Brits in EU countries: 2.2m. Foreign born residents of the UK: 7.54m. HnH distorting figures again.

Hope not Hate this morning posted a graphic from the IPPR showing the number of British citizens - ie emigrants - who live in other EU countries. The figure was 2.2m.

What they failed to show were the corresponding figures for immigration to the UK. The 2011 census - available from the Office of National Statistics - showed that as of 2011 there were 7,354,000 foreign born residents of the UK, or 9.1% of the population, against an EU average figure of only 8.6%. Of these, 4,760,000 were born outside the European Union, and 2,240,000 were born within the European Union (these figures are rounded off, hence the total not equalling the 7.354m).

Since the census, there are figures for a further 2 years: in the year to October 2012, net immigration was 152,000, while in the year to October 2013 a further net increase of 183,000 was recorded for a total net immigration figure of a further 335,000 people. By comparison, the Leicester metropolitan area has a population of 330,574.

Some other interesting facts from their 'favourite infographic'.

The Foreign Office estimates that of the 1,000,000 British citizens resident in Spain, as many as 800,000 are retirees living on either their pensions or their savings. British residents under pensionable age have no free access to the Spanish healthcare system following a change in the law in 2006.

Of the 330,000 British citizens resident in France, the Foreign Office estimates that 250,000 are retirees or early retirees. In 2007, the French government withdrew free access to the French healthcare system for retirees under the age of 65: 100,000 people were affected.

Of the 107,000 British citizens resident in Germany, over 40,000 are servicemen, families of servicemen, or otherwise employed in British Forces Germany, formerly the British Army of the Rhine.

Of the 31,000 British citizens living in Belgium, up to 15,000 are employees of either the European Parliament, the European Commission or SHAPE/SHAFE.

The list goes on. Needless to say, their infographic is not what it appears to be. Why are we not surprised?

Gateway to Terror - a review: "Hope not Hate's very own 'dodgy dossier', culled exclusively from publicly available information"

There is much rejoicing at Hope not Hate this evening over the publication of their latest tract which focuses on Islamic extremism in the UK. Well, when they say Islamic extremism, what they really mean is a very small part of it in the form of Anjem Choudhary and his al-Muhajiroun organisation which - despite being on their list of targeted extremists - they have persisted in not mentioning.

Lowles - wants praise for 'fighting Islamic
extremism' in rehashed report

Their 60 page pamphlet - Gateway to Terror - is co-authored by Jo Mulhall and Nick Lowles, and is available for £7 including postage. Readers expecting to find out something they didn't already know look set to be sadly disappointed, as their own article advertising it simply rehashes information which has long been in the public domain, even if Hope not Hate didn't notice because they were more interested in attacking UKIP.

There are many examples of this, not least their turning of a Nelsonian blind eye to Islamic Emergency Defence, as we discussed back in late June. Hope not Hate were too busy trying to stop Pam Gellar and Robert Spencer from visiting the UK to discuss how Choudhary was deliberately and obviously circumventing government controls.

Lowles himself gets rather carried away in his attempts to sell rehashed media reports as a ground-breaking study. For example, he says:

"Fundamentally, they seek to impose a system that is intolerant of difference, does not accept anyone or anything that fails to conform and that is totally opposed to democracy and free will."

While apparently forgetting his own 'Purple Rain' campaign directed against UKIP which seeks to achieve exactly the same thing. Still, Lowles goes on to say:



Lord Pearson - berated as 'racist' for
fighting Islamic extremism

"This report will herald a more concerted campaign against extremism by HOPE not hate. Just as we will speak out against Islamophobia and racism wherever it emerges, so too we will begin to campaign against those extremists who justify their actions in the name of Islam."

We certainly hope so, but we won't hold our breath, as Hope not Hate has been saying the same thing for the past 3 years, but with precious little evidence to support it. When former UKIP Leader Lord Pearson said last week that "UK Muslim communities are home to "thousands of potential home-grown terrorists" - rather what Lowles and Mulhall claim in their pamphlet - he was attacked by Hope not Hate with the implicit criticism that he was a racist.

