PDA

View Full Version : BNP



JACKTARD
26-06-2009, 07:57 PM
The British Nationalist Party,

Personally i am the minority who support the BNP, this is for too many reasons to put down here, some of the reasons could offend. They are NOT RACIST reasons.

I know there is a huge argument surrounding the BNP, please keep it clean but what do you all think?

dirrty
26-06-2009, 08:07 PM
if you wish to have a debate regarding the BNP, then surely the best thing is to post why you support them :S

Robbie
26-06-2009, 08:10 PM
Exactly, before I enter a debate as to why the BNP is wrong and rip your reasons to shreds, I need to read your reasons ;)

buttons
26-06-2009, 08:30 PM
Well, you're not alone because I do too - I just never say anything because unfortunately here you can't have your own opinion without someone else trying to bring it down, before I start all I'm saying is I don't care too much for politics and I probably won't understand anything that anyone replies, I can't be bothered with a debate but if you want reasons these are mine.

- Immigration - The BNP are the only party at the moment I've seen actually wanting to put a stop to it, I want this too. Why do immigrants bother coming to UK? There are plenty of places around them they can seek refuge and that's all I have to say on that

- Withdrawal from EU - The BNP are actually going to use the money we get on worthy projects and hopefully sort this recession crisis, like I have said I don't know much about policies and don't follow any other party polices, this is just appealing to me because it needs something done about it asap.

- Capital Punishment - I am 100% in favour of capital punishments, I don't care for second chances and I really think murderers/peado's/terrorists should be executed, simple really. Again, not debating as it's a totally separate issue and I just feel something needs to be done about crime in general.

- Fuel tax - Dunno much about this but always hear mum going on about, not sure if it's true though but they want to lower the price of fuel so er win there?

- Fishing industry - Where I live fishing was the biggest source of income but since it's been banned this place is totally ******* **** and full of druggys (and not to mention immigrants!!), if they restored it it'd make a huge difference round here even if this is one of their minor aims ^-^

Basically, I will not deny that I like the "racist" policies they have, this country should be ran by our people for our people, not others who come here to get away from their **** lifes and make it harder for people here. Elderly people are going to benefit and I'd rather they did then some foreign people we should have nothing to do with. They do kindof contradict themselves, wanting to spend so much money on defence and yet wanting to keep troops out of countries where we shouldn't be concerned. I'd rather our troops didn't have to risk their lives but whatever I guess not everythings good enough. I'm not denying they have racist tendencies but I think they're doing it for the best, I hardly know anything about politics so don't flame me ;_;

-:Undertaker:-
26-06-2009, 08:39 PM
A lot of their policies make sense, as stated above. I am against other policies such as nationalisation though and various others, as I believe in small state being a Conservative/UKIP supporter. They have shady characters in and do in my opinion go too far in a number of areas, but its not racist to control immigration/stop it and its not racist to be patriotic. They do however, have racists within the BNP and many of their offical policies can be seen as racist, however the state and ruling elite at the moment dont have a leg to stand on when it comes to that particular argument, as we have a BPOA and various other racial groups which have been set up under Labour, which in itself has created state racism and apartheid.

Robbie
26-06-2009, 08:40 PM
The problem with BNP's policies on immigration are all too clear. Without immigrants we wouldn't function. All the low-paid and low-skilled jobs that are small yet vital to keeping the country running, however the BNP just wan't an immigration blitz, which won't be good at all. All those low paid jobs they were doing that us Brit's don't want to do, who will do those?

Of course, the immigrants that do nothing and sponge off the system and are allowed to get away with it I have a problem with, and quite frankly, unlesss they have a proven disability they should be made to work or go. All the other immigrants that actually contribute to our country and economy I have no problem with :D

-:Undertaker:-
26-06-2009, 08:44 PM
The problem with BNP's policies on immigration are all too clear. Without immigrants we wouldn't function. All the low-paid and low-skilled jobs that are small yet vital to keeping the country running, however the BNP just wan't an immigration blitz, which won't be good at all. All those low paid jobs they were doing that us Brit's don't want to do, who will do those?

Of course, the immigrants that do nothing and sponge off the system and are allowed to get away with it I have a problem with, and quite frankly, unlesss they have a proven disability they should be made to work or go. All the other immigrants that actually contribute to our country and economy I have no problem with :D

We wouldn't cease to function, but it would hurt certain areas and help other areas. The issue with immigration is the open door policy that Labour has led and that is what winds people up. We don't need criminals, we dont need sponges and we dont need people that will take up jobs in areas of the jobs market which are already full.

This is why I support UKIPs policy, stop all immigration for five years whilst the mess that Labour and the European Union has created and then after that, introduce a scheme which would be similar to the United States' immigration policy and others, in which only people who are clean, hard working and needed are allowed in.

Caution
26-06-2009, 08:46 PM
I agree with them on some of it, mainly the points Jen posted and immigration because it's totally out of control now. I don't know much about politics so I don't know if they're strong enough to actually run the country though.

Japan
26-06-2009, 09:51 PM
Hitler didn't take over and say "Im going to rule you now"- he was voted in by the german public.
The BNP have some of the answers (or at least say they do) but underneath they are basically a facist party who believe in "Ethnic-cleansing"


We wouldn't cease to function, but it would hurt certain areas and help other areas. The issue with immigration is the open door policy that Labour has led and that is what winds people up. We don't need criminals, we dont need sponges and we dont need people that will take up jobs in areas of the jobs market which are already full.

This is why I support UKIPs policy, stop all immigration for five years whilst the mess that Labour and the European Union has created and then after that, introduce a scheme which would be similar to the United States' immigration policy and others, in which only people who are clean, hard working and needed are allowed in.

What do you mean by clean- Soapy clean or druggy clean?

Mentor
26-06-2009, 11:10 PM
Two facts people generally dont know about immigration.

You know at the hight of Britains power, when we had the empire.
We had a true open door policy, anyone who wanted to could come to Britain.

Then we decided to limit immigration... empire collaposed.

The same thing played out with the roman empire too...

Historically its played out that way quite a few times. Immigration is good for a society, it brings in about 3 billion a year now, and would be alot higher if we had a open door policy. Problem is they make an easy target to blame (like the jews did for Hitler) and generally because of are greed get the boot. Society then pretty much collapses.

Any economist will tell you immigration is good for a society, the more immigration there is (people bringing money and spending power in to the country) the better of that society generally is.

But most parties, like the BNP, ignore facts. As in reality they want to play the popularty game and get rich off it. None of em care about the effect it will actually have on are economy.

Capital Punishment? I'm personally not a fan of resorting to dark age style punishments, i prefer moving forwards not backwards. Killing people just isnt on my agenda. Equally it costs alot more than prison would, generally results in innocent people being killed, ands totally hypocritical.

EU wize, where in a good position as it is, i don't want the Euro, but currently an EU charter is pretty much the only thing standing before the UK and a police state the way things are heading. 1984 isn't my idea of an ideal lifestyle so having a body that can keep some control over the government isnt all bad :)

Partys like the BNP, just play the popularity game. Much like Hitler did. Equally they generally agree on alot of the policies too. None of which will do the country any good. People need to stop mindlessly agreeing and basing the opinion on prejudiced, learn the real facts and vote for a party run by people who actually give a crap what these are :)
My position on the BNP i suspect should be quite clear now.

Alkaz
26-06-2009, 11:19 PM
I like the BNP, some larger parties should adopt there policies.
You say immigration is good, tourists are good but immigrants taking money from the system isnt good. Nor is it them being able to send a large lump of that money home!

People from outside the UK who have children at home and they are working in the UK can claim child benefits for their child and send it home even though they are not in the country. My dad has been trying for 4 months to change the name of the person who claims this for my sister, thats just wrong in my opinion.

N!ck
26-06-2009, 11:27 PM
I'm sorry, but you need to read between the lines of what the BNP say and their policies. They are not directly racist as they would get in a lot of trouble for it. A lot of their policies do initially seem attractive and I like them at first. But actually look into how they plan on implimenting them and what they're going to do. I see why they are attractive to a lot of the members of this forum as we're young. But please, think. The BNP are very similar to the Nazi party. That's not necessarily a bad thing in some respects by the way.

Hecktix
26-06-2009, 11:30 PM
- Withdrawal from EU - The BNP are actually going to use the money we get on worthy projects and hopefully sort this recession crisis, like I have said I don't know much about policies and don't follow any other party polices, this is just appealing to me because it needs something done about it asap.



Don't quite see how the BNP can sort the recession. Every single BNP policy involves SPENDING money. There is NO clear definitive way of saving money, or how they will get the extra money they want to pay people to leave the country (that are actually british citizens:S), more hospital beds, lower taxes.. I just dont see how they are going to pay for it?

The BNP are racist facists. If you want to support a party that don't like the EU or Immigration, support UKIP.

The BNP aren't against immigrants, they are against people who aren't white.

For instance. I know someone who is British, however his skin is not white. His father is also British, his skin was not white either, his father's father is also British but his father's father's father immigrated here from India.

The BNP would pay my friend £40 000 (of OUR money) to leave the Country, even though he is British?

It's fair enough saying stop immigration, I see why people get annoyed with it but the BNP aren't looking to stop immigration, they are looking to clear this country of anybody that isn't of the 'British Gene' aka WHITE.

My opinion of the BNP is strictly no go.

I am part of groups against the BNP, and I will be attending several anti-BNP demonstrations over the summer :) Including one at the BNP's red white & blue festival.

-:Undertaker:-
26-06-2009, 11:57 PM
Two facts people generally dont know about immigration.

You know at the hight of Britains power, when we had the empire.
We had a true open door policy, anyone who wanted to could come to Britain.

Then we decided to limit immigration... empire collaposed.

The same thing played out with the roman empire too...

Historically its played out that way quite a few times. Immigration is good for a society, it brings in about 3 billion a year now, and would be alot higher if we had a open door policy. Problem is they make an easy target to blame (like the jews did for Hitler) and generally because of are greed get the boot. Society then pretty much collapses.

Any economist will tell you immigration is good for a society, the more immigration there is (people bringing money and spending power in to the country) the better of that society generally is.

But most parties, like the BNP, ignore facts. As in reality they want to play the popularty game and get rich off it. None of em care about the effect it will actually have on are economy.

Capital Punishment? I'm personally not a fan of resorting to dark age style punishments, i prefer moving forwards not backwards. Killing people just isnt on my agenda. Equally it costs alot more than prison would, generally results in innocent people being killed, ands totally hypocritical.

EU wize, where in a good position as it is, i don't want the Euro, but currently an EU charter is pretty much the only thing standing before the UK and a police state the way things are heading. 1984 isn't my idea of an ideal lifestyle so having a body that can keep some control over the government isnt all bad :)

Partys like the BNP, just play the popularity game. Much like Hitler did. Equally they generally agree on alot of the policies too. None of which will do the country any good. People need to stop mindlessly agreeing and basing the opinion on prejudiced, learn the real facts and vote for a party run by people who actually give a crap what these are :)
My position on the BNP i suspect should be quite clear now.

The Empire did not collapse because of immigration policy, infact there wasn't an open door policy to Britain as the whole point of the colonies was to control them but not allow them to be part of the United Kingdom, hence control. You have made this up to prove a point, when the collapse of the Empire had nothing to do with immigration.

The 1980s were not a police state, infact we are now a police state than we have ever been. The reforms Thatcher brought in ment the government had less control than it had ever done over nearly every aspect of life. The amount of cameras, CCTV, government powers and regulations from whitehall and the European Union now, are more than they have ever been.

Dark age style punishment? - no its called justice, its better than now with murderers and criminals getting two years 'life'. That isn't justice, thats disgusting. Justice isn't hypocritical, you murder someone you have your life taken by the state - simple as that. If we dont have the death penalty back, then we at least need tougher prison sentences with an end to the luxaries prisoners get in prison.

Immigration figures do not include the expenses of benefits, National Health Service costs, police costs, prison costs and other costs which are exploited by a large number of immigrations. A lot of immigrants do come here for benefits and so forth, hence why they travel over numerous seas/countrys to come here. The costs also do not include the negative impact a lot of them are having on peoples lives in which communties have become replicas of Poland, Pakistan and so forth.

In conclusion, immigration can only be profitable and good for this country if its controlled and we take in people who we need.

Mentor
27-06-2009, 12:39 AM
The Empire did not collapse because of immigration policy, infact there wasn't an open door policy to Britain as the whole point of the colonies was to control them but not allow them to be part of the United Kingdom, hence control. You have made this up to prove a point, when the collapse of the Empire had nothing to do with immigration.
Its a correlation, not a causation, the second world war also played a big part. Though what i have said is true, the colonies were the Britain. Just as Scotland, england, wales etc are still Britain. They were all part of the British empire, everyone in them was a British citizen, anyone of them, if they wished, could move straight in to england if they wished, just as any Englishman could move to any of the British colonies.

The British empire was powerful because it included everyone. Rather than excluding people with immigration laws, we let them join Britain, let them work and bring there skills in. There is no downside to that.
It worked for the romans and every other major empire that has ever existed. The US is only a super power now as a side effect of its initial open boarders policy.


The 1980s were not a police state, infact we are now a police state than we have ever been. The reforms Thatcher brought in ment the government had less control than it had ever done over nearly every aspect of life. The amount of cameras, CCTV, government powers and regulations from whitehall and the European Union now, are more than they have ever been.
Please tell me your jokeing and know what 1984 is >.< (clue: very very famous book)


Dark age style punishment? - no its called justice, its better than now with murderers and criminals getting two years 'life'. That isn't justice, thats disgusting.
So someone kills someone, your idea of justice is kill them? does that not logically equate to you deserving to be killed too?

Prison isnt fun and is a punishment. Just because its not some sort of blood fueled vendetta of vengeance, doesn't make it any less justice. In fact it makes it more justice.

The dark age style killings arnt the mark of a civilized country.

Justice isn't hypocritical, you murder someone you have your life taken by the state - simple as that. If we dont have the death penalty back, then we at least need tougher prison sentences with an end to the luxaries prisoners get in prison.
Vengeance !== justice.
The concept works on the idea we are better than the people who go around killing and causing suffering. And thus stop these people from being a danger and punish them. But don't drop to there level and kill and cause undue suffering to them,


Immigration figures do not include the expenses of benefits, National Health Service costs, police costs, prison costs and other costs which are exploited by a large number of immigrations.
Yes they do?

A lot of immigrants do come here for benefits and so forth, hence why they travel over numerous seas/countrys to come here. The costs also do not include the negative impact a lot of them are having on peoples lives in which communties have become replicas of Poland, Pakistan and so forth.
The amount of able bodied immigrants not working and receiving benefits can actually be counted on one hand.. literally. I belive in the UK today there are about 4. Its a totally myth with no basis in reality.


In conclusion, immigration can only be profitable and good for this country if its controlled and we take in people who we need.
Controlled immigration has never worked, an open doors policy has always worked. Historically that is.
Gaining workers and skills cannot cause a net loss. The only argument against them is from lazy uneducated idiots who expect to get payed a lot without having to do any real work. Then blame immigrants on the lack of jobs like this existing. They could easily get a job scrubbing toilets if they wanted, but most of em would rather do bugger all and live of the state. The exact thing they end up accusing the immigrants who are doing these jobs of doing.

-:Undertaker:-
27-06-2009, 12:55 AM
Its a correlation, not a causation, the second world war also played a big part. Though what i have said is true, the colonies were the Britain. Just as Scotland, england, wales etc are still Britain. They were all part of the British empire, everyone in them was a British citizen, anyone of them, if they wished, could move straight in to england if they wished, just as any Englishman could move to any of the British colonies.

The British empire was powerful because it included everyone. Rather than excluding people with immigration laws, we let them join Britain, let them work and bring there skills in. There is no downside to that.
It worked for the romans and every other major empire that has ever existed. The US is only a super power now as a side effect of its initial open boarders policy.


Please tell me your jokeing and know what 1984 is >.< (clue: very very famous book)


So someone kills someone, your idea of justice is kill them? does that not logically equate to you deserving to be killed too?

Prison isnt fun and is a punishment. Just because its not some sort of blood fueled vendetta of vengeance, doesn't make it any less justice. In fact it makes it more justice.

The dark age style killings arnt the mark of a civilized country.

Vengeance !== justice.
The concept works on the idea we are better than the people who go around killing and causing suffering. And thus stop these people from being a danger and punish them. But don't drop to there level and kill and cause undue suffering to them,


Yes they do?

The amount of able bodied immigrants not working and receiving benefits can actually be counted on one hand.. literally. I belive in the UK today there are about 4. Its a totally myth with no basis in reality.


Controlled immigration has never worked, an open doors policy has always worked. Historically that is.
Gaining workers and skills cannot cause a net loss. The only argument against them is from lazy uneducated idiots who expect to get payed a lot without having to do any real work. Then blame immigrants on the lack of jobs like this existing. They could easily get a job scrubbing toilets if they wanted, but most of em would rather do bugger all and live of the state. The exact thing they end up accusing the immigrants who are doing these jobs of doing.

Everyone in the British Empire were not granted citzenship of the United Kingdom, otherwise a lot of them would of came here but were not allowed. The British were granted citzenship in the colonies as they travelled there to invest and the colonial governments were controlled by the monarch, British Raj etc.

In those days people emmigrated/travelled to other countrys to work, the United States never had, and still doesn't have a benefits system such as we had, therefore the people who worked moved there, hence why it became a superpower.

I wrote a comment on your reputation to correct myself, Jordy (forum member told me you ment the book and not the year) :P.

That is indeed my idea of justice, you kill a little girl you deserve nothing better than death. It is not dropping to their level as they have killed someone for no reason/when it is illegal, however they are being killed for a reason, for committing a terrible crime.

They don't, its been shown a lot of times that immigration figures/crime figures from this government do not include key areas when working out statistics, therefore I wouldn't believe any figures this government throws out.

It is not a total myth at all, the real myth is that we gain massively from uncontrolled immigration when we do not, criminals/terrorists and all sorts of people are getting into this country. The state will not allow illegal/legal immigrations to starve and do give them benefits and housing, you can see it in areas such as Birmingham and others around the country where council housing is now used to house these people.

Controlled immigration does work, nearly every other country except ours has some sort of controlled immigration policy and are not on their knees.

GommeInc
27-06-2009, 11:46 PM
So someone kills someone, your idea of justice is kill them? does that not logically equate to you deserving to be killed too?

Prison isnt fun and is a punishment. Just because its not some sort of blood fueled vendetta of vengeance, doesn't make it any less justice. In fact it makes it more justice.

The dark age style killings arnt the mark of a civilized country.
Indeed. Surely using that logic (which loads of people do), whoever did the first killing probably wanted "justice" because the person they killed had done something bad too. So for example:

Person A had his dog kicked in the park by person B.
Person A wants justice for his dog. He kills person B.
Person A is then killed, because the people who knew person B and the courts of justice want justice for his murder, therefore they kill person A by letting a person C, who is legally allowed to kill person A to kill him.

It's one huge line of contradictions/irony/hypocrisy (whatever, tired) when the "justice" one-liner is used in this discussion.

I support re-habilitation and/or tougher prison sentences, where prisons are horrifically bad and not fit for a nun. Small, cramped and lonely. The prison service could double their space if they shrunk prisons by half for cramped environments.

-:Undertaker:-
28-06-2009, 12:17 AM
However 'Person C' has the right of the state to throw the switch/etc and has not committed illegal murder to by granted execution himself. The way I see it, if you kill someone in cold blood, totally unprovoked then you deserve execution. As for your point on prisons I totally agree, if we're not to have the death penalty then we should at least have a real life sentence used and prisons should be like prisons, rather than holiday camps with art class/gym/etc.

Bun
28-06-2009, 10:28 AM
reading this thread has worried me, the support the BNP is getting is scaringly increasing.

alexxxxx
28-06-2009, 10:31 AM
The BNP do not make sense and would for sure ruin the country. They want to increase public spending by a ridiculous amount (we already spend some of the largest amounts of money in the world on the army per capita, yet they believe it's nessasary even when they want to pull us out of wars and yet somehow cut everyone's taxes. They want to send immigrants and sons and daughters of immigrants of those with british passports back to their origin.

The immigrants taking from the system is a myth. A real big lie. Barely any immigrants can claim benefits at all. Buttons made the first mistake of grouping asylum seekers and immigrants, they AREN'T the same thing. Asylum seekers claim benefits because they aren't allowed to work at all. Also, I don't have problems with immigration at all.

Some people don't like people who aren't white, some people don't like people who aren't from western europe, some people don't like people who aren't british, some people don't like people who aren't english, some people don't like people who aren't from yorkshire, some people don't like people who aren't from sheffield, some people don't like people from different parts of sheffield. Where do you stop?

Open-door immigration, free trade, open borders makes perfect sense economically.

Capital Punishment is vile. It appeals to bloodthirsty vengance seekers.

The BNP hate gays, jews and anyone who isn't of northern/western european heritage. They appeal to the working class because they give answers to 'BROKEN BRITAIN OMG' articles in the Daily Mail and The Sun who scapegoat everything on immigrants, PC-RUBBISH, nu-lierbore, teenagers, social workers and the eu and the bbc.

-:Undertaker:-
28-06-2009, 02:10 PM
They would ruin the country, and as you said especially on spending although Labour is already doing that for us. The immigrants taking from the system is not a lie if it was a myth then the government wouldn't keep promising to tighten immigration. In those days and even now, they didn't/do not have the welfare system and therefore immigrants who have no intention of working will not go there, they will come to the United Kingdom as we do have the welfare system. Just take a look at where they come from, many travel across various oceans and landscapes just to get to the United Kingdom - I think that tells us a lot. The welfare state that we have, will not allow people to go on the streets and go hungry - fact.

It does not make sense economically at all, what does make sense is the type of policy that the United States and the majority of the world have in place, and that is controlled immigration. We do not need more sponges, and especially do not need more criminals in this country. The British Empire didn't have an complete open door policy (and those who travelled here and across the Empire to work had no option but to work - as the welfare state was non-existant), the United States doesn't and any developed country it seems, except ours, has that type of "anyone welcome" policy.

If you leave all that aside regardless of economics, the fact still remains that people do not want uncontrolled immigration, they want some level of control. A lot of these people do not intergrate with the community, they move to areas where other foreign populations live - that is not multi-cultural, that is apartheid in its early stages.

The Daily Mail and The Sun and other newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph are conservative leaning newspapers and do appeal to the middle class, hence middle england. Middle England is what decides elections and the fact that the Conservative leaning newspapers are some of the best selling newspapers in the country just goes to prove that people are sick of Labour telling lies, people do not want European Union, people want an end to this PC culture that this government & the EU have inflicted on us. The BNP does not appeal to those papers as it actually appeals to Labour voters more, its policies are more in line with the policies of Labour in the past. BNP are the alternative for Labour voters and UKIP are the alternative for Conservative voters, that is the general picture it seems anyway.

alexxxxx
28-06-2009, 04:15 PM
the reason why they have to say they are going to be 'stong on immigration' is because of the rubbish that is circulated in the media about immigrants. Asylum seekers get £33.77 a week. That's it. That's all. 30% below the poverty line. No penthouse suit in the city, no mini cooper. Immigrants from non-eu countries get almost nothing. And those from the EU, we get refunded from their government. So really, yes it's a myth.

i know it's the mirror and it's a rag, but at least it puts things into perspective: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/01/22/britain-s-immigration-myths-exploded-by-new-study-115875-21060227/

http://www.naar.org.uk/resources/PDFs/ASYLUMletter%20writing%20pack.pdf

What's so different about the USA to us? It's hard (but not impossible) to get a visa PLUS they have more immigrants as a percentage of the population than us! You make it sound like that if you turn up at heathrow, we'll give them a passport and some house keys whilst they pick up their luggage!

A LOT is not ALL. A LOT of british immigrants (oh i mean ex-pats) go and live in spain and just are friends with british people. Yet there are some who live with the spanish and integrate. It's both ways.

The daily mail is a rag. It often makes up rubbish. It has been sued on many occasions. It never says the two sides to each story.

-:Undertaker:-
28-06-2009, 04:27 PM
They are getting £33.77 too much then, and when you put into perpective how many of them their must be (the government itself doesn't even know) then its just mind blowing. This doesn't even include the ones who turn to crime, and i'm telling it how it is; a lot of people in prison are not orginally from this country. That is a problem from immigration.

We may get 'refunded' from their government, but I can gurantee that won't include the costs/damages they have done with drugs, crime and so forth, and it wouldn't matter anyway if we got a small refund from their government - we pay their governments billions in the European Union!

No of course we don't, we don't have any control of the situation at all. The United States is far bigger and is tackling its immigration whereas we are not, the difference between the ones in the United States and the United Kingdom is that the ones who go to the United States have no option but to work/will not control crime, because the United States do not have a welfare system like we do and the United States will deport anyone who commits crime/won't allow them in in the first place.

I do not accept that study as it claims racial ghettos are a myth when they are not, a lot of migrants do intergrate and thats fine, they should be allowed to stay as long as they do not commit crime/contribute to this country, however racial ghettos do exist and that is not multi-culturalism.

We're not claiming that we should ban all immigration, of course not as that isn't fair and would damage our economy. What I, Conservatives, UKIP, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and most importantly, the people of this country are asking for is some level of control to stop the criminals/sponges gaining access to the United Kingdom. It isn't rubbish to have control, its common sense.

I can gurantee if it keeps going the way it is now under Labour, in thirty years we will see racial clashes like France had - and that is the last thing we want.

alexxxxx
28-06-2009, 04:48 PM
They are getting £33.77 too much then, and when you put into perpective how many of them their must be (the government itself doesn't even know) then its just mind blowing. This doesn't even include the ones who turn to crime, and i'm telling it how it is; a lot of people in prison are not orginally from this country. That is a problem from immigration.

IF ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE ALLOWED A JOB, THEY WOULD DO SO. ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE DOCUMENTED OR THEY WOULDN'T GET ANYTHING AT ALL THEREFORE THEY MUST KNOW HOW MANY THERE ARE BECAUSE THEY GIVE THEM MONEY. ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE HERE LEGALLY. IF WE WANTED TO CLAIM ASYLUM IN ANOTHER COUNTRY WE CAN IF WE HAD DECENT GROUNDS... You think that someonw who will REALLY be killed if they stayed in their home country, but made it here, should be allowed to starve? Alright. OK.


We may get 'refunded' from their government, but I can gurantee that won't include the costs/damages they have done with drugs, crime and so forth, and it wouldn't matter anyway if we got a small refund from their government - we pay their governments billions in the European Union!
Oh for heaven's sake. The hundreds of thousands of people who go to Ibiza every year take drugs and go clubbing. People get into fights with locals on holiday, they get arrested. When I was on holiday in CROATIA (not even the EU), my aunt needed to go to the hospital for VITAL blood treatment or she would die. Guess what, no charge, no forms. Insurance company didn't pay, neither did our government. It was because of a recripricol agreement. Not everyone in the entire world would be queuing up at callais docks if we allowed them all in.


No of course we don't, we don't have any control of the situation at all. The United States is far bigger and is tackling its immigration whereas we are not, the difference between the ones in the United States and the United Kingdom is that the ones who go to the United States have no option but to work/will not control crime, because the United States do not have a welfare system like we do and the United States will deport anyone who commits crime/won't allow them in in the first place.
The USA DOES have a welfare system. They have higher numbers of immigrants, numerically and per capita. They aren't even a member of a free-movemnt of people bloc, so it's not like they even move over the border. They just let them in. People who come here have no option but to work because they can't claim.

http://www.refugee-action.org.uk/information/challengingthemyths2.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-c6zGKx-30

-:Undertaker:-
28-06-2009, 05:29 PM
I am sorry, but quite frankly I do not think this country should be forced to accept asylum seekers who have criminal records, infact I think we should have a limit on them. There are around 150 other countrys in the world they can go to, they do not need to come here. We should not be paying for them, and we shouldn't be paying for illegals either. The illegal situation is out of control, people want control.

They do indeed, and we don't need problems like that here. Infact the problems brought here are far worse, because they include criminal gangs of asylum seekers selling drugs and so forth, they are far worse than any of the people who go clubbing. Our prisons have a lot of foreigners/people who weren't born here in them - that is telling us something.

The United States and most countrys have a welfare system, however their systems are nowhere near as extensive as ours, that is why the United Kingdom is known for its welfare system. Why do you honestly think these people travel across the whole of Europe/Africa/Asia, then cross the English Channel to come here? - there is something we have, or haven't that other countrys have, control.

This is just like the European Union issue, people want control yet it seems you are fine with having uncontrolled immigration like we have now, as usual not taking into account what the people want.

Dan2nd
28-06-2009, 05:40 PM
I used to like some of their policies but since watching "Wives of the BNP" on Sky 1 I changed my mind...

These women thought it was ok to set up stalls in the middle of a busy high street and preach against the building of a mosque... thats fair enough I'm all for free speech but when ever they were asked to explain their views they got defensive and would make remarks like 'fine you can marry, **** them, and have little brats with them.. as long as you leave the country'.

They even had some sort of 'BNP fun fair' which looked like a normal fun fair where families got to go on rides etc however the camera crew were asked to leave by the party leader so members could 'talk without fear of saying the wrong thing'.

Whilst I wouldn't go as far as saying they are all racists and anyone who votes BNP is racist to I do think its slightly worrying the way some of these people behave..

-:Undertaker:-
28-06-2009, 05:53 PM
The British National Party do have shady characters in and indeed many are racist from within it, however I completely oppose banning that party as its democratically elected and why should the BNP be banned when other extreme partys such as the Communist Partys & Socialist Partys are allowed to run, when they are far more dangerous than the BNP.

That is why i'd always say to people to go for UKIP, then again a lot of BNP supporters tend to be from the old Labour and would never vote for a party which was Thatcherite in idealogy.

ifuseekamy
28-06-2009, 07:28 PM
The British National Party do have shady characters in and indeed many are racist from within it, however I completely oppose banning that party as its democratically elected and why should the BNP be banned when other extreme partys such as the Communist Partys & Socialist Partys are allowed to run, when they are far more dangerous than the BNP.

That is why i'd always say to people to go for UKIP, then again a lot of BNP supporters tend to be from the old Labour and would never vote for a party which was Thatcherite in idealogy.
Democracy is an ironic system though. Even the BNP themselves admit they will use the democratic laws in place now though they have no intention of carrying them through if they got into power. For example having to complete 2 years of military national service to be officially regarded as a citizen and have access to voting and the NHS. Aside from that it's a party of idiots who idolise Hitler and claim rape against women is a myth, enough said really.

alexxxxx
28-06-2009, 07:37 PM
I am sorry, but quite frankly I do not think this country should be forced to accept asylum seekers who have criminal records, infact I think we should have a limit on them. There are around 150 other countrys in the world they can go to, they do not need to come here. We should not be paying for them, and we shouldn't be paying for illegals either. The illegal situation is out of control, people want control.

You can't put limits on asylum seekers. Some of these people GENUINELY have reasons to move. Not all of those 150 world countries are safe PLUS not EVERY asylum seeker in whole world comes here. We hold less than 2% of all the asylum seekers in the whole world. TWO PERCENT. TWO. And we hold less than the average european rate per capita.


They do indeed, and we don't need problems like that here. Infact the problems brought here are far worse, because they include criminal gangs of asylum seekers selling drugs and so forth, they are far worse than any of the people who go clubbing. Our prisons have a lot of foreigners/people who weren't born here in them - that is telling us something.

You make these sound like they are problems unique to the UK. They aren't. Our criminal gangs (ie, british people) operate abroad all the time. They often run off to mainland europe, inc spain and greece. I can't find numbers of foreigners stuck in jail in other countries, but there are over 2500 british in foreign jails.


The United States and most countrys have a welfare system, however their systems are nowhere near as extensive as ours, that is why the United Kingdom is known for its welfare system. Why do you honestly think these people travel across the whole of Europe/Africa/Asia, then cross the English Channel to come here? - there is something we have, or haven't that other countrys have, control.

They don't all cross the english channel. Many stop in mainland europe and many stop in the next safest country.


This is just like the European Union issue, people want control yet it seems you are fine with having uncontrolled immigration like we have now, as usual not taking into account what the people want.
As someone has said before, we DO have controlled immigration, we were once at a very different type of immigrantion in the 50s/60s.

It's sad to see your mind has been taken over by Richard Littlejohn as he preaches over broken britain in his house in Florida. An immigrant himself.

Plank
28-06-2009, 07:43 PM
reading this thread has worried me, the support the BNP is getting is scaringly increasing.
Me too, most of their votes come from people who probably don't fully understand them though, or they are just 'stuck in their ways' as it were. But they will never be in power so I'm not really worried.

tdi
30-06-2009, 12:50 AM
it's nearly 2 in the morning, i'm tired, and i'm not arsed about how PC this is.

I do support the BNP (although yeah, I haven't looked into it much.. I support some of their policies.)

Immigration/Asylum Seekers - In a non-racist manner, there are too many illegal immigrants in this country, along with jobless, benefit-thieving dole spongers.

I fully support foreigners coming into this country to work. However, I do not when they cannot speak fluent english where you don't have to ask them to repeat the sentences. I also do not agree with them coming in and just living off dole (I also do not agree with british people doing this either.)

I'm lucky enough to have a full time job, but I was with my mate in subway and he's trying and trying to get a job, no such luck yet. We were served by a chinese woman, could hardly speak a word of english and he was annoyed (as was I) that she has come into the country and got a job, in customer service where customers are meant to understand what she's saying, and gets the job. my mate has many qualifications and can't find a job anywhere, and he can't get one.

Capital punishment again, I fully agree with it. This country needs to be tougher on serious crime such as murder, paedophilia, etc etc. Tougher crimes mean that these people will not foul our streets longer, it also acts as a better deterrent to the several years life sentence we currently have in place.

Fuel tax - £1.07 per litre.. I have nothing more to say.

Plank
30-06-2009, 06:39 AM
I seriously hope anyone that supports the BNP doesn't have any black or gay friends.

Mentor
30-06-2009, 05:40 PM
Capital punishment
I disagree with it, i think its hypocritical, barbaric and unjustifiable the place to debate it is here though: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=582268

Immigration/Asylum Seekers
There taking are jobs, we loose money, they all get benefits - These things a myths and outright lies. Stop listen to propaganda and look these things up yourself.
Immigration contributes nearly 3 billion in profit to are economy each year, the amount of able-bodied immigrates on benifits can litrallty be counted on one hand.
Countries with open boarder policys have always succeeded, countries that close them off and become xenophobia always collapse. The roman empire, british empire and pretty much every other empire ever to exist have all had open boarder policies.. this isnt a coincidence.

Jobs
There easy to get for anyone, the problem is alot of BNP supports and folks saying people are taking there jobs (Scrubbing the toilets, picking up litter) arnt having the jobs taken at all. They just think there too good for the crappy low paid jobs (the jobs generally filled by immigrants who are happy to earn a living) and try for good jobs, which they cant get due to often having poor education and competing againts others who work harder for them

I'm against the BNP and disagree with near all its policy. It is little better than thinly veiled fascism, with a strong element of racism and ignorance mixed in The great majory of there support base exist only because many of the people have no idea what they are truely supporting. The fact they run there campaign as if there reading straight from Hitlers diary is also some what worrying.

I will bet there are more BNP supporters on benifits than there are immigrants :)

Accidental double posts merged :) ~ Robbie!

RandomManJay
07-07-2009, 01:48 PM
Capital punishment
I disagree with it, i think its hypocritical, barbaric and unjustifiable the place to debate it is here though: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=582268

Immigration/Asylum Seekers
There taking are jobs, we loose money, they all get benefits - These things a myths and outright lies. Stop listen to propaganda and look these things up yourself.
Immigration contributes nearly 3 billion in profit to are economy each year, the amount of able-bodied immigrates on benifits can litrallty be counted on one hand.
Countries with open boarder policys have always succeeded, countries that close them off and become xenophobia always collapse. The roman empire, british empire and pretty much every other empire ever to exist have all had open boarder policies.. this isnt a coincidence.

Jobs
There easy to get for anyone, the problem is alot of BNP supports and folks saying people are taking there jobs (Scrubbing the toilets, picking up litter) arnt having the jobs taken at all. They just think there too good for the crappy low paid jobs (the jobs generally filled by immigrants who are happy to earn a living) and try for good jobs, which they cant get due to often having poor education and competing againts others who work harder for them

I'm against the BNP and disagree with near all its policy. It is little better than thinly veiled fascism, with a strong element of racism and ignorance mixed in The great majory of there support base exist only because many of the people have no idea what they are truely supporting. The fact they run there campaign as if there reading straight from Hitlers diary is also some what worrying.

I will bet there are more BNP supporters on benifits than there are immigrants :)

Accidental double posts merged :) ~ Robbie!

I fully agree with eveything you've said here, most political parties change their views and opinions over time, but the BNP is one which, for the most part, has kept its fundamental values unchanged, but simply altered their image to gain approval. Personally I wouldn't want to see the country run by the BNP because like Mentor said, it could end badly for the nation.

The UK is one of the largest multi-ethnic hubs in the world and is quite possibly the most stable as well, the BNP seeks to remove this stability by either rejecting entry or funding individuals to leave the country, slowing down our ethnic growth in exchange for improving the status of british individuals in our and neighbouring countries, they do not believe that immigrants, legal or otherwise should deserve the equal opportunities british citizens have simply because they are not british, despite their education, experience of former economic status. To put is simply but rather harshly, british citizens should be 1st Class while immigrants should be Working Class regardless of anything other than ethnic origin.

Dan2nd
07-07-2009, 05:02 PM
it's nearly 2 in the morning, i'm tired, and i'm not arsed about how PC this is.

I do support the BNP (although yeah, I haven't looked into it much.. I support some of their policies.)

Immigration/Asylum Seekers - In a non-racist manner, there are too many illegal immigrants in this country, along with jobless, benefit-thieving dole spongers.

I fully support foreigners coming into this country to work. However, I do not when they cannot speak fluent english where you don't have to ask them to repeat the sentences. I also do not agree with them coming in and just living off dole (I also do not agree with british people doing this either.)

I'm lucky enough to have a full time job, but I was with my mate in subway and he's trying and trying to get a job, no such luck yet. We were served by a chinese woman, could hardly speak a word of english and he was annoyed (as was I) that she has come into the country and got a job, in customer service where customers are meant to understand what she's saying, and gets the job. my mate has many qualifications and can't find a job anywhere, and he can't get one.

Capital punishment again, I fully agree with it. This country needs to be tougher on serious crime such as murder, paedophilia, etc etc. Tougher crimes mean that these people will not foul our streets longer, it also acts as a better deterrent to the several years life sentence we currently have in place.

Fuel tax - £1.07 per litre.. I have nothing more to say.

Perhaps your friend needs to look at himself instead of blaming others that he doesn't have a job... i'd suggest he practices interview techniques as it sounds like he just doesn't come accross well in interviews if he's really finding it hard to get a job...

Madox
07-07-2009, 05:56 PM
This Thread Worries me too, but im not worried at all coz i knowf or a fact not even 1/3 of the people who have poster here are not acttually allowed to vote in a genreal election beacuse it gose to show that children bellow the age of 18 are easily influanced by This so called " Mr Change Britan " (Dunno his name summin Griffin)

iAdam
07-07-2009, 07:04 PM
This Thread Worries me too, but im not worried at all coz i knowf or a fact not even 1/3 of the people who have poster here are not acttually allowed to vote in a genreal election beacuse it gose to show that children bellow the age of 18 are easily influanced by This so called " Mr Change Britan " (Dunno his name summin Griffin)

No but the people who can vote are even more influenced by them due to the promised reduced tax by reducing immigration. Plus, if you don't know the bare facts then don't slate them off.

Plank
07-07-2009, 07:06 PM
No but the people who can vote are even more influenced by them due to the promised reduced tax by reducing immigration. Plus, if you don't know the bare facts then don't slate them off.
But people do know that they are racist and homophobic, amongst other things. It is undeniable.

RandomManJay
07-07-2009, 07:58 PM
But people do know that they are racist and homophobic, amongst other things. It is undeniable.

That doesn't change their policies, it just means it will take more convincing (more radical policies and promises) to get someone to vote for them.

Plank
07-07-2009, 08:04 PM
That doesn't change their policies, it just means it will take more convincing (more radical policies and promises) to get someone to vote for them.
I know it doesn't change their policies, but if you vote for them you are voting for ALL their policies - you can't just pick and choose a few.

alexxxxx
07-07-2009, 08:20 PM
No but the people who can vote are even more influenced by them due to the promised reduced tax by reducing immigration. Plus, if you don't know the bare facts then don't slate them off.

reduced tax because of no-immigration!? The majority of immigrants only put into the system and don't take out! If anything taxes will have to increase because we'd have to train the unemployed to do jobs immigrants were doing and we'd have to pay the extra tax that they did pay.

the bnp are useless people.

Mentor
07-07-2009, 09:02 PM
reduced tax because of no-immigration!? The majority of immigrants only put into the system and don't take out! If anything taxes will have to increase because we'd have to train the unemployed to do jobs immigrants were doing and we'd have to pay the extra tax that they did pay.

the bnp are useless people.

True only an idiot could belive the BNP's claims. They want to reduce tax's while simulatinly massively uping spending and removing a good chunk of the hardworking tax paying population simply because they came from another country.

I'd much rather see the bnp leave along with its supporters than the immigrants. Immigrants generally work and contribute greatly to the economy. Removing the bnp on the other hand would probably just drop the hate crime rate a good few notches, + save some tax's as a good chunk of the BNP supporters are the jobless, benefit leaching slobs which they claim to be against (although in realty chances are its just an attempt to conceal there racist views a little)

LuketheDuke
07-07-2009, 09:06 PM
The BNP preach hatred.

So ykno not a kl party to believe in as that leads to the dark side.

iAdam
07-07-2009, 09:12 PM
reduced tax because of no-immigration!? The majority of immigrants only put into the system and don't take out! If anything taxes will have to increase because we'd have to train the unemployed to do jobs immigrants were doing and we'd have to pay the extra tax that they did pay.

the bnp are useless people.

So the criminal and illegal immigrants are paying taxes and working? Companies pay to train not the public and the jobs that immigrants fill are jobs such as litter picking and cleaning, these jobs require little if any training.

The BNP only say that they want to reduce immigration as because in common sense, becoming a minority in your own country is just obsured and should not be thought of anywhere. Hence why a whole lot of English citizens are emmigrating to foreign countries, are they racist too?

-:Undertaker:-
07-07-2009, 09:13 PM
Can I ask, how has this 'multi-cultural' image come about, because there are a hell of a lot of muslim, polish and so forth communities forming around the United Kingdom - that is the complete opposite of multi-culturalism.

Secondly, if having uncontrolled immigration is such a good benefit to this country, does that mean having criminals coming in as part of that also a good thing and also, if its such a good thing to have no controls and such a benefit, why has nearly every other state in the world got some form of control over their immigration.

RandomManJay
07-07-2009, 09:17 PM
I know it doesn't change their policies, but if you vote for them you are voting for ALL their policies - you can't just pick and choose a few.

Which is where the 'convincing' part comes into my reply, the party has to convice the voters that the policies they want are worth more than the ones they don't want.

Plank
07-07-2009, 09:32 PM
So the criminal and illegal immigrants are paying taxes and working? Companies pay to train not the public and the jobs that immigrants fill are jobs such as litter picking and cleaning, these jobs require little if any training.

The BNP only say that they want to reduce immigration as because in common sense, becoming a minority in your own country is just obsured and should not be thought of anywhere. Hence why a whole lot of English citizens are emmigrating to foreign countries, are they racist too?

If your support for the BNP is mainly for immigration issues, then why not support other parties like the UKIP etc?

They are racist because they don't want mixed-race couples, and they want to get rid of black people because they aren't 'truly' British - to name just a couple of their policies. Other countries don't judge on the colour of peoples skin - the BNP do.


Which is where the 'convincing' part comes into my reply, the party has to convice the voters that the policies they want are worth more than the ones they don't want.

It would be impossible to convince most people to vote for the BNP no matter what 'other' more worthy policies they bring in. You can't hide some of their awful policies and changes. People who can't see through them are just naive.

iAdam
07-07-2009, 09:37 PM
If your support for the BNP is mainly for immigration issues, then why not support other parties like the UKIP etc?

They are racist because they don't want mixed-race couples, and they want to get rid of black people because they aren't 'truly' British - to name just a couple of their policies. Other countries don't judge on the colour of peoples skin - the BNP do.



Who said I supported the BNP? I'm just seeing flaws in arguments, I don't support any political parties, they're all as bad as each other.

They have never said that because people arn't truly british, they wanted to get rid of them, they want to stop themselves becoming a minority in their own country. The public fill in the gaps about the mixed race couples and mass racism, this leads to them being misslead. If they were racist why would they be offering to pay for them to go back to their original countries?

-:Undertaker:-
07-07-2009, 09:43 PM
I do support other parties such as United Kingdom Independance Party and so do many others, but the fact the British National Party are being labelled racist on the grounds that they want controlled immigration/only allow white members is just political correctness gone mad. I don't support the BNP as I think they'd run the country into the ground just like Labour have, but mine and others points are; mass, unmanaged immigration does not benefit us, and we do not want it.

Plank
07-07-2009, 09:46 PM
Who said I supported the BNP? I'm just seeing flaws in arguments, I don't support any political parties, they're all as bad as each other.

They have never said that because people arn't truly british, they wanted to get rid of them, they want to stop themselves becoming a minority in their own country. The public fill in the gaps about the mixed race couples and mass racism, this leads to them being misslead. If they were racist why would they be offering to pay for them to go back to their original countries?
I assumed that because you are defending them, you supported them.

In bold - false. They even admit they are racist themselves. They also are against mixed-race couples and this is also part of their policies.

So what if they offer to pay to get black people out, they still want rid of them.


but the fact the British National Party are being labelled racist on the grounds that they only ... allow white members is just political correctness gone mad.
That sounds like racism to me. They are prejudice against black people.

-:Undertaker:-
07-07-2009, 09:51 PM
That sounds like racism to me. They are prejudice against black people.

You mean like we have a Black Police Officers Association?

& do not say oh they accept white people aswell, because under equality laws both the British National Party and the BPOA have to accept people regardless of colour.

RandomManJay
07-07-2009, 09:51 PM
It would be impossible to convince most people to vote for the BNP no matter what 'other' more worthy policies they bring in. You can't hide some of their awful policies and changes. People who can't see through them are just naive.

I know that, hence why its a largely unpopular party :P. I was saying how the party gains voters, althought their policies may be changing, they stay fundamentally the same, but by changing them they can appeal to a larger audience, who in some cases will listen, although I wouldn't really call them naive, more like less educated or working-class, the people who would benefit (mentally and/or physically) most from the policies and because of this would be willing to listen without question.

Plank
07-07-2009, 09:56 PM
You mean like we have a Black Police Officers Association?

& do not say oh they accept white people aswell, because under equality laws both the British National Party and the BPOA have to accept people regardless of colour.
Why the hell would any black person want to join the BNP anyway :S

Yes - there are black groups and associations. Why? Because of history - and very recent history at that. The whole world was very cruel to black people not so long ago, and it's completely understandable that they have these groups because it STILL happens now.

iAdam
07-07-2009, 09:57 PM
It isn't false check their policies.

Oh and before i cease to post just one more thing. The bnp were the only ones not to use your taxes for silly claims. Just thought i'd let you know as tax seems to be a main issue along the side of the alleged racism

alexxxxx
07-07-2009, 10:07 PM
I do support other parties such as United Kingdom Independance Party and so do many others, but the fact the British National Party are being labelled racist on the grounds that they want controlled immigration/only allow white members is just political correctness gone mad. I don't support the BNP as I think they'd run the country into the ground just like Labour have, but mine and others points are; mass, unmanaged immigration does not benefit us, and we do not want it.

they aren't just racist. they also say you can't be black and british, you are a 'racial foreigner' and nick griffin 'takes pitty' on those who are mixed race as they are 'a product of a multicultural society.' He said this on a TV programme (not undercover cameras) and a I believe it's racist and offensive. They are also homophobic and their members don't have a damn clue. On their website one of them claimed that 'the muslims fighting the majority han population in china is something to come in britain.' Well if they were educated enough, they'd realise that they the turkic area in that region was predominately muslim until the han population moved into that area.

These people don't understand anything about how anything works and all they can think about is 'ALL DESE IMMIGRUNTS R TAKIN R CUMIN OVA ERE ND LIVIN A LIFE OV LUXUREH ON THA TAXPAYA' and their members have quit their jobs as councillors as 'it all goes over their heads.' They aren't racist however they do like to talk about the problems muslims cause in the UK.

They are racist also because they will pay non-whites (inc mixed races) to leave the UK. I'm white, but my great grandmother was italian, and according to the BNP I'm not fully british. Will I get my money to return to Italy (where I speak no word of italian whatsoever) to go 'BAK WHERE U COME FROM' or is it reserved for just mixed race or black/asian/whateverrace people (even if they are born here and their parents). They say they want to firmly repatriate people. What happens if people who have never been to india in their lives are sent to go back. I know some people who's parents never taught them how to speak urdu or punjab either. They have no right to live in India. How would these plans EVER WORK? What happens if they don't want to go back? Shoot them? Well I guess that's what some of the members would like to do. Like in one of the hidden camera films one of them said 'if i had a gun i would go around and shoot some (derogatory term for those of asian origin)s.

Undertaker is correct in saying there are some 'ghettos' of certain races in certain areas, which is a shame. This however isn't for every immigrant in britain.

LOL immigrants do not just 'litterpick.' Loads of them are working in the hospitals, performing operations on people who are dying, working in our schools teaching languages, running local businesses, working on construction sites, lecturing in universities and doing office jobs. You have to be mad in thinking that litterpicking and making sandwiches at subway is what the majority of immigrants do. Illegal immigrants don't pay tax, nor do the crims. But there are millions of others that do.

and the BPOA OPENLY WELCOME PEOPLE FROM OTHER RACES TO JOIN THEIR GROUP. IT ISN'T THE SAME TO BE LEGALLY REQUIRED AND WARMLY WELCOME.

Plank
07-07-2009, 10:09 PM
It isn't false check their policies.

Oh and before i cease to post just one more thing. The bnp were the only ones not to use your taxes for silly claims. Just thought i'd let you know as tax seems to be a main issue along the side of the alleged racism
You have to dig deep for them - they like to hide them away for some reason :rolleyes:

Regarding mixed-race couples:
"Q: Why are you against mixed-raced relationships?

A: We are against mixed-raced relationships because we believe that all species and races of life on this planet are beautiful and must be preserved. When whites take partners from other ethnic groups, a white family line that stretches back into deep pre-history is destroyed. And, of course, the same is true of the non-white side. We want generations that spring from us to be the same as us, look like us, and be moved by the same things as us. We feel that to preserve the rich tapestry of mankind, we must preserve ethnic differences, not ‘mish-mash’ them together."
Source
(http://web.archive.org/web/20020203190553/www.bnp.org.uk/faq.html)


Regarding discrimination and wanting black and non-British out of the country is also clearly true.


I couldn't care less if they didn't claim on the expenses or whatever, their policies are still disgusting.

-:Undertaker:-
07-07-2009, 10:19 PM
Why the hell would any black person want to join the BNP anyway :S

Yes - there are black groups and associations. Why? Because of history - and very recent history at that. The whole world was very cruel to black people not so long ago, and it's completely understandable that they have these groups because it STILL happens now.

Hang on, so basically you are supporting an apartheid system of seperation and unfairness, creating the exact opposite of multi-culturalism. Cruel things have happend all over the world, no need to keep mentioning it all the time, if I was black i'd be offended and annoyed that I was being labelled as different with all these groups, gay this, black this, transgender this - it needs to END.

The sooner organisations like the BPOA end, the sooner the BNP will lose support, but while they exist with the political correctness they are held up with, the longer and stronger the BNP will emerge.

Plank
07-07-2009, 10:30 PM
Hang on, so basically you are supporting an apartheid system of seperation and unfairness, creating the exact opposite of multi-culturalism. Cruel things have happend all over the world, no need to keep mentioning it all the time, if I was black i'd be offended and annoyed that I was being labelled as different with all these groups, gay this, black this, transgender this - it needs to END.

The sooner organisations like the BPOA end, the sooner the BNP will lose support, but while they exist with the political correctness they are held up with, the longer and stronger the BNP will emerge.
I'm not bothered at all by these groups - they come no where near the same level as the BNP.

iAdam
07-07-2009, 10:37 PM
Well it seems that the public is starting to come round, look at all the publicity they are getting through being 'racist'

You should learn not to group people like that WITH ALL CAPS as thats just as bad as racism. To add to that most members are well educated as they know that becoming a minority in our own country is wrong in itself. I'm sure you are bothered by expenses aswell as you're bothered by taxes which is what you were talking about going up earlier. They would stay the same if bnp was voted in as they dont claim no where near what labour do.

I never said all they do is litterpick either, however it is the majority of the sector that they fill.

Mentor
07-07-2009, 11:24 PM
I never said all they do is litterpick either, however it is the majority of the sector that they fill.

That and somewhere in the order 80% the NHS... A good chunk of university level lecturing positions and you know, other unimportant and low level jobs like that...

@-:Undertaker:- if your against such groups, why not aim to disband whats there, instead of aiming to create more?

-:Undertaker:-
07-07-2009, 11:46 PM
That and somewhere in the order 80% the NHS... A good chunk of university level lecturing positions and you know, other unimportant and low level jobs like that...

@-:Undertaker:- if your against such groups, why not aim to disband whats there, instead of aiming to create more?

I am actually not against any of them, i'm against them whilst other groups such as the BNP are labelled racist. I believe they should all exist, but should not be funded by the state/the state should not label certain groups racist, while funding others.

Allowing all of them is democracy.

RandomManJay
07-07-2009, 11:51 PM
I am actually not against any of them, i'm against them whilst other groups such as the BNP are labelled racist. I believe they should all exist, but should not be funded by the state/the state should not label certain groups racist, while funding others.

Allowing all of them is democracy.

Sort of like the government's being a hypocrite?

-:Undertaker:-
08-07-2009, 12:03 AM
Sort of like the government's being a hypocrite?

Indeed it is, it labels the BNP racist for being for white people whilst funding gay groups, black groups and so forth, the Police especially should have neither as they are supposed to have no association with such groups.

RandomManJay
08-07-2009, 12:12 AM
Indeed it is, it labels the BNP racist for being for white people whilst funding gay groups, black groups and so forth, the Police especially should have neither as they are supposed to have no association with such groups.

Then again, you don't see many gay groups or black groups running in elections to control the country, maybe supporting, but not running. Also you can get supporters in such groups who aren't gay or black etc.

Not saying your wrong or anything, just saying there may be other reasons why their funded.

iAdam
08-07-2009, 05:58 AM
That and somewhere in the order 80% the NHS... A good chunk of university level lecturing positions and you know, other unimportant and low level jobs like that...

@-:Undertaker:- if your against such groups, why not aim to disband whats there, instead of aiming to create more?

If you could find the link to that then i'll believe it. If it is true the only reason is because it proes the theory of British citizens are becoming a minority in our own country.

Plank
08-07-2009, 09:45 AM
I am actually not against any of them, i'm against them whilst other groups such as the BNP are labelled racist. I believe they should all exist, but should not be funded by the state/the state should not label certain groups racist, while funding others.

Allowing all of them is democracy.

But if you look at what the BNP are out to achieve, and what these other groups are out to achieve, then it is clear why the majority happily allow these other groups to exist.


If you could find the link to that then i'll believe it. If it is true the only reason is because it proes the theory of British citizens are becoming a minority in our own country.
Nevertheless, our country relies heavily on foreign workers. Without them, there will be many job shortages.

I agree that something should be done about immigration - perhaps like what they do in Australia. But I do not agree with the extreme policies of the BNP and I don't think they are the answer to all our problems. If anything, they will create more problems.

-:Undertaker:-
08-07-2009, 10:44 AM
So hang on, because you dont agree with what the BNP are aiming to achieve but many people do, you think it should be possibly banned? - why are people not calling for communist and socialist groups to be banned aswell as they are equally dangerous, if not more judging from history.

I have said before, the other groups dont need to exist and certainly should not be funded by the government, the police should not be associated with any of these groups and should be kept neutral. Gay groups for example do have an aim for gay rights, such as gay marriage and other policies so they do have a political stance, and many people do not agree with gay marriage - therefore the police are supporting political causes, whether you think these causes are right or wrong, the police should still not be supporting these groups.

The thing that angers me most, and the rest of the country is how politicians, especially Labour call the BNP racist and say to people not to vote for the BNP yet at the same time Labour are the ones funding all of these other groups which are creating an apartheid system in which the BNP can only gain from.

An end to state groups please, if they can fund themselves then great, if not then they should close. That is democracy.

Plank
08-07-2009, 11:16 AM
So hang on, because you dont agree with what the BNP are aiming to achieve but many people do, you think it should be possibly banned? - why are people not calling for communist and socialist groups to be banned aswell as they are equally dangerous, if not more judging from history.

I have said before, the other groups dont need to exist and certainly should not be funded by the government, the police should not be associated with any of these groups and should be kept neutral. Gay groups for example do have an aim for gay rights, such as gay marriage and other policies so they do have a political stance, and many people do not agree with gay marriage - therefore the police are supporting political causes, whether you think these causes are right or wrong, the police should still not be supporting these groups.

The thing that angers me most, and the rest of the country is how politicians, especially Labour call the BNP racist and say to people not to vote for the BNP yet at the same time Labour are the ones funding all of these other groups which are creating an apartheid system in which the BNP can only gain from.

An end to state groups please, if they can fund themselves then great, if not then they should close. That is democracy.

No, I don't think they should be banned, I never said that. This is a thread on the BNP hence why the focus is on them and not other extreme parties.

I can't see how gay groups and black associations etcetera can be compared on the same level as the BNP. They aren't out to harm anyone else or get rid of people. Like I said before (although you disagreed with it), the other groups exist because it is all about history and the present. People can't just get over what has happened, and what abuse still happens to gay and black people. British and white people were (and are) not discriminated against and abused in the same way they were (and are).

LuketheDuke
08-07-2009, 11:27 AM
I dont think its just Labour who label the BNP racist as every single party in the UK seems to as well. Whats more their the only party in the country who do not allow non white members to join which makes them a discriminative body of people.

Also you say the government funds gay groups so I want you to do some research and post on here proving this point with links, quotes etc which prove this is a bad thing.

Catzsy
08-07-2009, 11:30 AM
You mean like we have a Black Police Officers Association?

& do not say oh they accept white people aswell, because under equality laws both the British National Party and the BPOA have to accept people regardless of colour.

Dan. How many times have you used that argument on here?
To say that a Political party that excludes ethnic minorities is the same is naive to say the least. I do like reading your posts but you seem to make the same points over and over again, lately. There is nothing defendable about the BNP unless somebody happens to be a facist then its the right party for them I guess.

-:Undertaker:-
08-07-2009, 11:31 AM
No, I don't think they should be banned, I never said that. This is a thread on the BNP hence why the focus is on them and not other extreme parties.

I can't see how gay groups and black associations etcetera can be compared on the same level as the BNP. They aren't out to harm anyone else or get rid of people. Like I said before (although you disagreed with it), the other groups exist because it is all about history and the present. People can't just get over what has happened, and what abuse still happens to gay and black people. British and white people were (and are) not discriminated against and abused in the same way they were (and are).

If white people are not abused in your eyes, then what is the problem with them having a racial group for themselves such as the British National Party?

If these groups want to exist then fine by me, but they should not and it can never be justified that these groups are funded by the state. If people want fairness then they have to be part of a fair system, and the system as it is is now fair. You cannot have a system where having groups for certain groups is fine, but for others it is not.

How can this generation apoligise for things that generations long gone have done? - you can't because they are dead, gone and I thought everyone is equal in this country, so why are these groups even needed; doesn't it go to show the fact these groups exist that multiculturalism has failed?. We need to get over all of this political correctness nonsense, if I got in office tommorow the first paper i'd be signing would be our withdrawal from the European Union, closely followed by cutting all state funding to these politically correct groups/institutions.

The police should not support gay groups, black police groups, the BNP, Labour, UKIP, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Communist Party, Socialist Party, Green Party, English Democrats, SNP - the list goes on, they should not support/show support for any of these.

The gay groups & others all have aims, the police as a historically neutral organisation should not be supporting/funding any of these groups regardless of any opinion. The police organisation is not supposed to have any political opinion or say and is supposed to be there to lay down the law of the land and that is it, not marching in gay parades whilst having a Black Police Officers Association yet attempting to sack police who have BNP membership.

What kind of a country is it when people are being sacked for having a certain political opinion? - a dictatorship, no other word for it.


I dont think its just Labour who label the BNP racist as every single party in the UK seems to as well. Whats more their the only party in the country who do not allow non white members to join which makes them a discriminative body of people.

Also you say the government funds gay groups so I want you to do some research and post on here proving this point with links, quotes etc which prove this is a bad thing.

I have done research, I don't believe the police as a neutral force should have any links with any type of group - its as simple as that.


Dan. How many times have you used that argument on here?
To say that a Political party that excludes ethnic minorities is the same is naive to say the least. I do like reading your posts but you seem to make the same points over and over again, lately. There is nothing defendable about the BNP unless somebody happens to be a facist then its the right party for them I guess.

I keep making the same point because once I mention the BPOA nobody seems to come up with a suitable answer on why the BNP is apparently racist for having a white member rule, yet the police have an organisation for black police which is just as bad, state racism. It is creating an apartheid system.

Both by law have to allow members in regardless of colour yet the BNP seem to get lamblasted for it, I suppose they do have a point now really, sometimes I do feel like the minority in this country.

Plank
08-07-2009, 11:39 AM
If white people are not abused in your eyes, then what is the problem with them having a racial group for themselves such as the British National Party?

If these groups want to exist then fine by me, but they should not and it can never be justified that these groups are funded by the state. If people want fairness then they have to be part of a fair system, and the system as it is is now fair. You cannot have a system where having groups for certain groups is fine, but for others it is not.

How can this generation apoligise for things that generations long gone have done? - you can't because they are dead, gone and I thought everyone is equal in this country, so why are these groups even needed; doesn't it go to show the fact these groups exist that multiculturalism has failed?. We need to get over all of this political correctness nonsense, if I got in office tommorow the first paper i'd be signing would be our withdrawal from the European Union, closely followed by cutting all state funding to these politically correct groups/institutions.

The police should not support gay groups, black police groups, the BNP, Labour, UKIP, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Communist Party, Socialist Party, Green Party, English Democrats, SNP - the list goes on, they should not support/show support for any of these.

The gay groups & others all have aims, the police as a historically neutral organisation should not be supporting/funding any of these groups regardless of any opinion. The police organisation is not supposed to have any political opinion or say and is supposed to be there to lay down the law of the land and that is it, not marching in gay parades whilst having a Black Police Officers Association yet attempting to sack police who have BNP membership.

What kind of a country is it when people are being sacked for having a certain political opinion? - a dictatorship, no other word for it.
Do gay groups want to get rid of people who aren't gay? Do black groups want to get rid of people who aren't black? No. That's where the difference lies between the BNP and these groups - they aren't out to have an impact on anyone of other sexualities or races but the BNP are.

If there are gay groups out there which want all non-gay people to keep their relationship 'behind closed doors' - If there are black groups out there which want to get all white people out of the country - then they are just as bad as the BNP. But the groups you are mentioning are not on this level of extremity.

-:Undertaker:-
08-07-2009, 11:44 AM
Do gay groups want to get rid of people who aren't gay? Do black groups want to get rid of people who aren't black? No. That's where the difference lies between the BNP and these groups - they aren't out to have an impact on anyone of other sexualities or races but the BNP are.

If there are gay groups out there which want all non-gay people to keep their relationship 'behind closed doors' - If there are black groups out there which want to get all white people out of the country - then they are just as bad as the BNP. But the groups you are mentioning are not on this level of extremity.

That isn't what we are discussing. We are discussing the membership policy of the British National Party.

I'm not talking about their racial policies which I disagree strongly with, I don't agree with sending people away because of their colour, I believe in sending layabouts and criminals back. The point I am making, people jump on the BNP solely for the whites membership policy, when the state is just as bad for this and nobody seems to come up with a viable answer to this.

Plank
08-07-2009, 11:54 AM
That isn't what we are discussing. We are discussing the membership policy of the British National Party.

I'm not talking about their racial policies which I disagree strongly with, I don't agree with sending people away because of their colour, I believe in sending layabouts and criminals back. The point I am making, people jump on the BNP solely for the whites membership policy, when the state is just as bad for this and nobody seems to come up with a viable answer to this.

I think the main reason people jump on the BNP is because of their policies and what they are aiming for. If their policies weren't as extreme as they are - perhaps on the same level as gay groups and black groups, then I'm sure people wouldn't attack them as much.

However, I find it completely understandable that they have a white members only policy and I don't see why anyone would question this because I can't see how any black person or gay person would want to join the party anyway. Just like it would be weird if a white person joined a black association.

LuketheDuke
08-07-2009, 11:55 AM
er I came up with an argument for why positive discrimination was a good thing in the workforce but then again when have you ever properly read one of my posts? It stops minorities being badly treated for who they are and makes sure that their qualifications and experience is not overlooked for a lesser experienced white/straight/CofE/privately educated type person who seem to get fast tracked due to these fundamentals and not at how good they are at their job.

And you say youve done research but I wouldnt mind reading where you got such points from.

-:Undertaker:-
08-07-2009, 12:24 PM
I think the main reason people jump on the BNP is because of their policies and what they are aiming for. If their policies weren't as extreme as they are - perhaps on the same level as gay groups and black groups, then I'm sure people wouldn't attack them as much.

However, I find it completely understandable that they have a white members only policy and I don't see why anyone would question this because I can't see how any black person or gay person would want to join the party anyway. Just like it would be weird if a white person joined a black association.

That is fine, their policies are extreme and I don't agree with many of them, as I have said in the past yet many others who have argued about this seem to think i'm a racist by supporting them, but as usual people tend to put words in my mouth/twist my words to suit their own argument. The point I am making and always will do; that by having a white membership policy is not racist as the state is just as bad.


er I came up with an argument for why positive discrimination was a good thing in the workforce but then again when have you ever properly read one of my posts? It stops minorities being badly treated for who they are and makes sure that their qualifications and experience is not overlooked for a lesser experienced white/straight/CofE/privately educated type person who seem to get fast tracked due to these fundamentals and not at how good they are at their job.

And you say youve done research but I wouldnt mind reading where you got such points from.

No that is called bureaucracy, the only thing Labour and the left are good at. This government and people like you treat this country all like we are racists, you honestly think we all hire people based on sexuality or colour? - maybe fifty years ago, but not today.

I get my points from common sense, because I know everyone in this country isn't racist but I also know there will always be racists, I also believe that this government has victimised the majority throughout its term in office, treating us all as if we have been hiring people based on colour or sexuality.

LuketheDuke
08-07-2009, 12:49 PM
So your quite happy to shove your fingers in your ears and pretend racism/elitism/sexism/ageism doesnt happen in the workplace?

I'm sure most female members on this board have heard of the term and are wary of it happening to them as such acts of discrimination are frequently brought to media attention and have maybe happened to people that they know. Indeed the latest Apprentice was female but Sir Alan Sugar made an awful lot of sexist remarks during the whole process of the program and Amstrad is one of the UK's biggest business'.

-:Undertaker:-
08-07-2009, 12:56 PM
So your quite happy to shove your fingers in your ears and pretend racism/elitism/sexism/ageism doesnt happen in the workplace?

I'm sure most female members on this board have heard of the term and are wary of it happening to them as such acts of discrimination are frequently brought to media attention and have maybe happened to people that they know. Indeed the latest Apprentice was female but Sir Alan Sugar made an awful lot of sexist remarks during the whole process of the program and Amstrad is one of the UK's biggest business'.

I am, because it mainly doesn't exist. Men are majorly suited better at business because it shows, as their are more men in the business sector; just like their are more women in teaching and nursing.

You, the left and the Labour Party need to stop this patronisation of everyone and punishing the majority, the discrimination laws Labour brought in are so stupid that I read a job opening for a witch in a tourist attration cave had to be open to men, because of these discrimination laws - if you think that is common sense then you have lost the plot.

Oh my god Sir Alan had a bit of light hearted fun!; you are well on your way to Brussels or Whitehall mate, your ideally suited to it.

LuketheDuke
08-07-2009, 01:18 PM
I am, because it mainly doesn't exist. Men are majorly suited better at business because it shows, as their are more men in the business sector; just like their are more women in teaching and nursing.

You, the left and the Labour Party need to stop this patronisation of everyone and punishing the majority, the discrimination laws Labour brought in are so stupid that I read a job opening for a witch in a tourist attration cave had to be open to men, because of these discrimination laws - if you think that is common sense then you have lost the plot.

Oh my god Sir Alan had a bit of light hearted fun!; you are well on your way to Brussels or Whitehall mate, your ideally suited to it.



So in an attempt to produce a counter argument you basically just keep on pretending that such things as sexism dont exist in the workplace, generalise what a typical role for a gender is and insult me. Isn't it patronising that I have to sit here and read things you try and pass off as facts when in fact their your own opinion and no one elses?

The BNP are small minded bigots whos popularity stem off events that have happened in the public eye. Put them in power and they wouldnt know what to do with it, they'd certainly un-do the work that has been done in the last 20 years under both Conservative and Labour governments to promote equality in society thats for sure.

Plank
08-07-2009, 01:26 PM
I am, because it mainly doesn't exist. Men are majorly suited better at business because it shows, as their are more men in the business sector; just like their are more women in teaching and nursing.

You, the left and the Labour Party need to stop this patronisation of everyone and punishing the majority, the discrimination laws Labour brought in are so stupid that I read a job opening for a witch in a tourist attration cave had to be open to men, because of these discrimination laws - if you think that is common sense then you have lost the plot.

Oh my god Sir Alan had a bit of light hearted fun!; you are well on your way to Brussels or Whitehall mate, your ideally suited to it.

The only way to stop the minority is to target the majority. It happens all the time. It won't affect people who aren't doing wrong in the first place.

And that stuff about the witch is rubbish. The law states that job roles can be open to only specific people if it suits the nature of the role. For example, when hiring a model role or a part in a musical theatre, they could be open to women or men only.

If you have a look at the laws, they seem very fair and should go without saying really.. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

-:Undertaker:-
08-07-2009, 01:28 PM
So in an attempt to produce a counter argument you basically just keep on pretending that such things as sexism dont exist in the workplace, generalise what a typical role for a gender is and insult me. Isn't it patronising that I have to sit here and read things you try and pass off as facts when in fact their your own opinion and no one elses?

The BNP are small minded bigots whos popularity stem off events that have happened in the public eye. Put them in power and they wouldnt know what to do with it, they'd certainly un-do the work that has been done in the last 20 years under both Conservative and Labour governments to promote equality in society thats for sure.

I'm not insulting you, you appear to enjoy bureaucracy so you would be very well suited to a job in the European Union or Whitehall. I can generalise a job for a gender because its common sense and is the truth, are we going to ever have an equal amount of women builders as we are men builders? - no, because men can carry out more jobs in building and are more interested in it, the same the other way around with teaching and various other roles.

I do not want the British National Party in power, I want a Conservative government or even better but not as likely, a UKIP government to cut these pathetic discrimation laws away, to tackle bureaucracy in both Brussels and Whitehall and to have small goverment again. People hire, and have done long before these laws come into place, the best person for the job.

They are fact, i'm not ignoring anything I am confronting your opinion head on and will continue to do so.


The only way to stop the minority is to target the majority. It happens all the time. It won't affect people who aren't doing wrong in the first place.

And that stuff about the witch is rubbish. The law states that job roles can be open to only specific people if it suits the nature of the role. For example, when hiring a model role or a part in a musical theatre, they could be open to women or men only.

If you have a look at the laws, they seem very fair and should go without saying really.. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

These laws aren't needed and never will be, maybe fifty or so years ago but not today. The Witch stuff is not rubbish because there have been numerous examples of this type of situtation arising, and I read this on the BBC website aswell so its not as if its from a tabloid.

I simply don't agree that you should hire someone based on race, sexuality, age or gender and i'd be offended if I was given a job based on anyone of them, they are not needed and are insulting to them minorities/groups. Its time this government and the left stopped interfering in everything. They and their laws are not needed or wanted.

Plank
08-07-2009, 01:38 PM
I'm not insulting you, you appear to enjoy bureaucracy so you would be very well suited to a job in the European Union or Whitehall. I can generalise a job for a gender because its common sense and is the truth, are we going to ever have an equal amount of women builders as we are men builders? - no, because men can carry out more jobs in building and are more interested in it, the same the other way around with teaching and various other roles.

I do not want the British National Party in power, I want a Conservative government or even better but not as likely, a UKIP government to cut these pathetic discrimation laws away, to tackle bureaucracy in both Brussels and Whitehall and to have small goverment again. People hire, and have done long before these laws come into place, the best person for the job.

They are fact, i'm not ignoring anything I am confronting your opinion head on and will continue to do so.



These laws aren't needed and never will be, maybe fifty or so years ago but not today. The Witch stuff is not rubbish because there have been numerous examples of this type of situtation arising, and I read this on the BBC website aswell so its not as if its from a tabloid.

I simply don't agree that you should hire someone based on race, sexuality, age or gender and i'd be offended if I was given a job based on anyone of them, they are not needed and are insulting to them minorities/groups. Its time this government and the left stopped interfering in everything. They and their laws are not needed or wanted.

You don't agree that you should hire someone based on race, sexuality, etc. - That's what these laws are there for, to stop people hiring on that basis. These laws are needed because there are still some small-minded people out there which will refuse to hire a gay person or someone of a certain religion even if they are perfect for the role.

And maybe people in the media complaining about all this witch stuff should read the law properly - they didn't have to open the job to men and women because the role of a women as a witch is suited for the nature of the role.

The stuff in bold - we never are going to have an equal amount of men and women as builders, who said we should have?

What you are saying are typical stereotypes. Not ALL women hate building - there are many out there which are perfectly suited for the job. The law is there to stop employers snubbing their noses at a women applying for a building job JUST because of her gender.

Catzsy
08-07-2009, 01:40 PM
I am, because it mainly doesn't exist. Men are majorly suited better at business because it shows, as their are more men in the business sector; just like their are more women in teaching and nursing.

You, the left and the Labour Party need to stop this patronisation of everyone and punishing the majority, the discrimination laws Labour brought in are so stupid that I read a job opening for a witch in a tourist attration cave had to be open to men, because of these discrimination laws - if you think that is common sense then you have lost the plot.

Oh my god Sir Alan had a bit of light hearted fun!; you are well on your way to Brussels or Whitehall mate, your ideally suited to it.

Oh dear - you sound like you are from the 1960s. :(

LuketheDuke
08-07-2009, 01:44 PM
Plank basically just said everything I was going to say.

You say such rules arent needed or required and that the Tories, UKIP or most definately the BNP would seemingly scrap them but in reality that would mean upsetting voters, potential right wing voters who still see it as righteous to eliminate all forms of discrimination in the workplace.

Labour promised electoral reform in 1997 but after getting such a majority would they? Of course not. I'd love to see what UKIP would do if they got in, wanted to withdraw from the EU and then realise the tax hikes and cost of living increases they'd have to face.

-:Undertaker:-
08-07-2009, 01:45 PM
You don't agree that you should hire someone based on race, sexuality, etc. - That's what these laws are there for, to stop people hiring on that basis. These laws are needed because there are still some small-minded people out there which will refuse to hire a gay person or someone of a certain religion even if they are perfect for the role.

And maybe people in the media complaining about all this witch stuff should read the law properly - they didn't have to open the job to men and women because the role of a women as a witch is suited for the nature of the role.

The stuff in bold - we never are going to have an equal amount of men and women as builders, who said we should have?

People are not like that though, maybe a few and to be honest if someone thinks a certain person is too camp for a job/not suitable in looks or personality then they should have all the right in the world to not employ that person. I believe if someone owns a business, they have a right to hire whoever they want, and it is not up to the government to tell them what to think/who to think would be best suited to their company.

The BBC is historically left wing and considering that has come from the BBC which is pro-Labour who brought in these laws then i'd say everyone has reached a broad concensus that all these laws do is bring in more regulations and red tape, and bring up tricky situtations for employers who will hire based on skin colour/gender/sexuality rather than the persons ability;- again, victimising the majority.

If I had to choose between a man or a woman to be a builder, and they were both equally suited and did just as good as eachother in the interview, who would I choose? - the male because he is stronger and far more capable to carry out tasks on a building site than a woman. Under what I understand of these laws, that would be considered sexist.


Plank basically just said everything I was going to say.

You say such rules arent needed or required and that the Tories, UKIP or most definately the BNP would seemingly scrap them but in reality that would mean upsetting voters, potential right wing voters who still see it as righteous to eliminate all forms of discrimination in the workplace.

Labour promised electoral reform in 1997 but after getting such a majority would they? Of course not. I'd love to see what UKIP would do if they got in, wanted to withdraw from the EU and then realise the tax hikes and cost of living increases they'd have to face.

I think you have a very confused opinion of what right-wing is, right wingers support small government and full democracy especially to business and to the people, compared to socialists and the left who prefer large centralised government and more power to the state. The majority of this country, and especially middle england (the right wing voting bloc) despise these sort of regulations from both Whitehall and Brussels.

Anybody who votes Labour should know what to expect, lies and empty promises. Do not label UKIP with the same brush as as Labour Party who refuse to answer questions on nearly every show they send their ministers on. The cost of living would not increase due to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, not only do we pay higher taxes for the European Union but we also pay higher prices on our food to be in the European Union.


Oh dear - you sound like you are from the 1960s. :(

Otherwise known as common sense.

Plank
08-07-2009, 02:03 PM
People are not like that though, maybe a few and to be honest if someone thinks a certain person is too camp for a job/not suitable in looks or personality then they should have all the right in the world to not employ that person. I believe if someone owns a business, they have a right to hire whoever they want, and it is not up to the government to tell them what to think/who to think would be best suited to their company.

The BBC is historically left wing and considering that has come from the BBC which is pro-Labour who brought in these laws then i'd say everyone has reached a broad concensus that all these laws do is bring in more regulations and red tape, and bring up tricky situtations for employers who will hire based on skin colour/gender/sexuality rather than the persons ability;- again, victimising the majority.

If I had to choose between a man or a woman to be a builder, and they were both equally suited and did just as good as eachother in the interview, who would I choose? - the male because he is stronger and far more capable to carry out tasks on a building site than a woman. Under what I understand of these laws, that would be considered sexist.



I think you have a very confused opinion of what right-wing is, right wingers support small government and full democracy especially to business and to the people, compared to socialists and the left who prefer large centralised government and more power to the state. The majority of this country, and especially middle england (the right wing voting bloc) despise these sort of regulations from both Whitehall and Brussels.

Anybody who votes Labour should know what to expect, lies and empty promises. To not label UKIP with the same brush as as Labour Party who refuse to answer questions on nearly every show they send their ministers on. The cost of living would not increase due to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, not only do we pay higher taxes for the European Union but we also pay higher prices on our food to be in the European Union.



Otherwise known as common sense.
It's not common sense - it's the opinion of a bigot (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Abigot&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enGB268GB268).

Words completely fail me. No matter what perfectly reasonable counter-argument someone comes up with, you're always going to be stuck in the past. I think every argument against you in this thread has been much stronger than yours, and no matter what anyone says you will always throw back the same, repetitive, hogwash. This is why this debate is going nowhere.

The fact is, the BNP will never be in power, and the way you want life (full of stereotypes and discrimination) was so 50 years ago. People have moved on.

Lets just agree to disagree.

LuketheDuke
08-07-2009, 02:06 PM
I know what ring wing means tyvm, the point I made was that the Tories/UKIP etc make these promises to us know that they'll do this and that but when push comes to shove they wont change anything as its too much of a fuss to do so without causing public outcry.

For instance no EU means paying for imported and exported goods from Europe which means we pay more. No more EU means no more structured rebates that the EU collectively pays for making it cheaper for us to pay taxes for such sectors as agriculture.

i.e EU = put 2 pounds in and get 1 pound back (our other pound helps other nations).

Independence = put 2 pounds in get nothing back, we front the entire bill.

The whole concept sounds iffy and I'm neutral on the EU but this just seems like a better system.

alexxxxx
08-07-2009, 02:06 PM
People are not like that though, maybe a few and to be honest if someone thinks a certain person is too camp for a job/not suitable in looks or personality then they should have all the right in the world to not employ that person. I believe if someone owns a business, they have a right to hire whoever they want, and it is not up to the government to tell them what to think/who to think would be best suited to their company.

So if someone decides they don't want to employ gays or black people or muslims or hindus that's ok, even if they were born here.. I think taht most people believe that equal opportunities are important.



If I had to choose between a man or a woman to be a builder, and they were both equally suited and did just as good as eachother in the interview, who would I choose? - the male because he is stronger and far more capable to carry out tasks on a building site than a woman. Under what I understand of these laws, that would be considered sexist.

Well, you've answered your own question, the woman isn't as well suited as the man. That's not what it's about. If the woman was stronger than the man and could do all the work to the same/higher standard, however the empolyer's prejudiced stance on 'woman can't be builders' makes sure the man gets the job.



Anybody who votes Labour should know what to expect, lies and empty promises. To not label UKIP with the same brush as as Labour Party who refuse to answer questions on nearly every show they send their ministers on. The cost of living would not increase due to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, not only do we pay higher taxes for the European Union but we also pay higher prices on our food to be in the European Union.
UKIP are dreadful and the cost of living would be similiar or maybe higher, as we import alot (if not the majority) of our food from the EU, therefore having to pay those prices anyway. The cost of the EU is dwarfed by the size of how much money is burned up in the deserts of the middle-east in wars that only turn others against us. Each person in the UK pays £150ish to the EU a year. Seeing as the average allary in the UK is 28k, that's hardly anything. Our exports to the EU (over 50%) would have to follow thier rulebook and we wouldn't get a say on what's in it at all - there would be noone looking after our interests at all. Plus we'd have to join the EEA, which we'd have to pay anyway.

-:Undertaker:-
08-07-2009, 02:25 PM
It's not common sense - it's the opinion of a bigot (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Abigot&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enGB268GB268).

Words completely fail me. No matter what perfectly reasonable counter-argument someone comes up with, you're always going to be stuck in the past. I think every argument against you in this thread has been much stronger than yours, and no matter what anyone says you will always throw back the same, repetitive, hogwash. This is why this debate is going nowhere.

The fact is, the BNP will never be in power, and the way you want life (full of stereotypes and discrimination) was so 50 years ago. People have moved on.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Stuck in the past? - I think you yourself are stuck in all this red tape nonsense. If common sense is being stuck in the past then i'm stuck in the past and proud, and so are the majority of this country then. Who said I wanted discrimination, there is hardly any discrimination and that is my point, by having these laws and groups it is creating new discrimination so do not put words in my mouth.


I know what ring wing means tyvm, the point I made was that the Tories/UKIP etc make these promises to us know that they'll do this and that but when push comes to shove they wont change anything as its too much of a fuss to do so without causing public outcry.

For instance no EU means paying for imported and exported goods from Europe which means we pay more. No more EU means no more structured rebates that the EU collectively pays for making it cheaper for us to pay taxes for such sectors as agriculture.

i.e EU = put 2 pounds in and get 1 pound back (our other pound helps other nations).

Independence = put 2 pounds in get nothing back, we front the entire bill.

The whole concept sounds iffy and I'm neutral on the EU but this just seems like a better system.

No, independance would not mean putting £2 into the European Union and getting nothing back, independance would mean keeping the £2 to ourselves. We do not expect to pay our taxes to fund other nations while our own roads crumble and our country sinks futher into debt.

You have a strange idea of rebate. The rebate means for example, we give the European Union £10 and we then get £3.50 back, independance would mean keeping that £10 and spending it here, where it was earned.


So if someone decides they don't want to employ gays or black people or muslims or hindus that's ok, even if they were born here.. I think taht most people believe that equal opportunities are important.


Well, you've answered your own question, the woman isn't as well suited as the man. That's not what it's about. If the woman was stronger than the man and could do all the work to the same/higher standard, however the empolyer's prejudiced stance on 'woman can't be builders' makes sure the man gets the job.


UKIP are dreadful and the cost of living would be similiar or maybe higher, as we import alot (if not the majority) of our food from the EU, therefore having to pay those prices anyway. The cost of the EU is dwarfed by the size of how much money is burned up in the deserts of the middle-east in wars that only turn others against us. Each person in the UK pays £150ish to the EU a year. Seeing as the average allary in the UK is 28k, that's hardly anything. Our exports to the EU (over 50%) would have to follow thier rulebook and we wouldn't get a say on what's in it at all - there would be noone looking after our interests at all. Plus we'd have to join the EEA, which we'd have to pay anyway.

No it is not ok, most people are not like that. However if someone doesn't want to hire someone on the grounds that they are camp/not suited to the workplace or job then they should have all rights not to hire that person. The example you gave simply doesn't happen, employers employ based on how good someone would be for the job, these discrimination laws are not needed and create tricky situtations where employers would be feeling pressured to hire a certain amount of certain groups of people, regardless of their ability.

Yes, the United Kingdom Independance Party are dreadful for standing up to a unelected union of which nobody wants, while Labour happily tell lies to the electorate and then when in power happily sign away our sovereign powers. I'd like to know why Labour MPs & pro-EU MPs even bother standing for parliament when they support signing away our parliaments powers to the European Union.

Your right on the wars, so common sense would say to stop these illegal wars and save billions, and then leave the European Union and also save billions aswell as having 75%+ of our sovereignty given back to us!

How is it that the rest of the world, which is around 200 other states happily trade with the European Union without paying billions into the European Union?

Everyone can see the European Unions true aim, not economic but political. They want a politial union and the people do not. Why is that so hard to understand?

alexxxxx
08-07-2009, 02:30 PM
well china had a problem a few years back when we wouldn't let them export any more cheap clothing into our union because they had reached the quota limit. The EU agreed to let them start using the next year's quota early. So there's at least one problem that one country has come across. and every other country in the world does often have to pay import taxes when exporting. when you go to the USA
you have to pay tax at the aiport when you come back with hiugh value goods such as computers.

Plank
08-07-2009, 02:32 PM
Stuck in the past? - I think you yourself are stuck in all this red tape nonsense. If common sense is being stuck in the past then i'm stuck in the past and proud, and so are the majority of this country then. Who said I wanted discrimination, there is hardly any discrimination and that is my point, by having these laws and groups it is creating new discrimination so do not put words in my mouth.

I'm sorry but I disagree and I stand by my statements.

I'm out of this debate now, I have said my bits throughout this thread and I do not wish to say anything else. I don't want to be debating this for the next few weeks, it won't get anywhere.

Goodbye.

http://is1.okcupid.com/users/410/202/4102022445444324283/mt156454367.jpg

-:Undertaker:-
08-07-2009, 02:32 PM
well china had a problem a few years back when we wouldn't let them export any more cheap clothing into our union because they had reached the quota limit. The EU agreed to let them start using the next year's quota early. So there's at least one problem that one country has come across.

So we've been trading on our own for god knows how many hundreds of years but now all of a sudden we have forgot how to trade without the glorious European Union?

alexxxxx
08-07-2009, 02:46 PM
Well it isn't as simple as you think. without the EU, we'd be required to have to produce our goods to their specs, with no imput from us, stop at the border, declare our goods in paperwork, queue up, pay the relevant import taxes, therefore adding a cost to our production costs, which could be increased even more by the fact we might have to pay additional insurance for our visit (when you go to switzerland in a coach, you have to stop, pay them, £70) or road tax, or we might be turned away possibly as our work visas might be expired or invalid. Added on to this, we might have to pay for an additional driver's license translated into every language that we'd pass through

LuketheDuke
08-07-2009, 02:47 PM
Lolol so basically if we withdraw from Europe we keep our money, so like we dont pay any tax at all!?!? omg withdraw now we'll be tax free!!!!!!

Read this as it explains how the EU helps keep the markets free and taxes down.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5655115.ece


Im also out of this thread, already been negatively repped for saying something bad about the BNP in a light hearted fashion so god knows what this heated discussion will lead to.

RandomManJay
08-07-2009, 02:55 PM
So we've been trading on our own for god knows how many hundreds of years but now all of a sudden we have forgot how to trade without the glorious European Union?

Considering many nations now use the trading system set up by the EU, excluding ourselves would create problems with trading with other countries as well as increasing the severity of our dependency on other countries. As the EU is a collective of countries, the trading is controlled via them, if we exclude ourselves, countries which we are or have already become dependent on may only be trading with us because of the EU, knowing this, trading with these countries afterwards would become very difficult, cause problems because we would have to find alternative outlets of trade, causing issues with time and money. Also the example of £2 in and £1 out, by excluding ourselves, that £2 would no longer go to a place where we would receive some in return, but would go purely on maintaining the trade with other countries without any guarantee on return.

Also, we would still have to pay tax, just the tax which is meant to the EU would be removed, not worth losing the EU in my opinion.

*Anyone noticed we're not really talking about the BNP anymore :P*

Josh-H
09-07-2009, 02:42 PM
Some of their policies are ridiculous.

They believe every household should be allowed a gun? That's stupid.

I do support some of their immigration policies but some are ridiculous, for example, Griffin recently said that a good solution to stop mass immigration into Europe would be to sink boats with immigrants on them..?

Right then..

RandomManJay
09-07-2009, 04:33 PM
Some of their policies are ridiculous.

They believe every household should be allowed a gun? That's stupid.

I do support some of their immigration policies but some are ridiculous, for example, Griffin recently said that a good solution to stop mass immigration into Europe would be to sink boats with immigrants on them..?

Right then..

Lol, that's a bit harsh, it would cause massive controversy and could pull us into a conflict with whatever country the immigrants came from.

Skajo
10-07-2009, 12:24 PM
I'm going to say one thing:

Can I build a church in India?

iAdam
10-07-2009, 02:30 PM
Some of their policies are ridiculous.

They believe every household should be allowed a gun? That's stupid.

I do support some of their immigration policies but some are ridiculous, for example, Griffin recently said that a good solution to stop mass immigration into Europe would be to sink boats with immigrants on them..?

Right then..


No he didn't say that, he said that a way to prevent illegal immigration would be to threat to sink any ships found to have any illegals immigrants on them, which is totally different to what you said.

Mentor
10-07-2009, 07:30 PM
I'm going to say one thing:

Can I build a church in India?
You personally? i doubt you have the necessary building skills, money or ability to get apply for relevant planning permissions. Someone who did know these things could quite easily though :)

What was your point?

Skajo
11-07-2009, 11:22 AM
You personally? i doubt you have the necessary building skills, money or ability to get apply for relevant planning permissions. Someone who did know these things could quite easily though :)

What was your point?
Wow, you hit the nail on the head. That was completely my point.

alexxxxx
11-07-2009, 12:47 PM
there are already churches in india, so what's your point? just as there are churches in Iraq, Israel and all around the middle east.

Muppet
12-07-2009, 07:04 PM
Let's bring it back on the subject of the BNP.

I think the BNP have some good policies.. For example, if you look at this from their website, this is a policy that would benefit a lot of in people in my eyes.

To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question
If this policy came into action, plenty of people are benefiting from it. We are benefiting because we have less immigrants, the immigrants and their original countries get a cash incentive. It's surely a win win situation? Also, you can see from the part in bold that legal immigrants in the UK aren't made to go back to their home countries. They are given the opportunity.

The BNP aren't a racist party, they are just a party afraid of losing the British culture and being overrun by illegal immigrants living in the UK.

RandomManJay
12-07-2009, 07:30 PM
Let's bring it back on the subject of the BNP.

I think the BNP have some good policies.. For example, if you look at this from their website, this is a policy that would benefit a lot of in people in my eyes.

If this policy came into action, plenty of people are benefiting from it. We are benefiting because we have less immigrants, the immigrants and their original countries get a cash incentive. It's surely a win win situation? Also, you can see from the part in bold that legal immigrants in the UK aren't made to go back to their home countries. They are given the opportunity.

The BNP aren't a racist party, they are just a party afraid of losing the British culture and being overrun by illegal immigrants living in the UK.

It is a good policy for the supportes of the BNP, it suggests that the BNP is funding the opportunity to return to your country of origin, therefore one could agrue that they're paying immigrants to move back to their original country, also the funding from this would be taken entirely from foreign aid, a contribution that most of the country believes in, so instead of money going to people who could benefit from it in developing countires, it goes entirely to those who don't need it to agree to return to their home country (which you can argue is bargining).

Also the immigrants who would be given the opportunity would be the immigrants who do not completely buy into the ways and values of the british population. The BNP has not actually specified which values are accepted as typically british (considering the diversity of british beliefs), so there is no knowing if they will alter the specifications to ensure that other immigrants who have previously accepted our values will be given the opportunity and eventually leave. Also there is no knowing if the BNP will ensure this policy will not change and that people who do not agree to this acceptance of british culture and choose to stay despite the opportunity will not be removed from the country.

Although many of their policies are appealing, there is no promise that the policies will ensure that immigrants who have freely chosen to be here will remain here, also there is no knowing if they (intentionally or accidentally) will cause issues for those who do not follow the BNP's accepted british values, for example: eastern cultural beliefs, homosexuality and mixed couple interaction (each of which the BNP feels corrupts the british community beyond belief).

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2009, 01:48 PM
Cameras everywhere?
State spying on citzens?
Citzens come second?
Persecuted for your political thoughts?

No, not Nazi Germany, Soviet Union or the BNP.
Welcome to Labours' Britain.

Who are the REAL facists?

Jordy
14-07-2009, 04:14 PM
Cameras everywhere?
State spying on citzens?
Citzens come second?
Persecuted for your political thoughts?

No, not Nazi Germany, Soviet Union or the BNP.
Welcome to Labours' Britain.

Who are the REAL facists?Fascism is a strong choice of words, it's fair to say Nazi Germany were real fascists and it's possible the BNP would replicate that and the Soviet Union, although Communist at the opposite end of the political spectrum, they were pretty much fascist as their leader had complete control. Gordon Brown does not have complete control, and the Labour Party were democratically elected in 2005, the Labour Party who was put incharge by the nation then democratically elected Gordon Brown as leader of the Labour party and also PM.

I do not believe the government abuses this so called 'Big Brother' society, there's no evidence they do. Councils abused surveillance laws but nothing particularly serious. It's crucial to the security of the UK and was responsible to stopping the airline bombings a few summers ago.

Persecuted for our political thoughts? You don't actually get in trouble for going against the government and although it might not be a perfect democracy and "freedom of speech" it's quite easily one of the best in the world. Hell just look to Italy and it's riddled with corrupt, if we're fascist what about practically every other nation in the world?

Strongly disagree with you here for once.

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2009, 04:54 PM
Fascism is a strong choice of words, it's fair to say Nazi Germany were real fascists and it's possible the BNP would replicate that and the Soviet Union, although Communist at the opposite end of the political spectrum, they were pretty much fascist as their leader had complete control. Gordon Brown does not have complete control, and the Labour Party were democratically elected in 2005, the Labour Party who was put incharge by the nation then democratically elected Gordon Brown as leader of the Labour party and also PM.

I do not believe the government abuses this so called 'Big Brother' society, there's no evidence they do. Councils abused surveillance laws but nothing particularly serious. It's crucial to the security of the UK and was responsible to stopping the airline bombings a few summers ago.

Persecuted for our political thoughts? You don't actually get in trouble for going against the government and although it might not be a perfect democracy and "freedom of speech" it's quite easily one of the best in the world. Hell just look to Italy and it's riddled with corrupt, if we're fascist what about practically every other nation in the world?

Strongly disagree with you here for once.

They are strongly edging on facism, how dare they call another political party facist when they themselves have taken away civil liberties as an excuse to protect us from terrorism, they refuse to hold an open inquiry on issues such as the Iraq War which has killed thousands of people, they have placed more cameras in this country than Nazi Germany/Soviet Union ever had and have allowed/persecuted people based on their political beliefs - that to me, is facism or at least bordering on a police state. The old Labour Party would never of dreamed a future Labour government would act in this way.

Spying on people for petty reasons such as the councils did is wrong, isn't helping anyone and is a mark of a police state. Cameras everywhere don't work, they dont stop crime and they dont stop terrorism. Labours logic is that if there are cameras everywhere and everyone is made to carry a ID card, terrorists will all suddenly hang their boots and bombs up and call it a day.

Police supporters of the BNP have been sacked/suspended for being members of the British National Party, how is that fair and democratic?. In Nazi Germany that is exactly what the Nazy Party did when gaining power, banned all opposition in teaching, police and so forth.

alexxxxx
14-07-2009, 05:30 PM
They are strongly edging on facism, how dare they call another political party facist when they themselves have taken away civil liberties as an excuse to protect us from terrorism, they refuse to hold an open inquiry on issues such as the Iraq War which has killed thousands of people, they have placed more cameras in this country than Nazi Germany/Soviet Union ever had and have allowed/persecuted people based on their political beliefs - that to me, is facism or at least bordering on a police state. The old Labour Party would never of dreamed a future Labour government would act in this way.

Spying on people for petty reasons such as the councils did is wrong, isn't helping anyone and is a mark of a police state. Cameras everywhere don't work, they dont stop crime and they dont stop terrorism. Labours logic is that if there are cameras everywhere and everyone is made to carry a ID card, terrorists will all suddenly hang their boots and bombs up and call it a day.

Police supporters of the BNP have been sacked/suspended for being members of the British National Party, how is that fair and democratic?. In Nazi Germany that is exactly what the Nazy Party did when gaining power, banned all opposition in teaching, police and so forth.

Mr. Undertaker is completely right, our civil liberties are being dismantled, not at a fast rate, but they are being dismantled nevertheless. And it is this government's fault, Jacqui Smith is a culprit. I persoanlly think its dreadful taht councils misuse the terrorism act. However, I think the BNP should be banned from being in public services with direct access to the public as I believe their beliefs about certain people could block them from doing their job properly.

LuketheDuke
14-07-2009, 05:48 PM
Mr. Undertaker is completely right, our civil liberties are being dismantled, not at a fast rate, but they are being dismantled nevertheless. And it is this government's fault, Jacqui Smith is a culprit. I persoanlly think its dreadful taht councils misuse the terrorism act. However, I think the BNP should be banned from being in public services with direct access to the public as I believe their beliefs about certain people could block them from doing their job properly.


I agree with that, our Police Officers who represent a public service should not be part of an organisation that discriminates against minorities. I also agree that certain liberties are being eroded in society these days, however with the technology thats been developed was it inevitable that we get caught on CCTV or satillite wherever we go.

And whilst Undertaker you do say some things I agree with here, Nazi Germany please. until we're forced to dob in our neighbours for suspicious activities or being co-erced into eating a one pot meal on a sunday for the arms not butter schemes I'll think of myself as better off. Britain may not be perfect but rather here than somewhere like China.

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2009, 06:37 PM
While we are not Nazi Germany in certain ways for sure, we have things that Nazi Germany never had but certainly would of used if at their disposal, this country in modern times has never been less free than it at this point in time.

The jobs issue, it should apply to all political stances or none at all. It is not right that a BNP member would be barred from their job yet a Socialist Party member wouldn't be, even any other party. I believe everyone has a right to be a member of a political party and do their job and go about their lives without persecution from the state.

If a police officer is doing his job with no problems and is a member of the BNP/UKIP/Labour/Conservatives/etc. then he should not be persecuted for his/her beliefs - that is true democracy.

Salute
14-07-2009, 06:53 PM
I support the BNP, those who say we are 'racist' are narrow-minded.

ifuseekamy
14-07-2009, 07:31 PM
Spain, Dubai and other countries are full of British immigrants (yes, it's true, if you move to another country you are an immigrant, even if you're white!) who do it for the financial benefit. It's a simple fact that most BNP supporters are racists who by immigrant mean anyone who isn't a white Anglo-Saxon yet wouldn't think twice about emmigrating themselves.

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2009, 07:47 PM
Spain, Dubai and other countries are full of British immigrants (yes, it's true, if you move to another country you are an immigrant, even if you're white!) who do it for the financial benefit. It's a simple fact that most BNP supporters are racists who by immigrant mean anyone who isn't a white Anglo-Saxon yet wouldn't think twice about emmigrating themselves.

There's a difference between them countries and ours, ours is a welfare state therefore will and does attract the wrong sorts of people. They will not allow criminals/criminals would not want to go there, whereas as we do and why wouldn't criminals want to come here, even if they were to be arrested they'd get more luxaries in our prisons than they'd get in their home country whilst free.

Skajo
15-07-2009, 01:11 PM
Spain, Dubai and other countries are full of British immigrants (yes, it's true, if you move to another country you are an immigrant, even if you're white!) who do it for the financial benefit. It's a simple fact that most BNP supporters are racists who by immigrant mean anyone who isn't a white Anglo-Saxon yet wouldn't think twice about emmigrating themselves.
Bet they pay taxes and don't claim benefits, not their problem if other countries' taxes are cheaper and economy isn't as good.

ifuseekamy
15-07-2009, 05:07 PM
That doesn't make sense and kind of proves the point that BNP supporters are racists. Generally immigrants pay more in taxes than natives, hence Labour are so pro-immigration and Alan Johnson recently said he wouldn't cap immigration. Nevertheless immigration should be restricted in some form to keep numbers down, it doesn't look lik swine flu is going to provide a solution to overpopulation any time soon.

MrPinkPanther
15-07-2009, 06:07 PM
I support the BNP, those who say we are 'racist' are narrow-minded.
Not really. They only allow white members into their party and the definition of racist is:


Discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

By not allowing members other that white in they are discriminating on the basis of race. Racist scumbags. I'm 100% White and British but if the BNP come to power I for one am leaving this country as will many other British citizens. But the fact is the majority of the British electorate aren't stupid enough to vote for the BNP and if they were becoming likely to get into power then I suspect Labour and the Lib dems would merge to create a bigger party.

Skajo
15-07-2009, 09:46 PM
That doesn't make sense and kind of proves the point that BNP supporters are racists. Generally immigrants pay more in taxes than natives, hence Labour are so pro-immigration and Alan Johnson recently said he wouldn't cap immigration. Nevertheless immigration should be restricted in some form to keep numbers down, it doesn't look lik swine flu is going to provide a solution to overpopulation any time soon.
Australia does it right.

-:Undertaker:-
17-07-2009, 12:29 AM
That doesn't make sense and kind of proves the point that BNP supporters are racists. Generally immigrants pay more in taxes than natives, hence Labour are so pro-immigration and Alan Johnson recently said he wouldn't cap immigration. Nevertheless immigration should be restricted in some form to keep numbers down, it doesn't look lik swine flu is going to provide a solution to overpopulation any time soon.

Alan Johnson and Labour couldn't cap immigration if they tried, let alone willingly do it.

Mentor
17-07-2009, 01:22 AM
Australia does it right.
You seriously wana copy Australia? Do you like the idea of censoring the entire Internet (like china), banning all games with over a 15 rating, and illegalizeing porn too?

or just an economy crippling immigration policy o.0

-:Undertaker:-
17-07-2009, 02:38 AM
You seriously wana copy Australia? Do you like the idea of censoring the entire Internet (like china), banning all games with over a 15 rating, and illegalizeing porn too?

or just an economy crippling immigration policy o.0

That has no relevance to immigration policy and second of all, Australia has experienced enormous growth over the past decade with controlled immigration actually helping stimulate that growth.

Skajo
17-07-2009, 10:40 AM
You seriously wana copy Australia? Do you like the idea of censoring the entire Internet (like china), banning all games with over a 15 rating, and illegalizeing porn too?

or just an economy crippling immigration policy o.0
:S

I was replying to an immigration-related post.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!