "bet", or upset the ruling classes?

The option of voting for the kind of policies you really want, eg lower taxes, lower crime, controlling immigration etc does NOT exist in our political system, as you must already know. We are now just reduced to choosing someone we think we could like and trust, when they are mostly fools, knaves and no-hopers. Well, maybe we should now start thinking about what we would like to DO, for a change, and the sort of message we want to send our ruling classes.

Now that our democratic “choice” has been reduced to these two stark choices, could it now be time to question the political system under which we are governed?

Vote: Should Londoners vote BNP on 1 May 2008 to upset and alarm our ruling classes?
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=105

London elections - 1 May 2008 - Ken or BNP? or both?

Press conference for the BNP campaign in the London Elections - manifesto launch

As an operator of an opinion-polling direct democracy politics website, the looming London elections pose something of a dilemma for me.

On what criteria should I base my vote on and recommend my members to vote? As a Londoner? A British citizen? A political strategist? As someone hoping to attract attention to her politics website (whose purpose is to demonstrate the practicability of direct democracy and government by referenda, because we now have the technology, even if not the political will)?

Should I just vote for the party or candidate I know will probably win, like a punter betting on a horse?

BORIS OR KEN?

In that case it will be Ken for being a ruthless political operator well-armed with low cunning, and who seems to have a crystal ball that tells him which way the wind is blowing. After all, he knew not to invade Iraq, unlike Boris who voted for the war but now disingenuously claims he was misled and that a Conservative government would have dealt with everything a lot better. Ken was right about the IRA, wasn’t he? The fact that he got away with calling a Jewish reporter a Nazi in these rigorously PC times makes me warm to him. That he is a serial seducer with numberless illegitimate children does not put me off him either.)

VOTE FOR THE BEST MANIFESTO?
Or should I vote for the candidate or the party with the best manifesto? Of course, I have been around for long enough now to know that governments do not strictly adhere to what they promise to do in their manifestoes and have many reasons and excuses why they cannot or will not do as they have stated they would. The Lisbon Treaty, previously called the EU Constitution, comes to mind.

Even if it is all lies, it is still gratifying to be given promises we want to hear, however transient the pleasure and hollow the result.

A CARLSBERG MANIFESTO
By this criterion at any rate, the BNP manifesto refreshes the parts others cannot reach.

MOSQUES AND MUSLIMS
While it is true they have a problem with mosques and Muslims, and would prevent more mosques from being built, I imagine there are probably enough mosques around to serve Muslim Londoners. An indefinite (and by implication temporary) prohibition would not unduly inconvenience or aggrieve Muslims too much, I hope.

COLOUR BAR
While it is true that I have a problem with the BNP’s racist membership policy, I like to think of myself as open-minded and tolerant about others’ foibles. The BNP continue to deny that their colour bar is racist and claim that the existence of other organisations based on race, eg the Black Police Officers Association, justifies the position they have taken: they simply want to exclusively represent the interests of the indigenous and proletarian Briton, because the Labour Party no longer does.

It would probably be a good thing for them if they made up their mind what they want to be: a political party or an all-white club. The former could in theory wield power, the latter merely keep out unwanted members.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Not being allowed to join a party or a club is the converse of freedom of association and I gladly acknowledge that they have every right to exclude whoever they like, for real freedom of association can only logically mean the freedom to include oneself, provided that the group of people you want to join do not wish to exclude you.

Friendly persuasion is the only honourable course left for those who do not wish to remain excluded, not threats of lawsuits and coercion.

MUST BRITISH NATIONALS OR BRITISH NATIONALIST ALWAYS BE WHITE?
It is their implication that a non-Caucasian British citizen could never be a British national or a British nationalist that I find somewhat divisive and disturbing, but they should nevertheless be entitled to their opinion.

BOTH WHITES AND NON-WHITES DISCOURAGED FROM COMPLAINING ABOUT IMMIGRATION
Uncontrolled immigration concerns British citizens of all races, and there has long been a conspiracy of silence being operated by the media and the ruling classes. White Britons are immediately branded racist or fascist for daring to complain. Non-white Britons who complain would be invited to ask to go look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they can legitimately complain about the entry of others to this country looking like them, when they themselves are immigrants too. Would they like to join the BNP, who wouldn’t have them anyway? – is frequently added for good measure.

EASTERN EUROPEAN CATALYST
Eastern Europeans coming in to take the bread out of British mouths was the long-awaited catalyst in the immigration debate, for they are white but are just as resented or welcomed by indigenous and non-indigenous Britons depending on their economic status. If you are a hirer of labour you would be delighted by the increased supply of cheaper and more willing labour. If you are a member of the labour force and a competing claimant of the welfare state, then naturally you would not be quite so pleased at the new competition.

BROTHERS UNDER THE SKIN
We are all brothers under the skin, it has been said. But let us not forget that Cain murdered Abel when he perceived that his interests were being threatened. If we all had a doppel-ganger who would have access to all the love, sex, money, housing, welfare benefits that was previously exclusively ours, I have no doubt that we would take very firm steps to deal with this terrible twin.

The BNP gives voters the opportunity to give political expression to this understandable human reaction.

I fear however that I will get into terrible trouble for doing the equivalent of saying the emperor has no clothes, or that the earth is round and moves around the sun.

THE MOST POWERFUL PROTEST VOTE YOU HAVE
The incredulity and outrage of my detractors will soar to stratospheric heights when they discover that I, who am not and could not be a member of the BNP under its current membership rules, am recommending that Londoners and disgruntled voters of whatever colour, use the BNP mayoral candidate as a repository of their protest vote.

THE OLYMPICS IN ATHENS, FOREVER!
For their manifesto alone they deserve our vote, if we are voting according to whose promises we prefer to hear. It is stuffed full of ideas that will have Londoners nodding their head in agreement. Their proposal to invite Athens to host the 2012 Olympics instead of London, and thereafter to PERMANENTLY host them is delightful and delicious to the Londoner to who does not care who runs fastest or jumps highest and would rather not pay for the inconvenience of hosting it.

MOTORING
Their motoring policy is perfectly sensible, consisting of removing bus lanes, widening roads, eliminating bottlenecks, building the new Thames Gateway Bridge in East London, making the first hour of parking free and residents’ parking permits free. Their irresistibly populist proposal to remove unnecessary road humps and scrap the Congestion Charge must have most motorists cheering, surely?

PUBLIC TRANSPORT
For public transport, they would scrap the bendy bus and restore the Routemaster, reintroduce conductors on all double deckers, extend the tube’s operation until 2am, and introduce patrolling guards.

ESTUARY AIRPORT EAST OF LONDON
On air travel, building a new airport in the Thames Estuary seems a proposal of symmetrical commonsense, unlike the unbalanced scheme to build yet another runway at Heathrow.

BANNING THE VEIL
Banning the veil from public buildings and transport is another excellent idea, now that we are aware that male criminals use burqas as a disguise. It would even be good for Muslim women too, for they must know how differently they are treated when they wear the veil and when they do not, and how much fear and loathing is aroused by the sight of “black crows” walking amongst us. Perhaps some of them do so in order to annoy us, like those who like to go about with body piercings and tattoos that almost defiantly invite dislike. The right of people who feel they need to express their identity through going around looking odd or outlandish should be submerged in the pursuit of public safety and the prevention and discouragement of crime and terrorism.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS CORRECTED
In addition, a BNP mayor would get the police to “direct their energies at catching real criminals and would scrap all Ken Livingstone’s politically correct directives to the Met, and with them, the plethora of irritating ‘ethnic liaison officers’ and ‘gender outreach workers’ and the like. Police officers must be allowed to get on with their job unhindered, without fear or favour, and of operating colour-blind policing.”

APPRENTICESHIPS INSTEAD OF WORTHLESS QUALIFICATIONS
On the question of economic development and education, “London’s businesses need a well-educated labour force, particularly with high quality vocational skills rather than worthless (supposedly academic) qualifications. To this end, a BNP mayor would encourage apprenticeships as an alternative to university education" where appropriate.

There are no grounds on which any reasonable person could possibly object to these proposals. That they emanate from the BNP should give all thoughtful Londoners pause for thought and ask themselves how they are going to sensibly and effectively exercise their woefully limited political options on 1 May 2008.

ALARMING OUR RULING CLASSES
Londoners could vote for any other protest party (and dilute their protest in this way) but it would not quite have the same satisfying sensation of having alarmed our ruling classes, who seem to think they can treat us like fools and children forever.

UKIP AS AN ALTERNATIVE PROTEST VOTE FOR THE EUROSCEPTIC LONDONER?
An alternative receptacle of your protest vote is UKIP of course, if you fear and loathe the BNP and also happen to be a bit of Eurosceptic. Unfortunately, Gerard Batten’s manifesto is rather thin and unimaginative. The non-racist credentials of the UKIP may be found reassuring to some, but it has to be remembered that UKIP’s main paymasters are in fact the EU, for they have 9 MEPs. (Work out the total salary and allowances an MEP might receive, multiply by 9, ie €84,000 a year salary, €185,952 worth of parliamentary assistance allowance per MEP, plus travel and other allowances, and you will have a rough calculation of the extent to which UKIP is in the pocket of the EU.) UKIP now support the principle of subsidiarity – which means that a Member State agrees that the EU have a power to return to the Member State the control of what was formerly theirs to control. By acknowledging that the EU has this right, UKIP implicitly admit that they have given up this right.

UKIP might as well now be calling themselves “EUKIP”.

It seems the BNP are thinking of going the same way in order to obtain funding and make contacts, but I warn against this, for they will dissipate their energies in just the same way as UKIP are doing, and should instead take a leaf out of the Sinn Fein handbook: of not conceding anything in principle that would detract from their ultimate goal - it is for this reason that they will not and cannot swear allegiance to the Queen.

Operating in this country, the analogy of fish in ponds comes to mind. Daunting but not utterly hopeless.

Operating within the EU as MEPs, the analogy of being a mere teeth on a cog in an EU factory comes to mind.

Britain needs to travel light in the short to medium term, to be able to easily change gear in different terrains as well as slow down and speed up whenever necessary. Being part of a European Superstate means the equivalent of being on a supertanker that takes too long to change course, in shallow water and stormy weather. Not only is it a waste of time and energy, it could well be deadly.

TURKEY VOTING FOR XMAS?
The final and most interesting question for me is this:


Being a member of an ethnic minority, am I a turkey voting for Christmas when I recommend all Londoners of all races to consider voting BNP, were they minded to vote for a protest party?


Perhaps, but since it is only a mayoral election, and it is not within the remit of a London mayor to repatriate anyone as they would like to. (The BNP propose to pay £50,000 per repatriatee to "go home", and this may well be tempting enough to make some dishonest whites black up in order to claim this sum, before emigrating to their place in the sun.)


On balance, it seems quite safe on this occasion to use the BNP as a means of showing our displeasure with our ruling classes and the liberal elite.


A VOTER EQUIVALENT OF SUICIDE BOMBING?
I suppose it is the voter equivalent of "suicide bombing" or cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Muslim readers should bear in mind that the BNP were present at the anti-war march in Hyde Park, 2003. Had there been a BNP government, it would not have invaded Iraq.


The BNP would presumably have no interest in propping up Israel or supporting the US policy of doing so or doing Uncle Sam's bidding at whatever cost, because its stance is isolationist and nationalist.


This being so, Al Qaeda would have particular reason to want to bomb the UK .


This being so, there would be no "War Against Terrorism".


That being so, there would be no excuse for the government to continue to take away our liberties using the "War" Against Terrorism as an excuse.


THE NON SEQUITUR THAT IS "THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM"
We should all know that war is only properly war when declared against another sovereign country with a borders and an army in a fixed location.


The war against terrorism is a metaphor, a demon conjured out of the shambles that is British foreign policy and what passes for British diplomacy these days. The idea of a shifting battleground that is both nowhere and everywhere will only encourage the paranoia that would make its fear self-fulfilling.


The weighing of relative evils is indeed a difficult process, but I believe I have done the groundwork on the balance of safety. I am undecided on whether to vote Ken as my first choice, and Richard Barnbrook as my second. Or vice versa, depending on how reckless I am feeling on 1 May.