Monday, 31 May 2010
Laws paid £40,000 to his landlord and lover James Lundie for renting accommodation through him in London. Laws needed to do this because his home is in Yeovil in Somerset.
If he hadn't had sex with Lundie it would have been within the rules, apparently.
So if you are an MP you are not allowed to have sex with your landlord or the landlady whose B&B it is you are staying at, or it would cost you? Where is the logic of that, I wonder. But then logic is not this nation's strong suit.
Crazy rules, which no one thinks to revise, and which brings the law into general contempt generally. A dangerous state of affairs, I would have thought, but our political classes are too thick to see this or if they are, too cowardly to say or do anything.
If you are a London MP then you aren't entitled to claim for your accommodation because you already live in London, which is fair enough.
Why doesn't the government provide accommodation for these out-of-town MPs then?
The Japanese do this for their MPs so why can't we?
So he goes because the British political establishment is full of gutless little wimps afraid of envious little sheeple baaing over MPs' expenses claims.
These sheeple will soon forget what they are baaing about and start baaing about something else. It is well-known that sheeple have the memory of goldfish, but our political classes are afraid even of goldfish, as well as of slut and slapper verminous single mums breeding the next generation of vermin.
How about MPs' accommodation near the House courtesy of the taxpayer for out-of-town MPs then ? This seems obvious to me.
Are they really that gutless and thick they can't even organise a piss-up in a brewery?
If this is the case they shouldn't be running the country then, should they?
Sunday, 30 May 2010
Gosh, we're so clever, aren't we? Obviously, our government is already so STUFFED with talent that we can afford to cut MPs down like grass over some petty rule about whom one may pay rent to if we hire their premises, especially if they show a bit of talent.
The best people (and I include Peter Mandelson because he is loved, hated and feared in equal measure) are now out of office and staying out, while fools and knaves increase in number.
The media as expected are pompously prating about integrity and the reputation of MPs.
Anyone earning less than an MP - and you have to be something of a loser, don't you, to be prepared to settle for the paltry basic salary of just under £65K per annum an MP gets these days while being spat and sneered at by members of the public - seem to be gloating obscenely, pissing and shitting themselves with delight at yet another opportunity to kick a member of the political classes in the teeth.
Cameron and Clegg are very obviously not defending him but managing to make a few weak squeaks of regret and support.
Two metrosexual men in charge, but still no balls in British government.
People deserve the government they get, and boy, do we deserve the government we are going to get.
Friday, 28 May 2010
Any philosopher who tells you to work it out for yourself and not be one of the sheeple must be a force for the good.
Any philosopher that points out that Christianity is a religion for slaves and women can't be all bad.
Any philosopher who foresaw the end of Western civilisation and knew the reasons for its fall must have been a prophet.
Any society that instills liberalism - that ideology panders to the mentality of slaves and children as well as the vices of women into its citrzenry - while shunning the masculine virtues of courage, enterprise, reason, liberty, personal responsibility and honour deserves its own self-destruction.
P O Box 14
EGM FOR CHANGES TO THE PARTY CONSTITUTION
It has come to my notice that there has been much washing of dirty linen online recently and mutinous murmurings of a leadership challenge.
I fear this may become unpleasant and personality-driven and have come to the conclusion that to hold an EGM would be more constructive and conciliatory.
This is what I very much hope you will do so that all with grievances will feel that they have been properly heard and their issues addressed.
I look forward to hearing that an EGM will be held.
Thursday, 27 May 2010
I speak as a Party Member, see myself as a friendly critic and hope that the posts here will be seen in this light by members on both sides of the argument as well as any interested observers. I wish the Party well and sincerely that hope it sorts things out to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Growing pains after an arrested development?
The Red White and Blue is the BNP's annual summer event.
It has been cancelled, it has been suggested, in order to stop people getting together to discuss leadership challenge for which nominations have to be in by mid-August.
Having read the new constitution as best I can, online, I have now formed the opinion that it is in fact practically impossible, under such a constitution to dislodge the Chairman.
All right if he is the one who has built up the party to its present size and influence, not so good if he is one no-good sonofabitch getting fat on the party donations and dragging it down.
Perhaps not all right even if it is St Nicholas who is the Chairman because the principle of party democracy should protect individuals members from the arbitrary decisions of the leader.
The party should exist to serve its members and supporters, not the interests leader.
It is virtually impossible to change the constitution too.
Party democracy, anyone?
This problem is not confined solely to the BNP either. The Tory Party constitution is also another autocrat's charter.
At least the BNP constitution is online and you can find it at
The Tory Party constitution is nowhere to be seen, locked away in the way Mr Rochester locked up his mad wife.
The moment you ask for it, they will be put on notice that you could be a trouble-maker.
Was it right for
1. Enoch Powell to be expelled from the Tory Party for saying that uncontrolled immigration is perhaps not a very good idea and would probably have long-term future consequences for the indigenous population of this country?
2. Nigel Hastilow to be withdrawn as a Tory candidate simply for saying that his constituents had said "Enoch was right"?
2. Patrick Mercer to have been demoted for discussing what does or does not constitute racism?
3. Alan Duncan to have been demoted for telling the truth about MPs being treated like shit and forced to live on rations?
4. Chris Grayling to not become Home Secretary because he dared to suggest that B&B owners should have the right to refuse the custom of homosexual men demanding a double bed, if that is what they want to do? (Theresa May will be awful. Jacqui Smith was dire. Any female Home Secretary will be dreadful because most women cannot keep order. I would probably be the noble exception, but we will never know now.)
5. Peter Mandelson to join the wrong party and therefore fail to become the Prime Minister he could have been? (I dedicate my one-party idea to him, with all my love and respect, and more!)
In case this is not quite clear, let me point out that a one-party state frees the politician to change his mind about things at any time in the light of experience and maturity, while a multi-party system chains him to his tribe for the rest of his career. As we all know, tribal loyalty is amoral rather than principled.
Differences can always be resolved intra-party because it can be done more swiftly and efficiently than the inter-party method we currently have, which is sclerotic, corrupt, oligarchical and frankly no longer fit for purpose either for those in government or those who are governed.
The Chinese Communist Party constitution is in English online for people everywhere to admire.
You can be sure after what Mao did -
- the Chinese would try to make damn sure nothing like that ever happened to them again.
That was why they over-reacted to the personality cult of Falun Gong. Mao, in case anyone didn't know, was a massive personality cult.
The British do have something to learn from the Chinese when it comes to issues of party democracy, but they would rather die than admit it.
Or at the very least suffer more decades of decline and misrule by fools and knaves.
Sunday, 23 May 2010
Friendly attractive barmaid, great music, attractive clientele at The Hobby Horse which had a DJ playing house music.
Very reasonable set meal: 4 courses for £16.50 per person (minimum two persons).
Walked past that chicken shop where poor Agnes Sina-Inakoju was shot. Ghoulishly, I tapped on the window.
Even saw sinister pavement cyclist who cycled past very near to me earlier on the pavement and thought he could easily have been a cycle-by gunman.