The truth is that once again, Hope not Hate have failed in what is supposed to be their core mission. While the current pamphlet will undoubtedly help swell the coffers of Hope not Hate Ltd, the full version of it contains nothing which was not readily found on the internet already. While the plots and links between key figures they describe are instructive, all they have really achieved is to draw together other people's work and put their own names on it. It may be that they don't realise this themselves, focussed as they are on trying to keep down UKIP's vote, so we'd hesitate to call it straight plagiarism, but as a piece of original research it is tepid at best. Lowles has clearly learnt well from Labour - this booklet seems to follow the pattern of the last Labour government's 'dodgy dossier', simply culling the most sensational stories from the internet and stitching them together to sound authoritative, while actually barely touching the minds of the authors. If you think this signals a return to fighting genuine extremism by Hope not Hate, be prepared to think again: by this time next week, they'll be back to bashing UKIP.

Is it worth buying? No, of course not: our copy was a preview version. Does it have any value? Again, no, it's just a rehash. The only thing noteworthy about it is the convolutions the authors go to in trying to say exactly what UKIP has been saying for years, without using the same words. Now that, as they say, is priceless.

Lowles ignores the blatant lie in his rush to attack UKIP

Yet another story which doesn't make sense on Nick Lowles 'Purple Rain' blog, although for regular

Sinclaire - quickly wrote a book and had it published and
printed in order to head off slow-moving threat

readers that will not be a surprise.

The lastest story is a repost of a BBC article about former UKIP MEP Nikki Sinclaire, who is now claiming that 'UKIP made sex change revelation threat'. The article begins "An MEP has told the BBC she revealed her gender reassignment secret because of threats from journalists and her former colleagues in UKIP."

Contrast this with Sinclaire's quotes in the Daily Mail just last week when she said,

"her fellow UKIP politicians had been very accepting of her sexuality, whereas she had encountered the most homophobia from Liberal Democrats"

 

and that

 

 "'There was one great secret that Nikki never shared with anyone other than her family and close friends."

We find ourselves mystified as to how someone who never told anyone apart from family and friends could be threatened with exposure by UKIP politicians who only last week she described as 'supportive'.

Part of the reason for this is revealed by the following quote. Miss Sinclaire, 54, said, "They threatened to expose this and this is why I felt the need. Because people asked: 'Why are you saying this now? Basically, I wanted to put my side of it before someone else put a distorted side out."

Most people who wanted to 'put their side' before 'someone else put a distorted side out' would call a press conference. Such traditionalism is not for Ms Sinclaire, who speedily responded to the supposed 'threat' by not just writing an entire book, but also having it published and printed.

Not unnaturally, speculation about Ms Sinclaire had existed at all levels of the party for almost 20 years. She is after all a 7' tall flamboyant lesbian with a lantern jaw the size of Norfolk and a voice like she's been gargling with gravel. Had she simply told the truth, UKIP members would have shrugged their shoulders and moved on. Nobody cared about her much flaunted sexuality, and nobody would have cared whether her lack of penis was natural or not either.

Ms Sinclaire's current story contradicts what she said only last week, and this has been her problem throughout her career. Hope not Hate are perfectly well aware that what she says bears little relation to reality, and while they have occasionally used her self-publicising outbursts against UKIP on their own blog even Lowles apparently gives it little credence. As Sinclaire remains on police bail following her arrest for expenses fraud in 2010 this is hardly surprising, while her response to being expelled from UKIP has been online for many years with her explaining how it will 'make her very rich' as she gets to keep her MEP expenses all for herself.

Sinclaire standing head and shoulders above her team -
Cartwright is on the far right

For Lowles and Hope not Hate, their glee in publicising Sinclaire's latest flim-flam is doubly surprising as despite her oft-repeated reasons for leaving UKIP, she continues to employ a former National Front activist and far-right candidate as her political adviser. Gary Cartwright stood as a National Democrat candidate in a Southwark by-election some years ago and continues to write articles defending historian David Irving, who denies the Holocaust. Despite her long-running association with Cartwright, HnH continue to publicise her self-serving nonsense without criticism, although it is difficult to imagine any other person being given such an easy ride. Perhaps it is her sexuality which accounts for it? - while Hope not Hate are happy to mock the mentally ill, sexual preference remains an achingly trendy topic for the far-left. That said, they were happy to allow the EDL leadership to be described as 'gay' and 'faggots' on their Facebook pages. Perhaps the truth is more prosaic: to Lowles and his fellow travellers, the enemy of their enemy is their friend, and sod the morality of it. HnH do themselves employ a number of former BNP and NF activists.  

 

 

Lowles and the hard left couldn't miss the point more on UKIP and the EU

Hope not Hate owner Nick Lowles ability to miss the point about UKIP is already almost legendary, but today he felt the need to prove it once again.

Reposting an article from Left Foot Forward on his HnH blog, he launches into the tired attack about how UKIP MEPs are the 'laziest in Europe'.

Accompanied by a fetching graphic which showed that UKIP had amended the least reports of all UK parties (apart from the SNP and the BNP, neither of which were featured), it also showed that Labour were in this respect the second laziest by their own definition, which we assume was unintended.

Just in case Lowles doesn't grasp it - HnH supporters commenting underneath their Facebook posting of it mostly don't - UKIP's job is not to help the EU stifle British industry in red tape and pointless regulation, it is to get us out of the EU: UKIP votes only on issues which it deems to be of the greatest importance to the UK, and always votes to mitigate its effects as much as possible. Aside from that, the voting process is so rushed and so opaque that it is often impossible to know what is being voted on at any one time, as Derek Clark points out in this article and in the video to the right.

In reality, Lowles is perfectly well aware of all this, but admitting as much would hardly fit with Hope not Hate's new policy of propaganda over facts, particularly where the EU is concerned. With much of their money coming from organisations or unions which are rabidly pro-EU and actively campaign for a federal Europe that is hardly a surprise while the ever closer links between the hard left within HnH and Lord Mandelson's Progress group will ensure an ever more strident pro-EU message.

Of course, Lowles and the Hope not Hate team are themselves all avid Europhiles, and remain ever ready to jump on the gravy train whenever possible. The EU's Strasbourg building even features on their 2014 calendar (pictured, left) and features Lowles and others on their trip there in 2009 to protest at the temerity of the general public in daring to vote for the BNP after Hope not Hate had only delivered 2,000,000+ plus leaflets bearing their name, thereby helping to ensure the BNPs election at the expense of UKIP candidates (who were placed just behind Griffin and Brons) in the North West and Yorkshire & Humberside. Naturally, the expenses for this trip were paid by Labour MEPs.

How all this sits with Old Labour - as opposed to the sort of New Labour represented by Lowles and Mandelson, who mistake mushy peas for guacamole - is clear to see in by-elections across the north of England. UKIP have been taking Labour votes by the truckload, and the more stridently HnH and Labour shout, the more their vote evaporates.

Hope not Hate thief jailed for fraud, and other stupid headlines

Hope not Hate are this evening featuring an article by Carl Morphett (writing as Simon Cressy) titled 'UKIP thug jailed'. It outlines how a Dean Everitt, of the Boston Protest March movement, was given a suspended sentence after a domestic dispute with a neighbour. In it, as in the title, the impression is given that Everitt is a UKIP member. A quick Google of his name would seem to indicate that his only link with UKIP is publicly saying he supported the party, something UKIP has no control over.

Convicted fraudster and Hope not Hate supporter
Denis MacShane

This is similar to other news this week. Former MP, Europe Minister and public HnH supporter Denis MacShane plead guilty to fraud. Sentencing was deferred until 19th December. He is widely expected to receive a custodial sentence, unlike Everitt.

That MacShane is more than an occasional HnH supporter is clear. In 2010, he gave an 'e-mail interview' to the 'where cowards flinch' blog, in which he said:

"Q. More generally, what do you think the Labour Party, and the Left in general, should be doing to combat the BNP most effectively?
A. Support Hope Not Hate. Urge other anti-Nazi outfits like UAF to unite with Hope not Hate. Expose the BNP’s core anti-Jewish beliefs as well as its anti-Semitism."

Of course, financial shenanigans are not unknown in Hope not Hate under Nick Lowles watch as we reported a month ago when we found their invoice shuffling which saw HnH directors paid through a private company owned by them for work which should have been a part of their salaried position. Nothing marks out committed Socialists better than a bit of wholesome tax avoidance of the form practised by Sir Philip Green, does it? Even so, a convicted fraudster being such an ardent and public advocate of Hope not Hate Ltd does not really imply that Hope not Hate as an organisation really endorses fraud anymore than Everitt's public - but much less welcome - endorsement implies support of his actions by UKIP. MacShane's association with Hope not Hate was long running, and in all probability continues behind the scenes.

The logic of it of course misses the point. It is not supposed to be a logical argument, merely emotive propaganda designed to appeal to those who look to the Daily Mirror for fully formed opinions they don't really understand the detail of. It is here however that the Marxist-Leninist tendency amongst the fanatically anti-UKIP pays them dividends. It was after all Lenin who said,

"A lie told often enough is the truth"

In this, we see once again how closely the philosophy of the far left approaches that of the far right they supposedly abhor. In their ultimate aim, they seek to follow the dictates of Josef Goebbels:

 

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”  

 

 

Mock outrage over UKIP wreath, despite it being supplied by the RBL

More outright dishonesty on Hope not Hate's pages this evening as they repost a Plymouth Herald article attacking UKIP for using a remembrance wreath with the party logo in the centre. It reads in part:

The offending UKIP wreath -
as supplied by the RBL

They (UKIP) are seeking to hijack a national day of remembrance for narrow party political ends, said Cllr Ian Bowyer, Conservative group leader on Plymouth City Council.

And council leader Tudor Evans said the wreath was in very bad taste.... We have always made Remembrance Day an apolitical event. We'd be happy to leave the wreath there but the logo has to come off. Propaganda in this way is not at all the right thing in a military city which has seen a lot of war deaths."

But UKIP defended their action, saying the wreath was supplied by the event organisers, the Royal British Legion.

 Quite why Hope not Hate should care is beyond me. They began the run-in to Remembrance Sunday by posting their support for the University of London Union, a student body which decided to commemorate those who died for their freedoms by not officially attending any Remembrance event. It was only when the vast majority of subscribers who commented on their article did so negatively that they belatedly added the 'red poppy' icon to the Hope not Hate logo.

Below the word for word repost on Nick Lowles blog is the single comment allowed on the story, a sycophantic rant by someone allegedly called 'Brett Sparkes':

The not offending Labour wreath -
as supplied by the RBL

'That is what was sent to me' Do they take us for idiots? Are they trying to blame the Royal British Legion? This is a party which has put up candidates who were formerly BNP members and now they have the cheek to try to make a political statement from the remembrance of those who fought for freedom, many against those fascists who would fit quite happily with the BNP and its more 'respectable' cousin.

There are several things to say to that.

To deal with the matter at hand first - the wreath. To show you what they look like, I've attached a picture to the left. Oh, sorry, that's the Labour one. Who attacked the UKIP wreath for being in poor taste for having a logo on it.  The Labour party whose local Council leader Tudor Evans said "We have always made Remembrance Day an apolitical event. We'd be happy to leave the wreath there but the logo has to come off. Propaganda in this way is not at all the right thing".

So do the Tories use them too? Of course they do, although I do not know if they used one in Plymouth. In fairness one of their agents had the following to say on the subject:

A not offending either Conservative
wreath - as supplied by RBL

"Over the weekend, the Royal British Legion circulated a form for organisations to order Remembrance Day wreaths. This has prompted a number of enquiries from members asking about the type of wreath they should purchase.

Last year, there was considerable coverage in the national press when UKIP and the BNP laid wreaths with their Party logo printed in the middle. Upon investigation, it transpired that the Royal British Legion at Aylesford, who manufacture the wreaths, offer them for sale with various logos (including political parties) being printed on them. Clearly, therefore, the British Legion find this appropriate or it would not be offered.

Notwithstanding the above, my personal view is that politically branded wreaths for Remembrance Day are inappropriate. Not only does it run the risk of us being accused of politicising Remembrance Day, but I believe the majority of people simply do not want to see political logos emblazoned across wreaths laid at memorials."
span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">This from a blog by Andrew Kennedy, Conservative Party agent for Tonbridge and Malling, and for once we have a Conservative talking sense.  I wouldn't normally link to the page, and I'm loathe to praise a Tory, but it is well written and I can't disagree with what he says. I'd agree the UKIP logo looks pretty tacky, but its the RBL which makes them like that.

We have dealt with Sparkes' other allegation - that UKIP stand former BNP members - many times before. While UKIP prevents former BNP members from joining, Labour held on to power in several places in informal coalition with the BNP - Burnley springs to mind - and have several ex-BNP defectors sitting as councillors.

So, once again, Hope not Hate has its facts wrong, and its supporters continue to blindly spout slogans more appropriate to their own party than UKIP. Why are we not surprised?

