Labour25 debunked

Day after day in Britain, we are hearing more and more chilling claims regarding child molesters in positions of power: this report, entitled "MP paedophiles 'were Untouchables' - ex-Special Branch officer", being sadly typical. I think I speak for all decent people when I say that I sincerely hope that the Westminster paedophile ring - and at this point I have little doubt that such a thing existed once, if not today - will be busted and its members put to justice.

While emotions are running high, it goes without saying that there will be crass opportunists trying to exploit public opinion in exercises of cheap point-scoring. And so we come to Labour25.com, an anonymously-run website which claims that the Labour party is so riddled with paedophiles that every single member of the party should be investigated by the police (the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats apparently being above this suspicion).

The website takes its name from the fact that it initially identified 25 convicted paedophiles with Labour histories, although it has since found 23 more, bringing the total up to 48. But how significant is this statistic?

Well, according to the NSPCC, there were 29,837 paedophiles across England and Wales on the sex offenders' register in 2012. This is just under 0.053% of the two countries' combined population. The Labour party currently has 190,000 members; 48 is just under 0.026% of 190,000. So, proportionally speaking, the number of paedophiles identified by Labour25 is not remarkable.

Now, the people behind the site would have a point if they were able to demonstrate that the Labour Party was still harbouring these nonces even after their crimes came to light, but Labour25 provides no evidence of the sort. In fact, the site routinely presents former Labour councillors as still being active within the party.

Typical of the website's approach is this post about Nelson Bland, who was convicted on child pornography charges in 2004. When the Reading Post reported on the incident, it identified him as a former councillor. Labour25, on the other hand, refers to him as "Labour Party Paedophile Councillor and IT School Teacher" - clearly implying that he is still a councillor. Labour25 then goes on to state that...

"Labour party paedophiles are attracted to jobs in Schools or social care for children. this is why once again this website stresses…NO LABOUR COUNCILLORS or MP’s or Activist members should be allowed to work near children."

I'd imagine that many paedophiles seek jobs which put them in contact with children, regardless of political allegiance. The website is trying to paint this as specifically an issue within the Labour party, raising the question of who its real target is: paedophiles, or Labour?

Many other posts on the site follow the same pattern. Labour25 refers to paedophile Keith Potts as a "Labour Party Councillor" (and also finds time to take a swipe at the National Union of Teachers), while the Northern Echo report which appears to have been used as a source clarifies that he is a former Labour councillor. Similarly, Labour25 brands Adrien Cirkat as a Labour councillor, but from the news we can see that he was no longer a councillor when he was charged. The same again with Steve Wayne Carnell: a Labour councillor according to Labour25, a former Labour councillor according to the news.

So while the site obviously wants us to believe that these paedophiles are all still working with Labour, a look at the facts gives us no reason to assume this. Note, also, that none of the Labour25 posts linked to above provide any sources for their claims - it's almost as though the website doesn't us to do our own research...

In at least one post, Labour25 actually clarifies that the paedophile in question (Colin Inglis) was ejected from the party after being caught:

"Labour Leader of Hull City Council Colin Inglis Loses his Labour position after it is brought to light that he masturbated on a 13 year old boys bed and took a naked shower with him and ‘washed him down.’ 

Labour Leader of Hull City Council Colin Inglis was abandoned by the Labour Party as he had been found out about his sick paedophile perversions with a 13 year old boy who was in his care at a care home where he worked. As with all cases of Labour Party paedophiles who have been masturbating in front of children ( like the case of Labour25 paedophile David Spooner who masturbated in front of 2 children ) the Labour Party tries to distance itself from the stink of the arrested and those brought to trial. 

[...] 

Why are Labour Councillors allowed to work as social workers when it is now obvious that the Labour Party is a Paedophile Party?"

So, remind me, why am I supposed to be angry at Labour in this instance? I have no reason to believe that the party was aware of Inglis' child abuse, and it ditched him when his paedophilia came to light. But yet, Labour25 is trying to pass this incident off as evidence that Labour is pro-paedophile.

It is hard to deny that, at the end of the day, Labour25 exists not to expose child molesters in our midst but to smear Labour. There are paedophiles with Conservative connections who are just as worthy of condemnation as the Labour nonces named and shamed on the site: think of Mike Oram, Michael Powell, David Smith, Julian Mineur, David Whittaker, Martin Fisher, Kenneth Leadbeater, Ian McKellar and Peter Stidworthy to start with, not to mention Margaret Thatcher's personal friend Jimmy Savile. The Lib Dems, meanwhile, have given us Bill Chadwick and Derek Osbourne, while its ancestor the Liberal Party played host to the notorious Cyril Smith. UKIP was once home to Peter Entwhistle, a former Bury chairman, and the party's failure to distance itself from another convicted paedophile caused member David Gale to resign.

But Labour25, illogically, has chosen to focus on paedophiles with connections to only one of the main parties. It has called for police raids on every single Labour member in the country (all 190,000 of them!) but seems happy to let the other parties off the hook.

Labour25 is also silent on Ian Si'Ree, Roderick Rowley and Gavin Leist - all paedophiles with history of involvement in the BNP. But then, I suppose that goes without saying when we consider that the site is endorsed by the BNP:

"British National Party superactivist Peter Tierney has been arrested for handing out Labour 25 leaflets, which detail the names of 25 convicted Labour party paedophiles.  

Mr Tierney was arrested in Liverpool and taken to Belle Vale police station after distributing the leaflets, which name and shame 25 Labour party councillors, mayors and activists who were convicted for crimes such as possession of child pornography and child rape."

The BNP connection brings us to Labour25's secondary motivation. As well as smearing Labour, it also exists to smear minorities. Its 'about' page makes a clear connection between paedophilia and homosexuality:

"It is said that ignorance is bliss and perhaps Labour lives this ‘bliss’ for a reason. It was the Labour Government that introduced explicit sex education for 5 year olds. Acceptances of homosexuality material also aim at primary school children. Are these grooming tactics brought into the curriculum by the Labour party."

Another post complains that "in the children's section of library's [sic] you are likely to find books about Homosexual penguins".

It is not just homosexuals who are targets of this sniping. The site's post on Lord Greville Janner is headlined "Child abuse detectives raid Jewish Labour party peer’s office in the House of Lords". Another post, making an unconvincing attempt to smear James Purnell using the child pornography habits of Paul Diggett, identifies its target as "the chairman of Labour friends of Israel & Freemason James Purnell".

And then we have this:

First off, the "lesbian paedophile teacher" is actually teaching an adult sex class in Canada. Enough said about Labour25's standards when it comes to research.

As for the cartoon on the left, well, just look at it:

Really, what more evidence do we need that Labour25 is run by racists?

I realise that I am leaving myself wide open to criticism with this post. Labour25 is a website which condemns paedophiles; in the black-and-white mindset of the far right, by opposing such a site, I must be defending paedophiles. Doubtless I will also be accused of being a Labour shill, despite never having voted for the party in my life

So, let me clarify a few things. There is nothing wrong with condemning paedophiles, nor is there anything inherently wrong with criticising Labour. My objection here is that the bigots behind Labour25 are exploiting sex crimes against children purely to further their petty partisan agenda. If they really gave a damn about paedophiles in positions of power, they'd be attacking the nonces with histories in other parties as well.

If you are a supporter of Labour25 and expect the site to be taken seriously, then perhaps you can answer a few questions...

1: If the Labour party is so riddled with paedophiles, then why does the site focus on former Labour councillors?
2: Why does it ignore nonces with previous connections to other parties, including the Tories, Lib Dems, UKIP and BNP?
3: Why is it obsessed with Jews, homosexuals and Freemasons, to the extent of smearing an innocent woman as a "lesbian paedophile teacher"?

No, Ofsted did not mark down Middle Rasen Primary School for being "too white" or "too English"

"School marked down by Ofsted for being 'too white'", barks the headline of a Telegraph article by Graeme Paton.

Here is how Paton introduces the story:

'Ofsted was accused of “political correctness” after downgrading a top rural primary school for effectively being too English. 

The education watchdog faced a backlash from MPs and parents following the decision to penalise Middle Rasen primary in Lincolnshire for not having enough black or Asian pupils.

In a report, inspectors said the school was “not yet outstanding” because pupils’ cultural development was limited by a “lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society”.'

Predictably, Paton has misrepresented the report, which can be read in its entirety here. This is where he starts to analyse Ofsted's comments:

'The latest report upgraded the school to “good” – the second highest mark – for making significant improvements, with staff creating an “environment in which learning flourishes". 

But the primary missed out on the "outstanding" grade for occasionally failing to set difficult work and giving staff few opportunities to improve their skills. In a key move, it was also downgraded for limiting pupils’ “first-hand experience” of modern society.

The report said: "The large majority of pupils are white British. Very few are from other ethnic groups, and currently no pupils speak English as an additional language."' 

Paton is giving the impression that this last statement - that the majority of pupils are white British - is meant as a criticism. If we look at the actual report, we can see that this is not the case:

Looking at this information in its original context, it is obvious that Ofsted is not criticising the school for its ethnic make-up; the report is simply describing the school's ethnic make-up as one item in a list of basic data.

Now, here is where Ofsted thinks that the school can be improved:

So Ofsted isn't calling for a change in the make-up of the pupils, it is calling for the pupils to be allowed to meet people "beyond the immediate locality" - in other words, to be taken on more varied school trips outside the village. Paton quotes the head teacher as saying that she plans to solve this issue by taking the children to new locations such as a factory, which seems reasonable enough to me.

To summarise: Ofsted has given a small school a "good" but not "outstanding" rating because its school trips are not varied enough. Paton has chosen to report this as Ofsted "downgrading a top rural primary school for effectively being too English".

Naturally, it is Paton's skewed version of the story which has been spread across the net by people who did not bother to check the report for themselves. The Express reported the story with the headline "How can a school be criticised for being too English?" - a good question, but one which is entirely irrelevant to the Ofsted report. The Daily Mail went with "Rural school is denied top grade by Ofsted inspectors because it's 'too English' and not diverse enough". Note the usage of quotation marks around "too English", implying that Ofsted used this term in its report - which it didn't.

The Steadfast Trust, a charity dedicated to pretending that the English are more oppressed than any other ethnic group in the country, inevitably went with the distorted version of the story.

Note that this image was shared from the Facebook page of the Northants English Welfare Society, which I have already outed as a pro-Nazi organisation.

According to the comments posted by the Steadfast Trust's supporters, Ofsted are racist and part of a metropolitan elite that doesn't want the English to exist:

Then we have this fellow who, er, well:

It goes on like this:

"Ionist agenda". That's a new one on me.

Walter Greenway and the Northants English Welfare Society

I had been meaning to move on from the weird world of Englisc nationalism, but I just keep on finding more and more bizarre groups attached to this loose movement. This time, I've stumbled across the Northants English Welfare Society.

The society's blog summarises its aims: "The Northants English Welfare Society exists to promote the social and cultural well-being of the English community, primarily within the English county of Northamptonshire, but also further afield."

And how does it go about promoting "the social and cultural well-being of the English community"? Well, here is a typical blog post from the group:

The video linked to at the top is an utterly unremarkable butter advert that happens to show a family consisting of a white man, a black woman, and mixed-race children. The Northants English Welfare Society considers this to be "brainwashing" and would apparently prefer that the media pretends that interracial families do not exist - which wouldn't be at all propagandistic, of course.

The group's official blog has also linked to a video entitled "White Independent Nation: A Western Spring." This is a podcast from Win-White.org that calls for an anarchist-influenced uprising from white pride activists, and hails the arrival "a second wave of racial politics pursuing or producing more of a Hezbollah, PLE-type strategy, ie Oriana Movement, WIN, Northwest Front, Western Spring, Nova, Europa, National Action, Sigurd, British Movement, Leicester Community Group and on the continent Casapa Italia, the Immortals in Germany and the grassroots of Golden Dawn, the NPD etc."

Meanwhile, on the group's Facebook page...

Given that the woman in the photograph is wearing a dirndl, I have my doubts as to whether she is actually English. But she is white, which is apparently good enough for NEWS.

The Northants English Welfare Society does not name its personnel on its website (Aside from references to "Mark", "John" and "Steve" and the events organiser "Richard"). However, RationalWiki claims that its official blog is "run by somebody apparently called Walter Greenway." The link its provides as a source for this statement is no longer relevant, but there is clearly a man known by that name who is involved in the group:

Note that the man in charge of the society's blog has the same profile image as Mr. Greenway:

Furthermore, Walter Greenway's IntenseDebate account is named "northantsenglishwelfaresociety". We can therefore conclude that he is a prominent individual within the organisation, and almost certainly its webmaster.


Walter is particularly active around the British Resistance blog. Here is one of his posts:

From this post, we can discern two main facts: one, that "Walter Greenway" is a pseudonym; and two, that he really hates Jews.

In fact, hatred of Jews is a recurring theme throughout his posts:

This antisemitism is hardly surprising when we consider that Walter Greenway is a Nazi sympathiser:

One of Walter's favourite Nazis is William Joyce, better known as Lord Haw-Haw:

He is also into holocaust denial, and doubts whether Anne Frank ever existed:

In fact, according to Walter, Jews have a tradition of faking atrocities against themselves that goes back at least as far as the twelfth century:

Jews are not the only ethnic group which Walter hates:

He is also a practising neopagan (funny how so many of these chaps who claim to represent the majority of English people subscribe to a minority faith):

(And yes, Walter, if you are reading this, I know full well that you lot prefer the term "heathen". That is exactly why I choose to refer to you as "neopagan" instead)

The Northants English Welfare Society blog contains a couple of posts about some kind of campaign against Tesco. This posting gives us an idea of how Walter expects the campaign to end:

Like so many of his neo-Nazi, bretheren, Walter thinks that civil war is brewing:

At this point, you may be wondering what's so special about Walter Greenway. After all, he's just another pseudonymous Internet Nazi with an utterly inconsequential campaign group behind him, right?

Well, here's the twist: Walter Greenway's Northants English Welfare Society is endorsed by a registered charity.

The Steadfast Trust, registered charity no 105806, has linked approvingly to Greenway's group from its Facebook page, counting it as an organisation which may someday receive financial grants:

That the two groups have worked together is demonstrated buy this photograph of a joint Steadfast Trust/Northants English Welfare Society stall:

This is not the only time the Steadfast Trust has aligned itself with neo-Nazis. I have already demonstrated how the charity specifically invited members of Woden's Folk - a neo-Nazi cult that reveres Hitler as a divine avatar - to one of its events.

The Steadfast Trust is already on thin ice with the Charity Commission. As it is becoming increasingly clear that the charity exists primarily to put a respectable face on racism, let's hope that the plug is pulled on the Steadfast Trust sometime soon.