Bradford delegation calls for ban on English Defence League march

Politicians, religious leaders and campaigners travel to London to ask home secretary to stop 'provocative' demonstration
A delegation of politicians, religious leaders and campaigners from Bradford will arrive in London tomorrow to ask the home secretary to ban a planned demonstration in the Yorkshire city by the far-right English Defence League (EDL).

The delegation, which includes the Bradford West MP, Marsha Singh, says the proposed demonstration is an attempt to provoke trouble in a city still recovering from the riots in 2001 that followed an attempted march by the National Front.

"The EDL is a racist, anti-Muslim organisation that is coming to Bradford with the sole intention of whipping up tensions and trying to provoke a riot," said Singh. "Unfortunately, we know only too well what this type of terror can bring and Bradford is still recovering from the disturbances of 2001."

The EDL formed in Luton last year and has become the most significant far-right street movement in the UK since the National Front in the 1970s. It claims to be a peaceful, non-racist organisation opposed only to "militant Islam". But many of its demonstrations have ended in confrontations with the police after some supporters became involved in violence as well as racist and Islamophobic chanting.

The group has held demonstrations across the country but its plan to target Bradford over the August bank holiday weekend is its most provocative yet, with between 5,000 and 10,000 EDL supporters expected to descend on the city.

Tomorrow's delegation will present a petition signed by more than 10,000 Bradford residents to Home Office officials calling on the police and government to ban the demonstration.

"This is not some bureaucratic or passive appeal to the authorities, but real people demanding that those who are supposed to serve and protect us actually do just that," said Singh. "We are calling on the home secretary and West Yorkshire police to listen to the will of the people of Bradford."

West Yorkshire police are expected to make a decision on whether they think the EDL demonstration should go ahead in the next week. It will then be down to the home secretary, Theresa May, to decide whether to ban the march.

Singh added: "The Conservative government was elected on a policy of localism, of giving local people a greater say in the running of their community. Now is the time to see if they mean it."

The Guardian

Lee Barns BNP's Legal Eagle quits

My Resignation Letter From the BNP

Formal Resignation Letter.

10th August 2010.

Just over a month ago I won a court case for the BNP against Greenwich Council that not only changed the entire basis of electoral law in England, it also saved the party around ten to fifteen thousand pounds in legal costs and damages.

The legal arguments I drafted up and sent to the court ensured that the BNP won the court case.

For those idiots who will seek to attack me on the grounds of me being a red / traitor / unqualified crank (tick the usual pejorative as applicable) I mention this legal case I won for the party so as to ensure that decent people, and not the idiot sock puppets we see on the VNN Forum and Green Arrow site who are the vermin in the gutter of British Nationalism, understand that until yesterday when news of the mass suspension of party activists and organisers was announced I was still a loyal officer and supporter of the party.

I have pleaded with people to put the interests of the party first and before their own personal animosities and feuds.

As this has been ignored I have no choice but to take this action.

Over the last few years since the arrival of Jim Dowson into the party, Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson have repeatedly chosen to break the most obvious of laws including such debacles as ;

1) The Marmite Case
2) The unlawful use of stock images from a photoshop company during the European Elections
3) The EHRC court cases
4) The unlawful sacking of Michaele Mackenzie
5) The illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and many others

All of these were done under the orders of both Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.

Regardless of how much income the party has had over the last few years, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been squandered on avoidable court cases.

Whilst party income has undoubtedly rose since Jim Dowson became involved with the BNP, so has the vast amount of money paid out by the BNP in legal costs incurred by the BNP.

Legal issues that were once dealt with internally within the party have been ’outsourced’ from the party to individuals paid by Jim Dowson and Nick Griffin, resulting in the parties internal legal affairs no longer being scrutinised or run by the BNP Legal Unit.

This ‘outsourcing’ of legal issues and cases, such as the drafting up of the new BNP constitution and dealing with the Marmite Case, have resulted in the party wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on fighting legal cases that could have been avoided, had the party debated and addressed those legal issues internally.

