GE10 faux pas | Bigots and Racists

Pensioner who claims she was a life-long Labour voter asks Brown how he would tackle the country’s record deficit, east European immigration, pensions, university tuition fees and anti-social behaviour.  ‘Flash’ Gordon reels off some tractor-stats, lessons learned and how the EU relationship is so beneficial to the economy which currently resides in the gutter.  So far, so Brown.

Then thinking he is out of earshot but forgetting the Sky microphone still attached to his jacket, labels the questioning granny as a ‘bigot’.

The delusional monkeys that call themselves Parliamentarians just do not get it.  Opposing the invasion of ones’ ancestral homeland by economic migrants is not bigotry or racist, it is common sense.  How would any of these Stooges like their home transformed into Little Lagos, Little Warsaw or Little Pakistan?

To bleat on about fairness and equality then deem it racist and xenophobic to oppose mass immigration and Eunification is one thing.  To do so while pandering to the Government ‘sanctioned’ and ‘approved’ Black Minority Ethnic groups is just plain hypocritical.  How can we achieve equality when the EU stooge Establishment are attending a supremacist Black Britain Decides event organised by Operation Black Vote?

Leaders to vie for black votes at London rally

(Reuters) – The three main party leaders will appeal to over 1 million black voters on Wednesday in a bid to woo ethnic minorities who may hold the balance of power in some parliamentary seats.

They will speak at a rally in central London organised by Operation Black Vote (OBV), who say the event is the largest of its kind in recent history and could make a “defining impact” on the election outcome.

The three leaders will address an invited audience of 2,500 voters by video-link at the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster at 6 p.m, but will reach a broadcast audience of well over one million.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg will each have 15 minutes to speak.

Their respective deputies, Harriet Harman, George Osborne and Vince Cable, who will attend the event in person, will then field two questions each.

“Never before in British history has the black and minority ethnic vote been so crucial,” said Simon Woolley, OBV Director.

Woolley said ethnic minorities in Britain were not a homogeneous block and that tackling race inequality within education, employment and the criminal justice system were paramount.

“Which leader can best provide the solutions for these important challenges will be closer to winning this election,” he added.

OBV’s own pre-election research into the power of the black vote shows there are 113 seats in which the black and Asian voting-age population is bigger than the 2005 election notional majority.

It says 54 of those seats would now be considered very marginal due to the “Clegg factor” during the election campaign but that all 113 could be won or lost by an active black vote.

Other speakers at the event, called “Black Britain Decides,” will include black leaders from faith groups, business, politics, the arts and education.

(Reporting by Stefano Ambrogi; Editing by Steve Addison)

The joys of cultural enrichment, brought to you by the Establishment for the simple reason of keeping YOU in your place.

BNP | Leftards answer to the Nationalists

Although this has already been stated by others, I’d like to throw my ten-pence in.  The (news to me) Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank posing as a charity,when in reality, it is a left-leaning grouping of like-minded individuals trying to impose their communistic dreams into an ever greater proletariat have published a study.

Once again, it is detailing how to combat the rise of their mortal enemies and the eater of babies, the evil far-right Nationalists who oppose Internationalist Corporate Ownership cartels.

How IPPR is funded

IPPR is a registered charity. Our work would not be possible without the valued support offered to us by our funders, including:

• trust and foundation grants
• European and international funds
• central and local government funding
• corporate, public sector and voluntary sector support

So bankrolled by us, under the guidance of our subversive Government and with clear intentions of increasing European and World integration through interdependence, and we are supposed to take this report seriously?  I will cut to the chase and leave out all the waffle (for that go HERE or HERE or HERE), I just want highlight the gist of this internationalist plan to rid Nationalists of a voice.

More immigration to displace more Britons to blatantly dilute the nationalist vote.  Isn’t this classed as gerrymandering?

And just how of earth do they propose achieve a task such as that!  Go in and disperse settled african communities scattering them to the four corners of the Kingdom?  Split Britain in Nick Clegg ‘mentioned’ European “Regions”, issuing ALL with restrictions within said regions?  Impose an interaction scheme where those with the least in common spend twenty minutes per day talking about their feelings?

Or just continue the flood of people until the pips squeak?

Kum-bi-fecking-yah!

* PS:  For abusing the pictures from Marvel, do invest in a comic or two of theirs, less freaky than that Manga-babe-robotic-actionrama the Japanese knock out and a hero for everyone (or villain for others).  Akira was good though.

PR Dave | I’m Jooish

Gay, black and now Jewish David Cameron, the plastic politician leading the plastic conservatives onto plastic governance.

Applying lubed-up apologies before holding his ankles for the ‘gay community’ with promises of ‘extra’ help in the fight against ‘fear of gay’ disease (homophobia).  Then rolling up his sleeves and removing his jewellery, then apologising for his families part in the trans-atlantic slave trade with more promises, this time to empower the ‘black community’ in the fight against white pride (racism).  I always thought that was the idea behind owning a gun in Southwark but yet again, I am shown my place by an Old Etonian.

Why should his sexuality, skin pigment or ancestry bother me?  It doesn’t except for one minor detail…  He is hoping to become Prime Minister of MY homeland and I would like to know which team he is batting for before I place my trust in the man.

So I am more than happy to present David’s double-standard masterpiece where he seeks the blessing of God’s Chosen people (sic) in his election bid.  Not only that, but gives us an insight in his plans for a Big World Society based on people empowerment (ie: transferring more power to the State).

Cameron: ‘I will empower UK Jews’

Justin Cohen – Thursday 15th April 2010

David Cameron this week insisted a Conservative government would do “much more to protect and empower the Jewish community” and described learning about his Jewish ancestors as one of the highlights of his year.

The Conservative leader’s comments came in a message to members of the Movement for Reform Judaism, which he used to make pledges on tackling anti-Semitism and education and to appeal for the support of community members in the upcoming election.

Cameron said: “To me, one of the biggest contributions of Judaism is its understanding of what makes a responsible society. Last summer, I gave a speech to Jewish Care where I talked about this idea. I quoted a phrase of Rabbi Hillel’s which I think captures it beautifully: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?” That urgent, selfless moral compulsion to change the world for the better is right at the heart of the Jewish way of life. If I become Prime Minister, I want to see that idea of responsibility extend right across our society.

“A key part of that will be about building a stronger, more cohesive society – and that means doing much more to tackle the rise in anti-Semitism. I was appalled when the Community Security Trust told me that there were more anti-Semitic incidents in the first half of 2009 than in the whole of any previous year. We need big changes to root out this extremism – stopping preachers of hate from entering this country, banning those extremist groups who are already here, and doing much more to tackle radicalization in our universities.”

The man hoping to succeed Gordon Brown as prime minister also touched on a prominent theme of the party’s platform. “I want to build a bigger society,” he said: “And we can’t do that without backing faith-based organisations in the good work that they do. Take faith schools, for example. They are a really important part of our education system and often have a culture and ethos which helps to drive up standards. Through our school reform plans, there will be a real growth in new good school places, and I’m sure some of these will be in faith schools.”

Cameron also spoke of learning about his ancestors, the Levitas, as a personal highlight. He said: “I am a great admirer of the Jewish people and your extraordinary achievements. I’ve long seen your community as a shining light in our society.” Messages from Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg will be published in the Movement’s newsletter in the coming fortnight.

Spoken like a true Fabian.  Changing the world, making a bigger society and empowering every ‘approved’ group…  he really is clutching at straws, and in trying to please everyone, no wonder the Tory message is so muddled.  And by ‘ banning extremist groups’, with such a wide-meaning phrase, just who on Blighty could you be considering Mr Cameron?

And how the media would applaud such a speech addressing a NuBriton minority group.  How different would be the reaction if I used Dave’s quote but change references to Jewish folk to English and Jewish faith to Christian and have it pronounced from a Nationalist.

Griffin said: “much more to protect and empower the English community.  To me, one of the biggest contributions of Christianity is its understanding of what makes a responsible society.  Last summer, I gave a speech to the Church of England where I talked about this idea.  I quoted a phrase of Mohandas Gandhi’s which I think captures it beautifully: “A nation’s culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people.”  That urgent, selfless moral compulsion to change England for the better is right at the heart of the English way of life.  If I become Prime Minister, I want to see that idea of responsibility extend right across our society.

“A key part of that will be about building a stronger, more cohesive society – and that means doing much more to tackle the rise in anti-white racism. I was appalled when the Community Security Trust told me that there were more anti-white racist incidents in the first half of 2009 than in the whole of any previous year. We need big changes to root out this extremism – stopping preachers of hate from entering this country, banning those extremist groups who are already here, and doing much more to tackle radicalization in our universities.”

“I want to build a nationalist society, and we can’t do that without backing Christian-based organisations in the good work that they do.  Take faith schools, for example.  They are a really important part of our education system and often have an English culture and ethos which helps to drive up standards.  Through our school reform plans, there will be a real growth in new good school places, and I’m sure some of these will be in English based schools.”

Now what kind of reception would that have from our Establishment Political Media Complex? Rhetorical question.

Southwark | Crime and the cry of racism

No-one likes to be stopped by the filth, even other filth, yet in this day and age, where everything can be sold for scrap, even people, to make sure the degenerates are on their toes, the filth do what they do.  This year I’ve been stopped four times.  Last year seven.  And the year before that, was arrested for a crime I couldn’t have done, so much for the certainty of DNA.

All in all, it isn’t a race thing, mostly an easy target thing or ‘I feel like picking on em’.  A few times when stopped, it has most probably been due to the fact I smelled like a Rastafarian’s garden.  Of course, me being the swarm, sophisticated stoner, was able to talk my way out of being searched.  Secret is to use ‘sir’ and ‘thank yous’ (and maybe a crisp £50 note – preferably a fake one).  Found that out after having my arm near enough twisted off once too many times.

Of course, since the Stephen Lawrence inquest normal practice involves the issuing of tickets and the noting of ethnicity when someone is stopped and searched.  This has meant that the entire process could be analysed by those who have never walked the beats, who then in turn tutter at Mr Policeman when the the statistics are released.  Forever reciting that the Police Service should be stopping either less BMEs or more whites.  Equality is more important than stopping crime, and what a stick this provides the plastic gangstas to beat Plod with.

Remember though, these statistics are always ‘disproportionate’.

‘Disproportionate’ stops of black people

John Prendergast (johnp@southwarknews.org).  Southwark News, 18th March 2010

Figures released this week claim that police in Southwark conducted 8,523 more stop and searches on black people in one year than was proportionate to their population.

Data released by the Equality and Human Rights Commission states cops are stopping black people at a disproportionate rate to white people in the borough, and have one of the worst rates in the country – though not for the capital.

The figure is calculated assuming black stop and search rates were the same as those conducted on the white population in Southwark. The excess figure is arrived at by deducting this figure from the actual stops that took  place.

The spokeswoman for the commission admitted this figure could be skewed in Southwark’s case as the borough has a high black population, but its disproportionate figures were still of some concern.

In the report these showed that you were three times more likely to be stopped in Southwark if you were black, which although high nationally is one of the lower rates in the capital.

Simon Woolley, from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “It is unrealistic and unhelpful to demand that policing should be perfect. However, police services should strive to work fairly and effectively while respecting basic human rights and discrimination law. Only then can they be said to be ‘good enough’.”

Carron Schusler, Acting Superintendent from Southwark’s partnership team said: “The use of stop and search by officers in Southwark is monitored not only by ourselves but also by Southwark Stop and Search Monitoring group, which is made up by representatives from across the borough.

We appreciate that this type of robust policing can have a negative affect on certain groups who may feel targeted; we are working with representatives from this section of the community, particularly with young people.

“Recently police in Southwark were given ‘training’ by young people to give them an insight into how the stop and search procedures make them feel. We will always listen to and act on the concerns of the community“

Considering the fact that in 2001 (couldn’t find a nearer figure), ‘black and ethnic minority young people convicted for street robbery was 84.7% and the re-offending rate was 78%‘, statistically speaking, that is the most likely group that causes concern.

I’ve never saw the point in stop and search, seems more like fishing to me.  I suppose it is the only way to speak to locals now, considering most despise the Police.  And it doesn’t matter how nicely you get your Officers to speak to us Carron, any unwanted intrusion will be seen as an unwanted intrusion.

Whatever happened to intelligence-led policing?  Or are they all busy in Special Branch and Special Demonstration Squad?

War | Variations Worldwide

A declaration of war was made against Man, Family, Home and Nation’ status worldwide long ago, with the Masters of the Universe seeking to install an authority higher than God Almighty.  One that excludes the many and consists of the few, where Earth PLC’s Faceless stockholders can decide the fate of the world away from the prying eyes of us mere tenants.

Order out of Chaos (and Confusion)

“Democracy has run its course“, will be the message and a new form of Government Representation will take Her place.  One where the Leaders are selected and nurtured into the ways of enlightenment, prepared to rise above such petty things as family, nation, culture, even genocide.

Not a conspiracy theory but fact.  The destruction of close-knit communities, kinship, even the sanctity of family with the most sinister tactics has been deliberate.  Wars, laws and misery with no more effort than a pen stroke.

the battle for ‘our’ hearts and minds has involved oppression and persecution from the very people who swear to protect us and is by no means a conventional war.  So scared of the possible repercussions for opposing the Faceless, the Parliamentarians  settle for the ‘funded’ life assisting the Devil in His work.

The various explanations of tactics are from Wikipedia so are not exhaustive but I have edited it and given my own recent or current examples, so this wasn’t no simple cut and paste job.

Power behind the throne

The phrase power behind the throne refers to a person or group that informally exercises the real power of an office.  In politics, it most commonly refers to a spouse, aide, or advisor of a political leader (often called a “figurehead”) who serves as de facto leader, setting policy through influence or manipulation.

Examples:  Most visible one to mention would be Lord Mandelson, the barely visible probably Nat Rothschild and the least visible, well, only the Devil knows that.

Shadow government

The term shadow government has two distinct uses with entirely different meanings. The first refers to a government-in-waiting composed of members of the opposition party in a parliamentary chamber such as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. In this example the Shadow Cabinet ‘opposes’ by means of dialectical debate and argument the government in power.

In its other use the phrase refers to what is sometimes called “the secret government” or “the invisible government” which postulates that contrary to popular belief, real and actual political power does not reside with publicly elected representatives (for example the United States Congress or the UK Cabinet) but with persons unknown to the general public who are exercising power behind the scenes.  In this sense the official elected government is in reality subservient to the shadow government who are the true executive power.

Examples:  The faceless and nameless Power-brokers of the International circuit.

Divide and rule

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.

In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites “Divide et impera” in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule.

Typical elements of this technique are said to involve:

• creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to forestall alliances that could challenge the sovereign.
• aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign.
• fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers.
• encouraging frivolous expenditures that leave little money for political and military ends.

The use of this strategy was imputed to administrators of vast empires, including the Roman and British, who were charged with playing one tribe against another to maintain control of their territories with a minimal number of imperial forces. The concept of “Divide and Rule” gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire, but was also used to account for the strategy used by the Romans to take Britain, and for the Anglo-Normans to take Ireland. It is said that the British used the strategy to gain control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, taking control of petty princely states in India piecemeal.

Examples:  When the ‘working men and women’ got the vote, they had to be divided for the Establishment to maintain power.  Hence encouraging large political, cultural and religous differences and mass immigration.  And so long as Paul was paid enough, Peter could be robbed all day long.

Social conditioning

Social conditioning refers to the sociological phenomenological process of inheriting tradition and gradual cultural transmutation passed down through previous generations.  Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including education, entertainment, popular culture, and family life.  Social conditioning can be understood as representing the role of ‘Nurture’ in the Nature vs. Nurture debate, while the ‘Nature’ aspect is represented by the phenomena described by sociobiology.

Examples:  The entire education-media-political complex, controlling every aspect of our lives, be it through the threat of the law or the indirect prodding from the ‘in’ crowd.  If done right, the population will not even notice.  Climate Change State-sponsored guilt-trips.

Lawfare implications

Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare.  Lawfare is waged via the use of international law to attack an opponent on moral grounds, with an objective of winning a public relations victory.

Lawfare is one of several alternative war-making concepts outlined in the 1999 Chinese book Unrestricted Warfare, which is principally concerned with the new variety of offensive actions available to an international actor that cannot confront another power militarily.

Origin of the term

Perhaps the first use of the term “lawfare” was in a manuscript, Whither Goeth the Law – Humanity or Barbarity. The authors there argue the Western legal system has become overly contentious and utilitarian as compared to the more humanitarian, norm-based Eastern system.  They opine the search for truth has been replaced by “lawfare” in the courts.

A more frequently cited use of the term was coined by Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. in a 2001 essay he authored for Harvard’s Carr Center.  In that essay, Dunlap defines lawfare as “the use of law as a weapon of war.”  He later expanded on the definition, explaining lawfare was “the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting” a superior military power.

Examples:  The UK Government’s EHRC persecution of the British National Party.  The EU meddling with the internal democratic affairs of Switzerland.  The implementation of Laws Against the Nations ‘tackling’ Climate Change, Holucasut Denial Laws to stiffle internal debate and even the secret family courts which attack the family.

A look at asymmetric warfare

Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.

“Asymmetric warfare” can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other’s characteristic weaknesses.  Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the “weaker” combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.  Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized.  This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.

Examples:  The Race Relations Industry, blaming ‘percieved’ injustices due to discrimination, creating an atmosphere of fear and entitlement dependent on ‘group needs’.

The dreaded psych-ops

Modern psychological warfare operations

In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. troops used music, most commonly American heavy metal or rock music to confuse or scare insurgents.

However, most uses of the term psychological warfare refers to military methods, such as:

• Distributing pamphlets, e.g. in the Gulf War, encouraging desertion or (in World War II) supplying instructions on how to surrender.
• Propaganda radio stations, such as Lord Haw-Haw in World War II on the “Germany calling” station
• Renaming cities and other places when captured, such as Ho Chi Minh City
• Shock and awe military strategy
• Projecting repetitive and annoying sounds and music for long periods at high volume towards groups under siege.
• Use of loudspeaker systems to communicate with enemy soldiers.

Most of these techniques were developed during World War II or earlier, and have been used to some degree in every conflict since. Daniel Lerner was in the OSS (the predecessor to the US CIA) and in his book, attempts to analyze how effective the various strategies were.

He concludes that there is little evidence that any of them were dramatically successful, except perhaps surrender instructions over loudspeakers when victory was imminent. It should be noted, though, that measuring the success or failure of psychological warfare is very hard, as the conditions are very far from being a controlled experiment.

Lerner’s categories of psychological warfare

Lerner divides psychological warfare operations into three categories:

White [Omissions + Emphasis]

Truthful and not strongly biased, where the source of information is acknowledged.

Grey [Omissions + Emphasis + Racial/Ethnic/Religious Bias]

Largely truthful, containing no information that can be proven wrong; the source may or may not be hidden.

Black [Commissions of falsification]

Intended to deceive the enemy.

Examples:  The current game of political ping-pong between the World Powers over Iran.  The recent assassination that was allegedly carried out by MOSSAD, who will remain quiet even if it wasn’t them. In fact, any major geo-political event in the last hundred years.  And the biggest one of all, the never-ending ‘War on Terror’.

Like Tony Montana said, “..first you get the money, then you get the power..” And while all that economic power rests with the Corruptibles, those Bastards will continue unabated. Now all we need is a way to counter all that.  That though is for another day so will part with a wonderful question to ask ourselves from the mind of Aldous Huxley:

“How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man’s Final End?”

Vinny Tomlinson | Playing the ‘Race Card’

The Head of a Black Power Organisation named the Merseyside Black Policeman Association is retiring on the grounds that he has failed in making the Police “less racist”.  Of course, he is blaming his failure on the “racist” attitude still present in the Merseyside Police Force.  Suppose he smells a large pay-out, gold-plated pension and a book deal in which he can detail the horrid racism that held him back from becoming Lord Chief Justice of the Land.

Another parasite welcomed with open arms by the Liberal Establishment that just loves an injustice, the more perverted, the better.

Merseyside Black Police Association chief Vinny Tomlinson to resign over race allegations

Feb 27 2010 By Luke Traynor

THE head of Merseyside Black Police Association said he plans to quit his post amid alleged “race-related bullying and coercion” within the force.

Vinny Tomlinson told the ECHO he will resign as chairman at May’s annual general meeting.

The 42-year-old also blamed a newly-imposed Service Level Agreement which now governs how the Merseyside Black Police Association (BPA) and other social networks within the force must operate.

Mr Tomlinson insisted that racism still existed within Merseyside Police and said he was leaving due to what he perceived as moves to decimate the BPA by senior bosses.

One female police civilian told the ECHO she twice tried to commit suicide after suffering “overt racism”.

Two colleagues were reprimanded after she was racially abused in the Canning Place HQ control room.

One black female constable said she considered leaving her job on countless occasions after alleged persistent racist abuse.

Other black and ethnic minority staff talked about “a culture of prejudice and discrimination” where they allegedly had to work harder to gain recognition and faced bigger hurdles than white colleagues if they wanted to progress.

Today, Merseyside Police denied there was a culture of racism and bullying within the force.

They said the force supported the BPA which was “about its members, not one individual”.

Assistant Chief Constable Patricia Gallan also urged staff to report their concerns.

And she said other networks within the force, including those which support women, Christians and gay and lesbian workers, had fully accepted the new agreements designed to help them operate.

But Mr Tomlinson, along with a number of black and ethnic minority staff, disagreed.

And staff who spoke to the ECHO voiced fears his resignation could consign the Merseyside BPA to history.

Today, the dad-of-three said: “Racism still exists in the organisation and, while the language has been curtailed, these attitudes still exist.

“The BPA contributes towards people staying in the organisation rather than leaving. We help restore their faith in Merseyside Police with those who have lost it.