Another rape in the SWP as HnH remain focussed on UKIP trivia

As Hope not Hate continue to go on about UKIP related trivia, further serious allegations have been raised about their comrades in arms in the SWP, who are the power behind the allied UAF campaign.

This was spotted on the Howie's Corner blog, but the source was soon tracked down for verification purposes. In case you're a Hope not Hate flunkie reading this, verification is the bit where you check that your facts are correct before publishing them. You should try it some time.

Anyway, allegations surfaced on the International Socialist Network in the second week of October about yet another rape case hushed up by the Socialist Worker's Party. Don't hold your breath waiting for HnH to say anything about it - like the Grangemouth scandal, or Unite rigging candidate selections in Falkirk, they are silent on anything of import, although if the person concerned had been a psychiatric patient, on past experience they'd post it so everybody could laugh as they find that sort of thing funny.

No news as yet on who this second rapist is, only on who it isn't - it is not Martin Smith, who the SWP have shunted off into a position which brings him into contact with young girls following his rape of an SWP activist. We will investigate and publish the name when we have it.

The text of the article is as follows:


Trigger warning: rape. This article is by a comrade who has decided to remain anonymous, telling of how she was raped by a fellow member of the SWP late last year, and how she was treated when she reported it. As she says, ‘The similarities in how the cases of W and X were handled and how mine was are striking.’ We believe it shows that these were not ‘isolated incidents’, but systematic in the organisation.

In December of last year – I was still at this point a member of the SWP – another member (I refuse to call that person a comrade) raped me. At first I refused to accept it and actually felt guilty. This person had been sexually harassing me for about a month prior to the attack and part of me felt that I should have said something sooner. In January, after confiding in a comrade who made me realise what really happened, I decided to file an official complaint with the SWP’s disputes committee.

This was not an easy decision to make. I had sat through that disputes report at conference that same month, with the man who raped me just a few seats away, and had been disgusted at what I had heard. However, I and other comrades truly believed that it must have been a one-off – that the appalling behaviour shown throughout must have been a mistake that would be rectified and never repeated. I think we all know now that we were wrong.

In late January I contacted my organiser to inform them I wanted to make a complaint. It was suggested that a female member in the district would hear my complaint and act as my intermediary. The organiser was a close ‘friend’ of both myself and the offender, and had been in the same house at the same party the night it had happened. I am not going to go into the details of the event, but I will outline the disputes procedure.

I made an initial complaint (of sexual assault, however the description of what happened can be nothing but rape) in which I detailed everything that had happened that night to my intermediary, who took notes. She got in touch with the disputes committee, forwarding the notes that she had taken the night I spoke to her. These notes were sent to Pat Stack, who sent them to Charlie Kimber, who then suspended the offender while the disputes committee (DC) looked into the case.

The DC replied that the complaint had to come from me in my own words. I emailed the DC myself, again forwarding the notes from my intermediary, saying, ‘Please accept this email as my formal complaint to the disputes committee. I have attached the previously forwarded, by [***], notes with one slight change and these are the basis of my complaint.’

As it turned out this still wasn’t enough, and I received this rather abrupt email telling me so:

“Currently, the DC is in receipt of your email (30th Jan 2013) that asks the DC to accept this email and its attachment – [***] previously forwarded (23th Jan 2013) notes with one slight change – as your formal complaint to the DC.  You have described these two documents as ‘the basis of your complaint’.

You are asking the DC to accept a third party description of what you said to the third party, as the complaint. This is not possible. Currently, the DC has still not received your account of what happened to you, while the defendant has been suspended for the past two weeks.

You need to finalise your own complaint.

Further, on the phone on Wednesday evening, you named three people to whom you have previously disclosed the identity of the defendant and to whom you are currently disclosing where your DC process is up to. You have done this even though you have open access to your chosen intermediary. Your actions are breaching the confidentiality that must surround complaints processes as well as identities and complaint details.

We recognise that this is difficult for you. We are trying to enable you to communicate clearly with the DC, and to protect the well-being, information and confidential identity of involved Comrades to the best of our abilities. It is vital that we work out the most constructive way forward from this juncture. The DC asks that you contact us at your earliest opportunity to discuss this further.

This correspondence is confidential between the DC and yourselves.”

