Happy Birthday Hamas! From all at the BBC

Hamas, the genocidal terrorist organisation of choice for British leftists, celebrated its 23rd birthday this week.

Whilst the good people at the Guardian seemingly forgot to send any halal goodies along with their good wishes, both al-Jazeera and the BBC were on good form.

Whilst al-Jazeera tersely stated:

“Resistance group throws 23rd anniversary rally, as tight Israeli siege makes Gaza’s Hamas rulers increasingly unpopular,"

the BBC reporters were apparently slightly more taken with what they saw, according to CiF Watch:

But the BBC? Hamas is unpopular? Perish the thought. Dear old Auntie (that is, Anti-Israel) instead stresses the “tens of thousands”, the “throngs” of supporters who – of their own free will of course - “filled the streets of Gaza” to watch the festive green balloons and listen to the tinny martial music and hear how, “Hamas leader Ismail Haniya says the Islamist movement is committed to Palestinian national reconciliation in order to fight the Israeli occupation”. How noble! But, any thoughts instead of making peace with Israel for the good of all? Thought not.

Indeed. Whilst spending our licence fees enjoying the celebrations, I see no mention of recent Hamas activities (and actual news) such as seriously wounding an IDF soldier over the weekend.

It's particularly ironic that, whilst the BBC are cooing over these celebrations, Hamas morality police are increasingly cracking down on anyone deemed to be doing anything "un-Islamic" in Gaza, as well as any perceived political dissent.

In fact, that's what is making Hamas "particularly unpopular" in the strip - corruption, police brutality and involving ordinary Gazans in their zany schemes to try and spill Israeli blood.

It can't be the tight blockade which al-Jazeera mentions - because that simply doesn't exist. As the IDF Spokesman Twitter feed acknowledged yesterday:

181 trucks entered Gaza yesterday w/humanitarian supplies + commercial imports. Gaza also exported produce to Europe.

All paid for by infidel donations, both willing and in the form of extortionate "aid" which we have no choice about, from Israel and the European Union.

Those dastardly Zionists are also continuing with their COGAT mission to improve daily life in Gaza - at considerable expense to Israel and risk to themselves.

I must admit, even I never thought I'd see the day when al-Jazeera counted as a more reliable source than the BBC.

Hat tip: Biased BBC.

Hate Crime Is "Under-reported"

From the BBC:

Hate crime figures for England, Wales and Northern Ireland have been published for the first time.

In 2009 a total of 52,028 crimes were recorded in which the offence was motivated by prejudice.

Victims were targeted because of race, religious belief, sexual orientation, disability or transgender issues.

Chief Constable Stephen Otter of police chiefs' body Acpo said: "By publishing this data... we hope to encourage victims and witnesses to come forward."

Interesting. Perhaps I can be of assistance - everyday I am emailed stories and news tips that don't make the national media, but seem to me to fit quite neatly into the category of "hate crime."

For example:

A LOUT who glassed a man in a Rawtenstall pub and left him with facial injuries has been jailed for 12 months - and banned from the premises for two years.

Burnley Crown Court heard how binge drinker Mohammed Miah, 26, struck victim Ian Parkinson, who he did not know, as he was on the dance floor of the Queen's Arms, with friends, around midnight.

Mr Parkinson suffered lacerations on his eyelid and cheek. He had no permanent damage to the eye itself but was left scarred.

After the unprovoked assault, days before last Christmas, the victim had trouble sleeping. He was very concerned about the scar and was worried about going out in town.

Miah, who has 13 previous convictions, was earlier jailed for two years for affray and was on bail for that offence, committed in the same pub, when he injured Mr Parkinson.

Yes, seems to be a lot of it about. Totally without motive, of course.

Let's try:

On Thursday 2 December between 5.35pm and 5.50pm in High Road, the victim, a 16 year-old boy, was attacked by two black males who punched him and stabbed him several times in the chest.

It is believed that the victim had been trying to run away from the suspects when they attacked him outside Park Vue dental practice, on the opposite side of the road to Wood Green bus garage in High Road, North London.

The incident spilled onto the southbound lane of High Road, causing traffic to swerve.

London Ambulance Service attended and the victim was taken to the North Middlesex Hospital where he was treated for puncture wounds to his chest and discharged the following day.

The suspects are described as being two black males, believed to be aged around 17 years and dressed in dark clothing.

Completely without motive too, I'm sure.

You see, what I think is the problem isn't "hate crime" - a purely subjective and politically motivated term; it's the fact that violent crime simply isn't taken very seriously anymore because it has become so common.

That goes for crime in general; even in the case of their precious "hate crime" all the police really seem to care about is massaging the statistics:

Mr Otter, Acpo's lead for equality, diversity and human rights, said: "Hate crimes cause a great deal of harm among victims and communities.

"Publication of the data underlines the commitment of the police service to tackle hate crime, build confidence and encourage victims to come forward so that under-reporting is reduced."

You see? All that matters is that under-reporting is reduced. Not justice for the victims, not removing the criminals from society and punishing them.

I also find it genuinely frightening that a senior police officer can't see that all crime causes a great deal of harm to victims and communities.

We're talking about real people and real suffering here, not abstract concepts and social experiments.

Switzerland Votes to Deport Criminal Foreigners

53% of Swiss voters have backed plans to implement automatic expulsion for criminals who are not Swiss citizens.

The Swiss People's Party (SVP) were behind the proposals, which would see foreign rapists, murderers, drug dealers and benefit fraudsters, amongst other hardened criminals, deported upon completion of their prison sentence.

Of course, such a measure is possible because Switzerland has a genuine measure of democracy; here in Britain, such a proposal would be strangled long before it reached the referendum stage, and in all likelihood it would never be suggested in the first place.

Not everyone is delighted at this news, as the BBC's article on the subject demonstrates:

Fabrice Moscheni, of the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP), which drew up the measure, said "people we welcome in Switzerland should respect the rules of this country".

But opponents said it was another example of increasing xenophobia.

The SVP was behind last year's referendum that imposed a ban on the building of Islamic minarets. That decision was condemned by human rights groups and foreign governments.

The SVP says immigrants to Switzerland are disproportionately responsible for crime. It points to the fact that more than 60% of prison inmates do not have Swiss nationality.

Interesting. You'll note how the term right-wing is inserted in its usual context, in place of "evil sods who would like to kill everyone who's not like them" - well, I suppose the BBC must at least attempt to be impartial in these matters.

Also, if more than 60% of prison inmates in Switzerland are not Swiss, isn't that a little more than "the SVP says immigrants are disproportionately responsible for crime"?

It's either an objective fact or it's not, and if it were not presumably the BBC would have refuted it in an attempt to make the SVP and their supporters look like the raving loonies the BBC and the rest of the establishment would like them to be.

Whilst it doesn't surprise me that the opponents of the policy trot out the lazy, tired term "xenophobia," it really couldn't be less appropriate in this context. If you invite someone into your home and they steal from you or attack your wife, are you "antisocial" for throwing them out?

Also, xenophobia means irrational fear; the foreigners we are talking about here are actually criminals, some of them quite violent and unpleasant ones, so what is irrational about being afraid of them and not wanting to set them loose on society once more?

Some Swiss are absolutely convinced this is an attack on foreigners rather than criminals though:

Virginie Studemann voted against the plan. "I think it's sad for our country," she said outside a polling station in the center of Geneva. "It's part of a concerted attack against foreigners."

Which rather begs the question, what would she like to see done with violent foreign criminals who see her as little better than prey, by virtue of being Swiss? Could the fact that 60% of those in Switzerland's prisons are not citizens be used as evidence that there is a concerted attack on the Swiss taking place?

The handwringing hasn't finished yet though; the article continues:

But opponents say the measures go too far. The children of immigrants do not automatically get Swiss citizenship, so the rule would mean sending some people who were born and brought up in Switzerland to countries they know nothing of.

Convicts would serve their sentence in Switzerland first and then be deported without appeal.

The Swiss government believes mandatory deportation could violate Switzerland's obligations under international law not to send people to countries that practise torture or execution.

Shouldn't it really be the place of the individual in question to worry about such matters? If they wish to live in Switzerland they should treat the country and its people with respect and obey the law, then they and their children will continue to be safe from whatever hell-hole they've fled.

Why is that such an unreasonable position? If they're so concerned about their children, they should think about that before doing whatever it is that lands them in prison - and if they're so concerned about human rights, they should think about the person they've victimised, in their own country, whilst living off their hospitality.

We're not finished, however:

The SVP has been accused of using racist posters that depict certain ethnic groups as criminal.

The Swiss political analyst Georg Lutz says the SVP's wider strategy is to capitalise on Swiss worries that the foreign population is too big.

"This vote is not about some complex legal issues about how to deal with certain types of criminal foreigners," he says.

"What most people will want to do in this vote is make a statement against foreigners, and that is the central motivation."

Yet more utter drivel. The SVP's posters are either an attempt to display their message through humour, or an attempt to show just how far-reaching the consequences of mass immigration will be for Switzerland and Europe through allegory, as shown below.

It's a free country, and people are free to feel that the foreign population is too big, just as they're free to disagree.

Also, some ethnic groups are proportionately more prone to criminality than others; I'd imagine that most Swiss people didn't use the vote to make "a statement against foreigners" per se, but to register their dissatisfaction that large numbers of violent, unproductive Third Worlders, largely useless to an advanced economy, are being allowed to change the face of their safe, clean and efficient country.

We also have the underlying liberal assumption that criminality is some sort of compulsion or form of illness, carried out by the oppressed to get attention, rather than a stark choice between making an effort to fit in and behave or cause trouble.

Deporting people who have abused the trust and generosity of the nation they have chosen to settle in in the worst possible ways is hardly Kristallnacht or a blanket condemnation of all foreigners, however it is dressed up.

Perhaps if the likes of Georg Lutz is so ashamed of his country, he should come to Britain - he'd fit in well with our political classes. They too seem to feel that on matters such as these, the plebs just aren't enlightened enough to have a say.

But then, they don't have to deal with the reality of increasing violent crime in a formerly safe country where 60% of prisoners are now foreign citizens. Ordinary people don't have that luxury:

"I'm totally for it," said Emma Link, 86, after voting in Geneva. She blamed foreigners for what she said was rising crime, adding that she had recently been robbed on her way home from a nearby shop.

At least in Switzerland, some politicians are doing their job and looking out for such people. Right-wing or not, that makes the SVP vastly superior to the current traitorous shower we call politicians here.

Horrible Histories

The following is a clip from a BBC history programme aimed at children.

It's riddled with factual inaccuracies, but the shrill, hectoring tone and the general anti-British content gives an interesting view of how the BBC views British history - and would like us to.

We actually fund this tripe.

A count of the lies and inaccuracies can be found in the comment section here.

Hat tip: Biased BBC.

The BBC Defines a "Fracas" in France

"MALI MAN DIES AFTER FRENCH POLICE USE TASER" screams the headline.

We have to wait two paragraphs to find out exactly why the taser was used:

Police said the 38-year-old man had attacked officers with a hammer at a Paris apartment block after being asked for identity papers.

He was also tear-gassed and struck with a baton, an official added.

Oh. Of course, the preceding paragraph is dedicated solely to nudging us in the direction of sympathy for the hammer-wielding thug:

An immigrant from Mali has died after French police shot him twice with a Taser electric stun gun during a fracas, officials say.

How carefully worded. He's identified as an immigrant because they want us to suspect racism might be involved - otherwise they'd go out of their way to avoid mentioning that fact.

Also, in what way is one man attacking police officers with a hammer a "fracas"? Fracas means "a noisy, disorderly fight or quarrel", doesn't it? It's a word that makes me think of two evenly matched sides being involved, in any case.

This sounds more like attempted murder. Not that I'm expecting any sort of honesty from the BBC, you understand, but it can't hurt to ask these questions.

Apparently, the incident will "reignite debate over the use of tasers" in France.

I've never fully understood this "controversy over the use of tasers" business; French police officers are armed with actual guns as standard, and I presume that if an individual attacks them with a potentially deadly weapon, for example with a hammer, and they feel their lives are in danger then they're entitled to shoot him, to kill if necessary.

Anyway, the main concern of human rights groups is that this poor dear was stunned twice; but to me, the actions of the police here are more than proportionate considering the circumstances:

The incident happened in the early hours of Tuesday when police were called to an argument at an apartment in the Paris suburb of Colombes involving the Malian, who was allegedly staying illegally in France.

When officers tried to check the man's identity papers he "flipped out" and grabbed a hammer, injuring four officers who chased him, a police source told the French news agency AFP.

I expect that certain French suburbs are already aflame over this. The Interior Minister, Brice Hortefeux, has issued a cautious statement which has not condemned the police outright - but is not as supportive as one might hope:

"From initial reports it seems that, faced with the aggression and violence of this person, police officers were obliged to use an electric charge pistol," Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said.

Of course, he fails to mention that it's largely due to the wilful treason and gross negligence of his government that such people are in France to begin with, to take out their general aggression and violence on servants of the Republic whilst government ministers make promises they have no intention of keeping and look the other way.

Predictably, the human rights lobby are up in arms:

French human rights group Raidh called for an immediate ban on the guns pending the investigation.

It also demanded to know why the suspect had been shot twice.

Why? Well, let's keep it short: He attacked a group of police officers with a hammer and injured four of them.

What more is there to understand? He wasn't standing picking his nose when they swaggered down the street and stunned him.

What were they to do? Allow one of their colleagues to be killed or seriously injured in the name of strength through diversity or the injustices of French imperialism?

The debate I would like to see this incident "reignite" is the one about why such violent, primitive, unassimilable savages are in France to begin with, and why the allegedly "conservative" government of Sarkozy only ever wants to appease them rather than dealing with the issues they were elected to deal with.

Why are parts of many French towns and cities no-go areas for decent people? Why do the police and other emergency services have to face constant abuse, harassment and violence in the course of their duties? Why are the French treated like second class citizens in their own country whilst their government talks of them as an embarrassment and looks forward to their disappearance as "progress" - isn't any of that a debate worth having?

But of course, all we're going to get instead is hand-wringing and outpourings about "human rights" and "racism". I'm sure the police in question will end up being to blame for not just quietly letting him do whatever he wanted.

It all sounds depressingly familiar really, doesn't it?

Death of PC Jon Henry "Could Have Been Prevented"

Back in March 2009 I reported on the events surrounding the death of PC Jon Henry, stabbed to death in 2007 by Ikechukwu Tennyson Obih, a Nigerian "asylum seeker" with indefinate leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

PC Henry was attempting to protect members of the public and fellow officers when he died; Obih (below), a paranoid schizophrenic, went on the rampage in Luton town centre after having a dream in which he could kill a man just by touching him.

Obih's condition was apparently exacerbated by alcohol abuse and cannabis use; he was so terrified of the country he had fled and sought asylum from that in 2006 he returned to Nigeria to visit his father.

This medical expert advised him to stop taking the medication so generously provided by the British taxpayer and use olive oil to control his symptoms instead.

The deterioration of his condition which followed led directly to the events which saw PC Henry murdered.

You'll be delighted to learn, however (and I'm sure the widow and young daughter PC Henry left behind will, too) that this situation could have been prevented.

How? Well, the BBC tells us:

The death of a police officer killed by a man with paranoid schizophrenia could have been prevented if he had been treated suitably, a report found.

NHS East of England commissioned the investigation into the care of Ikechukwu Tennyson Obih, who stabbed Bedfordshire Pc Jon Henry in 2007.

The report said the closure of an early intervention service that Obih had used was the starting point of the case.

Ah, that'll be it then.

I have an alternative range of scenarios, which of course will never even be alluded to on the BBC:

How about parasites like Obih are never allowed into this country in the first place?

How about their "asylum" applications are actually glanced at, and if they pop home to the country they're allegedly fleeing from, they're immediately arrested, charged with making a fraudulent application, deported and banned from ever entering the United Kingdom again?

How about when those who come here choose to live off of us, expecting us to pay for their alcohol and cannabis habits as well as treat their schizophrenia, they are immediately deported and banned from the United Kingdom?

How about we're allowed to (gasp) discriminate, and recognise that immigrants from certain groups tend to fit in, and others don't - after all, who's doing who the favour here?

I think you get the idea with that; it's just a shame that no one in the media or our government can let the actual, legitimate interests of the British people, people like PC Henry and his family and the others who were hurt by Obih, penetrate their ideological blinkers even just for a second.

Mysterious Woman Sentenced for Stabbing MP

As most of you will be aware, back in May Labour MP Stephen Timms was stabbed in the stomach twice whilst holding his regular constituency surgery in Newham, east London.

The woman responsible was named as Roshonara Choudhry, a 21 year old from the area. A BBC report from July noted:

Roshonara Choudhry, 21, of Central Park Road, East Ham, east London, is charged with attempted murder and possessing an offensive weapon.

She refused to enter a plea when appearing at the Old Bailey via videolink.

Why did she refuse to enter a plea? Is that in any way significant?

Apparently so. Whilst the mass media did its best to prevent much in the way of detail about the case leaking out, one of the security guards who restrained Choudhry until the police arrived let slip that she was "an Asian woman wearing a head covering."

The media did its best to avoid speculating and dwelling on such points. However, it turns out her refusal to enter a plea was significant, as the reason emerged at yesterday's trial:

Choudhary, who had refused to appear in court, told her barrister Jeremy Dein QC she did not accept the court's jurisdiction and did not wish him to challenge the prosecution case.

Yesterday she was convicted of the attempted murder of Mr Timms, and of two counts of possessing an offensive weapon (she thoughtfully took along a second knife to attack Timms, "in case the first one snapped"). This morning she was sentenced to life in prison, and must serve a minimum of 15 years.

It turns out she stabbed Mr Timms because he voted for the Iraq war. It also turns out that, when arrested, she was in possession of a "hit list" of other MPs who had done likewise, all of whom she intended to harm if possible.

Now, the really surpising bit; it turns out that she had been "a moderate Muslim student who had been looking forward to a career in teaching before watching the videos."

The videos described are sermons by Anwar al-Awlaki which Choudhry found on the internet.

So, here we have it; yet another poor, innocent "moderate Muslim" corrupted by those evil extremists to misunderstand their peaceful creed. Just an ordinary British girl, really, could have happened to anyone, I'm sure.

The attack by this poor corrupted moderate Muslim on Mr Timms was described thus:

During the half-day trial William Boyce QC, prosecuting, said Choudhry told police she attacked Mr Timms, 55, as a "punishment" and "to get revenge for the people of Iraq".

Jurors heard she made an appointment to see the MP at Beckton community centre on 14 May.

When she arrived she smiled as she walked up to him, acting as if to shake his hand, before lunging at him with a kitchen knife.

Mr Timms told the court: "She looked friendly. She was smiling, if I remember rightly."

Choudhry stabbed Mr Timms, sending him "reeling and staggering" as his assistant prised the knife from her.

She was held in a "bear hug" by a security guard until the police arrived.

Mr Boyce said Miss Choudhry told police she made the appointment solely for the purpose of attacking him.

She had two knives with her in case one broke during the attack.

In a police interview the next day she said: "I was not going to stop until someone made me.

"I wanted to kill him... I was going to get revenge for the people of Iraq."

Oddly, the BBC report does not mention the terms "jihad" or "political assassination" (although they do acknowledge she's a Muslim, which is a fairly large step forward for them). The Daily Mail is slightly closer to the mark:

Her attack on the former Treasury minister is thought to be the first Al Qaeda-inspired attempt to assassinate a politician on British soil.

The judge alluded to much the same in his summing up:

Mr Justice Cooke, sentencing Choudhry, said: 'You said you ruined the rest of your life. You said it was worth it. You said you wanted to be a martyr'.

The judge said Choudhry would continue to be a danger to Members of Parliament for the foreseeable future.

The judge said that if Choudhry had succeeded in killing Mr Timms he would have given her a whole-life sentence, meaning she would never be released.

He told her: 'You intended to kill in a political cause and to strike at those in Government by doing so.

So, what's the solution to all of this? Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Neville-Jones thinks she might have the answer; attempting to block videos made by extreme Muslim clerics which "have incitement to murder, when you have people actively calling for the killing of fellow citizens and when you have the means to stop that person doing so, then I believe we should act.

'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK.

'They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good."

So, the normal head in the sand tactics, then.

