You can’t murder a racist

The left have been trying to reclaim the shock factor back from the Alt-right of late. The bulk of this has been ANTIFA violence and assorted outrageous targetings of individuals.

The only thing shocking about the left is their pure evil when dealing with people they see as problematic.

Some of which have resulted in the person being murdered by Muslims.

Like the murder of Keith Brown in stoke on Trent. The left publicised his address and he was killed in a cold blooded home invasion.

After doing the rounds on hope not hate pages and with a wink and a nod from your local Labour councillor, you can be murdered.



The Muslim was charged with Manslaughter because Keith was considered a “racist” and you can’t murder a “racist” according to British law and the Muslim got eight years in prison for Manslaughter.

Judge’s comment.

“What became obvious as the evidence unfolded, however, is that from time to time, despite denials to the contrary, both Mr Brown and his son Ashley Barker were involved in acts of racial aggression towards members of Mr Khan’s family.”

This is a really important story because this will most certainly be one of us some day soon. The powers that be, the aloof elites have no intention of reviving our justice system. It’s full steam a head.

Racial aggression, wots one of them?

Read the article though, there is absolutely zero chance it went down anything like that. It’s jumping with bias, every other word is loaded.

From the times:

“A Muslim man was jailed for eight years today for killing his BNP activist neighbour after suffering a long-running campaign of racial abuse.

Habib Khan, 50, stabbed 52-year-old Keith Brown with a kitchen knife during a violent row outside his home in Stoke-on-Trent in July last year.

Stafford Crown Court was told that Khan and his family had been subjected to “racial hostility” by his neighbours prior to the attack on July 6. Khan, of Uttoxeter Road, Normacot, was cleared by a jury of murdering Mr Brown and instead convicted of manslaughter following a trial in May.

Khan was sentenced to a total of eight years in prison for two charges – one of manslaughter by lack of intent and one of wounding.

Judge Simon Tonking ordered that he serve consecutively six-and-a-half years for manslaughter and 18 months for wounding Mr Brown’s son, Ashley Barker.

The court heard that Khan, described as a “mild and calm-mannered family man”, had intended to use the knife to threaten Mr Brown, who had hold of one of his sons.

Judge Tonking said Khan had acted “in the honest belief that he needed to protect his son” but in doing so had killed Mr Brown.

He said: “It is beyond question that, by acting in the way that he did, Mr Khan killed Mr Brown unlawfully and, whatever their differences, the fact is that Mr Brown lost his life. That is a consequence for which Mr Khan must be punished with a significant custodial sentence.”

The court heard that the families’ feud began when Khan put in a planning application to build a new house on his land a few years prior to the incident.

Mr Brown objected and when permission was granted and building work began, he “took steps to obstruct it”.

The situation escalated over the years, with one incident leaving Khan in hospital. The court was told that the Khan family were often subjected to racial abuse and taunting.

Judge Tonking said: “What became obvious as the evidence unfolded, however, is that from time to time, despite denials to the contrary, both Mr Brown and his son Ashley Barker were involved in acts of racial aggression towards members of Mr Khan’s family.”

Khan’s defence barrister, Simon Drew, said that police were called on a number of occasions, but often investigations “came to nothing” because of “generous failures by the system”.

Speaking outside the court, Stoke-on-Trent BNP members slammed the sentence, which they said did not reflect the severity of the crime.

Councillor Michael Coleman said the court case was an example of “liberal politics going on”. He criticised Staffordshire Police for “going softly on ethnic minorities” and being hard with “the indigenous population of this island.”



Open Your Eyes To Hate attacks the “far right”

The far right, as in anyone who doesn’t want the UK to descend into some sort of roadwarrior/Caliphate situation has come under attack from a new Government sponsored “anti hate” outfit.

All that can really be said about this is that this is victim blaming. Pretty desperate stuff. Nothing we haven’t seen before.

The Left’s powder is wet. This stuff is getting so old now, this argument would have been passable maybe after 7/7.

The problem with this argument now is that this terror thing is permanent, the grooming thing is permanent. People know it. So it’s not like we are just sort of having to go through a wee bit of terror to get to the juicy multiculti tendies.

There are no tendies, the grooming terror thing is the tendies and it’s bitter and tastes like shit. These tendies taste like some poor old dear died in bed and left them in the sink the night before to thaw but never got to eat them.

This is the way it is now and it’s due to get worse.


“Like a hungry hyena circling their prey, the far right can hardly wait to further their agenda using terror attacks like the one in Manchester this week.

We all know that following any terror attack, far-right groups and figures – like Katie Hopkins, Tommy Robinson and Britain First – jump at the opportunity to have a go at all Muslims.

After the Westminster attack, Robinson couldn’t wait to get to the scene of the crime to try and put himself centre stage. Following the recent Manchester attack, Hopkins was craving attention so much that she tweeted a reference to the Holocaust in response. Britain First  saw the atrocity as an opportunity to recruit members online and claim that Muslims should be deported.

All this, even though we all know that terrorists are just a handful of lunatics who have attached themselves to Islam. These people may believe the agenda they push, but their views don’t do anything to stop terrorism.

The heightened emotion sparked by a terror attack is like oxygen to far-right groups. Why? Because they know that when people are quite rightly upset and shocked (which hearing about the murder of children and the grief of families will do) their ability to think of a rational solution decreases. They are more susceptible to angry voices giving them someone to blame and point the finger at, and the far-right will exploit that.

They want people to adopt their cause despite the fact that they just outline problems without offering solutions. Banning Islam, deporting Muslims, bringing back the death sentence, going to mosques to harass worshippers and calling it a ‘Christian patrol’ – these are all things that will not make anyone safer and will only serve to make terrorists stronger.

Because in reality, the far right have a symbiotic relationship with Islamist extremism. Groups like ISIS desperately need the far-right. It’s not rocket science: ISIS want to desperately divide and undermine society, and they want hateful reactions from the far-right to help reinforce that process. They want to say to Muslims: ‘You will never be accepted in England – look at all the hate you have to put up with. Join us.’

Plus, the far right is financially profiting from this division. Every viral video, every extra like on their page, every bit of traffic on a blog – it’s all turned into advertising revenue. That’s not even mentioning their fundraising events and membership fees.

Until we stop allowing the far right to fuel division and hatred, and line their own pockets, we will only see the situation get worse. Every small victory of rhetoric for the far right is a huge win for terrorists. Unless, and we’ve witnessed a masterclass in this following the Manchester attack, we refuse to allow it. How? By sticking together, helping each other and sending out one big message that the terrorists despise: Whatever you try, you will never divide us or undermine our society. That way, they can never win.


Is Antisemitism ok?

Is it really ok to break up Jewish headstones and boycott private individuals and businesses because you support a form of Nationalism that you don’t even want for your own people?


From Btel.

A number of leading Northern Ireland academics have signed up to an international campaign to boycott Israeli universities over Israel’s “illegal occupation” of Palestinian land.

Five academics at Queen’s University and one retired Ulster University professor are among 343 academics from the UK who have pledged to withdraw co-operation with Israeli academic institutions.

In a full-page advertisement in yesterday’s Guardian newspaper, some of the UK’s most prominent figures in higher education underscored their response to “the appeal from Palestinian civil society” with an “Academic Commitment”.

In their response to “the intolerable human rights violations that it inflicts on all sections of the Palestinian people” the signatories have declared they will not “accept invitations to visit Israeli academic institutions”.

The academics do stress, however, that they will “continue to work with our Israeli colleagues in their individual capacities” but in their declaration describe Israeli universities as being “deeply complicit” with Israeli violations of international law.

 The pledge states the educationalists’ position will remain “until the State of Israel complies with international law, and respects universal principles of human rights”.

Motivated by a “deep concern” for Palestinians the unprecedented step has been taken with “great reluctance”, according to Queen’s University Professor Phil Scraton. The criminology professor – also a member of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, following his investigative work into the 1989 disaster – stressed yesterday the undertaking was “not done in a flippant way”.

He told the Belfast Telegraph: “Of course it’s appropriate for academics to speak out. I speak out on Hillsborough, I speak out regularly on the prison service.”

At pains to stress the “very carefully worded” document should not be misconstrued, he said: “It’s about an international movement of academics making their position clear.

“We believe in academic freedom and the right within that academic freedom to make a clear statement about what we are prepared to do and what we are not prepared to do. It’s not saying that we won’t work with individual Israelis and I don’t hold individuals among my brother and sister academics in Israel responsible; that’s not the case.” He said it was drawn up after “very deep and hard” consideration of the “sensitive issue”.

An Ulster University spokesman said that Prof Bill Rolston, who also signed the declaration, was “expressing his own personal and individual views.”

Speaking for the organisers of the Academic Commitment, Prof Jonathan Rosenhead, of the London School of Economics, said: “Israeli universities are at the heart of Israel’s violations of international law and oppression of the Palestinian people. We will be conducting a campaign across the country’s universities over the coming months, and inviting fellow academics to contact us if they wish to sign the commitment.”

Lacigreen pulling out hair, weeks away from meltdown

Laci Green has realised Feminism is shite and is now re-aligning. There is word of her talking to moderate reporters, that means she has likely left the far left behind.

You have to watch the video to get a feel.

I don’t know if this lefty attack story is true or whatever, it looks like it might be, she looks shook up. I wouldn’t be surprised if MTV is using her to bait people or whatever for their weird games.

We will have to wait for more information.

Laura Lacole in humanist marriage court case

Ok….. Laura Lacole is pretty cool, I have been aware of her for a while, she is well into the science and stuff.

The only thing is she is buck mad.

Here she fawns over Elon Musk, the Globalist wanker.

You have to watch this on YOUTUBE, trust me its worth it though.

I’m not going to slabber about her, she has loads of redeeming qualities although her ‘stall’ has quite a few problems. That can be summed up by her statements in this video.

She is also going to court to demand we change marriage laws, even though we already have civil weddings. Weird but ok, go gal!

By the way we need to push this girls videos and encourage her to make more, if she gets popular she will be a total liability to the left. She would be a loose cannon on deck to say the least. Send her an encouraging message about humanism or whatever and ask her when she will be making more videos.

She used to post some good sciency stuff  on FB years ago though, Astronomy etc.

From the BBC.

“A couple who want their humanist marriage ceremony to be legally recognised are being discriminated against, a court has been told.

Model Laura Lacole is due to marry footballer Eunan O’Kane, in June.

Humanist weddings are not recognised by law in Northern Ireland, so couples must also have a civil ceremony.

However, Northern Ireland’s Attorney General John Larkin argued that humanist elements could be incorporated into a civil ceremony.

Mr Larkin told the judge: “That blunts and weakens the case for a separate ceremony.”

The Attorney General intervened because the case touches on devolved Stormont legislation.

‘Legally meaningless’

Laura Lacole and Republic of Ireland and Leeds United footballer O’Kane attended Friday’s judicial review hearing at Belfast High Court to challenge the current legislation.

Before she entered court, Ms Lacole set out her reasons for taking the case.

“We can’t see how you can differentiate between any types of beliefs,” she said.

“We think it should be recognised in Northern Ireland because there is a need for it.”

“Whether we are a minority or a majority we should still be given equal rights.”

Opening the case, their lawyer claimed the pair were being denied rights afforded to religious couples.

He said all they were asking for was the same protection afforded to those of different belief systems.

Ms Lacole, from Belfast, and Mr O’Kane, from County Londonderry, have both described themselves as humanists – a non-religious combination of attitudes, ethics and beliefs centred on human experience and welfare.

Humanists adhere to a scientific view of the world and believe humans steer their own destiny.

Ms Lacole, 27, is also vice-chair of Atheist NI.

“Religious people, from pagans to Free Presbyterians and everything in between, enjoy a substantial legal privilege under law,” their lawyer said.

He argued that the State “gives its legal blessing to such marriages” but “denies the same privilege to equally valid groups”.

Their lawyer added that, as the law stood in Northern Ireland, the couple’s wedding on 22 June would be “legally meaningless”.

Humanist wedding ceremonies are legally recognised in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland but not in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

‘Vows, music, content’

The couple are taking the judicial review against the General Register Office for Northern Ireland over its decision not to authorise next month’s ceremony, which will be conducted by a British Humanist Association celebrant.

The action is also directed at Stormont’s Department of Finance for its alleged failure to introduce legislation to allow a legally binding wedding.

Their lawyer told the court the case was of “huge public interest”.

He pointed out that were 4,290 humanist weddings in Scotland in 2015 – more than those conducted by the Church of Scotland.

But the attorney general said the applicant had failed to explain what exactly it was they wanted at their ceremony that could not be accommodated in a civil wedding.

“There is a marked paucity of concrete evidence in relation to that,” said Mr Larkin.

Philip Henry, representing the General Register Office and Department of Finance, echoed that assertion.

He said “vows, music, content and venue” could be modified in civil ceremonies, as long as it remained non-religious.

The barrister said the only issue was the couple were unable to have their chosen humanist celebrant to marry them legally.

Mr Henry said the important role religion has played in Northern Ireland through history was why such marriages had become enshrined in law.

“That is not a commentary on the quality of one belief over another,” he said.

Ms Lacole has pledged to continue the legal battle if the case is unsuccessful.

“If we don’t get it, we want to appeal so we can give other people the opportunity to have the wedding ceremony that they want,” she said.”