“The force has rode roughshod over the fact we’ve been in existence for 10 years.

“Complacency still exists and senior officers can’t wait to say they’ve got rid of institutionalised racism.”

Relations between the BPA and senior bosses appear to have deteriorated since the introduction of the service level agreement.

The association believes the arrangement is now “chipping away at its autonomy”, citing new stringent budgetary limits.

But senior police bosses argued that a request for any spending over £250 to be signed off by a manager was standard company practice.

A force spokeswoman said: “Merseyside Police and all our staff associations receive public funding, and it is only right we are all held accountable when it comes to finances.

“This agreement allows us to be confident that measures are in place to ensure that both the force and our support networks can show where public money is being used and that it is being used appropriately.”

The MBPA was formed in 1999 and Mr Tomlinson was elected as chairman in May, 2005 – two years after the explosive Secret Policeman TV exposé at a Warrington training centre which revealed shocking examples of racist behaviour among recruits.

The BPA estimated a quarter of black and ethnic minority staff were members of the organisation.

Many others, Mr Tomlinson alleged, never joined for fear of recriminations or progression at work being hindered.

He added: “I’m battle weary. I’ve fought as hard as I can to fight off what is happening.

“There are 200 black and racial minority people in an organisation of 7,500.

“Liverpool is supposed to be the world in one city – but is that the case in Merseyside Police?”

In its defence, Merseyside Police said they currently had 120 constables, 16 sergeants, four inspectors, two chief inspectors and three superintendents of black and racial minority within the force – making them 0.5% over their 2.7% target.

Assistant chief constable Gallan added: “Merseyside Police is committed to rooting out all forms of racism and discrimination.

“We are absolutely clear on the issue – racism has to and will be actively confronted. We will continue to work closely in the future with the BPA to jointly tackle critical issues which affect its members.

“Since 2007 to date, the force has had one internal complaint and a grievance. There have been six conduct/misconduct hearings which have cited race as a factor.

“Four of the cases have been unsubstantiated, one has been substantiated and advice has been given to the officer and one case is still ongoing.

“There have been four employment tribunal claims commenced citing race as a factor – one of these was finalised in favour of the force, the other three are ongoing.

“We’re not saying it doesn’t take courage to raise an issue. But such allegations will be taken seriously.

“Merseyside Police is not complacent when it comes to addressing racist issues within the force. In the last few years, the force has made inroads into addressing this issue and we have come a long way on that journey. But we recognise that there is still work to be done and we have not reached our destination.”

This one article shows everything that is wrong i n modern policing.  Too much focus on prepping perceptions instead of actually proving them wrong and the ticking of boxes representing targets that have little effect on targeting real crime.  A byproduct of all ‘positive discrimination’ are the various ‘group of affiliations’ that feed of it.  For if a member of a Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) group succeeds, they are a credit to their heritage.  If they fail, the BAME group can declare in unison the ‘inherent overt racism‘ that kept them down and again the system is at fault for failing them.

Face up to facts, some people are just not suited to certain jobs and will use every trick in the book to cling on.  The hiring and promotion process should be based on merit alone, only then will we see standards improve.  How can we have an effective Police Force staffed by weak-minded tokens?  It should be the best of the best, the higher the standard, the better the results in the long-term.

I do despair at the lack of long-term planning that is given to such appointments.  It is never a surprise to hear about the ‘institutional and overt racism‘ that infects our British attitude.  Once again, it is OUR tolerance called into question.  Why can’t OUR perspective be given the same respect as deemed appropriate for others?

The Race Relation Industry: I’m offended

Parasites are usually unpleasant creatures that suck the energy and resources out of a useful host.  Lawyers, ACPO appointed Officers of the NuLaw, Common Purpose Degenerates and those unwashable idiots who make up the ranks of the Leftarded Armies of Doom to name but a few.

I wrote a piece about some local good news a while back regarding Southwark Council severing links with one such parasite (click HERE), one of the many in the growing race relation industry.  One that promotes diversity which of course involves immigrants.  As usual, I vented my anger and forgot all about it, for life is too short to hold grudges.  Yet lo and behold I get a comment defending the organisation, or at the least, their intentions.

U seem to have the same problem as Southwark council in terms of your interpretation of appropriate services and diverse communities.

My understanding of appropriate services and diverse community is one of perpetual scarcity and personal misery.  Southwark love to misappropriate funds for vanity projects resulting in a lack of services for the divided community.

