HAYDON WICK PARISH COUNCIL CALL POLICE TO STOP DEMOCRACY

As some of you may be aware, tomorrow was supposed to be the date that we held a meeting in Haydon Wick concerning a possible referendum, which would of given the local people a chance to voice their opinions on the proposal.

This was the opportunity for true democracy to take place; however, the local councillors have gone against their duty- ie, provide the local people with a voice, be them on a local or national issue- and have called the police to ensure that I do not turn up tomorrow to hold this very important meeting. They have also failed to contact me concerning this, and have left the police banging on my door to tell (warn?) me not to turn up tomorrow. To be honest, if they didn't want me to hold the meeting they could of told me, either by phone, post or email, since I provided them with all three details.

This has forced me to cancel the meeting. The council are refusing to hold this meeting and in essence are against giving the people of Haydon Wick a voice. But don’t threat, this certainly will not deter us from what we aim to achieve- true democracy!

After discussing this with other local committee members, we have decided we will hold a parish meeting in January when we have found an appropriate location in the parish, since the parish council will not allow us use of the public building.

NATIONAL FRONT PRESS RELEASE TO UK POLICE

A TIMELY REMINDER TO THE POLICE

I am writing to all police forces within the UK to inform them and advise them of OUR rights under the law, as it is being reported to me by branches across the country that police officers are abusing these hard fought for rights.
I would ask you to insure that your officers are well versed in the Human Rights act as detailed below and suggest that perhaps further training is required in some cases.

The National Front and its members are fed up with the actions of politized police officers across our country. We are no longer prepared to sit back and accept these anti-democratic actions by uniformed bullies.
Examples of the abuses reported are: - Members being asked for their names and addresses’ illegally, when this would not happen with any other parties’ members.
Accusations that leaflets are ‘illegal’, when we check them before they are printed to make sure they are ‘legal’.

General bullying tactics, harassment and hassle and attempts to disrupt the ‘political processes, in itself against the law.
Police officers told that the National Front is racist, being therefore anti-NF and preconditioned to respond in an aggressive manner initially.
We also expect your officers to ‘wear’ their shoulder numbers ‘and’ to indentify themselves with their name, rank and police station when requested as per the law.
There have been many instances reported to us that police officers have over stepped the mark and abused their powers.

We will also in future be instructing our members to demand copies of our images taken by your officers without OUR permission both still and moving re: the Data Protection Act.

For this reason we are instructing our members on their rights and in future should these abuses of power continue the officers concerned will have ‘official’ complaints made against them through the IPCC.

The details of these abuses will also receive prominence on the front page of our website.

We wish to work with the police especially when we are organising demonstrations and will continue to do so, but we demand that police officers treat us as participants in the political process and therefore acting legally.

“Please find below the areas where police training is required”


Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of expression. Before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, the right to freedom of expression was a negative one: you were free to express yourself, unless the law otherwise prevented you from doing so. With the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English and Welsh domestic law, the right to freedom of expression is now expressly guaranteed.

However, the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 is not absolute. Interferences with the right to freedom of expression may be permitted if they are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and are necessary in a democratic society, that is, satisfy a pressing social need. The legitimate purposes for which freedom of expression can be limited are:

* National security, territorial integrity or public safety.
* The prevention of disorder or crime.
* The protection of health or morals.
* The protection of the reputation or rights of others.
* The prevention of the disclosure of information received in confidence.
* For maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Historic Right to Peaceful Protest
‘To speak of rights at all in this context is to recognise the constitutional shift which is now in progress.’
Mr Justice Stephen Sedley, November 1999

Public protest is deeply rooted in our political culture. There have been countless times in the past - even in the recent past - when public demonstrations of support for a cause, or opposition to a policy or government, have changed the course of history. 'People power' can be a potent political force, whether at a national or a local level; whether to do with political causes or single issues; whether in support of striking workers or bereaved families, or in opposition to globalisation, or the waging of unjustified wars. When people have nothing else to fight with, it is often their solidarity with each other - to stand together and be counted across communities and even across continents - which proves to be their most powerful weapon.