Of course it would be beyond the Baroness, or anyone else involved, to see that Choudhry identified first and foremost with the people of Iraq over Timms and other British citizens - because they are Muslims, and we are not.

Thus, we will always come second. Don't shout that too loudly though - it may be the truth, but it's probably racist or something.

It's quite clear to me that what has been "contrary to the public good" is mass immigration from the Third, and especially the Muslim worlds.

That is what is ultimately responsible for this - not the ability to watch such videos in Britain, but the fact that the country is now full of those who will act on their message without compunction because they despise us, even as they live off of us.

Quite what it is going to take to get that message across, I don't know. This was a terrorist attack, plain and simple, and the media simply ignored that aspect, because it is not conducive to their agenda.

Stephen Timms survived and Choudhry is now in jail, but surely the point of an attack such as this is that every elected representative will have it in their mind when they are asked to vote, especially on certain issues; how many represent what the Muslim Council of Britain has the audacity to call a "very diverse constituency, including many Muslims"?

Diversity and democracy simply do not mix.

***UPDATE 15.36***

From the updated Daily Mail article:

After the sentence was passed, a group of men began shouting in the public gallery 'Allahu akbar' ('God is great'), 'British go to hell' and 'Curse the judge'.

A demonstration was also taking place outside the court.

Yep, it's clearly all about those pesky videos.

The evil Right-wing Mail describes the actions of the men as "the public gallery erupting in protest".

Let's hope the judge showed some backbone and called it "contempt of court" followed by a free trip to the cells, although I doubt it.

Gaddafi Tries to Convert 200 Italian "Party Girls" to Islam

From the BBC:

A group of party girls got more than they bargained for when they were recruited to attend a posh do in Rome on Sunday night.

Instead of canapés and cocktails, the 200 young women found themselves being encouraged to become Muslims.

It turned out the host was Libya's leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi, in town for the UN food summit.

He spoke of the wonders of Islam and assured his guests it was not anti-women, as some critics argue.

The selection process had been rigorous; the identity of the host, a mystery.

The girls had to be beautiful, between 18 and 35 - and at least 1.70m tall.

The dress code was strict: plunging necklines and short miniskirts were most definitely out.

Two-hundred women passed muster and were bussed to a plush residential corner of the Italian capital.

Security scanned and shown into an imposing reception room, they were then left waiting, as several complained, without so much as a glass of water.

An hour later, their host's identity was finally revealed.

Col Gaddafi proceeded to preach the benefits of Islam, taking particular pains to assure his guests that it was not misogynistic, and encouraging them to convert.

Two hours later, the women left, looking a touch bemused, 50 euros ($75; £45) better off and clutching a copy of the Koran.

Notice the lighthearted way that this is treated.

The man is a crank, and it might seem funny upon first glance, but is it?

He is trying to convert a group of Italian women, who he specified must be of child-bearing age, to Islam en masse on Italian soil.

This is a man who knows that mass immigration is a dagger in the heart of Europe and the West; so he must be aware that after colonisation, subduing, absorbing and "integrating" the inhabitants (us) is the next step. Converting women to Islam, thus ensuring they will raise Muslim children, is the easiest way.

I wonder if the BBC would find all of this so amusing if a far-Right party tried the same trick?

But of course, a tyrannical Muslim despot can do no wrong.

***Update 18:21***

The Daily Mail has slightly more information - apparently the women were hired from one of Italy's largest escort agencies. The article claims 500 attended, but most other sources agree on 200 - although more such lectures will appsrently be held before he leaves Rome, one tonight and one tomorrow.

Whilst many of the women were said to have felt offended, some actually seem to have swallowed his drivel:

One blonde woman who did not give her name said: ‘I was particularly offended when he said we believed that Christ had been crucified but he hadn’t, instead it was someone who looked like him and that God had saved Christ.’

But Alessandro Londero, of Rome-based Hostessweb, who claims his agency is ‘one of the biggest in Europe with more than 65,000 girls’ on its books, insisted: ‘It was a very enjoyable experience and the girls were captivated by the evening.

‘Some of them have already been in touch with me to express an interest in going to Libya and seeing the place for themselves and speaking further with Gaddafi about converting to Islam.

‘He gave the girls Italian translations of the Koran and of his Green Book and he said he would be in touch with them to test them and make sure they had read them.

Geert Wilders Ambushed by the BBC

Vlad Tepes has made a video using the audio from the BBC radio interview with Geert Wilders I mentioned yesterday, coupled with images of the Muslim protests against Mr Wilders' presence in London a few days later, and other Muslim riots in Europe.

Link:

Geert Wilders in Britain

On Friday, Dutch politician Geert Wilders visited the United Kingdom after successfully getting the ban on his entry overturned.

His legal team managed to argue that the restrictions placed on his freedom of movement, guaranteed under European law, were arbitrary and politically motivated.

The huge Muslim protests and violence which former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith allegedly feared, and figures such as Nazir Ahmed promised and revelled in, failed to materialise - which I suppose calls her judgment even further into question.

Despite this, between 20 and 40 hardcore extremists picketed Parliament, calling for Sharia law in The Netherlands and Britain, as well as for Mr Wilders to be tried under Islamic law for "insulting the prophet".

Mr Wilders called his visit, once again at the invitation of the UKIP peer Lord Pearson, "a victory for freedom of speech".

He wished to meet the press outside in front of the Houses of Parliament, but security officers apparently advised him that his tendency to provoke adherents of the Religion of Peace meant this was most unwise - they couldn't guarantee his safety, in other words, in the middle of London and the alleged centre of Britain's democracy.

It's very important that we recognise just who the violent extremists are in all this. Wilders was being victimised not because of his own behaviour, but because of the potential for others to commit widescale violence as a result of their disagreement with certain opinions:

However, on Tuesday the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled there was no evidence to suggest he represented a real and serious threat to the "fundamental interest" of society.

The judges said that even if there had been evidence, it would still have been wrong to turn him away because in the event of any trouble the police would have been able to deal with it.

The Home Office said Mr Wilders' statements and behaviour during his visit "will inevitably impact on any future decisions to admit him".

Officials say his case differs from that of a larger number of individuals - including Islamic extremists and white supremacists - who are on a list of people excluded from Britain for "unacceptable behaviour".

The power to impose such exclusions was introduced in 2005, following the London bombings, and applies predominantly to non-EU nationals who would seek to "foster hatred or promote terrorism".

Yes, it's a shame that the behaviour and views of those Islamic protesters isn't enough to kick them out - but, as usual, their right to commit sedition or treason trumps our right to live in a safe society.

Here is one of these poor oppressed lambs inciting murder against Mr Wilders, and celebrating the violent deaths of other notable critics of Islam such as Theo van Gogh - it's a shame the police were watching for Mr Wilders to slip up so very closely, because otherwise they might have caught this:


I will be forwarding this video to the Metropolitan Police, and I would encourage any like-minded readers to do the same.

