Monday, 17 December 2007

Pyrrhic Victory for the UAF

Miss Phill Carter, BNP. Just the kind of target the UAF like. Providing they are 3 on 1

The Urinate Against Freedom(UAF) mob are claiming a victory in the fact that they managed to get a planned British National Party meeting canceled by making threatening phone calls to the Landlord and his family at The Anchor in Tempsford.

The UAF claimed that the venue had been booked under a false name and made the following statement:
"It makes you wonder what they have to hide. All this goes to show that the BNP is very far from being a normal mainstream political party."
but as usual the truth is somewhat different. Miss Phill Carter the BNP representative dismissed the red lie by retorting:
"I book in the name of the BNP and the landlord was aware of this.

"It's an awful shame because it's a fantastic venue and we do get on with the landlord."

She added: "We are not the awful people that the mainstream media makes us out to be. We have got absolutely nothing to hide."
Clare Jennings whose father Malcolm runs the pub, had this to say about the harassing phone calls they had received as a result of the UAF posting their telephone number on the internet and suggesting their supporters give the pub a call to "put them right".
"We're too busy running a business to get involved in this political thing. We've nipped it in the bud because of what's attached to it. We've had really ignorant, horrible people ring up.
So there you go. The British National Party taking the message to the people in North Bedfordshire, where their new group has managed to pick up 45 members in under a year have been introduced to the tactics of the real fascists of the world. The moslem and marxist funded UAF.

Perhaps the BNP should book their venues under false names if only to protect the safety of the people who own their venues. We know how the UAF supporters like to treat women.


Anonymous said...

"I would expect no less from them."

Much better.

But do try to keep your eye on the ball.

You really don't want so many people laughing at you.

johnoddybnp said...

All venues are kept as secretly as possible, I do it to protect my venue from the same experience as happened here. My landlord cannot openly support the party for fear of retribution but he is in full knowledge of what our meetings are about and if our venue was disclosed I would expect him to take the attitude of “ I didn’t know”, he as to protect his business.
I can see the point of their denial, I don’t see why they should have to, not in this free democratic Country we live in?????. It all boils down to the fact that the UAF are aware our message as got through to the people and they are in panic mode, we all know they haven’t got the bottle to face us directly, well not and get away with it, so they ’re doing what they do best, going for the soft and easy options.

Louise said...

Why doesnt the BNP have smaller areas where it can meet (and plot its racism) in peace? Surely if you have the support that you claim you have, this can be funded relatively cheaply?

Whilst I cant bear your antics or your policies, I believe in the right to peaceful assembly and to freedom of speech. However, I am wondering whether (and you will know this for I do not) your presence in the UK is being perceived as stopping other's in their tracks to practicing their activities (as is their right). There seems to be much tittle/tattle between you and the UAF groups. You both appear to behave as badly as each other to an outsider. In addition, there is the issue as to whether yours/theUAF's implicit declaration of war against each other means that they consider all attempts to stop you (from stopping others freedom of speech/activities) a justified action (whatever that involves). Do you think this is the case? Im not expecting you to start ranting at me (Though you most probably will) but as a serious point, is that what is going on here? As usual GA, your postings leave off the bigger questions.

Louise said...

Now then JohnOddybnp:

Where were we? Yes. Contempt. I responded to this word viscerally at first. You should know that I dont actually have contempt for you. Its quite a strong word. I probably have more contempt for BFB if anyone because I get the urgent feeling that he resorts to unfair play and probably would think nothing of giving me the kicking that he doubtless thinks that I deserve. In resignation I did venture onto his horrible blog last week and he threatened someone after isolating their ISP address and said he could call tiscali and pay a small fee to track them down. If thats not a nefarious response, I dont know what is! As a pro-BNPer, does he have ANY idea as to the illegality of such an act?! I dont think for one second that most BNP folks are like that exactly but it doesnt take long before youre flying off the handle, going apes**t and be thoroughly unpleasant yourself. Nowhere near BFB but along the other end of the spectrum. If I wanted to behave like that, I would join the UAF!

Whilst I think that Sir HM is correct in many ways about the friends/enemy divide, I certainly dont see you folks as my friends. But more importantly, I dont comment on here to obtain friends, and the personal insults reflect more badly on you, than they do on me. I can see that we may be incredibly rude because its been the only arena so far to engage. But at the beginning, I had honestly hoped to avoid that. Notwithstanding that failed intention, I do prefer it when youre clever with your barbs as opposed to stupid. So no, Oddy, I dont have contempt for you but I do expect so much more from you and yes, in almost every way, you fail miserably to provide ANYWHERE NEAR to the level to which you should be able to engage in these debates. Call me names all day long but the bottom line is: You dont debate well! And, likening me to Sir HM's wife was a big big mistake. Even side stepping your own missus for a second and her pathetic racist joke-offendathon-banter, the very first interaction that I had with SirHm involved sparking some thought about his ex-wife. I dont know who she is but she sounds quite extroidinary. I dont make those claims myself but it was kinda lazy of you to refer to someone's wife as being full of "piss" and "self importance"!. You lack ability Oddy. YET you stand in a position of representing your party. You are damned right that Im going to single you out and challenge you! Thats not contempt Oddy. Thats seeking a fair fight with the engine grinder. If I had contempt for you, I would ignore you in totality.

I think that Sir HM is correct. You can hate me all day long (as is your right) but you should try cutting your policy teeth on me (for I most certainly practice my stance with you lot). Our worlds are wildly different and going in different directions. But when I come up across folks like you and dangerous ethnic cleansing policies (which is most certainly the worst result of your plans as they will get out of control), I need to know how your minds work. So, as your ANTI-BNP commenter, I will be shaking you lot up whenever possible/i see fit. If GA chooses not to post my comments, he goes against your only weapon (freedom of speech). Likewise, any commenter who hates me or has contempt for me, can ignore what I write or give me hell back! If you do that through debate, so much the better!