For as long as there have been governments there have been rules to restrict protest and dissent. Over the centuries the law in this area has developed piecemeal, adapting to the prevailing attitudes and concerns of the governments and courts of the day. This dynamic process reflects the struggle that lies at the heart of public order law - the natural tension between the amount of freedom we demand as demonstrators and the amount of restriction we as electors permit our Parliament to impose.

For centuries, legislators have resisted the notion of positive rights in the field of public protest and political expression. Whilst it might have been said that we were free to do anything which was not otherwise proscribed by law, to say that we had a positive right to assemble, to march together, to chant and to campaign - rights that might be weighed against the undoubted rights of property owners, road users or business people - was to swim against a strong current of judicial thinking and an ever-rising tide of repressive legislation, which appeared to tolerate protest only if it did not challenge or cause inconvenience to anyone. The constitutional shift that fundamentally altered this position was the incorporation into domestic law, in October 2000, of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). In the field of political protest the Convention has effect in four key areas:

• Right to Peaceful Assembly – Article 11
• Right to Freedom of Expression - Article 10
• Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion – Article 9
• Right to respect for private and family life – Article 8

It forbids any public body, such as the police and local government, from acting in ways that conflict with the principles set out in the Convention.

It enables demonstrators to use the courts, in principle, to challenge decisions that would restrict protest; and might enable them to mount defences to non-violent criminal offences connected with political protest.


Article 11: Freedom of Assembly and Association
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the state.

There are two aspects to Article 11. It protects the right to peaceful assembly, which includes the freedom to hold public or private meetings, demonstrations, rallies and sit-ins, without interference from the State.

This may include a positive obligation on the State to ensure that demonstrators are protected from counter-demonstrators trying to prevent their demonstration. However, it does not generally include a positive obligation on the State to ensure that the right to peaceful assembly is protected on private property (Appleby v UK 2003).

Article 11 also protects the freedom to associate with others, including the right to form or join a political party or other group or association, and the right to belong to a trade union. However, the right to join a trade union does not extend to police officers, soldiers and some other groups who work for the Government. Article 11 also guarantees the right not to have to associate with others, including the right not to join a union and imposes a positive obligation on the State to secure this.

Article 11 is a qualified right. This means that an interference with the right can be justified. The circumstances in which an interference can be justified are similar to those which justify an interference with rights under Article 8 (See section headed ‘A qualified right’ under Article 8). You should note that a requirement to obtain prior authorisation or to provide prior information about an assembly will not constitute an interference with the freedom of assembly where the purpose of the requirements falls within one the legitimate aims set out in Article 11(2).

Tom Linden
National Press Officer National Front
Email nfpressoffice@googlemail.com

FIRST IT WAS THE "JEDI" POLICE, NOW IT'S THE MEGAPHONES POLICE

Among the constabulary's hierarchy, faced with a spate of burglaries, it was probably seen as 'innovative policing'.

Officers were armed with megaphones and told to bark warnings at homeowners who left doors and windows open during warm weather.

Police community support officers and constables took to the streets of Northampton and began bellowing: 'This is the police. Shut your windows and lock your doors. Don't let burglars in.'

When crime figures began to drop, Northamptonshire police gave themselves a pat on the back.
Loud and clear: PC Julie Allington in action with her megaphone

But homeowners were less congratulatory. They are furious about the 'intrusive and patronising' policy, which even allowed officers to enter homes where doors had been left ajar.

Residents have a different view as to why crime figures have improved - because, for once, there are patrols in the area and not because of the amplified orders.

Anthony Whitehead, 59, described the idea as 'bizarre'. 'The sound of the megaphone scares old people and it will alert the burglars to where the police are so they can avoid them,' he said. 'They should do some proper police work.'

Grandmother Shirley Partridge, 75, said: 'I don't want police officers coming into my house and bellowing at me with a megaphone. All they are doing is setting my dog off barking.'

Police took action after 30 burglaries in the Thorplands and Lumbertubs areas of Northampton.

For the last fortnight, officers have been using the megaphones during daylight hours.
They are not allowed to test door handles and windows but may enter a house if they see a door open.

Once inside, they call out for the owner and may wake someone who has dozed off.