What was particularly galling for me was the Michaela Mackenzie case.

I informed Nick Griffin on the day he sacked her that what he was doing was unlawful.

Not only did he ignore my advice, he later went to an Employment Tribunal and called me a ‘crank’ as a way to ‘explain’ why my advice to him was ignored.

The actions of Nick Griffin in this case alone has cost the party over twenty five thousand pounds, and as of Friday last week the money owed to Michaele Mackenzie has still not been paid.

This means the party will now be dragged back into court and probably bankrupted as a result.

As far as I am aware the party is now technically insolvent.

Outstanding court costs, wages bills, election expenses and also forthcoming legal cases against the party mean the BNP is now technically bankrupt.

As far as I am aware donations to the party have flowed to a trickle as well as party renewals and new inquiries.
This means the party should be avoiding creating new legal cases and liabilities, not rushing into them as though the party is awash with money to fight such legal cases.

Bankruptcy of the party will have very serious implications for the BNP membership.

If the party is made bankrupt then the BNP membership as a whole will be directly financially liable for its outstanding debts as an unincorporated association and not Nick Griffin or Jim Dowson.

This is because Nick Griffin has no assets and Jim Dowsons financial assets are probably hidden away in some Spanish or Swiss bank account outside the UK.

In relation to the illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and others, I spent months trying to get Nick to see sense on this issue.
It was only after months of arguments that Nick Griffin was forced to relent, drop their suspensions and re-admit them.

During this time I was threatened by Jim Dowson with violence for putting the parties legal interests first as he was the person pushing Nick Griffin to expel Peter Mullins and others.

I am not the only BNP member or BNP officer to have been threatened with violence by Jim Dowson.

It appears that when Jim Dowson doesn’t get what he wants he likes to threaten people with his connections to loyalist killers and terrorists in Northern Ireland in order to intimidate people into doing his bidding.

My complaints to Nick Griffin about Jim Dowsons threats of violence directed at me and other party members have been ignored.

All I can say is that Peter Mullins is a decent, honourable man whilst Jim Dowson is a convicted criminal, with links to Loyalist terrorism and terrorists with a string of failed companies to his name who bought his ’reverend’ title off of the internet.

These facts are easily ascertained off the internet, as the media have undertaken investigations into Jim Dowson and published this information widely.

Unfortunately, as the Peter Mullins case revealed, Nick Griffin thinks the law as regards the unlawful expulsion of members does not apply to him, even though he was shown by the courts during the John Tyndall case that the law does apply to the BNP.

The decision yesterday to unlawfully suspend dozens of activists simply for them standing against Nick Griffin in the leadership contest is the action of utterly irresponsible incompetents.

Nick Griffin knew before the leadership challenge even began that he could not be removed as leader of the party.

The BNP constitution was re-written specifically to ensure that no-one can ever remove Nick Griffin from his role as chairman.

Therefore to suspend the people who supported the leadership challenge is both unlawful and tactically inept.

The people who supported Eddy Butler would have been facing the choice of either knuckling down or resigning from the party.

Instead they have been unlawfully suspended and therefore can now launch new legal actions against the party.

The law is clear.

BNP members have a constitutionally protected right to stand for party leadership.

To suspend them for doing so is unlawful.

The way they have been suspended is also unlawful.

I have no doubt that they will now unite to form a class action against the party thereby incurring more legal costs and damages against an already virtually bankrupt party whose debts far outweigh its income.

The tragedy is that Andrew Brons has been dragged into this idiotic affair, for he will have no choice but to do as Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson say and declare that the leadership challengers did not get enough nominations and so cannot stand against Nick Griffin for a leadership election.

But what has most sickened me over recent weeks is the way that the serious allegations of sexual assault from the BNP member Shelley Rose have been ignored by Nick Griffin.

I have never met Shelley Rose, nor have I ever spoken to her.

I do not know the truth or otherwise of the allegations she has made.

