Right Off The Centre supports the British National Party
but views expressed are its own and not The BNP.

Saturday, 27 February 2010

£740 Raised as East Lindsey BNP Announces Its Parliamentary Candidate

From the bosom of GODIVA...

By BNP News on the BNP website... The announcement that well-known activist Julia Green will be standing for the British National Party was greeted with applause and donations totalling £740 at that group’s latest meeting, reports our East Midlands correspondent.

Ms Green, who is most famous for polling 20 percent of the vote in a county council election in Shepshed which caused Gordon Brown to call off an early general election in 2008, thanked all those present.

“I am humbled that you have chosen me from the list of highly qualified names put forward to contest the seat on behalf of the BNP,” Ms Green said.

The packed meeting was also addressed by Melton Mowbray activist Keith Addison and BNP Councillor James North.

Mr Addison gave an in-depth speech on Britain’s current economic situation and pointed out that the only way to save Britain was to rebuild our manufacturing base.

He also referred to the need to support our own farmers instead of relying on imported food and said Britain needed to become more self-sufficient in this regard.

Cllr North told the crowd that the BNP is the only party which publicly opposes the war in Afghanistan.

“We need to get the message out that this is an illegal war and we were lied to about the reasons for war,” Cllr North said, adding that part of the problem was the current state of British journalism.

“They replace news with celebrities. In doing this they build their own news, news they can control and news that diverts people’s attention away from the bigger picture,” he said.

Friday, 26 February 2010

UK Border Agency Officials Admit:
“Asylum” Flood Is Unmanageable"

From the bosom of GODIVA...

The vast numbers of “asylum seekers” — who are no such thing and have broken every international law to parasite off British taxpayers — have reached epic proportions and the UK Border Agency has no hope of dealing with the tsunami of applications.

This fact has emerged after comments by the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, John Vine, to the BBC in which he declared that the key Home Office target of dealing with 90 percent of asylum applications within six months is “unachievable.”

Mr Vine said that the “complexity and volume of cases the agency must deal with had created a backlog.”

In a report published last week, Mr Vine said the UK Border Agency (UKBA) would have to “more than double its current work rate” if it was to clear up about 200,000 outstanding cases dating back several years by a separate target of July 2011.

He said officials would need to clear 11,000 cases a month but were currently getting through fewer than 5,000.

He pointed out that at least 30,000 cases had already taken longer than six months to resolve. This was because either officials had not been able to make a decision or it had proved impossible to remove failed asylum-seekers.

The British National Party’s policy on asylum is in line with international regulations which state that a person with a genuine fear for his or her life, fleeing political persecution, has the right of asylum in the first safe country bordering their own.

This means that a Zimbabwean fleeing Robert Mugabe has the right of asylum in South Africa, Botswana, Zambia or Mozambique. A Zimbabwean does not have the right of asylum in Britain.

As soon as an asylum seeker leaves the first safe country he or she reaches, they lose all status in international law.

In other words, the BNP dismisses out of hand the notion that Zimbabweans, Iraqis, Somalis and the like have the right of asylum in Britain. There are currently no legal asylum seekers in Britain at all, and it is BNP policy to halt this disgusting charade for once and for all.

White Flag over Stanley?

From the bosom of GODIVA...

By mercia on the BNP website... Argentina continues to promote its decades long dispute with Britain over the ownership of the Falkland Islands, with its foreign minister flying to New York to formally raise the issue with the head of the United Nations. This follows a statement of support from twenty three Latin American and Caribbean nations — some of whom are regular recipients of British foreign aid — issued at the recent regional summit held in Mexico.

Meanwhile it was reported only last week in the media that Britain claims to have taken steps to “protect” the Falkland Islands, even though it “expects to resolve” the growing dispute with Argentina over drilling for oil in the South Atlantic through talks.

This news comes some 28 years after Britain and Argentina fought an undeclared war over control of these British possessions in the South Atlantic. As is so often the case these days, it is the proposed exploitation of large reserves of oil and gas that has sabres a rattling, increasingly so as the implications of Peak Oil sink in.

According to Labour’s Brown, international law allows British companies to operate freely in the area. However, this is not a view shared by the Argentine government who counterclaim that such operations violate their sovereignty.

As a consequence, Argentina has announced that all vessels sailing from its ports to the Falklands will now need a special permit. This, of course, will not prevent the exploration of the disputed waters but will restrict supplies coming from Argentina bound for the Falklands and generally make life more difficult.

It is further reported that concerned defence chiefs in Whitehall have sent extra warships to the South Atlantic region. According to a defence spokesman:

We have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure that the Falkland Islanders are properly protected.”