The day before his arrival in Britain, Mr Wilders appeared on BBC Radio 5 Live, where host Victoria Derbyshire took the opportunity to make sure he was shouted down by Muslims.

All the callers had what Al Murray would call "good British names": Shaz, Mohammed, Mahmood...

Obviously no actual British people wished to take the opportunity to interact with Mr Wilders - question him, congratulate him, criticise him, and there are a lot of angry and confused Muslims out there who aren't used to not getting their own way.

Callers often shouted over and interrupted Mr Wilders, accused him of saying things which he has not, and treated us to many lengthy diatribes about how Islam is tolerant, logical, practical, scientific, and generally equal to the Judeo-Christian West - despite the fact all of them choose to live here, of course.

You can listen to the clip here (second segment, about 38 minutes in), but it expires in two days - if anyone can record and YouTube it, please let me know.

Finally, here is Mr Wilders' Friday press conference from the House of Lords:

Sex Offender Absconds from Secure Unit

You should be able to spot convicted sex attacker Mohammed Rafiq Passwala - he has a full beard and is wearing something the BBC calls 'traditional Asian dress', but is surely a traditional Muslim robe and cap.

From the BBC:

A sex offender deemed to be a danger to women and children has absconded from a psychiatric unit in West Yorkshire.

Mohammed Rafiq Passwala did not return to Fieldhead Hospital, near Wakefield, after being given unsupervised leave.

Police said that 52-year-old Passwala, who is originally from Bradford, has not been seen since leaving the hospital on Thursday morning.

The public have been warned not to approach him but to contact the police if they have any information.

Passwala, who was convicted of sex offences in 1996, is described as Asian, 5ft 7in tall, of stocky build with black/grey hair and a full beard.

A West Yorkshire Police spokesman said Passwala was wearing grey traditional Asian dress when he was last seen.

Police believe he might be in the Dewsbury or Ravensthorpe areas.

Man Stabbed in "Used Car" Ambush

A man who arranged to buy a used car over the internet was jumped when he went to meet the seller, before being beaten and stabbed in the heart:

The 42-year-old was beaten and stabbed in North Street, Barking, east London, at 3.50pm on July 30, after being lured to the area by the advert for a Volkswagen Golf.

Witnesses saw two men, described as black and believed to be in their 20s, punch, kick and finally stab the victim as they tried to wrestle a bag with around £5,000 in it from him.

He was treated at the scene by air ambulance personnel before being transferred to the Royal London Hospital where he had life-saving surgery.

Detective Chief Inspector Ellie O'Connor, Barking CID, said: "This was a brutal attack on an innocent man who was responding to an online advertisement in good faith.

"We are appealing for anyone who witnessed this attack or who knows anything about it to come forward."

That report is from Yahoo news. The BBC did a version which was far more comprehensive in every way - but left out one of the key details. See if you can spot which one:

Open heart surgery was needed to save a man stabbed in east London after going to buy a car from someone he contacted through the website Gumtree.

The victim, 42, went to Barking to buy a VW Golf advertised on the site.

But he was ambushed, then beaten, kicked and stabbed in the heart, lungs and abdomen, before the £5,000 he was to pay with was stolen.

The car's true owner was unaware it had been offered for sale. Two men have been arrested by police and given bail.

The incident happened on 30 July, but details have just been released by police who are desperate to find more witnesses.

Describing what happened, Det Ch Insp Ellie O'Connor of Barking CID said: "It was broad daylight and a busy area so the gentleman thought he would be safe.

"He could not see the car, so he put in a call to the seller.

"Then he was ambushed from behind and knocked to the floor where he was beaten, kicked and stabbed four times."

Det Ch Insp O'Connor continued: "Thanks to the intervention of a member of the public they ran off.

"The passer-by then gave first aid until the air ambulance arrived."

The victim, from north London, suffered an injury to his heart's pericardial sac and a collapsed lung, among other injuries.

Although expected to recover, he is still too traumatised to discuss the incident, which police described as a "life-changing experience".

Det Ch Insp O'Connor added: "These men were not messing about and it is but for the skill of the emergency services that he survived.

"He will take two months to recover."

Strange, eh?

7 Charged over Anglian Parade Protest

Seven men have been charged with public order offences in relation to the heckling of returning Anglian soldiers by a group of Muslims back in march.

True to form, the BBC describes this event, in which men who had just completed a difficult tour of Iraq were branded 'terrorists', 'baby killers' and 'murderers' by a protest which was sanctioned by Bedfordshire Police, as "an anti-war protest which erupted".

It erupted, of course, when British patriots (many of whom would later be banned from holding various counter-demonstrations in support of the troops) objected to the insensitive way the police had handled the demands of a group of Muslims described by their own community as extremists.

The seven charged over the parade are all from Luton and have been named.

They are Jalal Ahmed, 21, of Cavendish Road, Yousaf Bashir, 29, of Dane Road, Ibrahim Anderson, 32, of Warwick Road West, Jubair Ahmed, 19, of Beech Road, Ziaur Rahman, 33, of Nunnery Lane, Shajjadar Choudhury, 30, of Essex Close and Munim Abdul, 28, of Highbury Road.

The Joys of Diversity in the BBC

Recently Patrick Younge, one of the BBC's top black executives, called for TV bosses to be fired if they fail to meet racial diversity targets.

Now that faces in front of the camera have been diversified to the point where some ethnic minorities feel they are vastly overrepresented, the focus is on the other side - technical staff, managers and senior executives:

One of the BBC’s top black executives has called for TV bosses to be sacked if they fail to meet racial diversity targets.

Patrick Younge, who is set to take over at BBC Vision, the corporation’s programme-making section, claimed there was not enough ‘internal pressure’ for change.

He has said the targets should be treated like financial aims, suggesting that if bosses miss them they should pay the consequences.

His comments may be particularly embarrassing for the corporation’s top executives – as the BBC has failed to hit its own targets.

This year’s annual report showed it set a figure of 12.5 per cent of staff to come from black and minority backgrounds, but managed 12.1 per cent.

Its record for top staff was worse – it hoped to get 7 per cent of senior managers from this group but ended up with 5.6 per cent.

Mr Younge suggested there was a lack of progress in the TV industry over employing a more multicultural workforce.

He also singled out ITV for particular criticism, saying it did not have any black or Asian commissioning editors.

His comments, reported in industry magazine Broadcast, were made at a diversity forum at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts.

He said: ‘At (the Edinburgh Festival) last year, I said that senior executives should be held to account and lose their jobs if they fail to meet diversity targets.

‘I will have my own targets when I join BBC Vision and I must live up to what I have said – or face losing my job.’

He added: ‘There has been a lot of pressure for change over the years from outside the industry. But there’s been no internal pressure, which is what will bring about the progress.’

There are many sinister things about diversity targets. The first is that they are, quite obviously, a form of social engineering.

They are an attempt to make the British public get used to the sort of society which the elites wished to thrust upon us.

They are also a form of control in some ways; white staff might feel marginalised to the point where they won't criticise the management, because they know that all it takes is a well placed accusation of racism and they will be fired - paving the way, of course, for the workforce to become ever more diverse.

In turn, ethnic minority staff will feel part of the power structure - whilst also knowing that they are there to meet the targets set up by that power structure. This is a powerful incentive for them to support the status quo and not rock the boat.

For me, the worst part is that they encourage mediocrity.

In a society which relies solely on targets, black talent will be recognised less, not more - everyone will simply assume that black people in high positions either fulfilled a quota or played the race card - although, of course, they will never dare say it.

There is also the danger of hiring undesirable, unsuitable or unqualified candidates - simply because of the colour of their skin.

Two recent incidents demonstrate that in their desperation to appear diverse, the BBC must have pretty much thrown standards out of the window when hiring.

The first concerns Ashley Blake, a former BBC news presenter sacked after being convicted of beating a youth with an umbrella pole - then hiding it and lying to the police:

A BBC newsreader attacked a teenager with a large wooden pole while on a night out with friends, a court has heard.

Former Watchdog presenter Ashley Blake is alleged to have hit Greg Jones in the face with the one-and-a-half inch thick pole.

The 17-year-old was at the Place 2B in Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham - which Blake used to run - for an 18th birthday party when the attack happened.

The teen was left with serious facial injuries.

Blake has worked as the BBC's regional art and entertainment correspondent.

He also worked as a presenter on consumer programme Watchdog before moving to Birmingham, where he could be seen regularly presenting Midlands Today and Inside Out.

The jury at Birmingham Crown Court was today shown CCTV footage of the BBC Midlands Today newsreader running into the bar at the end of the night and grabbing the pole - which was just over 3ft long and had a screw coming out one end.

Prosecuting Naomi Gilchrist, told the court: "The defendant went into the premises and got that pole from behind the bar.

"He started swinging the pole and shouting threats.

"He swung the pole and raised it above his head using both hands and hit Greg Jones in the face.

"He stumbled back and put his hand to his face and realised there was a lot of blood - it was clear Greg Jones was badly injured."

The court heard that a friend of the victim, Adam Finn, had been knocked out by a single blow to the face by another man, Stephen Sproule, seconds earlier.

Sproule, 38, had previously pleaded guilty to assault.

The prosecution say Blake, 40, lashed out after Jones had asked him to call an ambulance for his friend, who was lying on the floor unconscious.

Blake is also accused of trying to dispose of the pole after the incident, which happened in the early hours of January 25.

Miss Gilchrist added: "The pole, after it was used by the defendant to hit Greg Jones, was put back behind the bar by the bar manager but the poll did not remain behind the bar.

"Because shortly after police arrived the defendant took it and he disposed of it by throwing it over the fence into the next door premises in an attempt to get rid of it so the police could not find it."

The jury was told that Blake told officers at the scene he needed to go to the toilet - but went to get rid of the pole instead.

He pleaded not guilty to wounding with intent to cause GBH and unlawful wounding.

He is also accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice, which he denies.

Sounds like a model employee, doesn't he?

The second concerns every BBC executive's dream, the black historian Lawrence Westgaph:

The 34-year-old BBC expert flew into a rage, repeatedly punching his love rival in the face and fracturing his eye socket, a court was told.

At one point, it was even thought he had bitten the other man's ear off.

Westgaph, who has appeared on TV and radio discussing the slave trade, could now be jailed after admitting a serious assault.

It turns out that this incident is far from the only undesirable thing about Westgaph:

And yet, as the Mail discovered this week, Westgaph achieved all this having left school at 16 with just a handful of GCSEs. He did not go to university until last year, when, despite his lack of a first degree, he was accepted onto an MA course in Atlantic History by Liverpool University. (He is said to be studying now for a PhD).

Having cultivated an academic image for himself, Westgaph found himself in strong demand by the likes of the BBC, who were apparently unconcerned at his lack of serious credentials.

Westgaph's glossy, uber-cool public persona also masked a darker side to his life.

Outside his immediate circle, for example, few knew that he was declared bankrupt last year after his property business - renting out cheap bedsits to students - collapsed with debts of thousands of pounds.

Or that he has a previous conviction for having sex with a 15-year-old girl in 2000.

Or that while his (now ex) girlfriend was pregnant with their son, he cheated on her with an 18-year-old glamour and lingerie model he met in a Liverpool nightclub.

Crucially, statements given by Westgaph's victim, 28-year-old Ben Blance, which were not read out in court after Westgaph entered a guilty plea, reveal a far more disturbing picture than has previously been revealed.

At Liverpool Crown Court, Westgaph was presented as a man who acted in a fit of rage after 'finding' what he described as his 'closest confidant' in bed with the mother of his 23-month-old son, Iggy.

But police statements reveal that far from stumbling across the pair, Westgaph broke down the front door of ex-girlfriend Natalie Inge's home before embarking on a vicious assault on musician Ben Blance.

Documents also reveal that police had been summoned to the same address on two previous occasions last year after 999 calls made by 26-year-old Miss Inge.

In its desire to have a black man with a veneer of respectability lecturing the nation about slavery and how very evil its past is, this is the best the BBC could come up with - a violent thug, a sex offender without serious credentials.

Frankly any system of targets by them, which lets potential employees off of proper vetting, should be suspect indeed.

Sikh Sex Pest Picked to Host Radio Programme on British Culture

Who better to present a five part radio series on British culture than Hardeep Singh Kohli, currently on six month leave from The One Show to 'reflect on his behaviour' after 'overstepping the mark' with a female colleague.

The BBC refuses to reveal details of why he's taking a six month holiday, but insists his break from one particular programme should not affect his work across the organisation, even though he is clearly in the wrong.

Described by some as a 'arrogant, rude, ego-centric and completely unfunny', I'm sure having this man present a programme called 'Tea & Biscuits' (which includes such homages to Britain as an Indian bride and groom at their arranged wedding) is the worst form of politically correct propaganda.

From The Daily Mail:

Shamed One Show presenter Hardeep Singh Kohli has landed a job on Radio 4 – just two months after a BBC co-worker accused him of harassment.

The 40-year-old roving reporter, famous for his colourful turbans, is presenting a five-part series on British culture.

His role on the show, which is being broadcast this week, comes during his six-month 'leave of absence’ from the BBC One magazine programme.

A spokesman for Radio 4 said he could not rule out the possibility that Kohli would be offered work on more shows in the future.

Kohli, a father of two, found himself in hot water in June this year, when a female researcher on The One Show complained about his inappropriate behaviour.

The reporter, who had been regarded as one of the BBC’s rising stars, was hauled in front of bosses who demanded he apologise to the woman.

He was reprimanded by producers on the show, which is hosted by Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles, and agreed to take six months off to ‘reflect on his behaviour’.

Kohli attracted yet more criticism just last week, when he came up with ‘saucy’ names for children’s characters and posted them on his Twitter site.

The names, which included ‘Little Jack Hornier’, ‘Randy Pandy’ and ‘Blue Movie Peter’, prompted complaints from some of his ‘followers’ on the social networking site. One angry mother branded him a ‘disgrace’.

But if Kohli was concerned about work offers becoming a little thin on the ground, he needn’t have worried.

The Glasgow-born TV star is presenting a new five-part series for Radio 4, entitled Tea And Biscuits, which is airing every afternoon this week.

The show, which started on Monday, sees Kohli visit people and places where the British tradition of tea and biscuits is still going strong.

His encounters include a blood donation centre, the setting up of an arranged marriage between an Indian bride and groom and a break in a lorry driver’s day.

A spokesman for Radio 4 said Kohli’s six month absence from The One Show did not affect his work across the rest of the BBC.

‘Hardeep has not been banned, he has taken a mutually agreed leave of absence from the One Show,’ he said. ‘This does not include his work for Radio 4.’

Details of the harassment complaint against Kohli have not been made public, but the presenter denied that it was sexual harassment.

He admitted, however, that he had ‘overstepped the mark’ and said he had ‘apologised unreservedly’.

Kohli, who split from his wife Sharmila two years ago, has been regarded as one of the BBC's rising stars since winning a place on the corporation's training scheme in Scotland.

BBC Propaganda

Paul Weston has written an excellent essay over at Gates of Vienna, highlighting how the BBC manages to sneak in some very careful wording in its GCSE Bitesize revision programme regarding Christianity and Islam.

So disingenuous (and riddled with errors both factual and grammatical) it could have been written by our resident troll Solkhar himself, it completely distorts the meaning of Christianity and Islam as subtly as possible, whilst staying on message.

Here are some extracts:

Opening with Christianity, the first BBC page reverts to Marxist type as it explains that discrimination can only occur when prejudice is combined with power. As no minority race or religion in Britain is deemed to have power, so they can never discriminate against an indigenous British Christian. And so the scene is set for the evil BBC propaganda that follows their publishing of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

We are also told:

All forms of discrimination go against the first two articles.

Page 2 informs us:

Christianity teaches that everyone is equal in the eyes of God and so all forms of prejudice and discrimination are unacceptable and against God’s will.

Leaving aside the small matter that we discriminate every day on any number of things, such as a preference for good wine over Bulgarian wine or holidaying in Tuscany rather than Arkansas — both examples one would imagine are outside the remit of God’s will — there then comes the inevitable however:

However… there are occasions when Christians are guilty of prejudice and discrimination.

In South Africa, for many years the Dutch Reformed Church supported apartheid, the system which meant that black people were separated from white people and treated inferior [sic].

When Europeans were colonising other countries around the world they often killed the native people there and treated them as slaves.

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, is from Uganda and he has done a lot to raise awareness and put a stop to racism in the Anglican Church, and in wider society.

Sexism is still a problem for the Christian Church — women are not always treated as equals in roles within the Church.

Page 3 informs us:

Many people think the Christian Church is sexist. It does not treat men and women equally.

So although Christianity teaches that everybody should be treated the same, this doesn’t always happen.

Page 4 is a revision page where you have to match up the end of a statement with the beginning. If completed correctly it reads as follows:

Discrimination =		Prejudice + Power
The Roman Catholic Church does not		allow women to be Priests
Article 1 states that all humans		are born free and equal
There is neither Jew nor Greek		slave nor free
The Dutch Reformed Church		supported apartheid
Paul (St) said: women should		be silent in Churches
You shall love your neighbour		as yourself
Native people were treated		as slaves

If you get all the above correct on their interactive site, a little message pops up stating:

Congratulations, you remembered all the facts about Christian prejudice and descrimination. [Spelling mistake courtesy of BBC educationalists.]

The test bite concludes this section on Christianity. You are presented with an interactive statement to which you have to answer true or false. It mimics most of page 4 so I will draw attention to only 2 out of the 10:

Christians believe most people are equal in the eyes of God.

The second statement reads:

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York is trying to reduce racism in the Anglican Church.

Another clever question, to which the correct answer is TRUE. Notice there is no argument as to whether there really is racism in the Anglican Church, it is just presented as fact, and provides the BBC with the opportunity to subliminally brainwash whilst promoting the only Christian they admire, based solely on the fact that he is an African, an enormous positive that far outweighs the inconvenient fact that he is far more hard line than the liberal rank and file excuses for the British Clergy epitomised by the Archdruid, Rowan Williams.

Islam, as I am sure you have probably guessed, is treated in an altogether different way.

Page 1 is identical to page 1 for Christianity, detailing the meaning of discrimination and quoting the Human Rights act.

Page 2 informs us:

The Qur’an (the divine book revealed to the Prophet Muhammad) teaches that everyone was created by Allah and that everyone is equal.

Therefore there is no reason to treat people of different races differently. The Prophet Muhammad showed how important this teaching was in his last sermon, when he said…

…All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve, an Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, a white person is not better than a black person, nor is a black person better than a white person except by piety and good actions. Learn that every Muslim is the brother of every other Muslim and that Muslims form one brotherhood.

Page 3 informs us of Islam’s attitude to women:

Islam also teaches that men and women are equal in the sight of Allah. They are individually accountable for their actions, and will be judged equally by Allah.

However, although men and women are equal, they are not the same. They have different purposes. It is part of Allah’s design and purpose for men and women to have different physical characteristics; likewise it is the duty of a man to provide for the financial needs of his family, and for the woman to look after the home and family.

Although the rights of women are different to those of men, they do have the right to choose whom they marry, to divorce, to study, to own property, to conduct business and to take part in politics.

The Prophet Muhammad stressed the importance of women and the respect that should be shown to them when he said — paradise lies at the feet of your mother.

Page 4 is a revision page where you have to match up the end of a statement with the beginning. If completed correctly it reads as follows:

Discrimination =		Prejudice + Power
The Qur’an teaches		that everyone is equal
Article 1 states that all humans are		born free and equal
Women have the right		to take part in politics
Men and women		will be judged equally
All mankind is descended from		Adam and Eve
Paradise lies		at the feet of your mother
Sometimes men		have the final word

If you get all the above correct on their interactive site, a little message pops up stating:

Congratulations. You have understood all the arguments about Islamic prejudice and discrimination.

Notice how the BBC uses the word “facts” in relation to Christian prejudice and discrimination, but replaced it with “arguments” with regard to Islam.

The test bite concludes the section. There is nothing surprising in it; just a continuation of the BBC’s overt propaganda suggesting Islam is divine, pure, non-racist and non-sexist.

There is a different section on Christian and Islamic attitudes to fighting and warfare. It is worth browsing in its entirety but the general thrust of the propaganda is that Christians and Jews are warlike and Islam is a religion of peace.