Did not bump into Suzanne Moore.
Chris Hewer is always entertaining and knowledgeable.
He could not however answer the question of how and why the Inquisition started and suggested that it may have been an over-solicitous and Christian concern over the souls of Jews and Muslims.
I have a little theory and is simply this. Questioning the divinity of Christ is easy-peasy. When Isabelle and Ferdinand won back Spain from the Moors, I can imagine the Jews and Muslims cheekily questioning Christ's divinity and asking all sorts of unanswerable questions about the Holy Trinity.
That was what led to the Inquisition: to teach these pesky Jews and Christians a lesson.
The Inquisition was totalitarianism writ large. Not only do you have to outwardly convert, we have to be satisfied that you inwardly convert and believe in a lie, just like we do ...
Thursday, 20 May 2010
It was held in the Assembly Room http://www.churchhouseconf.co.uk/rooms/assembly_hall - resplendently round.
The Director of the Orwell Prize - the very charming and enthusiastic Jean Seaton spotted me and dragged me by the arm to meet Richard Blair - Orwell's son - who was surrounded by a gaggle of young and pretty Oriental girlies. Jean introduced me as Madam Miaow, an egregious leftist blogger http://madammiaow.blogspot.com/ who actually made it to the shortlist, who has a very depraved-looking male companion whom I know has denounced me on Suzanne Moore's walls.
I did eventually correct this case of mistaken identity, and proceeded to discuss self-censorship in China with one of the brighter and prettier Chinese girls with whom Richard was surrounded. It turned out she was studying journalism and she said self-censorship was the order of the day. I said there was much self-censorship here too but did not have a chance to launch into a lecture about the evils of single mummery which even the Mail now does not quite dare to condemn - probably because they make up half its readership?
We did however discuss the duties of being a literary executor and the fact that the EU harmonised copyright laws upwards to 70 years, which gave him an extra 20 years of value from the Orwell Estate. Richard also mentioned that he was adopted and told the story of how his father was shot in the throat when I started talking about putting one's head above the parapet ....
I then spoke to Peter Kellner the psephologist who founded YouGov. (I took him to task for not automatically sending out cheques for £50 when those polled have answered enough questions to earn this.) John Tusa joined us later but I cannot remember what was said between us. Saw Jonathan Dimbleby nearby but did not speak to him.
Oona King was there looking improbably young and pretty in jeans and a denim jacket. She was one of the blog judges who did not put me on the longlist, but I smiled at her anyway. She either blanked me or did not notice me. In any case she is not accepting any of my Facebook friendship requests on Facebook and neither is Rushanara Ali (now MP for Bethnal Green & Bow), though she has seen fit to accept Jeffrey Marshall's.
Although Jeffrey and I are not an item, I do feel rather left out in the cold, as if my spouse had been invited to the neighbour's barbecue but not me.
It is a bit of a blow sometimes to realise that one is perhaps less popular than a BNP activist, and then to realise that one has in fact become a BNP activist and that such comparisons are now redundant.
The Prizes were then announced.
Low groans could be heard amidst the applause but I hoped I made up for it by whooping and cheering as loudly as I could when Peter Hitchens was announced as winner of the Journalism Prize. I managed to locate him in order to congratulate him only to see him bent forward and Tweeting, I initially supposed, but it turned out that he was only sending a text to the missus back home that he had won.
There I also saw Francis Wheen, my Facebook friend, whom I had also met many years ago at the Academy Club when it was in a Beak Street basement, in the good old days when Auberon Waugh ran it as Editor of the Literary Review. We even travelled back on the same train after attending his funeral.
Francis identified me as "the BNP person", which was quite gratifying, I suppose. Apparently, his status updates were going mad when I announced my membership of the party and the fact that I was Election Agent to Jeffrey Marshall, the BNP candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow.
John E Strafford the Angry Old Conservative who campaigns for Conservative Democracy at http://www.btinternet.com/~johnstrafford/ was also there. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to speak to him. It would have been good to propose a campaign on party democracy, which is tragically absent from the Conservative Party. (This may even explain why so many of its leaders after the Iron Lady have been so rubbish. The leader I have in mind for this one-party state is Lord Mandelson - the man I hope will one day be my lord and master. Lady Mandelson has such a ring to it, does it not, Dear Reader? I have consulted the stars and they say "You might as well give it a go if you're so set on him. You'll only ignore us anyway if we tell you you're not really his type.")
On the subject of Conservative Democracy, John says:
"The Conservative Party does not have One Person, One Vote. The constitution can only be changed by an electoral college whch consists of MPs in one part and members of the National Convention (mainly constituency chairmen) in the other. It is wholly undemocratic."
The new BNP constitution is now even more undemocratic than the previous one, but much much longer at http://www.bnp.org.uk/?q=constitution-british-national-party
Indeed, if the present Chairman were to be in the peculiar position of wishing to challenge himself for the leadership, I can imagine that he would be hard put to jump through all the hoops that the constitution requires any challenger to do.
As for changing the constitution itself, anyone who wishes to do this would have to submit this proposal to the Chairman who would at his discretion allow it to be put forward, or not.
In other words, it is sewn up and stitched up to favour the incumbent.
I am pretty sure the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party was a lot more democratic than this, even in Mao's time. The trouble for them was that no one enforced the rules (which were apparently quite fair) when dissidents were being beaten, exiled or imprisoned.
It is quite telling that the Chinese are very proud of their constitution and have it displayed online, in English, for the world to see, while the Conservative Party locks theirs away the way Mr Rochester locked up his mad wife. (I had to ask CCHQ six times before they would send the Tory Party constitution to me.)
Mutinous murmurs from BNP activists are being heard everywhere online, it seems. There is even a conspiracy theory that the Chairman wants the party small and unsuccessful because that would make the membership easier to control. While middle class support and talent is being sought, there are certain elements in the party in senior positions who do not want competition from talented newcomers, it has been suggested.
My hope is that the finest legal minds in the country will examine the fairness of the rules of both the Conservative Party and BNP constitution. When the model constitution for a party is finally ready we can then proceed to an official one-party state, which is to my mind the most rational form of government. We can see that it has done the Chinese no harm at all, apart from a few moaners and whingers, for whom there can be no pleasing.
Electoral reform is nothing if individual party constitutions make members the mere instruments and creatures of the party leader.
It would in fact serve the present incumbents and those they govern better than the mess we have now if there was only one political party to join and that differences are always resolved intra-party rather than inter-party.
I would be happy to explain further if people would just ask me intelligent questions instead of running away at the mention of a one-party state.
I should also mention the lovely Italian meal I had with the Mail's dark and mysterious Moscow correspondent at Il Posto near Victoria Station. http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/restaurants/il-posto-info-8473.html The seafood risotto was absolutely delicious and is just as good now if not better. I am so glad I got the waiter to doggy bag it!
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
"Section 7 - Elections to Our Party's Leadership" - page 36 onwards
Those who are legally-trained are particularly invited to give their opinion on this.
Compare the rules to the Labour Party Rule Book and weep!
"How about this for an idea then?
Draft a party constitution.
Invite others to join on the basis of the fairness of its rules.
Register the party.
Declare a caretaker leader.
Invite Nick Griffin to join.
Invite all the ones who want to throw their hats in the ring to throw their hats in the ring.
Declare new leader after a fair and democratic leadership contest has been held.
Suggested draft clauses for the constitution on:
http://www.thenationalparty.org.uk/constbnp has the old rules.
SECTION 4: ELECTIONS TO THE PARTY LEADERSHIP
1) Any member of the party may become a candidate for the post of National Chairman of the party provided that person has served a term totalling 5 years' continuous membership of the party and is a party office holder as defined in Section 7 of this constitution. Should a member not be an office holder, then he may still become a candidate for the post if he first obtains 100 instead of the usual 10 signatures. No exception to these rules may be made unless it is with the consent of the currently serving National Chairman of the party,
2) Any such candidate must submit his nomination to the party's Head Office not earlier than 31st May, and not later than 30th June of any year. This nomination must be signed by the candidate and counter signed by a proposer and a seconder, both of whom must have served a term of membership of the party as specified in Sub-section 1 of this Section, and by 10 other members of the party who have served not less than 2 years' membership.
3) A postal ballot of all members shall then take place within 3 months of the close of nominations as specified in Sub-section 2. In the event of there being more than two candidates for this office, there shall first be an eliminator ballot which will determine which two among the candidates obtain the highest votes, after which there shall then be a final ballot between those two candidates unless one of the candidates has obtained more than fifty per cent of the votes cast, in which case that candidate is elected. In the event of two ballots being required, the final date for the completion of the second ballot may be extended by 15 days beyond that required by the three month period specified earlier.
4) The specific dates and procedures to be observed in the carrying out of such elections shall be determined by the party's Head Office at such time as the occasion arises — provided that it is in compliance with the letter and spirit of this Constitution.
5) The successful candidate in any such election will be considered as occupying the office of National Chairman immediately on completion of the counting of votes following that election.
6) All candidates standing in such elections will be authorised to be present in person on the occasion of the counting of votes and to be accompanied by up to two other party members of their choice, and shall be afforded all facilities necessary to satisfy themselves as to the honesty and propriety of the counting.7) In any year in which no nominations for the post of National Chairman of the party have been received in accordance with the terms specified in Sub-section 2 of this Section, the currently serving holder of that post will be considered to have receiveda mandate from the party to hold it for a further year.
8) In any year in which there is a challenge for the post of National Chairman, the currently serving National Chairman shall be deemed to be nominated automatically should he wish to stand again.
9) The elected National Chairman shall appoint a Deputy Chairman, who shall sit as of right on the Advisory Council, but may be replaced by the elected National Chairman at any time as he sees fit. The Deputy Chairman shall have no powers or responsibilities above or beyond those of other members of the Advisory Council, except in circumstances when the National Chairman should either die or declare himself to be permanently indisposed, in which case the Deputy Chairman shall exercise the powers of National Chairman until a new National Chairman can be chosen by the membership in an election called within 60 days and carried out as provided for in this Section.10) Throughout this constitution, the words he and his shall be taken to mean her and hers whenever applicable.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Christianity - a more merciful and inclusive version of monotheism though incoherent because it was a redraft
Islam - the best combination of mercy and reason - final draft
Sunday, 16 May 2010
As Election Agent, I attempted to get him some publicity and thought I would assist in giving the message of a more inclusive BNP by asking East London Mosque if my candidate could address them, after explaining the capacity in which I was acting.
This was politely declined.
Yesterday, I attended a talk about Palestine at the mosque.
I have also attended the New Muslim Circle at East London Mosque and have always enjoyed these sessions of discussing one's faith and one's morals intelligently with others in a spirit of female solidarity. (There is a New Muslim Circle for men too and this is held separately.)
After necessarily outing myself as a BNP member and Election Agent in order to make my request, it occurred to me that I would be henceforth persona non grata at East London Mosque.
As it happened a few of the sisters who also attended the talk recognised me and asked me if I was coming to the New Muslim Circle.
It seemed that the news of my membership may not have been generally known but I thought it would be as well to face the music and explain myself.
I was very touched and heartened that, as far as they were concerned, it wasn't a big deal and detected no change at all in their attitude towards me: which continued to be warm and friendly.
They even suffered to hear one of my suggestions for fund-raising in order to organise a weekend retreat for the women so that they may discuss matters such as parenting.
(The idea was to have a quiz on the Koran, in case anyone's interested.)
They received it politely and even with some hint of enthusiasm and interest. I really am incredibly moved by their lack of side on all this. It can be quite an emotional experience having one's faith in human nature unexpectedly restored from such an unexpected quarter.
This is a stark contrast to the Liberal Left who have defriended me on Facebook in droves and who now make a point of telling anyone of their number who had befriended me to defriend me.
Douglas Gloster-Pretsell of the Labour Party accepted my friendship and then upon being told I was BNP, defriended me and informed me that I was "repellent". I responded that he did not in fact really know that I was repellent until he was informed that I was.
After Suzanne Moore announced that she defriended me, after which Nyta Mann (formerly of The New Statesman and the BBC) and Nick Cohen of The Guardian popped up on her walls to denounce me.
Nyta Mann was someone I actually knew before Facebook had even been invented. Indeed, we met in a London hostel in our starter years in London. She even attended my wedding, though I now understand that such things count for very little with her.
Most of the Liberal Left are really at heart cowards and bullies.
An interesting revelation, is it not, that Muslims can be so liberal and the "Liberal" Left so frankly fascistic?
Perhaps rule under a Caliphate would be somewhat more liberal than rule by the Liberal Left?
Life certainly has many layers of irony.
When academics fear that being my Facebook friend is unacceptable and career suicide, then we have to question the quality of knowledge that these cowards purvey. I am referring to Dennis Hayes and Rania Hafez - academics supposedly concerned with academic freeedom but who are strangely reluctant to discuss the subject and who will defriend anyone who does so without their prior approval.
Saturday, 15 May 2010
Someone called Anshul Gupta, whom I met on Alastair Campbell's walls on 12 May, is trying to get the police to arrest me for inciting racial hatred.
The Tory-supporting Mr Gupta came over to gloat at Cameron being declared Prime Minister after all - 5 days after the election.
Predictably, many of us on the thread made joking references to his name after someone mis-spelt "Anshul".
References to the anus and a certain ointment for the treatment of hemorrhoids became frankly irresistible.
Mr Gupta claimed that a doctor treating him (I am not certain if it was for hemorrhoids) who made that little joke had the police knocking on his door, and was even disciplined by the GMC, hoping to put the fear of the law into us.
Unfortunately, one of the weaker members of the discussion caved in and apologised. Indeed, he even mentioned a mental disability in order to excuse himself for this lese-majeste.
I then derided an entire race, nation and sex for this excruciatingly servile attitude towards some jumped-up person with a skin darker than theirs.
No wonder the BNP are concerned about racial extinction, I ranted. Who wants to breed with a bunch of men so gutless and so easily intimidated like those lily-livered liberals (who are mostly gay anyway)?
I wonder if Mr Gupta will be attempting to waste police time.
And I wonder if the police will allow their time to be wasted by calling on me.
I hope, for the sake of the taxpayer, that they will not, but I think I would be almost disappointed if they didn't.
It would after all amount to malicious prosecution or at the very least aiding and abetting in the wasting of police time.
I can always get Mr Gupta for defamation since it would appear that he is suggesting that I am a racist in the sense that I dislike his racial group (though I don't see what business it is of the state's whom I dislike and why).
If, however, he is suggesting that one is a racist merely because someone of another race is offended by what one has said, then perhaps I would be guilty.
I wish therefore to deny the concept of racism. If racism is merely having someone of another race offended by something you say, then it is clearly insupportable because it infringes the principle of free speech and has all the elements of speech crime.
Can any rational society be supporting this sort of crap?
But of course our political classes are now too emasculated and effeminate to propose anything to discourage the likes of people like Mr Gupta - the maliciously litigious.
No wonder this country is going to the dogs when people like Mr Gupta are allowed to infringe on our liberties in this way. Believe me, there are more and more people like him now, encouraged by the law.
As I said to Mr Gupta:
"I am not Afraid of Anusol and will not be Apologising to Arsehole."
and I, a mere woman, stand by what I say, no matter what the PC and spineless legal and political establishment say and do.
Friday, 14 May 2010
They are, it appears, too thick to realise that freedom of expression is something you ASSERT, rather than await to have conferred upon you.
Still, such is the spinelessness of these middle class academics.
is the website of this august and principled body.
Dennis Hayes, my former Facebook friend, is one of the spokesmen for AFAF. This is rather curious since he is the one most known for skirting around issues and beating around the bush and shushing people when they get to the heart of the matter.
Yesterday, on Facebook, I initiated a discussion on what the vague references to be found at
could possibly be about. I tagged him and Rania Hafez at the Cass School of Education so that they could contribute to the discussion. They were not obliged to do so, of course. It was a mere invitation they both had the option of declining.
Firstly, Dennis refused to even discuss the subject when I asked for details and clarification.
He then begged me to delete the entire status on my wall, just because it mentioned his name. I was just about to decided not to because someone had responded and the discussion was getting heated.
Here it is below, in case anyone's interested:
Can anyone tell me what this is about? Do you get the impression that these academics are so scared that they hardly dare tell us what they are complaining about? I tried asking what sort of "odious opinions" and "toxic topics" they must avoid expressing and received a deafening silence. It seems they are too afraid even to answer my question! Wow. Dennis Hayes Rania Hafez
It's going to be about Israel, Jews and anti-semitism...
I bet it's a whole host of other stuff as well. Feminism and the girlification of science come to mind. You would have thought that some academic could prove that single motherhood is bad for society or that we live in a matriarchy which means the end of our civilisation unless we do something about it, but no .... they are too scared.
Yesterday at 3:18pm
The BBC refused to discuss this at http://www.facebook.com/pages/BBC-So-You-Want-to-Be-a-Scientist/116570741697536?ref=ts after a female producer grandly pronounced that science can also be psychology.
I pointed out that it is surely not a good idea to dumb down science since this would put this country at a disadvantage with other countries that did not, but they ignored that.
I also suggested that the BBC could make a documentary about why there are never any matriarchies we hear about, perhaps with the pretty and engaging anthropologist Dr Alice Roberts, but I was told by the female producer that she could not possibly have a rational debate with me because of my known views.
Yesterday at 3:31pm
People are under the impression that a matriarchy has to be headed by a female leader. Not so. The important thing to note is that a matriarchy is a society where female promiscuity is condoned.
A patriarchy is of course a society where male promiscuity is condoned. Margaret Thatcher was part of the patriarchy.
My point is that the British are in decline because their government has decided to embrace feminine and proletarian vices when previously they at least played lip service to aristocratic and masculine virtue. I don't suppose there is much any of us can do about it except convert to Islam en masse, but it is as well to know where we are heading, even if no academic dares raise the subject.
Yesterday at 3:38pm
I do feel you are making a category error, mistaking those who are in charge for those who are free to fuck. Yesterday at 3:42pm
Please elaborate your point.
Yesterday at 3:45pm
Being free to fuck who you like, when you like, is not indicative of being in charge of a civilisation. Read 1984. Yesterday at 3:50pm
Or Brave New World.
Yesterday at 3:55pm
I have read 1984.
Yesterday at 3:55pm
No one is talking about being in charge of a civilisastion, Shaun. We are talking about whether certain practices help or hinder the health of a civilisation.
Yesterday at 3:56pm
And did you understand that 1) It's not an instruction manual, and 2) It shows how alcohol and sex can be used to control the lower orders?
Yesterday at 3:57pm
Consequently your argument vis-a-vis female sexuality is without basis.
Yesterday at 3:58pm
I haven't read Brave New World. I still don't get your point. Mine is very simple: always choose the lesser evil.
The matriarchy is the greater evil.
The patriarchy is the lesser evil.
Yesterday at 3:58pm
What isn't an instruction manual?
Yesterday at 4:00pm
As for your proclamations of evil, I can only say 'proof or STFU' as the online vernacular has it. I can show you plenty of evidence that female promiscuity is NOT linked to matriarchy (rule by women). Sorry.
Yesterday at 4:08pm
You don't quite understand, Shaun. Female promiscuity will always occur, whether in a patriarchy or a matriarchy.
You know you are living in a matriarchy when female promiscuity is condoned.
Yesterday at 4:16pm
Again, I ask you for proof of your assertion, so that I may better examine your purported evidence.
Yesterday at 4:20pm
Do you agree that in a patriarchy it is male promiscuity that is condoned?
Yesterday at 4:22pm
No. In a Patriarchy *all* power and privilege is retained by males. Matriarchy is the female reflection of that.
You have a strange hangup about people having sex without your permission or blessing.
Yesterday at 4:27pm
To me, being more libertarian than you, I believe that it's up to individuals who, when and how they have sex. You oppose that liberty and prefer some bizarre system of 'sanction' and are thus fundamentally anti-freedom.
Yesterday at 4:28pm
No, they are free to fuck, as long as they don't expect to be bailed out by the taxpayer. I would abolish child benefit for all.
Yesterday at 4:38pm
Then it's not female promiscuity that you have a problem with, but female reproduction. Since, you say, you are okay with fucking.
Yesterday at 4:39pm
Of course. A whore can be technically not promiscuous by my definition, if she escapes unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
On the other hand a girl who just had sex for the first time could suffer from both.
Yesterday at 4:45pm
And yes. I did see your earlier deleted comment about 'whores'. Carry on!
Yesterday at 4:46pm
Yesterday at 4:52pm
I have deleted nothing.
Yesterday at 4:52pm
Ah okay - it's just that the notification mail for your 'whore' comment arrived twice which is usually a sign that the original comment was quickly deleted and then reposted. Apologies.
Yesterday at 4:55pm
So, do you agree with me that a patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity, Shaun?
Yesterday at 5:14pm
No, I don't. You still haven't shown me any evidence for your 'female promiscuity' proposition, so why should I take any of these claims seriously when then are all unsupported by evidence. If I wanted faith to trump fact, I'd have voted Labour, after all...
Yesterday at 5:19pm
In answer to your first question: this appears to be run by a group that used to be called the Revolutionary Communist Party (from about 1990 onwards, it was neither), which is now Spiked Online.
Yesterday at 5:42pm
Is this one of clair's famous vile views /? More freedom the better we are being controlled by not nice ppl . Yesterday at 6:31pm
Shaun, I am just asking for a simple YES or NO answer.
Would you say that a patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity?
Yes or No will do. There is no need for evidence.
Yesterday at 7:19pm
AFAF is run by Commies??
Yesterday at 7:19pm
Since you can provide, or rather, refuse to provide, any evidence for your assertion, I have no choice but to say 'no'.
Prove to me the link between female, and not male, promiscuity and matriarchy and perhaps we'd have something to talk about but your inability to produce any evidence whatsoever tends to render your assertions valueless.
Yesterday at 7:21pm
Why don't you just confine yourself to answering the question, which is only about how you would identify a patriarchy. It is very simple:
Do you think that, in a patriarchal society, the tendency is to condone male promiscuity?
Yes or no?...
I think you are refusing to answer this very obvious question because you already know where this will lead.
Yesterday at 7:25pm
Because, Claire, you question (as usual) is loaded with assumptions that you cannot, or more likely, will not prove.
Show me the proof of a connection between Matriarchy and female, but not male, promiscuity. Then show me a link between that and poor civilisational outcomes. I bet you can't because this is just another idea you've had lazing on your sofa, with no reference to reality at all.
Yesterday at 7:27pm
Just answer the question instead of avoiding it. You don't need loadsa evidence. Logical inference will get you there.
Yesterday at 7:28pm
Since Shaun is determined to avoid the question, I am hoping David and Salman will answer.
Yesterday at 7:36pm
So you say, Claire, and yet it is you who refuses, repeatedly, to provide any evidence for your own question's operating assumption. So once again, I challenge you to show me evidence connecting Matriarchy with female promiscuity, let alone poor outcomes. Show me the evidence or else admit that you're just spouting your usual bigoted ideas.
Yesterday at 7:59pm
The exchange ended there.
Next thing I knew Rania had defriended me.
I wrote to enquire the exact reason, convinced that Dennis had put her up to it. It turned out that quite a number of her friends had put her up to it too, namely one Salma Khan who works in PR and a friend of Rania's. Salma is divorced and cannot possibly have approved of the talk I gave below about single mums though she has defriended me ostensibly on the grounds that I am a member of the BNP.
This is how the unscrupulous Left and the spineless operate. They ostracise and then they isolate and denounce , as a lesson to others who might be thinking of asserting their freedom of expresson.
It appears that academics do not even have the freedom of association to have me as a Facebook friend. Can this really be true in our much-vaunted liberal democracy?
Not that long ago, Rania very kindly allowed me to give a talk on the subject of Islamic Principles in Education a transcript of which is below:
It is a great honour to be invited to address Muslims on the subject of education and Islam, especially as I am neither Muslim nor in the teaching profession. What, you may well ask, is a Secular Koranist, which is what I call myself? It is a new concept that I came up with, which I hope will be useful in bridging the distance between atheists and monotheists. A Secular Koranist basically believes that the Koran is a good enough guide, whether or not you believe in God or not. It is therefore an ideology that wishes to make the most of our agreement on morality and politics, where it can be found.
I asked Rania for some guidance of the Islamic principles she wanted me to talk about, but she told me that it was for ME AS A SECULARIST to tell you all what I understand by Islamic principles, and how these could be applied to the field of education. I shall do my best to articulate these principles, as I understand them. The Koran could be regarded as a contract between God and Man. If you agree with this view, what, you may well ask, was it that God wanted Man to contract to do for Him? The deal, if we can call it that, is that if we follow the Koran, we will be rewarded in this life and the next. If we examine the principles of all the Abrahamic faiths, a common thread can be discerned. It is about being kind to each other and telling the truth. The other thing is family values.
It means marriage of course and only having sex within marriage. Extra marital sex – another term for recreational sex with partners of either gender - is prohibited. It also means, logically, that illegitimacy is to be condemned, because that would be evidence of extra-marital sex.
Why are family values so important to social conservatives? After all, the Old Testament prescribes the penalty of death by stoning to pregnant unmarried ex-virgins. The quality of the next generation is of course dependent upon the parenting ability and resources of their parents. Even now, in the 21st century, after half a century of liberal policies, single parenthood has a negative effect on a child’s life by disadvantaging it socially, economically and educationally.
Here are two frightening statistics, ladies:
46% of babies born in Britain are born out of wedlock.
70% of our prison population were singly-parented.
However, because of the high proportion of illegitimacy and single mothers who make up our friends and family, we have all become very reluctant to discuss this, for fear of giving offence. In an earlier age, the phrase “single mums” and the phrase “who are a burden on the state” would go hand in hand. Now to criticize single motherhood is tantamount to criticizing every other friend of family member we have. Politicians, who are even more unwilling to give offence than the average person because of their great fear of losing, remain incorrigibly cowardly and refuse to condemn single motherhood.
A meeting I attended recently which Rania chaired concerned the unfortunate position of teachers who are overwhelmed by red tape and paperwork as well as the foul-mouthed indiscipline of their charges. This, I suggested, was because the government does not trust teachers to do their work properly because many children leave school with no firm grasp of the 3 Rs.
Employer bodies such as the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and the British Chamber of Commerce frequently complain about the educational attainments of the state-school-leaver.
Indeed, so badly educated is the typical state-school-leaver that most employers have voted with their feet and now simply avoid hiring British employees. This would be the reason why the government is constantly micromanaging what teachers teach, and why they are fretting about the rise of the Far Right. In my opinion, they are only dealing with the symptom but not the cause. Teachers can’t teach as well as they could and should because authority and discipline are now dirty words in the liberal lexicon. The children that won’t sit still and won’t shut up tend to be the badly parented ones. The badly parented ones tend to be the singly parented ones. But since no one is prepared to condemn single parenthood in strong enough terms for anyone to take notice and change their behaviour, the problem will continue to get worse.
How do Islamic principles come in?
The most important Islamic principle of all, in my opinion, is the exhortation to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil. Single motherhood has evil consequences for children, the next generation, society and our future as a nation and a civilization. Rising crime and ever-lowering educational standards will eventually affect us all. The government and its opposition have abdicated their duty, I’m afraid, because they don’t want offend anyone and lose votes. So the responsibility passed to teachers. It is they who must point to the cause of their ills, at the risk of sounding Politically Incorrect and judgmental of women who do not bother to get married before they have children and then fail to bring them up properly.
To continue to ignoring this problem would mean condemning yet another generation of children to illiteracy, innumeracy and a life of crime on benefits.
While it is not within the remit of the teaching profession to fix the problems of society caused by bad parents badly parenting their children they must at least be prepared to point to its causes, even if they fear the criticism they will receive for pointing out the obvious. But it appears they cannot even bring themselves to criticize single mums either, because it would be Politically Incorrect to do so. The fact is that children with two parents tend to be socially and spiritually advantaged compared to singly parented children.
Once we have acknowledged this truth then all the other Islamic principles which are in fact universal virtues, of civility, charity, the cultivation of an enquiring reasoning mind, will fall into place.
To solve the problem we must work out what it is.
Only when we have pointed out the problem to the person in a position to fix it can we expect there to be a beginning of the end of the problem.
Anything else is just fiddling while Rome burns, which is most certainly not an Islamic principle.
If neither the political nor the educational establishment is prepared to condemn single motherhood, then I am afraid that this unpleasant task now falls to Muslims, if they care for the future of the country they and their children now live in. There is really no one left to do it now, and I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.
It was even quite well-received at the time, but she may be having second thoughts now.
Oh dear. I hope that mere association with me has not ended both the academic careers of Dennis Hayes and Rania Hafez. I should also say that I am a member of the BNP and the Election Agent of Jeffrey Marshall, the BNP candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow.
The BNP is of course a legal political party. If they were banned, I would understand but they are perfectly legal.
Do academics have the right to associate with people like me without being demoted or sacked from their jobs?
I would like to think the answer is yes, but these days many would rather not test the law for fear of demotion and a termination of employment.
So we shall see, won't we, Dennis and Rania?
Since neither of them are prepared to test the waters I shall have to test it for them, in the name of academic freedom, my friends!
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
So you are saying you won't be me dinner unless I promise you you are going to get lucky with me tonight. What do you think I am, Nick? A whore?
[A bit later]
Cameron [smiling seductively]:
All right, Nick. I'll just say you will get lucky tonight if you buy me dinner.
[A bit later]
Did you say you are going to have dinner with Gordon tonight???? What about me? When are you having dinner with me, Nick??? Boo hoo hoo!
[The Ides of May continues to approach inexorably ... ]
Sunday, 9 May 2010
- Abolish the parties and allow only one party of national interest.
- Retire all party whips.
- Make every vote a free vote.
- Make all the current MPs elect a leader declaring that membership of the House of Lords is no bar to being considered (Only Lord Mandelson has the ability to appeal to both Tories and Labour - he would be a unifying leader and reassuring to the markets.)
- Draft a party constitution that properly protects the rights of these MPs who are all members of the only political party in the UK that can ever be in government along the lines of http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107
THE POSTAL VOTE
Does it sound probable and predictable that Margaret Hodge MP - a member of an unpopular government at the end of its third term - should experience a surge of popularity that nearly doubled her vote from 13,000+ last time to 24,000+ this time?
I'm just asking.
How many of those 10,802 votes were postal and proxy votes that are so open to abuse?
I think we should be told, don't you?
Saturday, 8 May 2010
In Bethnal Green & Bow as well as Poplar & Limehouse, RESPECT was comprehensively defeated by Labour.
Perhaps this is due to the electorate knowing that the party in government is more capable of delivering on its bribes than a minor party and cynically voting as the briber paid them to do.
The BNP do have a problem and they do not really know exactly why they are so despised. (It is not just because they are racist, though.)
All poor people are despised. Poor whites in this country are particularly despised because they remind liberals of the failure of their policies.
Helping poor starving Africans is always somehow more emotionally appealing than helping their own obese white single mothers on benefit with their variously-fathered children.
The BNP also have this other apparently insuperable problem - the fact that women are half the electorate.
Women at heart have a horror of poor low-status men. They find them frightening, if not actually repulsive. They are however prevented by PC from admitting this even to themselves, because they like to think of themselves as kind, compassionate and nurturing. The fact that these men are meant to be racist and therefore evil gives them an excuse to shun them, but, really, they are looking for a protector and a provider, or, not to put too fine a point on it, a meal ticket for life. A poor man represents an unattractive prospect in meal ticket terms.
Most women are not up to taking the flak that goes with being associated with being the spouse or girlfriend or even the platonic friend of a known racist.
Most men, who are only after One Thing and want to look after Number 1, know that it would be impolitic to allow themselves to be tainted by association with the poor and despised.
It would affect their career prospects and without a good job earning good money, women would shun them.
For one thing they wouldn't get any nookie.
Shag a racist girls? Er, thanks, but not today. Shag a poor racist whose education, training and values are so abysmal he cannot compete with foreigners? You can guess the answer.
- Attract the middle class vote.
- Make the party safe for people like Jeremy Clarkson, Rod Liddle, Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips.
- Be well-dressed and well-groomed.
- Challenge feminism. Women will hate you at first, but, if you offer them a viable alternative, they may even thank you for it later, and admire you for your courage.
- Forgive people like Jeremy Clarkson, Rod Liddle, Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips etc who have been kicking you in the teeth yet agreeing with your policies for years now but who keep saying how vile, nasty, racist, Nazi and evil the party is. (This is because they have dependents and are understandably reluctant of losing their jobs or being victimised by the Leftists who would destroy their reputations.)
- Make the party safe for people like Jeremy Clarkson etc and make it profitable for MPs of the more established parties to jump ship.
- Never mention repatriation of anyone except illegal immigrants.
- Never mention miscegenation again. Far easier to threaten to disown and disinherit any child of yours who offends you with his or her reproductive choice. (If you haven't even any property you could withhold from your hypothetical child to punish them for for going against your wishes, or if they just don't care what you think of them, then suffer the punishment of being a useless parent whom your child neither loves nor fears!)
- Promise the return of fault in divorce so your ex-wife isn't entitled to half your property and able to deprive you of your children when you have really done nothing wrong and she is just bored and irritated with you.
- Use IC codes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC_codes to distinguish Britons of all races. White people are Number 1, by the way! No more distinction between ethnic and civic Britons because that would be "racist" but really because it is divisive.
- Offer training courses in social graces with a special membership discount.
- Offer training courses in grooming and dressing with a special membership discount.
- Offer training courses in public speaking with a special membership discount.
- Interview all potential members, allowing admission only to those who fulfill minimal standards of the above-mentioned qualities.
- Offer membership of the BNP Debating Society with a special membership discount.
- Offer ballroom dancing classes with a special membership discount.
- Offer the services of a marriage bureau including the drafting of a BNP marriage contract (rather like a Muslim marriage contract http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2009/03/muslim-marriage-contract.html) with a special membership discount.
- Offer the services of a marital relationship bureau with a special membership discount.
- Offer the services of a marital dissolution service with fairer terms to men (and quite similar to Muslim divorces where custody is awarded to men after the child reaches a certain age unless there are compelling reasons for not so doing) than is currently available from UK family courts, with a special membership discount.
- Offer courses at a Wives and Mothers Training School for aspiring wives and mothers, with a special membership discount.
- Establish a BNP travel club where members of all races could bond with each other while visiting and learning about different countries and cultures.
- A BNP clothes shop with well-cut clothes that are modest and elegant that members could wear like uniform - if they so wished - so they never make a sartorial error ever again, with a special membership discount.
- A BNP Cookbook consisting of the favourite recipes of members, with a special membership discount. (This could become a collectors' item!)
- Change the BNP logo to something resembling the Tesco one using the same fonts and colours to give the impression of being an organisation that is getting bigger and better.
- Have some over-arching big idea - such as a one-party state that affirms the principle of a small state and limited government under a narrower taxpayer-only franchise which properly protects the rights of its members against the leader and his cronies and operates government by referenda AKA direct democracy.
- State in no uncertain terms that if the working classes want British jobs for British workers, they had better do what they are supposed to do and start working again, to the extent of even taking a crap job that they feel is beneath them and demeaning, such as picking fruit and cleaning toilets, without pissing off their employers and telling them how well they know their rights.
"The most effective way to silence our guilty conscience is to convince ourselves and others that those we have sinned against are indeed depraved creatures, deserving every punishment, even extermination. We cannot pity those we have wronged, nor can we be indifferent toward them. We must hate and persecute them or else leave the door open to self-contempt."
The Nazis did it to the Jews. White liberals do it to their own working classes. If they could they would press a button that would exterminate all the white urban proletariat by blowing them up in their tower blocks, and swiftly replace them with foreign workers rather than have to go to the trouble of teaching the white working classes anything worth learning that would make them employable. To use tried and trusted traditional teaching methods or discipline would after all be "fascist" and they would rather die than give up any part of their self-image of compassion and tolerance.
The sky may fall around their ears and their civilisation in the process of being destroyed, yet they would still cling slavishly to the idea of indiscriminate tolerance and compassion for the feckless, criminal and viciously destructive.
Liberals are as evil as the Nazis in the sense that they both harmed the very people they were meant to help. It is the 21st century version of human sacrifice.
Friday, 7 May 2010
The only trouble were rossetted activists over-enthusiastically breaking the rule of not wearing-rosettes in or within a certain distance of a polling station.
Everyone friendly, civilised, cheerful.
RESPECT were the most visible.
It was asked by another activist why even the wearing of a rosette was not allowed inside a polling station and I felt I had the answer after I saw Jeffrey Marshall going goo-goo ga-ga over the Conservative candidate Caroline Kerswell who was canvassing and accompanied by her minder. She is a barrister, blonde and top totty, as you can see at http://conservativecaroline.blogspot.com/2009/10/caroline-kerswell-selected-to-stand-in.html
She had been threatened with violence by an Asian Labour councillor for daring to point out that there were rules about how close you can come to a polling station with leaflets and rosettes. He said he would give her a smack, apparently, and she called the police.
This of course brought out all Jeffrey's manly and protective instincts, and he hid from her his dreadful secret that he was a BNP candidate. He knew Caroline's shutters would come down the moment she knew the terrible dark dirty secret of his party affiliation.
I asked after the encounter if he had outed himself to her as BNP candidate and he cooed with every evidence of infatuation: "I spoke to her and she smiled at me and confided in me. I really couldn't bear to see her manner towards me change the moment she finds out I am a member of the BNP " or words to that effect. "If only I could ask her more about herself, her work, her life ..." he added wistfully.
Such are the sacrifices some men make for their nation, race and party.
Imagine a situation where an exquisitely beautiful woman - Aryan, noble, angelic, rather like Caroline Kerswell perhaps - wearing a BNP rosette in a polling station, mysterious and mute.
All she had to do was catch the eye of any male voter, smile at him seductively, and then lower her eyes and look away.
They would fall instantly in love with her and vote BNP. No doubt about that.
A male candidate wearing a rosette would have to offer promises, proposals, arguments and bribes and would be simply unable to compete with the spell a beautiful woman casts over the much weaker sex - men.
After all, we already know that men actually lose their minds when they fall in love.
That is obviously why Labour and Tory have their all-women shortlists. It is because they already know this dirty trick they can play on their own supporters and of course the supporters of other parties.
Then we went to Television Centre in Wood Lane for Jeffrey to be filmed attempting to persuade a voter to vote BNP.
Below was the gist of his speech:
For the disgruntled Tory voter who has been left in the lurch by David Cameron, who does not understand the first thing about Conservative principles, but who is vying with New Labour to be more gay-friendly than they, who thinks to way to power is to ape New Labour, may I draw your attention to the fact that none of our policies would have raised any eyebrows in the 1950s.
You may well say to yourselves: “Things have moved on since then,” but I ask you this: “Are we now in a better place than we were in the 1950s, 60s and 70s?” If you think not, then vote BNP.
For the disgruntled Labour voter – the white working class - who feels that any questioning or complaining about immigration automatically makes you a “bigot”, may I point out that the Labour government are scattering British passports like confetti in the hope tilting the vote in their favour. These new citizens will be expected to vote Labour after being bribed by Labour with British passports.
For the disgruntled non-white Briton, may I point out that uncontrolled immigration is bad for you too. It brings with it higher crime rate and a strain on national resources such as social housing, education and health services. We at the BNP know that the Liberal Left have told you that you cannot complain either, because you are also an immigrant, and that if you don’t like it you should go back to where you came from.
For the concerned Muslim, who thinks that voting BNP is tantamount to turkeys voting for Xmas, may I point out that if there had been a BNP government this country would not now be embroiled in two disastrous invasions of two Muslim countries nor would we have the blood of any Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan on our hands. The BNP is the party that has been the most strongly and consistently against the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The BNP are, like Muslims, socially conservative, as we believe in family values, married two-parent families that stay together and, like you, reject all that contributes to family breakdown, juvenile delinquency, feral youth and higher crime. We reject feminism, single motherhood, progressive education, soft policing and favour corporal and capital punishment, zero tolerance policing and the reintroduction of fault in divorce.Like you, we are called extremists by the Liberal Left just for stating the obvious. So there you have it: something for everyone. Let it not be said that the BNP is not a broad church, or even a big mosque …. [he ended, rather shamelessly targeting the mythical Muslim bloc vote]
Jeffrey was filmed talking to an assertive and intelligent black woman who went to Barking College and complained about the racism of Barking residents. She was one of the group of floating voters inveigled into giving up their time to listen to the respective spiels of all the candidates.
Jeffrey went first - candidates were made to draw lots - so his audience were still fresh and unbored.
Of course no one would admit they had been persuaded by Jeffrey that he had changed their minds, even if he had. Admit to being persuaded by the National Party of Political Pariahs??!!
As it happened, there was a young and pretty Muslim female who asked him - disapprovingly as it turned out - if he proposed introducing Sharia law into the UK. (This was because his proposals included hanging and flogging.)
This took him aback slightly but he dealt with it as well as he could. She however was not particularly impressed by his response that this was the sort of thing that went on in this country way before anyone in this country had ever heard of Sharia law, and was clearly one of those young, liberal and compassionate types.
That is the trouble with dealing with a group who are mostly young. They have no experience of life, no experience of financial problems, of having to bring up children, fretting about finances and schools, crime and boring things that the young, free and single disdain to concern themselves with.
If it had been me I would have grandly declared that there is no point talking to people who have it so good that they actually cannot understand that there are people who live in horrible neighbourhoods who have horrible neighbours making life horrible for them that they would like to discourage by means capital and corporal punishment. Or have horrible schools that you have no choice but to send your children to, helpless to prevent the fruit of your loins from becoming teenage mums and NEETs.
As it is, the BNP is simply wasted on idealistic feckless youth.
The Tory candidate was well-dressed, good-looking and articulate, remembering to say all those reassuring phrases that they are all so media-trained to utter.
The Labour candidate was the most offensive of all and came out with the usual "fascist party" smears and referred to the awfulness of having "a real live fascist in the room".
It had such comedic value that if we were in fact being filmed it would be the cue for Jeffrey to pop up behind his shoulder, looking the very image of the pantomime fascist with jackboots, toothbrush moustache and all, laughing maniacally and looking for Jews to roast in gas ovens.
The UKIP - chap was quite good with figures about how wasteful and useless the EU was, but that always bores everybody else, including Eurosceptics themselves.
The Green Party activist read his speech and so did the Independent candidate who said nothing particularly memorable though a lovely lady and very friendly. Speech-reading is bad, bad, bad. It is worse, worse, worse, if you do not read it properly or read it too quickly and stumble over your words.
After all that, none of the candidates' speeches was even being recorded.
A total waste of time the Independent candidate remarked as we left. Well, that's TV for you.
As for the famed generosity of BBC hospitality in the Green Room, that has long since become extinct. Hot drinks and Celebrations were all that was on offer.
So we had something to eat at a pretty pink pizza restaurant that was being self-consciously Italian and which played opera throughout our meal.
Also there was a grandmother with a 6 year old - who bought a bottle of champagne for a couple. Her accent was middle class, and her words suggest that she wished to recapture a special time in the past perhaps before she was bereaved. She spoke to her grand-daughter in a way that was disturbing in its mawkishness and maudlin sentimentality, making us a little uncomfortable because the night was no longer young and the child still in her school uniform. The woman eventually started to go - just after 11pm - and was sent on her way by a hug from the restaurateur's wife. Concern for the child and the evident desolating loneliness of the woman was a slice of life that was not particularly cheering on our plates. She had bought a meal and shared a bottle of champagne with a black couple she did not know particularly well and who did not have much to say to her.
Then to Mile End Sports Centre for the count.
A few remarks were made about someone like me wearing a BNP rosette but otherwise we chatted to people and saw familiar faces. Jeffrey was deep in conversation for ages with someone who turned out to be a RESPECT supporter.
Bumped into the Labour activist Bill Turner - also my FB friend - at the polling station buffet. Gave him a cheery "Hi Bill" but he completely blanked me. I wonder why.
He was asked by David Cohen of The Evening Standard if he wanted any party other than his to win and Jeffrey said RESPECT rather than Labour on the grounds that RESPECT and BNP are both against the war.
Over 51,000 votes had to be counted under three separate elections for the local, parliamentary and referendum on whether to have an elected mayor.
I cat-napped intermittently, unlike the Labour Counting Agent called Nishi who worked straight through taking comprehensive samples and notes in her high-heeled shoes, looking as enviably fresh at the end as she was at the beginning. She would start at one end of the table go to the end and work her way back again and again and again, like a clockwork doll.
Chatted to the United Voice Hasib Hikmat http://www.unitedvoice.org.uk/object.html and his wife whose sweetness of countenance reminded me of an Asian Mona Lisa.
Jeffrey and I both recognised his policies as something that the BNP would favour.
Indeed, I was pleading with Jeffrey and the others to endorse Hasib as BNP-approved so Jeffrey would be free to stand in Hackney North & Stoke Newington after announcing that the BNP would stand in Hackney-Stokey to
1. make things more interesting for them
2. to address the problem of gun-crime (particularly after the cycle-by shooting of Agnes Sina-Inakoju who died as a result of being in the wrong place - a fast food outlet on a Wednesday afternoon at 7:18PM last month).
3. to defeat Suzanne Moore -The Mail and Guardian journalist - who was standing as an independent candidate. I found it infuriating that her bright idea of solving gun crime ie to tell children at primary school that it was wrong to shoot people, was being given any house space anywhere at all.
Here is what she actually said at http://www.facebook.com/notes/moore4hackney/my-manifesto-moore4hackney/109393619097748:
My family has been personally affected by the wave of gun and knife crime and we all know we can identify at an early stage kids who are likely to get into gangs. We need really early intervention in primary schools to help kids find a different path.
Since she represents feminism, liberalism and socialism, I thought it would be an excellent opportunity for the BNP to challenge feminist-socialist values and declare a war on feminism and liberalism from the outset to the Hackneyites. I was quite confident that whatever her vote was (258 as it turned out) Jeffrey (who received 1405) would comfortably get more votes than her, even in Hackney, if he took a more racially-inclusive approach towards spreading the BNP message and running a campaign on a law and order ticket.
That was not to be despite my best efforts, sadly.
I mentioned to Hasib how shocking I found it that it when chatting to Labour- and Tory-supporting Muslims on Facebook that when I talked about "the war" they would ask "What war?", "It is only a little skirmish - about to end," was one of the more dismissive remarks I had heard.
Hasib agreed that the Afghans would not adopt a similarly casual attitude towards the invasion of their country. He remarked that the political concerns of most Muslims in Tower Hamlets do not extend beyond Tower Hamlets. (By political concerns I think he must have meant "bribes by Labour to vote Labour again".)
The count was conducted with impressive impartiality by the Polling Officer. I was called with the other agents to decide upon the ballot papers to be adjudicated on as to whether its voting intention was clear. The other candidates were happy to allow questionably marked ballot papers in favour of the BNP if it was obvious that the voting intention was clearly in its favour, and were the opposite of obstructive, and we must be grateful for small mercies.
When Jeffrey's result was announced at around 1 pm the next day, it was drowned up by a loud roar of "SCUM!!!". When the vote of RESPECT was next announced some Labour wag also cried "Scum!" I couldn't help but smile.
Rob Slade, a nice guy if ever there was one, said he was more familiar with Canon and gave her a few tips about fixing the aperture but changing the shutter speed to this budding Bangladeshi photojournalist. She is of course absolutely right that it needs more pictures to go with its stories.
It occurs to me too that the Bangladeshi National Party and the British National Party may have a few things in common from this Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Nationalist_Party and perhaps an attempt at forging closer links could be considered.
The BNP promotes a very center-right policy combining elements of conservatism, corporatism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism and anti-communism. It is more popular among the country's business class, military, and conservatives.
Guess which BNP I am referring to? Surely it is time for the British BNP to aspire to the political and ideological respectability of the Bangladeshi BNP?