What utter nonsense! We say that safe in the knowledge that the Royal Navy has so few fighting ships remaining that it would find it difficult to protect a moderately sized convoy — far less engage in a hot war with a country some six thousand miles away! Indeed, the Royal Navy probably has more admirals and vice-admirals than it has significant surface fighting ships!

So reduced has the Royal Navy become under a succession of thieving Labour and traitorous Tory regimes that it was forced to invite warships from a dozen and more friendly nations to pad out its “naval review” in the Solent a couple of years back.

With every advanced nation in the world eager to conserve, protect and expand their energy reserves in the light of Peak Oil, it is no surprise that Argentina is concerned over what it sees as the potential exploitation of natural resources that it claims belongs to them. Earlier this month the Argentine Foreign Minister made it clear that his country strongly opposed energy exploration on what it considers to be its continental shelf: He said:

“What they’re doing is illegitimate … it’s a violation of our sovereignty. We will do everything necessary to defend and preserve our rights.”

The reality of Labour’s claim that the Falkland Islands are “adequately defended”.

Labour appointees in Whitehall would have us believe that Britain has a potent military presence on the islands. However, this consists of a single company of around 500 troops, four jet fighters, a handful of helicopters and a naval “protection” force of four Royal Navy vessels. Sounds good, doesn’t it — until you realised that the four vessels concerned amount to a single destroyer, one fleet refuelling tanker, a lightly armed patrol boat and a survey vessel! This compares unfavourably with some 14 Argentine frigates and destroyers and around 80 fighters and ground attack aircraft.

Should the Royal Navy dispatch one or more of its aircraft carriers, all of which should have been decommissioned and scrapped years ago, one wonders where they will find suitable aircraft to fly from their decks. The following recent posting, taken from a military website, explains the situation:

“The Royal Navy has been stripped of the air defence capable Sea Harrier FA-2, replaced by the ground attack (and radarless) Harrier GR9 with AIM 4L Sidewinders as the only air-air armament. At the same time, the Argentines have upgraded their A4 Skyhawk aircraft to the superior A-4AR Fightinghawk which has a radar.”

That fact alone underlines the shear inability of today’s Royal Navy to conduct operations out of range of friendly land based aircraft whilst in range of enemy land based planes.

For the record, the Royal Navy possessed some 104 major fighting ships (aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines) in 1980. Today it can muster a pitiful 42 vessels — which includes the three vintage aircraft carriers that should have been decommissioned years ago!

It seems clear therefore that should the Argentine government decide to enforce its claim to the waters around the Falklands through use of force, that Gordon Brown will either have to raise the white flag over Stanley or enlist the help of elements of the French and American fleets in defending these British (or are they now EU?) interests.

Perhaps Labour will re-commission HMS Belfast?

Slightly tongue-in-cheek admittedly, but one wonders if the Ministry of Defence has any plans to refurbish HMS Belfast and re-commission her to serve as the “fleet” flagship? This World War II cruiser, now a London tourist attraction, has, after all, more firepower than anything else the Royal Navy’s surface fleet may currently possess!

Revising a mid-19th century Ballad.

In closing, we should like to draw readers attention to a contribution on this subject sent in by a regular visitor to this site. Our correspondent has taken the words from a popular mid-19th century ballad and revised them to create a sad, but accurate, reflection on the state of Britain’s skeletal armed forces in general and the Royal Navy in particular.

The original chorus from the 19th century ballad: reads:-

We don’t want to fight but by jingo if we do…
We’ve got the ships,
we’ve got the men,
and got the money too!

And the revised version?

They don’t want to fight but by jingo if they do…
We ain’t got the ships,
We ain’t got the men,
and were out of money too!

Just another example of how Tory and Labour EU-collaborator Westminster regimes have betrayed us at home and abroad.

Wednesday, 24 February 2010

BNP Launches Complaint to Parliamentary Standards Commissioner over Woolas Lies

From the bosom of GODIVA...

According to The British National Party website, The BNP is to launch a formal complaint to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner over the lies told by Labour Minister Phil Woolas against the BNP and as reprinted in the London Evening Standard newspaper.

In a press release issued today by the party’s deputy press spokesman, John Walker, the BNP said: “Mr Woolas’s allegation that the BNP wants what he called ‘election violence’ is an outright lie and is, in fact, incitement to racial hatred against British people amongst the ethnic communities.

“There is no cause whatsoever to even suggest that the BNP plans to do anything else but campaign peacefully and democratically in the forthcoming election,” the statement said.

“To suggest otherwise is dishonest and displays a propensity to lie which falls well short of the standards we should expect from an elected representative who is also a senior member of Mr Brown’s ailing government.

“The Parliamentary Standards Office is obliged to ensure that Members of Parliament adhere to prescribed codes of conduct, propriety and ethics. Woolas’s blatant lies – committed outside of the House and therefore not under Parliamentary Privilege – are a clear violation of those rules.

