EU directive behind England flag ban?

After those ‘silly rumours’ of state agencies banning the flag during the coming World Cup, stories are emerging of state agencies banning the flag during the coming World Cup. Granted, the difference is private and public enterprises, but still.

• England flag ban for taxi drivers in Canterbury
• Banned from flying the flag: Binmen threatened with sack if they show support for England during World Cup

My Spidey senses tell me there is more to this than meets the eye, we (hopefully) all know of the EU’s hatred for anything that reinforces/ celebrates national sovereignty/ private property. In case you didn’t know, here is an article from 2008 by the Telegraph.

On St George's Day, EU wipes England off map.

The new European plan splits England into three zones that are joined with areas in other countries.

The "Manche" region covers part of southern England and northern France while the Atlantic region includes western parts of England, Portugal, Spain and Wales.

The North Sea region includes eastern England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and parts of Germany.

A copy of the map, which makes no reference to England or Britain, has even renamed the English Channel the "Channel Sea".

Each zone will have a "transnational regional assembly", although they will not have extensive powers. However, the zones are regarded as symbolically important by other countries.

German ministers claimed that the plan was about "underlying the goal of a united Europe" to "permanently overcome old borders" at a time when the "Constitution for Europe needs to regain momentum".

No Fourth Reich there then?

A bit of digging finds a previous enforced ban on national flags on car number plates.

MOTORISTS who display the Union Flag on their vehicle number plates from this autumn can be stopped by the police and prosecuted under regulations approved yesterday by MPs.

However, it will be legal to carry the European Union symbol of 12 yellow stars on a blue background. A coalition of Tory, Liberal Democrat and nationalist MPs failed to block the proposed law, which is intended to implement an EU directive to harmonise number plate design in the interests of "clarity and safety".

The Road Vehicle 'Display of Registration Marks' Regulations 2001 mean that it will only be legal to carry on the registration plate the letters GB alongside the Euro symbol. It will not be lawful to have a depiction of the Union Flag, the Scottish saltire, the cross of St George or the Welsh dragon.

That particular regulation (Statutory Instrument) can be found here. After a glance, it looks like the rule for this can be found in Part 4 Misc., (2) (a).

International distinguishing signs and other material
16. 

    (1) No material other than a registration mark may be displayed on a registration plate except material complying with the requirements of any of the relevant standards mentioned in Schedule 2.
    (2) Where a mark is displayed on a dual purpose plate - 

(a) no material other than the international distinguishing sign of the United Kingdom displayed in accordance with the Council Registration may be placed in the space provided on the plate for that purpose;

Under the Explanatory Note (why am I reading this, it’s a nice day) it alludes to the EU Directive.

(g) The making of provision for the display of the international distinguishing sign of the United Kingdom adjacent to the registration mark in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No. 2411/98 (a copy of which can be obtained from the Stationery Office). (See regulation 16.)

So here it is.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 on the recognition in intra-Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered

This does two things.

First, it commands member states to refuse to recognise national flags;

(3) Whereas the Community is not a contracting party to the convention and whereas some of its Member States which are parties to it have recourse to the provisions of Article 37 of the Convention; whereas those Member States thus require vehicles from other Member States to display the distinguishing sign provided for by Annex 3 to the Convention; whereas some of those Member States do not recognise other distinguishing signs such as those displayed on registration plates which, while indicating the Member State in which the vehicle is registered, do not conform to Annex 3 to the Convention;

Annex 3 describes the EU flag by the way.

Second thing it does, is command member states to use the Annex 3 specs for registration.

(4) Whereas several Member States have introduced a model registration plate which, on the extreme left, displays a blue zone containing the 12 yellow stars representing the European flag plus the distinguishing sign of the Member State of registration; whereas for the purpose of intra-Community transport this distinguishing sign meets the objective of identifying the State of registration as provided for in Article 37 of the Convention;

What does this have to do with the current bans on the England flag? I don’t know yet, I’m still researching. In Canterbury, the cabbies believe the ban is to protect the ‘feelings of minorities’. This wouldn’t surprise me either to be honest, either way, I think it’s pathetic. If I find more info on this I’ll update this post (I still have a few avenues to research) but until then, I’m going to blow my brains out after boring myself to death.

Have a nice weekend.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day Rocks On

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I promise I'll add something to the mix, in the meantime, here are the images streaming into the Facebook group. You don't need to log in to view them.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day/121369914543425?v=photos

Enjoy!

EDIT: Here you go. (If you're wondering about the juxtapositioning, watch the video under the pic.

Draw Mohammed Day is TOMORROW!

Don't forget, if you have blogs, websites etc, or you just want to join in the fun, tomorrow is Draw Mohammed Day (links to Facebook group).

As you know, it is essentially based on a reaction to people who believe they are so superior and perfect to the rest of us, that their beliefs (not facts) should be protected from analysis and critisism, forever. Hence their eternal outrage at things 'offending Islam'.

This is something of a boggle, seeing as Islam isn't a person that can be offended, but merely an ideology. I guess it's okay for Muslims to depict non-Muslim faiths and beliefs as pigs, demons and the like, so long as it's one way. Like I said, they believe they are superior. You have no 'right' to draw a picture of their so called 'prophet', even if this person actually received his 'revelations' not from God, but from a Demon.

No matter. What is important is that you FOLLOW ISLAMIC RULES and do not do what millions in the West will be doing tomorrow. Depicting this warmongering, paedophile fuck face.

It is going to 'offend' Muslims. Well who gives a fuck. I'm more offended by Muslims actually going out and KILLING PEOPLE.

By the way, now is a good time to post this excellent video, a speech by Bat Ye'or, a scholor of Islam.



Remember. Whether you want it or not. This is war. 'Islam' believes that the world was always Islamic, and the 15,000 acts of violence since 9/11 in the name of Islam are merely good Muslims trying to bring the world back to where it belongs.

Well I say fuck that.

In the West, everyone and everything is open to criticism. It's the basis for separating fact from fiction. If Muslims want to threaten lives on this issue, then they are merely seeking to impose islamic rule on non-muslims, as part of their holy war.

Tomorrow I'll have a pic up. You can count on it.

Muslims assault swedish artist during Freedom of Speech lecture

More footage of the incident earlier this week.

This is longer footage than the earlier one posted,

Also in the 2nd video, you can see a swedish guy that says "show some respect" to a muslim women after she screams "show respect you fucking pig", she replies with "you should shut up", (same women that fanaticly screams "allah akbar" in the first long clip.) then the muslim crowd chases him away. Also you can hear the enraged muslims threaten other swedish people who tryes to tell them to calm down.

Consent must be given, it is never assumed

So there I was, thinking about the logic of the title statement. If a door to a house is open, does that mean you have consent to enter it? If a car boot is open, does that automatically mean you can help yourself to whatever is in it?

Of course not. This is one of the foundational pillars of a private property based society (i.e, a free society). Consent must be given. Now it should come as no surprise that the ever growing state seems to think it is above this basic rule (although nobody gave them consent to it). This little fact on its own should convince any and everyone that a revolution is needed. In a democracy the consent of the majority can override that of the minority. The truth is, there is no majority or minority. These are collectivist conveniences. There are only individuals. Only in a totalitarian, Marxist-style system can anyone (or group) demand the stripping of private property from another. Perfect for the ‘abolish private property’ mantra of collectivist ideologies such as socialism, communism, feminism and environmentalism.

I am about to opt out of this NHS corporate data mining project, called Summary Care Records. I have to opt out, because apparently the state was already decided that I want to opt in. They didn’t ask me obviously. Just like they didn’t ask me about bailing out banks and charging me the bill (illegal), going to war in the Middle East (illegal) and so on.

Consent is important, so are ‘rights’. They, like sunlight from the sun, are consequences of ownership. Simply put, you only have rights (consent is one) over things you own (such as yourself). Things you don’t own you have no rights over.

Simple isn’t it.

I don’t have the legal right to give you consent to enter someone else’s home and start eating out their fridge, any more than I can’t give you consent to have sex with that girl over there.

This applies to absolutely everyone. No one is exempt. It is the Great Equaliser. Socialist constructs like The Human Rights Act are not only disruptive to this logic, it is illegal (I’ll deal with this in another post). We are all equal in our rights over our own property and equally powerless over anyone else’s. Society, (from the beggar all the way up to the government) is composed of individuals. ‘Government’ doesn’t exist as a real thing, it is a virtual object that describes a group of individuals, nothing more. As such, the government should have no rights to assume consent of your property (your medical data, your organs or whatever).

They can’t do this because they don’t own you, right? I mean, if they did then you would be a slave in every meaning of the word. If they owned you, they would be able take money directly out of your pay check before you even get it. They could fine you arbitrarily, stop you from gathering as free people and protesting, ignore you when you actively reject government proposals, sell your private data to corporations, shoot you in the head because you ‘don’t look right’, pass laws purely for the purpose of taking more of your money, call you all racists and bigots for asking questions about changes in your local area, they can even sign you up to legal contracts so foreigners can tell you how you live your life and charge you hundreds of billions while they do it and even give voting rights to people who aren’t British. They could take the currency you have to use as payment for the use of your property (body) for production (provision of goods and services) and deliberately devalue it. They could borrow money from private banks that charge interest and demand you pay it.

