Jimmy Lynch: Racist NHS Former Fleet Stores and Data Manager at North West Ambulance Service (NWAS)


Original BMA (UK) Article Link:

Our article regarding the ‘Save the NHS March’ protest we participated in, particularly the link shared on the Buddhist-Marxism Alliance (UK) Facebook page has attracted a tremendous amount of Britain First activity involving the making of mindless and racist comments in support of the Tory policy of ‘privatising’ the NHS. The BMA (UK) has a policy of ‘deleting’ these fascistic outpourings, but has decided to retain one comment as an example of the rightwing phenomenon concerned. Today, at around 10:43hrs, the Facebook user named ‘Jimmy Lynch‘ made the following racist post:

Jimmy Lynch Send all illegal immigrants and their so called dependants back to were they come from, then the UK NHS would be OK.Like

 · 3 Replies · about an hour ago
His Facebook page describes his details as:

As he has no problem ‘sharing’ os racist viewpoints about y family and children, I am sure he does not mind those viewpoints being shared further – with details about the author. Furthermore, Jimmy has a racist petition against Labour’s Diane Abbott. Finally, I am advised that ‘Lynch’ is an Irish name and that ‘Jimmy’ is in all likelihood a Roman Catholic immigrant from Ireland. If he applies his own warped thinking, he and his family should leave the UK to make the NHS ‘better’.

Home Office: No Action Against Murderous Britain First


Following thousands of British people signing a petition calling for Britain First to be ‘banned’ as a ‘Terrorist’ extremist organisation, (in response to the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox by one of its members), the current unelected Tory Prime Minister – Teresa May – and her Government, has refused to take direct action against Britain First, whilst issuing a broad re-statement of its anti-terror laws (which appear tailored to limit freedom of speech rather than confront legitimate threats).  This legislation bizarrely states that there will be no tolerance of ‘extremism’ – either ‘violent’ or ‘non-violent’ – which begs the question of how can extremism be ‘non-violent’, unless, of course, it is a ‘cure all’ phrase that can be used to ‘prevent’ legitimate and democratic ‘dissent’ against the ‘extremism’ associated with Tory (and LibDem) ‘Austerity’.  Whatever the case, the Tory government does not want to apply its own legislation against a ‘White’ and ‘Christian’ extremist group like the home-grown Britain First, when previous Tory administrations have been quite happy to ‘ban’ UK Muslim groups for criticising the UK wars in the Middle East.  This is the Tory Government’s response to the British nation’s petition to ‘ban’ Britain First:

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Britain First announce militant action against elected Muslims PROSCRIBE NOW!”.

Government responded:

While we keep the list of proscribed organisations under review, we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation:
• commits or participates in acts of terrorism;
• prepares for terrorism;
• promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or
• is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

“Terrorism” as defined in the Act, means the use or threat which: involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the act); creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

The Government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy addresses all forms of terrorism, including that which is inspired by far right extremism. Preventing terrorism involves challenging extremist (and non-violent) ideas which are part of terrorist ideology.

The Government condemns those who seek to spread hate by demonising British Muslims. Those who seek to divide us damage our country by stoking anti-Muslim hatred and who deliberately raise community fears and tensions by bringing disorder and violence to our towns and cities.

The Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy sets out comprehensive measures to defeat all forms of extremism – violent or non-violent, Islamist or far-right extremism, by countering extremist ideology, building partnerships against extremism, disrupting extremists, and building cohesive communities.

Home Office


Why No England Football Team Flags?

download (1)

Probably around 14 years ago, I remember Nick Griffin – the leader of the racist British National Party (BNP) – wish the ‘racially pure’ national Danish team ‘good luck’against the England nation football team – which he viewed as ‘deficient’ due to what he termed its ‘high percentage’ of ‘Black’ players that had rose to prominence in UK professional football.  It is clear that British ‘nationalists’ (which includes UKIP and the odious Britain First), are of course, motivated entirely by ‘racism’, and that although this racism is firmly rooted within the working class support for local football teams (both non-league and league), it does not follow that ‘white’ English racists naturally support the England national squad – due entirely to its multicultural nature.  In South London, for instance, I have routinely witnessed Chelsea football supporters (often out with their children) singing racist songs and intimidating non-white people on the local trains.  Last St George’s Day, whilst taking the family dog (Xena – the German Shepherd) for an early morning walk, I was disturbed to see a round 4 or 5 George Crosses (and a WWII style Union Jack) hanging out of some windows (although by no means everywhere in West Sutton).  I say ‘disturbing’ because to me (and others) these flags are making a ‘racial’ statement of white supremacy premised upon a sham notion of what it means to be ‘English’ (which, of course, in this instance is conflated with being ‘white’).  Although ostensibly a ‘Christian’ symbol, I doubt many of these people have seen the inside of a church for many a year!  This is why the racists in the UK use the notion of St George’s Day not to celebrate British multiculturalism, but to make a statement of exclusionary ‘whiteness’.  I thoroughly reject this definition of ‘Britishness’ defined by the most ignorant and bigoted amongst us.  I find it curious that the England national football team is playing the best I have seen it play for decades, and yet whilst walking down my street recently, I see no George Crosses or Union Jacks hanging from the windows that fervently supported St George earlier in the year!  Why is this?  Could it be that the ‘white’ racists who support the BNP and UKIP, etc, refuse to acknowledge a multicultural England squad simply because of the skin-colour of many of it fine players?

%d bloggers like this: