The latest circular for money by Britain First is another frenetic set of calls for money, though on this occasion it is to, “devastate Sadiq Khan’s campaign and alert hundreds of thousands of Londoners to his Islamic extremism.”

So what is new for this group which attempts to use the public as its ongoing purse in order to run bizarre schemes and to promote its extremism and anti-Muslim bigotry? Well, according to Britain First their media team have come up with “a short powerful video exposing Sadiq Khan and his Islamic extremism.” Have we not heard this campaign tactic used before? It is a tactic that we believe Londoners dislike – negative campaigning.

The ‘media team’ that Britain First talk about, is probably a man who has spent his life alone and who has watched too many of their extremist videos spending nights in with his computer and Airfix model set. So their e-mail pitch for last-minute cash states:

“Specifically, we want to push the video as an advert on Facebook, with a budget of around £2,500.

Doing this will cause Khan damage, real damage.

With a budget of around £2,500 we can hit hundreds of thousands of London voters.”

Let us hope that Londoners do cause damage to fascists tomorrow, by ensuring that they elect in a candidate who will do everything in their power to maintain the diversity of London and the heritage of different communities in our trail-blazing city. That is the best response we can give to fascists when we see, hear or smell them.

The post ‘Operation Lionheart’ by Britain First Shows the Level Far Right Extremists Will Stoop To appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Britain First deploys ‘self-victimisation‘ to reinforce group identity and support online. This strategy extends to a recent outrage with the Electoral Commission.

On March 9,  an article headlined ‘Electoral Commission: “Keeping London British! Is Offensive Slogan’ made bombastic claims of censorship. But it sounds familiar.

The party made similar claims against Royal Mail in 2014.  Royal Mail can refuse to deliver election materials if they consider it threatening or abusive. Paul Golding ignored this detail as Britain First were ‘victims’ of a greater perceived injustice.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Section 29 2b), the Electoral Commission can reject ballot emblems if they deem it ‘obscene or offensive’. The Electoral Commission reiterated this point to the party. But Britain First accused them of acting as the “Commissar for Political Correctness” in elections. Again, the party reinforces accusations of censorship to party faithful.

This strategy serves a dual function: policies in the age of multiculturalism and ‘PC culture’ have a detrimental impact on the party and its supporters. Britain First rejects the label of ‘racist party’. And argues that they are victims of ‘job stealing’ and ‘welfare stealing’ migrants.  Britain despite Muslims making up less than 5 per cent of the total population in England and Wales. These contradictions are never addressed. Britain First tailors their language and output to reflect the anxieties of those who ‘like’ their page. Reinforcing these anxieties are not always enough.  Presenting solutions can build group identity and raise the potential of donations.

A strategy of targeted donations has paid off in the past. Britain First topped the Electoral Commission’s donations league table for smaller parties last year. In 2014, the party had tripled its donations from 2013 to £159,516 – but spent most of it on campaign work. This is a strategy that extends to supporters in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Like other far-right parties, Britain First seeks mainstream credibility. Jayda Fransen, deputy leader, sought that in the Rochester and Strood by-election. It mattered little that the party achieved just 56 votes. Fransen had posed for a photo with the BBC’s Nick Robinson (who later apologised for his error). The extra media attention had little to do with local issues in the Rochester and Strood area. Britain First wanted national attention for their anti-mosque campaign in the neighbouring constituency.

Jayda Fransen also admitted that the mayoral campaign is a PR move to increase their public profile. Fransen wrote:

‘The benefits to standing in the London Mayoral Election will be immense: Each Mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.

Each Mayoral candidate will no doubt receive a lengthy Daily Politics interview and a plethora of other high profile media attention.

Contesting this election will cement Britain First as a powerful force on the “Right” of politics and will massively increase our public profile.’

Some of the top comments from some Britain First supporters to Electoral Commission story had the intended outcome. And it included:

‘OFFENSIVE? I don’t live there but such an insipid attitude offends me. If London isn’t British, then what is?’

