Islam and sexual jihad (holy war)

Wrong and Wrong Again - A letter to the Daily Mail

Tue, 11/01/2011 - 01:00 | Martin Wingfield

11th JANUARY 2011: NICK GRIFFIN has written to Andrew Pierce, a political journalist with the Daily Mail, concerning errors in his column yesterday.

The MEP for the North West of England wrote:

Dear Mr Pierce

I note the closing comment in your column in today's Daily Mail. For the record, I was going to stand in Oldham East but the election was called by the LibDems in such haste that we only had 48 hours in which to get photos done in the constituency for the election addresses. Since I was trapped at home by significant amounts of global warming and couldn't get there for a photo-shoot, we decided to stand a very good local candidate instead.

We certainly anticipate a sizeable vote, I was campaigning there this weekend and found plenty of sympathy among voters. I'm not a betting man, but if you fancy putting £20 up I'll donate yours to an ex-servicemens' charity when we save our deposit, and you can do what you want with mine if we don't.

Your Mail articles are often very good, so it's a shame that you let your all too typical 'gay' prejudices against me come out in an intolerant and petty little rant. This is in fact ironic, given that it was me that [sic] led the BNP from proposing the recriminalisation of homosexuality (something I regarded as unjust and totalitarian) to its current position, which is that no-one should be persecuted or disadvantaged in any way for their sexuality, but although [sic] the promotion of homosexuality to young children by militant activists and their anti-family Marxist allies in the media should be banned. If you find that 'loathsome', I can assure you that most of your readers would disagree with you and agree with me.

The space would have been better filled by pointing out that the Muslim grooming gangs issue, and the scandal of the 10 year PC cover-up that has allowed them to ruin thousands of young lives, is not something confined to the Midlands and the North of England as the media and police still pretend. Neither is it - as Jack Straw maintains - a Pakistani problem. The truth is that this crime does not have its roots in race or nationality but in religion; this is a problem with its roots in the Koran and the 'exemplary' conduct of Mohammed.

As a result, it is happening wherever there are sizeable Muslim communities, including Slough, London, Luton, South Wales, the West Midlands, Peterborough, Wrexham, Shropshire and Glasgow. And the targets are not just girls from the indigenous population but also black girls (hence the deadly black v Muslim rioting in Lozells, Birmingham in 2005) and Sikhs and Hindus.

Until the origins and extent of this tsunami of perverse, racist criminality are understood and addressed, this problem will continue to blight the lives of families all over the country. Despite your sniping against me, I believe that you are sincere when you write about the importance of families, family values and the rule of law. This is a great opportunity for you to do something practical in support of those ideals. Or, like the rest of the British Establishment, are you too frightened of the growing threat of militant Islamism to do anything except turn a blind eye?

Yours sincerely

Nick Griffin

Wakey, wakey!

This is a post from the BNP sub-forum of British Democracy. I recommend every member of the British National Party takes a look at it: simply google British Democracy Forum.

Reading this thread it is almost bizarre that there are still people within the BNP who support Griffin. I wont label all those within the party as deluded but it seems those who are happy with the current structure/leadership are either gullible, desperate or have some sort of vested interests.

Griffin is not Britains savior he is a conman and a buffoon. Also potentially a [...] and liar who holds no loyalty to anybody. A genuine fake.

The BNP has been destroyed by the most ridiculously incompetent management. I personally class myself as a liberal Nationalist and patriot. Me and my family are crying out for a change in Britains direction but we would never associate ourselves with the BNP in its current form under Griffin.

The demographic of this area is rapidly changing. There is NO bnp presense here, NOBODY even talks about the bnp. Nationally the party is dead in the water, it is tragic really. Our nation burns while the only hope of real change is stifled by a fool and a bunch of fools who follow the pied piper blindly.

The absolute reality is the greatest opportunity for a Nationalist electoral breakthrough has been squandered completely and utterly over the previous 2-3yrs. Not through 'the reds', or 'traitors' or even 'the establishment'. But through one mans folly and those who congregate around him heaping praise while dancing to our nations doom.

In its current form the BNP is dead. Those who denigrate the 'sheeple' have themselves become 'sheeple'. The population may be brainwashed to an extent but actually people are not that thick. They do not want a bankrupt [...] snakeoil salesman, or convicted drug dealers, or those of dubious character etc running the economy and country.