As a forewarning comment, one of your big mistakes in the recent posts is the alignment of anyone who disagrees with you as being "left". In this country, we are incredibly wary of far left and right. Importantly, there are as many people who may align their thoughts to the left but who also agree with nationalism (and possibly with bnp policies) who you are missing out on. If you truly represent the people, why arent you inviting everyone into your fold? You make yourselves partisan towards the right but if you have a decent point about national identity, what does it matter as to whether youre right or left? Despite the snidey comments, I dont have a problem with a national identity. Nor do I have a problem with national pride (though our behaviour leaves a lot to be desired). It all depends on how national identity is defined and how it is upheld. You must be losing people on a daily basis who are indeed fence sitters (I am not) because you make the assumption that their questioning of you instantly means they are against you. You see, I want to be proud of my national identity in the true spirit of it. I would like to think that my national identity in no way is similar to your policies. I know for a fact it is not, or the BNP would be in charge of this country. Of course, the people who are in charge are a shambles too. But politics aside, when I travel, live and work abroad and in the UK, I think that I represent something to others that is respectful, generous, understanding and socially aware than your policies (food policy aside) (BNP interactions excluded of course!). I have a national identity and i get along just fine as do the others around me from all walks of life and all cultures. I just cant see you selling your policies to the majority. I question whether the doorstep support that you do get actually reads your policies in any depth. My challenge to you is to explain why doorstep voters are doing nothing more than exercising 1. their disgust of current parties by voting BNP 2. exercising their fear that the Daily Mail, the Sun or the Guardian are correct that we are truly being swamped by dirty dark coloured immigrants. Do these voters really know what your policies actually involve?

Oddy, maybe you had best leave this one to Sir HM who is infinately more equipped to respond! ;)

Paul: Tar for the link. I'll have a look later.

Louise said...

GA: Will try to return to short postings. Apologies!

The Green Arrow said...

louise you are free to write your posts as long as you wish. I actually read the last one. People have the choice of skipping over or reading.

Wish I had time to take you on.

Phil said...

Or skim reading, pretty easy to get the gist.
I'd like to see the manager in Tesco take her on regarding the lack of Fair Trade chocolate in the candy aisle.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

I'm not getting involved in any complex arguments for now Louise - I'm too taken up with other things, but I'm sure we will have future talks. I'll yet get you voting BNP.

John - about my silver tongue: yes, I do have that. If I didn't have a life history that would be spun in the media as disreputable, I'd pretty myself up (maybe I should do that anyway ... hmmm) and stand for elected office.

I did once stand for elected office way back in 1991 (not BNP then). I had never previously involved myself in politics. The borough councillor I was trying to oust had held the position for 32 years continuously. You build up a lot of favours in 32 years as a councillor - he'd even helped out my dad a time or two over those years. It was a lot to overcome.

I spent weeks doing the usual grind. I actually called at every single house in the ward; spoke to every single voter; was totally honest in answering questions. To people who asked the standard "What are you going to do for me?" I always answered "Maybe nothing, it'll depend what you want from me"
I also asked everyone to please vote, and that I'd rather they voted for my opponent than not vote at all. I said this to every voter in the ward. Outright honesty is probably the best thing going for gathering votes. Aren't you sick of these mendacious t***s that call themselves politicians? So is everyone else. It's like a breath of fresh air when someone hits them with a dose of honesty said in inoffensive ways.

Historically, voter turnout in that ward was around the 30% mark. For that election it was 78.9%. Think about that - a borough council election with a 78.9% turnout! Even general elections don't come close. I like to claim that I was directly responsible for that high turnout. Can anyone tell me of any local authority election ever, anywhere, with a higher turnout? That was probably a national record. And I had no big publicity machine - just me and one of my sisters (and 16% of the electorate was family). Helps. :) My opponent had almost as big a family presence.

If just six of those voters had voted the other way, I'd have been elected. It was that close. Next day, after the election, my opponents election agent told me that he had voted for me. Beat that folks. Yes John, I have a silver tongue.

And I may not sound it when I'm debating here with Louise, but though I'm certain I'm not as physically hard as you (indeed, I know I'm not because I'm not in a good state of health), I am at least as hard headed, and probably harder.

That's what having a silver tongue is all about. Not just for sexual seduction - though it comes in handy for that too :)

Softly softly catchee monkey.

johnoddybnp said...

Thats more than she said to me outside Morrisons

Louise said...

Johnoddybnp: I wasn't there. It wasn't me. I suspect you know this already and are just fantasing for effect. If someone did approach you in this manner, more fool you. The childish part of me would have quite enjoyed it! Though I have thought a little about coming to one of your public addresses and making you thoroughly uncomfortable. Luckily, Wales offers far more delightful attractions in its geography than you.

SirHM: It is a bloody shame that you are not in as good health as I would hope for you. I respect fully your tatoo status and your almost-rationalist attitude but it would be nice to see you healthy and in a political arena. Oddy should take a leaf out of your book and be HONEST (especially regarding the 'extreme' issue regarding policy). This is not a social opportunity for me so Im going to keep this brief: I hope you get on your OU course (for goodness sake, pay more attention to your statistical analysis if you do re correlations - see my previous posting). You should get your stance written down. Though I disagree with you on almost every topic to date, I would like to see your philosophical (non blog) stance on these issues. I dont know about 'silver tongue', I wouldnt take it that far! You werent quite so silver at the beginning were you? But even so, there is clearly fight left in the old dog yet youre not a sniveller, I'll give you that! And whilst I have to agree with softly softly catchee monkey, I am damn sure that it will be your softly and my catchee coz there aint no monkey this end of the computer.

