Skip to content or view screen version

North East BNP members exposed.

Anon | 01.09.2013 19:41 | Anti-racism | World

Muriel and Natasha Malley are known North East BNP activists and have connections with the NF. Introducing the master race family the Malleys!

Muriel Malley (left) Natasha Malley (right) at Subway BNP demonstration
Muriel Malley (left) Natasha Malley (right) at Subway BNP demonstration

Natasha Malley (left) at Northern Patriotic Front/NF demonstration
Natasha Malley (left) at Northern Patriotic Front/NF demonstration

'Souvenirs of Tunisia' Muriel Malley (left) Natasha Malley (right
'Souvenirs of Tunisia' Muriel Malley (left) Natasha Malley (right

Peter King (left) Natasha Malley(centre) Muriel Malley (right)
Peter King (left) Natasha Malley(centre) Muriel Malley (right)

Natasha Malley
Natasha Malley

Peter King
Peter King

Muriel Malley
Muriel Malley

Peter King
Peter King


Introducing the master race family Muriel and Natasha Malley from Ashington, Northumberland.

Muriel and Natasha Malley are known North East BNP activists. Natasha Malley is also known to be in contact with the National Front/NPF and has attended National Front and Northern Patriotic Front demonstrations.

Prior before Muriel and Natasha were to attend the second protest outside the Subway outlet in Pallion,Sunderland on the 25th August; they jetted off to Sousse,Tunisia with fascist friend Peter King from Hartlepool for a holiday.

Additionally the Malley's also visited Disneyland Paris later on in December 2012. So much for eating Tunisian cuisine in the Middle East while to also protest against a single Subway outlet which sells Halal Meat.

Fascist groups like the BNP and the National Front are anti-working class. All they ever do is stir up racism and divide the working class against itself so that the rich can continue to shaft us.

It wasn't immigrants who shut down the pits or the shipyards: it was the Tories. It was Labour who sold off all the public housing stock and brought in workfare. Know your REAL enemy: it's the boss class scum, not immigrants.

Residents of our cities have a right to know what is going on in their midst, and take steps to protect themselves from the kind of weirdoes who will be attracted by these events put on by the likes of the BNP.

Muriel Malley:-
6 Fallowfield Way,
Ashington,
Northumberland,
NE63 8LD



Peter King:-
Wynyard Road,
Hartlepool

Anon

Comments

Hide 8 hidden comments or hide all comments

Not really good enough

01.09.2013 19:59

There's no proof here these lot are NF or BNP, and the only evidence that pertains to whether they're racist or not are photos of them holidaying in a Muslim country and a photo of one them getting on famously with a Tunisian guy! I you havn't got better evidence then posts like these are just gossip

Mr Holmes

What a waste of time

02.09.2013 15:05

What a waste of time as you say there are more important matters to deal with than alledged right wing tittle tattle cuts,jobs,nhs,education etc etc,get real

Ed

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Written by 'anon' - as you would expect of course

02.09.2013 23:35

Pathetic.

What's your NAME poster ?

Is this the best you can dig up ? How totally pathetic.

Typical of the jibberings of a middle-class champagne socialist with shit-for-brains.

Roger Stevens
mail e-mail: r_stevens_123@hotmail.co.uk

no evidence

03.09.2013 19:50

no evidence? top picture bnp protest. second picture nf protest.

sherlock

Evidence of racism?

04.09.2013 06:25

Where is evidence of racist behaviour here? Seems to me this is someone who knows her with a personal grudge? Ex partner? Something very stalker about posting peoples holiday pics too

Holly

BNP and NF demos are not racist?

04.09.2013 16:48

Attending BNP and NF demos are not signs of racist behaviour? Besides, take a look at their Facebook accounts, full of right-wing/racist/nationalist shite. These pictures are also on Facebook so perhaps the person who put them up could have got them from there as opposed to he/she being a jealous ex-partner?

Anon

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Illegal to publish photos of a Minor.

07.05.2014 20:28

Dear Sirs,

I advise you remove the photos you have published. I feel you must be made aware of the following facts to support removal of the photos.

* Natasha is a minor and the photos you have published are of her in a semi naked state aged 14, and 15yrs.

* It is illegal to use photos of a minor without their parents permission or if the young person is still under 18yrs you still need their permission both of which you have not been
given.

* To publish photos of a minor in a state of undress can either direct or indirect be at risk of being used on websites or publications. These photos run the risk of being used inappropriately, copied or adapted.

* You have put Natasha's safety at risk by publishing full name and address of a child under 18yrs.

* Natasha is still legally a child and posting of any pictures is a breach of her privacy.

* Your actions have been reported to CEOP (Child Exploitation & Online Protection) and Northumbria Police will be informed of your post later today.

I am shocked that your publication has shown little regard for Child Protection and Safeguarding of a minor with this unprofessional article. I hope all pictures of Natasha are removed from your site immediately before your site is associated with putting children in danger.

Mrs. Bell



Mrs. Bell

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Child Protection Pictures & details of a Minor

10.05.2014 20:20

Dear Sirs,
Whilst I appreciate your effort to remain within the legal realms of the law in regard to giving out information of a minor (under 18yrs old) and acknowledge you have removed pictures of Natasha in a semi state of undress and removed the details of her address, you still have named this young female (who is still classified as a child) throughout your article.
Each picture with Natasha in not only should be removed but her name should be removed from every mention in your pictures and written article.
As I stated in my previous correspondence this is a child protection issue and no young person is allowed to have their pictures and name published without their parents or their permission.
You seem to be insistent on leaving details of the address on your article when it is clear Natasha is with her mum and in all intensive purposes this is still her address you are displaying.
As my previous letter detailed this is being investigated by CEOP (Child Exploitation & Online Protection) and has been reported to Northumbria Police.
Your article is still in breach of basic Child Protection and Safeguarding of a minor in this unprofessional article
Yours faithfully
Mrs. Bell

Mrs. Bell

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

ILLEGAL PICTURES OF A MINOR (UNDER 18YR OLD)

13.05.2014 16:08

Dear Sirs,

(3RD REQUEST TO HAVE ILLEGAL PICTURES OF A MINOR (UNDER 18YRS OF AGE) REMOVED, DUE TO MY PREVIOUS LETTER BEING REMOVED)

Im shocked that my request for you to abide within the law in regard to CHILD PROTECTION appears to take second place to your belief you have a journalistic story. Their is indeed a story here, you are breaking the LAW for SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN.

Whilst I appreciate your effort to remain within the legal realms of the law in regard to giving out information of a minor (under 18yrs old) and acknowledge you have removed pictures of Natasha in a semi state of undress and removed the details of her address, you still have named this young female (who is still classified as a child) throughout your article.
Each picture with Natasha in not only should be removed but her name should be removed from every mention in your pictures and written article.
As I stated in my previous correspondence this is a child protection issue and no young person is allowed to have their pictures and name published without their parents or their permission.
You seem to be insistent on leaving details of the address on your article when it is clear Natasha is with her mum and in all intensive purposes this is still her address you are displaying.
As my previous letter detailed this is being investigated by CEOP (Child Exploitation & Online Protection) and has been reported to Northumbria Police.
Your article is still in breach of basic Child Protection and Safeguarding of a minor in this unprofessional article
Yours faithfully
Mrs. Bell

Mrs. Bell

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

ILLEGAL PICTURES OF A MINOR (UNDER 18YR OLD)

13.05.2014 16:14

Dear Sirs,
(3RD REQUEST TO HAVE ILLEGAL PICTURES OF A MINOR (UNDER 18YRS OF AGE) REMOVED, DUE TO MY PREVIOUS LETTER BEING REMOVED)
Im shocked that my request for you to abide within the law in regard to CHILD PROTECTION appears to take second place to your belief you have a journalistic story. There is indeed a story here, you are breaking the LAW for SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN.
Whilst I appreciate your effort to remain within the legal realms of the law in regard to giving out information of a minor (under 18yrs old) and acknowledge you have removed pictures of Natasha in a semi state of undress and removed the details of her address, you still have named this young female (who is still classified as a child) throughout your article.
Each picture with Natasha in not only should be removed but her name should be removed from every mention in your pictures and written article.
As I stated in my previous correspondence this is a child protection issue and no young person is allowed to have their pictures and name published without their parents or their permission.
You seem to be insistent on leaving details of the address on your article when it is clear Natasha is with her mum and in all intensive purposes this is still her address you are displaying.
As my previous letter detailed this is being investigated by CEOP (Child Exploitation & Online Protection) and has been reported to Northumbria Police.
Your article is still in breach of basic Child Protection and Safeguarding of a minor in this unprofessional article
Yours faithfully
Mrs. Bell

Mrs. Bell

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

ILLEGAL PICTURES OF A MINOR (UNDER 18YR OLD)

13.05.2014 16:15

Dear Sirs,
(3RD REQUEST TO HAVE ILLEGAL PICTURES OF A MINOR (UNDER 18YRS OF AGE) REMOVED, DUE TO MY PREVIOUS LETTER BEING REMOVED)
Im shocked that my request for you to abide within the law in regard to CHILD PROTECTION appears to take second place to your belief you have a journalistic story. There is indeed a story here, you are breaking the LAW for SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN.
Whilst I appreciate your effort to remain within the legal realms of the law in regard to giving out information of a minor (under 18yrs old) and acknowledge you have removed pictures of Natasha in a semi state of undress and removed the details of her address, you still have named this young female (who is still classified as a child) throughout your article.
Each picture with Natasha in not only should be removed but her name should be removed from every mention in your pictures and written article.
As I stated in my previous correspondence this is a child protection issue and no young person is allowed to have their pictures and name published without their parents or their permission.
You seem to be insistent on leaving details of the address on your article when it is clear Natasha is with her mum and in all intensive purposes this is still her address you are displaying.
As my previous letter detailed this is being investigated by CEOP (Child Exploitation & Online Protection) and has been reported to Northumbria Police.
Your article is still in breach of basic Child Protection and Safeguarding of a minor in this unprofessional article
Yours faithfully
Mrs. Bell

Mrs. Bell

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

ILLEGAL PICTURES OF A MINOR (UNDER 18YR OLD)

16.05.2014 14:08

Dear Sirs,
(4th REQUEST TO HAVE ILLEGAL PICTURES OF A MINOR (UNDER 18YRS OF AGE) REMOVED, DUE TO MY PREVIOUS LETTER BEING REMOVED)
Im shocked that my request for you to abide within the law in regard to CHILD PROTECTION appears to take second place to your belief you have a journalistic story. There is indeed a story here, you are breaking the LAW for SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN.
Whilst I appreciate your effort to remain within the legal realms of the law in regard to giving out information of a minor (under 18yrs old) and acknowledge you have removed pictures of Natasha in a semi state of undress and removed the details of her address, you still have named this young female (who is still classified as a child) throughout your article.
Each picture with Natasha in not only should be removed but her name should be removed from every mention in your pictures and written article.
As I stated in my previous correspondence this is a child protection issue and no young person is allowed to have their pictures and name published without their parents or their permission.
You seem to be insistent on leaving details of the address on your article when it is clear Natasha is with her mum and in all intensive purposes this is still her address you are displaying.
As my previous letter detailed this is being investigated by CEOP (Child Exploitation & Online Protection) and has been reported to Northumbria Police.
Your article is still in breach of basic Child Protection and Safeguarding of a minor in this unprofessional article
Yours faithfully
Mrs. Bell

Mrs Bell

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

ILLEGAL PICTURES OF A MINOR (UNDER 18YR OLD)

24.05.2014 16:57

Dear Sirs,
(4th REQUEST TO HAVE ILLEGAL PICTURES OF A MINOR (UNDER 18YRS OF AGE) REMOVED, DUE TO MY PREVIOUS LETTER BEING REMOVED)
Im shocked that my request for you to abide within the law in regard to CHILD PROTECTION appears to take second place to your belief you have a journalistic story. There is indeed a story here, you are breaking the LAW for SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN.
Whilst I appreciate your effort to remain within the legal realms of the law in regard to giving out information of a minor (under 18yrs old) and acknowledge you have removed pictures of Natasha in a semi state of undress and removed the details of her address, you still have named this young female (who is still classified as a child) throughout your article.
Each picture with Natasha in not only should be removed but her name should be removed from every mention in your pictures and written article.
As I stated in my previous correspondence this is a child protection issue and no young person is allowed to have their pictures and name published without their parents or their permission.
You seem to be insistent on leaving details of the address on your article when it is clear Natasha is with her mum and in all intensive purposes this is still her address you are displaying.
As my previous letter detailed this is being investigated by CEOP (Child Exploitation & Online Protection) and has been reported to Northumbria Police.
Your article is still in breach of basic Child Protection and Safeguarding of a minor in this unprofessional article
Yours faithfully
Mrs. Bell

Mrs. Bell

Hide 8 hidden comments or hide all comments