Are you nervous yet, Jayda?

It’s been a long day here at the EBF office. Landlord made a welcome appearance after a forced absence dealing with business issues. After ensuring the fridge was cold enough for the champagne he’d donated in case Fransen got remanded he busied himself penning an account of recent events for the blog. That goes out on Sunday morning so remember to check back then.

The rest of us could barely contain ourselves. Kit and I seemed to regress back in time to do very passable impressions of our former excitable schoolgirl selves. One or two of the guys spent the day pacing up and down until Foxy was convinced they’d wear a little path in the carpet. Prole stood silently for hours staring out over the magnificent London cityscape from our high-rise office, occasionally seeming to squeal with anticipated delight at the prospect of Britain First’s imminent demise.

London from the EBF office

We speculated amongst ourselves about what might happen. Would Jayda ‘pull a blinder’ and get away with a fine? Would she deny everything and be remanded in custody? Would the magistrates give her 6 months (the maximum sentence they’re able to dispense) and leave it at that.

We all agreed that the only thing we really wanted to happen was a referral to Crown Court. Anything else would be a bonus but a hearing in the Crown Court was essential. That’s where the really heavy duty sentences come from and so that’s what we wanted to happen.

And then… a little after 4pm the news broke. No remand (oh well) but she’d pleaded not guilty and is indeed off to Crown Court on November 2nd and 3rd 2016. Not only that her new bail conditions forbid her from entering Luton at all until the hearing. Marvellous.

BF Jayda Fransen after luton magistrates court august 5th 2016.png

Personally, I won’t pretend I’m not disappointed to see her walk free. I’d have preferred to see Fransen remanded in custody on the grounds that she tore up her last bail conditions but as Prole pointed out – that’s just a detail. We got what we were really hoping for. Jayda’s going to have to face serious criminal charges in a serious criminal court. So it’s all good. And the stupid mare actually seems to think that this is a Britain First victory!

For the record, by the way our spotters in Luton tell us that there were no Muslim hordes harassing Jayda at all. It’s more likely the delay in her report was due to Fransen needing to compose herself after a particularly frightening day in court. For all her online bravado even Jayda must realise how great is the risk of custody, especially now that she’s pleaded not guilty.

We’ll let you know how this situation develops, of course but so far so good.

Rightwingers, learn your history!

The irony meter explodes again

Where do we begin? This is so ridiculous it’s low even by Biffer standards.

Yes, we know – Biffers rely upon the ignorance of their followers. They know very well that few Britain First followers will know the first thing about medieval history and so they’ll just take their ‘facts’ on face value.

EBF BF History crusade 1095

We thought it might be interesting to create our own version. What do you think?

ebf historical meme

By the time WW2 finally ended the Nazis had conquered two-thirds of the prison cells at Nuremberg!

Paulie and Dutchy will soon be following their Nazi leaders into prison. Not long now, Biffers!

Biffers behaving badly

BF Whitstable immigrants 1We wondered where the Biffers had got to yesterday. They rarely announce their movements in advance any more. That seems to be because more and more decent people are coming out to oppose the fascists wherever they show their petty little faces. Recent humiliations for neo-nazis at Liverpool and Manchester demonstrate just how unpopular the far right is in UK. Especially given the recent death of Mr. Ahmed, the 81 year old Muslim from Rotherham who was beaten to death on his way to morning prayers earlier this month.

Happily, four young men aged between 18 – 24 have been arrested in connection with the crime. Yes – you read that correctly…

FOUR young men

Aged between 18 – 24

It’s not hard to see how Britain First’s constant slurring of Rotherham’s Muslim population might have contributed to the actions of these four ‘brave’ young men in beating this lone 81 year old man so badly that he died from his injuries a few days later.

How have Britain First reacted to this tragic news?

Did they condemn the actions of these 4 young thugs?

Did they issue a call for peace and ask their supporters to abide by the law?

Did they call off their threatened trip to Rotherham to taunt Mr. Ahmed’s friends and relatives with their presence?