Wait a minute…

Muslim defaces war memorial with Islamic slogan – CPS protects him

I’m confused.

A BRITISH Muslim has shown 'no remorse' after desecrating a town's War Memorial with extremist Islamic slogans, a court has heard.

But the Crown Prosecution Service has decided that graffiti proclaiming future world domination for Islam, glorifying Osama Bin Laden and calling for the assassination of the British Prime Minister, 'was not religiously or racially motivated'.

Shah admitted spraying the words 'Islam will dominate the world - Osama is on his way' and 'Kill Gordon Brown' on the plinth of the East Staffordshire Borough Council-owned memorial, on December 10 last year.

He was given a two-year conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £500 compensation to the council, plus £85 costs.

Prosecutor Andrew Bodger said information about Shah and photographs of the graffiti were sent to CPS headquarters in London, for a review by senior lawyers.

They found there was insufficient evidence that the criminal act was racially or religiously motivated - which could have led to a more serious charges and a harsher sentence.

What the fuck. Defacing property calling for the imposition of a barbaric ‘religion’ on the world has nothing to do with religion? How about ‘Islam will be wiped out’. I think that sounds better. Oh wait, I guess I’ll get done for ‘racially motivated hate speech’, even though Islam isn’t a race.

Defending solicitor Mumtaz Chaudry dismissed any belief that Shah held extremist views.

He said: 'This is nothing to do with his religious beliefs, his family's beliefs or his cultural beliefs. He is just an ordinary guy.

Oh do FUCK OFF.

May 20 Everybody Draw muhammad Day

JIHADWATCH

The paintbrush/pen/pencil/crayon is mightier than the sword. Or hey, even needlepoint if you're up for it. The possibilities are endless. "Seattle cartoonist launches 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day'," by Jamie Griswold for the Associated Press, April 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

After Comedy Central cut a portion of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris wanted to counter the fear. She has declared May 20th "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

Norris told KIRO Radio's Dave Ross that cartoonists are meant to challenge the lines of political correctness. "That's a cartoonist's job, to be non-PC."

Producers of South Park said Thursday that Comedy Central removed a speech about intimidation and fear from their show after a radical Muslim group warned that they could be killed for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

The group said it wasn't threatening South Park producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone, but it included a gruesome picture of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004, and said the producers could meet the same fate. The website posted the addresses of Comedy Central's New York office and the California production studio where South Park is made.

"As a cartoonist I just felt so much passion about what had happened I wanted to kind of counter Comedy Central's message they sent about feeling afraid," Norris said.

Norris has asked other artists to submit drawings of any religious figure to be posted as part of Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor (CACAH) on May 20th.

But drawings of one "religious figure" in particular will provoke death threats and accusations of hatred and racism.

On her website Norris explains this is not meant to disrespect any religion, but rather meant to protect people's right to express themselves.

British Government Launches Crusade Against Free Speech - Calls for Mass Censorship of Media

From TheOpinionator

Please take the time to read the PDF report linked below.

I have frequently pointed out how the British mainstream media either ignores incidences of muslim violence and/or hate crimes or obfuscates the identities of the muslim perpetrators. Here is a report that clarifies why the media has been so dhimmified and why the indigenous white British are continutally attacked and 'named and shamed' - even when undeserved - whilst the muslim and other minority criminals get a 'pass'. Muslims and other minorities are constantly portrayed as the overwhelmingly the victims even when the facts state that half of all victims of racially motivated murders in the last decade have been white.

The below is further evidence that the media is voluntarily complicit with the LaBour govenment's demands to hide how rampant illegal and legal immigration coupled with multiculturalism, political correctness and the myth of Islamophobia has grossly harmed Great Britain and its culture and freedoms.

"We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instance of death we cannot permit any deviation . . . we make the brain perfect before we blow it out." 1984 - George Orwell

The question looms -will the British people fight back against this latest attack on their freedoms and Country?

British government begins crusade against freedom of speech. Calls for voluntary mass censorship in media.

The British government published a new set of guidelines for newspapers calling for a voluntary ban on certain words and the suppression of stories about non-white crimes! While the guidelines are not a legal requirement, Britain has already prosecuted political figures for so-called “hate speech” for speaking out against Islamic immigration.

This Draconian document, published by unelected government bureaucrats, can be viewed here in PDF form. Click Here.

The guidelines call on newspapers and media to voluntarily cease using the following words:

“immigrant,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegal asylum seeker,” “bogus asylum seeker,” “non-white,” “non-Christian,” “mixed race,” “half-caste,” “mulatto.”

Never identify people by race or religion.