‘London IS British. Whoever objects to that slogan is obviously some left-wing pond life.’

‘well if you guys don’t tell people to say it you are not breaking the law … so … Keep London British … stop the dismantling of the Westminster system and only recognise British law …’

The post How Britain First uses ‘victim narratives’ to boost support appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Britain First deploys ‘self-victimisation‘ to reinforce group identity and support online. This strategy extends to a recent outrage with the Electoral Commission.

On March 9,  an article headlined ‘Electoral Commission: “Keeping London British! Is Offensive Slogan’ made bombastic claims of censorship. But it sounds familiar.

The party made similar claims against Royal Mail in 2014.  Royal Mail can refuse to deliver election materials if they consider it threatening or abusive. Paul Golding ignored this detail as Britain First were ‘victims’ of a greater perceived injustice.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Section 29 2b), the Electoral Commission can reject ballot emblems if they deem it ‘obscene or offensive’. The Electoral Commission reiterated this point to the party. But Britain First accused them of acting as the “Commissar for Political Correctness” in elections. Again, the party reinforces accusations of censorship to party faithful.

This strategy serves a dual function: policies in the age of multiculturalism and ‘PC culture’ have a detrimental impact on the party and its supporters. Britain First rejects the label of ‘racist party’. And argues that they are victims of ‘job stealing’ and ‘welfare stealing’ migrants.  Britain despite Muslims making up less than 5 per cent of the total population in England and Wales. These contradictions are never addressed. Britain First tailors their language and output to reflect the anxieties of those who ‘like’ their page. Reinforcing these anxieties are not always enough.  Presenting solutions can build group identity and raise the potential of donations.

A strategy of targeted donations has paid off in the past. Britain First topped the Electoral Commission’s donations league table for smaller parties last year. In 2014, the party had tripled its donations from 2013 to £159,516 – but spent most of it on campaign work. This is a strategy that extends to supporters in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Like other far-right parties, Britain First seeks mainstream credibility. Jayda Fransen, deputy leader, sought that in the Rochester and Strood by-election. It mattered little that the party achieved just 56 votes. Fransen had posed for a photo with the BBC’s Nick Robinson (who later apologised for his error). The extra media attention had little to do with local issues in the Rochester and Strood area. Britain First wanted national attention for their anti-mosque campaign in the neighbouring constituency.

Jayda Fransen also admitted that the mayoral campaign is a PR move to increase their public profile. Fransen wrote:

‘The benefits to standing in the London Mayoral Election will be immense: Each Mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.

Each Mayoral candidate will no doubt receive a lengthy Daily Politics interview and a plethora of other high profile media attention.

Contesting this election will cement Britain First as a powerful force on the “Right” of politics and will massively increase our public profile.’

Some of the top comments from some Britain First supporters to Electoral Commission story had the intended outcome. And it included:

‘OFFENSIVE? I don’t live there but such an insipid attitude offends me. If London isn’t British, then what is?’

‘London IS British. Whoever objects to that slogan is obviously some left-wing pond life.’

‘well if you guys don’t tell people to say it you are not breaking the law … so … Keep London British … stop the dismantling of the Westminster system and only recognise British law …’

The post How Britain First uses ‘victim narratives’ to boost support appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Britain First deploys ‘self-victimisation‘ to reinforce group identity and support online. This strategy extends to a recent outrage with the Electoral Commission.

On March 9,  an article headlined ‘Electoral Commission: “Keeping London British! Is Offensive Slogan’ made bombastic claims of censorship. But it sounds familiar.

The party made similar claims against Royal Mail in 2014.  Royal Mail can refuse to deliver election materials if they consider it threatening or abusive. Paul Golding ignored this detail as Britain First were ‘victims’ of a greater perceived injustice.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Section 29 2b), the Electoral Commission can reject ballot emblems if they deem it ‘obscene or offensive’. The Electoral Commission reiterated this point to the party. But Britain First accused them of acting as the “Commissar for Political Correctness” in elections. Again, the party reinforces accusations of censorship to party faithful.

