The BNP - Good or Bad?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Weird how the link doesnt work for you but does for everyone else >.<

I think if you read that pdf ONCE you decide to read it, it will answer your questions.

You can DOWNLOAD it here: http://rapidshare.com/files/319439905/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf.html

The link will not work, believe me if I could get onto it I would eagerly read it. (I shall try again later). Although this has still not answered my point, i'd like you to tell me, not Mr Corbett, how UKIP are racist and homophobic.

I could link you all to UKIP articles all day long and make numerous outlandish claims about the Euroean Union or the Labour Party, but I have my own opinion and I can debate with it so i'm asking you to do the same right now.

How are UKIP racist and homophobic?


As you've just said, the document doesn't load for you so how do you know it's a "former socialist Labour MEP spewing on about how UKIP are apparently racist"? It's actually addressing key points about UKIP and gives evidence to back up what he says.

I've just now visited the UKIP website and I found what I expected. No party in their right mind is going to have illegal racist policies written on their website for all to see, so that was a pointless exercise now wasn't it? I've even been onto the BNP website just now, and something struck me.

How can you claim they are racist then? - their policies are right there. I could claim Labour are racist, but just aren't showing their 'true colours'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1
We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2
We call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants.


Now can you tell me which came from the UKIP website, and which came from the BNP? I bet you can't because they are exactly the same.

How is either one of them policies racist?

[Seatherny]

What? Not even Rapidshare is working now? Interesting stuff >.<
So my website, Mr. Corbett's website and now rapidshare. All 3 which link to the PDF file.

Like I said, I do not see the point in explaining it all when its clearly listed out in the PDF file.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What? Not even Rapidshare is working now? Interesting stuff >.<
So my website, Mr. Corbett's website and now rapidshare. All 3 which link to the PDF file.

Like I said, I do not see the point in explaining it all when its clearly listed out in the PDF file.

Ok right, you have Mr Corbett's article right with you now, able to read. I am asking you how UKIP are racist, so what can you do? - you post some evidence of Mr Corbetts claims and then enforce it with your own opinion.

You tell me how are UKIP racist and homophobic.

[Seatherny]

You obviously love the UKIP and dont like anything against them.

I will say it ONCE AGAIN VERY CLEARLY IN BIG BOLD LIKE YOURS, the PDF file TO WHICH I HAVE GIVEN YOU 3 DIFFERENT LINKS, clearly lists WHY THE UKIP ARE RACISTS and it backs them up with CREDIBLE AND RELIABLE sources.

[Tash.]

How can you claim they are racist then? - their policies are right there. I could claim Labour are racist, but just aren't showing their 'true colours'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1
We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2
We call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants.



How is either one of them policies racist?

I didn't say these particular quotes indicated that UKIP were racist actually. I'm merely pointing out that the BNP are a party known for their racism, and yet UKIP share quite a few policies with them? Coincidental? I think not. The basis of my racist claim comes from the PDF which you can't read for whatever reason. High ranking members of that party have said some pretty disgusting things. When you read the PDF you will see what I mean.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You obviously love the UKIP and dont like anything against them.

I will say it ONCE AGAIN VERY CLEARLY IN BIG BOLD LIKE YOURS, the PDF file TO WHICH I HAVE GIVEN YOU 3 DIFFERENT LINKS, clearly lists WHY THE UKIP ARE RACISTS and it backs them up with CREDIBLE AND RELIABLE sources.

I want to read it but cannot as it does not load.

Instead of point to Mr Corbetts article, please give me your own reasons why UKIP are racist, or even better - quote Mr Corbetts evidence.


I didn't say these particular quotes indicated that UKIP were racist actually. I'm merely pointing out that the BNP are a party known for their racism, and yet UKIP share quite a few policies with them? Coincidental? I think not. The basis of my racist claim comes from the PDF which you can't read for whatever reason. High ranking members of that party have said some pretty disgusting things. When you read the PDF you will see what I mean.

What policies?
..so in your logic, UKIP cannot have a strict, common sense immigration policy all because the British National Party also support the same line of restriction?

Do quote these disgusting things.

EDIT; I have just been sent the article in quote form from Sergio and have skimmed read it, so now please do pick a part out and we'll discuss it and how its apparently racist/homophobic and whether or not the source is reliable.

[Tash.]

What policies?
..so in your logic, UKIP cannot have a strict, common sense immigration policy all because the British National Party also support the same line of restriction?

Do quote these disgusting things.

In your opinion it is a common sense immigration policy, not everyone agrees that it's the correct thing to do, including myself.

And happily:


Robert Kilroy-Silk (UKIP MEP Since 2004) wrote in the Daily Express:"They [Muslims] are backward and evil and if it is racist to say so... then racist I must be - and happy and proud, to be so.

I'd have to type each one out and I have better things to do as there are many, but here is a taster of many quotes that the publication has.

[Seatherny]

I am sure you would love to read them, so here are some screenshots. They follow on from one another.

http://i49.tinypic.com/53jnyx.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/a0w84i.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/r0yqdi.jpg

IMAGE 2 EDITED AS I DIDN'T SCREEN SHOT IT PROPERLY

[-:Undertaker:-]

In your opinion it is a common sense immigration policy, not everyone agrees that it's the correct thing to do, including myself.Ok so, basically its not racist. Glad we got over that hurdle.


And happily:

I'd have to type each one out and I have better things to do as there are many, but here is a taster of many quotes that the publication has.Did Robert Kilroy Silk say this (is there anywhere else where this can be quoted from fully?) - if he did say this then I disagree with his generalisation, but I do agree in the sense that the Middle East and most muslim countries are backward, and Sharia Law is evil which is part of the faith itself.

[Seatherny]

Ok so, basically its not racist. Glad we got over that hurdle.

Did Robert Kilroy Silk say this (is there anywhere else where this can be quoted from fully?) - if he did say this then I disagree with his generalisation, but I do agree in the sense that the Middle East and most muslim countries are backward, and Sharia Law is evil which is part of the faith itself.

Daily Express, it was quoted from that.

[Tash.]

Ok so, basically its not racist. Glad we got over that hurdle.

Did Robert Kilroy Silk say this (is there anywhere else where this can be quoted from fully?) - if he did say this then I disagree with his generalisation, but I do agree in the sense that the Middle East and most muslim countries are backward, and Sharia Law is evil which is part of the faith itself.

The document says it is from the Daily Express on the 25th of February 1991, I haven't checked it but you are welcome to do so. Well there you go, in your opinion the Middle East is backwards, but who are you to judge on how they live their lives? If he did say this, he is a high profile member of UKIP and it just proves that there are racist people, perhaps pushing racist elements of the party.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Daily Express, it was quoted from that.

If that article in question can be found then I will believe the source is genuine.


The document says it is from the Daily Express on the 25th of February 1991, I haven't checked it but you are welcome to do so. Well there you go, in your opinion the Middle East is backwards, but who are you to judge on how they live their lives? If he did say this, he is a high profile member of UKIP and it just proves that there are racist people, perhaps pushing racist elements of the party.

I can judge because we judge all the time, my idea of freedom and democracy ranks higher than corruption and killing in the middle east i'm afraid. You have just basically said to me 'how dare you have an opinion about someone' - well I do, i'm a human being.

On Kilroy Silk, he is no longer a member of UKIP - on racism itself, there will be people in UKIP with racist views who are party members, same with Labour, the Conservatives and others. I do not find his comment racist though, more of a generalisation about extremism.

[Seatherny]

If that article in question can be found then I will believe the source is genuine.



I doubt a Labour member would quote incorrectly. He can be sued for it. Considering he hasn't, there is your proof that its genuine.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A Labour minister/MP/MEP would quote incorrectly and they have accused people before of racism and homophobia on dud terms before; Michael Howard in 2005, David Milliband a few weeks ago accusing the Conservatives of racism and finally the Labour Party accussing the Conservative Party of xenophobia by wanting to claim powers back from the European Union.

[Seatherny]

And if they do it falsley, they get found out. This one hasnt. Like I said, its true. You refuse to believe anything against the UKIP.

UKIP ARE RACISTS :) FREEDOM OF SPEECH REMEMBER :)

[Ardemax]

Yeah.......... and 'The holocaust did not happen' is not hateful. Glad we finally cleared this up then. *wipes hands*

Hateful of family members...?


Also Undertaker the links work fine for me.

But I'm pretty much agreeing with what Saurav and Tash have to say.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And if they do it falsley, they get found out. This one hasnt. Like I said, its true. You refuse to believe anything against the UKIP.

UKIP ARE RACISTS :) FREEDOM OF SPEECH REMEMBER :)

I have read it. Now pick a part out for me and we will discuss it.

On freedom of speech, I never said holocaust denial/calling UKIP racist should be illegal, it was yourself who did that with one of them. :S


Hateful of family members...?

Also Undertaker the links work fine for me.

But I'm pretty much agreeing with what Saurav and Tash have to say.

I have read it, now i'm waiting for Sauarv to pick out some parts and we can discuss them - instead of himself just saying 'READ DA ARTICLE' - come on, i'm waiting. Infact Ardemax, you can pick some parts out if you are in agreement with them, and you can post it, and why you think that points to UKIP being racist. :)

[Seatherny]

Pick out parts? Err it lists all the quotes with credible sources. I think its enough proof that UKIP are not only racists but have a hollow head.

[Black_Apalachi]

Hateful of family members...?


Also Undertaker the links work fine for me.

But I'm pretty much agreeing with what Saurav and Tash have to say.

No :S. 'The holocaust didn't happen and I hate all the people who say their family died in it' would be hateful because it has the word hate in it so it is hateful and can be seen as threatening because it says you hate them and hating someone is a very strong thing so yeah see the word hate? Well 'The holocaust didn't happen' doesn't have the word hate in nor does it mention anybody directly so it is not hateful. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

[Ardemax]

No :S. 'The holocaust didn't happen and I hate all the people who say their family died in it' would be hateful because it has the word hate in it so it is hateful and can be seen as threatening because it says you hate them and hating someone is a very strong thing so yeah see the word hate? Well 'The holocaust didn't happen' doesn't have the word hate in nor does it mention anybody directly so it is not hateful. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?


That's good init.

Just because it doesn't have the word "hate" in it, it isn't hateful. Hmmm yeah?

Denying the Holocaust could actually mean many things, it could even be seen as mocking someone.

[Black_Apalachi]

That's good init.

Just because it doesn't have the word "hate" in it, it isn't hateful. Hmmm yeah?

Denying the Holocaust could actually mean many things, it could even be seen as mocking someone.

It doesn't have the word 'hate' in it, nor does it have any other derogatory or slanderous terms aimed at any particular people. You can twist words as much as you want but it doesn't change the facts of what they mean.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Pick out parts? Err it lists all the quotes with credible sources. I think its enough proof that UKIP are not only racists but have a hollow head.

Yes ok then, so now I want you to pick a part out and quote it, and then we can discuss it. You won't though, because the majority of that utter crap that eurocratic federalist former Labour MEP has wrote either is not racist at all, or comes from dodgy sources which seem to have no backup in debate - hence why you are so reluctant to post parts of it.

[ifuseekamy]

Islam and the BNP are as bad as each other I don't know why they don't get on.

[Seatherny]

Yes ok then, so now I want you to pick a part out and quote it, and then we can discuss it. You won't though, because the majority of that utter crap that eurocratic federalist former Labour MEP has wrote either is not racist at all, or comes from dodgy sources which seem to have no backup in debate - hence why you are so reluctant to post parts of it.

No. Its because the whole document clearly states why UKIP are one of the worst parties ever.

What do you want me to do, pick out one quote every time :S Don't be silly. The person has VERY CLEARLY proved that UKIP are not only DUMB but RACISTS.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No. Its because the whole document clearly states why UKIP are one of the worst parties ever.

What do you want me to do, pick out one quote every time :S Don't be silly. The person has VERY CLEARLY proved that UKIP are not only DUMB but RACISTS.

DUMB? - what are you? American or SUMFING.

Anyway back to the real issue, I want you to pick a particular claim out of Corbetts so called evidence, and explain to me why it means UKIP are racist, I will then respond with my reponse to the claim, and I can nearly gurantee I can either show that the particular claim isn't infact racist, has no evidence or has no conncection with UKIP at all. ..so come on, you have 3 pages worth of 'evidence' to quote from, I have nothing. Debate it instead of referring to the link time and time again.

On your signature by the way, UKIP want to decrease taxes as they are a conservative-leaning party and abolish taxes for those less fortunate which would help the state and the lower classes in general, so it just shows you are making it up as you go along.

[Seatherny]

DUMB? - what are you? American or SUMFING.

Anyway back to the real issue, I want you to pick a particular claim out of Corbetts so called evidence, and explain to me why it means UKIP are racist, I will then respond with my reponse to the claim, and I can nearly gurantee I can either show that the particular claim isn't infact racist, has no evidence or has no conncection with UKIP at all. ..so come on, you have 3 pages worth of 'evidence' to quote from, I have nothing. Debate it instead of referring to the link time and time again.

On your signature by the way, UKIP want to decrease taxes as they are a conservative-leaning party and abolish taxes for those less fortunate which would help the state and the lower classes in general, so it just shows you are making it up as you go along.

Calling American dumb now? Now that is racist :) Well done.
Go on then, tell me why every quote in those 3 pages I posted is incorrect. I want to discuss them :) You can see them all, and you want to debate it, so go on, reply to every quote in Mr. Corbetts document.

And regarding the Taxes comment you replied to:

It is unimportant if it's untrue, it's my opinion. Freedom of speech remember :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Calling American dumb now? Now that is racist :) Well done.
Go on then, tell me why every quote in those 3 pages I posted is incorrect. I want to discuss them :) You can see them all, and you want to debate it, so go on, reply to every quote in Mr. Corbetts document.

Oh my god are you for real? - evidently not.

On the quotes, pick a quote, the worst one you can find and we can discuss it. I didn't say every quote now did I, I just want you to post a quote or two from Corbetts file and you tell me how it makes UKIP racist and why people shouldn't support them in an election. You won't though because you know yourself that the majority of the stuff on that document is poorly put together which makes me doubt whether the claims are real - a lot of it isn't even racist anyway so I have no idea where you got the racist/homophobic stuff from, especially as one of UKIP's top MEP's (Nikki Sinclaire) is a lesbian.

Can I ask also, where does UKIP state in its policies that it will raise taxes?

[Seatherny]

Oh my god are you for real? - evidently not.

On the quotes, pick a quote, the worst one you can find and we can discuss it. I didn't say every quote now did I, I just want you to post a quote or two from Corbetts file and you tell me how it makes UKIP racist and why people shouldn't support them in an election. You won't though because you know yourself that the majority of the stuff on that document is poorly put together which makes me doubt whether the claims are real - a lot of it isn't even racist anyway so I have no idea where you got the racist/homophobic stuff from, especially as one of UKIP's top MEP's (Nikki Sinclaire) is a lesbian.

Can I ask also, where does UKIP state in its policies that it will raise taxes?