Of course not.

BF Whitstable immigrants 2Instead they went to Whitstable in Kent to start stirring up the same sort of community unrest that led to the vicious killing of Mr. Ahmed.

The video is just awful. In it Folding Golding and Bulldog Lewis stalk around the grounds of a proposed refugee centre, pointing in mock outrage at the nearby childrens’ play area and pretending that asylum seekers and refugees from war torn countries are child abusers. They justify this assertion by stating that ‘a high proportion’ of these refugees will be Muslims. Actually that’s not necessarily the case but even if it is, so what?

Britain First continues to peddle the same over generalisations that cannot fail to have contributed to the death of an innocent pensioner on his way to prayers.

Do you still think Britain First is just a harmless sit-com?

BF whitstable immigrants 4

Are ‘Burkas’ The New Bandanas?

When I sat down to start my stint of volunteering for EBF Friday, little did I know that I would still be sitting there 15 hours later, still trying to write a post.

Thursday, 18th June, 2015, a man dressed in a burka was arrested and a package that he had allegedly left in a doorway was safely detonated by a bomb squad. Well, of course, they SAY it was a burka but the photographs show that it was not a burka but a niqab.

In fact, there have been NO crimes committed wearing a burka in the UK, some have been committed wearing a niqab but, as the word ‘burka’ is commonly incorrectly used to describe the niqab and it is the burka which Biffers want banned, I will use the word ‘burka’ in place of niqab.

There are still very few details about what happened yesterday. We don’t know anything about the man or whether or not there was an explosive device in the bag he allegedly left. What we do know is that our police and armed forces collaborated quickly and calmly to evacuate the area, seal off Watford to ensure everyone’s safety and that the man was arrested. And, yes, he was wearing a ‘burka’.

Not surprisingly the incident started a foam fest over on Britain First and now it seems that ‘burkas must be banned’ and ‘all Muslims must die’ once again – because of the alleged actions of this one man, despite not yet knowing what he did or whether the bag which was detonated contained explosives.

So I thought I would have a look around to see if we really need to be so anxious about women wearing burkas, because ‘it could be anyone in there’ and therefore burkas are a security risk.

I didn’t anticipate that this would be an easy task and I was right.

I started out by looking at press reports of crimes committed while wearing a ‘burka’ and I found 21, dating between 2002 – 2014. Nine jewellers had been robbed, one travel agent, one Post Office, two banks, one Securicor van and one phone shop.

There was one case of embezzlement by a woman who normally wore a hijab, changing into a ‘burka’ to carry out her crime, and there were four assaults. One assault was committed by a woman who ALWAYS wore a ‘burka’ and didn’t don it for the purpose of the assault, and one case involved pickpockets in ‘burkas’ targeting the very wealthy.

Robbery seemed to be the most common crime committed in a ‘burka’. That being the case, I thought I’d have a look and see how many robberies occur in total to work out a percentage of ‘burka’ wearing robbers. I found figures for April 2015 at which show that there had been 4,104 total cases of robbery UK wide.

I then looked through the press for robberies committed wearing other disguises and, of course, there were a variety, including mask variations from Scream to monkeys and skeletons and even one man with underpants on his head (no, it wasn’t Paul Golding at the Cenotaph this time). And I found 19 reports of robberies where disguises were used between 2009 – 2015.

However, only using the press to research the subject seemed unscientific so I decided to go to to investigate the results of court cases in England and Wales. I searched for ‘robbery’ (the most reported crime) between 2008-2014.

There were 1209 cases – but how to narrow this down to see how many ‘foreigners’ were committing crimes – Biffers are always telling us that it’s the immigrants who commit the crimes (I’ll get back to the ‘burka’ in a bit).

Since the Law Pages don’t record people’s religion or skin colour, it was going to be quite difficult to ascertain how many ‘Johnny Foreigners’ had been convicted of robberies. I did what I suspect lots of people do, not just Biffers, I looked at people’s names and put them into categories according to their name. I must stress that I know this is far from ideal but I needed detail, not simply numbers. There is something to be gleaned from estimating nationality of origin from people’s names, although we don’t know if everyone called, say, ‘Stavros Popoupolis’ is a Greek immigrant, is second, third or fourth (or more) generation Greek or if he is not Greek at all, but it’s my best guess that he’s not French.

Of the 1209 convictions for robbery between 2008 and 2014, origins or backgrounds of names suggested that 91 seemed likely to be Asian, 10 likely to be Sikh, 31 likely to be East European, 39 African, two Jewish and six ‘other’, Far Eastern, for example. Of course, as I stated earlier, they could all be British, although one was known to be an asylum seeker who was given a jail term followed by a deportation order.

So, out of 1209 convictions, we have POTENTIALLY 179 foreign born people convicted of robbery in a six year period. That means that 1,118 convictions were for people called Murphy, McCloed, Bowman, Smith, Jones, Knight, Tyler, Grant and….Curtin.

I was quite interested in Curtin, because he had worn a ‘burka’ to commit a jewellry theft from Selfridges in London in 2012, with his accomplice Connor Groake (which sounds a bit Irish).

So now I had 179 names I could take back to the press reports to see how many of the POTENTIALLY foreign born people who had been convicted of robbery had worn ‘burkas’ when committing their crime.

I found reports about some of the convicted ‘burka’ wearing robbers in the press. 
I found that a jeweller in Burnley had been robbed by four MEN wearing ‘burkas’, Rais Atcha, Fahim Kola, Mohammed Asif Khan and Baber Khan, the phone shop in London had been robbed by Mohammed Sabek and Aneek Khan, dressed in ‘burkas’ and the robbery from Selfridges had been committed by Sam Curtin and Connor Groake, wearing ‘burkas’.

As for the crimes I found in my initial press sweep this morning, matching them up with my Law Pages search, three out of the nine jewellry store robberies achieved convictions, and the robbers of the phone shop were caught, as was the embezzler mentioned at the beginning.

So, there are some thieves out there who use ‘burkas’ as disguises to commit robberies. There are also three people who used Scream masks, one man in a green/yellow mask, and one in a pig mask.

What do I get out of all this at the end of the day? What I can say is that if you’re a robber, wearing a ‘burka’ seems to be on a list of potential disguises. It’s not top pick though. The majority of the cases on the Law Pages chose balaclavas and ski masks, some chose leggings, some chose hoods and scarves. Wearing a ‘burka’ is down the list and doesn’t seem to have any greater a ‘success’ rate than other disguises.

I’ve also learned that I never want to own a jewellers shop and there are some VERY nasty people out there. Most of them are not wearing ‘burkas’.

“Please pay my fine”

Fuhrer Golding has come unstuck again!

BF Bullying meme EBFSome time ago he was convicted of harrasing an innocent woman in her home. He was also found guilty of the use of political uniforms. That’s been an offence since the 1930s, specifically created to combat the rise of Mosley’s blackshirts. The Blackshirts were British Nazi sympathisers who many would argue were the inspiration behind Britain First’s ideology as well as their dress sense.

Now, having broken the law, Fuhrer Golding has decided that he shouldn’t need to pay the penalty. Instead he wants his followers to do that for him. Ninety of them to be precise.

In typical biffer style, Golding the coward didn’t even have the courage or the decency to ask for the money himself. Instead he got his sidekick, Jayda “Dutchy” Fransen to ask on his behalf.

The latest biffer Email asks supporters to fork out a tenner each to pay Paulie’s fine. To put it another way, Fuhrer Golding continues to make a mockery of the judicial system by attempting to avoid facing the punishment he so richly deserves. This sort of bullying behaviour is very typical of Golding and his thuggish cronies. And it’s not just us at EBF who think so – at least one large social media outlet seems to agree.

BF EBF Golding Harassment doxing

Really, Paulie. Don’t you get it yet? If you want to remain in this wonderful, multicultural country, you really should “respect and abide by our laws!”