As soon as I saw the Youtube video of her allegations I sent an e mail to Nick Griffin, and spoke to him on the phone, asking that in order to ensure the party and its public image is protected that both Shelley Rose and Jim Dowson be suspended as members and as party officers and that a full and transparent investigation is initiated.
The BNP cannot ever be seen as a party that protects perverts or a party that refuses to address allegations of such a serious nature from a female member.

Any allegations of sexual assault by any female BNP member against any male BNP member must be treated with the utmost seriousness and an full investigation begun.

Failure to do that allows the media to attack and undermine the party and its public image.

Jim Dowson is not a member of the BNP, so therefore in order to demonstrate that the party was taking these allegations seriously then he should have been immediately suspended as a party officer and from all party offices until the investigation and disciplinary procedures into the allegations were finished.

If Shelley Rose was found to have lied then she should have been expelled.

If Jim Dowson was found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute, Gross Misconduct and sexual assault then he should have been dismissed and sacked from all party offices he holds.

Instead what has happened is that Shelley Rose has been suspended, no investigation has been initiated and no sanction applied against Jim Dowson.

Instead of having a transparent investigation into the allegations, the internet attack dogs on sites like the Green Arrow website and the VNN Forum have been set upon Shelley Rose and abused her name and reputation.

They have slandered, threatened and vilified her and by so doing have disgraced not just the BNP but British Nationalism as a political movement.

This is intolerable.

The BNP cannot be seen as a political party that punishes the victim of a sexual assault whilst protecting the perpetrator of the crime.

All such allegations have to be treated with the utmost seriousness.

All such allegations must be investigated.

The issue is simple enough to understand.

Any married BNP party officer in a senior position who spends the night in a hotel room with a BNP female member other than his wife must be sacked.

This must be done for one simple reason.

A party officer lured into a secret affair opens himself up to being blackmailed or manipulated.

Such a scenario creates a fundamental conflict of interest between their personal life, their professional duties and their political responsibilities that is simply unacceptable.

A party officer who is in charge of the BNP finances via its income, who controls the BNP membership lists and who has such influence over the chairman of the party must be entirely above reproach at all times.

If it had been someone working for MI5 who had lured Jim Dowson into a sexual assignation in a London hotel room and then filmed him with hidden cameras and used that film to blackmail him, then MI5 would now be in control of the BNP’s finances and income and have access to all our membership data bases and be able to virtually control the party.

And we would never know about it.

Any married man foolish enough to have been discovered having stayed the night in a hotel room with a young woman other than his wife, and especially a ’reverend’, is an individual who may also have done so in the past and therefore is not suitable to be in that position.

In the world of business, and in the education system and police, any senior manager who has an affair with a junior member of his staff that threatens the good name of the organisation is guilty of Gross Misconduct and dismissed.

Whilst it may be acceptable for the Tories, Lib Dems and New Labour to act in such a manner it is not acceptable for senior officers of the BNP to do so, especially senior officers in charge of BNP finances and income and the membership data base.

But it appears that Jim Dowson is an ’untouchable’ in the party and that whilst Nick Griffin is prepared to sacrifice dozens of loyal members with decades of party loyalty, he will not deal with Jim Dowson.

It therefore appears that Nick Griffin no longer wishes to receive any counsel from anyone who wishes to put the legal interests of the BNP, its members, our public image and our future electoral expansion before the interests of Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.

I cannot remain as the Legal Officer of a party that acts unlawfully towards its own members, that rewards years of party loyalty with unlawful suspensions and expulsions, that covers up serious allegations of sexual abuse by senior officers, that expels long standing members who ask for financial transparency within the party and that refuses to act to protect its own officers when they are threatened with violence by other senior officers.

Such a political party cannot be trusted with political power in our society.

If I stay on within such a party then it will appear as though I am supporting and condoning such actions.