The media is told to give racial minorities preferential treatment in hiring to have a more “multi-racial” staff.

The media is told to portray ethnic minorities in a more positive light.

When discussing public opinion always use or include quotes from ethnic minorities.

Pander to the taboos of ethnic minorities. Learn what local ethnic minorities don’t like and then omit these things from your paper.

Encourage whites to embrace elements of 3rd world immigrant cultures. Promote and glorify the holidays, customs, and religious beliefs of non-white immigrant cultures.

Also expose “racists.”

The government document explicitly tells those in the media to portray minorities in a more positive light while holding white “racists” up to ridicule.

I wonder how much of this comes from the EURO-MED project?

Just so you know the mentality of your politicians

The Non-Existent French People

In the comments on a post from a few days ago, our French correspondent Robert Marchenoir had some choice words to say about France which are worth reproducing here. I’ve combined and adapted two comments to make the following post:

The signs of dhimmitude are all over the place in France. The Minister for immigration, integration and national identity Eric Besson, a former Socialist, has just said, in front of an immigrant audience, right in the middle of a Muslim suburb next to Paris:

“France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion, it’s a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There are no indigenous French, there is only a France made out of miscegenation.”

How more insulting can you get towards the French people and their history ? How contemptible is that ?

Traitor, traitor, traitor !

Full article here.

"Muslim needs should be priority in Britain" - Gov analyst

More than half the population believe Britain is deeply divided along religious lines, according to an official survey.

A majority would also strongly oppose the development of a mosque in their neighbourhood, the research into social attitudes found.

Almost half - 45 per cent - say they do not believe that diversity has brought benefits to the country and that religious diversity has had a negative impact.

The government-backed inquiry revealed that only one in four people in Britain feel positively about Islam.

That would be the Muslim section of the population I presume. I don't know anyone who feels positively about Islam. A long time ago, I confronted one of my Muslim friends when he was talking about 'killing all the Jews'. We were children at the time. The tenets of Islam are completely opposed to individual liberty and limited government, probably one of the reasons they are importing them by the millions.

The warnings on the extent of the divide between Muslims and much of the rest of the country come in the annual British Social Attitudes survey, produced with funding from Whitehall.
It found that 55 per cent of people would be 'bothered' if a large mosque was built in their locality. Only 15 per cent said they would have similar qualms about a church.

Some 52 per cent think Britain is deeply divided along religious lines. The findings, following worrying signs in other government research that tension over religion is increasing, emerged in the wake of the furore over an attempt by Islamic extremists to march through Wootton Bassett.

The social attitudes survey is produced by leading academics from interviews with 4,486 people. Its findings, to be published in full later this month, will raise concern that the Government's policy of producing 'social cohesion' by backing moderate Islam and isolating extremism is not working.

Again, Islam is not supposed to mix with our 'unclean, kaffir' culture. Regardless of how many Muslims integrate, the FACT that Islam views other cultures as inferior means there will always be a very large proportion of Muslims who will not integrate.

Professor David Voas, who analysed the findings, said many people believe the size and nature of Britain's Muslim population presents a threat to national identity.

Professor Voas, head of population studies at Manchester University, said there was growing intolerance because of 'the degree to which Islam is perceived as a threat to social cohesion'.

That is people of the very real effect Islam is having on the British way of life. If it has a positive effect this wouldn't be a problem, would it? He continues by focusing on the plight of Muslims, poor things.

He added: 'Muslims deserve to be the focus of policy on social cohesion, because no other group elicits so much disquiet. This apparent threat to national identity or even, some fear, to security, reduces the willingness of the majority to accommodate free expression.

The language says it all. Muslims DESERVE to come first, the host culture must be forced to accept 'free expression' of a foreign totalitarian regime. The host culture is not allowed to have free expression in return though, that would be discrimination. They obviously view British law and culture as something inferior.

'Opinion is divided, and many people remain tolerant of unpopular speech as well as distinctive dress and religious behaviour, but a large segment of the British population is unhappy about these subcultures.'

The survey said those with no educational qualifications were twice as likely to have negative attitudes towards Muslims as university graduates.

That is because a majority of Muslim immigration has been into social housing (paid for by you) into poor areas, they then segregate themselves and set up their own communities, refusing to mix with the local people, being unclean infidels and all that.

Ministers have been anxious to reduce negativity towards Muslims and minority groups among poorer and less-educated white people in recent months, fearing an election backlash from one-time core Labour voters.

However, the survey suggests that unhappiness over the influence of Islam has spread beyond poor white areas and now concerns a majority of people.

That is one of the reasons why the Facebook group against the Islam4UK Wolton Bassett march now has about 740,000 members.