As an afterthought im reminded of another dictator holed up in his bunker talking of future victories and selling the concept of wonder weapons (peak oil?) to gullible followers desperate to believe in victory. Steiner!!!! Steiner!!!! Where is Steiner????

PS. This is not a blanket smear on all Nationalists or BNP members. Just those who are still so blo*dy stupid to see their 'savior' is a downright fraud and is leading the cause backwards. Sorry folks but get out into the real world and you will realise at this moment the BNP is going absolutely nowhere.

There are liars, there are damned liars, and then there is the media

Re-writing history to eliminate MEPs' stance against grooming

Mon, 10/01/2011 - 01:00 | Martin Wingfield for www.nickgriffinmep.eu/

10th January 2011: FIRST THERE WAS the conspiracy of silence by the media and the authorities to hide the existence of the grooming for sex of young white girls by Muslim men.

Now the media are taking the cover-up one step further by re-writing history to eliminate the record of Nick Griffin's and the British National Party's campaigning against this evil practice.

On Friday the Times, which put the grooming report on its front page, having ignored the story since 2004, claimed that Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg was the only politician brave enough to tackle the issue. The report deliberately ignored Nick Griffin's seven year battle to publicise the issue.

We know it was deliberate because Times journalist Andrew Norfolk reported on the very case at Leeds Crown Court where Nick Griffin was charged, over remarks made when alerting British National Party meetings across the North of England, about the growing threat to our young girls from Muslim men.

Now this morning, media outlets are carrying a new press release claiming it's Jack Straw that is leading the campaigning and the British National Party are just following his initiative, with the Business Recorder misinforming its readers:

". . . the far-right [sic] British National Party jumped on Straw's comments, saying it was launching a leaflet entitled "Our Children Are Not Halal Meat" in which it would "warn school kids of the threat from Muslim sex grooming gangs."

Thankfully, interested members of the public can find out all about the British National Party's seven year long campaign with the click of a mouse, as the history of Nick Griffin's stance against the might of the Establishment in exposing the threat to our young girls is well documented on the internet.

And many worried parents have done just that, as the MEP's mailbag on the issue bears witness.

"It seems to be the issue that his constituents in the North West most associate with Nick Griffin," explained Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield.

"People write to Nick on the subject because they know that he will take their concerns seriously, and take action. Time after time, people write in to say that their MP, and their MEPs, from the old gang parties, have called them 'racist' because they are making accusations against Muslim men."

Recessional

God of our fathers, known of old,
Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine -
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;
The captains and the kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away.
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law -
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding, calls not Thee to guard,
For frantic boast and foolish word -
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!

RUDYARD KIPLING

Publish or perish

• Griffin Loses another Court case

• Griffin & Brons are the only British MEPs
who refuse to reveal their expenses claims

The long-standing nationalist printer Tony Hancock, (who forwarded me the full text of the below judgment) tells me that this litigation by British National Party chairman Nick Griffin against a group of former BNP officials, mostly based in Scotland, who were considered by Griffin to be “anti-party” dissidents, has substantially failed.

This will result in Griffin and his co-plaintiff Simon Darby having to find £40,000+ to pay the legal costs of some of the Defendants, as well as their own legal bill for this action, likely to be a similar or greater bill.

Hancock also says that Griffin has been hiring various teams of lawyers for the sundry court cases in which he has been involved, but has left some of these lawyers (at time of writing) unpaid.

They will have to form an orderly queue behind printers and other trade suppliers, bankers, the Inland Revenue, the Department for Work and Pensions, bankers, and, of course, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission for all stages of their litigation save for the last stage at the High Court on 17th December, about which I have already reported.

A recent bulletin from Griffin asserts that the party’s total debts of £500,000 have been cut by more than half in the last month or so.... but he did not particularise the identity of creditors or which debts were against him personally and which against the party (for which he may in the end be held personally liable).

The situation is, to say the least, confused; more accurately: the situation has been deliberately confused.

