BNP Members vote to allow non-whites to join

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ban all non-British. Same thing. I thought you "hate the notion that anyone can be chosen for a job based on their race, disability, sexuality or any other factor related. "

What has that got to do with employment? - nothing. Immigration is a seperate issue and that should not be decided on race either and UKIP are not proposing it be done on the grounds of race, the same with employment. When you plan to enter this country you are not coming for a job, you are coming here to live. The immigration proposal by UKIP states simply that a blanket ban on all immigration while the current mess is sorted out (because we do not know how many people are here) and after a 5-year period, introduce a system which allows only the best in based on their ability and record, not who they are.

Labour, the BNP and the Conservatives are all basing their candidate shortlist/membership rules based on who you are, your race, your sexuality and your gender. UKIP are not basing their immigration policy on race, gender or sexuality - a very clear difference and I think you can see that, but i'm glad you see this as winding me up because I know you know deep down now that what I am saying is right, and futhermore is proved by your refusal to answer my question which I have kindly reposted for a fourth time at to which I await your reply eagerly.

Again for the fourth time running now, I shall ask yet again; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

What has that got to do with employment? - nothing. Immigration is a seperate issue and that should not be decided on race either and UKIP are not proposing it be done on the grounds of race, the same with employment. When you plan to enter this country you are not coming for a job, you are coming here to live. The immigration proposal by UKIP states simply that a blanket ban on all immigration while the current mess is sorted out (because we do not know how many people are here) and after a 5-year period, introduce a system which allows only the best in based on their ability and record, not who they are.

Labour, the BNP and the Conservatives are all basing their candidate shortlist/membership rules based on who you are, your race, your sexuality and your gender. UKIP are not basing their immigration policy on race, gender or sexuality - a very clear difference and I think you can see that, but i'm glad you see this as winding me up because I know you know deep down now that what I am saying is right, and futhermore is proved by your refusal to answer my question which I have kindly reposted for a fourth time at to which I await your reply eagerly.

Again for the fourth time running now, I shall ask yet again; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

Stop presuming I agree with you to satisfy yourself. It really doesn't look good or clever. It actually makes the writer look childish.

Well if you block immigration, you are blocking them from being employed, meaning the companies have a limited choice - common sense really.

If UKIP cannot sort out "the mess" without blocking immigration, they are pretty inefficient and a poor political group. You can easily allow people in, keep a proper record and start vetting others.
What do you propose UKIP do by blocking immigration? Knock on every door in the country in the next 5 years and search for immigrants? Lol ... lets be realistic here. Wait a second, UKIP never are. Damn.

Anyway, even after the 5 years, people can still come in and out - there are obviously ways - so you can never know who is in the country. Its a dream situation, not a realistic one. UKIP try to be a "dream" party for some, not a "realistic" one. I guess its pretty clear that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Stop presuming I agree with you to satisfy yourself. It really doesn't look good or clever. It actually makes the writer look childish.

Well if you block immigration, you are blocking them from being employed, meaning the companies have a limited choice - common sense really.

If UKIP cannot sort out "the mess" without blocking immigration, they are pretty inefficient and a poor political group. You can easily allow people in, keep a proper record and start vetting others.
What do you propose UKIP do by blocking immigration? Knock on every door in the country in the next 5 years and search for immigrants? Lol ... lets be realistic here. Wait a second, UKIP never are. Damn.

Anyway, even after the 5 years, people can still come in and out - there are obviously ways - so you can never know who is in the country. Its a dream situation, not a realistic one. UKIP try to be a "dream" party for some, not a "realistic" one. I guess its pretty clear that.

So the point still stands, the UKIP immigration policy (whether you agree with it or not) is not based on race because it does not discriminate based on race; therefore you cannot accuse me of hypocrisy. I said I do not agree at all with the notion that people are chosen for employment or for emigration to this country based on their race and I still dont, and the party I support doesnt either. Its pretty simple and heres a chart to simplify it to an even greater extent;

So now UKIP aside because we have clearly establised they do not have racial policies for candidacy, membership or immigration i'd like to ask you for a fifth time to answer the question you keep avoiding and which is the question which is vital and central to this debate; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

So the point still stands, the UKIP immigration policy (whether you agree with it or not) is not based on race because it does not discriminate based on race; therefore you cannot accuse me of hypocrisy. I said I do not agree at all with the notion that people are chosen for employment or for emigration to this country based on their race and I still dont, and the party I support doesnt either. Its pretty simple and heres a chart to simplify it to an even greater extent;

So now UKIP aside because we have clearly establised they do not have racial policies for candidacy, membership or immigration i'd like to ask you for a fifth time to answer the question you keep avoiding and which is the question which is vital and central to this debate; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

Does it matter? You said "and any other factors" or something. So you are basically denying all non British people the chance. Hence my post still stands:
Well if you block immigration, you are blocking them from being employed, meaning the companies have a limited choice - common sense really.

If UKIP cannot sort out "the mess" without blocking immigration, they are pretty inefficient and a poor political group. You can easily allow people in, keep a proper record and start vetting others.
What do you propose UKIP do by blocking immigration? Knock on every door in the country in the next 5 years and search for immigrants? Lol ... lets be realistic here. Wait a second, UKIP never are. Damn.

Anyway, even after the 5 years, people can still come in and out - there are obviously ways - so you can never know who is in the country. Its a dream situation, not a realistic one. UKIP try to be a "dream" party for some, not a "realistic" one. I guess its pretty clear that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Does it matter? You said "and any other factors" or something. So you are basically denying all non British people the chance. Hence my post still stands: Well if you block immigration, you are blocking them from being employed, meaning the companies have a limited choice - common sense really.

No it doesnt stand because the policy does not target a race/gender or sexuality when deciding on who/who doesnt come into the United Kingdom. Therefore there is no hypocrisy in me saying that jobs/membership shouldn't be decided on race, gender or sexuality because the policy I support doesnt work on the merits of race, gender and sexuality.

If UKIP cannot sort out "the mess" without blocking immigration, they are pretty inefficient and a poor political group. You can easily allow people in, keep a proper record and start vetting others.
What do you propose UKIP do by blocking immigration? Knock on every door in the country in the next 5 years and search for immigrants? Lol ... lets be realistic here. Wait a second, UKIP never are. Damn.

Anyway, even after the 5 years, people can still come in and out - there are obviously ways - so you can never know who is in the country. Its a dream situation, not a realistic one. UKIP try to be a "dream" party for some, not a "realistic" one. I guess its pretty clear that.

It is estimated that over a million people (and figures range over that) are living in the United Kingdom who we do not know of, do you know how serious that is? - that means they are not paying tax but are using services, thus putting immense strain on public services and the economy in general. Ontop of that the issue of crime is very big when you do not even know whether the criminal is here or not.

How would they sort it? - pretty simple really, by using intelligence and by cutting any benefits & services to those who do not register as legally in this country. The current policy is unsustainable and unrealistic that this Labour government has ran. While I and UKIP would not wish to stop immigration, it would have to be cut for a period of 5 years (less if possible, depends on how long the planning would take and how long the legal framework & legislation took to be introduced) while a new system was introduced which only allows those in who we need and want and prevents the system being cheated like it is now.

UKIP aside because you'll never agree anyway and it just ends up a merry-go-round, for the sixth time now I will ask; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

No it doesnt stand because the policy does not target a race/gender or sexuality when deciding on who/who doesnt come into the United Kingdom. Therefore there is no hypocrisy in me saying that jobs/membership shouldn't be decided on race, gender or sexuality because the policy I support doesnt work on the merits of race, gender and sexuality.



It is estimated that over a million people (and figures range over that) are living in the United Kingdom who we do not know of, do you know how serious that is? - that means they are not paying tax but are using services, thus putting immense strain on public services and the economy in general. Ontop of that the issue of crime is very big when you do not even know whether the criminal is here or not.

How would they sort it? - pretty simple really, by using intelligence and by cutting any benefits & services to those who do not register as legally in this country. The current policy is unsustainable and unrealistic that this Labour government has ran. While I and UKIP would not wish to stop immigration, it would have to be cut for a period of 5 years (less if possible, depends on how long the planning would take and how long the legal framework & legislation took to be introduced) while a new system was introduced which only allows those in who we need and want and prevents the system being cheated like it is now.

UKIP aside because you'll never agree anyway and it just ends up a merry-go-round, for the sixth time now I will ask; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

So you completely ignore the last part of your original post?
I hate the notion that anyone can be chosen for a job based on their race, disability, sexuality or any other factor related.
That means your first paragraph is flawed.

A million people? Wow, find me the source please.
Anyway, please explain to me clearly how in the 5 years you wish to locate all these people? And prevent them entering in the future?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So you completely ignore the last part of your original post?
I hate the notion that anyone can be chosen for a job based on their race, disability, sexuality or any other factor related.
That means your first paragraph is flawed.

A million people? Wow, find me the source please.
Anyway, please explain to me clearly how in the 5 years you wish to locate all these people? And prevent them entering in the future?

Yes you should not be chosen for a job based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or race but you should be judged on how good you are/what you will contribute to the company.

You should not be decided on whether your right to enter a country based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or racebut you should be judged how how good you are/what you will contribute to the country.

Here is your source you requested; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6424377.stm - although bear in mind it could be more or less than them sources provided state, but it is more likely to be more than those figures suggest, as that was back in 2007 and the fact they they are illegally here and we do not know they are here makes it very difficult to make an educated guess.

So no, I haven't ignored the last part of my post because its just as relevent now as it was back then. Talking of ignoring, i'll now ask for the seventh time for you to answer my question; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

[Seatherny]

Yes you should not be chosen for a job based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or race but you should be judged on how good you are/what you will contribute to the company.

You should not be decided on whether your right to enter a country based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or racebut you should be judged how how good you are/what you will contribute to the country.

Here is your source you requested; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6424377.stm - although bear in mind it could be more or less than them sources provided state, but it is more likely to be more than those figures suggest, as that was back in 2007 and the fact they they are illegally here and we do not know they are here makes it very difficult to make an educated guess.

So no, I haven't ignored the last part of my post because its just as relevent now as it was back then. Talking of ignoring, i'll now ask for the seventh time for you to answer my question; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

You were proudly saying that "over a million people live in the UK that we do not know of".
However this is what your source states:

Estimates vary widely as to how many illegal immigrants are living in the UK. The Home Office ran into trouble last year when it said it had no idea, but later produced an estimate of up to 570,000.

Pressure group Migration Watch puts the figure at between 515,000 and 870,000.

Exaggeration much?

Once more:
Anyway, please explain to me clearly how in the 5 years you wish to locate all these people? And prevent them entering in the future?

Yes you should not be chosen for a job based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or race but you should be judged on how good you are/what you will contribute to the company.

You should not be decided on whether your right to enter a country based on how wealthy you are, your sexuality, gender or racebut you should be judged how how good you are/what you will contribute to the country.

You said you want to stop people coming in the country for 5 years. Full stop.
Then you say you find it unfair that people shouldn't get a job for "any other factor".
Blatant contradiction.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You were proudly saying that "over a million people live in the UK that we do not know of".
However this is what your source states:

Exaggeration much?

Once more:
Anyway, please explain to me clearly how in the 5 years you wish to locate all these people? And prevent them entering in the future?

Not really, because as I said these figures are old from 2007 before and are very untrustworthy anyway from government, as government will often only include certain sectors (such as excluding missing visa people). On placing these people, well the system that would be designed over the first years by the government would be made foolproof, so if they did wish to try and enter the United Kingdom again and legally this time, they would have to go through the proper procedures which would assess them on whether or not they would be an asset or a drain to this country - just like Austrialia and most other countries do.

They would be deported back to their home countries where their government would be in control of settlement duties. Futhermore I have already covered on how we would locate these people and of course we would not locate all of them, but most likely they would be forced to turn themselves in because any government help they were recieving would be cut.

For the eighth time now, please do answer my question as the debate was supposed to be about the BNP/Lab/Con and not UKIP; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

You said you want to stop people coming in the country for 5 years. Full stop. Then you say you find it unfair that people shouldn't get a job for "any other factor".
Blatant contradiction.

Any other factor means based on wealth, gender, sexuality, circumstances, family life, lifestyle, race and so on. As I have said time and time again, a blanket ban on immigration for a temporary 5-year period would not stop people entering the country based on their race, gender, sexuality and so on - it would be a blanket ban. A blanket ban cannot be unfair to anyone of a differing race, gender or sexuality because its what it is on the tin, a blanket ban meaning it covers everyone.

I referred to any other factor when I was speaking about jobs and qualifications, not immigration and the UKIP immigration policy.

[Seatherny]

Not really, because as I said these figures are old from 2007 before and are very untrustworthy anyway from government, as government will often only include certain sectors (such as excluding missing visa people). On placing these people, well the system that would be designed over the first years by the government would be made foolproof, so if they did wish to try and enter the United Kingdom again and legally this time, they would have to go through the proper procedures which would assess them on whether or not they would be an asset or a drain to this country - just like Austrialia and most other countries do.

They would be deported back to their home countries where their government would be in control of settlement duties. Futhermore I have already covered on how we would locate these people and of course we would not locate all of them, but most likely they would be forced to turn themselves in because any government help they were recieving would be cut.

For the eighth time now, please do answer my question as the debate was supposed to be about the BNP/Lab/Con and not UKIP; So do you still support the BNP not being allowed a racial membership policy but continue to allow the Conservatives & Labour to have a racial candidate shortlist policy implemented?

Any other factor means based on wealth, gender, sexuality, circumstances, family life, lifestyle, race and so on. As I have said time and time again, a blanket ban on immigration for a temporary 5-year period would not stop people entering the country based on their race, gender, sexuality and so on - it would be a blanket ban. A blanket ban cannot be unfair to anyone of a differing race, gender or sexuality because its what it is on the tin, a blanket ban meaning it covers everyone.

I referred to any other factor when I was speaking about jobs and qualifications, not immigration and the UKIP immigration policy.

Turn themselves in? Lol they won't. Obviously the Govement has the people in the database hence they are receiving benefits. :S
And so you dont trust the source, but you still want to quite it? Thats hypocrisy. :rolleyes:
The figure could have gone down, but you still say "over a million" with no proof. You are making your posts seem less reliable by the minute...

And stop making excuses about the blanket ban. I have clearly shown you are contradicting yourself.