Before leaving: SirHM: So youre not responding to my challenge above? Why ever not?;)

johnoddybnp said...

You old…. I nearly used the word “Pirate”, my usual greeting towards you, but Sir Henry Morgan was not a pirate, many think of him that way in their romantic recall of history, he was in fact a “Buccaneer”, so called for the meat they ate and the open fire it was cooked on “boucan” (I’m sure Louise will correct me if my history fails me). Like yourself, a Welshman, born in Monmouthshire, in or around 1630 something, I’ll hazard a guess and say 1635?. Commanded raids against the Spanish at Cuba and Panama as well as being the Governor of Jamaica. Thought of as a sailor but was in fact a soldier commissioned in the British Army as a Lieutenant, a natural leader whose men would follow him anywhere, he spoke to them the same way he would speak to nobility and royalty.
Bet he had a silver tongue too!!!.
If you’ve already cut your teeth on the campaign trail what’s to stop you from continuing?. I have no doubt your eloquent silver tongue would serve you better than my bumbling efforts (I almost heard Louise scream then!). I am, as you no doubt gather, a doer not a talker but when the need arises every man must do his bit, two years ago if anyone had said “John your going into politics” I‘d have thought them mad. When there’s no-one else to do it someone as to and you just do what you can. If I can do it anybody can.
Now Henry, I take it you have a large mirror in your house, correct?, good. I’d like you to stand with your back to the mirror, drop your trousers and bend over, now you see that little bottom hole of yours?, good because as long as that’s there you’ll never get Louise to vote BNP!!!!!!.
See you later you old pirate.

johnoddybnp said...

I know I said I wouldn’t respond to you but me thinks thou doth protest too much, “ I wasn’t there, it wasn’t me”, come-on girl if your stalking me just admit it. I refuse to be the ball in your ping pong love affair between GA and SirHM. You may have them eating out of the palm of your hand, you little hussy, but I wont be taken-in by you, no matter what you know about my sex life. Even May saw you so your denial is pointless, you were there, as described, touting your seedy little magazines AND in the presence of children, have you no shame?
By the way my friends call me Oddy, people that know me call me John but you, Louise you can call me Mr Oddy.

Sir Henry Morgan said...


Privateer, not buccaneer. The difference is he carried Letters of Marque from the queen permitting him to wage war on the Spanish without formally being part of the navy.

Drank himself to death in the end.

A fine fighting man - though the spanish may disagree as he wasn't particularly nice to them: had no qualms about the methods he used for extracting information.

He's better thought of in the Netherlands than in this country. Some historians reckon he so distracted the Spanish with his Carribean campaigns that he greatly contributed the Dutch war to free itself form the Holy Roman Empire.

And I've no doubt he was silver-tongued.

Louise, my correlations are accurate. How I put them together is irrelevant. They served my purpose which was to contribute towards getting Islam entirely removed from this country and returned to where it belongs. I made no claims of causation; indeed, I made a point of denying it. Islam is dangerous. But I wont argue. One day you'll see I am correct in my assessment of Islam. It's the ideology that's the problem, not the individual practitioners. I've neither the time nor the inclination to educate you on Islamic ideology or history. You'll have to do that for yourself.

This world is going to get very rough and the day's coming when individual countries will have to sustain themselves from their own internal resources. We'll need our population down to about half what it is now to do that. That is a fact. We should take care of our own first. Most of the rest, especially those who arrived in the last 20-30 years will have to go back to where they came from, along with their descendants. Hard decisions are going to have to be made. It's not race - it's culture and most importantly numbers. I posted a few weeks back on this very topic in the Daily Express (yes, I know - but sometimes it's useful for getting ideas out to a lot of people). I'll see if I can dig out what I said and re-post it here for you to read. Save me writing it all out again. You wont like it, and probably wont believe it. But the key point is that I believe it, as does everyone else in the BNP and other nationalist groups. Back soon.

BTW, have you read this? And this is only the start.

John again. I can't stand for election. The press would rip into me. Really. She will vote BNP one day - or similar. Even if I can't persuade, and it's useful trying if only to get my own arguments in order (added bonus, if she's tied up arguing with me, she's not troubling the rest of you and you can get on with business as usual), then changing world and national circumstances will lead her to vote our way if only out of her own need to survive. People will do a lot to survive.

Red Squirrel said...

You sound pretty intelligent for a liberal-marxist sort of person,
but you really let yourself down at times, re:
"Why doesnt the BNP have smaller areas where it can meet (and plot its racism) in peace? Surely if you have the support that you claim you have, this can be funded relatively cheaply?

Whilst I cant bear your antics or your policies, I believe in the right to peaceful assembly and to freedom of speech."

Does your brand of FOS mean ALL of us?
You are lucky to have been given a 'platform' here. It is more than your friends in the Ultra -Left do! Even when one has a valid point to raise it is moderated out and ignored!
No wonder meetings are not widely publicised, it is because of your oaf like mates from UAF etc, teaming up with Jihadist iron bar
weilding nobs baying for Nationalist blood!
Not that we are afraid of them as such, it is just SO undemocratic
and pathetic!
By the way, have you chosen which type of Burkha you will be wearing yet?

Hello to you GA,
A bit of News :-)
Swindon Nationalists now have a website-
By for now.

Louise said...

johnoddybnp: I shall address you in any manner I please (actually, I suppose that GA gets the final decision on this as its his blog and he has already laid down guidelines on how people should be addressing each other so I try to work within them).