Inspector Mike Grady defended the scheme, saying: 'Sadly, a good proportion of burglaries in this county take place at homes that have been left unsecured.

A burglar can be in and out of your home with your wallet, mobile or keys in just seconds if your door is unlocked.

'It costs nothing to turn the key in the lock but it could cost you thousands to replace the items a burglar steals, before you even know he's been.'

He added: 'We have noticed a drop in burglaries in the Thorplands and Lumbertubs area since we launched this scheme on April.

'The tactic is designed to drive home the message that people should always make sure they lock up their homes.'

In February it emerged the force had recommended all town centre licensed premises to install CCTV. The Big Brother move, which had been adopted by several forces, was described by the Information Commissioner's office as raising 'serious privacy concerns'.
Last year a security van made a 120-mile round-trip to move a prisoner 200 yards between Northampton Crown Court and the magistrates court to avoid breaching his human rights.
The van was sent from Cambridge after police said it would have been degrading for the offender to be seen in public in handcuffs.( TAKEN FROM http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176122/This-police--lock-doors-windows-Officers-shout-warnings-homeowners-megaphones-burglary-crackdown.html)

Every phone call, email or website visit 'to be monitored'! POLICE STATE BRITAIN!

Every phone call, email or website visit will be monitored by the state under plans to be unveiled next week.


The proposals will give police and security services the power to snoop on every single communication made by the public with the data then likely to be stored in an enormous national database.


The precise content of calls and other communications would not be accessible but even text messages and visits to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter would be tracked.


The move has alarmed civil liberty campaigners, and the country's data protection watchdog last night warned the proposals would be "unacceptable".


Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, will argue the powers are needed to target terrorists and serious criminals who are taking advantage of the increasing complex nature of communications to plot atrocities and crimes.


A consultation document on the plans, known in Whitehall as the Interception Modernisation Programme, is likely to put great emphasis on the threat facing Britain and warn the alternative to the powers would be a massive expansion of surveillance.


But that will fuel concerns among critics that the Government is using a climate of fear to expand the surveillance state.


Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, the country's data watchdog, told the Daily Telegraph: "I have no problem with the targeted surveillance of terrorist suspects.


"But a Government database of the records of everyone's communications – if that is to be proposed – is not likely to be acceptable to the British public. Remember that records – who? when? where? – can be highly intrusive even if no content is collected."


It is understood Mr Thomas is concerned that even details on who people contact or sites they visit could intrude on their privacy, such as data showing an individual visiting a website selling Viagra.


Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer, last month revealed he was considering lobbying ministers over the proposal, which he described as "overkill".


The proposed powers will allow police and security services to monitor communication "traffic", which is who calls, texts, emails who, when and where but not what is said.


Similarly they will be able to see which websites someone visits, when and from where but not the content of those visits.


However, if the data sets alarm bells ringing, officials can request a ministerial warrant to intercept exactly what is being sent, including the content.


The consultation is expected to include three options on how the "traffic" information is then stored: a "super database" held by the Government, a database held and run by a quango or private company at arms' length, or an order to communication providers to store every detail in their own systems, which can then be accessed by the security services is necessary.


A memo written by sources close to the project and leaked last year revealed it was fraught with technical difficulties.


Ms Smith has already claimed local authorities will not have access to the data but the Tories have warned of the "exponential increase in the powers of the state'', while the Liberal Democrats have dubbed the plans "Orwellian" and deeply worrying.


Security services fear a failure to monitor all forms of communications effectively will hamper their ability to combat terrorists and serious criminals. Sir Stephen Lander, chairman of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, said: "Any significant reduction in the capability of law enforcement agencies to acquire and exploit intercept intelligence and evidential communications data would lead to more unsolved murders, more firearms on our streets, more successful robberies, more unresolved kidnaps, more harm from the use of Class A drugs, more illegal immigration and more unsolved serious crime."
( This article can be viewed at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5215413/Every-phone-call-email-or-website-visit-to-be-monitored.html)

The betrayal of the British Public

This, i am afraid to tell you is what the British electorate has subjected us to, when you vote for those vile creatures currently in Government, this is what you get! The above shows how the British Government are selling White, British Jobs on the cheap to the world, importing unwanted guests who cause social problems such as racial tensions, social discord, and anti-white racism. Read the above and then tell me that New-Labour are looking out for the British people.......