Unless the BNP begins ;

1) An immediate fully transparent investigation into the ongoing allegations of financial mismanagement within the party which allows BNP members and officers to ascertain exactly what the party finances are, where party assets have gone and what the background behind the legal costs of recent legal cases have been. This is required in order to ensure that internal party mechanisms are in place to protect the party from such legal liabilities and allegations of financial impropriety in the future.

2) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the threats of violence made against any party members and officers by Jim Dowson.

3) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the allegations made by the BNP member Shelly Rose against Jim Dowson.

4) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into who authorised the unlawful suspensions of BNP party members Peter Mullins and others and also whether the present suspensions of members and organisers suspended for being involved in the leadership challenge are also legal. As part of the inquiry it must establish whether an independent body within the party should be established that vets and checks any orders for the suspension of members and officers of the party issued by the chairman or other officers are legal before the suspensions or expulsions are authorised and issued. This is required to protect the party from legal potential legal liabilities.

5) The establishment of an internal ‘BNP Reconciliation Committee’ which allows all BNP members and officers to air their grievances and discuss issues about issues of concern to officers and the membership without fear of suspension and expulsion so as to allow us to move forward as a united party.

6) An immediate party inquiry into how the party can establish an internal mechanism for protecting the employment rights of party officers from arbitrary dismissal so as to ensure no more legal cases and legal costs are imposed against the party.

7) An immediate party inquiry into establishing an internal party mechanism that requires the chairman of the party to discuss and debate with senior officials of the party any financial or business actions that may impinge or impact upon the party directly or accrue legal or financial liabilities for the party before those decisions are taken.

8) Jim Dowson now controls the BNP membership database, the BNP donor database, the BNP treasury department, the BNP subscriptions operation, the BNP media & communications operation and the BNP website. This is completely unacceptable and legally questionable. There is no power in the constitution for the chairman to devolve such internal party offices or party operations to an individual who is not a party member. The BNP constitution does not give the chairman the power to allow a non-member of the party to hold, have access too or have power directly over BNP party finances or confidential information relating to party members. Nor does the chairman have any power to move party assets owned by the party outside the party and especially into the hands of an individual who is not a member of the party. Therefore all financial assets owned by the party and under the control of Jim Dowson must be declared and returned to the party. No officer of the party, either member of non-member, should be ever again be allowed to have such internal control and influence over such a vast amount of essential internal BNP operations now or in the future. Such over centralisation of power around Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson means the party is now vulnerable.

If party assets have been moved out of the party and into companies owned by Jim Dowson by Nick Griffin then this is potentially defined as "Fraud by abuse of position" and is defined by Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. This is such a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person such as BNP members, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.

In such cases of potential fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another. The fact that such issues may have potentially arisen means the party is at serious risk of investigation and prosecution.

I do not believe the list of assurances that I believe the party requires in order to allow it to move forward as a united organisation will be given by Nick Griffin.

In all good conscience I can therefore no longer remain as an officer of the party.

If I stay on as an officer of the party then I will be seen as condoning the above issues and problems.

I am not prepared to do that.

I hereby quit my role as BNP Legal Adviser with immediate effect.


L. J. Barnes LLB (Hons)
 
Originally posted by Kirklees Unity.

Race issue gives Sarkozy an easy route to boost support (France)

Racist, the French? A recent opinion poll suggested that 70 to 80 per cent of French people welcomed President Sarkozy's idea that certain criminals "of foreign origin" should be stripped of their French nationality. The proposal, which will be formalised before the end of the month, has been attacked by voices on both the left and the right as cynical and unworkable. The more thoughtful critics include two people who are by no means Sarko-haters, the celebrity philosopher, Bernard-Henri Lévy, and the former Socialist prime minister, Michel Rocard. By associating "foreign origin" with violent crime, they say, the President is stooping to the populist logic of the far right National Front. He is even, Mr Rocard suggested at the weekend, resurrecting the xenophobic and anti-Republican legislation of the collaborationist Vichy regime of 1940-44.

Can it just be a coincidence, the critics ask, that Mr Sarkozy is ranting about crime and foreigners when the economic crisis, and now a party-financing scandal, have brought his approval ratings to their lowest ever ebb? What is "foreign origin", anyway? Will the new law apply only to people who were born abroad? Or will it also apply to second and third generation immigrants? What would happen to people left with no nationality? On Friday, a poll in Le Figaro gave high approval ratings to this and other recent proposals by Mr Sarkozy to get tough on crime. The figures were received with undisguised glee in the Elysée Palace. "A slap in the face for the well-meaning," said Mr Sarkozy's childhood friend, the Interior Minister, Brice Hortefeux. "As usual, 'Sarkozyism' is out of step with the élites but in step with society."

Another informative poll appeared yesterday. According to an annual survey by the Journal du Dimanche, the French West Indian pop singer and former tennis player Yannick Noah remains the most popular person in France for the sixth year in succession. The second most popular Frenchman is the retired footballer Zinédine Zidane, born in Marseilles to Algerian parents. Seven of the people in the top 10 are, arguably, to use Mr Sarkozy's phrase, "of foreign origin". Racist, the French? President Sarkozy, also "of foreign origin", did not feature in the top 50. The list is, admittedly, freighted with singers, actors, sports stars and television presenters (many of whom are unknown outside France).

Two incidents sparked the President's recent series of diatribes against criminals and especially criminals "of foreign origin". Shots were fired at police last month during riots in Grenoble, after a young man of North African origin was killed by police while trying to rob a casino. Gypsies of French origin rioted in a small town in central France after a gendarme shot dead a young gypsy whose car failed to stop at a checkpoint. In the first case, the rioters were a typically disparate bunch of teenagers from the "troubled" suburbs of Grenoble: brown, black and some white but all, almost certainly, born in France. In the second case, the "travelling people" who rioted were people with French surnames whose families have lived in France for centuries. President Sarkozy's response to the Grenoble incident was to make a speech linking crime and immigration and promising to remove the French nationality of people "of foreign origin" who fired bullets at policemen. His response to the second incident was to launch a crackdown on the Roma who have entered France illegally from Eastern Europe in recent years (but had nothing to do with the rural riot). A Roma camp near Lyons was cleared by police on Friday.

In both cases, President Sarkozy made a connection between crime and legal and illegal immigration which was at best wilful, and worst dishonest. There is a problem with Roma entering France illegally but vigorous efforts were already being made to repatriate them. Five years after the riots of October 2005, the troubled multi-racial banlieues of French cities remain a powder keg. Before his election in 2007, Mr Sarkozy promised to encourage the many positive things which also happen in the banlieues. Little has been done. Racist, the French? No, but they are depressingly willing, it seems, to be led by the nose by simplistic, xenophobic formulae and slogans.

The Independant

SUSPECTS CAUGHT IN MURDERS OF ROMA IN HUNGARY ARE EXTREME-RIGHT PROMOTERS

The Hungarian State Investigation Office (NNI) has completed its investigation into a series of anti-Roma attacks in 2008 and 2009 during which six Roma were murdered including a five-year-old child, the MTI agency reports. NNI is now suggesting prosecutors indict four detained suspects. News server Novinky.cz reports the detainees are promoters of extreme-right organizations. The attacks occurred at nine separate places. They involved 78 instances of gunfire and Molotov cocktail attacks on seven homes. Police say the attacks are exceptional not only in the annals of Hungarian crime, but in those of Europe. Six Roma did not survive the racist incursions, and another five (including another child), were seriously injured. Investigators say the attacks put a total of 55 people in danger.

András Tóth of the NNI said at a press conference that three of the four men detained are suspected of having fired shots at the Roma. Police say the fourth detainee was the driver in two anti-Roma attacks. The NNI says the motivation for the attacks is also exceptional. They are said to have been revenge for an alleged wrong committed by members of the Roma community a long time ago and an attempt to create fear in the community. The victims were unconnected to one another and the places were selected completely at random. The attacks took place in central and eastern Hungary between July 2008 and August 2009 and prompted international outrage. The attacks mostly took place at night, when the Roma were asleep. In November 2008, two Roma lost their lives in the village of Nagycsécs in the north-east when attackers threw Molotov cocktails at their homes and fired at them with shotguns as they fled. Last February, a Roma father and his young son did not survive an attack in the municipality of Tatárszentgyörgy. Both were killed fleeing their burning home. Last August, in the municipality of Kisléta in the east of the country, a 45-year-old Roma woman was shot and her 13-year-old daughter suffered serious injuries.

In the Czech Republic, a Roma family in Vítkov became the target of an attack last April when arsonists set their house on fire. The family’s youngest member, Natálka, suffered serious burns over 80 % of her body during the blaze. The trial of the four alleged assailants has been underway since May. The Roma community in Hungary is the country’s largest national minority, comprising 5 – 7 % of its 10 million inhabitants. Along with the country’s growing economic problems and unemployment, Roma are more and more frequently becoming the target of seditious attacks by extremist political parties such as the ultra-right “Movement for a Better Hungary” (Jobbik), which made it into parliament during the recent elections.

translated by Gwendolyn Albert


CTK

Shimon Peres denies calling British 'anti-Semites'

Amid growing controversy over his comments, published on a Jewish website, Mr Peres fought back to insist that he had “the highest regard” for the way in which Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany during the Second World War.

“President Peres never accused the British people of anti-Semitism,” his spokesman said in a statement issued last night. “The president does not believe that British governments are motivated by anti-Semitism, nor were they in the past.
In an interview with Benny Morris, an Israeli historian, published in the Tablet journal last week, Mr Peres claimed that there had always been something “pro-Arab” and “anti-Israel” in the British establishment.

Asked whether this was due to anti-Semitism, Mr Peres replied: “Yes, there is also anti-Semitism. There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary. But with Germany, relations are pretty good, as with Italy and France.”

Mr Peres’s office said that the president viewed Israeli relations with Britain as “of the greatest importance” and insisted that his comments were driven by dismay that some in Britain did not understand the grim reality of living under the threat of terrorism.

“The president did express concern that some people in Britain do not fully appreciate the difficulties of facing an onslaught of terror whilst adhering to democratic practice, as Israel does,” the statement read. “Israel civilians have endured over 10,000 missiles fired on them from Israel.”

Among ordinary Israelis, there was considerable support for the president’s attack on Britain, which has been denounced in some quarters in the United Kingdom.

“The only reason why Britain is upset is because they know what Peres says is true, and the truth hurts,” said Yael Weisman, a teacher in Jerusalem.

Her husband Yigal agreed.

“Britain has become the most anti-Semitic country in Europe,” he said. “It’s clear what’s happened. London has become Londonistan and the government there is more afraid of upsetting Muslims who are taking over than Jews who are more polite and far away.”

Mr Peres said the Labour party had failed to give Israel support in the wake of the country’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. He said Whitehall had failed to recognise the huge sacrifice the Jewish state had made to pull back.

“We evacuated 8,000 settlers, and it was very difficult,” he said. “It cost us $2.5bn in compensation.

“We left the Gaza Strip completely. Why did they fire rockets at us? For years they fired rockets at us … When they fired at us, the British didn’t say a word.”

Mr Peres subsequently stood by the observations on Gaza. “The President did express concern that some people in Britain do not fully appreciate the difficulties of facing an onslaught of terror whilst adhering to democratic practice, as Israel does,” the statement released by his office said. “Israel civilians have endured over 10,000 missiles fired on them from Gaza.”

David Cameron, the prime minister, caused a furore in Israel last week by describing Gaza as an open prison camp.

The additional factor that many MPs must address a muslim constituency that was imposing an additional burden on the Jewish state.

“There are several million Muslim voters [in the UK]. And for many members of parliament, that’s the difference between getting elected and not getting elected,” he said.

