FAKE NEWS: BBC Lies About Supporting Multiculturalism

Written by Cigpapers

Additional research and photos by Watt Tyler

In the United Kingdom  every household (with a few exceptions) is forced to pay a license fee of £147 (2017) whether they ever watch the BBC or not.

The BBC is notorious for its pro gay and pro paedophile reporting, and its support for multiculturalism (AKA the Kalergi Plan).  The BBC also spent decades covering up muslim “grooming gangs” raping, drugging and pimping out up to one million White girls in Britain.

 

The BBC is only granted its Charter to extort £147 every year from most households in the United Kingdom on the basis of it being politically impartial. This Charter then gives the BBC the right to extort £147 from virtually every household in the UK, and to have houses searched for TV equipment by Capita agents.


Any protest about the BBC’s involvement in paedophile rings and political corruption is usually met with extreme force and violence.

On 10th October 2103 a Freedom Of Information Act request was sent to the BBC asking “Does the BBC have a policy of promoting multiculturalism?”  The BBC reply is here:

7 November 2013 
 
Dear Mr Moran 
 
Freedom of Information Request – RFI20131470 
 
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) received on 10 
October, seeking the following information: 
 
Does the BBC have a policy of promoting multiculturalism?
  

The BBC does not have a policy on promoting multiculturalism.  Impartiality is one of the BBC’s core 
editorial values which are set out in the Royal Charter which establishes its constitution and sets out its 
main obligations.  The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines state that: “We wil  apply due impartiality to all our subject
matter and wil  reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period,
so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented” 
and that “our output is
forbidden from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy.”
  This would apply 

to any public discourse on multiculturalism as a public policy debate. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/  
  
However, the Charter does require the BBC to promote six public purposes through its main activities 
such as its programming. One of the public purposes is Representing the Nations, Regions and Communities
The BBC Trust Purpose Remit document states that this means that “The BBC should ‘promote awareness of
different cultures and alternative viewpoints, through content that reflects the lives of different people and different
communities within the UK
”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/tools_we_use/public_purposes.html  

  
To assist the BBC to meet this purpose, the BBC’s Diversity Strategy includes a strategic equality and 
diversity objective to “Deliver high quality programming which reflects modern Britain accurately and
authentically” 
and this objective would be inclusive of reflecting ethnic and religious diversity on air. The 

strategy also details other aspects of the BBC’s approach to diversity across the corporation’s activity to 
ensure not just its programming but that its people, its approach to its audience and its strategy for the 
future are all consciously addressing further diversity. You can find out more about the BBC and diversity 
at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/strategy/documents.html  
 

The link for this Freedom Of Information Act request is here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/180620/response/447569/attach/html/3/RFI20131470%20Final%20Response.pdf.html

CAMPAIGN AND RESOURCES : “Multiculturalism Is Genocide” note stamps

Written by cigpapers

With the “MULTICULTURALISM IS GENOCIDE” sticker campaign now reaching most parts of the UK we’re now launching a parallel campaign with note stamps. The stamps are high quality TRAXX self-inking stamps with a lifetime warranty. The campaign is very simple – just stamp everywhere you legally can with the stamp.

img780

The stamp design has a 34mm diameter.

Small denomination bank notes are the easiest way to circulate the stamp design where legal. Even if you don’t have a stamp join the campaign by simply writing slogans such as : “Multiculturalism Is Genocide” or “#WR” or “#WhiteGenocide” etc. on banknotes where legal.

img784

TRAXX self-inking stamps with a lifetime warranty.

The stamps are £15 with UK delivery or £22 outside the UK. If you want a stamp with 200 stickers/leaflets to the UK it is £20. Paypal money to instock@gmx.com

Political Persecution In The ‘FREE’ Country Of Great Britain

Written by Boadacea

Is one free to object to the political policy of immigration?

Often we hear about the oppressive regimes around the world, the absence of freedom in various countries and the political persecution of dissenters in those places. Frequently we are expected to give political asylum to those people who claim asylum in our country after them allegedly being persecuted for their beliefs in some horrible oppressive country elsewhere. We hear that the Muslims hate us and attack us because they ‘hate our freedoms’. There is a constant stream of statements that reinforce the belief, albeit sometimes by implication, that we in this country are ‘free’.

However, are we free? Are political dissenters persecuted, suppressed or oppressed? Are we free to discuss and hear political policies/ideas/facts?

Well of course we are not free. We live under a massive level of surveillance, with our communications, movements and data monitored and collected. We are forced to work for many extra hours a week to pay our taxes (being forced to work without reward and under duress is not being free). We can be arrested and imprisoned if we offend a member of a more important group(1) (yet us being offended counts for almost nothing(2)).However, here the focus is on the issue of political oppression. Is this country free in a political sense(3)? There are various ways in which political freedom could be examined. For example, may one express one’s political beliefs, proposed policies, etc. without fear or sanction? Are people free to examine and discuss political ideas and related facts (historical or otherwise)? Are certain political ideas suppressed, and their proponents persecuted? Are people scared to express certain dissenting views? Space does not permit a full examination of the concept of political freedom, and this short essay will focus on the issue of whether a particular political idea is suppressed, and its proponents oppressed and/or persecuted. Actually, it is a particular form of dissent – dissenting from the government’s political policy of mass immigration.

Is opposition to immigration inhibited in this ‘free’ country?
In a ‘free’ country a political view cannot be banned – that would expose lack of freedom; the people need to believe they are living in a ‘free democratic’ state, it helps to keep them from rising up against an oppressive regime. However, can a government suppress a dissenting view and/or oppress its proponents to the extent that the dissent poses no effective threat? Can the government with the arms of the state (and media, etc.) effectively suppress dissent to their political policy of mass immigration to the point that there is no effective opposition?

If people face persecution, and even prosecution, for expressing a certain political view and/or dissent to a certain political policy, then this is political suppression. If the arms of the state, including the state-broadcaster (the BBC), the education system, etc. all agree on a particular political policy and propagandise its greatness, then this can act to inhibit certain political ideas. If political parties (and/or their supporters) that object to a certain political policy face persecution by the state, then this is political oppression. If open debate on a government political policy is effectively impossible, then this is inhibition of dissent. If all major media organisations demonise those who express dissent to a political policy, then this has a psychological/emotional effect on the public, and acts to suppress dissent. If the information given to the public in relation to a political policy (and related matters) is distorted or censored, and even untrue, then this can act to manipulate people and suppress dissent.

In relation to open debate and discussion of the political policy of mass immigration, it is almost impossible to hold a rational and fair debate on this topic. Debate is inhibited by various means. One such means of suppressing open debate is that of straightforward banning of debate. Often this is phrased in a saccharin-coated phrase such as ‘no platform for ‘racists’’ or ‘no platform for fascists’ and suchlike rather than openly stating that this idea is banned from discussion.

21062011515[1]

21062011515[1]

The National Union of Students (NUS) bans any speech that is labelled by them as ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’; this ban under the ‘no platform’ guise(4). People using these sorts of phrases attempt to deceive others as to what is really going on: really these people are stopping certain political ideas, facts, beliefs, etc. from being stated or heard. This ‘no platform’ also achieves many other matters, including: giving the impression, albeit by implication, that dissenters are not worthy of being heard; achieving an ‘immunity from criticism (or truth)’(5); etc. However, by claiming a ‘high moral ground’ this ban on debate purports to be for some sort of moral reasons. Of course, the nebulous-power-word ‘racism’ is not a proper word, so such cries are not rational(6). Also, the term ‘fascist’ is thrown around in a non-rational manner (see Orwell(7)), in fact, often in an ironic manner; could it not be classed as ‘fascist’ under some of its definitions to ban open debate of dissenting views? Could one not label the banning of certain inconvenient truths as fascist?

This silencing of certain political ideas/beliefs, etc. is found in many contexts. As well as the ‘no platform’ in universities, there is a ban on dissent in many other contexts (including businesses, schools, state organisations such as the NHS, etc.) and only certain views can be heard or stated. Even during our elections such silencing is found to occur. For example, Mr Nick Griffin was not allowed to give his election declaration speech on stage during the 2001 elections, this prompting Mr Griffin and Mr Treacy to wear gags while on the stage with the other candidates(8):

img609

img610

In some contexts gagging of dissenters is claimed to be for reasons of ‘maintaining the peace’ or ‘community cohesion’ or suchlike – this usually prompted by threats or actual instances of violence(9) and other crimes by ‘lefties’ and/or immigrants.

$(KGrHqUOKjkE29zTBlvOBN1V4K3e3!~~_12

So violence by those supporting the government’s political views is used as an excuse to gag dissenters(10). Surely the police should act to stop the violence? Enforce the law? Would such threats, were they ever to occur, by anti-immigration proponents be pandered to in this manner? Does this mean that the most criminal and violent win? Is this a safe message for the state to be sending out? Is this moral? Interestingly, those threatening and involved in such crime and violence frequently are linked to the government in various ways(11), which might explain the lack of the law being enforced when they break it(12). Such people could hence be being used by the government as a form of informal/unaccountable/deniable enforcers(13). Such people act as state-sponsored enforcers, but with full deniability by the state(14). This all further acts to intimidate the people from dissenting to this government policy.

11111111

Another means by which dissent from the political policy of immigration is inhibited is, of course, the fear of being labelled ‘racist’. ‘Racism’ is a nebulous-power-word, not a properly-defined term, and should not be used in rational discourse. However, it is this very fact of low referentiality that largely contributes to the power of this term (as analysed and explained by Dr Thomas Turner(15)). The establishment has contributed significantly to the social construction of this term (see Dr Turner’s book qv). People fear the consequences of being labelled as ‘racist’ – these consequences including the social(16), financial, legal and also the physical fear of being attacked by ‘anti-racists’ and/or immigrants. Most people understand that the law is not properly/fully enforced against the immigrants or ‘anti-racists’ in this context(17) – they have an almost free pass to enforce the will of the state against ‘racists’, including by use of violence (as noted above). Hence, people are intimidated into silence and acquiescence. Dissent is inhibited.

In fact, people are too scared even to state certain truths in relation to immigration for fear of being labelled ‘racist’ – by this means open and honest debate is further inhibited as many do not even have the true facts to consider. Many truths cannot be stated, and ‘racism’ is not the only excuse for suppression of truth – other means including those of ‘causing offence’, ‘stirring hatred’ and matters such a ‘maintaining community relations’ (often code for: not letting the people know the truth in case they rise up; having no riots; there being no challenge or disruption to government immigration policy; etc.). If one states certain matters one can be accused of being ‘an extremist’, a ‘right wing extremist’, ‘threat to security’, ‘dangerous agitator’, or other scary-sounding labels – such labels can, amongst other things, render one liable for various acts of state suppression and the government is currently seeking more legislation to further silence such truths and debate. The government deems such people as a danger to the state. More honest people will be imprisoned. When true facts that pertain to government policy are suppressed, then this is not political liberty. Neither is this moral nor honest. However, in an inversionist manner, those stating the truth and acting with honour will be imprisoned under the manipulative lie of them being ‘evil’. This is not open and honest debate, and this is not freedom.
21092011576[1]
Political parties and other organisations that object to the political policy of mass immigration are subject to much suppression and persecution. Of course the general factors, including those noted above, apply also here. The mainstream media, including the BBC, make sure that the coverage of such parties is very unfavourable, and frequently the coverage is dishonest (the BBC is not impartial as its charter states). Hence, the unsuspecting public often believe such parties to be dangerous and monstrous. This distorts the democratic political process. However, the persecution and suppression of such parties and organisations also is conducted by many other means. For example, a police officer was forced to resign after being seen while off duty at a football match wearing a BNP badge(18). Have any public servants been punished in any way for wearing other forms of political badges(19) while off duty, e.g. any pro-immigration badges? So it is permissible to support the policies of the government in relation to mass immigration, but not to dissent from them (even while off duty). Many have faced persecution for belonging to or even merely supporting the BNP. For example, a bus driver was sacked for belonging to the BNP(20). The BBC sent an undercover journalist to film Mr Nick Griffin giving a speech and this resulted in Mr Griffin facing two criminal trials – and he was not convicted of any crime(21). During his speech in 2004  he predicted that Muslims would launch an attack on our country and objected to the sexual ‘grooming’ and rape of our children (before any reports such as in Rotherham were released). His predictions and claims were proven to be accurate and true. It is fair to conclude that those organisations (including political parties) dissenting from the establishment’s support for the political policy of immigration do face suppression and persecution. Such suppressive acts not only directly inhibit dissent (and truth), but also others are frightened from dissenting.