Your last post didn't even make sense but if you are referring to the event you mention in Morrisons, you may believe whatever you like. Beyond a momentary thought, it isn't anything that I can gain ground on, so is completely irrelevant to me. Thus, think whatever you like! If you need to believe that was me to give me an image to fit your opinion of me, so be it.

As to 'balls' and 'ping pong'. Besides the fact that you dont appear to have any, its rather embarrasing (for you) that you would place yourself as central to the debates here between myself and ANY other commenters. Its more of a cheek that you place yourself anywhere near SirHM or GA. You can dream! Which is probably what you were doing right up until election morning a few weeks ago. However, if you must attempt to establish your position, I would place you on the same spectrum (though differing ends) as BFB and his tactics. Granted you are less offensive but your posts reek of insecurity and are solely lacking in debate.

SirHM: Coming up....

Sir Henry Morgan said...

This is both off topic and on. It doesn't directly relate to the post, but it does relate to the general thrust of the blog.

Louise - here are the several comments I made in the Daily Express about our population, and a little dispute I got involved in (he didn't come back for more). Forgive the occasional typo and missing word. eg the very first word. I was so embarrassed about that at the time. Here's the original Daily Express article that prompted the conversation thread. If you want to read all the comments after the article, you'll have to scroll down the page, click 'view all', scroll down the page again, then start at page 5 and work your way back, bottom to top, then page 4 etc.

Actually, without wishing to appear cocky - I think I write better than virtually any tabloid journalist I've ever read. I think I certainly put together a better argument. Mind you, that's not difficult is it. Any newspaper owner out there got a job for me?

My first comment:

In 1941/2 the population of this country was about 38 million. Germany almost succeeded in starving us into submission because we were unable to properly feed that many people from the land and fisheries available to us.

What chance with even the 60 million we currently have, never mind the projected 80, or 100, or 110 million?

Don't say we can trade for food. Our trade depends on cheap oil, and that era is rapidly coming to an end. Also, the whole world is undergoing a population explosion - those countries with food surpluses to trade are going to need those surpluses to feed their own increased populations. Anyhow, what, exactly, are we going to trade with? We have exported the bulk of our real wealth creation - manufacturing. The City? All smoke and mirrors. The City doesn't create wealth: all it does is concentrate money. The creation of real wealth is the creation of manufactured goods. Suppose you had all the money in the world, and I had all the manufactured goods. But tomorrow you need to buy a car to travel somewhere. How much do you suppose I'm going to make you pay for that car? By the day after tomorrow I would have all the manufactured goods in the world minus one car, and I would also have all the money in the world. All you would have is one car. How would you pay for fuel for that car?

As for our population dropping without immigration, and we need the immigrants to support our elderly: does anyone suppose those immigrants aren't themselves going to grow old and need support? Only now there will be vastly more elderly to be supported. Ever more immigration to bring in more young people? We are trapped in a vicious circle.

We are going to have to bite the bullet on this one and break that circle (yes, I know - don't mix metaphors ...). Our population dropping is NOT a problem. It is only the natural aftermath of the tailing off of the post-WW2 baby boom, as our population gets itself down to it's more nearly normal natural level for the territory we occupy. So, for a couple of decades this will mean difficulty for our eldery. Well ok, our elderly - which will very soon include me: I'm 55 and not wealthy or even comfortably off - are just going to have to live and die through it. There was a baby boom which just naturally brought itself to an end. That inevitably has led to an elderly boom, which will equally naturally bring itself to an end. What's the problem?

Leave the EU. No negotiation, no discussion - just leave and seal our borders. Nobody at all allowed in. This brings to an end the 'right' to all EU citizens to live here - so they can all go back. If this means that our own citizens resident in the EU have to return here - fine, they are welcome back, bringing their skills with them. All illegals to be hunted down and deported - no tribunals, no appeals. Find them, put them on the next boat or plane out. If they refuse to say where they come from, just legally assume them to be Afghans and fly them there. Release them out of the front gate of Bhagram Air base, which we share control of. They'll soon enough be glad to tell us where they came from.

Revisit the cases of all the "asylum seekers" who have arrived in the last 20 years. Re-assess them with a hard hard mind. Those we still think are genuine can stay - otherwise, back they go. No further tribunals, no appeals. All immigrants who came here to take jobs that British people are quite capable of doing - one thinks, for example, of the 10,000 or so current British born and raised trained medical graduates who can't get work because the places they could have had are taken by immigrants - can go too.

Repatriate our manufacturing industry. If you have shares in a manufacturing company that has expatriated its production facilities in order to take advantage of cheap labour, then you have a choice - bring your company home, or you go out to join it.

And all Muslims will have to go - they are un-integrate-able. They say it themselves: Islam must dominate. Well thank you and all, but I, and millions like me, beg to differ. They all have to go. All.

By the time we've done all this, and taken a few other minor measures, our population will be down around the 45 million mark - all in just a couple of years. Then we can let our population gradually reduce itself down to something like an indefinitely sustainable level. at somewhere around the 30 million mark. Plenty of space for everyone, plenty of housing for everyone, plenty of work for everyone. And think what it'll do for our national carbon footprint.

And that lot is just straight off the top of my head without having to think particularly hard about it (obviously, some of the more politically correct will say ... :) ).

The good Reverend Malthus was, is, and always will be, correct ""

My second comment:

"" URBAN ...
... if I was Prime Minister, Immigration Minister would just be a sinecure. Repatriation Minister perhaps? Plenty to do there. ""

My third comment:

"" ALI
What race is Islam then? Middle East brown Arab? Sub-continent brown Asian? Black Nigerian Asian? Yellow Indonesian oriental? Perhaps white European Bosnian?