I replied with this:

“Here is my statement, I have been out of the country so sorry for the delay.

In response to you saying i have broken confidentiality, i spoke to the other comrades before i decided to come to disputes as i didn't know what to do, i was wary of the disputes committee due to recent events and the report back that sat through at conference. Also one of these comrades is a female comrade who i know had previously felt uncomfortable at the behaviour of [***] and had helped me come to terms with what had happened.”

Throughout the whole of this process the need for confidentiality was constantly repeated to me. I, as someone who had been through something horrific, was being told that I could not talk to my friends and comrades – that I must only to talk to a woman who up until this point I had very little to do with.

After sending my statement it was arranged for Rhetta and Jackie from the DC to come to my area and interview both me and the offender. At this point I believed that this was my case being heard. On the evening of the interview Rhetta and Jackie asked me to talk them through the events of the night, which I did. Some of the questions that followed included “what effect would you say drink and drugs had on you that night?” I was also asked and pushed to talk about abuse that had happened to me previously, as earlier on that night I had been emotional and had confided in the man that assaulted me. This was extremely upsetting for me during a process that was already hard enough.

There is also some of the assault that I cannot remember fully, not due to intoxication but rather that I have blocked it out. He spoke to me throughout, however while I can still hear him talking, feel it in fact, I cannot remember exactly what it was he said.

At the end of a very long and upsetting interview I was asked what I wanted to happen next. When I enquired further what was meant by that, I was asked whether I would like to make it an official complaint and have an official hearing. Up until this point I thought that this was already so and that this was part of the official hearing.

They went on further to say that it was unlikely that the DC would be able to find either way, especially taking into account the level of intoxication, without being sure of the effect it had on me (in fact I was stone cold sober by the time the assault happened, which I repeated throughout). They said that I couldn’t remember everything (in fact the only thing I couldn’t remember from the actual assault was what he had been saying to me), and that a hearing would be harder for me.

I was encouraged to drop the case, whilst being told that “it is of course your decision, you do what’s best for you”, etc. Given such a bleak choice I decided to drop the complaint. I in no way feel this decision was mine – I was basically told there was no point, something which, as I found out more later on, was most definitely true.

I feel it is worth mentioning that the interview with Rhetta and Jackie was extremely stressful for me and damaging to my already frail mental health. They made me feel as if I was ridiculous for making a complaint and too damaged a person to really assess what had happened and how to deal with it. Following the interview I fell into a week-long state of mania. This is the real effect of what the SWP’s line towards women and rape is: it damages people, it is dangerous. During the week that followed I was phoned three times by my intermediary and by members of the DC to essentially make sure I kept quiet: “If anyone asks you about the complaint or why it was dropped just say ‘I don’t want to talk about it’ and ‘it was my decision’.” Well actually I do want to talk about it and it wasn’t my decision.

I have since found out that he was able to read my statement, while I have not seen his or even heard from the DC what he had said in response. Also he was able to have a character support, who turned out to be someone not even in the party. I was offered no sort of witness, despite the fact that I listed in my statement another female comrade in the district and mentioned that they would be happy to confirm that they had not only felt uncomfortable in that man’s presence but had also, previous to the assault, mentioned to me that he was acting in a harassing manner towards me.

I feel that it is no coincidence that the DC showed favour to a male member who was very prominent in the district and was starting to make a name for himself nationally within the organisation. A male member who was sent by the district to special conference (after my complaint) – even my intermediary voted for him – on a strong pro-CC line, who then went on to be on the district committee, and who is still a visible presence at demos, meetings, etc.

The similarities in how the cases of W and X were handled and how mine was are striking, and should be proof to anyone that the Socialist Workers Party is a group that is sexist, full of bullies, and above all will cover up rape to protect its male members and reputation. Taking this on board, the SWP is counter-revolutionary and is against the socialist tradition; we cannot have a revolution without fighting for the liberation of all oppressed groups – to cover up rape is oppressing women. So anyone who is a revolutionary, a socialist, a decent human being should have nothing to do with the SWP and its abhorrent practices. Deprive them and all rape apologists of air, do not in engage in any way. They are not worth the energy of revolutionaries – in short they are scum and we need not bother with them.

If any other person wants to come forward and share their story please do, or speak to someone you feel confident speaking to – we are not in this alone. Solidarity.

HnH condone violence against the mentally ill - continued

Following on from our story this afternoon about the mentally ill man who Hope not Hate labelled a BNP member despite knowing he was nothing of the sort. I received the following earlier on this afternoon -

The original comment remains there, with several others of similar intent -

Now, from looking at Mr Hershman's profile, it would appear that he is Jewish. Fine, and it might go some way towards his attitude towards a person wandering around Asda in Nazi uniform, and I say that in all seriousness and not in jest. We make no excuses for the terrible suffering and wholesale mass murder committed by the Nazis, but that is to miss the point of Mr Dutton. It is a sad indication of the gross distortions Hope not Hate are capable of that the need exists to point out that we do not deny or defend the Holocaust or the evil of Hitler to avoid the inevitable accusations should we not point out the obvious.

In Mr Dutton we have a person who from even a casual look at his website you can see is seriously unwell. This is not someone who is a Nazi or racist because of their rational belief system, this is someone who believes he has time travelled from 1942 to the present day, who thinks Adolf Hitler is his personal saviour and who is convinced that he is destined to change the future by travelling back in time and changing the past. Hope not Hate often attack anyone who disagrees with immigration for scaremongering, exaggeration and for misleading their audience, and yet they have knowingly placed a mentally ill man in peril by pretending that his delusions are the product of a rational mind.

It is very sad indeed on a whole host of levels. It is sad that he is not in institutional care, for a start. It is sad that a national newspaper like the Daily Mirror sees fit to mock someone who is so clearly mentally ill. And it is absolutely outrageous that Hope not Hate has set out not only to incite people to mock someone who is so clearly mentally disturbed, but are happy to use his affliction to score petty party political points against the BNP when there is no evidence whatsoever to support an association between them and poor Mr Dutton.

Imagine if you will that Mr Hershman was an EDL supporter and he had made that comment on an EDL page about Muslims. Hope not Hate would be baying for his blood all over their front page. Instead, as the comment was only about a poor, deluded soul whose mental illness makes him think he's a Nazi general, violence is perfectly acceptable. Hope not Hate's unspoken subtext is 'do as I say, not as I do'. Lowles, Smeeth, Morphett and the rest must be fortunate indeed to never have had contact with a family member who suffers from the sort of crippling mental illness suffered by Mr Dutton. Or perhaps they see the answer to Mr Dutton through the prism of their Stalinism - their political hero would after all have ensured that someone as clearly in need of medical treatment as he would have disappeared quite quickly.

Hope not Hate mock and smear mentally ill man in supermarket

News today in the Daily Mirror of a man entering a branch of Asda in full Nazi SS uniform.
Naturally, HnH - who are partially funded by the Mirror - reposted the story with the heading 'It's not easy being in the BNP.....'

The article explains that the man in question is Paul Dutton, a former IT engineer of Cambridge, and that he did it to promote his website.

If you take a look at his website, he believes he is the nephew of SS General Dr Hans Kammler, the man who built the concentration camps. The rest of the story is too convoluted to repeat, but involves secret Nazi time machines, enhanced intelligence injections and SS General Paul Dutton. It is quite clear that Dutton is seriously unwell and suffers from psychiatric problems. Since when was it acceptable to mock the afflicted?

What was interesting is that nowhere on Dutton's site does he mention the BNP. Neither does Dutton appear on either of the leaked BNP membership lists. There is also - if you search on Google - not a single webpage which would indicate any form of link between Dutton and the BNP.

Here at Nope not Hope we do not support the BNP. We do however find it strange that although clearly in possession of the BNP lists, Hope not Hate either couldn't be bothered to search for Dutton on them, or simply didn't care that this is a man apparently suffering from a brain tumour and associated mental impairment before smearing him as a BNP member. As if the poor guy's life isn't miserable enough already.

This is not of course the first time that HnH have been happy to either poke fun at the mentally ill - we exposed how they were happy to call people 'retards' less than 3 weeks ago. Their approach is hardly universally popular amongst their own supporters either - several people questioned their mockery of the mentally ill within minutes of them posting the story on their website

 



We should not be surprised by such double standards though: while they are happy enough for their own supporters to mock the mentally afflicted, even in such obviously serious cases as this, woe betide any who are not on their side who dare say the word 'mong', as a UKIP press officer found out recently. Final words though to another HnH supporter happy to carry on a disgusting attack on an ill man: