Friday, 14 July 2006

Nobody came to her aid

On 27 January 1999, the This is Bradford website reported thus:

"It is the biggest ever survey of crime in the Bradford area. The massive 81-page document prepared by the council and West Yorkshire Police covers everything from people's fear of crime, to truancy, and from racial crime to burglaries...

An analysis of victims shows that the majority, 52 per cent, are white and the suspects are predominantly Asian (50 per cent)...

Figures provided by Bradford's Streets and Lanes Project highlight THE GROWING CONCERN OF UNDER-AGE GIRLS BEING SEXUALLY EXPLOITED... (Check out 2012's Rochdale paedophiles.)

The main reason why people do not report a crime is because they believe there is no point and the police won't take any action (52%)...

Drug-related crime is perceived to be a big problem by 65 per cent of people in Bradford".
On 29 January 1999, The Yorkshire Post told us this:

"Mary Smith, not her real name... the 76-year-old widow has tears in her eyes as she recounts endless sleepless nights listening to Asian teenagers kicking her front door, throwing things at her windows and hurling abuse, some of it racial...

She is frail but her mental faculties are as good as when she was in the ATS in the 1940's. She said: 'If I go out to the shops or take the dog out they come up behind me and shout things like 'effing white bitch'. I just stand there trembling because nobody comes to my aid... These lads are in their 20's and frighten me to death. The police told me they have nothing to do but torment people'.

Mrs Smith, a mill worker all her life, lives alone in a council bungalow in an area of Bradford where the majority of the population is Asian... During darkness her home becomes a virtual fortress against the youths who seem determined to frighten her into an early grave.

'My life is a complete hell. I can't eat, and I can't sleep with the worry. The police can't be here all the time. When they arrive the lads just run off'.

Mrs Smith says elderly Asian neighbours are left to go about their daily routine but white women like her are targeted. 'They mimic how I walk and call me a white old bastard. I can't help being white'. Her dream is to move away from inner-city Bradford into an area where she can live in peace."
It's called ethnic cleansing, Mary. Ever since the alien hordes began piling into our country, they've been white-flighting the indigenous population of this country with aggressive behaviours such as those you describe.

What did succesive goernments of the day do about it? They whacked us with bogey words ('racist', 'Fascist', 'Nazi', bigot') if we brought the subject up in polite company and created race laws to shut us up if complained about their immigrant footsoldiers too appropriately. The article continued:

"'I've phoned the vet to ask about putting my pets down - then I can go anywhere', she says, looking at her little dog sadly. At the end of the interview with the Yorkshire Post, Mrs. Smith starts to cry and hugs the reporter and thanks him for listening."
Yes, its a big deal when the establishment actually listens. It's not something the Mrs Smiths are used to. Thus her tearful reaction.

I mean, ladies and gents, ask yourselves this: do you think the establishment hasn't known all along about all the many poor, long-suffering Marys whose lives have been made hell by the immigrant?

As long ago as 1968, in his most famous speech, Enoch Powell was describing a 'widowed pensioner' living in a 'respectable street' in his Wolverhampton South-West constituency thus:

"She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-eyed picaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. 'Racialist', they chant.

When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder."
That was forty four years ago. And still a psychotically bewildered British electorate insist on voting for those who despise them.

The Yorkshire Post added:

"Her neighbours tell a similar story of rubbish being pushed through letterboxes and graffiti sprayed on walls. She is not the only white person to experience racism in Bradford.

One professional woman in her 50s, who asked not to be named, said... 'a certain age group doesn't like 'white bitches' like me and they say so'...

West Yorkshire Police yesterday acknowledged that racism towards whites was a long-standing problem. A spokesman said: 'Ever since 1986 when racial incidents were first recorded as a separate crime category there have been white victims. It is not a new phenomenon'."
Oh no, the phenomenon is not at all new as Enoch Powell's widow demonstrates. Nor is the traitorous absence of establishment response. In fact, in 1986, another Brit-bashing race law was introduced to the statute books. More of this later.

In October 1985, PC Keith Blakelock was hacked to death by a black mob on the Broadwater farm Estate in Tottenham.

Firemen were trying to put out fires started by the mob and they had come under attack for doing so. Keith had been doing his best to protect them. 250 other police officers were injured that night.

Just eight months earlier, in February 1985, Princess Diana had paid a visit to the bright, shiny, all-new Broadwater Farm community. It had been almost four years since the aforementioned Brixton riots and the PC Crowd wanted to show the world how well the previously riotous residents were behaving.

Although no forensic or photographic evidence linking him with the murder was ever found, career criminal Winston Silcott was convicted of killing Keith. After four interviews where he maintained his silence, the police say Silcott was asked if he had attacked PC Blakelock with a machete and forced others to do likewise.

"Who told you that?" their transcript noted. "They're only kids. No one's going to believe them... you ain't got enough evidence. Those kids will never go to court. No one else will talk to you. You can't keep me away from them... They won't give evidence against me".
Silcott has always maintained that the police fabricated this last interview.

In July 1987, he, along with two other black men, Mark Braithwaite and Engin Raghip, were convicted of murder. The judge branded him 'a very vicious and evil man' at the time. However, a new scientific technique convinced the Court of Appeal judges that the Silcott's fifth police interview could not be relied on and, in 1991, they made an unprecedented apology to the three men convicted of Keith's murder and overturned their convictions.

Raghip and Braithwaite were released, Silcott was not. He had stabbed to death Anthony Smith a little while before the Broadwater farm riot and wasn't released until October 2003.

Silcott was granted leave to sue the Metropolitan Police and subsequently received £67,000 in compensation.

In 1989, Silcott, who had spent 6 months in prison for assault prior to his conviction for Smith's murder. was elected Honorary President of the London School of Economics Students' Union.

In March 2007, he was found guilty of theft for the second time since his release.

Silcott has been mentioned many times in Parliament, most often sympathetically and most notably by Bernie Grant who spoke about him on seven occasions on the floor of the House of Commons. Jeremy Corbyn, Andrew Robathan and John Greenway all mentioned him several times. Mike O'Brien, Jim Marshall, Jim Cousins, Barry Sheerman, Nick Hawkins, Kenneth Baker, John Patten and others mentioned him at least once.

Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws mentioned him at least three times in the House of Lords.

In 1985, at the time Keith Blakelock was being murdered, Bernie Grant was leader of the Haringey council which ran the Broadwater Farm estate. His reaction to Keith's murder was as follows:

"The youths around here believe the police were to blame for what happened on Sunday and what they got was a bloody good hiding".
On 29 March 1999, Grant said this in the House of Commons:

"When, two years ago, Sir Paul Condon talked about 80 per cent of young black people being guilty of mugging, so whenever police officers saw a black youth in the street, they automatically assumed that he was a mugger, that was institutionalised racism".
The fact that Condon was telling the truth never seems to count with the Bernie Grants of this world. A few days later Sir Paul apologised for telling the wrong truth.

In a videotaped message at Grant's funeral, Tony Blair said:

"We had a shared belief that Britain is and should be a multicultural society".
As opposed to the beliefs of the vast majority of the indigenous population, eh, Tony?

On 14 December 1999, The Daily Mail had reported thus:

"Although ultimately cleared of PC Blakelock's murder, Winston Silcott was named as the leader of the riot death mob by 14 witnesses. Now he has become the master manipulator, able and naturally more than happy to dictate the terms of interviews with left-leaning publications".
Silcott may, indeed, be innocent of Keith Blakelock's murder. The Metropolitan Police do, undoubtedly, behave very poorly once in a while. This doesn't change the fact that Silcott was once a very bad man. It also doesn't change the fact that Keith Blakelock was hacked to death in 1985 by a rampaging gang of murderous, black savages. Almost all of whom have never been brought to book.

A few months after Keith's death Westminster politicians introduced the 1986 Public Order Act into law. Effectively, the legislation afforded the powers-that-be the right, wherever they felt it necessary, to criminalise and imprison those who felt inclined to tell too much embarassing truth about ethnic minority behaviour such as that which saw Keith Blakelock killed. Thus, the law abiding white person who might blow the whistle too loudly on the rioter, the arsonist and the assassin, would, depending upon the colour of their skin, have to think long and hard about the legal repercussions if he did so.

With no one complaining too loudly for fear of the legal ramifications, the outcome that the New World Order desired would come to pass and the vanishing of the great British tribes would continue untroubled by the truth.

At the time the 1986 Act was passed Leon Brittan was no longer Home Secretary but he was in office when its contents were being drawn up and the bill was moving through its various stages. On 16 May 2005, he said this in the House of Commons:

"The Government are today publishing a White Paper... In conducting the review we have taken into account the lessons to be learnt from the varying forms of major public disorder in recent years. We have also considered carefully... Lord Scarman's report on THE BRIXTON RIOTS...

The White Paper contains a number of other improvements to public order law, including some tightening up of the offence of INCITEMENT TO RACIAL HATRED...

We must and shall continue to preserve the basic and crucial right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. These freedoms are essential to any democratic society... but people also have the right to protection against being bullied, hurt, intimidated or obstructed."
Gerald Kaufman replied thus on behalf of the Labour Party:

"I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for sending me an advance copy of the White Paper this morning... WE WELCOME THE PROPOSAL TO STRENGTHEN THE LAW ON INCITEMENT TO RACIAL HATRED. However, we regret that the Government have rejected the proposal that has been made by THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY, the Trades Union Congress, THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS and others to create powers for BANNING A MARCH ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD INCITE RACIAL HATRED.”
The new law increased the maximum penalty for the artificially constructed crime of 'incitement to racial hatred' from six months to two years.

Brittan, the leading government advocate of the proposed legislation cited above and Kaufman, his opposition counterpart, are both Jewish.

Five months after Britton and Kaufman exchanged views on how to penalise the 'racist' Briton even more, Keith Blakelock was hacked to death by a non-racist mob in Tottenham.

In February 1999, The British Crime Survey showed that there had been 238,000 attacks on white people over the previous twelve months but only 143,000 against Asians and blacks.

Blacks and Asians made up around one seventh of the population at that time, so it would seem that, using these figures, the Black and Asian population of Britain, per capita, was around twelve times more likely to commit a violent act against a white person than the other way around.

The Commission for Racial Equality published the following statistics:

Racial Attacks in 1998: White Victims - 238,000. Asian Victims: 101,000. Black Victims: 42,000.

Did anyone out there notice the government, the media or the CRE itself making any kind of effort to see that these figures became generally known? Not in the wake of the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence and the previous years' punitive 'anti-racism' legislation, they didn't. As the subsequent prosecutions have demonstrated, these laws were devised to keep the 'effing white bitch' in her box as the immigrant 'teenagers' 'kick(ed) her front door,' threw things at her windows and 'hurl(ed) abuse, some of it racial.'

Macpherson lectured us thus:

"A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
Who would you say is most likely to make use of such legislation? The whiner or the stoic? Who, on average, would complain more, do you think? the immigrant or the Brit?

Hypothetical case study: an immigrant murderer, an immigrant rapist, an immigrant drugs Baron, an immigrant pimp, an immigrant fraudster, an immigrant paedophile, an immigrant mugger, an immigrant burglar, an immigrant lawyer and certain 'Asian teenagers' all decide to have some fun at the expense of Mary Brown, a 76 year-old widow who is known to have told tales on the aforementioned teenagers.

They file a complaint stating that they all 'perceive' her actions, complaints and opinions to be 'racist'. According to Macpherson and subsequent government legislation based upon his ruling, the police would, at this point, be duty-bound to investigate Mary's alleged racism.

Columnist Carole Malone writing in the 28 February 1999 edition of The Sunday Mirror summed it up nicely, when she wondered:

"Surely this is a blank cheque for anyone who has a grievance against anyone from another race?"
Thing is, Carol, Macpherson's definition wasn't new, it was, in fact, a concise summary of an Association of Chief Police Officers description of racism that was already in use. To whit:

"Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation. Or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person."
When ACPO first formulated this definition, they will have been well aware of who was likely to make use of it. And who was not.

On 9 February 1999, The Daily Telegraph confirmed the CRE's findings thus:

"More white people claim to be victims of racially motivated incidents than black or Asians, according to a new report by the Commission for Racial Equality. The findings are based on official statistics drawn from the British Crime Survey and other sources...

Police in Bradford last month reported that 52 per cent of the victims of racial incidents were white, 35 per cent Asian and nine per cent black".
Nevertheless, on 26 February 1999, The Daily Telegraph told us that police officers 'now think twice about arresting black suspects', adding:

"The Lawrence report produced an immediate upsurge in distrust of police in black and Asian areas, according to the leader of Britain's rank and file officers. Ordinary officers felt their attempts to establish good police-community relations had been set back by the inquiry, said Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation.
Norman Brennan, another officer who campaigns for victims of crime, said front-line officers were now 'thinking twice' about arresting black or Asian suspects for fear of being branded racist. They were 'spitting blood' because of what they believed was relentless 'inaccurate and unbalanced' publicity about police throughout the Macpherson inquiry.

Mr Brennan, national director of the Victims of Crime Trust and an officer with the British Transport Police, said:

Anti-police groups have used the Stephen Lawrence case to gain a platform that we in society have never allowed them'...
Mr Broughton said: 'The night-duty shift on Wednesday said it was much tougher, much more difficult in the way they were dealing with the black and Asian victims and suspects'...

Mr Brennan, who was stabbed and nearly killed in 1985 when chasing a burglar, said no one could deny Stephen Lawrence's parents had suffered a grave injustice. He said... 'Tens of thousands of men and women would have wished that senior officers had stood up and spoke out when false and misleading facts were given by people to the detriment of the police. I have never met so many miserable police officers. Over six months the only people whose opinions have not been taken into account have been police officers who have been branded as institutionally racist...

There is a growing number of police officers who are thinking twice now before stopping a black suspect in fear that they will find it's 'heads they're racist and tails they're racist'. Rather than getting involved in an inquiry or a disciplinary investigation, which in their opinion would be one-sided, many are seriously asking themselves if it is worth it. That is very dangerous and I believe that some anti-police groups intended that should happen.'

Mr Brennan said the man who stabbed him was black."
This is definitely not what the PC crowd want us to hear, Mr. Brennan. I hope you don't have too many skeletons in your closet. THEY will be after your behind if you do.

It may interest some to know that, of the three 'advisors' who advised Lord Macpherson as to the contents of the 'relentless, inaccurate and unbalanced' anti-police report, one was the Ugandan immigrant, John Sentamu.

Sentamu would later be promoted, with a good deal of positive discrimination from the Blairites and a fawning exuberance of on-message political correctness within the Church of England itself, to the Archbishopric of York. He is, as of July 2012, odds on to take over from Rowan Williams as top man when he quits later this year.

Sentamu's brother is also an evangelist, albeit of a very African kind.
He has, according to The Daily Mail, his 'own TV channel, a 10,500-seater auditorium and some of Uganda’s most powerful people among his vast following.' However, 'his reputation' has apparently been 'tarnished by a series of allegations (all unproven and strenuously denied) including a lurid gay sex scandal.'

The Mail added:

"While many of his devotees can barely afford to eat, his popularity has made him, by Ugandan standards, fabulously rich...

His mission began in 1983, when he was 20 and met a witch who warned him he would die within three days. ‘Instead the witch died. They found his body in the middle of the road, his severed head by the roadside,’ he said...

And this weekend, one brother will lead a quintessentially English Easter service at York Minster while the other will preach fire-and-brimstone and purge demons amid the hysteria of a Kampala cathedral called the Miracle Centre, where armed guards patrol the barbed wire perimeter fence."
One of the other two Macpherson advisors was a gentleman by the name of Richard Stone. Six years after the report was released, he was saying this:

"In some areas things have got a lot worse, random stops of young black men are now twice as likely as they were five years ago. Today a black man is eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police, this is definitely not progress."
Stone ignores the possibility that black people were being stopped and search eight times more than the norm because black people were, at this time, around twelve times more likely to have committed a crime.

This is what Stone has said on the principal of Double Jeopardy: (being tried twice for the same crime)

"We recommended that 'consideration be given to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is permitted'...

Sir William Macpherson, chair of the inquiry, is well aware of the long-standing rule in English law that after acquittal, there should be no risk that an innocent person can be hounded again and again for the rest of their life by the threat of repeatedly being charged for the same offence…

Our recommendation recognises the difficulties in changing a long-established right of innocent people under English law. But Home Secretary Jack Straw implemented our recommendation swiftly by referring it to the Law Commission. In effect what is likely to happen is that, in carefully selected cases, (cases where the right result was not obtained by the PC Crowd) and on one occasion only, the High Court may be able to refer cases like this for re-trial...

If the law is changed like this, one of the fears about its implementation is that it will be used mostly against black people. (We don’t want it used against guilty black people! We want it used aginst innocent whites!) In the light of the institutional racism throughout the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation, this has to be a justified fear.

Most people who read and saw in the media what we heard and saw, recognise that two serious injustices were done to Stephen's parents, Doreen and Neville Lawrence. The appalling murder of their son was one. The collective failure of the police to investigate the murder professionally was the other. Most people know that both injustices are connected to the fact that the family is black.

The hidden reason for the attacks on the report as a whole is likely, I fear, to be racism... No one can say that their institution is free from institutional racism. (ALL OF YOU ARE INSTITUTIONALLY RACIST BECAUSE WE SAY SO) Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jack Straw have accepted that. So we now have leadership from the top acknowledging that it is there, and that we must all get on with addressing it.

We need to recognise that much of the media hype about reforming the double jeopardy rule is more to do with racism that with the advantages of the change."
BLAH, BLAH, RACISM, BLAH. The law has since been changed in precisely the way Stone wanted it changed. This snarling anti-Brit, (he really does spit anti-Fascist venom when he's being interviewed on his favourite subject) who was once a trustee of the Brit-loathing Runnymede Trust, is Jewish.

Just 18 months after the CRE released its report detailing the enormity of anti-indigenous crime being committed by the foreigner in the UK, the Blair government began bringing in the immigrant en-masse as a matter of deliberate multiculturalising policy.

As Andrew Neather, a former advisor to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett amongst others, said, in The Evening Standard: of 23 October 2009:




In 1998, the year after New Labour came to power, the government increased the length of the sentence the judiciary may pass for those whom they deem guilty of 'incitement to racial hatred'. For telling a truth that the genocidal gangsters at the top of the tree do not want told, they can imprison you now for up to SEVEN YEARS.

During the notorious Nick Griffin edition of Question Time, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary who steered the legislation through the Commons, admitted that he was a 'third-generation Jewish' immigrant.

When Straw stood at the dispatch box in 1998 to explain to the Commons why even more laws were needed to bash the Brit in his own homeland, he commented thus upon the contribution to the cause of one of his own Jewish kinfolk:

"It would be appropriate to place on record not only my thanks, but the thanks of a huge number of people, for the work of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who over the years has made probably A GREATER, MORE SINGULAR, CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF RACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THIS COUNTRY.

It was he who… was the architect of the Race Relations Act 1965, the Race Relations Act 1968 and the Race Relations Act 1976. I have no hesitation in saying that I have listened very carefully to the advice that he has offered."
Lord Lester has been active on many anti-indigenous fronts over the years.

Not only is he THE top man in the history of the UK's bash-the-Brit-enhance-the-foreigner race law, he was also involved, at the highest level, in the enforced colonisation of Britain by hundreds of thousands of unwanted Kenyan and Ugandan immigrants. The primacy of European Human Rights within the British legal system can also be traced directly to him and he co-founded the obscene anti-British construct, The Runnymede Trust.

Bit of a quadruple whammy there, I'd say. Not exactly what I would call a bloke who has the best interests of the indigenous people of these islands at heart.

On 15 June 2005, Lester said this in the House of Lords:

"It is well established in human rights law that POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION is entirely compatible with the human rights agenda."
'Positive discrimination,' eh? Better make that whammy a quintuple.

On 17 December 1998, in a report titled: Response of the Board of Deputies of British Jews to proposals to amend the Race Relations Act, 1976, the Board issued the following triumphal communiqué:

"THE BOARD HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSALS FOR RACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION IN THE UK… The Defence Policy and Group Relations Division, which monitors the activities of political extremists and racists, has urged successive governments to enact and strengthen race relations legislation… It has also sought allies and made common cause with other religious and minority groups.

The Board played a fundamental part in urging upon government the first Race Relations Act which was based, in part, on reports prepared for the Board by Professor Geoffrey Bindman and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Subsequently the Board has provided written and oral evidence to enquiries which preceded the passage of the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998...

There remains some scope for improvement... In particular we draw attention to proposed 1B, which recommends that the Race Relations Act should apply to all aspects of the activities of Government and all Public Bodies. We would support the extension of the RRA to all government and public bodies. These organisations play a leading role in FORMING PUBLIC OPINION on social issues…

The Board can also see the case for new legislation to combat discrimination and incitement on religious grounds… We are also shortly to respond to the Government’s request that it might consider introducing specific legislation to OUTLAW HOLOCAUST DENIAL… (Check out the Holocaust exaggeration here)
In addition to changes in the main body of national law, changes are needed in the rules and regulations of many institutions and organisations to decrease or remove discrimination on religious grounds."
Eldred Tabachnick, a South African immigrant, a lawyer and a close friend of Tony Blair, was Chairman of the Jewish Board of British Deputies at time the statement above was published.

A close study of the information cited above might suggest that, at precisely those times when immigrant criminality was bearing down most heavily upon the British people, the powers-that-be were busy creating law to prevent the victimised from speaking out about their unfortunate experiences too forcefully.

Have those who rule our lives been taking the p*** on a monumental scale? Well, yes, of course they have, but it's worse than that. Much worse.

It is war, ladies and gentlemen, it really is. A treacherous PC establishment has been at war with us since Harold Wilson's time. (Check out the mind-boggling hypocrisy of Wilson's government here.) In 1965, just one year after his Labour government came to power, the first anti-British race law was introduced.

Frank Soskice, the Home Secretary who steered it through the Commons at the height of the cold war with the Soviet Union, was, himself, a Russian immigrant.

According to the memoirs of Alexander Kerensky, the Russian leader who immediately preceded the Bolsheviks, his father, David, 'participated in the Russian revolutionary movement of the 1880s and 1890s.'

David Soskice was Jewish.

No comments:

Post a Comment