HnH's Morphett photoshops details on latest 'expose': not spin, an outright lie

Hope not Hate's latest 'expose' of UKIP members with links to the far right has just been written in rather excitable style by Simon Cressy, the pseudonym for Carl Morphett.

According to Morphett, "Only three days away from Christmas and those lovely people in UKIP have given us a smashing present for us to unwrap in time for the big day". It could take some time, because the wrapping is quite complicated. Essentially, three former NF activists once belonged to a party - Third Way - set up by a person who now works for Nick Griffin. At some point but over a decade ago Third Way changed its name to the National Liberals. According to Morphett, this is clear proof that UKIP is linked to racists.



Morphett has photoshopped out the
'added by' details and altered
Davies position within UKIP

There are several problems with his breathless logical fallacy. The first is that it is an open group, meaning people can be added to it without their knowledge or consent. This is easily spotted by the 'added by' information under the members names. You would be able to see this on the screen grab Morphett helpfully appended to his post, except that he has photoshopped it out. You can see the two versions on this page. Certainly in the case of Davies, he did not join this group, he was added to it. Don't believe me? Go take a look - just search on Facebook for National Liberals.

We move on to the other two UKIP activists Morphett names -
Arthur Thackeray and Alexander Balkan. Morphett does not appear to have photoshopped their entries in the list of members, and they appear to have joined themselves.



How Davies entry actually looks

If this makes them racist, then I wonder how Morphett explains the membership of some of the other group members? I have screen grabbed some images, but among the other people he feels are also allied to the National Front and the BNP because of their membership of this group are Ruby Akhtar, Shira Singh, Sabiha Choudhury, Paul Siwela, Samer Reza, Tarig Anter, Thabisa Mabhena, Majid Sandilo etc etc. You get the idea. Bloody racists.

The point about Morphett is that he is not an internet amateur - this is what he does for a living with Hope not Hate. He has not made a mistake, and he is well aware of how these groups work. He knows that Davies did not sign up to the group voluntarily, but he has deliberately removed the wording which proves it. This is not spin. It is not propaganda. It is not a mistake. It is a deliberate lie intentionally done to smear the name of Davies.

It is also worth noting that if he found these three UKIP members in the group, he could hardly fail to have noticed Akhtar, Singh, Choudhury, Siwela etc. I don't know how Thackeray and Balkan came to join the group - perhaps they just hit 'accept' on an invite, perhaps they intentionally joined. Either way, it is no more proof of racism than it is proof of the other member's racism. Particularly as Morphett - under a pseudonym - is also a member.

Interestingly, Edward Davies was added to the National Liberals group by Richard Byng. Byng joined facebook in September, just weeks before he started adding people to the National Liberal group. Amongst his FB 'likes' are Radical Independence Campaign Scotland - the group which barricaded Nigel Farage in a Scottish pub, and who have close links to both Hope not Hate and the UAF. This looks more and more like a set up.



Racist members of the
National Liberals
Facebook Page



Goebbels - Morphett learns his lessons well, while claiming to hate fascism.

Regular readers will not be surprised to discover yet more hypocrisy from Hope not Hate. Their latest 'Purple Rain' article sees an attack on UKIP councillor Victoria Ayling for comments made in a video while she was a Conservative Party member. In 2008. Still, not a reason to not attack UKIP, eh? And Hope not Hate are having their coffers surreptitiously replenished by both Lord Ashcroft for the Tories and Lord Mandelson for Labour, so neither of them are fair targets regardless of what they do. There is a certain irony however as even as they attack Ms Ayling for using her right to freedom of speech, they are complaining about the possibility of themselves being gagged.

Extremism in action - How dare Ayling suggest she has freedom of speech?

Righteous anger - how dare the government try to halt our campaign against freedom of speech?

 

Still, nobody said their campaign had to be consistent or make sense, did they? Carl Morphett has learned the lessons of Goebbels well for somebody who professes to hate fascism.

 

 

“That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success.”

― Joseph Goebbels 

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.  

 

 

Self-preservation more important than fighting homophobia - HnH's official position

Yesterday evening saw Hope not Hate proclaim the success of their latest 'campaign', this one to stop a conference in Edmonton, North London called 'Beloved of Allah'. Their objection was that the conference was homophobic and incited hate against the gay community. On Nick Lowles blog, he

When it comes to campaigns, money is more
important than principle - Nick Lowles

wrote:

"Last week I blogged about a conference being held in London, scheduled for this weekend.

Entitled, ‘Beloved to Allah’, the conference agenda featured several Homophobic hate preachers. The one day conference was due to be held at the Edmonton Islamic Centre (Sunday 6^th October).

I am pleased to announce that after a campaign by HOPE not hate and other partners the Centre has cancelled the event. We understand that this may be the first time an event of this type has been cancelled.

HOPE not hate believe it is important to be consistent in our opposition to hate speech. Just as we would speak out against right-wing homophobes, so too must we voice our opposition to those in any community or faith who vocalise violence and even death against others."

 

So how does this campaign compare to others run by Hope not Hate? The original blog posting amounted to just 550 words posted the previous Friday, and of these, just 176 words were devoted to actually addressing the rally itself. The remaining 374 words were biographies of three of the speakers, none of whom had said anything not said by a huge number of radical Imams - previously which had been ignored by Hope not Hate, as detailed in our earlier blog postings. In fact, such views remain commonplace not just within the Islamic faith, but within Christian groups too, such as the Roman Catholic church, which also takes a pretty dim view of homosexuality. Can we look forward to HnH's forthcoming anti-Catholic campaign?

So how serious was this campaign? Lowles wrote, "HOPE not hate believes that this is unacceptable. We will be writing to the Centre to outline our concerns about these rabidly anti-gay views and to ask them if such individuals are 'right' to be speaking in their building.". And that was it.