img627

There are various pieces of legislation that act in such a manner as to suppress dissent, this by threat of arrest, (e.g. ‘hate laws’). For example, words that might ‘insult’ and ‘stir up hatred’ can result in imprisonment(22). The application of these laws has disproportionately been such that they act to suppress dissent(23). Of course, as is frequently found in this ‘soft totalitarian’(24) state, this is all wrapped up in a cloak of ‘compassion’ and ‘moral values’. But to whom is the compassion being shown? To those who object to what is fairly described as an invasion of the country? As genocide(25)? Can the indigenous people not object to these hateful acts being perpetrated upon them without being arrested (and, ironically, accused of hatred)? Would hatred not be valid in some such instances? Should one hate those who have facilitated or committed mass rape of children or genocide? Does this situation not alarm and distress normal people? Why should the state think it is acceptable to arrest people for their beliefs and emotions anyway? Does the invasion and mass rape not offend you? Are you not offended, insulted or distressed that, by various means, you dare not object to this? Not even to the genocide? Feel threatened or alarmed? And is it moral to ban the truth? How can proper political decisions be made if based on lies and not on truth? Why should ‘offence’ or ‘insult’ be criminalised – and also only is certain contexts? If a comment were to stir up hatred(26) against a group, then if the statement is true, perhaps that group should not be loved, hey? If there were truths that if stated might offend or insult a group (s), or even stir up hatred, then to ban their statement is still to ban truth and takes away true and useful information from the public.This legislation can act to disempower the true victims in many cases, and to give the false impression that the perpetrators are the victims. Also it can act, inter alia, to protect the perpetrators from truth (in case they don’t like to hear it, and/or possibly face the consequences of it becoming widely known). So if the presence of group X meant a significant increase in rapes of children from group Y by group X, then one could not say this because group X might not like it (never mind what group Y don’t like, including their children getting raped, some groups are more equal than others). Better to pretend we are all the same (and at the same time don’t forget to celebrate the diversity!). If group B get arrested or stopped by the police at twice the rate of group A, then even if this were because group B committed twice the rate of crime, one could not state this fact/truth in case group B were insulted and this fact might cause resentment of group B. Better to let them off the crimes they commit and equalise the arrest figures, never mind if the other people are victimised by the crimes (and not to bother if any of this alarms/distresses/threatens/insults them, or even could be interpreted as inciting hatred against them). This all acts to suppress certain truths and challenges to government policy – and often in an insidious and surreptitious manner.

Hence, by various means there is a lack of freedom in this country in relation to the political freedom of dissenting from the government political policy of mass immigration. People are misinformed and are intimidated by various means. Dissenters are oppressed and are susceptible to prosecution by the state. Organisations and political parties dissenting are liable to much mistreatment from the state – this is political persecution.

You will acquiesce, you will not dissent. It’s called freedom. Orwell warned us about this:
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

1. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/unmasked-merseysider-jailed-anti-semitic-tweet-7966903
2.Even those in government can insult the English and/or the British without sanction – and certainly without going to prison. For example, saying the English are a race too lazy or incapable of working, etc. is fine, but don’t say it about Africans, etc.
3.Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
4. http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/11/controversial-university-speakers/
5. ‘Immunity from criticism’ refers to the fact that if no criticism, challenge, debate, alternative ideas, etc. are allowed, then those with this immunity can merely state their ideas, beliefs, policies, etc. and do not have to face any criticism or challenge on them. Such people do not need to defend what they say in any way and can merely state what they wish and leave the impression almost as though it is correct and perfect – with no alternatives.
6. See Dr. T. Turner
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
7. George Orwell is quoted as stating that: ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’’
8. http://news.sky.com/story/38512/gagged-bnp-silenced
9. See: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b02_1370111676
10. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/bnp-leader-banned-from-university-28670319.html
11. These links to the establishment, frequently by those purporting to be ‘anti-establishment’, will be examined in a forthcoming essay
12. Ironically and dishonestly, many of these types pose as very ‘anti-establishment’ and rebellious.
13. https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/who-are-the-uaf-unite-against-fascism/
14. And of course not all of them are in direct contact with the state in relation to the enforcement, but most of them understand that they will be very unlikely to be held account for threats, violence, etc. against anti-immigration people. Of course, some of them are in direct contact as will be discussed in future essays.
15. http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
16. Many fear social rejection if labelled as such a ‘witch’
17. Also see: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ec_1269378544
18. http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=479
19. Communist badges? Even anarchists badges?
20. But won on appeal as this breached his human rights, e.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229211/Bus-driver-sacked-member-BNP-wins-legal-battle-claiming-dismissal-breach-human-rights.html
http://andrewbrons.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=641:arthur-redfearns-right-to-freedom-of-association
21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm
22. For further reading on threats to freedom of speech in Britain see:
Johnston, P. (2013) Feel Free to Say It. Threats to Freedom of Speech in Britain Today. Civitas, London.
Also, relatedly, see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614834/Arrested-quoting-Winston-Churchill-European-election-candidate-accused-religious-racial-harassment-repeats-wartime-prime-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html
23. One could interpret some of this legislation in such a manner that it would render many politicians guilty of the offences therein. For example the Public Order Act 1986 makes it, amongst other things, a criminal offence to state certain matters that threaten, abuse or insult and are likely to stir up racial hatred. Are not many pro-immigration speeches thus covered? What about those who state that the immigrants ‘do the jobs Brits are too lazy to do’?
24. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/thought-police-muscle-up-in-britain/story-e6frg6zo-1225700363959
25. https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/stop-white-british-genocide-campaign-join-now/
26. And how can this be shown to be the case? When would it not be resentment, disapproval or disgust, etc. and actually be hatred? Besides, how could causing hatred even be thought in a sane world #to be illegal?

Campaign : To Have “Unite Against Fascism” Proscribed As A Terrorist Organisation

Written by Cigpapers

Legal Research by Watt Tyler

$(KGrHqUOKjkE29zTBlvOBN1V4K3e3!~~_12The Unite Against Fascism are an establishment-financed group who intimidate, bully, threaten to kill, rob and assault anyone (particularly those from the White working-class) who dares to object to multiculturalism and/or Globalisation. Not only do you get beaten, robbed, assaulted and threatened you also get smeared as a fascist.

Here is a detailed description of the UAF and their backers both political and financial:

https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/who-are-the-uaf-unite-against-fascism/

Here is a report on the Wythenshawe by-election that was seriously disrupted by UAF violence:

https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/report-on-the-wythenshawe-and-sale-east-by-election-february-13th-2014/

Because of the violent and corrupt nature of the UAF this blog is organising a campaign to have them proscribed as a terrorist organisation, and for the British Government to facilitate the seizure of their assets and those of their backers, to distribute to their victims. If you can help please copy and paste the following letter to your MP, MEPs and any members of the House of Lords you can think of on the website (whose address is at the bottom of this article).

Dear (name of MP, MEP, Lord or Lady)

         I am writing to you regarding having the so-called “Unite Against Fascism” Group proscribed as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The UAF intimidate, bully, threaten to kill, rob and assault those (particularly from the White working-class) who dare to object to multiculturalism and Globalisation. Not only do you get beaten, robbed, assaulted and threatened you also get smeared as a fascist. A number of people have been unable to stand as candidates and/or leaflet and canvass for elections across Britain because of the violence and threats of violence this group are involved directly in, or have incited. Please visit the link below for an example of their behaviour and total disregard for British law, democracy and freedom. The old man receiving the public punishment beating is a candidate for a Parliamentary constituency seat:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b02_1370111676

The Terrorism Act 2000 clearly defines what terrorism is:

Section 1

(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2)

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the Government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against the person

(b) involves serious damage to property

(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3) the use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1) (b) is satisfied.

 

The UAF are quite clearly a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed as such by the Home Office as soon as possible. The Government should also facilitate the seizure of the UAF’s assets and those of their backers to compensate the UAF’s many victims. 

I would expect you to back this campaign and contact the Home Office immediately.

        Yours sincerely ( Add your name )

 

Please send to your MP, MEP and Member of House of Lords at the link below:

https://www.writetothem.com/

Sir Winston Churhill is attributed with the quote: "The fascists will come back as anti-fascists."

Sir Winston Churchill is attributed with the quote: “The fascists will come back as anti-fascists.”

 

Also consider signing a UK Government petition to proscribe the UAF:

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51496

 

Greater Manchester Police Confiscate BNP “Stop Paedophile Rings” Banner

Written by Cigpapers

Red Mafia Starts To Crack In Greater Manchester:

On 9th April 2014 a BNP “Stop Paedophile Rings” banner protest was taking place on the East Lancashire Road in Greater Manchester, England. At about 8:00 AM this banners was safely secured with professional attachments above the East Lancashire Road in Greater Manchester by BNP activists.

2014-04-05 10.32.12

BNP “Stop Paedophile Rings” banner hangs between two commercial signs above the East Lancashire Road in Greater Manchester.The banners are secured with professional attachments before being swung over to the outside.

The banner was warmly supported by the majority of the public with only a few obscene hand gestures by multiculturalists. At around  8:45 AM a Police Officer approached the demonstration. The Police Officer ( Collar Number 14953 ) was friendly enough but had been ordered by his Inspector to take the banner down, then confiscate it and take one demonstrator’s name and details under Section 5 Public Order Act. We’re not sure about his understanding of the legal position here regarding Electoral Law and the Public Order Act.

How offensive is a "Stoo Paedophile Rings" banner? What sort of person would be offended enough to telephone the Police?

How offensive is a “Stop Paedophile Rings” banner? What sort of person would be offended enough to telephone the Police?

The Greater Manchester Police seizing this banner, which has been warmly supported around Greater Manchester, shows a few cracks appearing in the red Mafia of the Greater Manchester Police and the local Labour Party. There is a video of the confiscation by Greater Manchester Police here:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO7Jvy90Vy4

The confiscation of this banner led to the cancellation of a planned “Stop Paedophile Rings” demonstration outside Manchester Town Hall against Labour Party paedophile rings. Whether this was deliberate or coincidental is impossible to say.

The same banner at a previous bridge banner flash demonstration in Tameside.

The same banner at a previous banner drop flash demonstration in Tameside.