RACE AND CRIME: THE FACTS!

There seems to be a huge miss understanding when it comes to the subject of crime, and how race does in fact play a huge factor. Those on the left and in the pc media like to paint a picture of the white man as being the one who commits the majority of crime to install a sense of guilt in our people and to make them submissive to their plan of breeding out the white race by the continuation of non-European immigration to Britain.

There are statistics galore to prove that in fact non-whites are more criminally active than white people. For instance, according to the document Statistics on Race and Crime and the Criminal System produced by the Home Office in 2002, in the 3 year period, mid- 1999 to mid- 2002, a black person was 68 times more likely to kill a white person in Britain than vice versa.... Bare in mind that these figures were compiled before 3 Asians and a Jamaican slaughtered 52 people in July 2005.

What a different picture that paints from what the biased media and the socialists love to claim. They love to make us out to be the violent racists who attack non-whites at any given opportunity, however as these figures indicate, they are more likely to attack us, and when they do attack us it never is reported as it should be.... A RACIST ATTACK... when a white attacks a non-white its always a racist attack, when a non-white attacks a white its always a random attack, or so those in power and the socialists love to claim. Take the case of Henry Webster who was attacked at school grounds in Wroughton, just outside Swindon, by a group of lads who called themselves the Asian Invasion. Their name itself shows that they have racial intentions and then they attack Mr Webster with Weapons and is called a random attack, and anyone who even attempts to label it as racially motivated must be a bigot and ignorant since we all know that non-whites cant be racist..... Right?

And it isn’t just racist crime... A 2007 police report on London's gang culture identified 169 separate gangs and almost half of these had committed serious assaults and more than a quarter had been involved in murder, the largest number of gangs were in the areas which had an abundance of non-whites, the report also states that most of the gang members were black, with Asians coming in at a close second..... These are the people that our Government and Liberals claim to enrich our society, the race hate laws are there to protect these people, from us the law-abiding Britons....

So they dominate the gang culture and they are more likely to murder us than the other way round, and they are the victims of racial hatred? I don’t think so.
These are the people which the Government you voted for and successive Governments have allowed to invade our countries, they are hell bent on "integrating" these people into our society. There is a slight problem with the assumption that those who come from rather un-civilised countries and countries plagued with violence and corruption will come to our countries and automatically become civil and peaceful..... Some do no doubt, however if all you know is violence and corruption and than that is how you will act, and that is how these non-whites act, they act the way that they know... Violent....Like in January 2004, according to the BBC, 59% of rapists were white and 69% of the rapists were black... considering they only ( for now) amount to about 17% of the population, when put into proportion, it is very alarming.

Chief Superintendent Eric Hewlitt stated that Asians committed 90 out of 125 racial attacks in Oldham involving physical injury during 1997, and of the 64,100 reported being attacked in 1997, the vast majority of the muggers were non-white.

Now can someone please explain how since the white Briton constitutes almost 80% of the population, that in relation to non-whites they commit less crime and are less violent, yet the media are all to quick to label whites as the violent racists. We, my fellow country men, are being attacked left right and centre, both physically and through slander by the political correct media. No one in authority is on our side, they are traitors and only look after the interests of the minority, even to the extent that they cover up racial attacks on our people so that the minority don’t look so bad and the natives will be more accepting of the invaders, while they do this they blacken the name of the white man, drag it through the dirt, until whites start feeling guilty of their own and start also working for the interest of the invader....... we must stop this brainwashing being instigated by the traitors in both government and the media, we must wake our fellow country men and women up from their alien induced sleep and get them to start to work for the interests of their own people. The time for action is now, become active.... Vote for the one true British Nationalist Party left in Britain...... NATIONAL FRONT..... Putting Britain First Since 1967.

REAL BIG BROTHER!

I posted this after i read the article from the Swindon Advertiser about local councilors saying yes to increased CCTV in Swindon. The link to the article is

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/search/3663889.Big_brother_will_be_watching_you/ check it out