Of course, Hope not Hate don't normally care what hate speech is being peddled by the radical: they didn't bother with Anjem Choudhary's Islamic Emergency Defence group: Mohammed al-Arefe and Sheikh Yasser al-Habib barely caused a ripple: and music festivals run by a rapist in the form of Martin Smith are actively promoted.

Still, perhaps there was a call to arms to fight such homophobic prejudice on their front page? Perhaps not. As the screen grab below shows, the 'Beloved of Allah' meeting wasn't even worthy of a front page caption and graphic. Instead, Hope not Hate were continuing to fight for their right to work for the Labour Party by gagging its opposition

Yesterday's HnH front page shows no sign of any 'campaigns' apart from those designed to keep
the money rolling into Hope not Hate's coffers

No. Far more important was their campaign to evade government regulation to allow them to participate in elections without the bother of having to be accountable to the voters, and the need to tout for more donations. The only campaign which truly matters is their 'Purple Rain' campaign designed to blunt the rise of UKIP. Talk of 'campaigns' which on closer examination consist solely of Nick Lowles writing a letter are there simply to keep up the pretence of even-handedness.

Compare this with the campaign waged by HnH just a few months ago designed to keep Pam Spencer and Robert Geller out of the UK - while ignoring the arrival of al-Arefe and al-Habib - and the hypocrisy requires no further words from us.

Hope not Hate's take on democracy - shut down the opposing argument by name-calling

Hope not Hate are busy salivating over a series of comments which they claim prove UKIP to be 'misogynist'.

The carpet in their offices must be positively wet with all the dribbling, as last week they focussed on comments by UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom relating to aid being sent to 'Bongo Bongo Land'.

While attacking Bloom's comments, they naturally failed to address any substance within his comments, particularly as details came to light of aid to India and Nigeria (who have their own space programs) and F/18 fighters to Pakistan (as we continue to scrap our own fighter aircraft). Naturally, had any of Hope not Hate's armchair warriors actually travelled to areas which receive aid, they might have had a better perspective, but as most of their experience is gleaned from pages from the 'Guardian' newspaper it can hardly be expected that they know what they are talking about.

Today, they are up in arms over comments made by UKIP Treasurer Stuart Wheeler and UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom during a debate at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London on the subject of plans to impose a quota on the number of women represented in boardrooms.

For Hope not Hate's benefit, here is a dictionary (the Oxford English Dictionary) definition of a debate:

"a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote"

In practise, this works by openly debating the matter at hand, something which Hope not Hate are not keen on, probably because it smack of, well, democracy, and other 'right wing' tendencies.

In their moralising, Hope not Hate have yet to mention how an open debate can be held on whether quotas on the number of women in boardrooms should be held if only one side of the debate - the side in favour - is allowed to participate, of if those who oppose the idea of 'affirmative action' (which did so much to harm race relations in the United States) are castigated as racist/sexist/misogynist/Nazi (delete as appropriate).

This is what Hope not Hate mean by 'democracy', I suppose. Just out of interest, how many women do Hope not Hate employ? One? Out of how many?

HnH Leicester meeting - a correction

Because we like to be accurate in our reporting, we felt we should correct an earlier report of Hope not Hate's meeting in Leicester in early June. In our report, we incorrectly stated that it had been attended by 76 people including the organisers. From Leicester's population of 441,213, this represented a 0.017% turnout. Our attention has now been drawn to an article written by a Mr George Gay who attended the meeting. In his report, he states that the meeting was attended by 'around two dozen people, mostly Leicester University students'.


He stated that the options on offer to the meeting were as follows:

1. Ignore them.
2. Monitor and expose racism within UKIP but don’t explicitly campaign against the party as such.
3. Do campaign against the party as such.
4. Recognising that much of attraction of UKIP is cultural, offer positive alternatives to communities.
5. Some form of combination from the above four.

And then goes on to say that:

Although there were a few supporters of position 3 above, there was overwhelming support, including from myself, for a combination of 2 and 4 ( an actual vote was taken ).

Finally, the “other” Owen Jones told us that there had also been overwhelming support for 2 and 4 from the meetings which had already taken place, and asked us to consider the best ways of campaigning in the circumstances of Leicester and Leicestershire.

In other words, the outcome of the meeting - despite it being heavily attended by those with a vested interest in campaigning against UKIP - was that it monitor racism in UKIP, and offer a positive alternative.

Nick Lowles must be seething with rage, as his Hope not Hate organisation has already begun acting on its preferred option - to campaign against UKIP - and he was expecting his carefully selected audiences to deliver the correct democratic response to rubber-stamp his decision. This may well account for his decision to further restrict attendances at HnH's 'Stand up for HOPE' and 'Let's talk about UKIP' meetings - it is far easier to obtain the correct democratic result if you hand select those allowed to vote. In this, he appears to have taken lessons from his Unite funders as demonstrated by them in Falkirk, which his organisation has nothing to say about.

Meanwhile, we apologise for our error which lead people to believe that 0.017% of Leicester's population had attended the Hope not Hate meeting when in fact the figure was 0.005%. In actual fact, the meeting ran true to form, and organisers were left speaking to mainly empty seats.

"You're not singing any more" - Hope not Hate silent on new Daily Mirror poll - UKIP only 1.2% behind Tories

After a number of articles on the Hope not Hate website pointing at a dip in UKIPs polling results in an ICM survey in June, they've been very silent on the latest results of a poll commissioned by their own funders, the Daily Mirror. That said, the Daily Mirror have been very quite on the results too: this is from their NHS Anniversary Poll which is all over their paper today, apart from the voting intentions bit, which their online coverage fails to mention!

As Hope not Hate are 'putting UKIP under a magnifying glass' with their 'Purple Rain' campaign, their failure to mention this result is nothing more than censorship, plain and simple. So much for their claims to stand for free speech and democracy - their approach is more fascist than the NF's!!

In a Survation poll released yesterday the results were as follows:

• Labour - 36%
• Conservative - 22.8%
• UKIP - 21.6%
• Lib Dem - 9.6%
• Green 4.3%
• SNP 3%
• BNP 1.1%
• PC - 0.4%
• Respect - 0.2%
• TUSC - 0.1%

This may explain the apparent panic at Hope not Hate, and the increasingly threatening behaviour of UNISON and their union allies as they attempt to shut down debate.

These figures were taken from Survation's data tables and can be found on Table 11, described as
 

"Q8 Voting Intention Tables - Special Table (After Replacing the Undecided/Refused Responses with 2010 Voters responses)

Q8.1. If there was a General Election taking place tomorrow, and there was a candidate from all political parties standing in your constituency, which party do you think you would vote for?

Base : All Respondents Would Vote and Excluding Undecided/Refused"
 These were not the most favourable figures - Table 10, which excludes undecided/refused and does not redistribute their votes, shows UKIP 0.4% ahead of the Tories!!

Hope not Hate on receiving end of 'Golden Shower' campaign after democratic consultation

Over on our Facebook page, we have been running a consultation exercise closely modelled on Hope not Hate's "Let's talk about UKIP" & 'Purple Rain' initiatives, and the results are now in. We asked a completely impartial question - exactly like Hope not Hate - and allowed anybody to vote who was interested. The question was:

Hope not Hate are running their 'Purple Rain' campaign, presenting one sided information to aid their 'consultation' on UKIP. Here at Nope, not Hope we are starting our own consultation on whether we should continue examining Hope not Hate's hypocrisy. It is called the 'Golden Shower' campaign, and is run on exactly the same lines as theirs. Everybody is welcome to vote in our poll.

And the responses - and results - were as follows:

Hope not Hate are hypocrites and should be examined in detail         - 23 votes
You should examine in detail whether Hope not Hate are hypocrites -   1 vote

A further 8 people 'liked' the question, indicating that they got the joke. Turnout was 15%, which is rather more than Hope not Hate managed for 'Purple Rain'!!

In true Hope not Hate fashion, all 32 participants agreed with the proposition, or failed to express a preference in this democratic exercise, and we are pleased therefore to announce the launch of our 'Golden Shower - putting Hope not Hate under the magnifying glass' campaign effective immediately.

We have at great expense designed the eye-catching graphic to accompany our campaign, which is reproduced right - you are free to copy and paste it without restriction!

News reports, pictures and information can be sent to our dedicated e-mail address at HNHgoldenshower@yahoo.co.uk or via our Facebook group!

 

Bury Hope not Hate meeting (attendance 7) - Report by Ian Upton

"We have been asked to make clear that Ian Upton is not associated with the EDL. This occurred while merging two serarate accounts of the meeting we received. We apologise for any inconvenience this misunderstanding may have caused"

Many thanks to Ian Upton who attended last night's Hope not Hate meeting in Bury and provided us with the following report.

Report of Hope not Hate 'Let's talk about UKIP' meeting

The Met, Bury, July 3rd 2013

The meeting was chaired by Jason Hunter, a Unison union rep from Burnley.

The meeting began with the speaker stating that police were in attendance because the EDL were on their way. They were surprised to discover that the EDL was already present and wearing a suit, sitting quietly and respectfully at the back.

I asked if the Hope not Hate organisation had lost its way somehow in defining which type of hate it supported and which type of hate it didn't ? Out of the 7 people who attended the two obvious UAF at the front really couldn't help themselves when talking of fascists and shouted over everyone from the front, quite embarrassing really when you consider myself (and the Bolton EDL Organiser) were very reserved and there to ask questions and challenge the views.

The meeting attempted to stereotype all EDL and UKIP members as fascist or racist. It was quite clear that  the outcome was already decided: UKIP would become a target. They were unable to grasp the notion that because a handful were racist it did not mean that all were, and were unable to answer the contrary point: Stuart Hall was a paedophile and a Labour Party member, did that therefore mean all Labour Party members were paedophile?

One female attendee stated that all Manchester EDL were 'uneducated' because of how they look, before claiming racism because she had a conversation (presumably with an EDL or UKIP member) with a person once who spoke of 'Asians' generally and stereotypically. She did not appear to grasp the irony.

She was followed by a soon to be standing Labour MEP candidate who couldn't help but mention that the only time she had received abuse was when she was knocking on doors on a "council estate" because the family had the audacity to challenge Labour past record and poor performance in government in effect nearly bankrupting the county. It's interesting to see Labour candidates disdain for what used to be their core voters and the very mention of their residence being "council" shows there own inherent stereotyping and class distinction.

I am more certain than ever that the far left and those in these organisations have an embedded interest in ignoring the facts and in being selective in what they see as hatred.

In Hope not Hate's campaign the hatred that comes from "Islamic Terrorists" to put it in the speakers words does not matter, and  nor does it matter that their own colleagues (Union Reps) who are supposed to be representative of all society in the workplace abuse the general public. If they say someone is Racist then it must mean it is true without being challenged or questioned.

The left don't like being challenged and what went down in Bury certainly showed that the inherent vision and determination to label and target without separation certainly clouds the judgment of these organisations

In other words, the meeting was identical to other HnH anti-UKIP meetings: the outcome was predecided, the attendance was laughably low, they attempted to prevent any who disagreed with their views from attending, and it consisted of the far-left repeating the same old stereotypes and platitudes about UKIP.

I'm sure readers will join me in thanking Ian for the excellent report. Similar reports are always welcome from other HnH meetings!

HnH defends Croatia regardless of facts - another 'Purple Rain' fail

Carl Morphett (writing as Simon Cressy) has just posted on Hope not Hate's blog about comments made by UKIP Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall regarding the accession of Croatia to the EU, and the possible effects on UK immigration.

Carl Morphett/Simon Cressy -
So eager to write propaganda he forgot
to check the facts

Once again, HnH show an astonishing lack of regard for the facts.

While Croatia is a small country it is getting ever smaller due to the net outflow of people - it is ranked 46th in the world for net migration according to the CIA World Factbook, and this rate of emigration has been accelerating for some time. Youth unemployment ranks 16th in the world, higher than Jamaica, Egypt and Iran, while adult unemployment is 35.6% for males and 36.8% for females.

While Croatian citizens may not in theory be able to work in the UK until 2020, Romanians are also technically unable to work in the UK until next year. This has not prevented a considerable inflow of Romanians, including those who obtain works permits as 'self-employed' sellers of the 'Big Issue' magazine, a route which also allows them full access to the benefits system as reported by the Daily Telegraph two years ago. Romania's youth unemployment rate is a modest 23.7%.

Paul Nuttall - elected to raise concerns

Nuttall also highlighted the issue of organised crime groups in Croatia, which is similar to the situation in Romania. It is clear that Romanian organised crime has extended its operations to the UK using Romanian immigrants, and Croatia remains a key entry point into Western Europe for drugs smuggled from South America. The BBC featured a report on Croatia in 2009 - Croatia cursed by crime and corruption - which outlined some of the problems the Balkan nation faces, while a HUMSEC report - funded by the EU - highlights the problems of crimes such as terrorism, trafficking of women and organised crime in the Western Balkans.

The accession of Croatia to the EU may or may not cause problems for the UK. What is certain is that however well Croatia has done since gaining its independence from the Yugoslav federation, it is not a nation without considerable internal problems of its own, and one could not blame its residents for seeking a better life elsewhere. Whether that is likely to be the UK will only be seen over time, but given the problems caused to date in the London alone by organised crime from Romania - whether that be in the form of trafficked women as in this BBC report or over reports that up to 1/3 of Romanians living in the UK have been arrested - it is not unreasonable to raise concerns.

Rather than attacking Nuttall for raising perfectly reasonable concerns, should HnH not be asking why politicians from the other parties are ignoring them?

UKIP by-election results - which ones will HnH's 'Purple Rain' magnifying glass focus on?

UKIP lost the Stourport on Severn seat, although the vote share held up
well given the circumstances of the by-election

With a handful of local election results from last night, it is not going to be difficult to guess which one Hope not Hate's faulty magnifying glass will settle on. We are sure that their 'Purple Rain' campaign will focus on one in particular - UKIPs loss of the Stourport on Severn seat on Worcestershire County Council. This was the seat vacated almost immediately after he was elected following the disclosure that he had posted racist material on his Facebook feed. While we are sure that HnH will be calling this a huge triumph, the result - although a loss - was not too bad: the UKIP vote share decreased by only 1.5%, while it is clear that the 'Health Concern' candidate won due to tactical voting by former Labour supporters.

In the Primrose ward on South Tyneside MBC, UKIP took a huge chunk of
the Labour vote

Elsewhere, we are willing to bet that Hope not Hate will not bother to mention other results. There were two by-elections on South Tyneside MBC. In the Primrose ward - which UKIP had never contested previously - UKIP came second with over 34%, while Labour held the seat, but with their

The Cleadon & East Boldon result

vote down 25%. The other South Tyneside ward - Cleadon & East Boldon - was a Labour gain from Conservative, but UKIP polled over 26%, in this instance eating into the Tory vote by almost 20% and Labours vote by over 7%. The Primrose ward may get a slight mention by HnH as the BNP vote dropped by 3.6%.

The Ketton ward result from Rutland County Council

On Rutland County Council, UKIP contested the Ketton ward for the first time - previously it had returned 2 Conservative councillors unopposed. The Conservatives held the seat, but UKIP polled a respectable 17.5% in a first run at the seat.

UKIPs vote increased in Plymouth Southway as they overtook Labour

In a by-election for the Southway ward on Plymouth City Council, UKIP overtook the Conservatives
to come second behind Labour, who held the seat although with a much reduced majority. In the face of a strong challenge from an independent candidate UKIPs vote still increased by almost 5% over last years result.

Fighting Dartford Newtown for the first time since 2007, UKIP polled almost
a quarter of the votes

In Dartford, UKIP contested the Newtown ward on Dartford Borough Council. Fighting the ward for the first time since 2007, UKIP polled 22.7% as Labour gained the seat from the Conservatives.

In the final result from last night which included UKIP candidates, UKIP nearly doubled its vote

The Billericay East result, including the 3 votes gained by the NF

compared to last year to take just short of 30% of the vote in the Billericay East ward of Basildon District Council. Drawing support almost equally from Lib/Lab/Con voters, what is memorable is not UKIPs continued advance but the 3 votes - yes, 3 - gained by the National Front. This is the only other result which Hope not Hate are likely to feature as they mock the fact that as many people voted NF as turned up for HnH's 'Stand up for HOPE' meeting in Hackney.

Congratulations to all the UKIP candidates around the country who put themselves forwards - Terry Gandy, Ivan Burch, Peter Berrow, Liam Powell, Colin Campbell, John Clarke and John Holden. You can all be proud of your results, and we thank you for your efforts!

Graphics from English Elections

HnH triumphalism over failed far right meetings hides failure of 'Stand up for HOPE' tour

There was much triumphalism (although now rather toned down) on the Hope not Hate website over the 'Brighton & Hove Strong' march on Saturday. Despite being advertised to hundreds of followers, only 6 people turned up: 5 children and an old man. None had any connection to the far right or the EDL, prompting much disappointment amongst Brighton Anti Fascists and Hope not Hate supporters who were looking forward to a fight. Even they drew the line at attacking such a small gathering.

What started out as a long article full of mockery on HnH seems overnight to have shrunk to a mere paragraph mention linked to the local newspaper, the Brighton Argus.


Empty chairs at the HnH
Basildon meeting which
descended into farce.

Those with memories longer than the average goldfish might recall the wildly successful Hope not Hate meetings in Warrington (attendance 5), Basildon (attendance 6, organisers scarpered in fear despite a police presence and no danger) and Harrow (attendance 9). Meanwhile, last nights meeting in Woolwich appears to have been cancelled due to overwhelming public apathy after details disappeared without explanation from the HnH website, although tonight's anti-UKIP meeting in Wimbledon seems to still be on.

Readers may recall that originally HnHs events were billed as public meetings, although now due to low attendance and the fear that members of the public may actually attend the venues are now concealed to enable organisers to hand pick their audience.

Elsewhere on HnH, the 'Insider' blog pokes fun at a rather more obviously far-right march in Burnley where former members of the NF and BNP were among 144 people attending the 'North West Front Line Firm' march. With a population of 73,500, this represents 0.2% of the population. The article, written by former far-right thug and Hope not Hate employee Matthew Collins, neglects to mention this was rather more than the 0.04% of Shrewsbury's population or 0.01% of Leicester's population which bothered to turn out for HnH meetings there within the past few weeks.

What these low attendances on both sides show is that HnH is facing a real problem. Apart from their own failure to draw people to public meetings, what they class as the far right is also struggling. Where a few years ago EDL inspired marches would draw thousands, they now struggle to draw hundreds. It is the marked decline in the far-right which keeps HnH director Nick Lowles awake at nights - he needs them to keep the money flowing in, and if the far right have disappeared, what is the point of his organisation?

This of course explains his shift towards attacking UKIP, a party which he and other anti-racists and anti-fascists have previously declared non-racist and non-fascist. As UKIP begin to eat heavily into the Labour vote - as can be seen by various by-elections in the Labour heartlands recently - Lowles and his colleagues in the Labour dominated executive have seen a means of continuing an organisation which has largely outlived its original purpose: holding back the purple tide in formerly Labour red areas.

Ruth Smeeth - HnH
general secretary and
failed Labour candidate

At stake is not just his job, but the influence and power which go with being the sole shareholder of an organisation which turns over around £1m per year. That Hope not Hate has proved a failure since Lowles wrested control from the Gables and Searchlight is immaterial: the far right has been defeated not by HnH, but by the rise of UKIP with its moderate, small 'n' nationalism and libertarian stance. All of this has left Lowles and his organisation looking for a purpose, and the rise of UKIP appears to have provided it with one. With an executive dominated by people from the Labour Party, the trades unions, or both, UKIP provides a natural target - all that is required are some minor tweaks to HnH's standard operating procedures, and a focus on the small number of UKIP personnel who say stupid or racist things while ignoring any from Labour, Lib Dems or the Tories who do the same.

But this is a plan which is not going smoothly. Beyond Lowles and HnH general secretary, the perpetually second placed Labour candidate Ruth Smeeth, HnH's activist base remains unconvinced, and this is reflected in the poor attendance at HnH's meetings which are designed to whip the masses into an anti-UKIP fervour. Activists are staying away in their droves, a reflection that they simply do not believe that a party which polled 24% in recent local elections is what the HnH leadership now claim as they attempt to save their positions.

Yet another UKIP advance missed by Hope not Hate's defective 'Purple Rain' magnifying glass

Yesterday saw a by election in the Weaste and Seedley ward of Salford council. Hope not Hate posted a Facebook comment on the election in the small hours of this morning - wrongly labelling the TUSC candidate as an independent to save their blushes - but here are the full details of the result.

Normally, they'd be crowing over a halving of the BNP vote but they're desperate not to highlight the extent to which Labours support is leaking to UKIP, who gained over 22% despite not having stood in the ward previously. All of the UKIP support came from Labour and the Lib Dems as can be seen from the results:

 

The previous results were:

 

Congratulations to UKIP candidate Glyn Wright for a job well done.

 

Elsewhere in the UK, congratulations to Otto Inglis in the Aberdeen Donside by-election where despite intimidation by Hope not Hate's bully boy friends in the Anti-Fascist Alliance and UAF, he came close to saving his deposit, and finished just behind the Conservative Party with 4.83% of the vote.

 

Very well done also to Vince Peddle, the UKIP candidate in the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford by election yesterday, where he came second to Labour with 25.2%, a swing of over 5% Labour to UKIP while the Conservative vote dropped by over 12%.

 

 

 

 

 

Want to know why you've got a BNP MEP? Thank Nick Lowles.

Michael McManus -
But for Hope not Hate, he
would be the NWs 2nd UKIP
MEP, and the BNP would not
have gained a seat.

Michael McManus MEP (UKIP). Not a name that's familiar to you? I thought not. That's because he didn't quite become an MEP. He was the second name on the UKIP list for the North West in 2009, and was beaten to the prize by Nick Griffin of the BNP. UKIP missed out on the second seat by fewer than 1,200 votes.

During the campaign, Hope not Hate delivered almost 4m leaflets. The vast majority were in five regions - London (300k), the East & West Midlands (150k each), Yorkshire & Humberside (880k) and the North West (1.6m). They also say "Our eve of poll email was sent out to almost 600,000 addresses, making it the largest single political email in British domestic political history".

But now look at how the BNP polled. The average BNP increase across the country was 1.3%. In the five regions targeted by Hope not Hate, only two showed increases below that average - London and the West Midlands, with increases of 0.9% and 1.1% respectively. In both of these regions, the overall HnH effort was by their own admission a small one, while London as a whole has never been particularly fertile territory for the BNP. The West Midlands, despite the below average increase still gave the BNP their 4th largest vote share - 8.6% - suggesting they were close to their vote ceiling.

In the three regions where Hope not Hate directed most of their resources, the BNP vote increased by more than the national average. These were:

Region                         Share    Increase
East Midlands              8.7%     2.1%
North West                   8%        1.6%
Yorks & Hum              9.8%      1.8%

Hope not Hate also claim that thanks to their intervention, the Labour vote held up in the regions they targeted - especially the North West. While they may claim this, it is not a claim which is borne out by the statistics. The Labour vote across the country fell by 6.9%. In the North West, the Labour vote fell by 6.9% - in other words, by exactly the national average, while the BNP vote was up on its average national increase by almost 25%.

So if Hope not Hate's claims about helping to shore up the Labour vote are not true, how about their claims to have limited the BNP's vote? Did they limit the increase in their vote? As was mentioned above, that is a claim which does not bear close scrutiny. 6 of the 10 largest increases in the BNPs share of the vote - according to HnH's figures - were in areas they targeted: Copeland (+6.7%), Knowsley (+5%), St Helens (+4.2%), Barnsley (+8.8%), Rotherham (+6.2%) and Nuneaton & Bedworth (+5.6%). 7 of the BNPs 10 highest votes by local authority area were also HnH targets - Barking & Dagenham, Stoke on Trent, Barnsley, Rotherham, Burnley, NW Leicestershire, Bolsover and Ashfield.

If this is a success, we'd love to know how they would define failure.

The reality was that, faced with a general disenchantment with politicians - particularly amongst the least well off - Hope not Hate's campaign simply made the BNP seem more like the voters. There was a lack of originality, a lack of thought and a feeling of tedious repetition about Lowles' campaign that failed to catch the imagination of anyone. For all the triumphalism of Hope not Hate, their 4 million leaflets only served to highlight in the most deprived areas of the country that while Westminster politicians were stealing £10's of thousands with impunity, their local BNP activist once stole a car 20 years ago. There was little if any attempt to take the BNP on politically in their campaign, while their commitment to a 'no platform for the BNP' policy ensured the other parties largely failed to as well. The intensity of the campaign only served to highlight to a disenchanted electorate that voting BNP was a sure way to give the political establishment a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. If the BNP vote was held back, it was done so not by Hope not Hate, but by the strong showing for UKIP, which offered a moderate alternative.

So what then did Hope not Hate really achieve? Their expensive advertising campaign failed to maintain the Labour vote - which it was so transparently designed to do - while drawing to the attention of the poorest sections of society that the BNP was a party of people more like them than anyone in the three largest parties.

The end result is a matter of historical record. BNP leader Nick Griffin took the final NW MEP seat by a mere 1200 votes from UKIPs Mick McManus, who would have made an absolutely first rate MEP for the North West. Hope not Hate's misguided, tedious and scare-mongering campaign ensured voters were landed with Nick Griffin for 5 years. 1201 fewer HnH leaflets, and UKIP would kept out the BNP. That is why you have never heard of Michael McManus.

Hope not Hate meeting schedule ties UKIP to Woolwich murder

Hope not Hate have finally published a list of upcoming meetings which readers may find of interest. Although originally billed as 'Stand up for HOPE' to discuss 'what to do about UKIP', many are now billed under the generic 'We are the many' or 'Where now for HOPE?' banner as the original billing failed to attract support.

It is clear from their information that these meetings will attempt to throw UKIP into the same pot as the BNP and the EDL and prominently features the Woolwich murder as can be seen by this advertisement for the meeting in Oxford:

 

To us this rather smacks of desperation; to complain about the 'EDL's attempts to exploit the Woolwich murder' and then doing the same thing in a weak attempt to garner support for a campaign against UKIP - whose only official statement on the matter was a call for calm - is clearly the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Note also how although they claim their campaign is about offering 'HOPE', there is still no mention on the Hope not Hate website of the excellent initiative on sexual grooming being lead by Respect councillor and Bradford Imam Alyas Karmani for the reasons discussed yesterday: Hope not Hate are only interested in 'HOPE' when it is themselves or Labour offering it.

 

A full list of meetings is available on their website, and you can find your local meeting at the Hope not Hate meeting locator. While we will attend as many as possible, we would be interested in receiving reports from those we are unable to attend. I know it goes without saying, but if you attend, please be polite, respectful and calm as they run through their list of distortions and half-truths about UKIP. Remember, it doesn't matter how many people at the meetings say they should leave UKIP alone and focus on racism and fascism, the decision has already been made by Nick Lowles - who is the sole owner of Hope not Hate Ltd - so even unanimous decisions against the proposal can not change that.

 

If you attend the meetings in Brighton, Oxford and several other locations, please be careful. There are large UAF branches in these areas, we have already seen how they use bully boy tactics, and they are likely to attend these meetings to push their own SWP agenda. There is little love lost between HnH and the UAF, who fight like cats in a sack in the absence of alternative opposition.

 

Most meetings are likely to see Nick Lowles addressing rows of empty chairs, although after the fiasco in Warrington it is likely that even as I write HnH are on the phone to local branches of trades unions and constituency Labour Partys to ensure the embarrassment of only 5 members of the public attending is not repeated.

HnH climb the Woolwich bandwagon as anti-UKIP meetings fail

The failure of Hope not Hate's 'Stand up for HOPE' series of meetings has seen them being changed into something else. Originally planned as a nationwide 'consultation' exercise to decide what to do about UKIP, the failure of the meeting in Warrington to draw more than 5 members of the general public has seen them morph into something else.

With the death of Drummer Lee Rigby still fresh in people's minds, never let it be said that Hope not Hate doesn't know how to cash in on a good murder. After a series of posts attacking the EDL and BNP - deservedly so - for attempting to make political capital out of the murder, Hope not Hate has clearly decided that 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em', and has announced that the rest of the 'Stand up for HOPE' tour will not focus on UKIP. Instead, Nick Lowles writes, "The meetings were initially set up to talk about the rise of UKIP and if, and how, we should respond. However, given recent events there has obviously been a lot of interest in the re-emergence of the EDL following the Woolwich murder and our views about Islamist hate preachers."

Nick Lowles - tacit admission that
attempt at gaining public support for
anti-UKIP stance has failed

And so now we see 'Stand up for HOPE' being transformed due to public apathy into nothing more than a publicity bandwagon riding on the back of a dead man. The temporary re-emergence of the EDL - although in numbers far smaller than seen a few years back - has given Hope not Hate a justification for its own existence, and a means of drawing crowds which their 'consultation' on UKIP could never manage. Of course, this means that HnH will continue to attack UKIP - there was never any intention to do otherwise. The original purpose of the 'consultation' exercise was to provide a fig leaf of popular support to their refocusing on a legitimate, non-racist political party after spending months misrepresenting both UKIP and its members. After embarrassingly low turnouts at meetings, it became clear that this would never work, as most genuine HnH members - those who were fighting against racism, and not for the Labour Party, that is - refused to back this repositioning.

So where does this leave Hope not Hate? Lowles' blog proclaims as a triumph a turnout of 26 people for a HnH meeting in Shrewsbury (population 67,126) and talks of the biggest meeting of the week being attended by 70 people in Leicester (population 441,213). Allowing for organisers, security, speakers and their aides, that would give adjusted attendance figures of 20 and 60 respectively.

Will Cllr Thya Idaikkadar be removed from the
HnH Harrow meeting if he mentions Labour racism?

Lowles goes on to talk about meetings scheduled for next week. Interestingly, one is in Harrow, where the local Labour Party has been shattered by allegations of institutional racism with 9 councillors leaving to form an independent Labour group. One wonders whether Lowles will address the issue there in a way Hope not Hate have failed to do on their website, where mentions of Labour racism are studiously avoided. It is more likely that - should any of the independent Labour group attend - they will be asked to leave the premises if they raise their concerns and rock the Labour boat. I look forward to the irony of seeing 9 Asian independent Labour councillors being removed from a Hope not Hate meeting because they raised the issue of racism. As Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail is fond of saying, "you couldn't make it up".

Imam Alyas Karmani stands up for hope, while Hope not Hate betray their principles

Imam Alyas Karmani

Readers of this blog will be aware that Hope not Hate pays little more than lip service to the existence of Islamic hate preachers, even though Al Muhajiroun features on their list of hate groups. While every public indiscretion of UKIP members - who do not feature on their list of hate groups - is publicised in full detail, Anjem Choudhary, Al Muhajiroun's leader, has escaped any form of personal censure.

Even worse than this deliberate absence of condemnation for groups which seek to spread hate is their failure to highlight the efforts of Imam Alyas Karmani in Bradford to combat the grooming of young girls by Muslim men, something which is widely recognised as a problem. Imam Karmani - who is also a Respect Councillor - has issued a Khutba to be read in Mosques during Friday prayers on the 28th June and which is intended to drive home to worshippers that such actions are not acceptable in the eyes of Islam. His goal is that it should be read in more than 500 mosques across the UK.

For those of us who feel that Imams should play a more visible role in combatting the rise of Islamic extremism, Imam Karmani's initiative is to be welcomed, and is perhaps a sign that moderate Islam is capable of rising to the challenge. What is more puzzling is Hope not Hate's failure to even mention his initiative. What is the point of calling your organisation 'Hope not Hate' if all you are interested in is the 'Hate', and only certain types of hate at that? The key to their silence is Karmani's 'Respect' affiliation. In Bradford, Labour are seeing support haemorrhage in two directions - to UKIP on the right, and to Respect on the left, as evidenced by George Galloway's election as MP. Because of this, Karmani's initiative will fail to gain the support of Hope not Hate. Not because it is not worthwhile. Not because it is wrong. But because the Imam represents the 'Respect' Party and not Labour, and to push his initiative would be to admit that Labour - like Hope not Hate - has no answers, and indeed caused many of the problems

 By failing to promote initiatives such as Karmani's, Hope not Hate - who have access to a considerable audience - are helping to create the impression that there is no action within the Muslim community to tackle these problems. Their silence allows the EDL and the BNP to condemn Islam as something to be feared, because Hope not Hate is too mired in party political allegiances to shout from the rooftops the message of hope contained within Karmani's initiative. They would rather allow their silence to act as a recruiting sergeant for the far right than stand up and proclaim what should be their core message - Hope, not Hate.

We make no secret of our support for UKIP. And we would be lying if we said we supported much of Respect's policy platform. But this is an issue which cuts to the heart of the problems of Islamic extremism, and one which is beyond the nonsense of partisan politics. Karmani - whatever his political allegiance - is tackling a problem, and I urge UKIP supporters to share his message and to show that we are big enough to embrace good ideas whatever their political or religious source. Common sense is common sense.

So I say this to Nick Lowles and his Hope not Hate comrades. Shame on you, for betraying your core principles. Shame on your silence which allows hate to grow and lies to spread unchecked. And shame on your shoddy attempts to put your own personal allegiances ahead of an initiative which will clearly aid better relations between communities. Your blinkered attitude and political partisanship makes you no better than those you claim to oppose. For many years, you attacked the BNP, and ran with the slogan 'Not in my name', only for us to find the tables are now turned, and an increasing barrier to harmonious relations between communities is not the BNP and the EDL, but Hope not Hate and your refusal to back initiatives like Karmani's. If you must continue with such wilful blindness, be aware you do so on your own and not in my name. 

Read more about the Imam's initiative here Click here

More hypocrisy from HnH as pictures of Anjem Choudhary drinking and smoking resurface

As if further evidence were needed of Hope not Hate's desperation to target UKIP while ignoring other organisations which actually pose a risk to race relations in the UK, it is worth noting the attitudes displayed to one which it lists as one of its targets - Al Muhajiroun.


Headed by Anjem Choudhary, the group numbers among its former members the two Woolwich killers - one of whom was described by Choudhary as a 'nice guy' - and is responsible in large part for the perversion of Islam into a hate-filed vehicle of repression, at least in the UK.

Over the last few days, pictures of Choudhary during his days as a student at Southampton University have been published in much of the media showing him smoking, drinking beer and posing with a copy of 'Mayfair' magazine: all things he now rails against since he became a 'strict Muslim'. This is akin to having photographs of Nick Griffin attending a synagogue in a skull cap in his youth, or Tommy Robinson with his Islamic girlfriend in her burq'qa.

You hardly need to imagine the gloating articles that Hope not Hate would publish on their website, touting the hypocrisy of Griffin or Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon. I wouldn't much care, as I have no time for either of them. And yet after this photographic scoop of Choudhary - whose organisation is officially a Hope not Hate target - what do we find? Not a single word. Not a single photograph. Not a single comment.

What I can't understand is how Hope not Hate justify such negligence. Their methods in the past have always included ridiculing the leaders of organisations which peddle hate, and they have frequently made use of photographs and quotes which the leaders of such organisations have made in the past. So why the kid gloves with Anjem Choudhary? Why - despite having a whole page describing why Choudhary and his organisation is a hate group - have they not followed the precedent they have set in mocking the hypocrisy which is clear from the photographs?

Admittedly, these photographs are not new: they first surfaced back in 2009 in an article in the Daily Mail, but they have re-surfaced, and featured heavily in The Sun a couple of days ago. Needless to say, after the recent prominence of Choudhary and his group, they are more than topical, and yet HnH has instead focussed on a trip to Damascus by Griffin, and attacking the BBC for allowing Robinson on the 'Today' programme on BBC R4. Naturally, it has also continued its campaign against UKIP, as featured on this blog yesterday.

The question we must ask Nick Lowles and his fellow travellers at Hope not Hate is simple: why? If you are genuinely against hate - and are serious about including Al Muhajiroun amongst the hate organisations you oppose - then why the silence which seems nothing but rank hypocrisy?

Hope not Hate's selective magnifying glass turns to (some) poll results

More wishful thinking on the part of Hope not Hate's 'Purple Rain' campaign, which promises to put UKIP under a magnifying glass, albeit an increasingly selective one.

Leading their campaign today is a repost of a report from 'Political Betting' focussing on today's ICM poll which shows UKIP down 6% in the polls and level pegging with the Liberal Democrats.

This is the first mention of UKIP polling results on 'Purple Rain' since they launched their rather less than exhaustive examination of the party last November just as UKIPs rise in the polls began: even UKIP hitting 19% in last months ICM poll wasn't worthy of a mention.

It is no surprise then to discover that their selective magnifying glass has failed to miss two other polling related stories since yesterday.

The Independent's 'Poll of polls' published yesterday showed Labour's lead being eaten into by UKIPs continuing rise, and gave the following results: Labour 35% (-4), Con 30% (-1), UKIP 15% (+3), LD 11% (NC). The full story is available here Labour lead lowest for a year as UKIP threatens all three parties

Meanwhile, today saw the publication of an TNS/BRMB poll, with fieldwork conducted over the last four days (6th to 10th June). The results of this poll were Lab 36% (-1), Con 27% (+3), UKIP 19% (NC), LD 8% (-2). Full details of this poll can be found at TNS/BMRB

Meanwhile, the poll which Hope not Hate features - by ICM, which doesn't prompt for UKIP - had the following results: Lab 36% (+2), Con 29% (+1), UKIP 12% (-6), LD 12% (+1). Full details can be found here UKIP support falls back, but man parties remain weak on economy

Of course, it is for them to decide what to post and what not to post, but given that they are supposed to be running an open consultation to 'decide what to do about UKIP' - remember the 'Stand up for HOPE' series of public meetings which were to be announced 'in the next few days' on the 18th of May and which have yet to appear? - it hardly bodes well for the impartiality of their consultation.

Those with long memories might well recall that this is the sort of selective reporting which Hope not Hate used to condemn the BNP for back in the days when they were interested in fighting racism, rather than helping the Labour Party with scaremongering and distortions. Since the split with Searchlight - which used to help UKIP keep out racists and fascists - HnH has become little more than a source of income for its staff, whose tarnished reputations would hardly bear scrutiny in mainstream politics. As it increasingly becomes an irrelevance in the face of UKIPs success, Nick Lowles and his fellow travellers - several of whom are former Nazis themselves - are desperately clutching at whatever straws they can find. Clearly they are now falling back on the reporting skills of their former BNP staff.