The Police Officer in charge of the election in Greater Manchester is Chief Superintendent O’Hare of Greater Manchester Police ( telephone 0161 872 5050)  who had previously stated he wanted a good, clean election.

The BNP's banner was confiscated for opposing paedophile rings but what if you complained that you are offended by this celebration of communism and genocide?

The BNP’s banner was confiscated for opposing paedophile rings but what if you complained that you are offended by this celebration of communism and genocide in Manchester?

These “Stop Paedohile Rings” campaign banners have been well received by tens of thousands of members of the Greater Manchester public. The banners are very good for bridge drop flash demonstrations, or for hanging or holding at other demonstrations. Each banner should also last several years/elections if looked after.

Section 5 Of The Public Order Act 1986:

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which a constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

BNP Rescue Banner 10th April 2014:

On April 10th 2014, Gary Tumulty (North West Regional Organiser) went to Swinton Police Station to demand the return of the “Stop Paedophile Rings” banner. Here is the video of what happened:

Rebel Assault By BNP Activists On The “Red Citadel” (Manchester)

Written by Cigpapers

Manchester has long been seen as the “Red Citadel” in the North of England due to the socialist’s violent and corrupt choke-hold on the local people and politics. Globalist groups such as Antifa, Unite Against Fascism, Manchester Anti-Fascist Action, Red Strike Force, Red Army Faction, Hope Not Hate, Love Music – Hate Racism and other assorted violent and deranged multiculturalists had vowed The BNP would never be active in Manchester.

Red thugs are given a free hand in Manchester by the corrupt authorities.

Red thugs are given a free hand in Manchester by the corrupt authorities.

On 1st April 2014 two intrepid BNP activists decided to penetrate deep behind enemy held territory to promote The BNP and their message of hope to the people of Manchester. This is their story:

Tameside 6:00 AM to 8:00 AM

With the reds still festering in their pits a flash demo took place on a footbridge over the M67 in Tameside (East Greater Manchester). A 10 foot by 3 foot banner was unfurled boldly proclaiming “British National Party Say: STOP PAEDOPHILE RINGS”.

Early morning BNP flash demo above M67 motorway in Tameside. The banner says "British National Party Say : STOP PAEDOPHILE RINGS."

Early morning BNP flash demo above M67 motorway in Tameside. The banner says “British National Party Say : STOP PAEDOPHILE RINGS.”

The mood in the traffic jams was generally supportive with horns beeped and many thumbs up and waves. A small minority of degenerate reds chose to support paedophilia with various obscene hand gestures. Knowing Greater Manchester Police would soon be on their way, and having made their demonstration, the BNP activists rolled up the banner and made good their exit.

Central Manchester 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 

With Tameside reds still reeling the BNP activists were leafleting in Central Manchester on Market Street by 9:00 AM. A grateful Manchester public lapped up their leaflets and cheers of “Good to see The BNP” , “Keep up the good work lads” and other supportive shouts were soon echoing through Central Manchester.

BNP activist deep behind enemy lines on Market Street, Central Manchester.

BNP activist deep behind enemy held lines on Market Street, Central Manchester.

At about 9:50 AM The BNP activists burst in to the Arndale Shopping Centre. With only one or two demented Globalists refusing BNP leaflets, and their message of hope, The BNP activists had a fruitful half hour in the Arndale Shopping Centre. At about 10:20 AM The BNP activists were approached by two apologetic security guards saying their bosses had ordered them to evict The BNP activists. The BNP activists explained they had no such powers to evict them but would leave as a gesture of goodwill.

BNP activists openly leaflet outside Manchester Town Hall (AKA The Kremlin)

BNP activists openly leaflet outside Manchester Town Hall (AKA The Kremlin)

After leafleting along Deansgate The BNP activists leafleted outside Manchester Town Hall (AKA The Kremlin) with no problems, many council workers gratefully accepted The BNP leaflets. The BNP activists had their photos taken by a passerby who claimed to be ex-Labour.

South-East Manchester 11:15 AM to 12:30 PM

At around 11:00 AM  The BNP activists were approached by a contingent of up to 10 foul-mouthed Red Strike Force thugs. The BNP activists decided to head to the student area of South-East Manchester. By around 11:15 AM The BNP activists were hard at work leafleting student accommodation door to door. By 12:30 PM  The BNP activists decided to call it a day and twenty minutes later were enjoying a couple of well-earned pints of “Hobgoblin Ruby Ale” in a local pub staffed by Nationalists. In total around 500 to 600 leaflets were distributed and around 1,000 people saw the banner over the motorway.

The Next Day (April 2nd 2014) In Tameside Greater Manchester:

Here is what happened the next day (April 2nd 2014) in Tameside Greater Manchester when these two BNP activists were approached by Greater Manchester Police while doing another “Stop Paedophile Rings” banner drop over the M67 motorway:

Campaign: To Make Lee Rigby’s Mother A Baroness

Written by Cigpapers

Photos and captions by Watt Tyler

National hero Lee Rigby - his family shouldn't get any less than Stephen Lawrence's.

National hero Lee Rigby – his family shouldn’t get any less than Stephen Lawrence’s.

This is a campaign to make Lee Rigby’s mother a Baroness, award her an OBE, compensate her and build a £10 million “Lee Rigby Community Centre” in her home town. After all that is what the mother of the rather worthless street thug Stephen Lawrence received. Lee Rigby on the other hand was a serving soldier in the British Army.

Please send a letter, or email, to all your MEPs and MP as soon as possible. If you’re not much of a letter writer feel free to copy and paste the letter below.

Dear ( name of your MP/MEP) 

Doreen  Delceita Lawrence is the mother of murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence. She was awarded an OBE in 2003 and made a life peer (Baroness Lawrence of  Clarendon) in 2013. £10 million was spent on the “Stephen Lawrence Community Centre” which opened in 2008 in Deptford, London.  There has also been an e-petition to rename Heathrow Airport as “Stephen Lawrence Airport“. Baroness Lawrence is the Honorary President of anti-White race hate group the UAF which promotes racism, violence and intimidation across Britain.

Lee Rigby was not a street thug like Stephen Lawrence, but was in fact a fine young man doing his duty in the British Army. I do not see any valid reason why his family, and in particular his mother, should receive less from the British Nation than Stephen Lawrence’s did. I therefore suggest that his mother is made a Baroness and awarded an OBE. I would also like £10 million to be spent on a “Lee Rigby Community Centre” and an e-petition organised to rename Manchester Airport as “Lee Rigby Airport”.

As my elected representative I expect you to give this campaign your full support and public backing. Could you please clarify whether you will be supporting this campaign, or not, as that will clarify mine and my family’s voting intention.

Yours sincerely ( your name )

You can email this to all your MEPs and MP free of charge via   https://www.writetothem.com   also consider sending to any members of the House of Lords you can think of at the same address.
If you would prefer to write a paper letter then ( no stamp required) address to:

(Name of your MP), House Of Commons, London, SW1A OAA

(Name of member of House of Lords), House Of Lords, London, SW1A OAA

For MEPs you will need to look up their addresses.

Doreen Lawrence was made a Baroness and is now Honorary President of anti-White violent race hate group the UAF.

Doreen Lawrence was made a Baroness and is now Honorary President of violent anti-White race hate group the UAF.

Replies To This Campaign:

27th February 2014:  Brian Simpson (Labour) MEP North West England has refused to support the campaign.

28th February 2014: Nick Griffin (BNP) MEP North West England has given this campaign his full support.

March 2014: Sir Peter Luff MP (Conservative) MP Worcestshire had a Pensioner constituent who emailed him arrested for racism . He also refused to support this campaign. Video below:

Please copy the emails from your MPs / MEPs in reply to this campaign in the comments section so we can put all replies up on here.