This isn't just about some fringe group. This is about a foreign cultural, legal and religious system that believes it should reign supreme over Britain, and a government that agrees with them.

Sweden votes no to Minarets

As you probably already know, the Swiss said 'NO' in a vote on allowing the construction of Minarets, those objects of Islamic Supremacy.

The UN got stuck in, attacking the Swiss for not accepting something from Islam. Fuck the UN.

Islamic states throughout the world are angry, the Swiss establishment are angry, the EU is upset, how dare those Swiss peasants have an opinion not sanctioned by the global elite!

The UN has even gone so far as to say the ban discriminates against Muslims. And what about the very core tenets of Islam itself, no discrimination there? What about the heavy restrictions or outright banning of non-Islamic religion buildings in Islamic states? What about that.

Tell you something, good on the Swiss. Fuck Islam. Until the Islamic world treats other cultures and religions with the same respect it demands from the West, they should keep their savage fucking traps shut. 'Freedom' is a two way street, bitches.

A dispatch from an occupied country

EU Referendum

From today, as the Lisbon treaty comes into force, we are no longer masters in our own house. Our prime minister, as a member of the European Council, is obligated under this new treaty to promote the aims and objectives of the European Union, over and above those of the UK, and is bound by the rules of the Union.

Of course, this will make no immediate difference. It simply renders de jure what has been de facto for several decades, but the coming into force of the treaty marks an important symbolic turning point. We are no longer an independent country, de jure. Our prime minister and his government are now working for an alien government, based in Brussels.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich comrades.

P.S. Take note that not one corporate media website has any mention of the official end of Britain as a sovereign nation, the EU as a legal entity or the fact our government is merely a proxy to impose EU directives...

I always saw the signing of the Lisbon Treaty as an Act of War against the British people...

Freedom of Choice, Islam style

Remember the Iran protests? People questioning the legitimacy of the elections? Of course you do, media in the West were trumpeting it as the benefits of democracy.

Iran Election Protestors Sentenced To Death

Posted by JacobSloan on November 30, 2009

Remember when young Iranians marched though the streets this past summer to protest Ahmadinejad’s questionable victory in the nation’s presidential election? The U.S. media has lost interest in the topic, but Al Jazeera actually still cares, and reports that some of the protesters are now being sentenced to death:

Iran has sentenced five people to death and 81 others to prison terms of up to 15 years in a mass trial of opposition figures accused of fomenting the unrest that followed June’s disputed presidential election, state television says.

Offenses includ[ed] security violations, agitating against the Islamic Republic, violating law and order, damaging public and private property, and assaulting civilians and security forces.

Ten Years On: Britain Without the European Union

I got it free from the Taxpayer Alliance email but it is only £5.99 anyway. Get it (and more) from the greateudebate.com

I started making notes to post quotes, but I would end up typing up 50% of the book. Going through numbers, billions of pounds here, billions there, just flowing out the pockets of the People of Britain, people who earn it through sweat and toil, only to be pissed away on greasing the palms of poor countries and buying off politicians, setting up quangos and throwing money at media to promote the 'correct way of thinking about the EU', usual behaviour of a corrupt regime.

Do not think about the fact that individual freedom is the blood cell of a healthy, free society, and that the EU is the opposite of that. Putting aside the corrupt money flows, whereby the accounts of the EU haven't been signed off for 15 years or more, or the historical connection between the EEC cum EU and the Nazi 'Fourth Reich' plan, or the complete lack of democratic accountability and the blatant and consistent disregard for you view or the consequences of their decisions upon your life. Just put aside the 100,000+ pages of rules and diktats the EU has created to 'regulate' your life ad infinitum, even though simple logic would dictate that the more laws you have, the less free you are, seeing as rules and laws cannot add to freedom (freedom is an absence of law). Think about that, (in gross payments) we have been forced (because we didn't consent) into giving the EU approx a quarter of a trillion pounds of YOUR money, so you can be told what you can or cannot do, lest you be forced to pay them even more. The benefits of the EU are?

In every decision in life, whether you realise it or not, you carry out a risk-benefit assessment. Is going up to that girl at the bar worth the potential date later? The cost of that van worth the potential extra business? Think about how the EU benefits you. Forget their waffle, the expensive leaflets and propaganda. Try and think how paying the EU over £12,300 per minute, 24/7 year in, year out, benefits you. Compare it to how much you think it would benefit you by not paying it, and by not being told what to do.

I did say the book was short, I read it in a matter of hours without hardly trying. Unfortunately most people under the age of 18 can't read, but for those who can, get a copy.

I have picked a quote from the book, I think this sums up the EU nicely.

"Britain is paying a premium to belong to a gym that beats it up" - Ten Years On, pg 73 (Paraphrased)

They have been pummeling the Great British Bulldog for decades, trying to push us down to the level of lower nations, in true global communist fashion. Drugging it with media and celebrity nonsense, smoke and mirrors with the corrupted Parliament, sucking out its life blood, shutting down production, stripping away ancient freedoms and so on. Just trying to weaken this Animal of Freedom so they can get close enough to skin it, and harvest its organs.

But guess what. Britain is still here. Everybody I know is pissed off with the government. All it takes it explaining to people what is going on so they can connect the dots, and that is beginning to happen.

Indeed, I think that Bulldog is beginning to stir. Its ear flicked and it has opened an eye. It can see that it is surrounded by enemies, red, blue and green feathers on yellow bodies, circling like vultures, all wanting a piece of the Prize Pooch. The oldest and most illustrious of democracies.

Once it is full awake, it is game over for these spineless, slithering snakes.

2010 is going to be very interesting.

More cultural enrichment

Dying Woman's Hand 'Had Been Chopped Off'

A murder inquiry has been launched after a dying woman was reportedly found with one of her hands chopped off.

The 28-year-old was discovered by a passer-by in Greenford, north west London, at about 7pm on Monday.

Witnesses said she had serious head injuries and one of her hands was removed.

The victim was taken to Charing Cross Hospital, where she died about four hours later.

Investigators believe the woman may have been targeted after an acrimonious split with a former partner.

Why they didn't mention she was 'Asian' I don't know... How many cultures do you know that have deliberate mutilation as part of everyday life? Poor woman. I hope they find who did it and blow their brains out

Home Office engaged in conspiracy regarding immigration

Conspiracy; an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement.

Labour's “open door” immigration policy knowingly risked allowing dangerous people to settle in Britain unchecked, according to documents seen by The Sunday Times.

The Whitehall correspondence, which was illegally withheld by the Home Office for four years, shows how ministers were told by the country’s most senior immigration official that his staff were to be “encouraged to take risks” when granting visas, work permits and extended residency to hundreds of thousands of new migrants.

The cover-up of this policy of risk-taking was so concerted that Richard Thomas, the then information commissioner, sent a team of investigators into the Home Office to trawl all the relevant papers. Earlier this year he rebuked the department for breaking the law and ordered it to release the material under the freedom of information (FoI) law.

The documents help to explain the huge rise in the flow of migrants into Britain as the Home Office rushed to clear a backlog of 45,000 cases.

Officials agreed to fast-track 337,000 applications with minimal checks. This led to a rapid rise in immigration. In 1999, 170,000 visas were granted; by 2002, this had risen to 300,000.

Yeah, and the rest. Let's see. More immigrants floods the labour market, the public services, the scum they let in increase the crime rate (more laws and government surveillance anyone), the welfare state buys votes while disempowering the indigenous people. Single mothers breed feral brats, more crime, more mindless servants of the state, more dependents. Higher taxes to pay for this all, more redistribution of wealth, more stress and distractions, people less likely to revolt against the government, too busy surviving in a society with an ever increasing cost of living, powered by high taxes, red tape and unnaturally cheap credit. Government 'bailouts' debase Sterling, causing inflation and forcing the working people to work harder for the same value. And so on. Run by a bunch of globalist-communists for the express purpose of dragging Britain down to the shit hole status of much of the third world, making it easier to break up and control by the megalomaniacs of the Bilderberg, Club of Rome, EU etc.

Freedom begins with you.

Time Out Cover - unknown date

No it bloody well isn't!

The Koran, explained.

At last, a readable and honest guide to the book that inspires terrorists worldwide: the Koran.

The Conservative Book Club has made my new book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, a main selection for this month. Here is their review of the book:

If we don't know the Koran, we can't defeat the jihadists: Osama bin Laden, the masterminds of 9/11 and those who have perpetrated the over 13,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11 repeatedly point to it as their inspiration and authority, explaining that they're committing acts of terrorism and hate because of it. Yet the Koran is not an easy read -- it has been called "wrist-slittingly boring," as well as confusing, contradictory, and muddled. But Robert Spencer reads the Koran so that you don't have to! Now, in The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, Spencer, the bestselling author and Islam expert, shows exactly what's in the Koran, and why every military and intelligence official -- and every American -- should be concerned about this revered and reviled holy book. This witty and breezily written guide to the Koran explains who those who have vowed to destroy us think they are, what they think they're doing, and what they hope to accomplish.

Spencer explains what the Koran says about who Infidels are and what must be done about them; its appallingly harsh teachings on women; what it really says about warfare against Infidels; its strange teachings on Christians and Christianity; and its relentless demonization of the people whom the Koran identifies as the chief enemies of the Muslims: the Jews. He shows how the Koran developed, why central Muslim claims about it are false, and even provides a revealing and disquieting glimpse into the Hadith, the traditions of Muhammad that for Muslims worldwide are second in authority only to the Koran itself.

A huge number of policy decisions are predicated upon the assumption that the Koran teaches peace, and that those who brandish Korans and commit violence are misunderstanding their own religion and perverting the teachings of their own holy book. These include U.S. government postures toward Pakistan and Egypt; immigration matters; airport security procedures; military strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan; domestic anti-terror policies; and our acquiescence to Saudi Arabia's Islamic proselytizing campaign in America and many other countries. That's why The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran is so urgently needed: it shows how and why U.S. policies in these areas are not only wrong but dangerous to our national security -- and sounds a clarion call for a restoration of sanity on these issues in our national security establishment.

Proof: the Koran is just about the opposite of a "book of peace":

* Why most government and media analysts dare not even question the assumption that the Koran is peaceful

* How sacred texts are not entirely determined by what the faithful wish to see in them

* Infidels: why Allah hates them, and what he has in store for them -- straight from the Koran

* The strange story of how the Koran was compiled -- and the explosive significance of the existence of alternate versions

* The worst sin of all for Muslims: it's worse than murder, worse than rape, worse than genocide, and you're probably committing it

* The Muslim claim that the Koranic text was never altered -- why it's false, and why this matters

* Why it is so easy for non-Muslim readers reading English translations of the Koran to miss some of its most violent and worrisome passages

* The passages of the Koran that mandate warfare against unbelievers: why in traditional Islam they take precedence over more peaceful passages

* The little-noted and violent corollary to the Koran's famous passages forbidding the killing of innocent people

* But doesn't the Koran promise salvation to Jews and Christians? The truth about this celebrated passage

* How the Koran retells stories of the Biblical prophets but alters them to support Muhammad's claim to be a prophet

* Moses: the Koran's frequent retellings of the Exodus story -- and the all-important element of that story that the Muslim book leaves out every time

* The Islamic prophet Muhammad: why the Koran is essentially all about him

* Telling signs that the Koran was not delivered from heaven in pristine form, but was compiled from earlier Jewish, Christian, and pagan sources

* Koranic Jew-hatred: proof that Islamic anti-Semitism is not an import from Christianity, as many have claimed

* Are the Koran's violent commandments are largely meaningless, since similar ones are found in the Bible?

* The surprising and disquieting truth behind Islam's professed respect for other religions and reverence for their central figures

* The extraordinary implications of the Koran's preposterous teachings about Abraham, Moses and Jesus

* The alarming teachings of the Koran on women: how it reduces women to the status of commodities, and even teaches that women are deficient intellectually

* The Koran: does it really contain miraculous prophecies and other evidence of divine origin?

* The strange Islamic phenomena of "temporary wives" and "temporary husbands" -- and how justification for both comes from the Koran

* Love your enemies -- and other things the Koran doesn't say

* Barack Obama's June 2009 speech to the Islamic world: an object lesson in the hazards of not understanding the Koran

* How mistakes and false assumptions about Islam and the Koran is today leading the U.S. to make serious foreign policy errors

* What Infidels can and must do to defend free societies against those who take the Koran's message of violence and supremacism to heart

"Meticulous, comprehensive, indispensable. 'I read the Koran so you don't have to,' Spencer writes, but even for those of us who have read the Koran, this is a richly illuminating work." -- Bruce Bawer, author of Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom and While Europe Slept.

"Governing officials and media spokesmen may ignore Spencer's warnings, but they do so at their own risk, because Islamic jihadists are not ignoring what's in the Koran, and are working to destroy our freedoms in obedience to Koranic dictates. In illuminating for Westerners exactly what the Koran teaches, Spencer has performed a valuable service in the defense of Western civilization against the Islamic jihad." -- Geert Wilders, Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV), the Netherlands

"Unlike most of today's self-styled experts, Robert Spencer won't tell you that 'slay the idolaters wherever you find them' really means 'love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.' In The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, Spencer shows once again that he is America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism, insisting that we come to grips with the words behind the ideology that fuels international terror." -- Andrew C. McCarthy, senior fellow at the National Review Institute and author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.

"Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate's New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty. In our epoch of intellectual jihadism, this honest book is essential to understand the challenges of the twenty-first century." -- Bat Ye'or, author of Eurabia; The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam and Islam and Dhimmitude

"Tony Blair calls the Koran 'progressive [and] humanitarian' but Robert Spencer has actually read the scripture and begs to differ. In an informed, sardonic antidote to the usual soft-peddling of the Koran, he concludes that its actual contents should alarm infidels and prompt them to defend their 'freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the legal equality of all people.' " -- Daniel Pipes, director, Middle East Forum

"For 1,400 years Muslim leadership spread misinformation and covered up what is in the Koran, even criminalizing exposing the truth or asking questions. The truth is too scary for many, both Muslims and non-Muslims. I thank Robert Spencer for bringing the truth of what is in the Koran to non-Muslims." -- Nonie Darwish, ex-Muslim and author of Now They Call Me Infidel

"This book is an incisive analysis of how Islamic jihadists read the Koran and understand it to be commanding them to wage war against non-Muslims. Military and intelligence analysts, as well as all Americans interested in protecting our freedoms, will find The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran to be a valuable guide to the thought processes and core beliefs of Muslim terrorists." -- Steven Emerson, author of American Jihad

The Truth about Global Warming stories

Remember this,

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." [Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in "A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind", by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5.]

Everyone knows the term New World Order alludes to a global centralised technocratic super government. Like the EU but global and even worse.

Now this is released.

A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

This is the main thrust of the climate change scam. Pushing for a supranational legal framework, specifically designed to usurp the sovereignty of nation states but by proxy, the individual sovereignty of us all.

I add the following quotes for your consideration.

David Rockefeller Sept. 23, 1994 "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Note the image on the right of the blog, of the newspaper.

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." -David Rockefeller, from his own book, Memoirs.

We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” — Mikhail Gorbachev 1987

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries"--David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991

"The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Zionism, Socialism. All of these are directed to making the United States a member of a World Government ..." -- AMERICAN MERCURY MAGAZINE, December 1957, pg. 92.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." — SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain)


“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” — Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg

"I am convinced that the agreement [Bretton Woods] will enthrone a world dictatorship of private finance more complete and terrible than a Hitlerite dream. It offers no solution of world problems, but quite blatantly sets up controls which will reduce the smaller nations to vassal states and make every government the mouthpiece and tool of International Finance. It will undermine and destroy the democratic institutions of this country - in fact as effectively as ever the Fascist forces could have done - and will undoubtedly present a new menace, endangering world peace. World collaboration of private financial interests can only mean mass unemployment, slavery, misery, degradation and financial destruction. -- Labor Minister of Australia, Eddie Ward, during the inception of the World Bank and Bretton Woods, he gave this warning.

All throughout history, tyrants have sought global domination. Our time is no different. The human race struggles against itself, seeking to drag itself away from these primitive insecurities, trying to quench them with never ending power and wealth. As far as Britain is concerned, people should educate themselves on a few things. The nature of money, how banks operate, and if you own yourself or if you are a slave to others. I will elaborate on this shortly.

Make no mistake, running serves no purpose whatsoever. We are born to fight for our freedom against parasites, and by God, this is what I shall do!

Women are deficient in intelligence

Harriet Harman, the feminist fuckface who believes that discriminating against men isn’t actually discrimination (maybe she doesn’t think men are people). Also, at Pat Condell points out on Youtube, another bloody feminist who claims women are oppressed, only to hear a deafening silence from them in regards to treatment of women under Islam.

You know, stoning to deaths, the rapes, the marriages of 10 year old girls to old men, honour killings, women being worth half a man etc. These are not merely the actions of a ‘few individual Muslims’. The view that women are inferior runs throughout Islam, throughout the Quran.

So, Harriet the fuckface stated that men cannot be trusted to run businesses on their own etc (what Industrial Revolution?).

In Iran, the opposite is true, when Iranian clerics object to women as cabinet ministers: "there are religious doubts over the abilities of women when it comes to management"

Quoth Ali, the rightful successor to Muhammad according to the Shi'ites:

"O' ye peoples! Women are deficient in Faith, deficient in shares and deficient in intelligence. As regards the deficiency in their Faith, it is their abstention from prayers and fasting during their menstrual period. As regards deficiency in their intelligence it is because the evidence of two women is equal to that of one man. As for the deficiency of their shares that is because of their share in inheritance being half of men. So beware of the evils of women. Be on your guard even from those of them who are (reportedly) good. Do not obey them even in good things so that they may not attract you to evils." - The Peak of Eloquence, sermon 80.

On the Sunni side of the street (sorry), this quotation is in accord with Bukhari 1.6.301:

The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

So where are all the feminists now, those femmies who say unless women are automatically given 50% of the board room and cabinet positions, (but funnily enough, not 50% of building site or scaffolding positions) they are oppressed and victims of a patriarchy, but their misandric government are importing millions of Muslims who believe women are inferior, because their prophet said so, with the ensuing rise of crimes as a result.

Hello, hello? Bunch of pussies.