Firstly SHRREB (correct spelling) deals in majority with immigration not Asylum and if you understood this you would know that there is a huge problem with people who have been here for many years and due to changes in law are unknown or outside the system is it not better then to regularizes their status where appropriate instead of the endless complaints about the black markets which eats into the economy without contributing.  May I also add that the legal work is not funded by southwark council.

I care as much for the name of this Alphabet Squad as I do the various names given to newcomers.  They do not come for the weather, that is what I am sure of.  My beloved Peckham has become a different country in thirty years.  It isn’t diverse, it is foreign.  And this organisation, like so many others in the Race Relations Industry feeds of that division so do all to increase it.  The more culture means the more community misunderstandings leading to more division.

And who’ll be there to mop up the Legal Aid when people scream foul? So enough about ‘funding’.  Even the mere fact that Southwark Council gives such organisations the time of day costs money.

You state that Peckham only contains 25% white people where did you get this information from does the council agree I would be very interested to know?

2001 Census, so could be wrong.  But even if it was 40%, which I assure you it isn’t, how much diversity is enough for Peckham?  With some local schools having an 85% ethnic student intake, have I not got a right to be worried?

What people need to understand is that this organisation is here to support the needs of the people living within it All communities we do not pick or choose any community group can get assistance from us. SHRREB has consistently argued that the average white British person in Southwark needs have been neglected and the needs of the people who work every day and don’t need the kind of support that new arrivals to the country have are different but consideration has to be given to the people whose communities are changing like you, ( remember the housing list and how long you have to wait) where one day you know everybody in your street and the next day its like a UN convention and its hard to find some-one who speaks English.

The problem with resources can be explained in simple mathematics.  More people means less resources to go around. Hence, house prices go up, wages come down, food and fuel increases while services are cut.  The only ones that make out like bandits are the Councillors who oversee the vast money-go-round and those that sit upon it.  By the way, we’re the ones pushing the darn thing!  All they see is MORE people means MORE money allocated from Central Government.  Especially when new languages are needed, more for the industry.

The decision to withdrawal funding is because after 14years of the council being too scared to engage the BAME community due to fear of accusations of discrimination and racism. They now have an opportunity to put the blame on a newly elected board who have nothing to do with the history of 14 years and use it as an excuse to get rid of a problem they have never understood or be able to solve. Hence white people like you feeling that money is being wasted or that we are trying to attract run away goods into the community. Wake up some of them have been here for over 20 years living amongst the community and since they got here prior to any changes based on the war on iraq in immigration lawa etc may not be on anybody system.

Where do I even begin..?  I have no hate for the immigrant, they only do what they do due to my Government’s incompetence or intent.  And that is where my anger is directed.  My Government, National and Local, have shown a complete disregard towards my family for the last hundred years and every time we pointed out the bleeding obvious,  we were heckled as intolerant bigots offending others.

Now think carefully about this, for if the Powers that Be could disregard those whose Southwark roots go back hundreds of years, why on earth would those very same Powers give two hoots about those here for a mere twenty?  Scary isn’t it.

You need to recognize that the council does not provide any services to people with no recourse to public funding. You need to understand that some of the more established (early migrants) BAME groups in Southwark e.g. Vietnamese, Caribbeans may also feel exactly the same as White home grown peckamites. The problem is to create a community standard that is acceptable to all residents with people taking into consideration all others.

So the Vietnamese and Caribbean community feel that Peckham is becoming a foreign country?  Considering that England was already a foreign country to them, I very much doubt that.  Good to see they already have they’re own ‘special interest’ groups speaking up for them too.  Whoopee-do!  Am I suppose to wait until I am in the 5% bracket before I declare myself a BAME group?  Possibly get some resevarion rights like those native Americans?  Or should I simply flee the borough that has been the birthplace of my ancestors since the 1600s?

The question which remains unanswered and concerns me as a resident in Southwark, is with the economic down town, and almost 60% of the community on income support as their main source of income, new communities with little understanding of the English constitution, indigenous communities feeling there getting less because too many people who have not contributed to the system rely on it. That together with Southwark being a borough with a very young majority age group could lead to a lot more problems for people who are trying to just live their life and better themselves irregardless of where they started from.

Hit the nail on the head there yet again miss the point.  The root cause being space and culture, nothing to do with race.  It is now more profitable to rent out flats to the social than it is to own a job-providing company within Greater London.  Reason why we are losing so many factories and warehouses along the Old Kent Road.  We can’t all work at Asda ya’know.

The mismanagement in allowing all and sundry a free pass based on their needs to flock here has led to communities that are incompatible with eachother.  Until we name the cause f the problem, we will never be able to fix it.  If we truly want a harmoniuos stable community, we cannot base the bond on the simple basis of  ‘working’ or ‘refugee’ status.  We should be enticing those who wish to become fully British, those who would be a credit to call brother and sister.

Sadly, this has not been the case with the Establishment’s promotion of multiculturalism and the ‘accomadate all policy’ of immigration.  More than ever, it seems that immigrants just want to wear the tee-shirt and claim every benefit while avoiding any interaction or, God forbid, integration.  Inviting various tribes from around the world to make a home en mass in England has led to ethnic groups congregating in one area, slowly making it their own.  Which of course inevitably means the displacement of ‘the previous group’, in, let’s say Peckham, that group being the one I belong to.  And Peckham isn’t the only London borough that is testament to that.

So at what percentage will I be allowed to seek recompense for my perceived wrongs?

SHHREB slams Southwark

Southwark has always attracted (and encouraged) the wrong characters and organisations.  With such a diverse crowd to please it can be a juggling act to satisfy one without offending the other so I truly understand the difficulties our local councillors face on a daily basis.  Yet time and again they show themselves to be out-of-touch with reality, incompetent or just too darn corrupt.

The Council ended the partnership with (thus funding) the Southwark Human Rights, Race and Equalities Bureau (SHRREB), who now accuse council of not “reporting on progress” trivia to divert attention from the scam it was (still is).  So many of those race relation industry watch-dog, voice-of-the-community, lovey-dovey touchy-feely feel-good groups, doubt Peckham will miss them.  These parasitic ‘groups’ just love to meddle in the private affairs of individuals, making them public issues of paramount concern that need indefinite funding for ‘promotions’ and ‘projects’ and ‘education’.

RACE WATCHDOG SLAMS COUNCIL OUT

Oliver Pugh, Southwark News, 15 January 2010

(unedited) An axed race and equality watchdog has lashed out at its former paymaster Southwark Council, saying it has failed to deliver equal opportunity to the borough.

The allegations come just two weeks after it was accused of the very same failings by the council and given the chop.

Last week the ‘News’ reported the sacking of the community group, Southwark Human Rights, Race and Equalities Bureau (SHRREB), after a fourteen-year partnership with the council.

The authority said after “a number of years” of providing extra help, SHRREB had failed to deliver on its promises to promote racial equality and human rights.

But the new chairman of SHRREB, Colin Hunte, denied there had been longstanding problems and said the council had made a mistake.

“Unfortunately, for the past two years SHRREB has had organisational problems, but this did not stop us delivering a programme of work to fight racial discrimination, and promote human rights, and equality of opportunity in the borough.”

“It’s easy to pick on us as the council has done, but the new Council of Management of SHRREB will remain intact, regardless of funding, to keep a Race Equality and Human Rights watch on the council. We consider that the council is not delivering on equality of opportunity issues and feel an independent organisation, like SHRREB, must now subject them to pressure for change.”

He added: “Local people should know that Southwark Council is not reporting on equality progress, as it must by law. To continue to do nothing about equality and human rights locally would lead to community outrage.”

Southwark Council’s executive member for citizenship, equalities and communities, Cllr Adele Morris, said: “The council takes all its equalities and human rights duties seriously and will continue to promote good community relations. But SHRREB was not delivering the services communities need, so it was clear the time had come to draw the line and look for alternative ways to provide this vital service.

“I understand SHRREB is disappointed at this decision, but I am determined that Southwark Council will continue to have an equalities and human rights watchdog and I look forward to working with the various communities to achieve this as quickly as possible.”

With such lovely sounding words such as ‘Human’, ‘Rights’ and ‘Equality’, how could I be offended?  Once you see that they primary look after those who seek asylum here, I can.  Another diversity promoter.  How is importing more runaways ‘good’ in any sense of the word for community cohesion?  Have we not got enough diversity in Southwark yet?  My very own Peckham only contains 25% White British, isn’t this equal enough?  What about my tribes’ Human Rights as indigenous peoples?

At least the Native Americans got beads for their land, our Government coerce us stuck-at-home Britons to pay for the immigrant invasion!  SHHREB being just another front for Public money to ‘divesify’ Britain.

Just another reason for Operation White Vote.

If block-voting is condoned by the Three Stooges, thus continuing this diversification, surely they cannot oppose us Britons who object to such a transformation taking place, from doing the same?