This strategy serves a dual function: policies in the age of multiculturalism and ‘PC culture’ have a detrimental impact on the party and its supporters. Britain First rejects the label of ‘racist party’. And argues that they are victims of ‘job stealing’ and ‘welfare stealing’ migrants.  Britain despite Muslims making up less than 5 per cent of the total population in England and Wales. These contradictions are never addressed. Britain First tailors their language and output to reflect the anxieties of those who ‘like’ their page. Reinforcing these anxieties are not always enough.  Presenting solutions can build group identity and raise the potential of donations.

A strategy of targeted donations has paid off in the past. Britain First topped the Electoral Commission’s donations league table for smaller parties last year. In 2014, the party had tripled its donations from 2013 to £159,516 – but spent most of it on campaign work. This is a strategy that extends to supporters in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Like other far-right parties, Britain First seeks mainstream credibility. Jayda Fransen, deputy leader, sought that in the Rochester and Strood by-election. It mattered little that the party achieved just 56 votes. Fransen had posed for a photo with the BBC’s Nick Robinson (who later apologised for his error). The extra media attention had little to do with local issues in the Rochester and Strood area. Britain First wanted national attention for their anti-mosque campaign in the neighbouring constituency.

Jayda Fransen also admitted that the mayoral campaign is a PR move to increase their public profile. Fransen wrote:

‘The benefits to standing in the London Mayoral Election will be immense: Each Mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.

Each Mayoral candidate will no doubt receive a lengthy Daily Politics interview and a plethora of other high profile media attention.

Contesting this election will cement Britain First as a powerful force on the “Right” of politics and will massively increase our public profile.’

Some of the top comments from some Britain First supporters to Electoral Commission story had the intended outcome. And it included:

‘OFFENSIVE? I don’t live there but such an insipid attitude offends me. If London isn’t British, then what is?’

‘London IS British. Whoever objects to that slogan is obviously some left-wing pond life.’

‘well if you guys don’t tell people to say it you are not breaking the law … so … Keep London British … stop the dismantling of the Westminster system and only recognise British law …’

The post How Britain First uses ‘victim narratives’ to boost support appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Britain First deploys ‘self-victimisation‘ to reinforce group identity and support online. This strategy extends to a recent outrage with the Electoral Commission.

On March 9,  an article headlined ‘Electoral Commission: “Keeping London British! Is Offensive Slogan’ made bombastic claims of censorship. But it sounds familiar.

The party made similar claims against Royal Mail in 2014.  Royal Mail can refuse to deliver election materials if they consider it threatening or abusive. Paul Golding ignored this detail as Britain First were ‘victims’ of a greater perceived injustice.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Section 29 2b), the Electoral Commission can reject ballot emblems if they deem it ‘obscene or offensive’. The Electoral Commission reiterated this point to the party. But Britain First accused them of acting as the “Commissar for Political Correctness” in elections. Again, the party reinforces accusations of censorship to party faithful.

This strategy serves a dual function: policies in the age of multiculturalism and ‘PC culture’ have a detrimental impact on the party and its supporters. Britain First rejects the label of ‘racist party’. And argues that they are victims of ‘job stealing’ and ‘welfare stealing’ migrants.  Britain despite Muslims making up less than 5 per cent of the total population in England and Wales. These contradictions are never addressed. Britain First tailors their language and output to reflect the anxieties of those who ‘like’ their page. Reinforcing these anxieties are not always enough.  Presenting solutions can build group identity and raise the potential of donations.

A strategy of targeted donations has paid off in the past. Britain First topped the Electoral Commission’s donations league table for smaller parties last year. In 2014, the party had tripled its donations from 2013 to £159,516 – but spent most of it on campaign work. This is a strategy that extends to supporters in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Like other far-right parties, Britain First seeks mainstream credibility. Jayda Fransen, deputy leader, sought that in the Rochester and Strood by-election. It mattered little that the party achieved just 56 votes. Fransen had posed for a photo with the BBC’s Nick Robinson (who later apologised for his error). The extra media attention had little to do with local issues in the Rochester and Strood area. Britain First wanted national attention for their anti-mosque campaign in the neighbouring constituency.

Jayda Fransen also admitted that the mayoral campaign is a PR move to increase their public profile. Fransen wrote:

‘The benefits to standing in the London Mayoral Election will be immense: Each Mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.

Each Mayoral candidate will no doubt receive a lengthy Daily Politics interview and a plethora of other high profile media attention.

Contesting this election will cement Britain First as a powerful force on the “Right” of politics and will massively increase our public profile.’

Some of the top comments from some Britain First supporters to Electoral Commission story had the intended outcome. And it included:

‘OFFENSIVE? I don’t live there but such an insipid attitude offends me. If London isn’t British, then what is?’

‘London IS British. Whoever objects to that slogan is obviously some left-wing pond life.’

‘well if you guys don’t tell people to say it you are not breaking the law … so … Keep London British … stop the dismantling of the Westminster system and only recognise British law …’

The post How Britain First uses ‘victim narratives’ to boost support appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Not to be out-done in the scraping the bottom of the political barrel, extremist group Britain First sent out circulars by e-mail stating that self-appointed Britain First leader, Paul Golding, would be standing for the Mayor of London.

The circular hyped up the publicity that individuals and political parties will get through a two page platform in which to highlight their positions. The booklet will be delivered to homes in London. What is interesting is that the Britain First bulletin also played on issues of race by suggesting that,

“Each mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.”

The bulletin also suggests that mayoral candidates will receive a ‘Daily Politics’ interview, though our call to media outlets will be to investigate comments and statements made by individuals like Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen and to hold them to account for them. Media outlets cannot give these individuals an easy ride so that their messages of separation, based on race and religion, be allowed to resonate within our united capital.

You would also think that any group would carefully consider the statements it made against other mayoral candidates. Yet this is the statement made against Labour hopeful, Sadiq Khan MP.

“Labour has chosen a Muslim career politician with strong sympathies for his fellow radicals and extremists, – Sadiq Khan.”

The statement not only opens up Britain First and its leaders to potential civil legal action, it shows the kind of dog-whistle politics that they are playing and no doubt, if the Labour hopeful did take any legal action, Britain First who rail against ‘the politics of victimisation’, would then simply play out this position.

The e-mail bulletin finishes with a call for £30,000 for the campaign. Anyone even considering donating, should think carefully about supporting a group who seek division rather than a united London. That is the choice ahead, whether we support the politics of hope or the politics of hate.

The post Britain First Send out Libellous Statements Against Labour Hopeful Sadiq Khan appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Do you remember January 2013 when members of a ‘Muslim Patrol’ were handing out morality advice to passers-by in Whitechapel in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. They also harassed members of the public commentating on how they needed to cover up and members of this group also went on to be convicted and jailed in December 2013.

Well, if you don’t remember it, you certainly missed a media circus where press journalists were commentating on the actions of a handful of men who were shaming couples holding hands and suggesting that women were inappropriately dressed. One of these individuals was the convicted extremist Jordan Horner, who later apologised for his actions.

At the time, we made clear that any ‘faith-based’ patrol or any vigilante group was contrary to the rules and criminal and civil laws of this country and that such groups of individuals were a serious risk to community relations. We stated that they could possibly spark off serious unrest in areas and that action needed to be taken to send a clear message that the State would not tolerate any behaviour which intimidated citizens walking our streets. The ‘Muslim Patrol’ was neither Muslim nor required and many Muslims saw these actions as running contrary to their faith and further denigrating Islam in the eyes of many.

Well, cut to the 23rd of January 2016 and we have Britain First conducting another of their Christian Patrols. This is not the first time that Britain First have attempted to inflame tensions in areas.

However, this time it was conducted in Bury Park in Luton and was intimidating and meant to inflame tensions which would then be captured on film and create the notion of ‘them and us.’ Just as predictably, young Asian men rose to the bait with Britain First activists agitating and further adding to the growing tensions because of this extremist far right group.

Sadly, it is now 2016 and these inflammatory actions continue with Britain First trying to paint themselves as ‘defenders’ of Christian values, something that they are far from. They continue to walk into areas, stir up unrest and walk away leaving local communities to pick up the pieces. It is also interesting to note in the video of their agitation, that their actions lead to a young female policewoman finding herself in the middle of groups of testosterone laden young men looking to fight. Is this really the ‘patriotism’ that our country needs – the answer is a resounding no.

Lastly, it is high time that action is taken against Britain First and the way that it seeks to create and foment disturbances in communities. We are very concerned that their actions may lead to serious unrest or physical assaults and this is the last thing we need for our country and our communities.

The post ‘Christian Patrols’ Just as Divisive as ‘Muslim Patrols’. But Where is the Outrage? appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Do you remember January 2013 when members of a ‘Muslim Patrol’ were handing out morality advice to passers-by in Whitechapel in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. They also harassed members of the public commentating on how they needed to cover up and members of this group also went on to be convicted and jailed in December 2013.

Well, if you don’t remember it, you certainly missed a media circus where press journalists were commentating on the actions of a handful of men who were shaming couples holding hands and suggesting that women were inappropriately dressed. One of these individuals was the convicted extremist Jordan Horner, who later apologised for his actions.

At the time, we made clear that any ‘faith-based’ patrol or any vigilante group was contrary to the rules and criminal and civil laws of this country and that such groups of individuals were a serious risk to community relations. We stated that they could possibly spark off serious unrest in areas and that action needed to be taken to send a clear message that the State would not tolerate any behaviour which intimidated citizens walking our streets. The ‘Muslim Patrol’ was neither Muslim nor required and many Muslims saw these actions as running contrary to their faith and further denigrating Islam in the eyes of many.

Well, cut to the 23rd of January 2016 and we have Britain First conducting another of their Christian Patrols. This is not the first time that Britian First have attempted to inflame tensions in areas.

However, this time it was conducted in Bury Park in Luton and was intimidating and meant to inflame tensions which would then be captured on film and create the notion of ‘them and us.’ Just as predictably, young Asian men rose to the bait with Britain First activists agitating and further adding to the growing tensions because of this extremist far right group.

Sadly, it is now 2016 and these inflammatory actions continue with Britain First trying to paint themselves as ‘defenders’ of Christian values, something that they are far from. They continue to walk into areas, stir up unrest and walk away leaving local communities to pick up the pieces. It is also interesting to note in the video of their agitation, that their actions lead to a young female policewoman finding herself in the middle of groups of testosterone laden young men looking to fight. Is this really the ‘patriotism’ that our country needs – the answer is a resounding no.

Lastly, it is high time that action is taken against Britain First and the way that it seeks to create and foment disturbances in communities. We are very concerned that their actions may lead to serious unrest or physical assaults and this is the last thing we need for our country and our communities.

The post ‘Christian Patrols’ Just as Divisive as ‘Muslim Patrols’. But Where is the Outrage? appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Do you remember January 2013 when members of a ‘Muslim Patrol’ were handing out morality advice to passers-by in Whitechapel in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. They also harassed members of the public commentating on how they needed to cover up and members of this group also went on to be convicted and jailed in December 2013.

Well, if you don’t remember it, you certainly missed a media circus where press journalists were commentating on the actions of a handful of men who were shaming couples holding hands and suggesting that women were inappropriately dressed. One of these individuals was the convicted extremist Jordan Horner, who later apologised for his actions.

At the time, we made clear that any ‘faith-based’ patrol or any vigilante group was contrary to the rules and criminal and civil laws of this country and that such groups of individuals were a serious risk to community relations. We stated that they could possibly spark off serious unrest in areas and that action needed to be taken to send a clear message that the State would not tolerate any behaviour which intimidated citizens walking our streets. The ‘Muslim Patrol’ was neither Muslim nor required and many Muslims saw these actions as running contrary to their faith and further denigrating Islam in the eyes of many.

Well, cut to the 23rd of January 2016 and we have Britain First conducting another of their Christian Patrols. This is not the first time that Britian First have attempted to inflame tensions in areas.

However, this time it was conducted in Bury Park in Luton and was intimidating and meant to inflame tensions which would then be captured on film and create the notion of ‘them and us.’ Just as predictably, young Asian men rose to the bait with Britain First activists agitating and further adding to the growing tensions because of this extremist far right group.

Sadly, it is now 2016 and these inflammatory actions continue with Britain First trying to paint themselves as ‘defenders’ of Christian values, something that they are far from. They continue to walk into areas, stir up unrest and walk away leaving local communities to pick up the pieces. It is also interesting to note in the video of their agitation, that their actions lead to a young female policewoman finding herself in the middle of groups of testosterone laden young men looking to fight. Is this really the ‘patriotism’ that our country needs – the answer is a resounding no.

Lastly, it is high time that action is taken against Britain First and the way that it seeks to create and foment disturbances in communities. We are very concerned that their actions may lead to serious unrest or physical assaults and this is the last thing we need for our country and our communities.

The post ‘Christian Patrols’ Just as Divisive as ‘Muslim Patrols’. But Where is the Outrage? appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Do you remember January 2013 when members of a ‘Muslim Patrol’ were handing out morality advice to passers-by in Whitechapel in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. They also harassed members of the public commentating on how they needed to cover up and members of this group also went on to be convicted and jailed in December 2013.

Well, if you don’t remember it, you certainly missed a media circus where press journalists were commentating on the actions of a handful of men who were shaming couples holding hands and suggesting that women were inappropriately dressed. One of these individuals was the convicted extremist Jordan Horner, who later apologised for his actions.

At the time, we made clear that any ‘faith-based’ patrol or any vigilante group was contrary to the rules and criminal and civil laws of this country and that such groups of individuals were a serious risk to community relations. We stated that they could possibly spark off serious unrest in areas and that action needed to be taken to send a clear message that the State would not tolerate any behaviour which intimidated citizens walking our streets. The ‘Muslim Patrol’ was neither Muslim nor required and many Muslims saw these actions as running contrary to their faith and further denigrating Islam in the eyes of many.

Well, cut to the 23rd of January 2016 and we have Britain First conducting another of their Christian Patrols. This is not the first time that Britian First have attempted to inflame tensions in areas.

However, this time it was conducted in Bury Park in Luton and was intimidating and meant to inflame tensions which would then be captured on film and create the notion of ‘them and us.’ Just as predictably, young Asian men rose to the bait with Britain First activists agitating and further adding to the growing tensions because of this extremist far right group.

Sadly, it is now 2016 and these inflammatory actions continue with Britain First trying to paint themselves as ‘defenders’ of Christian values, something that they are far from. They continue to walk into areas, stir up unrest and walk away leaving local communities to pick up the pieces. It is also interesting to note in the video of their agitation, that their actions lead to a young female policewoman finding herself in the middle of groups of testosterone laden young men looking to fight. Is this really the ‘patriotism’ that our country needs – the answer is a resounding no.

Lastly, it is high time that action is taken against Britain First and the way that it seeks to create and foment disturbances in communities. We are very concerned that their actions may lead to serious unrest or physical assaults and this is the last thing we need for our country and our communities.

The post ‘Christian Patrols’ Just as Divisive as ‘Muslim Patrols’. But Where is the Outrage? appeared first on TELL MAMA.