“The only political disturbances in recent times have come from the Labour Party-supporting UAF types with whom Woolas is closely associated,” the statement continued.

“The BNP will also be consulting with its lawyers as to a potential civil action against Woolas and against the newspaper concerned for carrying the libel. The party is no longer prepared to tolerate such outright lies and is now in a position to challenge them legally.

“Woolas’s incompetence was further underlined in his outburst when he claimed Nick Griffin had stood against him in Saddleworth. Mr Griffin has never stood in that seat. Although this lie is minor in comparison to the gross libel Woolas committed in the rest of the article, it does serve as an indicator of his incorrect ‘facts’.

“Woolas is part of the cabinet which secretly endorsed mass immigration to Britain even though the official briefing paper said it would increase crime. Woolas is therefore the one who should be accused of causing criminal violence against British people and it is gross hypocrisy to point a finger at the BNP.

“We also call upon Gordon Brown to do the right thing for once in his life and show some leadership by censoring the lying Woolas whom he employed in the first place,” the statement concluded.

Friday, 19 February 2010

The Times’s Dominic Kennedy: A Street Thug Masquerading as a Journalist

From the bosom of GODIVA via The BNP Website...

The British National Party asks only of journalists that they do their job in an objective manner and not masquerade as “reporters” as a cover to execute their own political agendas. If they attempt to run far left political campaigns instead of doing their jobs, like the Times’s Dominic Kennedy, the BNP reserves the right to ask them to leave its functions.

This was the official BNP Media Unit’s response to the latest childish rant by Mr Kennedy after he was forcibly removed from the BNP’s extraordinary general meeting last weekend.

After it had been explained to Mr Kennedy that he and a fellow Times journalist had engaged in a series of appalling lies and distortions over the BNP, he was asked to leave, the statement said.

Mr Kennedy refused to leave, and was then asked repeatedly to depart from the private property where the function was being held, completely in line with the laws on trespassing. Mr Kennedy consistently refused and was then removed from the premises, passively resisting so that he had to eventually be lifted off his feet to get over the doorframe.

“The incident was entirely Mr Kennedy’s fault as he refused to respond to polite and formal requests to leave of his own accord,” the BNP Media Unit statement said.

“No normal person, once it has been made clear to them that they are not welcome at a political gathering, then refuses to leave unless they are deliberately seeking a confrontation and want to cause trouble,” the statement said.

“Mr Kennedy went there looking for trouble, just like some street thug. BNP security used the utmost restraint in dealing with this gangster masquerading as a journalist and dismisses with contempt his childish whining after the event.”

The BNP Media Unit added that it would not hesitate to exclude other far-left cranks who masquerade as reporters from future BNP events.

“We have no problem with genuine journalists who actually want to report on what is going on at BNP events,” the statement said. “Honest and genuine reporters will always be welcome. But leftist lunatics, violence and confrontation-seeking thugs like Mr Kennedy, will from now on be shown the door.

“The BNP has had enough of smears and lies. It is an established political party with elected officials who have polled nearly a million votes. We do not have to suffer the abuse and lies of a small clique of leftist zealots anymore,” the statement concluded.

Wednesday, 17 February 2010

Written by a housewife in New Brunswick, to her local newspaper.

I am reproducing a chain email here, as it was sent to me.
So from the bosom of GODIVA...

This was written by a Canadian woman, but oh how it applies to us ALL U.S., U.K. and Australia alike. This is one ticked off lady.

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?

Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from the nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan ...

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children..

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blows themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the (Canadian) media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a (CANADIAN) soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:

I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special' food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:

I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it,

I don't care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add:

Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Soldiers don't have that problem.

I have another quote that I would like to add, AND........I hope you forward all this.

One last thought for the day:

Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ

2. The British Soldier.

3. The Canadian Soldier.

4. The US Soldier, and

5. The Australian Soldier

One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom..



Monday, 15 February 2010

Council Housing Waiting List? Why Wait?

From the bosom of GODIVA...

Single mother-of-six finds £2m mansion on the net... and then gets YOU to pay £7,000 a month rent

A single mother-of-six is getting more than £80,000 a year from the taxpayer to live in a £2million mansion in an exclusive London suburb.

Essma Marjam, 34, is given almost £7,000 a month in housing benefits to pay the rent on the five-bedroom villa just yards from Sir Paul McCartney's house and Lord's cricket ground.

She also receives an estimated £15,000 a year in other payouts, such as child benefit, to help look after her children, aged from five months to 14.

Essma Marjam with one of her six children pictured outside the house in Maida Vale, central London, which costs taxpayers almost £7,000 a month