Sunday, 31 May 2009

Gable and "Hope Not Hates" friends! What a fine example to set to your kids!

As you are well aware, Gerry Gable and his cronies at Searchlight and Hope Not Hate, set about every year demanding the general public not to vote BNP, and setting out reasons why they shouldn't vote for the British National Party.

Of course the usual chestnuts come popping out. Accusations like;

1) BNP are racist anti-semite Nazis
2) BNP will deport all non-whites
3) BNP will cause another Genocide on Jews, Blacks, Gays and Muslims, etc etc

Obviously the above statements are nonsense. Considering the BNP have Jewish, gay members and members in Mixed relationships as well as supporting the Gurkha's rights campaign. Groups like the National Front and the British First Party have even gone as far as calling the BNP "Conservatives on Steroids" and "agents of the state". So obviously none of the above points are true.

But one thing Gable and his followers like to do something else to smear the party. Babble on about Criminal convictions within the BNP.

The usual suspect is David Copeland, and to find the REAL truth on that man, click here.

Its quite hypocritical of Mr Gable and his cronies to talk about criminal records, considering he has a long history of burglary and fraud, amongst others. Members and supporters of "Hope Not Hate" and the UAF (A closely linked group to Searchlies) seem to rant about the BNP and "suspected" criminal convictions. Many HNH/UAF/Searchlies members are celebs (Champagne Socialists). Lets take a look at a few.

PETE DOHERTY - To look at this man's criminal conviction record, as well as various other bits of information Click Here

AMY WINEHOUSE - Another fine example to our kids! Check out her records (Not her music records, they are shit, her Criminal) here

IAN BROWN - Another degenerate life of Riley musician, who had a fight on stage with an unhappy fan. Brown was also sentenced
to four months in jail after being convicted of using threatening behaviour towards an airline stewardess and captain during a flight from Paris to Britain in 1998 (HERE). Another fine example!

JOHN BARNES - The 44-year-old, who played for Watford, Liverpool and Newcastle, was caught driving his £60,000 BMW X5 on the M6 without insurance. He already had nine points on his licence and a six-point penalty for having no insurance would have taken him over the 12- point instant ban limit. Although the Magistrates found him "not guilty", after he sobbed away and gave out his excuses, he is still an idiot. If his case included a normal person, then GUILTY will be slamed in the persons face before the trial began. Another good example to your kids.

Those are just a number of "celebs" who are involved in this bogus anti-Nationalist campaign. Here is a few criminal convictions and records from Searchlight in the past (Searchlies like mentioning the BNP's past, so why not mention theirs!)

1) Gerry Gable was arrested and held at Hornsey police station following a break-in at the flat of the historian David Irving.

After stealing GPO identity documents, the Communist Party member Gable and his comrade Manny Carpel, burgled Irving ’s house hoping to find “evidence” that Irving was a “Nazi.’

Of course, they found nothing, and instead were arrested for their troubles. On January 14, 1964, Gable pleaded guilty to breaking into the flat with intent to steal, and was convicted.

2) Carpel was also arrested in 1963 for assaulting P.C. William Nield and of having an offensive weapon (a metal butcher's hook).

3) In 1967, Carpel pleaded guilty, with Michael Cohen, of trying to break into a printing works (W.H. Jones Ltd. on 20th July, 1966) with intent to commit a felony and to possessing housebreaking tools by night.

4)Later, when in court for setting light to a print works in Uckfield, Sussex, and causing more than £50,000 worth of damage (November the 5th, 1980) he described himself as "a freelance journalist working for Searchlight."

5) In December 1976, Searchlight was described by a stipendiary magistrate, Mr. John Milward, as "scurrilous and disreputable ... What purpose can there be in advertising opponents' meetings except for the purpose of identifying them and creating disorder and violence? This seems to be an attempt to stir up trouble which is to be very strongly deprecated." - Birmingham Post 31/12/76

An interesting insight into how far Gable’s agent provocateurs will go in order to manufacture stories, the agent Dave Roberts was first exposed as a Searchlight agent when he was convicted in March 1976 for attempted assault following a failed arson attack on Communist Party premises in Birmingham, which doubtless would have been blamed on C88, as were attacks on left-wing bookshops at that time.

More to come folks!!

Gerry The Burglar

To those who have heard of this vile creature (Gerry Gable, picture below), you will be well aware that he has a criminal conviction, notably for burglary.

Not only has Gable admitted, as part of his defence in the 1963/4 burglary trial, that he hoped to supply information to Special Branch on David Irving, but a confidential memorandum written by him to his producers in London Weekend Television (where he worked until recently as a researcher/presenter on the London Programme: he is now trying to work his ticket with an alleged 'heart condition') on 2 May 1977 gave clear, hard, evidence that he has also engaged in a two-way traffic of information with the security services of several countries, and acted as a conduit of misinformation for MI5 against fellow journalists, and socialists.

The memo was the subject of an article by Duncan Campbell and Bruce Page in the New Statesman in February 1980. Gable has never successfully refuted the information contained in the article. When Campbell and Page went down to LWT's offices to confront Gable with the evidence and demand some answers, Gable simply cleared his desk and fled, refusing to talk to them. This is in marked contrast to his previous meeting with Campbell, whom he took out to an expense account lunch during the 'ABC' Official Secrets case to pump him for information he could pass on to his friends in Special Branch.

The memo, written by Gable followed, he says, a lunch with a Security Service employee in May 1977. The nature of the official material received and recorded by him - mixed with large amounts of random gossip - indicates that much of it was coloured by phone-tap information and informer's reports. It consists almost entirely of libellous untruths about a group of 'target' individuals  the 'ABC' Official Secrets defendants, American deportees Philip Agee and Mark Hosenball, and several of their acquaintances. In certain respects, material from Special Branch had been deliberately falsified to mislead Gable and his employers. The timing of the memo showed clearly an intense interest on behalf of MI5 in manipulating events surrounding the Agee/ Hosenball case and the beginnings of the 'ABC' prosecution.

Kelly is the KGB man…”

The person most frequently, and libellously, mentioned in its pages was not directly involved in either case: Phil Kelly, a journalist acquainted with both sets of accused men. Kelly was around this time one of the victims of a number of burglaries and thefts in London which were clearly designed to gather information and documents rather than valuables (Gable's proven speciality, as witnessed by the Irving trial…)

Admitted to be one of a series, the memo was headed “Agencies” presumably a reference to Gable's information sources (named, apart from MI5, as the CIA, French and German security, Stewart-Smith's FARI institute, and the 'Israeli Foreign Office'). It mixes up a few accurate facts with half-truths, and constructs upon them a series of fantasies, linking the Young Liberals with Cubans, Palestinian and German terrorists, various contributors to Time Out, members of the London Co-Op, and the KGB, into a deadly, all-encompassing conspiracy. Gable also asserts that an “eye-witness” who “had infiltrated the Palestinians and some left groups” (and is apparently well known to him) has backed up his claims. There is a remarkable similarity between information received by Special Branch when they stopped Kelly at Heathrow Airport in 1970, and the “eye-witness” story re-told by Gable in 1977. The implication must be that Gable was at least aware of a Special Branch or MI5 informer amongst left-wing groups and remained quiet about it.

Gable wrote: “The arrest of Campbell / Berry and Aubrey has caused a civil rights row, but according to my top level security sources, they inform me in strictest confidence that for about four years Campbell/ Berry/ Kelly and others have been systematically gathering top-level security material. Campbell, who claims to have only an interest in technological matters as far as the state is involved, had done four years detailed research into the whole structure of the other side of not only our Intelligence services but those of other NATO countries. He has also gone to people who work on top security contracts and started off by asking them about open commercial work their companies do and then gradually asked them for information on top secret work, including that on underwater detection hardware, which he clearly knows is beyond the pale.

Politically it appears the group have no guiding light or line, but Kelly is the KGB man who reaps the goodies gathered by other people…”

The security service accepts that once the real nature of this case begins to emerge they expect people like Jonathan Aitkin (the Tory MP, who has expressed support for the ABC) will fade away fast. The security service accepts that a number of decent people have signed up to support these people on civil rights grounds and also they unofficially accept all the shortcomings of the act they have been held under, but they say they are sure this has gone beyond the bounds of Press Investigation.”

In the last few words of the memo Gable wrote: “I have now given the names I have acquired to be checked out by British/ French security servicesit is now a time for waiting for a feed-back and also for further checks here.” The feed-back never came of course, because the whole story was really just black propaganda.

Saturday, 16 May 2009

Are Searchlight breaking British Statute Law??

Many have questioned Searchlight and the Trade Unions and their links with American company Blue State Digital.

Many weeks ago, a BNP Activist contacted the Information Commissioner's Office, after it was revealed that Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust had paid out £87,879 on interpreters fees for the year 07/08. Super BNP Activist, Guiseppe de Santis sent the following e-mail

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'm writing to you because there is something I want to bring to your attention. Recently it was reported that a company, has been hired to campaign against the British National Party:

THe reason I wrote to you is because of the strategy this company plans to use:
As part of the first stage of their campaign, BSD and Searchlight have sent out emails to thousands of supporters asking each one to pass on the email to five friends and make a small donation.

The software means campaigners can then track who opens the emails, where they are sent and what happens when they arrive at the other end. They can then tailor future emails to groups and individuals.

I wish to bring your attention to that software that can tracks who open those emails and can tell them if who receive them reply to other people. Now I would like to know is this technology legal?

It seems to me that they can hack on other people' computers in a way that is more similar to a giant big brother. As far as I know only the Police and the secret Services can do this, and actually there are concerns about the way this system is abused.

My request is not just of a political nature:if we allow a company to use this system for a political campaign how we can prevent other companies who want to use it to track consumers habit to do the same and prevent abuse? I hope you can look at it.

Guiseppe de Santis

Thankfully Mr de Santis got a reply from the ICO.

Case Reference Number ENQ0231619

Dear Mr Santis
Thank you for your enquiry of 26/01/09 in which you have brought our attention to the political campaign being carried out via email by Searchlight/BSD.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to you, our office is currently dealing with large volumes of work. This has meant that we have been unable to deal with incoming correspondence as promptly as we would like.

As I understand it, Searchlight/BSD have sent out emails to thousands of their supporters as part of a political campaign against the BNP. These emails ask the supporters to forward the correspondence on to five other people. As the software used by Searchlight/BSD enables them to track the recipients of the forwarded emails they are then able to obtain details about those individuals.

The 1st Principle of the Data Protection Act states that personal information must be fairly and lawfully processed. In practice, fair and lawful processing means an organisation may not process an individual’s personal information in a manner which is not in the reasonable expectation of the individual.

In this case it appears that Searchlight/BSD have effectively been collecting the details of the recipients of the forwarded emails without their knowledge and consent. These individuals will not be aware that their information has been collected nor will they know the purposes for which it will be used. On the face of it this appears to be a breach of the 1st Principle. However Schedule 1, Part II of the Act also says that it is the duty of the processor of the information to provide fair processing details‘… so far as practicable…’

Where a data controller has obtained a very large number of email addresses in the course of their marketing activities then it may be that it is simply not practicable for them to be able to go back and contact each and every one of those individuals to provide them with fair processing information about how their data is going to be used.

In this case we would probably take the view that Searchlight/BSD could not be reasonably expected to contact the thousands of individuals involved to provide fair processing information as this would involve a disproportionate amount of effort. In addition, as the purposes for which Searchlight/BSD have collected the data do not appear to be, on the face of it, unlawful, (the purpose being to promote their political views) then it is unlikely that we would consider there to have been a breach of the 1st Principle in this case.

Although the purposes of Searchlight/BSD’s processing may be in line with the DPA, the method they have used to collect the data does raise issues with regards to the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR).

Regulation 22 of the PECR states that you cannot ‘transmit or instigate the transmission of’ marketing by email unless the recipient has previously ‘notified the sender they consent’. The specific wording of Regulation 22 makes viral marketing difficult to achieve in compliance with the Regulations.

There is a soft-opt in where organisations can send marketing without the explicit consent of the recipient. For the soft opt-in to apply the organisation will have to have obtained the contact details of the recipient in the course of a sale, the marketing must be of similar products and the recipient must be given a simple means of opting-out when their details are collected and in every subsequent correspondence. Again, it is difficult to see how the soft opt-in could apply when considering viral marketing.

As stated in our guidance* on this issue; there are two types of viral marketing. In the scenario where a marketer asks an individual to forward their emails to other people there is a strong chance there will be a breach of Regulation 22. This is because the organisation would have to trust that the person passing on the emails had obtained the consent of the other individuals. Often, this will not be the case and by sending these people marketing emails without their consent a breach of the Regulations is likely to occur.

Depending on the content of the email, but assuming that it is marketing an organisations products in some way, the organisation will still be seen as the ‘instigator’ even if they do not send the email directly. An instigator under the Regulations is defined as the organisation whose goods or services are being promoted). Therefore, even though an organisation may not be directly marketing someone they are still responsible under the Regulations. This is similar to situations where organisation employ third party marketing companies to conduct marketing campaigns on their behalf – both the marketing company and the original organisation are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Regulations.

It would have been best practice for Searchlight/BSD to ensure that when they asked individuals to send emails on to their friends they employed some form of checking procedure to ensure consent had been obtained. It may be that they could have asked the supporters to confirm their friends consent before they sent the email on to them. However, clearly it could be difficult for them to get any guarantees that consent had actually been obtained.

In summary, it appears likely that Searchlight/BSD may have breached the PECR regulations through viral marketing by instigating the sending of emails to individual subscribers who have not consented to receiving their marketing.

I hope that this information has answered your enquiry and if I can be of any further assistance please let me know.

Yours sincerely
Phillip Davison
Case Officer

To complain about, click here and watch The Green Arrows Blog for updates on this story

Monday, 11 May 2009


Hello everyone and welcome.

I have made this blog to counter attack all the lies that are published by Gerry Gable and his cronies at Searchlight. The overall general public that have heard of this group, believe it is an "anti-fascist" organisation. That can be far from the truth.

The editor of this magazine has a past that he doesn't want people to know about. Even MP's and newspaper editorials have told us what this man is like in practice.

His past ranges from a conviction for burglary, to fraud, to supporting people and groups with terrorist links (Including the Irish Republican Army as well as various Israeli Zionist groups)

Yet daily rags (Especially the Daily Mirror) still gets its back up from Searchlight magazine and it's a part of the splinter group "Hope Not Hate".

for more visit my YouTube page

(PLEASE NOTE: I don't work for, nor am I a part of the website SearchlightExposed)