Some Media Reactions to the European Election Results

The media are nothing if not predictable; and last night's victory not just for the BNP but for UKIP and the Right across Europe was clearly very trying indeed for them.

David Dimbleby, stalwart of the BBC's political coverage, a man who considers Boris 'my great grandfather was a Muslim slave-owner and I'm proud' Johnson a fascist, managed to keep his voice on an even keel when he mentioned the BNP and Nick Griffin.

Some of his panellists were not so polite; one went so far as to chastise David Cameron for wishing to leave the 'centre-Right' EPP block, ranting: "he wants to join gypsy-bashers and climate change deniers", as if there is no degree of difference between the two.

Most disturbing though is the way that these upsets for the mainstream have been pretty much dismissed out of hand by many; they blame the expenses scandal or the financial crisis without bothering to look at why some people might turn away from the mainstream.

Some went so far as to suggest that the only reason to vote in future was to 'stop the BNP'; they did not seem to consider that if this is truly the only reason to bother voting, that is a damning indictment of our political elite.

Is that really all they can offer us? What about hope, talent, inspiration - do they really have so little? What about a willingness to listen to ordinary people and observe objective reality and formulate a manifesto accordingly? What about allowing reality to trump ideology?

If they put half as much effort into listening and governing as they do trying to smear and stop the BNP, we would reside in a country approaching a veritable utopia.

The BNP needed this breakthrough in their quest to become mainstream. The real winners of the night, however, were UKIP and the Greens.

For a 'fringe' party to push Labour into third place is unprecedented. But it proves that issues such as immigration and rule from Brussels are important to millions of British people. Most people who vote Conservative probably feel the same, deluded that Dave is the man to take the Tories forward.

UKIP and the Greens are seen as the polite protest vote. That certainly does not make every point the BNP makes moot, however. Now that they have access to major funding and a platform, we shall see them in their true light, as others have said here.

Some people are determined to be silly, however; I found the following comments on an article by the Times:

So now we know. Whilst the USA can elect a Black President, we are a country of racists who elect openly racist parties.
After University, I think I might leave for America. There's nothing great about Britain anymore. Sam, Blackpool

Yeah, never mind what a disaster he is - just focus on his colour whilst, er, accusing everyone else of racism.

many are/have been fooled into believing that somehow the difficulties they are facing can be attributed to Asylum seekers or other minorities. ...Most however are covert rascist and are looking for an excust to vote BNP...'Boo hoo an asylum seeker stole my job! Grow up!
Ola, London, UK

No, I know for a fact that huge problems exist in this country caused by unacceptably large numbers of unassimilable Third World immigrants. The numbers involved belie the fact that this victory comes from a couple of racists complaining that a black guy moved in next door. The very existence of this nation is under threat. Why is it illegitimate to wish to control our borders and say that immigration should work for us?

I'm British and my wife is Japanese. In September we will be moving to England. It is unbelievably depressing that we'll be moving to country where national elected politicians will regard our future children as foreigners merely because of their mother's race. Sad beyond words. James, Numazu, Japan

This annoys me. Firstly, if Japan is so wonderful, why come? Secondly, Japan is the only industrialised nation not being colonised by the Third World, the only one which retains the right to control its borders. Why are we evil for wishing to do the same?

I am a British Asian and am not too disgruntled at the vote, face it most of the BNP voters are too stupid to go and get a job themselves so it is easy to blame others. I have worked in estates where the BNP's catchment area is and you would get more sense out of the residents at a Zoo. Pav, Leeds

The utter contempt is amazing. Do these people not have the right to vote for who they wish? Pav is probably employed by the state in some money wasting, social engineering capacity, yet still he mocks those who pay for him. Perhaps, Pav, they are sick and tired of the crime rate of 'British Asians', i.e. Muslims, in the regions in which the BNP were successful.

Over in Holland, Robin Pascoe, the founder of the English-language Dutch News site, was not best pleased with the rise of Geert Wilders, but liked the overall results:

There is some good news in the results of Thursday's Dutch elections for the European parliament.

For a start, despite, the upward march of Geert Wilders' PVV, which took around 17% of the vote, over eight out of 10 people did not vote for his anti-Islam, anti-European party. And as only 37% of the total population bothered to exercise their democratic results at all, his actual support is very small indeed.

In Rotterdam, seen as his biggest urban stronghold, just 29% of the population turned out to vote, and of them, just 22% voted for him. Hardly an overwhelming victory.

The PVV was also the biggest party in The Hague - an embarrassing result for a city which likes to portray itself as the centre of peace and justice.

But in Amsterdam, Wilder's party was in fourth place - and the pro-European Liberal Democrats and left-wing greens GroenLinks rule the roost. The picture is similar in Utrecht.

So despite the four - or possibly five - seats that the PVV will take up in Brussels, only a small fraction of his potential supporters actually bothered to vote for him.

And he failed to do what several polls had predicted: overtake the Christian Democrats to become the biggest party in the country. Given the massive amount of publicity he has had over the past few weeks, that could be construed as surprising. But it does mean by far and away most Dutch people are not xenophobes who want to knee-cap football hooligans and ban the Koran.

The other piece of good news is that the pro-Europeans won. Well under half of the Netherlands 25 seats have gone to avowedly anti-European parties - the PVV and Socialists. The biggest pro-Europeans - D66 and GroenLinks have doubled their representation and take six seats between them - more than Wilders.

As for the established parties - the coalition government and the free-market Liberals - they have been given a serious warning. Labour in particular has been punished for its invisible campaigning and mixed message.

The bad news of the night is that Europe is still a massive voter turn-off. Only 37% of us bothered to vote, and that is a big win for voter apathy.

Much to criticise here, but the first thing that jumps out at me is the old chestnut of describing anyone who opposes the European Union as 'anti-Europe'.

I would respectfully suggest, after reading Mr Pascoe's diatribe, that Mr Wilders is far more pro-Europe than he is, if that is taken to mean commitment to European values and the preservation of individual European cultures in the lands they emerged from.

Secondly, why is it embarrassing that Mr Wilders' PVV party is the biggest in The Hague, and not embarrassing that some areas of The Hague are ruled by criminal Third World colonists? Surely that too strikes a blow for peace and justice?

Europe is a massive voter turn-off because people know they will not be listened to. Look at the Lisbon Treaty referendum in Ireland, and before it the European Constitution votes in France and the Netherlands.

People who feel genuinely powerless may see Wilders as just another establishment stooge. Foolish, because it looks like he is the best that the Right has to offer in Europe, but still.

Lastly, there is that notion that any Dutch who lament their country being taken over by hostile aliens are 'xenophobes'.

The real good news of the night for the likes of Pascoe is that the status quo has been largely maintained. The EPP block was large and powerful before - but still, nothing changed.

Will it this time? I have faith in Mr Wilders, and a few select others such as Daniel Hannan -but overall, we will have to wait and see.

Here is Daniel Hannan's victory speech from last night - well worth a watch: