"Truth seldom is pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. A loss of courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days..." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Commencement address at Harvard University , June 8, 1978

Tuesday, 26 May 2009


The following article I thought would be of interest.
MR X, who had called Jacqui Smith a communist, was stunned to be told that the GP had received a letter from the highly secretive Fixated Threat Assessment Centre following instructions from the Home Secretary herself.
The UK government has established a secretive new police unit a la George Orwell with the powers to detain anyone for any length of time without any due process.
The shadowy unit called the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was covertly established in 2006. The unit includes the services of police psychiatrists. Why? For one very good reason, and one reason only: psychiatrists operate above the law.
They can detain
Once forcibly detained by a psychiatrist a person can be legally locked away forever and subjected to despicable ‘treatments’ such as psychotropic drug regimes, lobotomies and electric shocking of the brain. They are not entitled to a trial of any sort, they need face no criminal charges.
A person incarcerated by a psychiatrist has no rights whatsoever. Even Stalin had to produce his prisoners in court eventually. The miserable occupants of Guantanamo retain the certainty that one day they will face justice, or at least that they will have their day in court; the occupants of psychiatric prisons have no such comfort.
It is a thin line that separates a rule of law democracy from a totalitarian dictatorship.
• The FTAC crosses that line. For many years our individual freedoms have been incrementally cut away.
• The FTAC rips the flesh off freedom and lays bare the bones of repression for all decent and honest people to see.
• The FTAC represents nothing less that the repeal of Habeas Corpus with its right of trial and its protection from arbitrary state detention.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus orders that a prisoner is to be brought before a court so that the court can then determine whether that person is serving a lawful sentence or should be released from custody. The prisoner, or someone acting on behalf of the prisoner if he/she is being held incommunicado can petition the court or an individual judge for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The justification for the extreme powers of FRAC is of course terrorism. Experience shows that the powers of the FTAC will be quickly exercised in a far wider sphere than even the most skeptical imagine. Once a law is enacted the very fact of its existence gives it respectability and thus acceptability.
For years society casually turned a blind eye to the total lack of Human Rights for anyone labeled ‘mentally ill’, never dreaming that the definition might one day be widened sufficiently to cover not only themselves, but everyone who may for any reason be deemed a threat by those in authority.
In the twenty-first century mental illness is presumed to be the normal circumstance and sanity deemed to exist only after ‘treatment’ by a psychiatrist.
We live in a nightmare world that is starting to exceed the imaginings of even George Orwell.
Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) tasked to intimidate critics of Jacqui Smith?
The UKColumn was shocked to learn that a member of the public, who wrote letters and emails calling the Home Secretary a communist and criticising her for creating a police state, has been summoned for an interview with his GP. The individual, who wishes to remain anonymous, informed the Column that he was recently surprised to receive a call from his GP asking him
to attend the surgery.
Once in front of his doctor, Mr X was stunned to be told that the GP had received a letter from the highly secretive Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) following instructions from the Home Secretary herself.
Although embarrassed, the GP understood from the communication that he was required to interview Mr X to establish his ‘state of mind’.
The implications of this incident are extremely serious, as they suggest that anyone who dares to criticise the Home Secretary, or perhaps even the government itself, will be regarded as mentally ill.
Clearly for Mr X, Smith’s actions were intended to be a warning and the first step in attempting to brand him mentally ill

As the above article shows, Britain is becoming a big brother state reminiscent of the book 1984 by George Orwell. We must end this tyranny before it gets too late, and we are a nation of mindless idiots to scared to speak out against the evil that is present in the Lib-Lab-Con coalition.


For the last thousand years the British people have fought, and sometimes died, to preserve our basic freedoms. The National Front wholeheartedly believes that these freedoms must be maintained. Consequently the National Front believes in the introduction of a bill of rights to guarantee basic freedoms including:

Equal and free access to justice
Freedom of speech and publication and distribution of printed matter
Freedom of access to publicly owned assembly facilities
Freedom for orderly demonstrations in public
The right to vote and stand for election for public office without onerous financial or other qualifications
Freedom from arbitrary arrest

NF News 3 - election accusations- by Nice Guy Eddy,

The latest issue of National Front News - the weekly Enews of the NF went out yesterday with details of the elections the NF is standing in. One of these areas is North Tyneside where for the third time Bob Batten is contesting the Mayoral position for the NF. Unfortunately the BNP are now putting up candidate. This as led to accusations - not against the BNP - oh no - but against the NF!(By the way the date is NF News is wrong, it should be Thursday June 4th not June 6th - apologies). This accusation which has even led to one resident loony on a Forum to accuse the NF of 'treachery' (to whom?). For the record - where the hell are the NF supposed to stand? Are we to kow-tow to the BNP every time they put up and candidate and stand down? Are we to ignore that Griffin - a long time member of the NF has now proscribed ALL members of the Front and publicly boasted the BNP 'will smash the NF'. Are we to forget that the BNP leadership has sold out every major policy whilst the NF stands firm? Griffin HATES the NF with a vengeance.
Are we to forget that some BNP organisers talk about the NF in the same language as Searchlight uses?
I will be voting BNP in the Euro Elections for one reason only - my respect for their candidate Andrew Brons as for the rest, this budding multi-racialist leadership with its slavish worship of Zion can go to hell! Now lets sit back and watch the USUAL SUSPECTS if they read this, pull me to pieces on their Blogs and Forums


In support of NF candidate Bob Batten's Mayoral Election Campaign for North Tyneside, on Saturday 23rd May, a fourteen strong team of NF activists lead by energetic Tyneside NF Organiser Simon Biggs distributed well over 8,000 leaflets in the target area. A great achievement. Simon reports a fantastic response from the people of the area to Bob's message of NF solutions to the problems facing the White folk of Tyneside and a great vote is expected.

You can help in two ways - if you live in the area then contact NF North east and offer you help in the campaign. If you can donate towards this crucial election then make out your Cheques/PO's to "National Front" and send to:-
National Front North East
Tel:07017 410522,
PO Box 1188, Newcastle, NE4 6WW


We all know that Britain will suffer under European rule, so there is no question that it should be stopped, and never allowed to have a say in British politics. The question is how do we fight it and destroy its control over our country?

I am not going to suggest that we stand candidates in the European elections and try and destroy it from the inside, because it just won’t work.

The way that you can help is simple in theory, but in practice will take a lot of work and dedication. If you want to take part in the kind of activism I am about to outline, you must first be sure that you are willing to see it through. You cant start the process and then decide that it is too hard, because that will have adverse effects on the Nationalist movement. I am not trying to scare you in any way, I am just preparing you. Don’t threat, the type of activism I am going to outline is not illegal, or confrontational in any shape or form, but you may receive a lot of slack from local politicians or the local media.

Up and down the country, the National Front have and will continue to campaign against the dictatorship of the European Union. I have started a campaign right here in Swindon which I hope all you reading will help me with. It doesn’t matter what part of the country you live in this is relevant to you.

I have found away to bring about a referendum in a Parish council which we can pose the question “ should Britain have a national referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU?” to the residents of that parish. The more parishes that have a referendum that come back with more “yes” votes, the more chance that New-Labour will call a referendum. Email me on swindonnf@yahoo.co.uk and I will give all the guidance and advice you will need, including how you can guarantee a relatively good turn out, to what legislation supports your right to call a Parish referendum.

Obviously this is just one aspect of the fight against the EU. But I believe if done on a national level, then it would be a step in the right direction.

Email me and I will let you know everything you need to know….. Swindonnf@yahoo.co.uk.



There is an endless list of why Britain should cut all ties with the European Parliament. If Britain doesn’t, then the British people will loose their sovereignty. The fact that the EU is doing everything in its power to force the sinister European Constitution onto the British public is a clear sign of the EU’s ambition of becoming a Superstate, in which they wish Britain to be a part of. We must resist this tyrannical, foreign body, otherwise we will become a mere state in the United States of Europe, and have no control over our nation.

The European Constitution will only have adverse effects for Britain. I have outlined a few of the issues that we would face under European rule.

1. The European Constitution would make it harder to fight crime.

The Constitutional Treaty would give the EU considerable power over crime, policing and our Law Courts. This sinister treaty would mean that that EU judges would gain power over justice and policing. Under the constitution, the European Court of Justice would become the highest court in the land and would also mean that a substantial amount of Britain’s laws would be created in Brussels; which is a huge transfer of our national sovereignty, as the government have admitted.

Under EU law, it would become illegal to try someone twice for the same crime. This would mean that criminals like Billy Dunlop would be walking the streets. In case you didn’t know; Billy Dunlop was successfully convicted of murdering Julie Hogg when new evidence came to light 15 years after he was acquitted.

The Constitutional Treaty also states that the severity of penalties should not be disproportionate to the criminal offence. This would undermine the discretion of British judges to keep infamous killers like Rosemary West in prison for life.

The treaty would allow the EU police force, Europol, to conduct investigations on British soil. This has worrying implications, because unlike the British police forces, Europol officers are largely unaccountable. They are completely immune to prosecution for acts performed in the course of their duties, and they are also not compelled to testify in court. Europol also has its own problems with fraud, for example, its offices were raided by Belgium police as part of a fraud investigation.

The European Prosecutor Eurojust, will also get sweeping new powers. A spokesman for Eurojust- Johannes Thuy- confirmed that “ we would compel the British police to make a prosecution.”

2. The European Constitution would give the EU power over our foreign policy and defence.

If the constitution does get accepted, it would mean that there will be an EU foreign Minister, an EU Diplomatic Service, and the constitution would give the right to the EU to sign treaties on our behalf.

The Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Zapatero, predicts that “ we will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single voice within NATO”. At first the British Government opposed many of these proposals, but being weak kneed it soon gave in.

The Constitutional Treaty also would set up a “structured cooperation” group, in which the UK will be forced to be apart of. The treaty states that members would have to achieve “ approved objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment and bring their defence apparatus into line with each other”. In a European Federalists research paper they noted that “Structured Co-operation in the field of defence is a significant step toward a Single European Army”.
German Chancellor Angela Merkal has also expressed a want for a single European Army: “ Within the EU itself, we will have to move closer to establishing a common European army”.

Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has said “ When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don’t want to call it a European army, don’t call it a European army. You can call it “Margaret”, you can call it “Mary Anne”, you can call it any name”.

The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero said that “ Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power! The constitution is an important step in this direction”.

What all this means in practice is that while our troops are being undermined in Afghanistan and Iraq with poor equipment and a want for just the basic equipment, the EU wants to divert billions of pounds to wasteful projects such as the Galileo satellite System- all because of its desire to play the role of world “Superpower”. Put aside the fact that our troops should not even be in Afghanistan or Iraq, the above is bad for our armed forces.

3. The Constitution would mean that we would have less control over Asylum Seekers and immigrants.

Under the Constitution Treaty, the European Court of Justice would gain a considerably amount of new powers to determine the “rights” of Asylum seekers and immigrants to reside in Britain. The Government have admitted that with the introduction of the Constitution Treaty would come more expensive Asylum and immigration appeals. In November 2006 Geoff Hoon said: “There is clearly a risk that adding what is in effect an avenue of appeal at a very early stage in the process might be an opportunity of further complicating of further complicating our existing asylum and immigration processes.”

The Charter of Fundamental Right, which is legally binding under the sinister constitution, would mean that Britain would not be able to deport terror suspects and other foreign criminals. This would mean, on top of all the other immigrants draining tax payers money away, we would have to pay for these criminals, and we would have to subsidize asylum seekers who are waiting for their case to be heard. It currently takes two years before the European Court of Justice even begins to hear an appeal.

Under the constitution there will be a new “burden sharing” requirement, which means that British taxpayers, who are already burdened with immigrants, will have to pay for immigrants in other countries.

Noone can disagree that under the Constitutional Treaty the European Court of Justice would end up making what is essentially political decisions. It wouldn’t matter if the entire British public disagreed with what the EU were doing, it would be impossible to overturn the rulings.

4. The Constitutional Treaty would mean the EU had more control over our public services.

The Constitutional treaty means that the EU would have complete control over the British Health service, and the British people would have no right to reject legislation in this area. This would mean that the EU would regulate medical standards. A new “right to preventive healthcare2 would open the NHS up to influx of costly ambulance-chasing lawsuits. The constitution would end the right to reject legislation concerning trade agreements in public services like health and education. In other words, our Parliament would no longer have a say over deals which will determine how these services are managed.

TRANSPORT: Under the constitution, the British people would loss the right to reject legislation concerning transport. Jacques Barrot, EU Transport Commissioner, recently revealed that the EU wants to run EU wide road pricing operations, but as the AA point out, this would lead to a huge loss of privacy.

The above is only a few of the issues that Britain face if the UK accepts the wretched Constitutional Treaty, and in doing so accept the tyrannical rule of the European Union. Below I have outlined some of the policies of the National front which relate to the above issues.

European Union.

The National Front supports the right of self-determination for all European nations and demands that right for Britain. It seeks a Europe where each nation is friendly to all others but where no nation seeks to dominate or interfere in the affairs of another. Consequently the NF would withdraw Britain from the European Union.
The NF would encourage the development of cultural and sporting links between other European nations. It would encourage the cultural diversity between the nations of Europe and resist attempts to eliminate this. It totally opposes the monetary and political merging of the separate nations into a super-state.

The protection of the British people at home and throughout the world is the responsibility of the government. It is for this purpose (and this purpose alone) that we require our armed forces, which have such a proud record in defending our nation. No British politician wants a war but it is a sad fact that Britain must always be prepared for a whole range of eventualities including the less likely ones. This is particularly true when the Middle East is in a period of change and uncertainty.

There is no realistic defence without a basic defence strategy. The National Front's defence strategy is that Britain must maintain a defence capability able to inflict massive damage on any other countries in the world should they act as an aggressor. The only other requirement is the ability of our forces to defeat any internal terrorist threat. The equipment with which our forces are armed must be designed and built in the UK and must remain solely under the control of this country.

The National Front totally opposes the use of British troops by the United Nations to carry out their political adventures. It also opposes any attempt to form a European army under foreign control and will withdraw Britain from NATO.

Race and immigration
The National Front believes that the world contains a rich diversity of races and consequent cultures. We believe in the preservation of these races. As each race has evolved it has developed its own social structures, its own customs and its own culture. These are different for each race and have been built up to suit the character of each separate race.

In the case of Britain the National Front upholds the wish of the majority of British people for Britain to remain a white country, with customs and a culture which have been developed to suit our character. Consequently the National Front would halt all non-white immigration into Britain and introduce a policy of phased and humane repatriation of all coloured people currently resident here. Such a policy would be expected to extend over 10-15 years and its completion would thus depend on the recurrent election of successive NF governments.

The National Front believes that this is the only way to halt the steadily rising racial tension and violence that is becoming part of everyday life in modern Britain.

In regards to white immigration, this would only be allowed where there are particular reasons such as the possession of particular skills or in the case of political refugees. Until the problem of unemployment is solved, the NF would seek to keep such immigration to a minimum

The National Front would provide an entirely free National Health Service and this would include the abolition of prescription charges. When people fall ill they are likely to be losing money in any case and we can see no justification in prescription charges. However, checks on doctors' prescriptions would be made to make sure the Health Service is not wasting money.

Whilst the NF expects all parts of the NHS to use money efficiently and carefully, a National Front government would make available sufficient funds to eliminate all waiting lists for medically needed operations and treatments. This will take priority over other items of expenditure.

The National Front believes that the NHS should be made available to all foreign visitors who fall ill during their stay, however this system is being abused by people who arrive in this country fully aware of an existing health condition - this would be stopped. The NF is opposed to abortion on principle and would only sanction one where a mother has conceived as a result of rape, where medical opinion asserts that there is a genuine and serious danger to the health or life of the mother if the pregnancy is allowed to continue, or where medical opinion asserts that the foetus is seriously damaged or malformed. All such abortions are dependent on the mother's consent. Under a National Front government the days of abortion being used as a form of post-coital contraception will end.

For the last thousand years the British people have fought, and sometimes died, to preserve our basic freedoms. The National Front wholeheartedly believes that these freedoms must be maintained. Consequently the National Front believes in the introduction of a bill of rights to guarantee basic freedoms including:

Equal and free access to justice
Freedom of speech and publication and distribution of printed matter
Freedom of access to publicly owned assembly facilities
Freedom for orderly demonstrations in public
The right to vote and stand for election for public office without onerous financial or other qualifications
Freedom from arbitrary arrest

Those are a few of our policies which I think are relevant here.

Moving on.

The National Front, up and down the country, will continue to campaign against EU dictatorship in Britain. However on a local level I have started a campaign. Its an attempt to make central Government stick to their promise and give the British people a referendum. And everyone of you can help. In actual fact, I need everyone of you to help. Whether you live in Swindon or not, it doesn’t matter. As long as you have a voice than you can help.

Basically, I have found a way in which to bring about a referendum in a Parish council which poses the question: “ should there be a national referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU?” More Councils- district councils, parish councils ect- that hold a referendum and with more “yes” votes, the more likely that Brown will hold a referendum.

I will give anyone who is willing to try and make a difference all the guidance and advice they will need- everything from lists of legislation that gives them the right to hold a referendum, to how you can insure you will get a good turn out.

If you are interested please email me at Swindon@yahoo.co.uk, and we will win this fight together.


Saturday, 23 May 2009


A report done by Cambridge University academic David Farrington for the Campbell Collaboration Study Group and funded by the Home Office, has found that the millions of CCTV cameras on Britain’s streets has down virtually nothing to cut crime.

Lib-Lab-Con’s big brother society in which has seen cameras going up in town centres, housing estates and on public transport, has not had any significant effect on cutting crime. They had promised that CCTV was for our protection and to help prevent crime, but as the report reveals, it has had no effect.

With this in mind, ask yourself this question; what is the point in CCTV cameras if they do not prevent crime? And what should replace cameras to truly prevent crime?

We here at the National Front believe that true Community policing is the way forward to tackling crime. This would mean that we would bring police officers back on to Britain’s streets, with a zero tolerance policy towards anti-social behaviour, and illegal drug use. We would scrap the useless PCSO’s who have no powers whatsoever, and are nothing but the laughing stock of the community as yobs run rings around them at YOUR expense. The Government go on about being tough on crime, however, since 1997, Britain has become a haven for criminals. Crime has risen, even though that 4.2 million CCTV cameras have been installed at the expense of £500 million of Taxpayer’s money.

This surveillance society has been put in place to watch the public not protect it. Put a stop to Big Brother by joining the National Front, the only party fighting for your FREEDOM

Wednesday, 20 May 2009


This is an article taken from


A Yougov poll survey has shown that seven out of ten British adults want a massive cut in immigration; the poll also showed that only one in twenty supported the current record levels.

These un-fettered levels have seen Britain’s population increase by at least 300,000 every year for the last five years.

The findings suggest immigration could become a significant election issue and sparked warnings that voters could turn to parties like the National Front if mainstream politicians fail to acknowledge their concerns.

Due to EU regulations Britain has not got any control over migration from other EU countries such as Poland and other Eastern European countries.

The poll, commissioned by Migration Watch for the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration, was published on the eve of the release of immigration figures today.

It found that 79 per cent of people were concerned or very concerned about immigration. Seventy per cent of the 2,072 respondents favoured cutting levels by 80 per cent or more.

Of those, 17 per cent said net immigration should be brought below 50,000 a year - a level last seen in the early 1990s.

Another 39 per cent favoured a policy of zero net immigration, with the numbers settling in the UK matching the numbers emigrating. Sixteen per cent said the number of immigrants should be lower than those leaving.

Just over half of more affluent voters - ABC1s - wanted either zero or negative net immigration, while 63 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds favoured a figure below 50,000.

Home Office ministers say their new points-based immigration system represents a tough crackdown.

The National Front say that this points-based system will have little effect, especially as Britain has no control over the numbers arriving from EU states. We must firstly leave the EU and its foreign control of our lands this will allow us to continue to trade with European countries without seeding sovereignty to them and being controlled by un-elected bureaucrats.

We would of course call for a complete halt in immigration then begin a process of repatriation. The question is how difficult can it be to secure an island?

Tom Linden


Over the past few weeks the newspapers have been reporting on the revelations of how MP’s have abused the allowances system. Not that we needed proof, but it does prove that for the most part, those in Parliament are greedy, dishonest and are open to bribery, which, rightly has provoked waves of justified anger.

What has helped fuel the flames of rage towards MP’s is the pitiful response parliament has given to us Britons. Some of the Idiots have claimed that it was the fault of the “system”; in other words, the “system” made them steal money from the public purse. Then there are those that are claiming that their expenses were within the rules, what they fail to mention is that they are the ones that made the god damned rules. And then you have those, in a pathetic attempt to salvage their reputations, have mumbled very unconvincing apologies and have offered to pay back the money they stole from the public purse, which is mere lip service which shows their clear disdain for British justice.

Think about it. Can you imagine a burglar being let off because he offered to return the TV he stole?

The question has to be asked folks; After the sickening property fiddles of Ed Balls, Hazel Blears and Geoff Hoon, why hasn’t any member of the cabinet been sacked, or why hasn’t any of the MP’s been de-selected? The same can be asked of the Tories and the Lib Dems.

Why hasn’t there been mass expulsions in which this criminal scandal merits? Apart from an obscure aide of David Cameron resigning and some public money being returned, nothing is really happening to those who have abused the allowance system.

In a last ditch attempt to clutch back a bit of public support, Mp’s have claimed that the public should trust them, because in the climate of mistrust of politicians and a complete lack of faith in the political system, it poses a threat to democracy. What a load of nonsense! In fact, the lack of faith in politicians has been great for democracy. Slowly, those in the House of Treason were etching away at our freedoms, and etching away at our right to scrutinise parliament.

It is about time these anti-patriotic, bullies were held to account. For far too long these parasites have patronised, bullied and deceived the British people, all the while, destroying Britain. They couldn’t care less about the integrity of British politics, if they did they would of stayed clear of abusing the allowance system.

They tax us to high haven, but they use the allowance system to avoid paying Capital Gains Tax, Stamp Duty and Extra Income Tax. They demand that the citizens of this nation should be under almost constant surveillance and that we should surrender our details to the vast National Identity Register. Yet, these hypocrites have spent an absolute fortune in legal battles to make sure the House of Treasons’ little secret stays a secret.

How can they say that it is the publics’ lack of faith in MP’s that poses a threat to democracy? God damn it, we are ruled by a dirty cabal, which is headed by a prime minister that was never elected to that position by the public, which foists its destructive ideology on the county against the will of the majority.

Its not a democracy when we were never given the chance to vote on whether we wanted Britain to become a region of a new tyrannical, political entity called the EU, with 80 per cent of our laws being forced on us from Brussels. If we were living in a democracy, the politicians would not of ignored the publics cry for a referendum on our membership to the EU.

Its not democracy when the Public are refused the chance to vote on whether Britain accepts the influx of immigrants.
Its not democracy when the public are refused the opportunity to vote on whether they wish to live in a multi-racial hell hole.

How can they claim that we live in a democracy, when anyone that opposes their draconian race laws are branded racists, bigots, anti-Semites and other derogatory terms.

Its time to fight back against the traitors and criminals in Parliament.


Below is an exert from the NF’s policy promises which can be viewed at www.natfront.com

The National Front is a party of genuine democracy which belongs to its members and whose policy is determined by its members. Its governing body is the National Directorate which is an elected body and which elects from within its ranks a Chairman, Deputy Chairman and other national party officers. The policies of the party are determined by the members at Annual Conferences and unlike some other parties, such decisions are binding upon the party. The same democratic principles govern the operation of all local party organisations.

The NF seeks to promote in Britain a genuinely democratic political system and advocates a fairer electoral system which includes an aspect of proportional representation. In government the NF would like to see an increase in the powers of the House of Commons Select Committees. The NF can see no virtue in the powers granted to hereditary peers by accident of birth and consequently hereditary peerages would be abolished. It would however maintain a second chamber as an advisory and consultative body.

The National Front upholds the principle of a constitutional monarchy as this is clearly the wish of the overwhelming majority of the British people. We believe that the monarchy could again become an important symbol as a family and of the continuity of the nation.

The National Front would introduce a bill of rights to guarantee certain basic freedoms. It would also re-assert the sovereignty of Parliament by withdrawing from the oppressive European Union. Wherever possible decision-making would be brought closer to the people and as many decisions as possible would be made at local rather than national level. The amalgamation of small local councils into giant boroughs would be reversed so that local councils can again be truly responsive to local needs.

Tuesday, 19 May 2009


I heard this story a day or so ago and I thought I would put it on here, because it shows perfectly what contempt the current establishment have for the white, British people.

An elderly, white couple, who are too frail to leave their home, asked their local council (Coventry City Council) for help in the form of Meals on Wheels. However, the council have said that the elderly couple are “ not disabled enough”. Wallace Rowley 91 and his 89 year old wife Lillian, are forced to live on cornflakes for breakfast, ham sandwiches for lunch and Horlicks in the evening because they are unable to cook for themselves. The only hot meals that they receive is from a friendly neighbour who heats up ready meals for them every now and again.

I am not sure how the Council in question came to the conclusion that this elderly couple were not disabled enough to receive a little help from the council, in which, the couple have been paying their taxes to. Mrs Rowley suffers from crippling rheumatoid arthritis in her arms and legs which unfortunately means she can barely carry a plate, open the microwave door or even push the button to start the kettle boiling. Her husband has extremely high blood pressure, causing dizzy spells and fainting, and he can only stand up for a few minutes at a time. Both need Zimmer frames.

Out of all the people who get the help of the local authorities I would prefer it go to people like this elderly couple. However, Mr Wallace, who is an ex-factory worker and served with the Royal Warwickshire Regiment during the Second World War, said that the Official laughed at him when he tried to explain their predicament, and the official “joked” that maybe they should learn to bake a potato.

He said: 'I fought for my country but I feel like I've been thrown on the scrap heap.
'We've paid our National Insurance contributions all our lives but when we need help in our old age the state turns its back on us.
'We're desperate and feel abandoned.'

Mrs Rowley, a retired cleaner, said: 'It's not safe for us to cook as we don't have the strength in our arms and legs.'

This kind of treatment of our elderly is despicable, and should be condemned. Unfortunately, such treatment by Local Authorities is not uncommon. Right here in Swindon, elderly residents in Sheltered Housing were told they had to be prepared to leave by the Swindon Borough Council to make way for younger people.

The National Front believe the elderly deserve our utmost respect, and should be treated with dignity; not laughed at, and told that they cannot receive help in their time of need. People who have been paying taxes all of their lives are being refused help, while, at places Like the Harbour, which gets the majority of its funding from the Swindon Borough Council, gives help to non-British aliens who have never paid a penny towards taxes.


On the 13th May, the BAAF insulted a huge chunk of the population who have grave concerns about children’s welfare when they are adopted by gay couples by calling them “Retarded homophobes”.

Apparently, us at the NF and anyone who protests against gay adoption are merely whinging according to the BAAF. For a State funded agency to use foul language against anyone that disagrees with their policies on gay adoption is unacceptable.

Author Patricia Morgon, who has published a study on gay adoption, commented; “ It is disgraceful that they do not wish to discuss the pros and the cons of gay adoption. They just go in for abuse. They don’t appear to be interested in evidence about outcomes for children.”

The state funded agency said in their guide booklet aimed at Gay couples who wish to adopt: “ Most importantly, don’t worry about society… Children need good parents much more that retarded homophobes need an excuse to whinge, so don’t let your worries about society’s reaction hinder your desire and ability to give children a good home.”

There are numerous reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. The fact that the homosexual lifestyle is hugely damaging and is not an environment that a child should be brought up in ( click on burning gay pride flag to see Homosexuality Blog post.). But also the child’s instinct is to conform. The certainty with same sex couples adopting a child is that the child will feel uncomfortably set apart from traditional brought up school mates. Studies prove aplenty that children flourish when in a traditional family.

Another consideration is the welfare of the child if placed under the care of homosexuals. Evidence suggest that homosexuals are more likely to molest children…Below I have posted a study done by Paul Cameron, Ph. D. from the Family Research Institute in the USA.

"Ann Landers (1) says the statement "Homosexuals are more inclined to molest children sexually than heterosexuals" is false. The American Psychological Association has sponsored a work that asserts: "Recognized researchers in the field on child abuse,... almost unanimously concur that homosexual people are actually less likely to approach children sexually." (2)
Why is it, then, that we read about sex between boys and men in every newspaper? Does it merely reflect sensationalist journalism? We know that heterosexual molestation also occurs. But since there are so many more heterosexuals than homosexuals, which kind of child molestation – homosexual or heterosexual – is proportionately more common?
The Scientific Evidence
Three kinds of scientific evidence point to the proportion of homosexual molestation: 1) survey reports of molestation in the general population, 2) surveys of those caught and convicted of molestation, and 3) what homosexuals themselves have reported. These three lines of evidence suggest that the 1%-to-3% of adults who practice homosexuality (3) account for between a fifth and a third of all child molestation.
Reports of Molestation by the General Population
In 1983, a probability survey of the sexual experiences of 4,340 adults in 5 U.S. cities found that about 3% of men and 7% of women reported sexual involvement with a man before the age of 134 (i.e., 30% was homosexual).
In 1983- (4), a random survey of 3,132 adults in Los Angeles found that 3.8% of men and 6.8% of women said that they had been sexually assaulted in childhood. Since 93% of the assailants were male, and only 1% of girls had been assaulted by females, about 35% of the assaults were homosexual. (5)
The Los Angeles Times (6) surveyed 2,628 adults across the U.S. in 1985. 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested. Since 7% of the molestations of girls and 93% of the molestations of boys were by adults of the same sex, about 4 of every 10 molestations in this survey were homosexual.
In a random survey of British 15-to-19 yr olds, 35% of the boys and 9% of the girls claimed to have been approached for sex by adult homosexuals and 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls admitted to succumbing. (7)
In science, a review of the professional literature published in a refereed scientific journal is considered to be an accurate summary of the current state of knowledge. The latest such review was published in 1985. (8) It concluded that homosexual acts were involved in 25% to 40% of the cases of child molestation recorded in the scientific and forensic literature.
Surveys of Those Convicted
Drs Freund and Heasman (9) of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In cases they had personally handled, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles.
Dr. Adrian Copeland, a psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders at the Peters Institute in Philadelphia, said (10) that, from his experience, pedophiles tend to be homosexual and "40% to 45%" of child molesters have had "significant homosexual experiences."
Dr. C. H. McGaghy (11) estimated that "homosexual offenders probably constitute about half of molesters who work with children." Other studies are similar:
– Of the approximately 100 child molesters in 1991 at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third bisexual and a third homosexual in orientation. (12)
– A state-wide survey of 161 Vermont adolescents who committed sex offenses in 1984 found that 35 (22%) were homosexual. (13)
– Of the 91 molesters of non-related children at Canada’s Kingston Sexual Behaviour Clinic from 1978-1984, 38 (42%) engaged in homosexuality. (14)
– Of 52 child molesters in Ottawa from 1983 to 1985, 31 (60%) were homosexual. (15)
– In England for 1973, 802 persons (8 females) were convicted of indecent assault on a male, and 3,006 (6 of them female) were convicted of indecent assault on a female (i.e., 21% were homosexual). 88% of male and about 70% of female victims were under age sixteen. (16)
Because of this pattern, Judge J. T. Rees concluded that "the male homosexual naturally seeks the company of the male adolescent, or of the young male adult, in preference to that of the fully-grown man. [In 1947] 986 persons were convicted of homosexual and unnatural offences. Of those, 257 were indictable offences involving 402 male victims.... The great majority of [whom]... were under the age of 16. Only 11%... were over 21."
"[T]he problem of male homosexuality is in essence the problem of the corruption of youth by itself [i.e., by other boys] and by its elders. [And thereby]... the creation... of new addicts ready to corrupt a still further generation of young men and boys in the future." (17)
What Homosexuals Admit
The 1948 Kinsey survey found that 37% of the gays and 2% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-17-yr-olds, and 28% of the gays and 1% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-16-yr-olds while they themselves were aged 18 or older. (18)
In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. (19)
In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual interaction with youth less than 16 years of age. (20)
In France, 129 convicted gays (21)(average age 34 years) said they had had sexual contact with a total of 11,007 boys (an average of 85 different boys per man). Abel et al reported similarly that men who molested girls outside their family had averaged 20 victims each; those who molested boys averaged 150 victims each. (22)
About a third of the reports of molestation by the populace have involved homosexuality. Likewise, between a fifth and a third of those who have been caught and/or convicted practiced homosexuality. Finally, a fifth to a third of surveyed gays admitted to child molestation. All-in-all, a rather consistent story.
Teacher-Pupil Sexual Interaction
Nowadays parents are labeled bigots for fearing that homosexual teachers might molest their children. But if homosexuals are more apt to molest children and are in a positon to take advantage of them, this fear makes sense. Indeed, accounts of disproportionate homosexual teacher molestation appear throughout the scientific literature.
The original U.S. Kinsey study reported that 4% of the non-criminal white gays and 7% of the non-criminal white lesbians reported that they had their first homosexual experience with a ‘teacher or other caretaker.’ None of the heterosexuals were recorded as having a teacher as their first sex partner. (18)
In England, Schofield reported that at least 2 of his 150 homosexuals had their first homosexual experience with a teacher and an additional 2 reported that their first homosexual contact with an adult was with a teacher. One of the 50 men in his comparison group had also been seduced by a homosexual teacher, while none of the men interviewed claimed involvement with a heterosexual teacher. (23)
In the 1978 McCall’s magazine study of 1,400 principals, (24) 7% reported complaints about homosexual contact between teachers and pupils and 13% reported complaints about heterosexual contact between teachers and pupils (i.e., 35% of complaints were homosexual). 2% "knew of instances in which teachers discussed their homosexuality in class."
Of 400 consecutive Australian (25) cases of molestation, 7 boys and 4 girls were assaulted by male teachers. Thus 64% of those assaults were homosexual.
In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin, associate professor of psychology at Whitman College, conducted a 10 state survey (26) and found 199 sexual abuse cases involving teachers. 122 male teachers had abused female pupils and 14 female teachers had abused male students. In 59 cases, however, male teachers had abused male pupils and in 4 cases female teachers had abused female students (overall 32% were homosexual).
A 1983 survey asked 4,340 adults to report on any sexual advances and any physical sexual contact by elementary and secondary teachers (4% of those who were teachers in the survey claimed to be bisexual or homosexual).4 29% of the advances by elementary and 16% of the advances by secondary school teachers were homosexual. In addition, 1 of 4 (25%) reports of actual sexual contact with an elementary school teacher were homosexual. In high school, 8 (22%) of 37 contacts between teacher and pupil were homosexual. 18% reported having had a homosexual teacher (8% of those over the age of 55 vs 25% of those under 26). Of those reporting a homosexual teacher, 6% said that the teacher influenced them to try homosexuality and 13% of the men and 4% of the women said that the teacher made sexual advances toward them.
Whether examining surveys of the general populace or counts of those caught, homosexual teachers are disproportionately apt to become sexually involved with children.
Proportionality: The Key
Study after nationwide study (3) has yielded estimates of male homosexuality that range between 1% and 3%. The proportion of lesbians in these studies is almost always lower, usually about half that of gays. So, overall, perhaps 2% of adults regularly indulge in homosexuality. Yet they account for between 20% to 40% of all molestations of children.
Child molestation is not to be taken lightly. Officials at a facility which serves about 1,500 runaway youngsters each year estimate that about half of the boys have been homosexually abused and 90% of the girls heterosexually assaulted. (27) Investigation of those suffering severe chronic mental illness implicates child molestation as a primary cause (45% of Bigras et al’s (28) patients were homosexually abused).
If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must be desperately wrong with that 2%. Not every homosexual is a child molester. But enough gays do molest children so that the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual.
Goals of the Gay Movement
The gay movement is forthright about seeking to legitimize child-adult homosexual sex. In 1987, The Journal of Homosexuality – the scholarly organ of the gay rights movement – published "Pedophilia and the Gay Movement." (29) Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end "oppression towards pedophilia." In 1980 the largest Dutch gay organization (the COC) "adopted the position that the liberation of pedophilia must be viewed as a gay issue... [and that] ages of consent should therefore be abolished... by acknowledging the affinity between homosexuality and pedophilia, the COC has quite possibly made it easier for homosexual adults to become more sensitive to erotic desires of younger members of their sex, thereby broadening gay identity."
In 1990 COC achieved a significant victory: lowering of the age of consent for homosexual sex in Holland to 12 (unless the parents object, in which case it goes up to 15). (30) In the U.S. and Canada, the North American Man-Boy Love Association marches proudly in many gay pride parades with the stated goal of removing the barriers to man-boy sex. Note the phrases "oppression towards pedophilia" and "liberation of pedophilia." It is clear that those who advocate the legalization of sex between adults and children intend to argue that such conduct is a "civil right," deserving of the same legal protections afforded to other minorities. A large proportion of Americans regard that argument as a mere pretext to giving "sexual predators" free reign to take advantage of vulnerable children.
Not only is the gay rights movement upfront in its desire to legitimize sex with children, but whether indexed by population reports of molestation, pedophile convictions, or teacher-pupil assaults, there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality. Ann Landers’ claim that homosexuals molest children at no higher a rate than heterosexuals do is untrue. The assertion by gay leaders and the American Psychological Association that a homosexual is less likely than a heterosexual to molest children is patently false."

The National Front would put an immediate stop to the immoral practice of allowing gay couples to adopt children. We believe that the welfare of the child is more important and should be put before the establishments obsessive need for “equality”.


Saturday, 16 May 2009


The BNP, who I have to say are given more credit than they are worth, have proved once again that they are no longer a British Nationalist party.

As anyone who has a clue about reality would know, to be a British Nationalist, you have to have pride in being British, you have to want the continued existence of the native British people, you must want un-natural and all around damaging lifestyles such as homosexuality banned from being promoted ect ect.

However, as the Swindon BNP blog proudly states: the BNP has within it, homosexual and lesbian members, some of whom are candidates in the coming election. The BNP have members who have foreign husbands or wives. A teacher who is a BNP member, called Adam Walker has a Japanese wife, and the BNP GLA member, Richard Barnbrook, is bringing his wife’s mixed race child up. According to the Swindon BNP blog, One in two BNP officers in Wigan turns out to have been married 24years to an ASIAN WOMEN, and has a MIXED RACE CHILD.

The most messed up thing about this certain blogpost, is that after all of this boasting about how the Bogus Nationalist Party (BNP) have members that have taken non-white wives, and are contributing to the extinction of the white, British people, they have the nerve to come out with the following : “The British National Party represent the indigenous people of Britain .....because nobody else will.”

How can they even begin to claim to stand up for the indigenous British people when their members are taking non-white wives, or are raging homosexuals. I mean, the guy that actually posted this blog is of suspicious character. His alias is Man of the Woods, and he posted on a forum about the Gay Pride festival in Swindon. In his post he said that he would fit in quite well at the Festival. That is not the words of a Nationalist. If you are a member of the Bogus Nationalist Party, I suggest you send your membership card back, and join a real nationalist party, that actually does stand up for the White British People. We at the NF stand by the 14 words: WE MUST SECURE THE EXISTANCE OF OUR PEOPLE AND A FUTURE FOR WHITE CHILDREN. The BNP leadership has said that he has grown out of the 14 words.

Make your choice, A party that doesn’t even know the meaning of Racial loyalty, or the National Front, A party based on the principles of white nationalism, a party that will never compromise just to win votes, but will instead stand firm and insure that the British people DO NOT become a minority in Britain.

BNP= The British becoming a minority in their own country.
NF= The British taking control of their land, and insuring that the white, British people determine their own destiny.


Tuesday, 12 May 2009


It has been revealed that 3 leading Labour Cabinet Ministers were linked to an organisation that was affiliated to groups that campaign for the legalisation of paedophilia.

Harriet Harman, before she became an MP, was legal officer in the late 1970’s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. Don’t let the name fool you. Though it may sound like a respectable organisation, it is indeed a sinister group. When Miss Harman joined the NCCL in 1978, PIE, or better known as the paedophile Information Exchange, had been affiliated with the NCCL for three years. Another sick and perverted group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, an offshoot of the vile Gay Liberation Front, had also been affiliated to the NCCL until it was absorbed into the PIE.

The only reason the PIE broke off its relationship with the NCCL in 1982 is because it went undercover, which was the same year that Harriet Harman left the NCCL to become a member of Parliament for Peckham.

The NCCL where responsible for keeping the name of an NCCL council member Jonathan Walters, out of the Peoples Newspaper when it ran a report on the Paedophile Action for Liberation, of which he was secretary, in 1975. The People still ran the story, but Walters was not named. The most shocking detail about this scandal is that a current Cabinet Minister was running the NCCL while all this with Walters was going on. The Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Health, became General secretary of NCCL in 1974. The very next year, while Patricia Hewitt was General Secretary, the NCCL invited the Paedophile Information Exchange and the Paedophile Action for Liberation to affiliate. A top Labour Minister was apart of an organisation that asked groups that openly campaigned for the right of adults to have sex with children. It says a lot about Labour’s mentality.

In 1976, the now notorious paedophile Tom O’Carroll was invited to address the NCCL conference, which promptly voted to “deplore” the use of chemical castration treatments of paedophiles. In 1975, Keith Hose of the Paedophile Information Exchange addressed its second annual conference. Hose moved a motion on the conference organising committee for “relegating paedophile for ancillary status in conference”. The motion was seconded by Trevor Locke, who also just to happened to be a member of the Executive Council of the NCCL. “ An awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual,” the motion went on. And it was duly passed.

Jack Dromey, who married Harriet in 1982, and is now the treasurer of the Labour Party, was also heavily involved in the NCCL. He served on its executive committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was one of the ones who would of made the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate with the NCCL.

The question that must be asked… Why did these three Labour MP’s believe that paedophiles were a minority group who’s rights have been suppressed ? And do these MP’s still have those perverted views?

The National Front believe that paedophiles have no rights, and should be given the death penalty. PROTECT OUR YOUNG, HANG PAEDOPHILE SCUM.

Sunday, 10 May 2009


This is Modern Britain. New-Labour with their Social Engineering. Below is an article from the Daily Mail.

A special investigation into a chilling modern phenomenon

A boy stripped naked, battered and left in a makeshift grave. Two little brothers sexually humiliated and tortured in a two-hour ordeal. And the attackers? Young children like themselves. DAVID JONES explores a chilling modern phenomenon...

The two attacks bore chilling similarities and they were carried out on grim Yorkshire council estates less than 30 miles apart. In both cases the victims were young and vulnerable, and an elaborate story was invented to lure them to a secluded place.

In both cases they were stripped, and saw their clothes ritually burnt before they were tortured and savagely beaten.

Most disturbingly of all, however, when police investigated these protracted and gratuitous acts of violence they discovered that the perpetrators were themselves no more than children, their ages ranging from just ten to 14 years old.

One of the attacks, which took place in Leeds - the other happened in nearby Doncaster - involved four children, who attacked a 15-year-old with a mental age of seven.

Such was the savagery of the assault that Judge Kerry Macgill described it in court as 'almost like a scene out of Lord Of The Flies, where children are left to their own devices and do simply appalling things to other children'.

After talking to those involved, I have found this reference to William Golding's disquieting novel, in which a group of schoolboys turn on one another with animalistic savagery after being stranded on a desert island, was no exaggeration.

These two cases come more than 40 years after another North Country child - 11-year-old Mary Bell - was convicted of strangling two little boys aged four and three 'solely for the pleasure and excitement of killing', as the prosecutor phrased it. At the time, a horrified nation vowed that it must never be allowed to happen again.

The same was said in 1993, when Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, two ten-year-old Merseyside boys, abducted and murdered toddler James Bulger while he was out shopping with his mother.

Yet barely a week seems to pass without news of a vicious assault by a young person, and those recent atrocities in Doncaster and Leeds - in which, as we will see, the victims were fortunate to escape with their lives - are only the latest reminder that such brutality is happening again, and with alarming regularity.

Inevitably, this raises disturbing questions. Are attacks by children really increasing, and are we correct to suppose the attackers are using ever more extreme and inventive forms of violence? If so, why?

More pressingly, what social factors are spawning this frightening new generation of potential Bells and Thompsons, and is enough being done to identify them and prevent them from developing into psychopaths?

During this investigation I have examined reams of statistics and reports, and spoken to leading experts, including two of Britain's most eminent adolescent psychiatrists, Professor Susan Bailey and Dr Eileen Vizard, both of whom gave evidence at the Bulger trial.

The picture that emerges is surprising and illuminating. Before we study it, however, we should describe in more detail the two episodes in Yorkshire. For, extreme as they may have been, the background to these incidents appears to form part of an all-too-typical pattern.

As Judge Macgill heard in court last week, the Leeds attack occurred on a sprawling red-brick council estate south of the city, where the four assailants - a girl of 14, two boys aged 11, and another boy of 13 - lived in close proximity to their 15-year-old victim.

Since the attackers all pleaded guilty to attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, the full story was not told in court.

But according to the 14-year-old girl's mother, the attack was conceived after the victim became infatuated with her.

'He stalked her for four months and would not leave her alone, spending hours standing outside her house,' she told me. 'He was constantly texting and telephoning her.'

She claims the attack happened one Sunday evening after the victim sent the 14-year-old girl - a pretty, popular teenager, who had hoped to become a nursery teacher - a particularly lewd message accompanied by a 'pornographic' image of himself.

But even supposing this story to be true - and the victim's mother strongly disputes it - then it surely cannot excuse the calculating manner in which this mentally disabled boy (who attends a special needs school and cannot even tie his own shoelaces) was ensnared, nor the horrific torture inflicted on him.

According to his mother, a 55-year-old who has seven children by several fathers, he was lured to a stretch of waste ground, hidden from the estate by a ring of trees, after the girl asked him to help her look for a mobile phone she had supposedly lost there.

When he arrived, he was grabbed by the gang. They threatened to kill him, stripped him naked, made a bonfire of his shoes and coat, urinated on him, stuck lit cigarettes up his nose, punched and kicked him and lashed him with planks and branches

Saturday, 9 May 2009


I wanted to know what services were available to asylum seekers and refugees in Swindon. So I went to interview a certain Mr Gerd Muller from the Harbour Project, in Broad Street.

The Harbour Project is a charity that provides services to asylum seekers and refugees. And the information I found was not really that shocking, not for me anyway- however, for the average Joe, who are only fed what the media and mainstream politicians want them to be fed, it may be a bit of an eye opener in various ways.

On the 7th of May, I went to the Harbour, and met Mr Muller. We sat in his Office, and as he was totally oblivious of who I am, and in actual fact didn’t have a clue that I am NF, starts off into a rant about how Asylum seekers have sub-standard housing and how they should be given more rights. And, as tempted as I was, I resisted arguing that in fact, asylum seekers have no right to be here, and in fact, if they were asylum seekers they would of resided in the next safe country, not crossing entire continents and 17+ safe countries to get to the “push over” known as Britain. But I had to keep my mouth shut and give him the impression that I was in agreement, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to get information out of him, and he would likely tell me to leave.

Anyway, after I told him that I had a place to be, and that I really needed to start the interview, he started giving me the goods.

The Harbour is a charity that is almost completely funded by the Swindon Borough Council (I am in the process of finding the exact amount from the council.) which in turn means that you, the tax payer, are funding the services that Harbour provides. So, you may be glad to hear that you, the taxpayer are paying your council tax so that the poor old “bogus” asylum seeker could use the Internet, make international phone calls, get free clothes and furniture, food parcels, and food bank vouchers, in which they can go to the Food bank in Swindon and collect a whole weeks worth of food, on top of this, the local authority provide these people, who have never paid a day of tax in their lives, with accommodation, fully paid by the council, benefits of £30 pound a week, and free educational classes in English.

Then, when the asylum seekers’ claim for asylum gets approved by the Home Office, they are then classed as refugees, which, in simple terms mean that they are citizens just without a British passport. They are then entitled to the same benefits as you, can get accommodation, and get free health care, all this while still receiving services from the Harbour, like free internet access, international calls, food parcels, food bank vouchers, clothing, furniture, ect… And while these people live on the body of our nation like leaches, British pensioners are left to rot in care homes, on state pensions that just cover the basics. Why is it fair that pensioners get less then unwanted guests that do not belong here, and have only come here to exploit the generous benefit system?

It may not be surprising to hear that since 2002, the amount of visitors to the Harbour has risen by almost 5,000 per annum. As the graph (below), which was given to me by Mr Muller, shows that in 2002/2003 the amount of visitors at the Harbour is just under 1,000, and in 2008/2009 the amount of visitors in that year was almost 6,000. As those familiar with Swindon will know, Broad Street, and the surrounding area is pretty much a non-white area, and as you will have also of noticed, what once was a relatively clean area, is now a complete dump, with rubbish dumped in every back allow. So they not only are taking taxpayers money, they are turning our streets in to their own personal dustbins.

If these so called asylum seekers were in deed, at risk in their country of origin, then they would go to the nearest safe nation. Under a National Front government, asylum seekers would cease to be brought to Britain, and future refugee assistance would take place in the country of origin of the natural disaster, famine or conflict or the nearest country that will provide a safe haven until the problems in their country of origin has been resolved. All the money that is put into the Harbour could be better spent, like on the failing educational system, or in helping the pensioners of Swindon stay warm during winter, or insuring that white, British families keep a roof over their heads. Stop wasting Tax payers’ money, VOTE NF

Thursday, 7 May 2009


The National Front has a very long history of grass root activism, which a lot of political party’s have lost, especially the three main parties ( except at election time). Since 1967, the National Front has had activities up and down the country, and to this day, we are dedicated to standing up for the Rights of the White, British People.

The nationalistic spirit still lives on in the NF, and on Saturday 16th May, the Thames Valley and Wiltshire Branch will be taking to the streets in Swindon, handing out leaflets…. For security purposes, we will not be giving the location, or the time, however, if you are interested you can call me on 07890802883, and on the 16th, I will let you know where to meet for the Day of Action. We have approximately 4,000 leaflets, and we hope to hand each and every one out…..

If you are available, even if just for a short while, then please make an effort to turn out. The more people turn up, the more leaflets will get distributed.

More activities are planned for the Thames Valley and Wiltshire area…. For instance, the Anti-Gay Pride Demo in August, Day of Action is planned for Devises ( end of May, exact day yet to be confirmed.), A branch meeting is planned to take place in Swindon in July, and a range of other activities. We must act today to secure the existence our people and a future for white children.

NF t-shirts for sale

URGENT: Please read.
Unlike the main Three parties, the NF doesn’t get funding from multi-national corporations. So, when it comes to funding for leaflets, various activities and standing candidates in General elections, we need the support of all our supporters.

So, to help raise funds, we at the Thames Valley and Wiltshire Branch of the National Front have created T-shirts, with NF designs. They are of Great quality The make of the t-shirts is Fruit of the Loom, and the designs on the Front are professionally done. We cater to your needs, in that you can either select one of our pre-made designs, or design your own. We can supply all sizes, however, in stock we only have XL left, and are awaiting a delivery of other sizes. These T-shirts will only set you back £7 pound each, which doesn't include postage.
Here are the designs we have, more will be available as soon as possible:

And as a special offer, we have a raffle in which you can win 3 NF t-shirts, ( £21 pounds worth,) plus as an extra bonus, we will throw in some NF stickers. To enter, it will cost a pound. And the closing date is the 14th June with the winner will be revealed at this branch‘s meeting which will take place in July.

To order or to enter yourself into the raffle, please text or ring 07890802883or email me on swindonnf@yahoo.co.uk, and all inquires will be answered within 24 hours.

I know that times are hard, but if Britain is ever going to pull itself out of this self-destructive rut that Lib-Lab- Con have got us into, we must put forward pro- white British candidates, and deliver leaflets as often as possible, but we cant do this without your help

Wednesday, 6 May 2009


As some of you will be aware, the BNP are known as a White Nationalist political organisation. However, I have found a quote from the leader of the BNP which clealy states his true feelings about the white people in this country....

"I used to believe in the 14 Words but I have grown out of it" - Nick Griffin.

Now, for those who don't what he means by the "14 Words", he means the well known quote which was first said by David Lane... The words are as follows...


How can the BNP even claim to be the voice of the White British people when their leader doesn't even believe in the 14 words...

We at the National Front fully believe in the 14 words, and will fight to insure that white children have a future. To any BNP members who are reading this- I don't mean the new breed of Neo-conservatives- i suggest you reconsider your membership.


The Equalities Minister Harriet Harman has revealed that the Labour regime will formerly introduce anti-white legislation in the awarding of Government contracts. The measures will mean that firms that want tax-payer funded work could be judged on brand new criteria including their gender and how many Non-whites they employ. This basically means that a company that employs British workers, even if they can deliver services at a much cheaper rate and much more efficiently, will be pushed aside in favour of company’s that employ the “correct” number of non-whites.

In the usual messed up logic of the liberal left, Ms Harman has said that her new Equalities Bill will mean the annual £175 billion public procurement budget will be used to promote “equality”. WRONG! Instead, her bill will force employers to favour female and non-white job applicants over equally qualified white men in order to make up the race quotas. As she herself inadvertently admits, Labour’s new bill will favour companies who employ non-whites…. She said “ All other things being equal, if there are two companies bidding for a contract and one has a much better equality record, then it would be down to the procuring authority to choose that one.” Ms Harman’s version of “equality” is in fact anti-white male discrimination.
No matter what label you put on it, it all amounts to discrimination….

And, we at the National Front are not the only ones to see fault in the new bill. I think it is worth noting that business leaders have said that Ms Harman’s bill will harm the UK economy. Miles Templeman, Director General of the Institute of Directors, said; “ Harriet Harman must be the only person in Britain to believe that in the midst of some of the most difficult business conditions in years, introducing yet more regulation is a way of “boosting economic recovery”.”

Proof of institutional racism within Britain’s Police force.

In Bolton, the Local Police Authority have gone out of the way to recruit black police officers. Police are meeting with Ethnic minority leaders to discuss ways to attract more non-police officers. Representatives from the Greater Manchester Police meet with community worker Donald Gayle and other Community Members to discuss ways of increasing ethnic minority applications, one of their ideas is when there is an open evening, they will serve African and Caribbean food.

Ok, when I first heard this story, I was angered. At the end of the day, you would prefer the Police to be making more effort to employ people who are fully qualified for the job; but instead the Politically Corrupt police force are more focused on filling non-white quotas….



An ex-Labour Minister claimed last week that the UK would have to build a house every six seconds around the clock for 20 years to keep up with the influx of immigrants. The former Welfare Minister, Frank Field, said that 70 percent of population growth in that 20 year time frame would be down to the influx of non-Britons. This amounts to 7 million people- or to but it in a different perspective, that is 7 new Birmingham’s.

Its not often that someone from Labour actually give the facts about immigration. And it is a very rare occasion that I agree with someone from Labour, but, I do agree with Frank when he said that the only losers are the indigenous Britons. And, its time that the British people woke the hell up to the current situation that Britain finds itself in. We are running out of time. It has been predicted that within the next hundred years that the native, white, British People will be a minority in their own country.

When we reach a situation that 40 percent of all houses built in Britain over the last decade have been given to immigrants-is official statistics suggest- then we must start to realise that we are losing our country..

Nearly 600,000 properties have been needed to house immigrants since 1997- an average of 66,000 each year from 1997 to 2005 ( the latest year figures are available)- making it a grand total of 592,000 homes. And experts say that this number would have risen since 2005 due to mass eastern European immigration.

We wouldn’t need to build so many houses- 40 percent less. We need to preserve our pleasant green land, we are a small country, we limited space, we cannot keep building, because, not before too long, we will have run out of space, and then what. Vote National Front, and insure that our children and our grand children have a land to live off. WE MUST SECURE THE EXISTANCE OF OUR PEOPLE AND A FUTURE FOR WHITE CHILDREN.

Tuesday, 5 May 2009


It has been revealed that the European Union costs the UK economy ten per cent of its Gross Domestic Product, or £148.2billion- Which would be enough to either abolish income tax for a year or cut the national debt by 24 per cent. I haven’t just plucked these figures out from the top of my head. These figures were released last week in a new report on the costs of EU regulation issued by the respected think tank Open Europe.

The study found that 72 per cent of the cost of regulation in the UK stems from EU legislation- basically, the EU regulations which have been introduced over the last 10 years has cost the UK economy almost £107 billion.

Open Europe is a London based think tank which was set up by British business men and women who campaign for reform in the European Union. It has some prominent supporters such as, Lord Leach of Fairford ( he is Open Europe’s chairman.); Derek Scott ( deputy chairman) who was economics advisor to Tony Blair and is currently a visiting professor at London’s Cass Business School; Michael Spencer. He founded and is currently Chief Executive of Icap, the world’s largest interdealer broker; and Simon Wolfson, who is Chief Executive of Next..

The 71 page report measured a decade of the cost that EU regulation has inflicted on Britain since the British government introduced a system of regulatory “Impact Assessments”.

Open Europe used information derived from well over 2,000 of these Impact Assessments, and the following is its conclusions:

Over the ten years, the amount of laws being made in both Whitehall and Brussels has risen dramatically. Open Europe found that the amount of legal acts in force in the EU has risen from 10,800 in 1998 to over 26,000 in 2008. As Open Europe pointed out; the number of regulations adopted each and every year points out the trends, however, they point out that more importantly is the actual cost to the economy.

In 2005, the UK launched its “Regulatory Reform Agenda“; and since then the cost of regulation has risen from £16.5 billion in 2005 to a staggering £28.7 billion in 2008- which means an enormous increase of 74 per cent. Also, the cumulative cost of regulations introduced into Britain between 1998 and 2005 is a jaw-dropping £148.2billion, which, as stated above, is an equivalent to 10 per cent of GDP. This is mental. How can any government allow such wastes. With that £148.2 billion, the British government could abolish income tax, or help get Britain out of debt, cause that staggering amount could pay off 24 per cent off the national debt. All that money lost because of our membership to the tyrannical EU.

According to the report, if current regulation trends continue, by 2018, the cost of EU regulation since 1998 would amount to more than £356 billion. This is about £14,300 per British household. And again, for this insanely high amount, the government could abolish income tax for two years and still have a hell of a lot left over, or they could pay off 60 per cent of this nations debt.

EU labour laws account for a total of 24 per cent of UK’s regulation costs. Labour market legislation that has been introduced in the UK in the last 10 years has cost the British economy £45 billion, of which a huge 69 per cent came from the EU- that’s £31billion. This means folks that 21 percent of the total cost of EU regulations in the UK can be traced to the EU’s labour market laws. And the government could of actually done their job and invest public money in a sensible manner- for instance, that £45 billion could cut corporation tax by two thirds.. But instead it gets wasted because of our EU membership.

All the above is just the tip of one hell of an iceberg. I would be here all day if I was to point every single bit of taxpayers money gets wasted because of our governments determination to be apart of the down right tyrannical European Union. We must end this madness, and get the hell out of the EU before its too late.. Join the National Front today, and join the fight for our peoples future…. Don’t let future generations pay for our mistakes.

Sunday, 3 May 2009


Here are some pictures from this years NEWCASTLE NF ST.GEORGE'S DAY ACTION. Well done to everyone who made it to the event.

Intergration being taught in schools must STOP NOW

The promotion of integration in our school classrooms have lead to enormous and disastrous problems. Violent behaviour among the young is becoming more common as our children are forced into multi-cultural and diversity programs, which forces different races together. For the most part, when an area gets overcrowded with non-whites, the area becomes plagued with violence and crime, ( Penhill, Pinehurst and Broadgreen are shining examples in Swindon.) and the white residents relocate. However, those that remain, become a minority and all too often become the victims of “reverse” discrimination, racial intimidation and violence. In such “diversified” areas, the schools are a haven for trouble. Teachers and school administrators are finding it increasingly difficult to provide a safe environment for the children. In actual fact, the teachers themselves are sometimes intimidated and threatened in racially mixed schools.

White students are becoming alienated by textbooks, which now promote minority pride, while at the same time promotes white guilt for slavery and past racial discrimination. Whites are collectively blamed for slavery even though it is historical fact that a) only a very small percentage of whites owned slaves and b) there were also white slaves, known as indentured servants, during the same period. While it is ok for them to blame the entire white race for slavery, it is wrong for us whites to point out that 80 percent of muggers are black, ( which was admitted by the police commissioner), in actual fact, by stating the latter, you could be arrested for Inciting Racial Hatred. The constant recital of the evils of slavery and racial discrimination only increases black hostility and aggression towards the white population. That hostility, when combined with the high rate of black violence, poses an increased danger of racially motivated criminal behaviour. Thus, most of the campaigns against “race hate” actually foster and promote aggression and violence against the white race.

The National Front believes that integration should not be forced upon our children.

Proof of institutional racism within Britain’s Police force.

In Bolton, the Local Police Authority have gone out of the way to recruit black police officers. Police are meeting with Ethnic minority leaders to discuss ways to attract more non-police officers. Representatives from the Greater Manchester Police meet with community worker Donald Gayle and other Community Members to discuss ways of increasing ethnic minority applications, one of their ideas is when there is an open evening, they will serve African and Caribbean food.

Ok, when I first heard this story, I was angered. At the end of the day, you would prefer the Police to be making more effort to employ people who are fully qualified for the job; but instead the Politically Corrupt police force are more focused on filling non-white quotas….



The Equalities Minister Harriet Harman has revealed that the Labour regime will formerly introduce anti-white legislation in the awarding of Government contracts. The measures will mean that firms that want tax-payer funded work could be judged on brand new criteria including their gender and how many Non-whites they employ. This basically means that a company that employs British workers, even if they can deliver services at a much cheaper rate and much more efficiently, will be pushed aside in favour of company’s that employ the “correct” number of non-whites.

In the usual messed up logic of the liberal left, Ms Harman has said that her new Equalities Bill will mean the annual £175 billion public procurement budget will be used to promote “equality”. WRONG! Instead, her bill will force employers to favour female and non-white job applicants over equally qualified white men in order to make up the race quotas. As she herself inadvertently admits, Labour’s new bill will favour companies who employ non-whites…. She said “ All other things being equal, if there are two companies bidding for a contract and one has a much better equality record, then it would be down to the procuring authority to choose that one.” Ms Harman’s version of “equality” is in fact anti-white male discrimination.
No matter what label you put on it, it all amounts to discrimination….

And, we at the National Front are not the only ones to see fault in the new bill. I think it is worth noting that business leaders have said that Ms Harman’s bill will harm the UK economy. Miles Templeman, Director General of the Institute of Directors, said; “ Harriet Harman must be the only person in Britain to believe that in the midst of some of the most difficult business conditions in years, introducing yet more regulation is a way of “boosting economic recovery”.”


Figures released last week reveal that a Government scheme to stop families from losing their homes has only helped one household since its launch in January… So basically, just another failure to add to Labour’s ever increasing list.

The £200 million Mortgage Rescue Scheme was supposedly aimed to protect the most vulnerable homeowners by enabling them to sell all or part of their property to a registered Social Landlord. But insanely, out of the 452 households that applied since January, only ONE has so far been helped, according to the figures.

Even the Lib-Dems have noticed how appalling this is. The Liberal Democrat Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Teather said the following; “ Tens of thousands of families will face the misery of repossession and homelessness this year but the government’s scheme has helped just one household. This is an appalling failure by a Government that is more interested in headline-grabbing then in helping families through the economic crisis.” I couldn’t of said it better myself.

Figures show that a total of 1,104 households approached their local authority asking for help as they are getting swamped under with mortgage difficulties during March, of which 407 were deemed to be in a priority need category due to the fact that they had young children or were elderly. This is the miserable situation that Britain finds itself in, due to the incompetent Labour Government. However, even though they caused this mess, they are not doing anything to remedy the situation.

Some may point to the Government’s Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme. The simple fact is this folks, the scheme was revealed back in December, but it has come available to homeowners with certain lenders this month. During this period a total of 28,000 families have lost their homes.

The government are not doing what is needed to help out homeowners. The council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that repossessions will soar to 75,000 this year, up from 40,000 last year, which is the highest figure for 12 years. The Government should stop with pointless schemes, meant only to give the impression of them being pro-active, and instead should actually give help to British families who are struggling in this economic hell-hole they created.