The Mainstream Media (MSM) keep smearing the BNP, but Nationalists will be delighted to know that the circulation of these anti-BNP newspapers dropped again in August.

According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) the number of copies sold in August, apart from a few exceptions, fell since the previous August.

Daily papers:

Daily Telegraph: 814,087, down 5.4 per cent

Financial Times: 395,845, down 5.2 per cent

The Guardian: 311,387, down 6.4 per cent

The Independent: 187,837, down 18.3 per cent

The Times: 576,185, down 6.0 per cent

Daily Mirror: 1,324,883, down 9 per cent

Daily Record: 347,302, down 11 per cent

Daily Star: 886,814, up 18 per cent

The Sun: 3,128,501, down 1 per cent

Daily Express: 730,234, down 2.5 per cent

Daily Mail: 2,171,686, down 3.9 per cent

Sunday Papers:

Independent on Sunday: 160,809, down 18.3 per cent

The Observer: 361,761, down 12 per cent

The Sunday Telegraph: 599,131, down 3.1 per cent

The Sunday Times: 1,164,831, down 0.72 per cent

Daily Star Sunday: 401,305, down 0.6 per cent

News of the World: 3,120,991, down 3.99 per cent

Sunday Mail: 428,613, down 11 per cent

Sunday Mirror: 1,237,227, down 5.7 per cent

The People: 586,414, down 9.7 per cent

Sunday Express: 646,861, down 1.25 per cent

Sunday Post: 354,870, down 10.4 per cent

Mail on Sunday: 2,013,742, down 7.5 per cent

The Daily Star is the only paper that increased the number of copies sold, mainly because it dropped its cover price to 20p in many parts of the country.

The Sun followed suit, as it also sells around 1.5 million copies a day at the lesser 20p rate. The cost of its basic cover price cut from 35p to 30p and of its further discount to 20p in certain areas is estimated at more than £50m a year in cover price revenue alone.

This affected ‘ Trinity Mirror Group’ national titles, they were evidently feeling the effects of strict cost-cutting which must have impacted on their marketing budgets.

The ‘Independent’ and ‘Independent on Sunday’ are the worst performing papers so much so, that Denis O’Brian, one of the shareholders of Independent News and Media (INM), the multinational company that controls the two titles, wanted to sell them or close them down.

INM is in deep troubles, it failed to pay 200m Euro to its bondholders and now its major shareholder plans to give up half of his shares to the creditors as part of a rescue deal.

As the number of people supporting the BNP keeps rising, the newspaper owners should ask themselves this question. “How wise is it to put these increasing numbers off  buying  newspapers that print anti-Nationalist/BNP stories”?
Even if the prospect of a single newspaper breaking ranks and supporting us is unlikely, surely running more balanced stories would incentivise more people to buy them and reduce their financial problems.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

“The Mainstream Media” (MSM) are united in their hatred of the BNP, but it is heart-warming to know that there are still commentators with a semblance of common sense left.

‘Spiked’, an online publication, vehemently opposed to the BNP published an article in which it attacks government for forcing us to change our Constitution.

Brendan O’Neill makes a good point when he argues that:

‘In one breath they say democracy is the only tool with which to challenge backward ideas; in the next they support an utterly undemocratic state intervention into the freedom of association and freedom of thought of a political party. This schizophrenic, changeable attitude to democracy captures how today’s anti-BNP sloganeering and policymaking are graver threats to democracy than the racist party itself. Because if we are really serious about defending an open and free democratic society, then we must not only say ‘yes, the BNP should be free to appear on Question Time’, but also – however much it sticks in our throats – ‘it must be free to exclude non-whites, too’.

But he also has strong words for the antifascists:

Like every censorious figure throughout history, from Torquemada to Tony Blair, the anti-fascist left sees certain words not only as wrong, and thus challengeable, but as dangerous and diseased. So the BNP’s words are like a ‘cancer’ that will spread through Britain. In the idea that there will be a ‘drip, drip, drip effect’ if the BNP is allowed on to Question Time – allowing fascist thinking to become ‘normalised’ – we can glimpse the core conviction of every censor: that people are fickle and easily led and thus might be switched on to fascism at the sight of Nick Griffin’s ugly mug on TV. We must therefore be protected from our own worst instincts by caring, gracious, morally superior individuals with the power to censor.

And he continues to underline what is wrong with the EHRC’ move:

The only criticism of the ‘equality case’ against the BNP is that it is pointless – after all, how many blacks and Asians are queuing up to join a party that considers them to be second-class citizens? Yet this case is far more problematic than that, and provides a taster of the kind of state intervention into the life of private clubs, groups and political parties that we can expect under New Labour’s Equality Bill. The case has set the scene for further attacks on freedom of association and independent organisation by a state acting under the auspices of ‘equality’.

The fact is that, unlike public bodies, private bodies must be free to discriminate. Freedom of association and the right to organise politically – two key rights in any democratic society worth its name – inevitably involve choosing who to associate and organise with, and therefore excluding those who, for whatever reason, do not live up to the standards, political beliefs or membership criteria of your organisation. For Ramblers’ Associations, whose business is walking, that might mean excluding wheelchair-users; for a gay men’s discussion group, whose business is homosexuality, it might mean excluding heterosexuals; and for the BNP, whose rotten business is racism, it means excluding blacks and Asians. Forcing all manner of private and political groups to open their doors to everybody and anybody would represent a stinging attack on freedom of association, and on the choice, independence and freedom of thought that are bound up in the forming of private associations and political groups.

Of course a distinction should be drawn between public bodies and private or political bodies. Discrimination in the public realm is intolerable because it denies an individual his full humanity. It hampers his ability to live a full and free life and transforms him into a second-class citizen. Equality is essential in public life in order to guarantee opportunity for all and to preserve civilisation itself. For example, if a publicly-funded, NHS hospital were to deny treatment to an individual on the basis that he is black, that would be a disgrace, something really worth protesting about, because it would send the powerful message that, in the public view in Britain, black people are worth less than white people. However, if a gay man’s clinic were to deny an appointment to a straight man, that would be in order, because it is a private organisation that has chosen to assist and associate with only one section of society. If a state-funded adoption agency were to deny a couple the right to adopt on the basis that they are poor, that would be deeply problematic; it would send a signal to the public that poor people are worse parents and have fewer rights than wealthy people. However, if a Catholic adoption agency refuses to allow gay couples to adopt its children, that is in order, since it is a non-public organisation that has freely devised its own rules of association and belief system. A state that denies an individual access to health or adoption services is severely limiting that individual’s choices and standard of living; a private organisation that denies individuals access to such things is not.

And then he concludes:

Of course the BNP’s constitution is foul, and people are free to denounce it and expose it. But in the name of combating the BNP, the authorities are seriously damaging democracy. First there was the clamour for BNP members to be excluded from jobs in the public sector, which really was a demand for an unacceptable form of public discrimination against individuals on the basis of their political views. Now a legal case against the BNP is rewriting the nature of the right to organise in contemporary society. This case, and the forthcoming Equality Bill, will effectively deny people the freedom to set up racist organisations. Yet in a democracy, a true democracy, people should be free even to be racist – and the rest of us should be free to argue and shout and organise against them.

As I said before ‘Spiked’ is strongly opposed to the BNP but it still wrote an article warning about the violation of individual freedom and the threat to freedom of association.

Maybe this has less to do with ideology and more to do with self interest as many ‘Spiked’ columnists are Jewish.
They rightly fear that the new equality law will force Jewish-only organizations to accept non-Jewish, including Muslims and other anti-Semites.

Nonetheless it’s good to see some liberals that still believe in freedom and are ready to make a case for it.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

As mainstream media started a smear campaign against the BNP, nationalists can take comfort in the fact that newspapers are in a dire financial situation.

Guardian Media Group (GMG), the holding company that controls The Guardian, The Observer, GMG Radio and many local papers overall reported a pre-tax loss of £89.8m compared with a profit last year of £306.4m. Interestingly, of that £89.8m loss, £24m was due to botched currency trading aimed to protect hedge-fund investments.

So it’s not surprising if  The Guardian is considering charging for some of its online content even if they are aware that many people, rather than start paying, will look for news elsewhere.

The GMG is desperate to cut costs and so it’s considering closing down The Observer, the oldest Sunday newspaper. Other options being considered are reducing its size or turning it into a mid-week supplement.

Its losses are not bigger than The Guardian’s but the Scott Trust, the charity that controls the GMG, is obliged to maintain The Guardian at any cost, even if this means closing down or downsizing other businesses in the group.
This explains why the brunt of those cost-cutting measures have been borne by local papers like the Manchester Evening News.

Of course a campaign was started to save The Observer, supported by many celebrities and by the Labour MP Denis MacShane who declared:

“As a former NUJ president and an occasional contributor to the Observer I don’t want it to disappear and another tranche of our best journalists scurrying to find work in PR or learning about Job Seekers Allowance.

“The Observer is part of the very fabric of our parliamentary democracy. No European country, nor the US, has a paper like it. I hope MPs of all shades of opinion do write and say the Observer should not die.”

Indeed Mr MacShane has a point.

No other country has a newspaper that prints stories based on lies to smear a perfectly legitimate party, or who condones and often supports physical attacks against BNP activists and distorts stories to promote its multicultural agenda.

To be fair The Observer is not alone but given that the press in this country has now become a tool used by the political elite to stop anyone who dare to challenge its plans, its closure is not a bad news at all.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

In what is now a regular summer occurrence, the British National Party held its annual Red White and Blue festival, antifascist groups took part in violent demonstrations aimed at disrupying this family event and mainstream media did their best to portray UAF’s thugs in a positive light and families attending the RWB as a bunch of racist bigots.

The only reason it’s worth looking at these smear articles is to have an idea of the kind of “quality journalism” that Rupert Murdoch and other media bosses think readers should pay to look at online.

In the meantime any BNP supporter that feel upset for the way the RWB has been covered, can take solace in the fact that newspaper circulation dropped again in July. Here the figures provided by Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) for July 2009:

The Independent – 189,013 (-19.67%)

The Guardian – 328,773 (2.71%)

The Times – 580,483 (-5.15%)

Daily Telegraph – 818.937 (-4.54%)

Financial Times – 397.600 (6.13%)

The Sunday Times – 1,190,936 (+2.74%)

Independent On Sunday – 160,395 (-19.98%)

The Sunday Telegraph – 602,495 (-2.77%)

The Observer – 398,330 (-7.01%)

Maybe more people are starting to realise that newspapers, far from reporting the truth, give a biased and distorted view of the events. But it seems that their penchant for lies goes far beyond the way they report news and events. According to Press Gazette, the ABC is now revising the circulation figures of 6 newspapers after it emerged that they use bulk sales to airports and airlines to inflate their circulation.

So far the ABC reduced the Daily Mail’s average daily circulation from the previously reported figure of 2,228,897 to 2,200,398 – a reduction of just over 28,000 copies on average each day.

The Mail on Sunday was reduced from a top line circulation of 2,189,432 each week in January to 2,134,809 – a reduction of 54,623.

Once adjusted the Financial Times dropped from its previously reported figure of 432,944 to 426,676.

The Daily Telegraph was reduced from 842,912 to 783,210; the adjusted figure is 59,702 copies lower on average each day.

Its sister paper, the Sunday Telegraph, was reduced from 619,243 to 602,306 – an adjustment of 16,937.

The Evening Standard dropped from the previously reported circulation of 292,976 to 237,403 – an adjustment of 55,573 fewer copies sold each day.

With luck advertisers will make their voice heard, after all they have been deceived and maybe this will translate to less revenue and higher losses.

Hopefully they will pay a huge price for their arrogance.

Share

Britain is full of problems but it seems our elected representatives in Westminster have nothing better to do that meddling in the debate going on in the USA about healthcare reform.

First we have Gordon and Sara Brown using Twitter to tell Americans how wonderful is the NHS. Then it’s the turn of Tory MEP Dariel Hannan advising people not to copy the dreadful NHS and David Cameron trying to reassure voters that a Tory government will preserve this great institution.

There is a problem in the USA health system, where about 46 millions are without insurance and so unable to get any help if they become sick but as usual politicians and their puppet mainstream media do their best to lie and misinform people.

Let’s start to look who those uninsured are.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), an organization similar to Migrationwatch, one third of those uninsured are illegal immigrants and their children and it makes this calculation by using figures from the US Census Bureau.

Of course it’s difficult to have reliable information as illegals try their best to avoid being caught but this is not the only study available. In 2005 a study carried out by the Rand Corporation analyzed data received from about 2,400 people in Los Angeles County in 2000 and 2001, and applied that information to the nation’s undocumented population at large.

The number of uninsured adults in the United States grew by about 8.7 million between 1980 and 2000. If the trend for Los Angeles County held true for the rest of the country, about a third of that growth can be attributable to illegal immigrants.

“The study does not diminish the severity of the problem of the uninsured. Nor does it call for some sort of health insurance coverage for illegals” said James Smith, a senior economist at RAND. “That’s not a scientific question. Rather, the study shows that any meaningful impact on reducing the number of uninsured has to take into account the issue of illegal immigration, he said.”

If the CIS can be accused of being biased against immigrants, the same cannot be said for the Rand Corporation and given that illegal immigration increased since the time the study was released, it’s possible that the number of those illegals uninsured increased hugely.

After all, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, 59 percent of all illegal immigrant adults lacked health insurance in 2007. These figures are dramatically higher than the 14 percent uninsured rates for U.S.-born adults. The children of illegal immigrants are also uninsured at extremely high rates — 45 percent of their foreign-born children are uninsured!

On the other hand there are other research centres who give a more conservative estimate. The National Institute for Health Care Management calculates the number of uninsured who are illegal aliens at about 5.6 millions.

Even if the figure is much lower than the CIS’s, it still proves that more than 10% of uninsured are people who are not supposed to be in the USA in the first place.

So if it’s true that many special interest groups are against healthcare reform because they want to maintain the status quo, it’s also true that many ordinary American citizens are strongly opposed to bankrolling a very expensive plan that would advantage illegal immigrants.

But illegal immigration affects Americans indirectly also.

Many aliens tend to go to the emergency rooms when their illness is more advanced and thus more expensive to treat.
Given that very few pay hospitals are left with huge unpaid bills and they make up for those losses by charging more American patients thus increasing insurance premiums and increasing the number of Americans that cannot afford medical coverage.

So here there is another uncomfortable truth about the negative impact of immigration and once again media are concealing it from the public.

USA could hugely reduce the number of uninsured by getting rid of all the illegal immigrants. This of course wouldn’t fix all the problems but would make the reform much more manageable. We know this is the case also in the UK where the NHS spend huge amount of money to give free healthcare to immigrants and asylum seekers while denying treatment to Britons who paid taxes for all their lives.

David Cameron is right when he says the NHS is a great institution but it would be better if he tried to explain how he plans to deal with immigrants putting a lot of strain to our health service.

As for the TORY MEP Daniel Hannan, who claimed the BNP is more far-left than far-right, he should maybe take example from some American conservatives that are supporter of free market economy but strongly opposed to mass immigration.

Share

After a massive and unprecedented smear campaign failed to prevent the BNP from winning 2 seats in the EU parliament, the biased and illiberal mainstream media are at it again. The latest victim is Redbridge BNP councillor Julian Leppert.

His crime?

He drives in a car with number plate NA51 CZY.

What caused outrage is that NA51 is similar to the word NAZI and this was enough to infuriate Redbridge council leader Keith Prince who asked Mr Leppert “to hang his head in shame and resign”.

Now how the number 5 can be confused with the letter Z is a mystery but what is sure is that this may be remembered as one of the silliest stories ever printed in a British newspaper.

Apart the fact that it requires a bit of imagination to see the word nazi on this registration plate, the absurdity of this smear is evident to anyone with half-a-brain. This is not a personal registration plate, the N represents north, the A Newcastle and the 51 2001 so NA5 means a car registered in the north, in Newcastle in 2001. Surely a lot of people have a registration number with those initials and no one found it offensive.

Clearly anti-BNP campaigners are getting desperate if they are scratching the bottom of the barrel with a stupid non-story like that but if this is the best they can come up with maybe, for the BNP, things can only get better.

Share

Rupert Murdoch, the media tycoon, announced that he plans to charge anyone visiting his online newspapers.

“The era of free news websites is over, quality journalism cannot be offered for free so people must get used to paying for online content” declared Mr Murdoch.

What the Australian media tycoon means when he talks about quality journalism is not clear. What is clear is that this move can only help the BNP website and other party’s blogs to increase hugely their number of visitors.

Already the main BNP website is the most popular political website in the UK, partly because it has news stories ignored or distorted by mainstream media posted on a daily basis.

If all the newspapers start charging for their online services this can only increase the traffic on the main BNP website as well as all the other unofficial support blogs.

The number of news items posted may increase from the 3-4 a day to 30, 40 or maybe 50 a day and all available for free so that anyone unwilling to subscribe to those online services can look the BNP website and support blogs to get informed.

However the biggest advantage may be in the long term.

Mainstream media will resume smear campaigns against the BNP, but, if they will charge for their online content they will witness a drop in the number of people visiting their websites and so their attack will be directed to a shrinking audience, thus undermining their efforts to stop a party that is a threat to the treacherous political elite.

This is not so far-fetched, Vladimir Putin’s United Russia Party has a website that resembles more a news agency than a political party.

Thank you Mr Murdoch.
GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share