Please, educate us. What race is it?

Perhaps while you're at it you could tell us what race Christianity is?

Criticism of Islam is no more racism than is criticism of Christianity - something Islam does a lot of ""

My fourth comment:

An "Asian" too many in there. Should have been "African".

BTW, there is no bigger critic of Islam than me. Does that make me racist? How likely is that to be the case when I was married to a S.Asian woman for nearly a quarter-century, and my one and only child is mixed race? My wife had more, and worse, to say about Islam than I'm able to say.

Islamophobic then? Sorry - I'm not afraid of anything. Especially not a made-up nonsense word. And even more especially not a medieval, unreformed, primitive system of belief. ""

My fifth comment:

Respect is not in that category of things that can be had because it's expected; it can't be had just by being demanded; it can't be taught; it can't be bought: it can only be earned.

If you - or Islam itself - wants respect then it must earn that respect. All Islam earns is contempt. Now that may or may not be your fault. Thus far you too have earned no respect. Your two posts that were quoted earlier on this thread indicated nothing but contempt for this country, its symbols, and its indigenous population. So why should anyone have any respect for you?

A Christian thought for you: "As ye sow, so shall ye reap". Put simply: you get what you give. Give contempt, get contempt. Give respect, get respect.

Loyalty is also in this category of things - to get loyalty you have to give it. Any army officer could tell you that. You have demonstrated, along with your contempt for us, that you have no loyalty to this country or its people, so why should you get any - i.e. people willing to defend you?

Islam itself has no respect for, or loyalty to, anything other than Islam. Indeed, it has nothing but contempt for what is not Islam. In consequence, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap".

In Sudan, right now as we read and write, there is a woman in jail, at risk of 40 lashes, for allowing primary school age children to name a teddy bear 'Mohammed'. For heaven's sake, it's only a name; and it's only a children's cuddly toy. Are you all insane? In Saudi Arabia there is a woman who has had her sentence to 90 lashes increased to 200 lashes because she complained that the men who raped her were treated too leniently. Are you all insane? In Saudi Arabia there is currently a man under sentence of death by public beheading because he got lost and strayed into the environs of Medina, and is not himself a Muslim. Are you all insane?

Better for Muslims, and better for the four fifths of the world's population if Muslims keep to the Islamic parts of the world, and non-Muslims keep to their parts of the world. There is absolutely nowhere in the whole world where there are large numbers of Muslims living alongside non-Muslims where there is not serious conflict, death, destruction. The common factor in all these conflicts is Islam, so it reasonably follows that Islam is responsible. Best Muslims are put into isolation until they learn to behave in a civilised manner. They haven't learned to do this over the past 1350 years, so I don't suppose anyone should hold their breath while waiting for it to happen in the near future.

Now I'm not swearing at you, I'm not insulting you, I'm not threatening you, I'm not 'bashing' you. I'm just telling it like it is. It's YOU that has to change, not us. ""

PS Louise, because I'm already educated to postgrad level, it turns out I can't get funding for an OU course. The system is foolish of course: if it let me have a course then at least for a while I'd have less time to attack ... the system.

There are one or two other Daily Express threads I got involved with. I'll try finding them and seeing if they're relevant for posting here. Back later.

Louise said...

Sir HM: I will go to the link in a moment. Why do you begin by suggesting that I wont like it and wont believe it?

I will see for myself.

Okay, I think we can close the 'SirHm / Election' avenue as you are clearly not being drawn into that. Im not sure why the press should rip into you though. If your ideas stand up, they stand up. But yes, beyond idealism, I fully appreciate that background social stuff and history can get in the way. Unfortunately, that sort of admission has never stopped any other sleezy politicians and frankly, the sheer incompetence of folks like Bush Jnr (who should be worried by their past) seem to have gone in his favour!

The more important part of your comment was concerning your correlations. You suggested causal patterns in that original posting (go back and read it if you dont remember!) SirHM, providing you checked all of the 'statistical assumptions' of your data (eg to be sure that a test of association was the correct test to carry out), you can still ONLY foreshadow with the test that you used. I did give you the detail on this a week or so ago but think that GA was mass-housekeeping and cleared the comment off (understandably so given the need to keep the blog tidy). I actually pointed you in the correct direction of statistical analysis if you did really want to draw the conclusions that you were heading in (and suggested that you actually conduct a logistic regression analysis to predict the probability of one event occuring as a function of the other). This would have made more sense to your claim. And yes, SirHM, it is MOST sloppy of you to make the claims you do make with a correlation analysis (regardless as to how you talk about admitting 'non' causation). Had I been your tutor, I would have challenged you doing this regardless of the fact that I am not a BNP supporter.

My concern is that the world is going to get rough because of extremists like you AND any fundamental believers from other camps (including evangelical christian fundamentalists, other cult groups and islamic fundamentalists). The CURRENT history of conflict points the finger well and truly at us in the UK and the USA for waging war. The contemporary situation may suit your cause on one hand. On the other hand, it wasnt going on in this style before we started the indiscriminate destruction of civilians. And please dont mention 'insurgents' because you are claiming your rights to pick up a gun as much as the next man in Iraq right now. Whoever you are, and whatever side(s) you are on, if youre part of the problem, you cannot be part of the solution. Violence is wrong and in the grand history of the world, it hasnt solved much. We dont have en-masse scale conflict in the UK, so why on earth should any of us vote for your policies which will surely start that dreadful ball rolling? My multi-cultural neighbours and I dont want it. And no, none of us are scrapping over resources!

Okay, Im off to read your link. Lets hope its a good one. Sir HM, if youre doing anything that requires research for your OU application, post your general research questions and an approximate idea of the data sets you are working from (give me rough ideas if you dont want to reveval the actual data - no problem if you dont trust me, I would understand that) and I'll tell you what statistical analysis is most appropriate and give you the correct methodology pages to back it up so you can verify beyond my advice. Im kinda gutted that your tutors did not support you more fully in your conclusions (which they surely failed to do if you got good marks for your study). Im no genius but I have quite a robust background in these areas.

Louise said...

Red Squirrel:
You were around on GAs site when I first begun here myself. I think that we have moved on from all this UAF stuff but to confirm, I dont agree with them exactly (I like it that someone exists to challeng you but I disagree with their tactics).

Also, I have always promoted freedom of speech. I am not 'lucky' to be given a platform here at all! In general, you exercise your perfect right to give me a hard time. I am not here to enjoy this. I am here however to challenge you! Providing GA agrees with FOS too, I am simply exercising my right. Of course, that right comes through GA, but it is a right, regardless of whether you like it or not so dont insult the only weapon that you have (FOS)! I dont really know what 'liberal' is in detail but I do understand that the human rights declaration is meant to be a liberal document and since you want your rights to platform (and you should have them too), I take it that you are also liberal? If youre not liberal, stop bleating about your right to FOS and dont grant it to anyone else either and then we shall all be on a level playing field!

So yes, my brand of FOS does include you all, and everyone else too (including muslims...get it?). You have no reason to have read my postings concerning FOS but I defended your right to 1. peaceful assembly 2. freedom of speech a few weeks ago when that disgusting racist (you know the one who sanctions bugging people, raiding people's flats and taking PCs in ways that would offend the most loose of employment policy protocols) spoke in Oxford. I dont like him, but I want my right to hear him state his opinions precisely so that i can challenge him. And no, I havent worked out what Burkha I shall be wearing. Ive lived and worked with muslims and no one has ever made me wear one. I think thats what you might understand by the word 'tolerance'. And because of that tolerance, I probably wouldnt mind wearing one in conditions when I choose to be respectful. Just as I dont practice christianity but if I went into a christian church, I wouldnt be blastphemous (sp) AND if I spoke to a Jew with a belsun tatoo on their arm, I wouldnt deny the holocaust, and finally if I met a man who had collapsed from a heart attack and he had a tatoo on his chest that said dont remove organs and do not resuscitate, I wouldnt do either - even if I stood up on a disciplinary for it. This is called respect and its something that I believe in. I wouldnt be forced, but in my life, no one forces me to to anything Squirrel. Not you, Not the UAF. Given that, I certainly will not be scaremongered into being afraid of something, just because you are.

Louise said...

Sir HM: Okay, I had read that link before. It is embarrasing that it began with a typo but you are right to get over it because anyone that is dismissing you on the basis of a typo is going to miss the bigger picture of your actual article. If folks judge you on the article, fair play. If theyre only bothered about the pretty wrapping, balls to them!

Anyway, I have responded to many of these comments previously. You know my views about the problems of the border, population and migration policies both of your article and in the BNP generally.

I was talking about your issues to a friend of mine last week. Shes pretty tuned into the materialistic world and especially to economics (career and academically in her case). She detaches her emotions beautifully in any debate and she and I disagree on a lot of things(which makes her a great bouncing board for ideas). Given her likelihood of disagreeing with me, she was the perfect option for me to push some of the arguments that we have been having here on GAs blog. Interestingly, she wasnt outraged on humanitarian grounds like me. She actually responded to the economic instability for the UK that your policies would promote. She asked if you had decent economists to back up some of the specifics in your post SirHM. I said that I didnt know but I would ask. Its a reasonable question......What happens to the economic picture if your policies (borders closed, forced return, no EU alignment etc) were reinacted? How would you enforce your population control? You see, beyond the horror of my reaction, how do your ideas play out in practical terms?

And SirHM: if the BNP had any heart or soul, they would gather together some sponsorship money (openly raise it and ring fence it from a wealthier donor so its not public funds per se) to pay for your tuition and living expenses. You could offer your research project or education work to the BNP to use. I am absolutely telling you folks that your policies are on a very thin ground. They are poorly written, there is no evidence or even projection as to how they will work and how one policy implemnetation impacts on another etc. It has passed my more frustrated moments of thinking that what your party really needs is a level playing ground, a small group of researchers and contributors to come up with an ordinary (non rocket science) project or piece of research to see what actually happens when your IDEAS are taken to the next step. My anonymity is more important right now so I cant offer but it would be a worthwhile idea. Of course SirHM, theres no reason why you shouldnt be supported. After all, most research councils in the social side of life align their funding streams with politics! If the BNP wants to go professional and do something more useful than law at cambridge, funded by mummy and daddy, why shouldnt you be the one?!

Anonymous said...

Quote:Im no genius but I have quite a robust backside in these areas.

QUITE right and you can't grasp the concept of multiculturalism either can you or extremism for that matter.
I'm still waiting for you to provide an objective argument and answer the questions you were asked in previous posts but you conveniently ignore them and continue with your own agenda.

At least your manners are improving though,well done.

Reconquista said...

Here are some simple facts that are undeniable.

Islamic sharia law allows children to marry at 9 years of age, apostates to be killed, women to be beaten and homosexuals to be killed. Not opinion. Not interpretation. But fact. These laws are abusing people each and every day.

Sharia is based on the life of the paedophile prophet mohammed as laid down in the Qu'ran, the haddith especially Sahih Bhukari and Sahih Muslim(Sahih notes authority) and in the sira, the story of mohammed. Instead of having a go at those who report what Islam is truly about attack those who believe these laws are the will of a deity.

But instead, what the marxist-liberal moonbat left choose to do is attack small groups of people exercising their right of free speech and opposition to injustice rather than attack Islam for the absue it carries out all around the world.

So long as YOUR kids aren't being abused Islam is just another abrahamic religion and it doesn't matter I guess.

Shameful. Utterly shameful. And there is only one party with the guts to say it as it is and that's why I'm more than happy to support the BNP.


najistani said...

Loo ease,
Rig guard ding Thai pose:

Eye halve a spelling chequer, it came with my pea sea,

It plainly marques, four my revue, miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word and weight four it two say

As soon as a mist ache is maid, it nose bee fore two long

And eye can put the error rite. Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this hole poem threw it - I shore your pleased two no,

Its letter perfect awl the weigh! My chequer tolled me sew.

Louise said...

Anonymous 21:34

Do you need a lesson in providing quotes? Yours is incorrect.

The chances are that if you were as rude previously, then I may well have passed over your previous questions! I think thats fair enough, dont you?

However, the chances may also be that you were being stupid previously (and thats why your questions werent answered) since I clearly dont have a problem with the concept of multiculturalism. It seems that you do! However, I DO have a problem with racism towards the people who are living in a multicultural society. Would you like to tell me what your conceptual understanding of extremism is? That way, I will know what your conceptual understanding is. You may want to check the mirror out when you think about that one!

Anyway, state your questions clearly and politely, and I can read over them and address them. Perhaps when I do so, you would bother to read them carefully and not misquote me to try and look clever (youll need to do more than that!) Otherwise, theres really no point is there anon 21:24?!

Louise said...


PLEASE dont tell me that you feel attacked by me! Im here with my army of one and you have definately engaged in quite a lot of en-masse attacks yourselves. But if you are insisting on acting like a pathetic victim, you are providing an absolute breeding ground for weak arguments to continue. Toughen up! You claim to be a political party! Being challenged is part of what you must experience as a political party and if you cannot accept that, leave the BNP and lick your victim wounds in private.

Reconquista: in your speed to assumption, you continuously gloss over your ignorance. You dont know what I object to in my own time! I dont attack Islam in its entirity but I do challenge any abuse of human right that comes my way, OR that I seek out by virtue of my work or personal life. If I saw someone abusing your kids, I would stop it. The difference is that I also understand that our nations children are more likely (and in actuality are) being abused in our very own homes more often than they are being abused by muslims. Did you know that more victims of violence are likely to experience violence at the hands of someone they actually know? Thus, unfortunately, children are more likely to experience abuse or neglect (emotional, physical, sexual or neglect - eg educational, medical, nutritional etc etc) in their own home environment than they are at the hands of a stranger. Luckily, we dont all abuse our children. So why do you see fit to be bothered about one group of people who you claim are abusers by law and another group of children who go barely detected. Surely anyone abusing children is in the wrong?!

Your seek and destroy tactic to Islam makes it look as if youre spouting old fashioned rhetoric and then assuming that every muslim follows through. They dont! Im not gulliable enough to swallow your hatred. But more importantly, Im not going to engage in your hatred when my own life experience has shown no evidence of this en-masse violation that you allude to. Im not denying that abuses go on...but they go on all around the world so I am seeing that as a trait of human beings, as opposed to muslims per se. Being that I have lived in countries dominated by muslims and in the UK, its not as if I havent had opportunity to see what all your fuss is about. Frankly, I am more bothered by your policies than I am of Islam.

Louise said...


very creative! im not too bothered about my poor spelling. if you are, feel free to get mad. it gives pro-BNPers a bit of fuel if theyre really into grammar/spelling but it doesnt really bother me so much so feel free to use it as ammunition if it helps! enjoy as you'll see lots of errors here:)

Louise said...

Anon: Post your questions, I'll come back to them.

SirHM: I switched my shifts today to help a mate out. Im on for 72 hours tmrw so will return to see your thoughts on your post/your study area.

Oddy: breathe your sigh of relief. The space is yours without ruffling for a few days;)

Paul: thanks for your link. it doesnt add anything new but tar for posting it. Cant you write something on your crop rotation techniques and our favourite herb?;)

Relief all round, Im sure:)

Reconquista said...


Don't flatter yourself my point wasn't addressed to you.

That you cannot differentiate between people who say abuse is wrong and punishable by law for those who abuse and people who say it is the will of a deity and its prophet and therefore not punishable - indeed abuse is encouraged - demonstrates clearly your lack of understanding and education.

My post was aimed at moonnbats in general not you specifically, don't let your vanity and self-righteousness give you more worth than you deserve.

My point about moonbats stands. They'd whip their own mothers in the name of multiculture, PC and tolerance rather than fight oppression. Easy targets, soft targets,targets who can't fight back. What cowards they all are.

I much prefer to associate with more honest, decent and honourable people. People who stand for what is right. People like Nick Griffin and the BNP. People like those in this story whose freedoms have been denied them by a cowardly mob of fascist thugs.


najistani said...

All post stairs must stack knowledge that theirs know excuse for spelling Miss Steaks.

English spelling is toe tally rational:


Dearest creature in creation
Studying English pronunciation,

I will teach you in my verse

Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse

I will keep you, Susy, busy,

Make your head with heat grow dizzy.

Tear in eye your dress you'll tear,

So shall I! Oh, hear my prayer,

Pray, console your loving poet,

Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!

Just compare heart, beard and heard,

Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.

(Mind the latter, how it's written).

Made has not the sound of bade,
Say said, pay-paid, laid, but plaid.

Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as vague and ague,

But be careful how you speak,
Say break, steak, but bleak and streak.

Previous, precious, fuchsia, via,
Pipe, snipe, recipe and choir,

Cloven, oven, how and low,

Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.

Hear me say, devoid of trickery:

Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,

Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles.
Exiles, similes, reviles.

Wholly, holly, signal, signing.

Thames, examining, combining

Scholar, vicar, and cigar,

Solar, mica, war, and far.

From "desire": desirable--

admirable from "admire."

Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier.

Chatham, brougham, renown, but known.

Knowledge, done, but gone and tone,

One, anemone. Balmoral.

Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel,

Gertrude, German, wind, and mind.

Scene, Melpomene, mankind,

Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather,

Reading, reading, heathen, heather.

This phonetic labyrinth
Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth, plinth.

Billet does not end like ballet;

Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet;

Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.

Banquet is not nearly parquet,
Which is said to rime with "darky."

Viscous, Viscount, load, and broad.
Toward, to forward, to reward.

And your pronunciation's O.K.,

When you say correctly: croquet.

Rounded, wounded, grieve, and sieve,

Friend and fiend, alive, and live,
Liberty, library, heave, and heaven,

Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven,
We say hallowed, but allowed,

People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the difference, moreover,

Between mover, plover, Dover,

Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,

Chalice, but police, and lice.

Camel, constable, unstable,

Principle, disciple, label,

Petal, penal, and canal,

Wait, surmise, plait, promise, pal.

Suit, suite, ruin, circuit, conduit,

Rime with "shirk it" and "beyond it."

But it is not hard to tell,

Why it's pall, mall, but Pall Mall.

Muscle, muscular, gaol, iron,

Timber, climber, bullion, lion,

Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, and chair,

Senator, spectator, mayor,

Ivy, privy, famous, clamour

And enamour rime with hammer.

Pussy, hussy, and possess,

Desert, but dessert, address.

Golf, wolf, countenance, lieutenants.

Hoist, in lieu of flags, left pennants.

River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,

Doll and roll and some and home.

Stranger does not rime with anger.

Neither does devour with clangour.

Soul, but foul and gaunt but aunt.

Font, front, won't, want, grand, and grant.

Shoes, goes, does. Now first say: finger.

And then: singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, and gauge,

Marriage, foliage, mirage, age.

Query does not rime with very,

Nor does fury sound like bury.

Dost, lost, post; and doth, cloth, loth;

Job, Job; blossom, bosom, oath.

Though the difference seems little,

We say actual, but victual.

Seat, sweat; chaste, caste.;

Leigh, eight, height;

Put, nut; granite, and unite.

Reefer does not rime with deafer,

Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer.

Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ate, late,

Hint, pint, Senate, but sedate.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,

Science, conscience, scientific,

Tour, but our and succour, four,
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.

Sea, idea, guinea, area,

Psalm, Maria, but malaria,

Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,

Doctrine, turpentine, marine.

Compare alien with Italian,

Dandelion with battalion.

Sally with ally, yea, ye,

Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay.

Say aver, but ever, fever.

Neither, leisure, skein, receiver.

Never guess--it is not safe:

We say calves, valves, half, but Ralph.

Heron, granary, canary,

Crevice and device, and eyrie,

Face but preface, but efface,

Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.

Large, but target, gin, give, verging,

Ought, out, joust, and scour, but scourging,

Ear but earn, and wear and bear

Do not rime with here, but ere.

Seven is right, but so is even,

Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen,

Monkey, donkey, clerk, and jerk,

Asp, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.

Pronunciation--think of psyche--!
Is a paling, stout and spikey,

Won't it make you lose your wits,

Writing "groats" and saying "grits"?

It's a dark abyss or tunnel,

Strewn with stones, like rowlock, gunwale,

Islington and Isle of Wight,

Housewife, verdict, and indict!

Don't you think so, reader, rather,

Saying lather, bather, father?

Finally: which rimes with "enough"

Though, through, plough, cough, hough, or tough?

Hiccough has the sound of "cup."
My advice is--give it up!

Louise - gotta go now! said...

Naj: Keep it going! there will be mistakes. ignore it or deal with it, coz theyre gonna be coming regardless. Its probably the most smile-inducing invite to give something up but its not really BNP talk is it? Couldnt you have posted this on your own blog?;)

BFB said...


Ever had sex?

It's marginally better than being a TROLL.

johnoddybnp said...

Just been out talking to people in Colwyn Bay and I was chatting away to a chap I know when I noticed him looking over my shoulder, following his gaze I saw a rather scruffy individual of middle eastern extraction jumping up and down and waving his arms, wearing a dirty olive green combat jacket, a torn pair of jeans, an out of date Man U shirt and a Santa Claus hat, from where I stood he looked like a cast-off from the Taliban, weirdo, I thought.
Continuing on my way, wondering what to get the missus for Christmas, I spotted a cordless drill, but realising that’s what I got her last year I opted for a set of chisels and an electric plane, why not spoil her, it’s Christmas. Talking to the owner of the “every thing for a quid” stall and waiting for my change, he too started looking over my shoulder I looked and there was this chappie again!. Bidding farewell to the stall holder with the promise of seeing him next year I approached the individual, he looked and smelt like a down and out, thinking he may want money for a cup of tea I had my 10p ready. There was something about him, a hint of recognition, as I reached him I asked him why he was following me and annoying people?, he replied “Nazi”. Hang on a second, “I know you” I said, “you sell the big issue and searchlight”, he grunted an affirmative.
Grabbing him by the lapels I demanded to know why he was being so annoying “It’s like this guv, I’ve got 72 hours off and Louise said….”.

Meg said...

LOL LOL LOL! Johnoddy, you should dpo stand up!
happy christmas one and all