Home Page
Home Page

"Britain First" - Inferior Before The Law

by Chauncey Tinker – 2 Dec 2017

[UPDATE - 7 Dec 2017. I have added info. relating to a Daily Mail article which stated that Jayda Fransen made an appearance on a radio program called "Aryan Nation". I have altered this post in light of the article.]

East London Mosque, scene of a "Britain First" protest

By AA - Own work, CC BY 3.0, Link

Most of you reading this will know the basic facts of this story by now – some tweets from the Twitter account of Jayda Fransen (of the “Britain First” group) were retweeted by the official Twitter account of no less a person than the current US president Donald Trump. The truth about what was shown in the 3 videos (that seemed to be all too real to me) and who the people in the videos were and when the videos were filmed etc. is not what is concerning me most here in this post – many people have discussed these aspects at length elsewhere already.

What is concerning me here are the reactions of certain UK members of parliament and mainstream media outlets who responded to the incident in a fashion which can only be described as hysterical and irrational.

Lets look first at some comments made in the House of Commons that were featured in this article from the Express:

Day the Special Relationship died? May blasts Trump again over Britain First tweets

The first speaker is a (Labour?) MP (unknown) who says this (the voice of an MP saying “absolutely disgraceful” can be heard in the background):

…. highly inflammatory videos including some posted by an individual who I believe has recently been arrested and charged with relation to certain serious offences ….

The offence in question (the charging of which has not yet even resulted in a conviction) was namely using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”. Note that words merely perceived as “insulting” are included in that description – so the idea that this necessarily constitutes a “serious offence” is very, very dubious indeed. I won’t be commenting further on this case because it is sub-judice, and neither should the member of parliament be doing so either. No doubt the MP in question is enjoying what is known as “parliamentary privilege” which (currently at least) allows him to say pretty much what he likes without fear (unlike the rest of us in the UK who really have to watch our step these days).

[NB. When someone has been merely arrested and charged and not yet convicted, their case is at that point under what is known as the “sub-judice” rule. It could be that Jayda Fransen will subsequently be tried and acquitted of all the charges mentioned, and the law requires that people (especially those in public life such as MPs) DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE CASE in case it prejudices the trial.]

Then a prominent Labour MP called Yvette Cooper (former “New Labour” government minister who is now the “Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee”) stood up to say (@1:18) (accompanied by MPs exclaiming “disgrace”):

I understand that the woman in question has already been convicted of hate crime in this country….

The “hate crime” in question was a mere verbal altercation where both sides used insulting words against the other. Quote from the Guardian recounting testimony from the “victim:

Sharpe told the court: “She came across, shouting at me, saying, ‘Why are you covered?’ and she said that quite a few times. I told her it was my choice that I cover.”

“I called her a slapper, I admit, and I told her to piss off because I was so angry at that point that she had done that in front of my children.”

For those outside the UK, “slapper” is a colloquialism which refers to a very promiscuous woman (i.e. its really very insulting) – the word was directed at Jayda Fransen, the “defendant“. To many Muslims in the UK today, women seen in public without the hijab/burqa/niqab etc. are regarded thus. What a pathetic nation of feeble minded snowflakes we have become that a mere verbal exchange like this results in a criminal conviction, let alone that the sentence is increased due to a perception that it constitutes a so-called “hate crime“.

Yvette Cooper also in the same week described the internet in terms suggesting that it was a sinister force (a sentiment that the Home Secretary Amber Rudd clearly shares, judging by her responses to Ms. Cooper’s rambling comments):

Yvette Cooper:

Britain First gets its succour from spreading its poison and its extremism online – that is how it works, and the President of the United States has just given it a rocket boost in promoting hatred in our communities. Online is where the new battle for democracy is being fought, and the Prime Minister has rightly challenged Putin’s Russia for what she described as “seeking to weaponize information to plant fake stories in an attempt to sow discord” …

OK, readers you may be thinking that there is a paragraph or two missing from the above statement, but I assure you that Yvette Cooper (incredibly a former UK government minister) did indeed mention Putin’s Russia in regard to this affair. (Words fail me here, I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about that….)

Amber Rudd the UK Home Secretary responds (verbatim):

We do stand up to extremism, we stand up to it in our own communities and we stand up to it as the Prime Minister has when she criticized the President for doing that retweeting for which we are here and discussing it today. In terms of trying to clean up the online community, the honourable lady the right honourable lady’s absolutely right that is where so much of the battle takes place, which is why this government is focused on making sure that we take it down and which is why our relationship with the US is so important. ….

Whaaat? What is she talking about, what on earth is she referring to when she threatens to “take it down” exactly? What exactly does she mean by “extremism”? (OK we’ve been here before – see at the end of the article some proposals by her predecessor who alarmingly is now the Prime Minister). This woman is the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, she is in charge not just of the entire police force of England and Wales but of border security and the security services as well, and yet she can barely even string a meaningful sentence together.

Later in the same debate an MP calls for President Donald Trump to be banned from Twitter and the Home Secretary stands up and generously suggests that it is up to the Chief Executive of Twitter to decide on what action to take against the President of the United States. Speaking of punitive actions, I suggest that we should also have no hesitation in recalling from parliament any members of parliament (ministers or otherwise) who have clearly lost the plot. The next MP to speak was Dennis Skinner (Labour) who slurred his speech somewhat before calling on the Home Secretary to cancel the state visit planned for the POTUS. “Cancel the State visit” said Mr Skinner emphatically.

See the full debate here:

Parliament TV – House of Commons – Thursday 30 November 2017 Meeting started at 9.33am, ended 5.29pm


A suggestion that seems to be often leveled against the group is that they are genuinely racist (as opposed to simply anti-Islam – Islam is a belief system not a race, for those not in the know). This claim partly results from the fact that the leader Paul Golding once stood as a candidate for the British National Party. This claim is however denied at the “Britain First” website.

[UPDATE - 7 Dec 2017]

The most damning thing I have come across after following further online conversations is this article from the Daily Mail, which states that Jayda Fransen appeared on a radio channel called "Radio Aryan". The Daily Mail article states that she appeared on the program shortly after a reading from Mein Kampf. See the full article here (just a reminder we are dependent on the accuracy of news sources):

Britain First deputy leader Jayda Fransen is arrested for appearing on neo-Nazi radio show while facing trial for causing religiously aggravated harassment

Read more: Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I have updated the conclusion at the end of this post in light of this above article, as it has altered my perception of the group.


From politics.co.uk:

Britain First: The violent new face of British fascism


… a new report by anti-fascist group Hope not Hate exposes their links to far-right protestant extremism and Northern Irish terrorism

“Britain First is the most dangerous group to have emerged on the British far right scene for several years,” director of research for Hope not hate and former member of the National Front, Matthew Collins said.

“Its confrontational style is attracting huge publicity and could potentially lead to a violent backlash. If nothing else, its provocative actions - such as distributing Bibles inside mosques and doorstepping Muslim community leaders in their homes - is generating a climate of fear.”

So there were no actual plans to commit any acts of violence then, its more a fear that the group COULD trigger a “violent backlash” from those they protest against?? Although there is a troubling reference to Northern Irish terrorism it is not made clear what those “links” exactly are. In the picture in this article the speaker is flanked by two men with white belts , white gloves, khaki face-masks, and khaki berets. At this time the leadership included a third member who left the group that same year, apparently he didn’t like the mosque invasions that the group was undertaking under the leadership of Paul Golding.

A claim that the group has a paramilitary wing called the “Britain First Defence Force” is made in this next article. From Time:

3 Things to Know About Britain First, the Far-Right Group President Trump Retweeted

However I was unable to find anything online to back up this claim (except the picture in the previous article perhaps where the uniforms look somewhat militaristic). What exactly is meant by a “paramilitary wing” though? Surely to deserve such a description the group would have to have some firearms at least, but where is the evidence that they do? None of the group have been convicted of any firearms offences as far as I can find out, and the UK has strict gun control laws.

These fears about the group seem to be dampened quite a bit by this undercover investigative report from the Independent (2016):

I went undercover at the Britain First conference and trust me, we have nothing to fear

For the mosque invasion protests the group wore a less militaristic, more countrified, fashionable casual look – green waterproof jackets sporting the Britain First logo and an assortment of flat caps. From Vice:

Far-Right Goons Walked Around Bradford Haranguing Everyone This Weekend
(sub-title: This summer, Britain First are coming soon to a mosque near you.)

In the next article the “Britain First” group protest against gender segregation in a UK mosque. The “battalion” of five flat cap wearing group members entered the mosque and had some strong words with the imam, that’s all they did (oh and they refused to take their shoes off in the mosque). From the Independent:

Britain First ‘battalion’ invades mosque demanding removal of ‘sexist’ entrance signs

Quote – some words spoken by Mr. Golding as part of the protest:

“When you respect women we’ll respect your mosques and you’ve got signs out there that segregate men and women,” Mr Golding told him.

The “Britain First” group became the first group since Oswald Mosley’s blackshirts to be charged under a law against wearing political uniforms. From spiked-online:

Despite Golding lacking any real air of menace, the cops have been desperate to nab him for some time. He has been arrested several times on trumped-up charges. And his latest conviction is particularly absurd. In a typically poorly planned stunt, the gormless Golding went to confront alleged 7/7 plotter Sajeel Shahid. He called on the wrong house, that of Shahid’s sister-in-law Munazza Munawar, so he just decided to give her an ear-full instead. At his trial for harassing Munawar, Golding was also landed with a second charge under the Public Order Act (1936) for ‘wearing a political uniform’.

See the full article at spiked-online here:

Britain First: donning the uniform of victimhood

Here is another political group wearing an illegal political uniform (the left-wing Momentum group, supporters of far-left Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn):

Yanis Varoufakis signing t-shirts at a Labour Party Momentum stand

I also came upon this which shows Mr. Golding a little put out perhaps having just spent weeks in prison as a result of his failing to observe a court order not to “invade” any more mosques. From the Independent:

Britain First leader issues threat to ‘traitor’ MPs upon jail release: ‘You will all meet your miserable ends’


I just want to remind everyone at this point about a CONCEPT that has been largely forgotten in our idiocratic age – the concept of PRINCIPLES. The particular principle in question is a pillar of not just what used to be known as “British Justice”, but in fact it is, or should be, a pillar of ANY fair justice system. The principle in question is known as the principle of “equality before the law”. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”

So reading all the above, how well is this principle being applied then in practice, or has it just been forgotten altogether by the authorities in the UK today? The principle known as “equality before the law”, has been forgotten by the current pathetic crowd of politicians who are sitting in the House of Commons.

Another principle that has long been forgotten is the principle of innocent before proven guilty, and we should also seek to revive this principle. Many people suspect the group of having a secret agenda. Perhaps they secretly hold paramilitary training exercises and plot to blow up mosques. However until we have some evidence to suggest that they actually are plotting such things, then we must assume that they are NOT plotting such things.


The publicizing of incidents such as those shown in the 3 tweets is very necessary in order to counteract the chronic bias of the mainstream media (MSM). A perfect example of this chronic bias was the way the media showed the dead body of Aylan Kurdi, to play on the viewers’ heartstrings and make them feel sorry for refugees, but yet they routinely do not show the bodies of the victims of terror attacks in the West. From the Guardian:

Shocking images of drowned Syrian boy show tragic plight of refugees

Imagine the shock if the equivalent emotive headline was run by the same paper after an Islamic terror attack that killed children:

Shocking images of dead children ripped to pieces by bomb shows tragic plight of UK citizens exposed to lethal Islamic terrorist attacks by mass immigration from Islamic countries

Instead we are shown only pictures of the smiling faces of those killed, taken while they were still alive:

Manchester attack: Who were the victims?

Maybe Jayda Fransen got it wrong on one of the 3 tweets in that possibly the vicious boy who attacked the Dutch boy on crutches was not a Muslim (as has been claimed, or perhaps at least was not a first generation immigrant from N. Africa).

Finally I leave you with this excellent comment on social media by one Robin Bowyer (again please bear in mind the dispute regarding the assault on the Dutch boy with the crutch, regarding the question of whether the assailant really was a Muslim or not):

These videos were not secretly recorded by sinister far right wingers operating under cover. They were recorded by the Muslims themselves. They wanted to be seen punching the kid on crutches, throwing people off roofs and smashing the Virgin Mary. Refusing to share them would be to censor Muslims.

That’s a good question I think, should we censor Muslims’ own recorded video evidence of their own actions? It would seem a little unfair would it not, to censor Muslims in this way? Surely none of our virtue signalling pro-immigration politicians would want us to censor Muslims?



Many people disapprove of the provocative manner in which the “Britain First” group stages their protests. However I think we should remember the nature of what it is that they are protesting against. They are protesting against a religion which is not just misogynistic, it openly incites violence against the non-believers (that’s us in case you hadn’t realized).

In light of what they are protesting against I think it can well be argued that they are in fact behaving in a restrained and comparatively moderate fashion. I have seen video footage where they have been violently attacked by Muslims, yet I have never seen anything to suggest that they have themselves engaged in acts of violence. Compare also the actions of the group with the actions of a group like “antifa” who regularly engage in violent acts. Whatever we may think of this group, at least they are drawing attention to this aggressive religion and the behaviour of many of its followers.

I later listened to the whole of the debate from the House of Commons that was held on 30 November. Not one of the MPs who spoke was able to articulate what was wrong with the re-tweeting of the 3 tweets, and yet 2 MPs called for the arrest of Donald Trump just for the retweeting (one made the suggestion during the debate and one in a BBC TV interview). This demonstrated their willingness to call for extreme and irrational censorship. Our virtue signalling politicians exist in a group-think bubble of fake virtuousness where nobody dares to question the prevailing orthodoxy. Instead of criticizing the violence shown in the 3 tweets, the politicians prefer to criticize those who publicize it, as if the act of publicizing the violence is somehow worse than the violence shown. This bewildering attitude also seems to ignore the fact that most mainstream media sources make an income from publicizing violent acts in their news articles, and that they often describe the acts as "Islamic terrorist attacks".

If you are reading this and feeling that we should not be leaving groups like “Britain First” to be the ones whose voices are heard on the world stage, then perhaps it is time you stood up and were counted yourselves. Perhaps you can articulate better what it is that is wrong with the Islamic religion, and perhaps you can think of a better less provocative way of getting your message across. However it is Jayda Fransen’s tweets that have recently been retweeted by the current President of the United States, not yours, in large part because she and Mr. Golding have been campaigning tirelessly and at great risk to themselves against the religion. Perhaps it is time that you did the same.


Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders

The Principle of the Thing – Equality Before The Law


Britain First East London Mosque Protest

Do you think some people should be treated differently by the legal system? Please leave a comment below.

Please feel free to share this article on social media sites:

Tweet     Share on Facebook     Google Plus     Reddit     Tumblr