According to Hancock, Eddy Butler, the long-term Griffin supporter and BNP National Organiser, who was purged by the paranoid Griffin last April, claims in his blog:

(a) that the BNP came in to a Will bequest of £160,000, but only £60,000 of this has been specified in BNP accounts.

(b) that as a result of the costs award in this “Decembrists” case given below, Simon Darby may lose his house.

I surmise that the implication of (b) is that this is the true reason why in recent months Darby progressively resigned as BNP National Treasurer; resigned as BNP Deputy-Chairman and finally resigned from the party’s membership. No doubt he hoped by means of those resignations to escape legal liability for BNP trading debts and court action costs; but any such hope is naïve.

Griffin still has his (and Andrew Brons’) salaries and “expenses” facilities from the European Parliament to fall back on, but all sorts of unfriendly people are keeping a very sharp eye out on their expenses claims to ensure that such money is expended for purposes allowed within the EU Parliament rules.

GRIFFIN & BRONS THE ONLY UK MEPs TO HIDE THEIR EXPENSES CLAIMS

Last Sunday The Sunday Telegraph ran a story headed “The true cost of Europe”, in which the wages and expenses claims of the UK’s members of the European Parliament were related to their appearances in and work at that Parliament, in order to devise a “value for money” table. This report stated:


“Only two MEPs — Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons — of the far-right British National Party — had to be excluded from the analysis because they refused to disclose their expenses details.”


This is a very serious matter, because one of the main planks of BNP propaganda against the EU structure, including the EU Parliament, is that EU officials and EU parliament members are “riding on a gravy-train” taking huge salaries and making enormous expenses claims without any justification or even receipts to justify the claims.

Griffin and Brons went into the EU Parliament pledged to end this system of corruption!

Now we have a situation where the only British MEPs who are refusing to make public the details of their expenses claims (paid for by the British taxpayers!) are the two BNP members: Griffin and Brons!

For those unwilling to plough their way through every word of Mr. Justice David Richards’ judgment giving in full below, I direct attention to paragraph 27. I have emphasised the relevant sentence.

Martin Webster.
========================================================================

From: Tony Hancock
Date: Thursday, 23 December 2010 15:15
To: Martin Webster
Subject: Re: Griffin v "Decembrists" - Full High Court Judgement

Griffin & Anor v Smith & Ors [2010]
EWHC 3414 (Ch) (21 December 2010)

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3414 (Ch) Case No: 8LV 30015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
DISTRICT REGISTRY

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL21/12/2010

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS


Between:

NICHOLAS JOHN GRIFFIN (1)
SIMON DARBY (2)
Claimants

- and -

KENNETH SMITH (1)
NICHOLLA SMITH (2)
SADIE GRAHAM (3)
STEPHEN BLAKE (4)
MATTHEW SINGLE (5)
IAN DAWSON (6)
Defendants
____________________

Mr Christopher Coney (instructed by Charles Henry & Co Solicitors) for the Claimants
Mr Adrian Davies (instructed by Frank & Co. Solicitors) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 29 November 2010
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

MR JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS :
Introduction
1. The claimants in this action apply to discontinue the action with no order as to costs. The general rule under CPR 38.6 is that a claimant who discontinues an action must pay the defendants' costs unless the court orders otherwise. The claimants accept that the burden lies on them to demonstrate why a different order should be made. Permission to discontinue is itself required because an interim injunction was granted at an early stage of the proceedings: CPR 38.2(2) The defendants consent to discontinuance but they, or some of them, submit that it should be on the normal terms that the claimants pay their costs.

2. The action arose out of a dispute within the British National Party (the BNP). The first claimant, Nicholas Griffin, is the national chairman of the BNP, a post he has held for some years. The second claimant, Simon Darby, was the vice-chairman when the proceedings were issued but he has since resigned from that post and as a member of the BNP. They sue on behalf of themselves and the other members of the BNP, which is an unincorporated association.