“They think the Palestinians are the underdog. In their eyes, the Arabs are the underdog. Even though this is irrational.”


The Telegraph

Rise in racially-motivated crimes in East Lancashire (UK)

A rise in racially-motivated crimes across East Lancashire is being blamed on drunken behaviour.

Figures show incidents have increased by 17 per cent, from 168 to 198 for the first five months of this year.

The police’s specialist Hate Crime Unit said the majority of incidents happened when offenders were drunk and said taxi drivers were often the victims of late-night racism.

Officers said that youngsters posting racist messages on social networking sites such as Facebook had also become a major problem for them.

Sgt John Rigby, of the Hate Crime Unit, said: “Around 95 per cent of the cases we see are as a result of alcohol.

"It is a massive factor behind racially-motivated crimes.

“One of our biggest victim groups is taxi drivers.

"They are regularly taking home drunks who will be arguing about paying the fare, and this can quickly turn into racist abuse, both verbally and physically.

“A lot of the calls we get, especially at weekend evenings, are from taxi drivers reporting such incidents.”

Last week, a 17-year-old boy was charged with racially-aggravated public disorder after a taxi driver was allegedly abused on a rank in Market Street, Colne.

And a 48-year-old man, also from Colne, has also been charged after an alleged racially-aggravated assault on a cabbie in the town’s Spring Lane area this month.

Makbul Patel, vice chairman of the Blackburn private hire association, said: “It is an issue our drivers are concerned about.

“When passengers are drunk arguments about not paying the fare or the cost of fare can often end up involving racist abuse and it is not something the drivers should have to put up with.”

Mohammed Arif, chairman of Burnley’s private hire association, said drivers were becoming increasingly worried about racist abuse.

“It is one of the biggest problems our drivers face,” he said.

“They are often taking groups of drunk people home late at night and it can be intimidating, especially if racist abuse is involved.

“The problem has definitely been getting worse recently, drivers are under pressure late at night and they want to as much protection as they can get.”

Last month, police teamed up with charity Stop Hate UK to launch a poster campaign in taxis working in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale warning people that hate crime would not be tolerated.

Police said they were also concerned about websites being used to peddle racist messages and harming community cohesion.

Sgt Rigby said: “A big factor these days is Facebook and other social networking sites.

“Youngsters don’t realise the comments they post can be seen by so many more people than they think.

“Quite often we have to contact Facebook electronically about comments on there.

“This is something we didn’t have 10 years ago. It can give a voice to people who want to get such messages into the public domain.”

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act showed there were 392 racially motivated crimes reported in East Lancashire in 2008, down from a high of 607 in 2007.

This increased to 404 crimes in 2009, and the latest figures for January to May suggest that figures will jump to nearer 500 this year.

Blackburn MP Jack Straw said the figures were ‘significant’ but might show a positive trend.

He said: “In previous times when there was much more overt racism around one of the consequences was that there were fewer incidents reported.

“Obviously it’s a worrying increase, but I hope it reflects an increase in reporting and identification of hate crimes and a reduction in toleration.”

The increase has led Salim Mulla, of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, to call on councils and the Government to do more to bring communities together.

Mr Mulla said more people had been going to him to report racist incidents.

“I seem to be getting more reports now from members of the community about racist incidents than I did.

"It is worrying that this type of crime is being committed.

“Everyone needs to do a lot more between different sections of the community to try and make sure this doesn’t happen.

“I think the council and Government need to do a lot more to bring communities together."


This is Lancaster

Australia to defend 'racist' Northern Territory intervention at the UN

A United Nations panel will investigate claims the Australian government has singled out Aborigines and asylum seekers with racist policies.

Australian officials will front a UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Geneva on Tuesday amid allegations from human rights activists that the Northern Territory intervention unfairly treats Aboriginal communities.

The suspension of asylum seeker claims from Afghans and Sri Lankans earlier this year will also be challenged. Rights groups claim the decision imposed a sweeping policy on the basis of race and violated Australia's international obligations.

SMH.com