Please read my previous post regarding taxes. I edited it seconds after you pressed reply.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Please read my post regarding taxes. I edited it seconds after you pressed reply.

..so still no quote, and on top of that you have just admitted that you make stuff up as you go along.

[Seatherny]

..so still no quote, and on top of that you have just admitted that you make stuff up as you go along.

No I was proving my point regarding Nick Griffin. You didnt care he denies the holocaust even though its a documented part of history so why do you care about what I say? Its freedom of speech. :rolleyes:

And no, Mr. Corbett has put together that document in an excellent way and it doesn't need explaining. You are just annoyed because it shows very clearly why UKIP are racists and clearly dumb.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No I was proving my point regarding Nick Griffin. You didnt care he denies the holocaust even though its a documented part of history so why do you care about what I say? Its freedom of speech.

I said it was his right, just as its your right to say what you want. The point is, you are making it all up and I am challenging you on these issues yet you don't seem to have a credible response at all, and have just admitted that you make it up.

If Nick Griffin was on here posting that the holocaust did not happen I would be posting asking him for evidence and for him to debate it.


And no, Mr. Corbett has put together that document in an excellent way and it doesn't need explaining. You are just annoyed because it shows very clearly why UKIP are racists and clearly dumb.

You will not quote it, maybe its because it turns out you have only read a page or so of the document as Jordy has just quoted yourself stating that (and this is what you yourself said only a few minutes ago) *REMOVED*

Edit by Sammeth. (Assistant General Manager): Please don't post private information, including all or parts of private messages.

[Seatherny]

I said it was his right, just as its your right to say what you want. The point is, you are making it all up and I am challenging you on these issues yet you don't seem to have a credible response at all, and have just admitted that you make it up.

If Nick Griffin was on here posting that the holocaust did not happen I would be posting asking him for evidence and for him to debate it.



You will not quote it, maybe its because it turns out you have only read a page or so of the document as Jordy has just quoted yourself stating that (and this is what you yourself said only a few minutes ago) "Do you honestly think I care about that document? I haven't even read more than a page of it."

Its my right to say what I want. Glad we agree on that. Thus I shouldn't need to answer to your challeneges and neither should you challenge me as its my right to say it as long as I am not spreading hatred :)

And thanks for posting part of a PM on the forum and breaking yet more rules :) My PM to Sammeth. is building up very nicely indeed.

And I said that to Jordy as the guy has no idea what he is on about. I will not quote it? There is nothing to quote :S You seriously seem to not understand. If you are that desperate, you can see all the quotes, reply to each of them then :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

Its my right to say what I want. Glad we agree on that. Thus I shouldn't need to answer to your challeneges and neither should you challenge me as its my right to say it as long as I am not spreading hatred :)

I can, should and will challenge you because it shows that a) you are making it up as you go along & b) it's the opposite from the truth anyway.


And I said that to Jordy as the guy has no idea what he is on about. I will not quote it? There is nothing to quote :S You seriously seem to not understand. If you are that desperate, you can see all the quotes, reply to each of them then :rolleyes:

I wouldn't say that Jordy doesn't know what he's on about when you yourself are claming Corbett has written an excellent document yet it turns out you haven't read it anyway. ..and yet you still refuse to quote the document.

[Jordy]

Its my right to say what I want. Glad we agree on that. Thus I shouldn't need to answer to your challeneges and neither should you challenge me as its my right to say it as long as I am not spreading hatred :)

And thanks for posting part of a PM on the forum and breaking yet more rules :) My PM to Sammeth. is building up very nicely indeed.

And I said that to Jordy as the guy has no idea what he is on about. I will not quote it? There is nothing to quote :S You seriously seem to not understand. If you are that desperate, you can see all the quotes, reply to each of them then :rolleyes:What do you mean I don't understand? Why should we quote them all and argue, seeing as you refuse to argue back and haven't read it 'allegedly' anyway.

In what way do I have no idea what I am on about? I know that document in your signature is complete rubbish and specifically pointed it out to you how it is, yet you refuse to argue back or even comment on the document.

[Seatherny]

I can, should and will challenge you because it shows that a) you are making it up as you go along & b) it's the opposite from the truth anyway.



I wouldn't say that Jordy doesn't know what he's on about when you yourself are claming Corbett has written an excellent document yet it turns out you haven't read it anyway. ..and yet you still refuse to quote the document.

I have read it hence I am able to post what I did. Going by Jordy's PM, he clearly seems to think he is above everyone else and he is cleverer.

I have said several times, and you fail to understand for whatever reason, why don't you start debating his quotes. Why not? Because you obviously cannot and know for a fact that Mr. Corbett is correct and that UKIP are racists.

[Ardemax]

And thus let the battle commence.

Regarding the Holocaust denial, (which I've been mentoining a lot) I thought you needed evidence to accuse someone? Am I not correct?

What evidence do they have?

[Seatherny]

And thus let the battle commence.

Regarding the Holocaust denial, (which I've been mentoining a lot) I thought you needed evidence to accuse someone? Am I not correct?

What evidence do they have?

Evidence is only required when you accuse UKIP of something. Even when the evidence is there, they refuse to believe it :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

I have read it hence I am able to post what I did. Going by Jordy's PM, he clearly seems to think he is above everyone else and he is cleverer.

I have said several times, and you fail to understand for whatever reason, why don't you start debating his quotes. Why not? Because you obviously cannot and know for a fact that Mr. Corbett is correct and that UKIP are racists.

..because i'm not the one claiming UKIP are racist and homophobic.


And thus let the battle commence.

Regarding the Holocaust denial, (which I've been mentoining a lot) I thought you needed evidence to accuse someone? Am I not correct?

What evidence do they have?

We didn't say you need evidence to accuse someone, but as shown by this debate, if you don't have evidence or at least, evidence with any solid foundations then you don't have a point to put across at all.

The holocaust deniers claim the gas chambers and so forth were built after the war when the allies landed in the camps, but this of course is rubbish and I could be debating with anyone who denied the holocaust as i'm sure would others if that did occur.

We're not saying because Saurav is against UKIP he shouldn't be allowed to speak, all i'm asking for is for him to back up his side of the debate, and if he could he could well convince me. If i'm wrong I accept it.

[Seatherny]

Well I think the document pretty much lists why UKIP are whatever I claim they are. It has backed it up with quotes from higher level members of the party along with credible sources. If anything on there was incorrect, he would have been sue'd by now.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well I think the document pretty much lists why UKIP are whatever I claim they are. It has backed it up with quotes from higher level members of the party along with credible sources. If anything on there was incorrect, he would have been sue'd by now.

If it is all credible and trustworthy then why can you not quote this and explain how and why UKIP are racist and homophobic. I know you've just read the full document in the past few minutes but I have read it too, and if it had any real credible backup then I myself would be questioning UKIP.

I am not UKIP forever, if they do things I disagree with I would remove my support from them, just as I have with the Conservatives under David Cameron. On the sueing part, i'm sure UKIP have better things to spend their small budget on than former federalist Labour MEPs' posting documents on the internet which have no credibility what so ever.

[Seatherny]

If it is all credible and trustworthy then why can you not quote this and explain how and why UKIP are racist and homophobic. I know you've just read the full document in the past few minutes but I have read it too, and if it had any real credible backup then I myself would be questioning UKIP.

I am not UKIP forever, if they do things I disagree with I would remove my support from them, just as I have with the Conservatives under David Cameron. On the sueing part, i'm sure UKIP have better things to spend their small budget on than former federalist Labour MEPs' posting documents on the internet which have no credibility what so ever.

And how do you know I have read the whole document in the past few minutes? I haven't even opened it since the day I first linked to it. Shows how ignorant you are.
And again, I dont understand why you fail to understand it yet again, the document is clearly listing why UKIP are racist and homophobic and extremely dumb so why do I need to :S It would be me repeating what the author has written which would be a waste of my time.


We didn't say you need evidence to accuse someone, but as shown by this debate, if you don't have evidence or at least, evidence with any solid foundations then you don't have a point to put across at all.

Well you indirectly did when we debated on the holocaust and Mr. Griffins opinions. However, it obviously doesn't apply when a person accuses UKIP of something.
You seem to deny everything when its proved wrong. I remember earlier in this debate, you made a claim, and then fully contradicted it minutes later and when someone pointed it out, you made an excuse.
And you/Jordy (or both) say I cant argue or debate. I am not the one dodging questions or contradicting myself. You have read the document like you said, so you should be able to explain the quotes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And how do you know I have read the whole document in the past few minutes? I haven't even opened it since the day I first linked to it. Shows how ignorant you are.
And again, I dont understand why you fail to understand it yet again, the document is clearly listing why UKIP are racist and homophobic and extremely dumb so why do I need to :S It would be me repeating what the author has written which would be a waste of my time.

You evidently haven't read the document fully because you are so relucant to quote from it, or provide it as any evidence to why the UK Independance Party is remotely racist or homophobic at all. It wouldn't be a waste, it would show that you yourself can think for yourself and back up your own opinions and would also put me and UKIP in the spotlight as I would be the one having to explain the quotes/evidence, not you.

Can you see where the thread has gone now? - its gone from a healthy debate about BNP/racism/UKIP to a debate about why you won't post simple quotes. It totally ruins it.



Well you indirectly did when we debated on the holocaust and Mr. Griffins opinions. However, it obviously doesn't apply when a person accuses UKIP of something.
You seem to deny everything when its proved wrong. I remember earlier in this debate, you made a claim, and then fully contradicted it minutes later and when someone pointed it out, you made an excuse.
And you/Jordy (or both) say I cant argue or debate. I am not the one dodging questions or contradicting myself. You have read the document like you said, so you should be able to explain the quotes.I got one thing in this thread wrong, and I admitted it yeah I have no problem with it. A member posted where I had contradicted myself and hands up, I was wrong. On this however, I am not wrong. Can I ask; what questions have I dodged?

Oh and from earlier on.. where have UKIP said they will raise taxes? - oh wait you already freely admitted you made that up.

[Ardemax]

We didn't say you need evidence to accuse someone, but as shown by this debate, if you don't have evidence or at least, evidence with any solid foundations then you don't have a point to put across at all.

The holocaust deniers claim the gas chambers and so forth were built after the war when the allies landed in the camps, but this of course is rubbish and I could be debating with anyone who denied the holocaust as i'm sure would others if that did occur.

Exactly... solid evidence. So why does one stick up for those who deny it?

[Seatherny]

You evidently haven't read the document fully

Congratulations on repeating what I said. Where have I said I have read it all? If I remember correctly, it was you who said "I know you've just read the full document in the past few minutes"

[-:Undertaker:-]

Exactly... solid evidence. So why does one stick up for those who deny it?

I'm not sticking up for their opinion as Sergio said earlier, I was sticking up for their right to air their opinion.


Congratulations on repeating what I said. Where have I said I have read it all? If I remember correctly, it was you who said "I know you've just read the full document in the past few minutes"

Ok then you haven't read all the document, which again casts even more doubt on how you can call UKIP racist and homophobic.

[Seatherny]

I'm not sticking up for their opinion as Sergio said earlier, I was sticking up for their right to air their opinion.



Ok then you haven't read all the document, which again casts even more doubt on how you can call UKIP racist and homophobic.

I haven't read the whole document but I have read the main points concerning racism and how they are homophobic. The document has a contents page and I read the points which were of interest to me by going directly to the relevant pages.

And again, it is my right to say:

UKIP are going to raise taxes, make people pay for education, introduce more taxes, ban under 30's from driving. You should not question it (like you indirectly said we shouldn't question Mr. Griffin) as its my right to voice these opinions.

[Robbie]

ban under 30's from diving

What will Tom Daly do?!?!?!?! :(

[Seatherny]

Apologies, I meant driving not diving. But yes, UKIP will ban swimming pools :( why? because their leader cant swim and is jealous.

I think I have got my point across.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I haven't read the whole document but I have read the main points concerning racism and how they are homophobic. The document has a contents page and I read the points which were of interest to me by going directly to the relevant pages.

aka you saw the words racism and homophobic and latched onto it.


And again, it is my right to say:

UKIP are going to raise taxes, make people pay for education, introduce more taxes, ban under 30's from driving. You should not question it (like you indirectly said we shouldn't question Mr. Griffin) as its my right to voice these opinions.

UKIP won't raise taxes, won't make education private and i'm fairly sure they don't have a under 30's ban. Why? - because thats not their policy.

Indeed it is, your right to voice these opinions, and i'm debuckling those opinions as that is what a debate is - just like I debuckled them a few lines up. On Griffin I never ever said we should not question Nick Griffin and his views on the holocaust.

[Seatherny]

aka you saw the words racism and homophobic and latched onto it.


Your replies are almost predictable now. I read other topics too but I believe these two were more important.

[Tash.]

Look, I tell you what, I will point out some quotes for you so that you can fulfill your wish to defend them. I will be immensely shocked if you write anything other than "how do I know it can be trusted" because these things are indefensible.


Nigel Farage (UKIP MEP since 1999, leader of the UKIP group of MEPs in the
European Parliament since 2004; former UKIP Chairman, 1998-2000 and cofounder,
UKIP) told former UKIP leader Dr Alan Sked “We will never win the
****** vote. The ******* will never vote for us”, according to Dr Sked.

You cannot say that is not racist, those terms are not allowed hence i've starred them out, however if you refer to the document you can find the terms.



Frank Maloney (UKIP candidate in the 2004 London mayoral election) commented
that he would not be campaigning in Camden because there are “too many gays”.
He said “I don’t want to campaign around gays… I don’t think they do a lot for
society”. Protesting that he was not homophobic, Maloney then added “In public
let’s live a proper moral life – I think that’s important”.

Homphobic wouldn't you say?


Dr Alan Sked (founder leader of UKIP, 1993-97) has told us that when it comes to
immigration policy, “UKIP is even less liberal than the BNP. Certainly, there is a
symbiosis between elements of the parties”.

Said by the founder, I mean can you get deeper into a parties roots than that? All these quotes have a date and issue related to them, i'm sure if you were that concerned over their reliability you could source out the archives for such things.

[Seatherny]

Look, I tell you what, I will point out some quotes for you so that you can fulfill your wish to defend them. I will be immensely shocked if you write anything other than "how do I know it can be trusted" because these things are indefensible.



You cannot say that is not racist, those terms are not allowed hence i've starred them out, however if you refer to the document you can find the terms.




Homphobic wouldn't you say?



Said by the founder, I mean can you get deeper into a parties roots than that? All these quotes have a date and issue related to them, i'm sure if you were that concerned over their reliability you could source out the archives for such things.

I can see the reply being "these are opinions of the individual and not the parties"
But if your higher level party leaders believe in such terrible things then these will surely influence the parties decisions. If someone disagrees then :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

Look, I tell you what, I will point out some quotes for you so that you can fulfill your wish to defend them. I will be immensely shocked if you write anything other than "how do I know it can be trusted" because these things are indefensible.

The majority of them can't be trusted, hence why the main Labour Party and others do not refer to UKIP as racist, because it isn't racist.


You cannot say that is not racist, those terms are not allowed hence i've starred them out, however if you refer to the document you can find the terms.I simply do not believe that. Although if Nigel Farage did say them words then a poor choice of words, but the fact is; UKIP would never get the immigration vote because UKIP wants to stop immigration. If Farage had said that then he wouldn't be invited (quite frequently) onto TV/have such a respectable place among media circles such as the Telegraphy. If you can find more evidence on this claim then i'd be happy to read it and very interested aswell.


Homphobic wouldn't you say?I would not say that was homophobic, I don't agree with gay marriage and although i'm gay myself, I know some people aren't comfortable/happy with the idea of homosexuality - its how they've been brought up and their opinion, they are doing me no malice.


Said by the founder, I mean can you get deeper into a parties roots than that? All these quotes have a date and issue related to them, i'm sure if you were that concerned over their reliability you could source out the archives for such things.Dr Alan Sked if anyone actually has read anything on him, hates UKIP and doesn't get along well with them, hence why he fell out with them. Therefore he will say these things won't he. I think the cxlear difference between the UKIP immigration policy and the BNP immigration policy are these;



Policy not based on race (UKIP)
Policy based on race (BNP)
Temporary 5-year blanket ban on immigration (UKIP)
Permanent ban on immigration (BNP)



I can see the reply being "these are opinions of the individual and not the parties"
But if your higher level party leaders believe in such terrible things then these will surely influence the parties decisions. If someone disagrees then :rolleyes:

Do not get involved, you had numerous chances to quote the document but failed at every chance you got.

[Seatherny]

The majority of them can't be trusted

I simply do not believe that.

Why do you ask us to quote things and reply with such crap as that?
Like I said, if the quotes were false, the author would have been sue'd by now or been forced to remove the false quote and issue a formal apology.

[Tash.]

The majority of them can't be trusted, hence why the main Labour Party and others do not refer to UKIP as racist, because it isn't racist.

The point is that these were all once members of UKIP and something within that parties manifest made these people join. So, what is it within UKIP that apparently attracts people who in your words "can't be trusted"?


I simply do not believe that. Although if Nigel Farage did say them words then a poor choice of words, but the fact is; UKIP would never get the immigration vote because UKIP wants to stop immigration. If Farage had said that then he wouldn't be invited (quite frequently) onto TV/have such a respectable place among media circles such as the Telegraphy. If you can find more evidence on this claim then i'd be happy to read it and very interested aswell.

I can't see how you can deny he said it. As people have said before, that is a pretty bad quote. If the paper in question had printed him saying such things then do you not imagine he may have sued them for libel? It's not something you'd just let go if you know you've not said it.


I would not say that was homophobic, I don't agree with gay marriage and although i'm gay myself, I know some people aren't comfortable/happy with the idea of homosexuality - its how they've been brought up and their opinion, they are doing me no malice.

Perhaps not directly, but do you not realise that by denouncing those who are gay they are almost ridiculing your choices in life? It seems to me that you don't let many things bother you, and more power to you if thats true. But the fact is that some people will find that deeply offensive to the way they wish to live their lives.


Dr Alan Sked if anyone actually has read anything on him, hates UKIP and doesn't get along well with them, hence why he fell out with them. Therefore he will say these things won't he. I think the cxlear difference between the UKIP immigration policy and the BNP immigration policy are these;



Policy not based on race (UKIP)
Policy based on race (BNP)
Temporary 5-year blanket ban on immigration (UKIP)
Permanent ban on immigration (BNP)


Again, he may now dislike UKIP but he founded the party and you cannot tell me that every single aspect or ideal that he instilled into it is gone? Therefore the party is based upon a founder who is admitting that the party is now in the grips of having similarities with the BNP. No link with the BNP is a positive one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why do you ask us to quote things and reply with such crap as that?
Like I said, if the quotes were false, the author would have been sue'd by now or been forced to remove the false quote and issue a formal apology.

I gave more than that of a reply, now you refused to quote or even explain why UKIP were racist/homophobic, or has the fact Tash is here changed it all I wonder.


The point is that these were all once members of UKIP and something within that parties manifest made these people join. So, what is it within UKIP that apparently attracts people who in your words "can't be trusted"?

Euro-sceptics are attracted to UKIP, UKIP was founded as a Tory-Bruges cut off group but was supposed to have the single purpose of opposition to the European Union while uniting all from left to right, whereas the Bruges group was famously to the right.


I can't see how you can deny he said it. As people have said before, that is a pretty bad quote. If the paper in question had printed him saying such things then do you not imagine he may have sued them for libel? It's not something you'd just let go if you know you've not said it.I want to see evidence that Farage said this, he's not at all the type of man who would put race on people. If he did, it was a off-comment - a comment most people have said one or two times before.


Perhaps not directly, but do you not realise that by denouncing those who are gay they are almost ridiculing your choices in life? It seems to me that you don't let many things bother you, and more power to you if thats true. But the fact is that some people will find that deeply offensive to the way they wish to live their lives.Gay isn't a choice. On if they are offended, if they are offended then so be it. Live with it i'd say to them. The man in question (if he said this) said nothing homophobic what so ever.


Again, he may now dislike UKIP but he founded the party and you cannot tell me that every single aspect or ideal that he instilled into it is gone? Therefore the party is based upon a founder who is admitting that the party is now in the grips of having similarities with the BNP. No link with the BNP is a positive one.I can, the party is nothing like it was a few years ago. UKIP was merely a pressure group a few years ago, under Farage its become more mainstream (coming 2nd in the last election in this country) and has become far more professional in its methods of campaigning. On the link with the BNP, yes a link with the BNP can be good, both oppose mass-immigration. I find that common sense, although I do not approve of basing immigration policy on race like the BNP does.

[Seatherny]

I gave more than that of a reply, now you refused to quote or even explain why UKIP were racist/homophobic, or has the fact Tash is here changed it all I wonder.


Like I have said several times now, I did not see the point in copying and pasting stuff from the document when you can clearly use your eyes and see them for yourself and you have seen it as you said you have read it. All Tash has done is copied and pasted the quotes as you are too ignorant.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Like I have said several times now, I did not see the point in copying and pasting stuff from the document when you can clearly use your eyes and see them for yourself and you have seen it as you said you have read it. All Tash has done is copied and pasted the quotes as you are too ignorant.

No Tash is discussing it, as am I. You are still going on about links. You didn't want to discuss it, end of.

[Seatherny]

No she has just copied and pasted the quotes and you just refuse to believe them as we both predicted, so you are just wasting our time by telling us to pick a quote to debate when you simply refuse to believe it. That is a very poor debating skill which you seem to have.

Like we have said several times, if those quotes were false, the author would have been sue'd by now and asked to make a formal apology as well as remove the quote.

[Ardemax]

So if you're saying I can openly deny something without solid evidence then I could deny anything? What about if there's rock hard evidence?

[-:Undertaker:-]

No she has just copied and pasted the quotes and you just refuse to believe them as we both predicted, so you are just wasting our time by telling us to pick a quote to debate when you simply refuse to believe it. That is a very poor debating skill which you seem to have.

Like we have said several times, if those quotes were false, the author would have been sue'd by now and asked to make a formal apology as well as remove the quote.

Do not talk about debating skills with me, you refused to take part time and time again and now Tash is putting together a well-contructed side of the debate, you seem to want to get in on that. IF Nigel Farage HAD said that - do you not think for one minute that when he was on any program such as Question Time another MP/MEP/writer would of picked up on this and attacked him with it? - nobody has which points to it being simply not true.


So if you're saying I can openly deny something without solid evidence then I could deny anything? What about if there's rock hard evidence?

If there is rock hard evidence, you can still deny it but everyone else can see its true, as is the case with the holocaust.

[Seatherny]

No, I had provided you with the evidence, but as predicted you just refuse to believe it, so I didnt see the point. Tash only quoted it in hope that you will stop re-posting what you have been doing. I have always answered your points, showed you the quotes and you just wanted me to copy and paste them. Whats the point in that? :S Thats just a waste of time.

Yes, ofcourse they are going to ask the person the same question everytime :rolleyes:
Its most likely he made up an excuse for it and the media cant be bothered arguing on it now.

Oh and heres a quote


Frank Maloney (UKIP candidate in the 2004 London mayoral election) commented
that he would not be campaigning in Camden because there are “too many gays”.
He said “I don’t want to campaign around gays… I don’t think they do a lot for
society”. Protesting that he was not homophobic, Maloney then added “In public
let’s live a proper moral life – I think that’s important”.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3666155.stm

So thats not homophobic or have the BBC made the news up? Or both? :rolleyes:


Godfrey Bloom (UKIP MEP since 2004) has notoriously declared: “No selfrespecting
small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a
lady of child-bearing age”. He applied for a place on the Women’s Rights
Committee of the European Parliament, saying “I am here to represent Yorkshire
women who always have dinner on the table when you get home. I am going to
promote men’s rights”. He wanted to deal with women’s issues because “I just
don’t think they clean behind the fridge enough”.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/3912385.stm

[Seatherny]

Steve Reed has also stated: “[‘Renewable resources’] are not renewable… Taking
energy from winds and tides irreversibly enervates the weather system and slows
the rotation of the Earth”.

Source: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/letters-to-the-editor/Binge-drinking-hinders-fight-against.833678.jp

This guy is an absolute moron. Why would anyone want these idiots running the country?


When Robert Kilroy-Silk was due to appear on BBC 1’s Question Time as a UKIP
candidate for the 2004 European elections, UKIP’s campaign office e-mailed its
supporters with this request: “We urgently need articulate members to be in the
audience for the above event. BUT DON’T LET ON YOU’RE UKIP!”

Source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-10811622-kilroy-party-in-tv-dirty-tricks-row.do

Thats just lame and idiotic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, I had provided you with the evidence, but as predicted you just refuse to believe it, so I didnt see the point. Tash only quoted it in hope that you will stop re-posting what you have been doing. I have always answered your points, showed you the quotes and you just wanted me to copy and paste them. Whats the point in that? :S Thats just a waste of time.

..because as I have said before, the Corbett document is utter rubbish, as shown by the stuff you've just posted below, half these things aren't remotely racist and the claims that Nigel Farage said that cannot even be backed up at all, hence why nobody has ever called him a racist.


Yes, ofcourse they are going to ask the person the same question everytime :rolleyes:
Its most likely he made up an excuse for it and the media cant be bothered arguing on it now.

Oh and heres a quote

Oh the media can't be bothered oh yes its all Farage and UKIP V you isn't it. Excuses, excuses.


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3666155.stm

So thats not homophobic or have the BBC made the news up? Or both? :rolleyes:

That's not remotely homophobic.


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/3912385.stm

He supports the old-fashioned family view of women - and? :S


Source: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/letters-to-the-editor/Binge-drinking-hinders-fight-against.833678.jp

This guy is an absolute moron. Why would anyone want these idiots running the country?

His opinion, not UKIP policy. We already have idiots such as Gordon Brown giving away billions upon billions to fight non-existant climate change while we have old people dying in poor care which is utterly disgusting. Today we have more cuts to the military as our men and women are dying while in war - its disgusting yet because its Labour, don't mention hey?




Source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-10811622-kilroy-party-in-tv-dirty-tricks-row.do

Thats just lame and idiotic.

Do you know why that is? - because just like the BNP was treated on Question Time they feared they would get the same treatment. The main parties used to call UKIP racist etc when it was smaller back in 2004.

[Seatherny]

..because as I have said before, the Corbett document is utter rubbish, as shown by the stuff you've just posted below, half these things aren't remotely racist and the claims that Nigel Farage said that cannot even be backed up at all, hence why nobody has ever called him a racist.



Oh the media can't be bothered oh yes its all Farage and UKIP V you isn't it. Excuses, excuses.



That's not remotely homophobic.



He supports the old-fashioned family view of women - and? :S



His opinion, not UKIP policy. We already have idiots such as Gordon Brown giving away billions upon billions to fight non-existant climate change while we have old people dying in poor care which is utterly disgusting. Today we have more cuts to the military as our men and women are dying while in war - its disgusting yet because its Labour, don't mention hey?





Do you know why that is? - because just like the BNP was treated on Question Time they feared they would get the same treatment. The main parties used to call UKIP racist etc when it was smaller back in 2004.

Not remotely homophobic? Are you kidding me? Your counter arguments are pathetic!
So you are saying if UKIP get in power and the old fashioned leaders made it so woman didn't have equal rights, you wouldn't care? :rolleyes: Political parties need to adapt to the modern culture. Parties such as UKIP don't and hence they fail.

And are you saying the climate isn't changing? If yes then gosh, its the biggest load of crap I have heard this month.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not remotely homophobic? Are you kidding me? Your counter arguments are pathetic!
So you are saying if UKIP get in power and the old fashioned leaders made it so woman didn't have equal rights, you wouldn't care? :rolleyes: Political parties need to adapt to the modern culture. Parties such as UKIP don't and hence they fail.

And are you saying the climate isn't changing? If yes then gosh, its the biggest load of crap I have heard this month.

How is that homophobic, infact out of the two of us I think i'm best placed to decide whether thats homophobic. You would suit being a euro/burocrat because you seem to think that the smallest things said are offensive to minority groups from the big bad UKIP. Where is the malice in what that man said?

They haven't said women won't have equal rights, although if you could find that in their policies then that would be fantastic i'm sure. He has merely said that in his opinion he prefers the old family style, and by the looks of it was taking the micky out of the EU/Government equality bodies which are set up at the cost of hundreds, if not billions of pounds a year.

Can you give me examples of climate change please.

[Seatherny]

How is that homophobic, infact out of the two of us I think i'm best placed to decide whether thats homophobic. You would suit being a euro/burocrat because you seem to think that the smallest things said are offensive to minority groups from the big bad UKIP. Where is the malice in what that man said?

They haven't said women won't have equal rights, although if you could find that in their policies then that would be fantastic i'm sure. He has merely said that in his opinion he prefers the old family style, and by the looks of it was taking the micky out of the EU/Government equality bodies which are set up at the cost of hundreds, if not billions of pounds a year.

Can you give me examples of climate change please.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article852640.ece

Antarctica, the ice melting along with the weather changes the UK has experienced over the last decade. More floods etc.
Denying global warming really is like denying that the earth is round :rolleyes:

[Black_Apalachi]

So if you're saying I can openly deny something without solid evidence then I could deny anything? What about if there's rock hard evidence?

:eusa_clap


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article852640.ece

Antarctica, the ice melting along with the weather changes the UK has experienced over the last decade. More floods etc.
Denying global warming really is like denying that the earth is round :rolleyes:

Nobody is disputing the Earth's natural cycle of warming up over a long period of time but that's all it is, a natural cycle. A few generations of humans are barely going to scratch the surface in affecting it and they sure as hell can't do **** all to prevent it, even though this Government are quite happy to make naive people like you think so and take your money in the meantime.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article852640.ece

Antarctica, the ice melting along with the weather changes the UK has experienced over the last decade. More floods etc.
Denying global warming really is like denying that the earth is round :rolleyes:

What weather changes have we experienced?

Floods - oh wait thats what happens when you build next to a river or on a flood plain.
Cold summers - oh wait thats what we've always had.
Hot days - oh wait thats what we've always had.

..and no it isn't, especially considering the fact that a few weeks ago a high profile study group on climate change were found out to be fiddling their figures.

[Seatherny]

Have I ever said anything along the lines of


affecting it and they sure as hell can't do **** all to prevent it, even though this Government are quite happy to make naive people like you think so and take your money in the meantime.

No. Stop being ignorant which you clearly are. Undertaker denied that the climate was changing. Now the political policies concerning it is a different matter. I think its you and undertaker who are the naive one here and hence he is so crap at debates (as he has demonstrated in this one). He comes out with laughable replies and then refuses to believe the facts.


What weather changes have we experienced?

Floods - oh wait thats what happens when you build next to a river or on a flood plain.
Cold summers - oh wait thats what we've always had.
Hot days - oh wait thats what we've always had.

..and no it isn't, especially considering the fact that a few weeks ago a high profile study group on climate change were found out to be fiddling their figures.

In Manchester, it used to snow in December. Now it snows in March/April. I think that clearly shows it. There are more floods now.
And would you please link me to this thing which you refer to regarding the numbers being fiddled.

Its a scientific fact that the climate is changing. The ice isn't melting of its own in the Antarctica you know :rolleyes:.

[Black_Apalachi]

What weather changes have we experienced?

Floods - oh wait thats what happens when you build next to a river or on a flood plain.
Cold summers - oh wait thats what we've always had.
Hot days - oh wait thats what we've always had.

..and no it isn't, especially considering the fact that a few weeks ago a high profile study group on climate change were found out to be fiddling their figures.

LMAO!!!!

SauravG it was in a thread here not long ago.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No. Stop being ignorant which you clearly are. Undertaker denied that the climate was changing. Now the political policies concerning it is a different matter. I think its you and undertaker who are the naive one here and hence he is so crap at debates (as he has demonstrated in this one). He comes out with laughable replies and then refuses to believe the facts.

Oh get over my debating skills, if i'm crap then you should surely be able to make me look a fool, or in your mind you are making me look a fool, so why do you feel the need to outline that my debating skills are crap everytime you post.

The facts? - you mean the facts that Labour, the European Union and government paid scientists (most who aren't even climatlogists) want us to believe? - remember 45 minutes to launch a WMD?. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't take it seriously.


In Manchester, it used to snow in December. Now it snows in March/April. I think that clearly shows it. There are more floods now.
And would you please link me to this thing which you refer to regarding the numbers being fiddled.

It has snowed in Manchester before in the summer, it will of snown everywhere before in nearly every month. It is called freak weather and it will always occur when we have cold spots.

On the floods, yes there will seem to be more floods and why is that? - because more homes are being built on flood plains, thus more flooding. On top of that, the land cannot cope with the levels of water and thus it runs off to the nearest river, rather than the ground (now covered in tarmac and concrete) absorbing it.


Its a scientific fact that the climate is changing. The ice isn't melting of its own in the Antarctica you know :rolleyes:.

The ice has been melting on its own in Antartica, we are as a planet only still leaving the last Ice Age, and the fact that Greenpeace and co. show melting ice in the summer (yes the summer when ice melts clearly shows the propaganda. The ice has ALWAYS melted in summer.

[Seatherny]

No, I mean before it never even hailed/snowed in March/April and only did it in December. Now it never snows in December and only snows/hails in March/April. See the climate shift/change?

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, I mean before it never even hailed/snowed in March/April and only did it in December. Now it never snows in December and only snows/hails in March/April. See the climate shift/change?

On what you've replied to (totally ignoring the drainage problems which explain 'more' flooding) - it did, freak weather has always existed and will always do so.

[Seatherny]

Not really. It snowed in January, then slowly February and now its March/April. To me that demonstrates a clear climate change. Besides, there is proof of water level rising etc. People could argue that its always rising as ice is melting, but its increasing at a much higher rate now than ever before and that's because of things such as Global warming.

Again, would you please link me to the document you were referring to earlier.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not really. It snowed in January, then slowly February and now its March/April. To me that demonstrates a clear climate change. Besides, there is proof of water level rising etc. People could argue that its always rising as ice is melting, but its increasing at a much higher rate now than ever before and that's because of things such as Global warming.

Again, would you please link me to the document you were referring to earlier.

That isn't a climate change, thats freak weather. Or infact its normal weather. You have it drummed into you that it can only snow in certain months, wrong. On the water levels, totally wrong again. The water levels have not risen, although in some places it may seem so because of longshore drift which has nothing to do with the climate, aswell as the tilt of the Earth on its Axis and the pull of the moon.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=614879

[Seatherny]

Could I please ask for your view on the O-zone layer?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Could I please ask for your view on the O-zone layer?

I do not know that much on the Ozone, other than it protects us from the sun and can vary in strength from time to time depending on the strength of the Sun.

[Ardemax]

:eusa_clap

So, not saying I would, that means I could deny your birthday? (lol). Or any of your relivtives (however you spell it).

Also @climate change debate, there was something on the One Show yesterday where they were saying that like the temperature had changed or something in the North Pole to 1* (asterix = degrees sign) to 6*, which is a really big difference.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So, not saying I would, that means I could deny your birthday? (lol). Or any of your relivtives (however you spell it).

YES.

That is freedom of speech.


Also @climate change debate, there was something on the One Show yesterday where they were saying that like the temperature had changed or something in the North Pole to 1* (asterix = degrees sign) to 6*, which is a really big difference.

If the temperature had changed that much then the ice caps would be sliding into the sea as we speak, theres so much money involved in climate change thats why they are all very keen on giving us, what is basically propaganda of Soviet proportions.

Instead of doing/thinking what the media, government and European Union say you should do/think - think for yourself. In the 1980s scientists were predicting a mini-ice age, but what a suprise, it never happened.

[Seatherny]

I do not know that much on the Ozone, other than it protects us from the sun and can vary in strength from time to time depending on the strength of the Sun.

The ozone layer is a layer in Earth's atmosphere which contains relatively high concentrations of ozone (O3). This layer absorbs 93-99% of the sun's high frequency ultraviolet light, which is potentially damaging to life on earth.

Currently, due to Greenhouse gases, its been depleted, hence there is a huge hole / a lack of ozone layer over Antarctica and Australia.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The ozone layer is a layer in Earth's atmosphere which contains relatively high concentrations of ozone (O3). This layer absorbs 93-99% of the sun's high frequency ultraviolet light, which is potentially damaging to life on earth.

Currently, due to Greenhouse gases, its been depleted, hence there is a huge hole / a lack of ozone layer over Antarctica and Australia.

That is pollution (although i'd have to read mkore into it as it could be a natural cycle). I do not accept that man is creating climate change, as before with those examples you gave each of them had a viable reason behind them.

Melting icecaps? - summer.

[Seatherny]

Buring Fossil fuel is causing the depletion of the ozone so yes it is mankind who is causing global warming.

[Black_Apalachi]

So, not saying I would, that means I could deny your birthday? (lol). Or any of your relivtives (however you spell it). ...

Yup. It doesn't matter how stupid it is, you are still allowed to believe it.

[Seatherny]

Yup. It doesn't matter how stupid it is, you are still allowed to believe it.

The problem is, when Nick Griffin denies the holocaust, it causes arguments within people, especially those who lost family members to it.

[Black_Apalachi]

The problem is, when Nick Griffin denies the holocaust, it causes arguments within people, especially those who lost family members to it.

People won't always agree with you. That's life.

[Oleh]

My local bnp campaigner makes sense, brought me a booklet round earlier (with mums xmas card)
and at end it says "if you can live by our standards and have a job and pay all taxes yourself , your welcome" "if you live off benefits, you arn't welcome" (this is from memory)

I am all for that movement im against some of what bnp have to offer but that i am strongly for what i stated

[[Jay]]

Bad,
I can see why many British people do like the BNP but they only look at it form one point of view.

They dont consider those who this change will affect. What if YOU had spent all your life in britan, you had thier traditions, thier culture and belived you were british then you get deported back to a place in which you no longer fit in.

You have to try an understand some of these peoples situation before you jump into a bad conclusion. The only reason why so many hate this minority culture is because of the bad minority within that culture. They see a gang of black kids behaving bad, all black people are bad. They see a group of forenors on benefits, all forenors are on benefits. They see a "non british person" get a job, all "non british people" are getting the job.

You cant judge evryone on the minority, if that is the case then to evryone else all british people will be considerd as holigans.

The BNP is to extrem. They are making the situation worse, instead of evryone trying to get along and start working together for a better future they are casuing a devide in cultures which will only lead to hate.

[-:Undertaker:-]

;6228647']Bad,
I can see why many British people do like the BNP but they only look at it form one point of view.

They dont consider those who this change will affect. What if YOU had spent all your life in britan, you had thier traditions, thier culture and belived you were british then you get deported back to a place in which you no longer fit in.

You have to try an understand some of these peoples situation before you jump into a bad conclusion. The only reason why so many hate this minority culture is because of the bad minority within that culture. They see a gang of black kids behaving bad, all black people are bad. They see a group of forenors on benefits, all forenors are on benefits. They see a "non british person" get a job, all "non british people" are getting the job.

You cant judge evryone on the minority, if that is the case then to evryone else all british people will be considerd as holigans.

The BNP is to extrem. They are making the situation worse, instead of evryone trying to get along and start working together for a better future they are casuing a devide in cultures which will only lead to hate.

I don't think they are proposing to deport everyone back, they have said those who sponge off the state and those who refuse to comply with British laws/traditions will be deported (although you'd have to check on that as i'm not totally sure).

People do not hate minorities, what fuels hatred of minorities is when immigration is handled badly and we allow scum aka criminals into this country who claim our benefits while at the same time want to impose islamic fundementalism on us.

On the BNP, I would argue the opposite. The main parties refuse to debate immigration despite public opinion being widely against uncontrolled immigration - the rise of the BNP is changing this and is forcing this issue into the public eye which is good for democracy and good for us.

[Bun]

I don't think they are proposing to deport everyone back, they have said those who sponge off the state and those who refuse to comply with British laws/traditions will be deported (although you'd have to check on that as i'm not totally sure).

People do not hate minorities, what fuels hatred of minorities is when immigration is handled badly and we allow scum aka criminals into this country who claim our benefits while at the same time want to impose islamic fundementalism on us.

On the BNP, I would argue the opposite. The main parties refuse to debate immigration despite public opinion being widely against uncontrolled immigration - the rise of the BNP is changing this and is forcing this issue into the public eye which is good for democracy and good for us.
The BNP say they would deport:
Illegal immigrants (fair play)
Those who 'commit crimes' - that's got corrupt system written all over it
Those who original nationality was not British... mysteriously vague isn't it?

They are also willing to offer 'generous' grants to those of foreign descent who wish to leave permantly - what a way to spend the tax payers money!

Second paragraph, I agree with you. Third paragraph I semi-agree with you. The BNP are fine when they're scuttingly down back alleys, but when they hit the mainstage they crumble and are exposed for what they are, facists.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The BNP say they would deport:
Illegal immigrants (fair play)
Those who 'commit crimes' - that's got corrupt system written all over it
Those who original nationality was not British... mysteriously vague isn't it?

They are also willing to offer 'generous' grants to those of foreign descent who wish to leave permantly - what a way to spend the tax payers money!

Second paragraph, I agree with you. Third paragraph I semi-agree with you. The BNP are fine when they're scuttingly down back alleys, but when they hit the mainstage they crumble and are exposed for what they are, facists.

The first two are fine as we do not and should not allow criminals here. The third one I do not agree with. On taxpayers money, well if this money was spent of getting criminals deported rather than paying criminals to live here (as we are now) then i'd be fully behind it.

On mainstream, well yeah and thats exactly why nobody should ever attempt to stifle free speech. If the BNP win an election, fair play.

[[Jay]]

I don't think they are proposing to deport everyone back, they have said those who sponge off the state and those who refuse to comply with British laws/traditions will be deported (although you'd have to check on that as i'm not totally sure).
Even though they say that it wont happen, they do that then most countries will stop working with britan bringing down the econemy and thats the last thing we want.


People do not hate minorities, what fuels hatred of minorities is when immigration is handled badly and we allow scum aka criminals into this country who claim our benefits while at the same time want to impose islamic fundementalism on us.
Ok first of all there are probably more "real british people" on benefits the imigrants and also I havent really had an Islamic person come knocking on my door or trying to persuade me to change religion but I always get johovas witnesses knocking on my door.


On the BNP, I would argue the opposite. The main parties refuse to debate immigration despite public opinion being widely against uncontrolled immigration - the rise of the BNP is changing this and is forcing this issue into the public eye which is good for democracy and good for us.
Not really because immigration has been a huge factor in all political parties, the only diffrence with the BNP is that the laws they want to enforce are so wrong that they get more press about it.

We focus on what the bad points of immigration are but we never take time to consider some of the positive points.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Even though they say that it wont happen, they do that then most countries will stop working with britan bringing down the econemy and thats the last thing we want.

Most of the country would not stop working, the criminals and sponges do not work.


Ok first of all there are probably more "real british people" on benefits the imigrants and also I havent really had an Islamic person come knocking on my door or trying to persuade me to change religion but I always get johovas witnesses knocking on my door.

Yeah there are and its a big problem, but we don't need more sponges and criminals coming here and also sucking our money out of us. It is like this, would you rather have 2 million people on benefits or 4 million people on benefits? - both are not ideal, but which one makes more economical sense?


Not really because immigration has been a huge factor in all political parties, the only diffrence with the BNP is that the laws they want to enforce are so wrong that they get more press about it.

The main parties do not debate immigration, and when the Conservatives tried to under Michael Howard in 2005 the Labour Party labelled them racist - just like UKIP are labelled racist by some today. It seems this culture has arisen, that anybody who disagrees with full-scale, uncontrolled immigration is an evil racist and it is simply not true.


We focus on what the bad points of immigration are but we never take time to consider some of the positive points.

Oh I focus on both, but the bad must be swept aside first and foremost as with everything. You cannot run a race while fighting the late stages of cancer.

[Bewilcorp]

I personally do like BNP.

[TaffTalk]

Im not a racist.

I agree with the BNP Policies, Capital punishment for Murderers and Religious Radicalist (Abu Hamza) instead of having the tax payer keep them in prison for about six months.

The right to bear arms if there is someone on your propety.

Illegal Immigrants deported immediately within two days back to their own country.

Departure from the EU, a waste of time and money. Its a modern day League of Nations, pointless and powerless.

However if only a less racial discriminating group would take up the mantle of the BNP they might stand a chance, ludicrous campaigns such as 'Billy the Brit' and that botch up over the EU signs is what's crippling them. Remember, Winston Churchill was a member of the BNP, greatest Britain that ever lived, I wouldn't want David 'Thatcher in a Suit' Cameron or 'No balls' Gordon leading our country if we entered WWIII, and the less said about the Lib Dems, the better.

[Bun]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1187368/Family-Winston-Churchill-slams-BNP-far-right-partys-attempt-hijack-wartime-leaders-legacy.html

nah.

[Sly]

I'm quite racially tolerant I have lots of friends who are asian and black and I don't really like the idea of them being forced out of the country :(
Yes some races are more anoying than others but you can't judge all of them collectively as some of them are cool cats.

[ChickenFaces]

I think it should be legalized. Not for everyone at any age to smoke, I think that it should be allowed to be bought at the same age that cigarettes are bought. There should also be a tax.
I mean, let's think about the laws about this drug. If you simply have some in your possession, it doesn't matter if you smoke it or not, you can get three to five years. People who get arrested for things like that are crowding up the jails and are pretty much leaving the real criminals on the streets. Why don't the police focus on people who are actually committing crimes? Ugh. It bothers me the way laws are.

[MrPinkPanther]

Departure from the EU, a waste of time and money. Its a modern day League of Nations, pointless and powerless.
The main point of the European Union is for economic benefit, in fact that is why it was set up in the first place. To withdraw Britain from the European Union would be catastrophic economically. Also in the ever worsening environment that we inhabit, the European Union is essential for the survival of the Human race, it helps put smaller countries like Britain on a world platform to pressure America and China to change.


However if only a less racial discriminating group would take up the mantle of the BNP they might stand a chance, ludicrous campaigns such as 'Billy the Brit' and that botch up over the EU signs is what's crippling them.
The vast majority of the top of the BNP hierarchy are racist. It's not patriotism, it's racism. I have some sort of respect at least for UKIP, they are not a fundamentally racist organisation, the BNP are.


Remember, Winston Churchill was a member of the BNP, greatest Britain that ever lived
Winston Churchill was a member of the Conservative party not the BNP. They didn't even exist then which shows how flawed your whole argument is. The BNP simply hijacked his memory and I'd like to point out that he wouldn't be allowed to be a member of the BNP because he's not completely British. Oh and finally its "Briton" not "Britain", you can't talk about immigrants ruining the British culture when you can't even get a simple English word right. It really does make me laugh how ill educated (Not talking about you) BNP members often completely butcher the English language and then complain about immigrants not speaking "propa" English.


I wouldn't want David 'Thatcher in a Suit' Cameron
So David Cameron gets criticised for being too populist and left wing and now you are complaining that he's like Thatcher, one of the most right wing Prime Ministers in recent UK History....right....


and the less said about the Lib Dems, the better.
No please go on, I know how Economic redistribution and fairness are a hassle but you know....The point is we wouldn't be in World War III unless it were really necessary under the Liberal Democrats.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The main point of the European Union is for economic benefit, in fact that is why it was set up in the first place. To withdraw Britain from the European Union would be catastrophic economically. Also in the ever worsening environment that we inhabit, the European Union is essential for the survival of the Human race, it helps put smaller countries like Britain on a world platform to pressure America and China to change.

No please go on, I know how Economic redistribution and fairness are a hassle but you know....The point is we wouldn't be in World War III unless it were really necessary under the Liberal Democrats.

Why would it be a disaster if we withdrew from the European Union? - is that why Switzerland who have a much smaller economy than that of ours and are a European country are better off economically now than most other European nations whom are within the European Union?

On the survival of the human race, what are we facing that demands we pool our sovereignty to an unelected and undemocratic organisation, of which the vast majority of its people have never asked for, and do not want.

On economic redistribution, in other words socialism. Luckily the history of the United Kingdom has shown us that does not work and more to the point, it isnt fair - not to mention the bankrupt, backward socialist economies of North Korea, the-then Soviet Union and others around the world.

[MrPinkPanther]

Why would it be a disaster if we withdrew from the European Union? - is that why Switzerland who have a much smaller economy than that of ours and are a European country are better off economically now than most other European nations whom are within the European Union?
Switzerland is a poor example because it is naturally a very wealthy country and has been for a long time.

It would be a disaster to withdraw from the EU because of how integrated Britain is. At one point it would not have been too damaging but now it most definitely is. It's because amongst other things it guarantees free work in other EU countries and no protection tariffs. Now you imagine we suddenly take that away and thats a large percentage of trade that we lose right away, never mind the damage it will do in international relations.


On the survival of the human race, what are we facing that demands we pool our sovereignty to an unelected and undemocratic organisation, of which the vast majority of its people have never asked for, and do not want.
World problems need world solutions. At the moment the EU is the best chance we have got environmentally. What is devised in Brussels can be imposed on the whole of Europe to set an example to the world of what can be achieved.

We actually voted on Europe in 1975 in a referendum. This would be difficult to repeat because as I say we are too integrated into Europe which is why it was carried out in 1975. However the results of the referendum are interesting. Prior to the referendum 2/3 of electorate were against the Common Market but the actual referendum showed that 2/3 were for it, a complete U Turn. This was what many politicians suspected at the time that British people were particularly harsh towards Europe because it gave them something to blame when they may actually be for it as the referendum shows. Indeed many, if not most of the campaigners against moving futher into the EU in 1975 are now Pro-EU retrospectively.


On economic redistribution, in other words socialism. Luckily the history of the United Kingdom has shown us that does not work and more to the point, it isnt fair - not to mention the bankrupt, backward socialist economies of North Korea, the-then Soviet Union and others around the world.
Both North Korea and the Soviet Union are/were Communist countries, not socialist, they simply had "NEP systems". Socialism in it's purest sense doesn't work but a certain element of Economic Redistribution is always good which is why it is one of the Key macro-economic objectives for any government "Distribution of income and wealth".

[-:Undertaker:-]

Switzerland is a poor example because it is naturally a very wealthy country and has been for a long time. We are a naturally wealthy country, we have far more natural resources than that of Switzerland and a far larger economy. I don't have to just mention Switzerland, I could mention the numerous other countries around the world who are not members of the European Union and are doing just fine, despite the fact their economies are smaller than that of the United Kingdom.


It would be a disaster to withdraw from the EU because of how integrated Britain is. At one point it would not have been too damaging but now it most definitely is. It's because amongst other things it guarantees free work in other EU countries and no protection tariffs. Now you imagine we suddenly take that away and thats a large percentage of trade that we lose right away, never mind the damage it will do in international relations.We would not lose trade, a business does not operate in a country based on whether or not the country is a member of the European Union - infact if anything, EU regulations hinder business of which they have to spend billions on each year going through the European Union system to operate.

On international relations, leaving the European Union is not being anti-Europe or xenophobic, if the European Union chooses to degrade relations with the United Kingdom because its people chose to leave, then that is up to them and not us. Friends with Europe, not ruled by Europe.


World problems need world solutions. At the moment the EU is the best chance we have got environmentally. What is devised in Brussels can be imposed on the whole of Europe to set an example to the world of what can be achieved.What world problems are we facing which require the need to pool our sovereignty to an unelected, corrupt and undemocratic body?

On enviromental issues, the European Union has actually wasted billions and billions on enviromental issues and all of its enviromental plans have gone to rot. Why do we need to pay billions and billions into something for 'enviromental solutions' that we are perfectly capable of doing ourselves, in our elected parliament?


We actually voted on Europe in 1975 in a referendum. This would be difficult to repeat because as I say we are too integrated into Europe which is why it was carried out in 1975. However the results of the referendum are interesting. Prior to the referendum 2/3 of electorate were against the Common Market but the actual referendum showed that 2/3 were for it, a complete U Turn. This was what many politicians suspected at the time that British people were particularly harsh towards Europe because it gave them something to blame when they may actually be for it as the referendum shows. Indeed many, if not most of the campaigners against moving futher into the EU in 1975 are now Pro-EU retrospectively. Wrong, we did not vote to join the European Union in 1975. Oh yes, most campaigners such as the Kinnocks who opposed the European Union, who opposed the Lords and who opposed capitalism - yet right now the Kinnocks have not only reeped millions in from their EU roles, but also are now both Lords in the very house they opposed so much. How strange how money & privelages soon changed their opinions!


Both North Korea and the Soviet Union are/were Communist countries, not socialist, they simply had "NEP systems". Socialism in it's purest sense doesn't work but a certain element of Economic Redistribution is always good which is why it is one of the Key macro-economic objectives for any government "Distribution of income and wealth".Socialism is communism, and look no futher than the very name of the most powerful socialist nation in history; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). On distribution, can I ask - why should somebody who has worked and earnt their money have that taken away by the state aka stolen?

[MrPinkPanther]

We are a naturally wealthy country, we have far more natural resources than that of Switzerland and a far larger economy. I don't have to just mention Switzerland, I could mention the numerous other countries around the world who are not members of the European Union and are doing just fine, despite the fact their economies are smaller than that of the United Kingdom.
I'm not going to go into Switzerland because it's one specific example but I think you need to read up on the so called "Swiss miracle". By the first world war Switzerland was a very wealthy country and in fact Britain's wealth and prestige declined well before it joined Europe because it had to give up its empire. So it's all really rather irrelevant.


We would not lose trade, a business does not operate in a country based on whether or not the country is a member of the European Union - infact if anything, EU regulations hinder business of which they have to spend billions on each year going through the European Union system to operate.
Many of Britain's key trade partners are within Europe so yes it would hinder trade. Like I said that's why the "EU" was originally formed to manage coal and steel which soon became the EEC which is based around Economic improvement for those involved (European Economic Community).


On international relations, leaving the European Union is not being anti-Europe or xenophobic, if the European Union chooses to degrade relations with the United Kingdom because its people chose to leave, then that is up to them and not us. Friends with Europe, not ruled by Europe.
Leaving Europe would be a blow for international relations whether you like it or not. Britain spent decades trying to join Europe after it's application was repeatedly vetoed by De Gaulle. Let's not undo all that and go back to the state that Britain and Europe were in before where we are kind of in and kind of out. We aren't ruled by Europe, not at all. The EU puts very few regulations on Britain and most of the stuff that is publicised is complete and utter rubbish. Like "Banning Chocolate", that was never gonna happen.


What world problems are we facing which require the need to pool our sovereignty to an unelected, corrupt and undemocratic body?
The Environment. But no I totally agree, the European system does need a firm kick up the backside but it is still better than not being in it.



Wrong, we did not vote to join the European Union in 1975. Oh yes, most campaigners such as the Kinnocks who opposed the European Union, who opposed the Lords and who opposed capitalism - yet right now the Kinnocks have not only reeped millions in from their EU roles, but also are now both Lords in the very house they opposed so much. How strange how money & privelages soon changed their opinions!
I'm not talking about the Kinnocks but in general. Yes, we did vote on the European Union in 1975 however it was under a different name of the EEC because every time there is a major European Treaty it's name is changed, hence the "European Union" title.



Socialism is communism, and look no futher than the very name of the most powerful socialist nation in history; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). On distribution, can I ask - why should somebody who has worked and earnt their money have that taken away by the state aka stolen?
No it's not. Don't be so naive. It's things like this that make me believe you are simply regurgitating what you have been told. Socialism is purely economic whereas Communism is both political and economic. The reason they say they are socialist is because they don't want to admit that they are controlling their population.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not going to go into Switzerland because it's one specific example but I think you need to read up on the so called "Swiss miracle". By the first world war Switzerland was a very wealthy country and in fact Britain's wealth and prestige declined well before it joined Europe because it had to give up its empire. So it's all really rather irrelevant. Our economy still generates more money than that of Switzerland, so what is your point? - why do we need to surrender our sovereignty for 'economic reasons' when a country with a smaller economy than ours does not have to? - the point is, we don't.


Many of Britain's key trade partners are within Europe so yes it would hinder trade. Like I said that's why the "EU" was originally formed to manage coal and steel which soon became the EEC which is based around Economic improvement for those involved (European Economic Community).So why would Europe stop trading with us if we left? - Europe still trades with the rest of the world, so if they did stop trading with us because of us leaving the European Union does that not show to you how utterly arrogant and unfair they are?


Leaving Europe would be a blow for international relations whether you like it or not. Britain spent decades trying to join Europe after it's application was repeatedly vetoed by De Gaulle. Let's not undo all that and go back to the state that Britain and Europe were in before where we are kind of in and kind of out. We aren't ruled by Europe, not at all. The EU puts very few regulations on Britain and most of the stuff that is publicised is complete and utter rubbish. Like "Banning Chocolate", that was never gonna happen.We are ruled by Europe, there are varying figures but the figure is around the 80% mark of the number of laws that are made every year for the United Kingdom come from the European Union. Stupid? - oh yes, just like the EUs very real policy on the size of fruit, if its a millimetre the wrong curvature or size, it gets thrown away as the supermarkets are barred from selling it.

International relations, hmm strange - so does the European Union also have bad international relations with the United States, Canada, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Switzerland, South Africa, Brazil and the other hundred or so countries around the world? - Do not use scare-mongering to justify your cause, it is wrong. Infact a European Empire was the exact thing Hitler wanted to build and his reason was to create something that would rival the United States and the British Empire.


The Environment. But no I totally agree, the European system does need a firm kick up the backside but it is still better than not being in it.Yes, paying billions and billions into something that can tell you what to do is really worth the money isn't it, especially when the very body that is taking your money has got billions and billions missing from its record and has not had its audits signed in years which would spell out to the least knowledgable of people; utterly corrupt to the bones.


I'm not talking about the Kinnocks but in general. Yes, we did vote on the European Union in 1975 however it was under a different name of the EEC because every time there is a major European Treaty it's name is changed, hence the "European Union" title.No, we did not vote for the European Union.

Lets explain this;

European Economic Community - A community of states who have streamlined trading, who retain sovereignty aka a economic community.

European Union - a union of states who have created a political, social and economic union.

As you can quite clearly see, the very thing we signed upto has become something it claimed it would not become. We have not been asked, we have never been given the chance to decide and vote on whether we want a political, social and economic union of Europe. So in short, no we did not vote to join the European Union.


No it's not. Don't be so naive. It's things like this that make me believe you are simply regurgitating what you have been told. Socialism is purely economic whereas Communism is both political and economic. The reason they say they are socialist is because they don't want to admit that they are controlling their population.I have not been told to believe in anything, infact believe it or not I used to be just like you;- I supported the Liberal Democrats, believed in global warming, believed wealth should be taken from some and given to others. I then, with a negative mind towards Thatcherism, Conservatism and the right went and read on all of it, and most importantly read history. What I believe in today has come from that, history taught me a lesson. I was naive, yes.

Whether or not you know, socialism and communism are the same thing just socialism is considered to be an earlier stage of communism on the road to the 'socialist uptopia' - Karl Marx has said it, and infact its the very reason why Labour Party members in the 1970s and 1980s were members of communist groups who were sympathetic to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism controls the people and always has done, you may like others on this forum try to distance yourself from socialism/communism but the very words you write are socialist through and through.

I still wish to know why the state should take from somebody who has earned their money and 're-distribute' that wealth, in other words, steal.

[Madox]

I support the BNP, not because they're racist, they're simply being smart.






If we tell someone they can't come in, then they come in, if we keep them in, Britain would be walked all over.



I agree. If someone breaks OUR rules, they don't have the right to stay in OUR country. Simple.



Yes. UK have been too soft on these people, so they should be reviewed again and sent home if they shouldn't be here.



Depends on the money. It'll be nice for a grant to compensate them, but not too much, we don't need lots of government spending now.



Agreed, all other countries do it, why can't we?



Yeah. They passed through countries they could've stayed in.




Exactly. They just want Britain to be British!



Exactly my argument.



YES. Britain is British and shouldn't be swarmed with others just because they like it better.

This is all the British National Party seeks for Britain the right to be British.

your the dumbest person ive meet ever, anyone with a red passport that has the united kingdom creset on it is british no matter if there black, Asian , green , yellow or god knows what colour. i bet your not even "BRITISH" as you claim, if you support there views define them in more detail thank you.

[AlexOC]

Hmm.
Although i do not stand fully for what the BNP stand for, and in no way are racist, i do understand that this country is under serious threat by immigrants so i do understand where they are coming from.

[-:Undertaker:-]

your the dumbest person ive meet ever, anyone with a red passport that has the united kingdom creset on it is british no matter if there black, Asian , green , yellow or god knows what colour. i bet your not even "BRITISH" as you claim, if you support there views define them in more detail thank you.

Depends what you define as British; from the jist I gather of the BNP they say that you can be any colour and be British, but not ethnically British. Just as in China you could hold a Chinese passport/citzenship but you wouldn't be classed as 'ethnically Chinese' - would you?


Hmm.
Although i do not stand fully for what the BNP stand for, and in no way are racist, i do understand that this country is under serious threat by immigrants so i do understand where they are coming from.

Thank you, you are a classic example like many other non-racist people who are turning to the extremes, not by choice but because theres little alternative anymore. All because our cowardly politicians are out of touch and just simply do not represent the man or woman on the street anymore.

[Catzsy]

Thank you, you are a classic example like many other non-racist people who are turning to the extremes, not by choice but because theres little alternative anymore

Yes I do believe there is a danger of this but it's not because they are BNP positive just that they are disaffected voters.

YouGov surveyed 1000 BNP voters as to where they stood demographically and these were the results:

Our sample included almost 1,000 BNP voters, and much larger numbers of those who backed the other five parties. As our final prediction poll was the most accurate of all the pre-election surveys, with an average error of just one point, we are confident of the results from this very large sample.First, who voted BNP? They were mainly men: their voted divided 61 per cent male, 39 per cent female. (Men comprise just 48 per cent in the electorate as a whole.)

They were also more working-class. In the country at large, professional workers outnumber manual workers by 20 per cent to 18 per cent. Among BNP voters the pattern is very different: 36 per cent manual workers, 11 per cent professionals.

One third of them read the Sun or Daily Star as against one in five adults generally; just 6 per cent of BNP voters read the upmarket papers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian etc), which is less than half the national average.

This seems to back up what Nick Griffin said on 'The Cook Report':

BNP leader Nick Griffin calls white people ‘stupid’

The people who have the brains and ability got out [of London] years ago, one way or another. The people who are left are either the 15 per cent of the population who are happy to put up with it, they’re so decadent they actually like it, or they are too stupid to do anything about it. They will vote BNP, but you can’t build a movement on those people.

This website is quite enlightening and whilst may be said to be 'propaganda' by some members is pretty substantial on substance with examples backing up what they say.

Warning - Some of the quotes by BNP Members in this link may offend members and do contain language that is
filtered on the forum.


http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/Profile-of-Nick-Griffin.php

My conclusion is that if you vote BNP then you are voting for a facist party that will basically say anything to get votes. They try to hide under veil of respectibility but their true intentions are pretty clear and they are quite sinister.

UKIP on the other hand whilst being a right wing party are honest in their manifesto and intentions so if you genuinely believe in the following they are a better option.:

Here is a summary of the broad range of policies proposed by UKIP for an independent Britain in which democracy really works.


UKIP will leave the political EU and trade globally and freely. We will re-embrace today’s fast-growing Commonwealth and we will encourage UK manufacturing so that we make things again.
We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis.
We will have a grammar school in every town. We will restore standards of education and improve skills training. Student grants will replace student loans.
UKIP upholds the ‘free at the point of care’ principles. We will bring back matrons and have locally run, clean hospitals.
We will give people the vote on policing priorities, go back to proper beat policing and scrap the Human Rights Act. We will have sentences that mean what they say.
We will take 4.5 million people out of tax with a simple Flat Tax (with National Insurance) starting at £10,000. We will scrap Inheritance Tax, not just reform it and cut corporation taxes.
We will say No to green taxes and wind farms. To avert a major energy crisis, we will go for new nuclear power plants on the same existing site facilities and for clean coal. We will reduce pollution and encourage recycling.
We will make welfare simpler and fairer, introduce ‘workfare’ to get people back to work, and a new citizens pension and private pensions scheme insurance.
We will support our armed forces with more spending on equipment, military homes and medical care. We will save our threatened warships and add 25,000 more troops.
We will be fair to England, with an English Parliament of English MPs at Westminster. We will replace assembly members like MSPs with MPs. And we will promote referenda at local and national levels.
We will make customer satisfaction number one for rail firms – not cost cutting and will look seriously at reopening some rail lines that Beeching closed. We will make foreign lorries pay for British roads with a ‘Britdisc’ – and we will stop persecuting motorists.
Last, but never least, we will bring in fair prices and fair competition for our suffering farmers, and restore traditional British fishing and territorial waters.

Personally I would not vote for them but I would definitely not for the BNP. Realistically neither party has gone any real chance of getting more than a couple of MPs so if people have concerns about the way the country is being run then they should lobby their MP's to get things changed. It is not possible to please all the electorate - the minority are always going to feel cheated in one way or another.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes I do believe there is a danger of this but it's not because they are BNP positive just that they are disaffected voters.

YouGov surveyed 1000 BNP voters as to where they stood demographically and these were the results:

My conclusion is that if you vote BNP then you are voting for a facist party that will basically say anything to get votes. They try to hide under veil of respectibility but their true intentions are pretty clear and they are quite sinister.

UKIP on the other hand whilst being a right wing party are honest in their manifesto and intentions so if you genuinely believe in the following they are a better option.:

Personally I would not vote for them but I would definitely not for the BNP. Realistically neither party has gone any real chance of getting more than a couple of MPs so if people have concerns about the way the country is being run then they should lobby their MP's to get things changed. It is not possible to please all the electorate - the minority are always going to feel cheated in one way or another.

I have said that, those who want a curb on immigration will turn to the BNP because none of the other parties (with exception of UKIP) are listening. It is also noted that while the Labour Party and co. continue to treat white people as second class people (with the equality bills and candidate shortlists) then people who supported controlled immigration will start to think "well why put up with something when we are just trampled on and ignored" and they will turn to the BNP.

You say lobbying, but no matter what we do and no matter what we say; Lib/Lab/Con continue to ignore us. Expenses scandel - they still refused to resign and accept and responsibility. Lisbon Treaty - UKIP came second in the election which gives a pretty damn clear indication of what people think of the EU. But to our ruling elite, does hell that matter? - no it doesnt.

As for never getting in, well 50 years ago the SNP were said to be the same. If the PR electoral system was introduced then going by summer 2009 results, right now we'd have a Conservative government and a UKIP opposition. The sooner, the better.

[Catzsy]

I have said that, those who want a curb on immigration will turn to the BNP because none of the other parties (with exception of UKIP) are listening. It is also noted that while the Labour Party and co. continue to treat white people as second class people (with the equality bills and candidate shortlists) then people who supported controlled immigration will start to think "well why put up with something when we are just trampled on and ignored" and they will turn to the BNP.

You say lobbying, but no matter what we do and no matter what we say; Lib/Lab/Con continue to ignore us. Expenses scandel - they still refused to resign and accept and responsibility. Lisbon Treaty - UKIP came second in the election which gives a pretty damn clear indication of what people think of the EU. But to our ruling elite, does hell that matter? - no it doesnt.

As for never getting in, well 50 years ago the SNP were said to be the same. If the PR electoral system was introduced then going by summer 2009 results, right now we'd have a Conservative government and a UKIP opposition. The sooner, the better.

I didn't say UKIP would never get in. I said they only had a realistic prospect of a couple of seats this time. Of course it may happen in time but it is pure fantasy to think otherwise in the coming election and how can you say of we proportional representation UKIP would be the opposition? They aren't even pulling 5% in the polls are they? Problem is the apathetic nature of most of the electorate - if they did shift their behinds into gear and lobby this country would be a much better place. I haven't mentioned Labout specifically as I feel voters are pretty much disaffected with most of the main parties and I am not going down your re-gurgitated world of labour bashing at every oppportunity as this debate is about the BNP. You as a member of UKIP should be pointing out the flaws of the BNP at every opportunity because they are your main rivals IMHO and need stopping. =]

[Robbie]

I think this country should make voting a legal requirement. In Australia, for example, by law you have to vote in all elections. Then we'd get a true voice of the people.

[Catzsy]

I think this country should make voting a legal requirement. In Australia, for example, by law you have to vote in all elections. Then we'd get a true voice of the people.

Well said, Robbie. Totally agree.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I didn't say UKIP would never get in. I said they only had a realistic prospect of a couple of seats this time. Of course it may happen in time but it is pure fantasy to think otherwise in the coming election and how can you say of we proportional representation UKIP would be the opposition? They aren't even pulling 5% in the polls are they? Problem is the apathetic nature of most of the electorate - if they did shift their behinds into gear and lobby this country would be a much better place. I haven't mentioned Labout specifically as I feel voters are pretty much disaffected with most of the main parties and I am not going down your re-gurgitated world of labour bashing at every oppportunity as this debate is about the BNP. You as a member of UKIP should be pointing out the flaws of the BNP at every opportunity because they are your main rivals IMHO and need stopping. =]

Indeed, and hopefully Nigel Farage takes the seat of Speaker John Bercow in the General Election. You can say the Conservatives would be in office and UKIP in opposition if we'd of had proportional representation because in summer 2009 they were the results in a PR election in which UKIP beat the governing Labour Party. Often people dont bother voting at all/continue voting for the main parties at general elections because they know its very hard for a another party to get it, hence why people often say "wasted vote" and so on and if the FPTP system was scrapped we'd see some massive changes in politics in this country, for the good.

As for the BNP, the BNP I feel represent my views and the views of the population far closer than that of the Lib/Lab/Con and the BNP only get support really because as I said, people are fed up with the main parties. The efforts of UKIP must be focused on the Lib/Lab/Con elite because thats where the power is and thats where change can be made, especially concerning the Conservatives of which its supporters and voting base are leaving Camerons left-wing agenda in droves.

Something will tip eventually, whether its from the other parties making more headway, the other parties growth and influence or the Conservative Party lurching to the right again. Its a case of the 1970s again, something has got to give.

[Soy]

it pisses me off when i see a foreign person with a job when i havent..

get them out of the country I say, go BNP

[Catzsy]

summer 2009 they were the results in a PR election in which UKIP beat the governing Labour Party

Well that is something! Have you got a link?

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2009/election_09/default.stm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_%28United_Kingd om%29

http://www.iaza.com/work/100221C/ukipelectionresult99883.bmp

Had that been a general election with the same proportional representational voting system, Labour wouldn't even be the opposition party. Right now we'd have David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nigel Farage as leader of the opposition. So if we were to swap to the fair proportional representation system politics would very much change. Infact the Tories would be forced to swing to the right to protect their vote because England, being the bulk of the electorate and very much to the right simply would vote for the opposition over Camerons Conservatives.

Infact in 2005 even with a right-wing leader like Michael Howard whom most Tories were behind (me included), because of the vote splitting to UKIP in the General Election - the Tories apparently lost 20 to 30 seats because of UKIP. Thats only likely to increase even more as Conservative voters continue to leave Camerons Conservatives.

[ifuseekamy]

I think this country should make voting a legal requirement. In Australia, for example, by law you have to vote in all elections. Then we'd get a true voice of the people.
I wouldn't vote because politicians are a bunch of lying ***** who haven't the slightest clue about real life and have to go on some channel 4 show about living in a tower block to pretend they do. I prefer the democracy of being able to abstain from a vote than be forced to vote for the party I dislike the least.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wouldn't vote because politicians are a bunch of lying ***** who haven't the slightest clue about real life and have to go on some channel 4 show about living in a tower block to pretend they do. I prefer the democracy of being able to abstain from a vote than be forced to vote for the party I dislike the least.

I think if I ever switch to that view (still got hope at the moment with UKIP) but if I do, i'll not vote for a party but i'll go to the polling station and i'll wreck my vote [spoilt vote] to show just how I feel with the politicians. I think if everyone did that whos fed up with the whole lot of them then it'd cause some huge embaraessment for them and maybe we'd get somewhere. It shows that you do care about your country and its state of affairs but also shows what you think of the politicians.

[Catzsy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2009/election_09/default.stm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_%28United_Kingd om%29

http://www.iaza.com/work/100221C/ukipelectionresult99883.bmp

Had that been a general election with the same proportional representational voting system, Labour wouldn't even be the opposition party. Right now we'd have David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nigel Farage as leader of the opposition. So if we were to swap to the fair proportional representation system politics would very much change. Infact the Tories would be forced to swing to the right to protect their vote because England, being the bulk of the electorate and very much to the right simply would vote for the opposition over Camerons Conservatives.

Infact in 2005 even with a right-wing leader like Michael Howard whom most Tories were behind (me included), because of the vote splitting to UKIP in the General Election - the Tories apparently lost 20 to 30 seats because of UKIP. Thats only likely to increase even more as Conservative voters continue to leave Camerons Conservatives.

Oh okay - I get the drift. However, I can't imagine voting patterns being the same for a general election as they are for a European election. People will vote for the MEP who they feel has the most to offer in Europe and UKIP is therefore a good choice for the eurosceptics. Labour's policy has always been a bit wishywashy on Europe tbf.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh okay - I get the drift. However, I can't imagine voting patterns being the same for a general election as they are for a European election. People will vote for the MEP who they feel has the most to offer in Europe and UKIP is therefore a good choice for the eurosceptics. Labour's policy has always been a bit wishywashy on Europe tbf.

They'd be very similar, it all depends how it'd pan out and how each party would respond to proportional representation. UKIP and other parties miss out on a mass of votes at normal elections because they know how the FPTP system works and theres little chance of changing anything anyway with that system in place so they either vote for the opposition (Labour or Conservative) or dont bother voting at all - thats how the Lib/Lab/Con keep their monopoly on power and if you remove that then they are fully exposed.

The Conservatives would be in deep trouble and Cameron would most likely be thrown overboard to avoid UKIP rising above them, Labour would be struggling for votes and would have to rely on votes from Scotland/Liberal Democrat supporters just to stay with its head above the waves. They are proposing a referendum be held on election day this year anyway to decide the voting system, whether the new system will be a proper and fair system and whether it remains in place until the next election is a big question.

[Catzsy]

They'd be very similar, it all depends how it'd pan out and how each party would respond to proportional representation. UKIP and other parties miss out on a mass of votes at normal elections because they know how the FPTP system works and theres little chance of changing anything anyway with that system in place so they either vote for the opposition (Labour or Conservative) or dont bother voting at all - thats how the Lib/Lab/Con keep their monopoly on power and if you remove that then they are fully exposed.

The Conservatives would be in deep trouble and Cameron would most likely be thrown overboard to avoid UKIP rising above them, Labour would be struggling for votes and would have to rely on votes from Scotland/Liberal Democrat supporters just to stay with its head above the waves. They are proposing a referendum be held on election day this year anyway to decide the voting system, whether the new system will be a proper and fair system and whether it remains in place until the next election is a big question.

Sorry would have to agree to disagree on this one. My belief is that voting patterns are different for the two elections as they are for local elections.
Usually one protests about the other. In any event no main parties are going to vote for a system that puts them at that sort of disadvantage.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sorry would have to agree to disagree on this one. My belief is that voting patterns are different for the two elections as they are for local elections.
Usually one protests about the other. In any event no main parties are going to vote for a system that puts them at that sort of disadvantage.

People vote in elections on national issues mainly so if the PR system did come in, voting patterns would change i'm pretty sure. Those who are voting Tory just to unseat Labour would think "hey hang on, theres alternatives" and the same goes for left wing voters aswell. Rather than going by tactical voting as a lot of people do now (even my parents have in the past voted Liberal Democrat to keep Labour out); they would be voting for who they truly feel is best - hence the European 2009 Election Results (UK). The bulk of England is to the right, and if people voted by whom they support then UKIP would certainly grow. As I said earlier, even when the Tories had a right-wing candidate UKIP still managed to cause great harm to the Tories by losing them 20 - 30 seats.

Of course, although according to the news Brown is pledging a referendum to be held at the next election to decide the voting system. It would pass if it does come to that, but the next election wont be held by the PR system so it'd only be the next election which would be affected and if the Tories get in, they could simply scrap any changes the referendum did make and the same for Labour.

[Bun]

i know this is meant to be about the skinheads in suits but why won't you just accept that UKIP only attract the small popularity that they get because people see them as a sole proposal group (i know they're not) and only those who are euro sceptic voted ukip, where everybody who voted labour, lib dem, tory et al. are pro-europe?

[-:Undertaker:-]

i know this is meant to be about the skinheads in suits but why won't you just accept that UKIP only attract the small popularity that they get because people see them as a sole proposal group (i know they're not) and only those who are euro sceptic voted ukip, where everybody who voted labour, lib dem, tory et al. are pro-europe?

Because the election results say otherwise.

http://www.iaza.com/work/100221C/ukipelectionresult99883.bmp

On the European Union itself, opinion poll after opinion poll shows the British people do not want to be a part of the European Union and want withdrawal - the same goes for a number of countries around Europe. UKIP will not have any major breakthrough (although Farage could very well win against Bercow) in this election because of the FPTP system. Its not even disputable that UKIP are not popular, they came second in the European Parliamentary Elections 2009 and are estimated to have lost the Tories 20 to 30 seats in 2005. That figure will increase this year due to David Cameron, believe me if you read the comments from the bottom of the Telegraph or Daily Mail (both Tory base papers) then you will see that UKIP and the BNP are going to get quite a good percentage in the General Election but thanks to our voting system, that will most likely turn into 0 seats for both of them.

UKIP has the EU as its main policy and attracts people because of that for the reason that the European Union creates an estimated 75% of our laws. Without leaving the European Union, no government we elect can ever make any real changes because they are bound by the EU, its courts and its commission of whom have never been elected by the British people or the people of Europe.

[Bun]

Because the election results say otherwise.

http://www.iaza.com/work/100221C/ukipelectionresult99883.bmp

On the European Union itself, opinion poll after opinion poll shows the British people do not want to be a part of the European Union and want withdrawal - the same goes for a number of countries around Europe. UKIP will not have any major breakthrough (although Farage could very well win against Bercow) in this election because of the FPTP system. Its not even disputable that UKIP are not popular, they came second in the European Parliamentary Elections 2009 and are estimated to have lost the Tories 20 to 30 seats in 2005. That figure will increase this year due to David Cameron, believe me if you read the comments from the bottom of the Telegraph or Daily Mail (both Tory base papers) then you will see that UKIP and the BNP are going to get quite a good percentage in the General Election but thanks to our voting system, that will most likely turn into 0 seats for both of them.

UKIP has the EU as its main policy and attracts people because of that for the reason that the European Union creates an estimated 75% of our laws. Without leaving the European Union, no government we elect can ever make any real changes because they are bound by the EU, its courts and its commission of whom have never been elected by the British people or the people of Europe.
cut the 75% uk law crap, you're starting to sound like your party leader. you just amplified my point, ukip got 16.5 percent because 16.5 percent of the electorate voted them for their 'main policy', cos let's be honest, that's the only reason people vote them. that means 83.5 percent did not vote them because they support eu. and regarding the general election i am fine with euro sceptic toffs to switch to ukip cos i would rather see labour in power than the conservatives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

cut the 75% uk law crap, you're starting to sound like your party leader. you just amplified my point, ukip got 16.5 percent because 16.5 percent of the electorate voted them for their 'main policy', cos let's be honest, that's the only reason people vote them. that means 83.5 percent did not vote them because they support eu. and regarding the general election i am fine with euro sceptic toffs to switch to ukip cos i would rather see labour in power than the conservatives.

Actually the only study which was properly conducted was by the German government (a country comparable to Britain in terms of size and governance) and they found that 84% of German laws were made by the European Union. Therefore its not crap as its also been analysed by experts on the EU such as Daniel Hannan, Lord Pearson and Nigel Farage who have come to that conclusion and not done as what you have done, which is inprint everything the Labour Party stands for into your mind because the chances are you were most likely brought up to support the Labour Party. If the Labour Party became anti-EU tommorow then theres little doubt in my mind that you'd also swap aswell. On the reason they voted them, Conservative voters do not vote on one issue. The general election is looming and everything David Cameron 'stands for' is putting the Tory base off, UKIP policies are very very Conservative and therefore attract voters.

The majority of this country support the death penalty being brought back, does that mean people voted based on that? - no they did not hence why the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all got votes. I know Labour supporters who would support the death penalty 100%, Labour doesnt want to introduce it yet they still vote Labour. As I said before, the Daily Mail and the Telehgraph (the tory CORE VOTE) comments are really for UKIP now and even the BNP. People like the idea of holding referendums on issues, people like the idea of smaller state, people like the idea of the British government ruling Britain as opposed to the European Union.

You totally ignored everything i've said on the reason why we need to switch to proportional representation and the terms of tribal voting and are barging full steam ahead into something that you are only having a go at because you cannot seem to accept that UKIP are actually well supported and did better than the Labour Party in the polls which were PR (fair) and not FPTP (not fair). Here is another fact you may not like; the Conservative Party got more votes in England in 2005 than the Labour Party did and Labour are only in government now thanks to Scottish seats. If you are so sure that the British people support the idea of the European Union, surely you wouldn't object to the idea of a referendum on our membership of the European Union?

On the reason with the European Union, just because somebody supports a certain party does not mean they support everything that party stands for. Infact the Labour Party, many in the Labour Party were always against the EEC not to mention the European Union and remain so to this day. Everyone single opinion poll conducted over the European Union issue has come back as the British people want to withdraw. Now you can delude yourself otherwise, and by doing so follow the Labour Party like a headless chicken or you can accept that fact. Its your call.

On the toffs part, wow a Labour supporter using class war to win over their 'point' - very original!

[Bun]

Actually the only study which was properly conducted was by the German government (a country comparable to Britain in terms of size and governance) and they found that 84% of German laws were made by the European Union. Therefore its not crap
there you go again, fine a new song to sing

as its also been analysed by experts on the EU such as Daniel Hannan, Lord Pearson and Nigel Farage who have come to that conclusion and not done as what you have done, which is inprint everything the Labour Party stands for into your mind because the chances are you were most likely brought up to support the Labour Party.
no, i've never been forced to agree with something i don't, i agree with a lot of labours' policies, forgive me if that doesn't allow me to be a labour supporter

If the Labour Party became anti-EU tommorow then theres little doubt in my mind that you'd also swap aswell.
no, i wouldn't, i'm very much for the EU (and please don't use this line as an excuse to bring back the 70-80% of UK law nonsense)

On the reason they voted them, Conservative voters do not vote on one issue. The general election is looming and everything David Cameron 'stands for' is putting the Tory base off
init tho it's mint


UKIP policies are very very Conservative and therefore attract voters.

that's fine by me, i don't mind if they have a little bit of glam this may cos it'll be short lived

The majority of this country support the death penalty being brought back, does that mean people voted based on that? - no they did not hence why the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all got votes.
well yeah that's because capital punishment isn't a key policy from any of the main parties, which all have the same views on it anyway

I know Labour supporters who would support the death penalty 100%, Labour doesnt want to introduce it yet they still vote Labour. As I said before, the Daily Mail and the Telehgraph (the tory CORE VOTE) comments are really for UKIP now and even the BNP.
yeah and the sun, will probs turn quite a few working class labour into tories

People like the idea of holding referendums on issues
fine for me, who's this 'people'?

people like the idea of smaller
again with the 'people', you really shouldn't do that


people like the idea of the British government ruling Britain as opposed to the European Union.

see above for the first bit ^, and the british government does rule britain, c'mon stop playing dumb

You totally ignored everything i've said on the reason why we need to switch to proportional representation and the terms of tribal voting and are barging full steam ahead into something that you are only having a go at because you cannot seem to accept that UKIP are actually well supported and did better than the Labour Party in the polls which were PR (fair) and not FPTP (not fair).
i didn't read the bit about pr sorry it looked boring. like i said ukip were just a bandwagon vote in the eu elections for the euro sceptics, nothing more. oh and even though i support PR, (even tho FPTP loves labour init (l)), FPTP is fair. if you don't like the rules, don't play the game

Here is another fact you may not like; the Conservative Party got more votes in England in 2005 than the Labour Party did and Labour are only in government now thanks to Scottish seats.
yeah well last time i checked westminster was the british government, not the london assembly, so surely that's okey cokey yeh?

If you are so sure that the British people support the idea of the European Union, surely you wouldn't object to the idea of a referendum on our membership of the European Union?
i'd welcome it with open arms, it would educate britain as lets be honest, britain is xenophobic


On the reason with the European Union, just because somebody supports a certain party does not mean they support everything that party stands for. Infact the Labour Party, many in the Labour Party were always against the EEC not to mention the European Union and remain so to this day. Everyone single opinion poll conducted over the European Union issue has come back as the British people want to withdraw. Now you can delude yourself otherwise, and by doing so follow the Labour Party like a headless chicken or you can accept that fact. Its your call.

HAHAAH, ironic isn't it? sure you ain't got your mate nigel on speed dial, or do you just pray for him at night?

On the toffs part, wow a Labour supporter using class war to win over their 'point' - very original!
got nothing against the upper class, as long as they aren't conservatives s****, yeh that was a joke before you go ape...

[Adamm]

Misunderstood.

Edited by iAdam (Forum Super Moderator); Please do not post pointlessly.

[-:Undertaker:-]

there you go again, fine a new song to singThat all you have to say?


no, i've never been forced to agree with something i don't, i agree with a lot of labours' policies, forgive me if that doesn't allow me to be a labour supporterOh I very much think you do, because your quick to dish it out but when somebody replies you dont seem to want to actually respond properly to their points.


no, i wouldn't, i'm very much for the EU (and please don't use this line as an excuse to bring back the 70-80% of UK law nonsense)Oh really, very interesting.


that's fine by me, i don't mind if they have a little bit of glam this may cos it'll be short lived If the Conservatives go back to the right then UKIP would disband and i'd go back to supporting the Conservatives, along with many others. Until then, UKIP will grow just like the SNP did in Scotland over a period of 50 years. UKIP has grown even faster in its short history.


well yeah that's because capital punishment isn't a key policy from any of the main parties, which all have the same views on it anywayIndeed it isnt, but people still vote for them. UKIP used to be very one-base with just the European Union being a core policy, of course they have retained that but thats another reason why they are considering renaming themselves the Independance Party - for the independance of the individual.


yeah and the sun, will probs turn quite a few working class labour into tories Aww poor Labour, the whole world is against it!


fine for me, who's this 'people'?You know, the public?


again with the 'people', you really shouldn't do that Why not? - people are sick of government interferance in almost everything.


see above for the first bit ^, and the british government does rule britain, c'mon stop playing dumb No it does rule Britain and thats fact because not even the great Labour Party denied it when on QT, more of our laws are made by the commission as opposed to our parliament and government. The sad fact is that while our government does have the power to say no to i'm sure what you consider are great policies the EU comes up with such as; what the definition of a pig is, how big a kiwi should be in millimetres before its illegal for a shop to sell it and what type of lightbulbs we should be allowed - it doesnt.


i didn't read the bit about pr sorry it looked boring. like i said ukip were just a bandwagon vote in the eu elections for the euro sceptics, nothing more. oh and even though i support PR, (even tho FPTP loves labour init (l)), FPTP is fair. if you don't like the rules, don't play the gameFPTP is not fair, otherwise right now we'd have UKIP and the BNP sitting in the House of Commons right now as their share of the votes means that they deserve representation. You surely know this because you support PR yourself.


yeah well last time i checked westminster was the british government, not the london assembly, so surely that's okey cokey yeh?..and the Lond Assembly has what to do with this?


i'd welcome it with open arms, it would educate britain as lets be honest, britain is xenophobicPleased to hear that, wouldnt go as far as that though; afterall the majority of us go on holiday. I always find it strange how Labour supporters label anyone whos against immigration/the European Union as racist or xenophobic.


HAHAAH, ironic isn't it? sure you ain't got your mate nigel on speed dial, or do you just pray for him at night?The thing is, I haven't been taught what to believe in by my relatives because i've swapped political views many times, I even supported the Liberal Democrats once. Stop it with the jokes by the way, i'm rolling on the floor in hysterics.


got nothing against the upper class, as long as they aren't conservatives s****, yeh that was a joke before you go ape...Seems pretty driven into you by the looks of it, afterall; WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

[MrPinkPanther]

You keep saying the vast majority of the public don't support LabConLib despite the fact that they clearly do. You can't just keep making things up. You say they only vote for them because of FPTP and they know UKIP won't get in yet:

The vast majority of the population aren't aware of the flaws in first past the post
Hell is going to freeze over before the liberal democrats get into power and yet they get WAY more votes than UKIP


The European elections are TOTALLY different to General Elections and don't blame it on the electoral system. Liberal Democrats ALWAYS perform worse in European Elections because some people aren't too keen on their Europhile attitude and equally some are keen on UKIP because of their Eurosceptic attitude. By your logic the liberal democrats should perform better in EU elections because the electoral system benefits more and yet they dont.

The vast majority of posts that I have seen by you have been ill informed and you seem to think that if you repeat yourself it suddenly becomes right. IF we had had a General Election at the same time as the EU election UKIP would NOT be in opposition.

[Bun]

i'll reply to all my quotes later, really cba now. must say i agree with flyduo though.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You keep saying the vast majority of the public don't support LabConLib despite the fact that they clearly do. You can't just keep making things up. You say they only vote for them because of FPTP and they know UKIP won't get in yet:

The vast majority of the population aren't aware of the flaws in first past the post
Hell is going to freeze over before the liberal democrats get into power and yet they get WAY more votes than UKIP


The European elections are TOTALLY different to General Elections and don't blame it on the electoral system. Liberal Democrats ALWAYS perform worse in European Elections because some people aren't too keen on their Europhile attitude and equally some are keen on UKIP because of their Eurosceptic attitude. By your logic the liberal democrats should perform better in EU elections because the electoral system benefits more and yet they dont.

The vast majority of posts that I have seen by you have been ill informed and you seem to think that if you repeat yourself it suddenly becomes right. IF we had had a General Election at the same time as the EU election UKIP would NOT be in opposition.

They do, its called tactical voting hence why its always harder for another party/an independant to gain a 'safe seat' off Labour/Conservative. The same goes for when Conservative try and gain seats in Lib/Lab strongholds - they struggle and its the same the other way around. Surely if you believe its the case the you dont have a problem with the UK swapping to PR and leaving the FPTP system?

As for the Liberal Democrats, I believe they are also for the PR system because they lose out on a lot of seats that should be theirs going by past General Elections? - the same goes for the smaller parties. Why do you think the Conservatives and Labour (only ones who ever gain power) are so keen to keep FPTP?

You can say that, but trust me - a lot of people swap at General Elections and use tactical voting just to get rid of the party in government. For example, a UKIP supporter in a Labour seat may vote the main opposition there with any chance of success (a Conservative Party) even if they dont support them. My parents are just one example, they are pretty strong politically minded yet voted Liberal Democrats for a number of years just to keep Labour out of office in our area despite the fact they dont agree with a single thing that the Liberal Democrats stand for.

That is tactical voting and its widespread, people are far more open when it comes to PR elections (see European Parliamentary Elections 2009) and thus vote for other parties because they know that their vote will count and make a difference. If I vote Conservative/UKIP where I live, I waste my vote and the same happens around the country in all different seats.

I'm not being naive, if I thought UKIP had no chance then i'd be honest with you. The same way we knew in 2005 that although many wanted it, Michael Howard was not going to win the General Election. The Liberal Democrats always do better in General Elections because the vote gets pushed between the Lib/Lab/Con and those who are fed up with both will use a protest vote for the Liberal Democrats. The same happens when a Tory government is in office, although the Liberal Democrats are very much to the left often Tories who are dissatified with the Conservatives will vote for the Liberal Democrats as a protest vote.

[MrPinkPanther]

They do, its called tactical voting hence why its always harder for another party/an independant to gain a 'safe seat' off Labour/Conservative. The same goes for when Conservative try and gain seats in Lib/Lab strongholds - they struggle and its the same the other way around. Surely if you believe its the case the you dont have a problem with the UK swapping to PR and leaving the FPTP system?

As for the Liberal Democrats, I believe they are also for the PR system because they lose out on a lot of seats that should be theirs going by past General Elections? - the same goes for the smaller parties. Why do you think the Conservatives and Labour (only ones who ever gain power) are so keen to keep FPTP?
I don't think you understood my point. I'm all for PR but I'm saying UKIP dont get a higher percentage of the vote in EU elections because of the Electoral systems, its because of their EU hating status much like the LD's and their EU loving status.



You can say that, but trust me - a lot of people swap at General Elections and use tactical voting just to get rid of the party in government. For example, a UKIP supporter in a Labour seat may vote the main opposition there with any chance of success (a Conservative Party) even if they dont support them. My parents are just one example, they are pretty strong politically minded yet voted Liberal Democrats for a number of years just to keep Labour out of office in our area despite the fact they dont agree with a single thing that the Liberal Democrats stand for.

That is tactical voting and its widespread, people are far more open when it comes to PR elections (see European Parliamentary Elections 2009) and thus vote for other parties because they know that their vote will count and make a difference. If I vote Conservative/UKIP where I live, I waste my vote and the same happens around the country in all different seats.

See above. If this were true then the Liberal Democrats would benefit more. UKIP recieve more votes as a protest because of their anti-EU status and people feel they are showing the government what they think of the EU.


I'm not being naive, if I thought UKIP had no chance then i'd be honest with you. The same way we knew in 2005 that although many wanted it, Michael Howard was not going to win the General Election. The Liberal Democrats always do better in General Elections because the vote gets pushed between the Lib/Lab/Con and those who are fed up with both will use a protest vote for the Liberal Democrats. The same happens when a Tory government is in office, although the Liberal Democrats are very much to the left often Tories who are dissatified with the Conservatives will vote for the Liberal Democrats as a protest vote.
Well you are being extremely naive aren't you. You seem to think that in the EU election last year they had 16.5% of popular support and at the same time opinion polls showed "Others" (Includes, UKIP, BNP, Green party etc) only had 10-12% of the vote. Thus proving that they are cast as a protest vote and likely had <5% of the vote. See unlike you I am able to back myself up with real figures and sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8280050.stm

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't think you understood my point. I'm all for PR but I'm saying UKIP dont get a higher percentage of the vote in EU elections because of the Electoral systems, its because of their EU hating status much like the LD's and their EU loving status.

See above. If this were true then the Liberal Democrats would benefit more. UKIP recieve more votes as a protest because of their anti-EU status and people feel they are showing the government what they think of the EU.

Well you are being extremely naive aren't you. You seem to think that in the EU election last year they had 16.5% of popular support and at the same time opinion polls showed "Others" (Includes, UKIP, BNP, Green party etc) only had 10-12% of the vote.

Thus proving that they are cast as a protest vote and likely had <5% of the vote. See unlike you I am able to back myself up with real figures and sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8280050.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8280050.stm)UKIP last year gained around 16% of the popular vote, as was shown by opinon polls at the time which had UKIP on 15% to 19%, meanwhile the BNP was on the 5%/6% mark and Labour was on around the same as UKIP which was 15% to 19%. You say sources, well heres another source which shows the opinion polls before the election and as you can quite clearly see, UKIP was not grouped with the 'Others' with only "10% to 12%" of the vote - UKIP got more votes and more of the popular vote than Labour and the Liberal Democrats, hence why it came second in the election.

http://www.iaza.com/work/100222C/popularvote90565.bmp

As for UKIP gaining more votes because of their eurosceptic attitude, well yes thats true because thats a policy and people vote based on policies otherwise we wouldnt have elections. You call me naive for actually telling you what the election figures were, yet were you not the one telling us in another thread about a month ago that the Liberal Democrats were going to do really good in this upcoming election? - UKIP may gain one seat and i'm not pretending that they'll do fantastic by sweeping into government/opposition but meanwhile you pretend to yourself that the Liberal Democrats are going to do fantastically from what I remember of that thread. Yeah, here it is your exact words;

"The Liberal Democrats are the ones to watch this election. I can see them becoming a more mainstream party with the possibility of opening up a 3 way election in 2015" - They continue to trial in the polls at the 18% mark and this time around they dont have the advantage of disaffected Tory voters because they are turning to UKIP/BNP.

[Soy]

vote plaid cymru!!!!!!!!!!!

everyone should speak welsh!!!!!!!!!!!

[lazerman]

Im voting the BNP and the family are too.

The boarders are to be closed.

[Robbie]

Im voting the BNP and the family are too.

The boarders are to be closed.

COMPLETELY closing the borders would be suicidal for the country. We need some CONTROL of immigration, not just closing the borders

[lazerman]

Reasons why?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Reasons why?

We want people who will help our country, people who will work and people who will intergrate. The majority of people want this, but alas the government just ignores it and the same with the Lib/Con opposition. Although I can sympathise with you, people are sick of it and nobody listening so they just think "well screw it, just ban the whole lot of them" and hence why the BNP continues to grow.

[lazerman]

Doesn't surprises me,


Never thought strongly about BNP that much till this happened:
http://habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=630094


Government obvs dont care about us, we gonna be turning in to some Islam country pretty soon if it not already happened.

[Robbie]

Reasons why?

Because Skilled Migration should always be welcomed, like the system Australia has. Highly skilled migrants have to pass a points test and English tests and stuff.

And those skilled migrants help Australia immensely. If we shut out all immigrants, the skilled workers from overseas such as I.T workers, doctors etc would be missed immensely.

The unskilled workers, however should be deported and not allowed in the country;

[MrPinkPanther]

UKIP last year gained around 16% of the popular vote, as was shown by opinon polls at the time which had UKIP on 15% to 19%, meanwhile the BNP was on the 5%/6% mark and Labour was on around the same as UKIP which was 15% to 19%. You say sources, well heres another source which shows the opinion polls before the election and as you can quite clearly see, UKIP was not grouped with the 'Others' with only "10% to 12%" of the vote - UKIP got more votes and more of the popular vote than Labour and the Liberal Democrats, hence why it came second in the election.

http://www.iaza.com/work/100222C/popularvote90565.bmp

Once again, European elections and I've explained why they get such a large vote in those. I'm talking about opinion polling as a whole, all of the main and legit "pollers" are listed on the BBC site which clearly shows results.



As for UKIP gaining more votes because of their eurosceptic attitude, well yes thats true because thats a policy and people vote based on policies otherwise we wouldnt have elections. You call me naive for actually telling you what the election figures were
No, I'm calling you naive for thinking European elections are based off of all party policies and not just attitudes towards to Europe etc. In a poll conducted by YouGov which surveyed 32,268 people about European elections only 23% of them said they were voting to change the composition of European parliament. What does that tell you? People are voting for UKIP because they agree with their manifesto or that they are voting for them in protest? The fact is people don't want UKIP in government, they just aren't happy with Europe.


you pretend to yourself that the Liberal Democrats are going to do fantastically from what I remember of that thread. Yeah, here it is your exact words;

"The Liberal Democrats are the ones to watch this election. I can see them becoming a more mainstream party with the possibility of opening up a 3 way election in 2015" - They continue to trial in the polls at the 18% mark and this time around they dont have the advantage of disaffected Tory voters because they are turning to UKIP/BNP.
Ok firstly in regards to "18%", I think its widely regarded that the Liberal Democrats do poorly in the run up to elections and then have a boost actually during the election week where they get media coverage. Secondly I said that at a time when it looked likely that we would have a 3 way tv debate which would have given the liberal democrat large gains. Thirdly they are becoming a more mainstream party and I only said "possibility" to the 2015 bit. Finally I still think they will become even more mainstream in 2015 if they hold the balance of power after this election in the event of a hung parliament which even you cant deny looks likely.

[Anamations]

Looooooool , Dont get me started on this topic because ill not leave my computer lmao,

I dont see how anyone can think the BNP are good unless there racist and disgriminaters!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Doesn't surprises me,

Never thought strongly about BNP that much till this happened:
http://habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=630094

Government obvs dont care about us, we gonna be turning in to some Islam country pretty soon if it not already happened.

It is the bad immigrants I want to keep out and as do most other people, why would we want to keep genuinely good people out who will contribue to this country?


Once again, European elections and I've explained why they get such a large vote in those. I'm talking about opinion polling as a whole, all of the main and legit "pollers" are listed on the BBC site which clearly shows results.The main opinion polls, parties such as UKIP and the BNP score lower because as I said before, people when asked the question; who would you vote in a General Election? - they will say one of the main parties because they are well aware of the FPTP system and know that if they do not vote the right party (for example my parents voting the Liberal Democrats) then the opposition party will get in (Labour in my case). That is why in a PR election, the votes are far more varied across the board and that would be repeated in a General Election if it was conduced in PR.


No, I'm calling you naive for thinking European elections are based off of all party policies and not just attitudes towards to Europe etc. In a poll conducted by YouGov which surveyed 32,268 people about European elections only 23% of them said they were voting to change the composition of European parliament. What does that tell you? People are voting for UKIP because they agree with their manifesto or that they are voting for them in protest? The fact is people don't want UKIP in government, they just aren't happy with Europe.The main issue people vote for UKIP is the idea of 'pulling out of Europe', just like the traditional and main reason given for voting Labour is 'fairness and equality' and the main reason given for the Tories is 'lower taxes'. I know I have explained the UKIP manifesto to my friends who arent even interested in politics and they actually agree with it. My friends mum, always voted Conservative but voted UKIP because she liked their policies as a whole rather than just one issue and the same goes for her mother aswell. To top this off, this if Liverpool we are talking about aswell which was the home of the militants!

You ask any Tory voters (majority of England) and if you presented UKIP policies to them and Conservative policies to them, you'd find they are far more for the UKIP polcies than the Conservative policies. Hence why UKIP cost the Conservatives an estimated 20 - 30 seats in 2005, even with a right-wing leader. That tells you, the more UKIP get out their message the more they will grow. People could of chosen the BNP or other parties in that election, but they didnt because the majority of people I would guess do not want industry re-nationalised and so on.


Ok firstly in regards to "18%", I think its widely regarded that the Liberal Democrats do poorly in the run up to elections and then have a boost actually during the election week where they get media coverage. Secondly I said that at a time when it looked likely that we would have a 3 way tv debate which would have given the liberal democrat large gains. Thirdly they are becoming a more mainstream party and I only said "possibility" to the 2015 bit. Finally I still think they will become even more mainstream in 2015 if they hold the balance of power after this election in the event of a hung parliament which even you cant deny looks likely.As I said before, if we are talking about protest votes then the Liberal Democrats are a prime example although are losing their influence thanks to the rise of the BNP & UKIP. Traditionally, Conservative voters who are disillusioned with the Tory party would vote for the Liberal Democrats and the same for disillusioned Labour voters. This is slowly starting to change, now i'm not saying they'll be making massive gains but it is going to split the vote. The right is on the rise again and when people are faced with a choice betweenCall Me Dave and Gordon Clown - they just do not know what to do because theres very little difference between them, that coupled with the fact that nobody genuinely believes in the Liberal Democrats left-wing policies such as yet more higher taxes.

[Black_Apalachi]

I think this country should make voting a legal requirement. In Australia, for example, by law you have to vote in all elections. Then we'd get a true voice of the people.

Not at all. If people are forced to vote, then it's just a random choice which is no good to anybody. It's better to have a decision made fairly based on the views of those who care enough to bother voting than to have it influenced due to random chance caused by people who don't care either way.