3. The defendants were all members of the BNP, and held offices or positions within it. The first to fourth defendants were paid remuneration by the BNP, until their dismissal in December 2007, either as employees or, as the BNP asserts, as self-employed persons for the period after December 2006. All the defendants were expelled, or purportedly expelled, as members in or about December 2007. Mr Griffin's explanation of the background in a witness statement made on 23 February 2008 was as follows:
"I have been aware for some time of a dissenting faction within the Party. At first it appeared to involve a clash of personalities but it became apparent that a group which included the Defendants, had been meeting or talking together for the purpose of formulating their plans in respect of the Party and that their objectives were inconsistent with the Constitution. Accordingly I decided to exercise my powers under the Constitution firstly to revoke the appointment to administrative posts of the First, Second and Third Defendants and secondly, so far as I was able, to determine the Defendants' membership of the Party."

4. In December 2007 and January 2008, two documents attacking Mr Griffin's leadership and calling for the reinstatement of the first to fifth defendants, were distributed to the members of the BNP, by email or by post to their home or other addresses held on the membership list. The claimants suspected that these documents were prepared and distributed by the defendants, in view of photographs of them and references to them in the documents (although in fact there were no references to the sixth defendant), and that they must have retained a copy of the BNP membership list.

5. Legal proceedings were not commenced until 26 February 2008, when, without a letter before action, the claim form was issued. Relief was sought in respect of a number of matters, which may be summarised as follows, taking account of amendments made in April 2008. First, an order was sought against all defendants, except the fifth, for delivery up of chattels listed in a schedule and of all membership lists held by them. Secondly, an order was sought against the first to fourth defendants to delete all membership lists held by them in electronic form. Thirdly, an order was sought that each defendant, except the fifth, deliver an affidavit stating whether they had communicated details of membership of the BNP and, if so, providing particulars, and confirming that they had delivered up or deleted all membership lists, and giving details. Fourthly, an order was sought against the first defendant for repayment of a sum of £4,500 alleged to have been withdrawn from BNP bank accounts, and an inquiry and accounts were sought against the first to fourth defendants as to all cash held by them or accounts operated by them on behalf of the BNP. Fifthly, an injunction was sought against all defendants restraining them from distributing or circulating any communication to any member of the BNP using for that purpose a list of members of the BNP save with its authority. Sixthly, there was a claim for damages against all the defendants.

6. The claimants applied for interim relief. Evidence was filed by each defendant. The first and second defendants, who are domiciled in Scotland, applied to dismiss the claims against them on the grounds that they should be brought in the Scottish Courts in accordance with Art. XIX of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and, more prosaically but more pertinently, Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.

7. By an order dated 10 April 2008, HHJ Pelling QC dealt with the application for interim relief and the first and second defendants' challenge to the jurisdiction of the English court. He held that the challenge was well-founded as regards the claims for the delivery up of chattels and the recovery of £4,500 which he accordingly dismissed. Agreement was reached for the delivery up of chattels by those defendants who had any in their possession including the first and second defendants. By consent, it was ordered that the first to third defendants swear affidavits dealing with the communication of details of the membership list and confirming delivery up or deletion of all membership lists. The claimants sought no similar order against the fifth and sixth defendants. An interim injunction was made by consent against all the defendants restraining them from using a membership list to communicate with members.

8. The position at that stage was therefore that the claims for delivery up of chattels, the making of affidavits and the repayment of £4,500 had been finally dealt with.

9. On the present hearing, counsel for the claimants accepted that the pleaded claim for damages was never quantified and that no more than nominal damages would ever be recoverable. He accepted also that the purpose of continuing with the action after April 2008 was to obtain a permanent injunction to restrain use of membership lists.

10. In their witness statements, and subsequently in their defences, the second, fifth and sixth defendants denied any involvement in the distribution of the documents circulated to members in December 2007 and January 2008. In his defence, the fourth defendant denied involvement in the preparation and distribution of the documents. In her witness statement, the third defendant admitted and asserted that she was involved in their production and distribution. While all the defendants admitted that the membership list constituted confidential information, they denied that use of the list to distribute documents to the persons named on the list constituted a breach of confidence or of any other legal duty.

11. On 17 September 2008 the fifth defendant was made bankrupt. On 18 November 2008 he published the BNP's membership list on-line. It therefore became publicly available and generated a good deal of media comment. He and his wife, the third defendant, were both charged with offences under data protection legislation. He pleaded guilty to one charge at Nottingham Magistrates Court on 1 September 2009 but no evidence was offered against his wife who was accordingly acquitted.

12. The claimants accept that with the membership list publicly available, they no longer had any prospect of obtaining a permanent injunction against any of the defendants to restrain use of the list. Nonetheless, the claimants continued the proceedings. Each of the defendants served a defence and counterclaim on dates between March and June 2009, for which extensions of time were retrospectively given on 27 October 2009. By the same order, directions were given for the service of replies and defences to counterclaim, disclosure, evidence and other matters leading to trial. The directions hearing had been fixed by the court on its own initiative and in a "Brief Statement of Issues" filed before the hearing, the claimants' solicitors confirmed that "the claimants wish to continue with the case". Further directions were given on 26 January 2010, extending time limits and giving directions for listing. The trial was subsequently listed for five days starting on 29 November 2010.

13. In February 2010 the claimants issued an application to re-amend the particulars of claim, to include a claim for damages against the third and fifth defendants in respect of the publication by the fifth defendant of the membership list. The hearing of the application was adjourned on three occasions at the claimants' request and was overtaken by their application to discontinue. On 19 November 2010 it was dismissed with an order that the claimants pay the defendants' costs of the application.

14. On 15 March 2010 the third defendant was made bankrupt.

15. Following a change of solicitors towards the end of September 2010, the claimants intimated an intention to discontinue the proceedings. The application for permission to discontinue with no order as to costs was issued on 16 November 2010. In a witness statement in support of the application, Mr Griffin stated as follows:
"3. The reasons that we seek to discontinue are that (1) there has been a material change since proceedings were issued in that the Fifth Defendant frustrated the purpose of the litigation by publishing the entire membership list of the BNP online (2) in so far as orders for delivery up of chattels are concerned, the First to Fourth Defendants have since the issue of proceedings effected such delivery up either as a result of being served with proceedings or pursuant to the Order of this honourable Court made on the 10 April 2008.
4. In those circumstances there is no point proceeding with the claim since I am of the view that pursuing claims for damages would be wholly disproportionate to the costs involved. I should say that the Second Claimant has since the issue of these proceedings resigned both from the party and his position with it. I confirm, however, that he consents to the application.
….
7.The claim was brought mainly to restrain use of the Membership List of the BNP. The actions of the Fifth Defendant have rendered the issue academic.
….
8. The result of his publication of the list was that it was copied on to a number of sites other than the one he used, such Wikileaks, and it is still available online at various sites. Clearly, the Court would no longer grant an injunction in respect of the list against any of the Defendants. In any event, the damage has already been done."

16. He referred also to the bankruptcies of the third and fifth defendants.

17. The leading authorities on the approach to be adopted by the court to an application such as the present are two decisions of the Court of Appeal, Re Walker Wingsail Systems plc [2006] 1 WLR 2194 and Messih v McMillan Williams [2010] EWCA Civ 844 . The latter decision was in proceedings brought for damages for professional negligence against two firms of solicitors. One firm settled on terms which provided the claimant with full recovery and costs. It was a term of the settlement that he discontinue as against the other firm of solicitors. He did so, and the issue was whether he should pay their costs.

18. The judge at first instance ordered that he need not pay their costs, relying on the settlement offer as a material change of circumstances and on the saving of costs and court time resulting from the early termination of the proceedings. He held that these factors outweighed the desire of the solicitors to defend the claim so as to vindicate their position and protect their professional reputation, as well as to recover their costs.

19. The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant solicitors' appeal and ordered the claimant to pay their costs of the action. Giving the only reasoned judgment, Patten LJ said that the correct approach is for the court to consider all the matters relied on as justifying the making of some alternative order for costs and then to decide whether they are sufficient to support such an order. The avoidance of the costs and time of continued proceedings could not of itself justify a departure from the usual order, as it was the result of any discontinuance. Something more was needed, and Patten LJ said at para 31:
"In this case there was nothing more. As already mentioned, the claimant knew what MW's position was and that it wished to contest its liability for the claim. The claimant made his decision to discontinue notwithstanding this and in the knowledge that the settlement with LMA made no provision for the payment of MW's costs against the claimant as opposed to those of the third party proceedings. By doing so Mr Messih removed the ability of MW to establish its defence and left the court in the position of being unable to determine what the outcome of the trial is likely to have been. The circumstances were therefore the quite usual consequences of a decision to discontinue and I can see nothing in them to justify the order which the Recorder made."

20. Likewise, in Re Walker Wingsail Systems plc, the defendant wished to have the claims for misfeasance and fraudulent trading made against him decided and was prepared to continue to defend the claim against him. It was the applicant liquidator who wished to discontinue having come to realise what should always have been apparent to him, that the claims lacked commercial purpose.

21. I turn therefore to the grounds on which the claimants in this case rely for a departure from the usual requirement that they pay the defendants' costs. I have earlier set out the grounds relied on by Mr Griffin, as expressed in his witness statement.

22. The principal ground is that by publishing the membership list on the internet, the fifth defendant frustrated the purpose of the litigation, making it impossible for the claimants to obtain the injunction which they sought. This was a wrongful act by the fifth defendant, as his conviction shows, and it did frustrate the purpose of the action. But leaving aside the position of the fifth defendant, it cannot in my judgment justify a departure from the usual consequence in costs. First, the publication occurred in November 2008, but the action was continued for a further two years, with a view to a trial fixed to start on 29 November 2010. Secondly, it is not suggested that the first, second, fourth or sixth defendants were in any way involved in that publication and, while the claimants' proposed re-amendment to the particulars of claim would have alleged the involvement of the third defendant, the Crown offered no evidence against her in the criminal proceedings and her involvement has not been established in other proceedings. Thirdly, the defendants had pleaded defences to the claim for an injunction based on the facts and/or legal principles, which they were entitled to advance. With the exception of the third and fifth defendants, they were prepared to proceed to trial to establish their defences and to obtain orders for costs in their favour.

23. The second ground put forward is that, as regards the claim for delivery up of chattels, the first to fourth defendants delivered them up either as a result of being served with the proceedings or in accordance with the agreement scheduled to the order made on 10 April 2008. This too provides no cogent basis for an order relieving the claimants of liability for costs. First, it could not do so in respect of costs incurred after 10 April 2008. Secondly, the proceedings were issued and the application for interim relief was made without any warning to the defendants. The speed with which delivery up occurred shows that, if a letter before action had been sent, there would most probably have been no need for proceedings as regards this head of claim.

24. Mr Griffin fails to explain in his witness statement why the action was continued for two years after the publication of the membership list, and fails to explain why the proceedings are now being discontinued.

25. No grounds are advanced by the claimants which in my judgment could justify a departure from the usual consequence in costs of discontinuance, as regards the costs of the first, second, fourth and sixth defendants.

26. There are different considerations as regards the third and fifth defendants. The fifth defendant's unlawful publication of the membership list has frustrated the action and in addition he was bankrupt for a year from September 2008. The third defendant was declared bankrupt in March 2010 and therefore remains an undischarged bankrupt. Her right to costs under CPR 38.6 vests in the Official Receiver. He has taken no part in the proceedings. He has moreover provided the court with a letter from the third defendant stating that she and the fifth defendant "no longer wish to be a part of the civil case and neither of us want to pursue any part of our Counterclaim or defence. We would like the matter to be completely discontinued."

27. In these circumstances, I consider it appropriate to make an order that the claimants do not pay the costs of the third and fifth defendants, insofar as they may be additional to those incurred on behalf of the other defendants. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall order that the claimants pay the costs of the other defendants, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. [emphasis added by MW]

28. There is a final and separate point to deal with. By his order dated 19 November 2010, HHJ Langan QC directed that the claimants' solicitors should show cause at the hearing of the present application why a wasted costs order should not be made against them in respect of the costs thrown away by the adjournment of the pre-trial review on 17 November 2010 as a result of their failure to arrange a telephone case management conference, prepare a case summary, prepare a draft order or prepare a bundle for the pre-trial review in accordance with an order dated 9 November 2010.

29. A witness statement has been made by Jane Stanley Phillips, whose firm replaced the claimants' previous solicitors towards the end of September 2010 and who acts as a consultant to Charles Henry & Co who went on the record on or around 19 October 2010. She explains that the first notice of the pre-trial review fixed for 17 November 2010 received by her or Charles Henry & Co was an email from the defendants' solicitors, Frank & Co, sent at 5.17 pm on 15 November but not seen until the following morning. Notice of the hearing from the court was dated 9 November but not received until the morning of 16 November 2010. From enquiries made by Ms Phillips with the court in Leeds, it appears that Frank & Co requested a listing of a PTR, first by telephone on 29 October and then in writing a day or so later. Frank & Co did not inform Charles Henry & Co or Ms Phillips of these steps.

30. On 16 November 2010 Charles Henry & Co issued the application for permission to discontinue, which had been intimated at an earlier stage, and in the course of that day a consent order was agreed with Frank & Co. HHJ Langan QC required the hearing to go ahead, because the proposed consent order provided for him to hear the application to discontinue in Leeds on 29 November 2010, which was not possible. The terms of the order made was the same as the consent order, save for the venue and identity of judge and the provision as regards wasted costs.

There was fault on the part of the claimants or their solicitors in not either issuing the discontinuance application at an earlier stage or fixing and preparing for a pre-trial review as required by an order made on 27 January 2010. However, I am satisfied from Ms Phillips' witness statement that the circumstances do not indicate either that Charles Henry & Co acted improperly, unreasonably or (save as just indicated) negligently or that it would be just to make a wasted costs order against them.

Look what they've done to our song, Ma

Former Heckmondwike BNP councillor David Exley has quit the party, saying leader Nick Griffin is taking the party in the ‘wrong direction’.

Mr Exley, who was the first BNP councillor to be elected onto Kirklees in 2003, lost his seat in the 2008 elections but stood again as the party’s candidate in Cleckheaton in the Kirklees poll and for Batley and Spen in the general election earlier this year.

But the one time leader of the group in Kirklees said he was worried the BNP was not representing the views of the electorate. “We can’t go on as we are under the present leadership,” said Mr Exley. “Nick is taking the party in the wrong direction. The BNP is not representing the views of the people and I don’t want to be a part of that. At the moment, Nick is fighting lots of legal cases and it is costing the party hundreds of thousands of pounds. We should not be doing that. We should be concentrating on the issues affecting people.”

Mr Exley, who is chairman of Heckmondwike’s chamber of trade, said he thought Mr Griffin’s leadership had dwindled since he was elected into the European Parliament.

“We can’t have a man who is doing everything - party administration, political leader and a member of the European parliament,” he added. “He should have delegated the roles and resigned as party leader. We are 12 months down the line from him being elected and we are suffering the consequences.”

Mr Exley said he would never ruling out standing an independent or under the banner of a different party.

Spenborough Guardian 9 January 2011

How Lancashire has been "enriched" by immigration

Veteran ex-serviceman savagely attacked - for wearing a Royal Air Force jacket

December 10, 2010.

The victim - who does not want to be named - was left with two black eyes and a swollen nose after the attack.

A veteran ex-serviceman has been assaulted for wearing a Royal Air Force jacket.

The victim, who was also wearing a poppy, was walking along Sherwood Street, Fallowfield, on 1 November 2010 at 6pm when he noticed two men standing near to the entrance of the Fallowfield Loop, near to the junction of Wellington Road.

One man shouted "Death to all soldiers!" - and when the 69-year-old victim replied, he was approached from behind and punched in the head. He was then headbutted in the face, leaving him with two black eyes and a swollen nose.

The two men escaped on pedal bikes. The attackers are described as being aged 17-20 years old, and Asian or mixed race.

One man was of stocky build, 5ft 6ins tall, had thin braided hair and was wearing dark clothing. The second man was of chubby build, 5ft 4ins tall, had short shaved black hair and was wearing dark clothing.

Pc Michael Seddon from Greater Manchester Police's Metropolitan Division said: "This was a mindless and brutal attack on a vulnerable member of the community.

"The victim was left extremely shaken and he is still recovering from his injuries."

Anyone with any information should call police on 0161 856 4420 or the independent charity Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.

Manchester Evening News

We're English but only because we live in England?

On 2 May 2008, as reported in the East London Advertiser, The English Democrats denied any BNP link and insisted they are non-racist, campaigning on an English identity in the same way as the Welsh and Scots, with party leader Robin Tilbrook stating, "There are no links with the BNP at all. We even stood against them in the elections and have non-English ethnic candidates. We're not about race, but campaign on English identity. Home is where the heart is. Colour is not relevant." [Emphasis mine].

The English Democrats seem to be deluded about what it is that makes one English. They appear not to understand that it was the English who gave their name to England, rather than the other way round.

Both nation and culture emerge from race. Race is the fountain-head of all. A hundred years ago this would have been regarded as a statement of the obvious. Today, it needs to be said, and stated over and over again.

The adoption of particular cultural traits, or patterns of behaviour, Norman Tebbit's "cricket test", for example, does not confer nationality, in the true, the ethnic sense, any more than does the possession of a passport. After all, the Indians and Pakistanis, as well as the West Indians, play cricket. Does that make them English? I should say not.

If this civic 'nationalist' equivalent of the SNP and Plaid Cymru hopes to benefit from the turmoil within the British National Party, they are likely to find that any such benefit is of short duration.

In the long run they are going nowhere.

Political 'correctness' = institutionalized anti-English racism

English girl barred from Government job...because she is wrong kind of white.

By MARK NICOL for the Daily Mail.

Last updated at 11:27 06 August 2007.

A teenage science student has been banned from applying for a training programme with the Environment Agency because she is white and English.

The recruitment agency handling the scheme told Abigail Howarth, 18, that there was no point in her submitting an application because of her ethnic background.

But bizarrely she could have applied if she had been white and Welsh, Scottish or Irish.

Turned down: Abigail Howarth.

Abigail, who wanted to join the Agency's flood management programme, saw an advert in a local newspaper offering positions in the Anglia region where she lives, complete with a £13,000-a-year tax-free grant.

It made no mention of the ban on white English applicants, merely noting that candidates from ethnic minorities, such as "Asian, Indian' and "White Other, e.g. Irish, Welsh, Scottish', were encouraged to put themselves forward.

Abigail, of Little Straughton, Bedfordshire, said: "I was really disappointed. To be told being "White English" ruled me out in my home county shocked me. I know why there are positive action training schemes to assist those who are genuinely discriminated against but when it's broken down to this level it seems crazy to me.

"I really wanted to work for the agency and I was very excited - followed by feeling very disappointed.

"I would not have minded had I been beaten for the position by somebody better able than me."

Abigail, who is awaiting the results of A-Levels in environmental science, geography and geology, emailed PATH National Ltd, the company handling applications.

She asked: "Am I correct in assuming that as I am English (White) I need not apply as the preference is for the minorities you have listed, or can I apply anyway?'

Three days later, PATH recruitment officer, Bola Odusi, replied: "Thank you for your enquiry unfortunately the traineeship opportunity in [sic] targeted towards the ethnic minority group to address their under representations in the professions under the Race Relations Act amended 2000."

Such a policy may breach Race Relations legislation as employers must prove ethnic groups are under-represented before using positive discrimination strategies.

The Environment Agency admitted it had 'no evidence that white Welsh, Scottish or Irish workers were under-represented' in the Anglia region.

South West Bedfordshire Tory MP Andrew Selous said: "I think this is complete nonsense and the Environment Agency should be taking the best people, irrespective of their background.

"This is obviously borne out of some idiotic quota system. Abigail should have been able to apply and been judged on her own merits. I will raise this when I have a meeting with the Environment Agency next month."

PATH National's organisational development manager, Mary McDowell, said: "The "White Welsh", "White Irish" and "White Scottish" is a technicality in law - if they are a minority, they are entitled to places on these schemes - they are not part of the majority group, which is "White English".

"The "White English" in this area are the majority group and hence could not apply.

"That is the way the law is laid. This is a chance for people who might be less employable to gain experience, just experience. Public-sector organisations have a duty to ensure they reflect the make-up of the society they serve."

The Environment Agency says 387 of its 12,000 workers claim BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) status. A spokesman added: "The Commission for Racial Equality has confirmed we are acting legally."

A CRE spokeswoman said: "The Commission will be checking with the Environment Agency to clarify the current situation regarding their positive action initiatives.

"Positive action can only be used to encourage or train particular under-represented groups."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-473249/English-girl-barred-Government-job--wrong-kind-white.html#ixzz1ANYZgkxI.