The Northants English Welfare Society and Stephen Osborne

I've written before about the Northants English Welfare Society (NEWS), which is fronted by a neo-Nazi who operates under the pseudonym of "Walter Greenway". In another post I mentioned that somebody had found my blog by entering the search term "walter greenway northants english welfare stephen osborne".


Who is Stephen Osborne? Well, I came across this page on the NEWS website:

Here's a closer look at the photo - notice the golliwog perched proudly atop the shelves:

The same man appears to be present in this photograph of a Northants English Welfare Society protest:

("Refugees not welcome"? And neo-Nazis like Walter Greenway are welcome, I suppose...?)

It would appear that NEWS is not the only far-right group that Mr. Osborne has been involved with. in the 2011 local elections, the BNP's candidate for Westone was one Stephen Osborne - and as Westone is a borough of Northampton, the odds are pretty high that this is the same Stephen Osborne who is now involved with the Northants English Welfare Society.

One post on the NEWS blog shows Stephen Osborne, along with someone called Robert Osborne, as children:

I mention this because the aforementioned Walter Greenway also had an old-fashioned photograph of a child as his avatar:

Could it be that "Walter Greenway" and Stephen Osborne are one and the same? It's a possibility...

English Advocates plan to strip ethnic minorities of their rights

English Advocates - a Facebook page run by Lee Ingram - has started a new campaign. It hopes to ensure that all ethnic minority citizens will be barred from holding positions of authority in England, and that anyone who stands in the way of this movement will be arrested.

The Advocates believe themselves to have solid legal grounds for this endeavour, using a quotation from the Bill of Rights 1688 as a basis:

In their rush to justify their racist agenda, however, the English Advocates have grossly misrepresented the document in question.

Here is the relevant passage in full:

New Oaths of Allegiance, &c.
And that the Oathes hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whome the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy be abrogated. 

Allegiance.
I A B doe sincerely promise and sweare That I will be faithfull and beare true Allegiance to their Majestyes King William and Queene Mary Soe helpe me God. 

Supremacy.
I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

So, what the Advocates are quoting is part of a pair of oaths. Oaths are binding only to people who actually make them, and the Bill of Rights does not specify who is required to make these oaths.

In this day and age, of course, nobody is required to make either of these oaths - the fact that one of them mentions William III and Mary II indicates just how outdated this section of the Bill of Rights is. These oaths are historical artifacts, nothing more.

This is not the only fatal flaw in the English Advocates' plan. Notice that the second oath refers specifically to positions of religious authority; this is evident even in the section quoted by Ingram and company, who are apparently unaware of what the word "ecclesiastical" means.

As anybody with any knowledge of English history will tell you, the Bill of Rights was drafted at a time of great strife between Catholics and Protestants. The reference to "noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate" is not directed at immigrants or descendants of immigrants living in England, but rather to individuals and bodies based in foreign countries - it is an obvious allusion to the Roman Catholic Church.

Lee Ingram, the man behind English Advocates.

To recap, Lee Ingram and his comrades are making three fatal errors in their reading of this document:

1: That the oaths are legally binding to everyone in the country, even those who have not actually made them;
2: That "foreign" refers to ancestry, rather than geographic location;
3: That the second oath covers all positions of authority, rather than merely religious authority.

Nice try, Lee. But while the replies to your post demonstrate that your followers have fallen for your misrepresentation of the Bill of Rights, not everyone is quite so gullible. Any legal expert would laugh their socks off if you came to them with this nonsense.

This is not the first time that Ingram has expressed interest in removing the rights of ethnic minorities.  Take a look at these posts he made at the now-defunct Cross of St. George forum back in 2007 (the thread is archived here):

The article he links to, with obvious approval, is hosted on the white supremacist website Heretical Press. Written by Kenneth McKilliam, a Nazi sympathiser who was closely involved with the BNP during its early days, the article argues that Jews should not be allowed to hold positions of authority in Britain:

Being prohibited aliens by the Edict of Expulsion Jews have no right to sit in our houses of parliament, nor on our local government councils. They have no right to be in the judiciary nor to hold office in the executive of government nor in the police force. All purported laws and purported acts of parliament in which Jews have taken part in the voting are illegal, unconstitutional: null and void. 

Stripping ethnic minority groups of their rights, it would seem, is a cause dear to Lee Ingram's heart.

Clive Potter, Wulf Ingessunu, Doctor Who and Robin Hood

Clive Potter

Clive Potter has a colourful history in the British far-right. As well as a brief spell in an obscure party called the National Democrats, and a period as chairman of the English Community Group Leicester, he was part of the BNP - a party that he later condemned as "multicultural":

As barmy as that is, it pales into comparison when we compare it to Potter's writing on his favourite subject: aliens.

Consider this article on his now-defunct website AlienIncarnation, in which his concerns about "deracination" mix with his belief in a race of alien lifeforms called "greys":

The predominant colour of the greys is highly indicative of the ‘greyness’ of humanity, as racial types begin to blend with one another so that racial types gradually disappear and submerge themselves into one common mass of deracinated and rootless cosmopolitan humanity. The aliens’ obsessive interest in genetics and hybrid babies also suggests that another agenda is at issue here, involving the racial engineering of mankind, again reflecting the direction that humanity is moving towards as globalism and multiracialism drives the motor. Are the greys showing us how we will progress and look like in the future? Are they showing us a choice as to how we wish to progress or regress? Why are the aliens so interested in our genetics and our breeding patterns? What is the future of mankind?

Potter seems to have vanished off the net since then. However, a few months ago a letter of his was published in issue 324 of the Fortean Times, in which he claims that an old Doctor Who storyline had eerie parallels with real-life events:

Here is Potter's conclusion:

Jenny Randles mooted the link between fiction and reality-which she termed 'psychic parallelism' - through synchronicity, when she recognised how Stephen Donaldson's fictional Chronicles of Thomas Covenant seemed to mirror the real-life accounts of the experiences and even some of the personalities involved in 'The Green Stone' Affair. It seems that at times the ocean of imagery within the collective unconsciousness can meld into one and appear instantaneously as both works of fiction and as real-life events.

Wulf Ingessunu, founder of Woden's Folk 

All this is reminiscent of Woden's Folk, the neo-Nazi cult founded by Wulf Ingessunu. As I demonstrated here, Wulf based his cult around an "ancient prophecy" which actually originated in the 1980s TV series Robin of Sherwood. After this was pointed out, Ingessunu admitted that it was created for a TV series, but argued that it was still a legitimate prophecy.

This is in character for Ingessunu, who has a tendency to find deep spiritual significance in 20th-century fiction. Just look at his analysis of The Lord of the Rings, for example.

Tying things together, Wulf Ingessunu is a fan of Clive Potter's bizarre alien theories:

I mentioned earlier that the typical UFO seems to defy the laws of this planet, and here we could be in the realms of some sort of object that moves between dimensions, moving quickly from one to the other and thus being able to defy normal laws. These type could be associated with the 'alien abductions' (a name which immediately throws doubt onto the subject) which seem to have taken two particular types - 

The Grey Alien - which seems to be a form of race-less, sexless, uniform type which fits well with the order of being today upon the Earth. This would seem to be a archetype of Nietzsche's 'Ultimate Man'. 

The Nordic - which seems to be trying to aid the upward development of mankind in some way, rather than mere 'experiments'. This would seem to be an archetype of the Sun-Man or Superman. 

(I am indebted to Clive Potter for the above ideas on 'alien abductions', and he is a UFO expert who developed this idea some years ago.) 

Clive's ideas would certainly explain this phenomena to some degree, and he too sees this as some form of 'extra-dimensional' rather than 'extra-terrestrial' (in the sense of 'alien' as the word is used today) form. We seem to have plenty of recorded accounts from hundreds of years ago of people seemingly moving out of this dimension into another, and returning after many years even though the time seemed hours or days. This 'dislocation' of time seems to be part of the phenomena. This was found in Mapp's account of King Herla, a typical account of such a phenomena. This has also been recorded in accounts of 'abduction' which cannot be a coincidence. The stories of Alice in Wonderland and The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (C.S. Lewis) are also based on this type of phenomena. 

Note, once again, the usage of fantasy fiction as source texts in that last line.

There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that Clive Potter and Wulf Ingessunu are mutual admirers. Read this posting on the Northwest Nationalists blog by someone calling himself "Nemesis":

Come on members of the British National Party... 

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!! 

DON'T GIVE GRI££IN AND DOW$ON EITHER YOUR SUPPORT, LOYALTY AND - ABOVE ALL - YOUR MONEY. 

WE NEED A GENUINE, HONEST AND DECENT LEADER. A MAN OF DESTINY, A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND PERSONAL STANDING,A MAN OF GREAT POLITICAL AND SPIRITUAL VISION AND LEADERSHIP QUALITIES. 

WHERE IS THE 'HOODED MAN' (OF WODEN'S FOLK' PROPHECY)? WHERE IS THE BRITISH AVATAR? 

ALBION AND ITS PEOPLE ARE IN NEED OF YOU.

The anti-fascist site Notes from the Borderland claims that "Nemesis" is actually Clive Potter, but as it does not provide any evidence, I cannot verify this.

Woden and aliens, Doctor Who and Robin Hood, Lord of the Rings and Alice in Wonderland: all of this just goes to show how bizarre the Englisc nationalist movement really is. Just when I think it can't get any stranger, I find something like this.

How many other political movements have this kind of stuff going on?

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"?