NationStates Jolt Archive

So what does Everyone think of the BNP, running in 300+ seats in May.
Personaly Im praying the BNP win seats. Not because I support them, but because it will Rock the Political Boat. And I cant wait, for the sharp shock the two main parties are in for, if the BNP gain council seats.

And please, can nobody start shouting Rasicst at me because I hope the BNP gains seats, the BNP are a legal party.

So what does Everyone think of the BNP, running in 300+ seats in May.
Personaly Im praying the BNP win seats. Not because I support them, but because it will Rock the Political Boat. And I cant wait, for the sharp shock the two main parties are in for, if the BNP gain council seats.

"Yeah, lets rock the political boat by electing fascists"

You really really have to be jaundiced to think that.

Personally i think the BNP should only be allowed to stand in constituencies with a majority of non whites. And they should be forced to canvass door to door. In white sheets. With "kick me, i'm stupid" signs hanging off their backs.

So what does Everyone think of the BNP, running in 300+ seats in May.
Personaly Im praying the BNP win seats. Not because I support them, but because it will Rock the Political Boat. And I cant wait, for the sharp shock the two main parties are in for, if the BNP gain council seats.
If you want the 'Political Boat' to be Rocked, then hope that the Greens and Lib Dems win more seats. Not racists like the BNP or UKIP.

Hopefully the Lib Dems will see a small rise in the number of seats it has (it currently has about the same number as Labour in local councils) at the expense of the Tories.

The BNP are nothing but violent racists that hide behind free speech I don’t think anyone will actually vote for them in the coming election no matter how hard they try

I sincerely hope that both the BNP and UKIP replace the "big 3" political parties in a number of their seats, for a number of reasons. Primarily, nationalism, and the concurrent anti-immigration policy, that permeate both parties are a nation I find sorely lacking in 21st century politics. Moreover, the ascent of the right, whilst not forming a government, will compel the Tory party to lurch either to the left, or right, and thus see Cameron replaced by a more principled, intelligent and politically worthwhile leader. Finally, since the far right aspire to represent predominantly Labour and Liberal Democrat constituencies, their success would significantly weaken the left and centre in Britain.

I sincerely hope that both the BNP and UKIP replace the "big 3" political parties in a number of their seats, for a number of reasons. Primarily, nationalism, and the concurrent anti-immigration policy, that permeate both parties are a nation I find sorely lacking in 21st century politics. Moreover, the ascent of the right, whilst not forming a government, will compel the Tory party to lurch either to the left, or right, and thus see Cameron replaced by a more principled, intelligent and politically worthwhile leader. Finally, since the far right aspire to represent predominantly Labour and Liberal Democrat constituencies, their success would significantly weaken the left and centre in Britain.

At last... Someone who shares my Views!!!

I sincerely hope that both the BNP and UKIP replace the "big 3" political parties in a number of their seats, for a number of reasons. Primarily, nationalism, and the concurrent anti-immigration policy, that permeate both parties are a nation I find sorely lacking in 21st century politics. Moreover, the ascent of the right, whilst not forming a government, will compel the Tory party to lurch either to the left, or right, and thus see Cameron replaced by a more principled, intelligent and politically worthwhile leader. Finally, since the far right aspire to represent predominantly Labour and Liberal Democrat constituencies, their success would significantly weaken the left and centre in Britain.

And all I can say is "don't elect them, for they are stubborn parties who hold onto outmoded beliefs and are astonishingly racist, and there's nothing wrong with leftists".

If you want to rock the political boat, elect the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. If you want wars in Europe and the deportation of minority races, elect the UKIP or the BNP.

If you want to rock the political boat, elect the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. If you want wars in Europe and the deportation of minority races, elect the UKIP or the BNP.

Frankly, the latter is a bloody superb idea, the former inconceivable.

Frankly, the latter is a bloody superb idea, the former inconceivable.

ahah I see your logic all we need to do is open immigration so that whites become the minority then we can deport the BNP under there own laws brilliant

ahah I see your logic all we need to do is open immigration so that whites become the minority then we can deport the BNP under there own laws brilliant

The irony would be delicious, but I actually support deportation.

The irony would be delicious, but I actually support deportation.

how comes? it appears Britain has always been multicultural so isn‘t multicultural British?

The BNP and UKIP should not be allowed to run, some people worry about extreme islamic terrorism, what about the extreme right parties we allow in britain, aren't they a greater threat, as they walk unopposed.

I personally would physically fight against the BNP or UKIP if they tried to stand in stockport.
But i do wonder what it would be like for them to be in power, and what effect there would be. Obviously it would be immensly horrible, but intresting.

how comes? it appears Britain has always been multicultural so isn‘t multicultural British?

It would be nice if the occassional immigrant spoke, or for that matter understood, intelligible English. If they cannot, deport them.

I personally would physically fight against the BNP or UKIP if they tried to stand in stockport.
But i do wonder what it would be like for them to be in power, and what effect there would be. Obviously it would be immensly horrible, but intresting.

This would do no end of good for their campaign. I advise against obstructing democracy.

"Yeah, lets rock the political boat by electing fascists"

You really really have to be jaundiced to think that.

Personally i think the BNP should only be allowed to stand in constituencies with a majority of non whites. And they should be forced to canvass door to door. In white sheets. With "kick me, i'm stupid" signs hanging off their backs.

People are jaundiced though.

And it's not like, in many parts of the country, you can shake things up by electing a mainstream party. It's just exchanging one set of kelptocrats with another.

That said, I doubt the BNP will amount to much. My guess is that the real shock for labour is going to come in the North, when they loose a lot to the Lib Dems. Though how boosting Ming the Merciless's ego is going to help any is beyond me.

I've been montoring the BNP manifestos for their local and general elections for about the last 8 years (sounds like a lot of work but it's actually just reading a page and a half every 4 years) and they've become decidedly less extreme over that time. I think they are (trying) to reform themselves into a respectable-ish party resembling the Tories in the 70s socially, and Labour economically at around the same time. Really they are the complete opposite of my views (authoritarian and socialist) but maybe if lots of BNP candidates are elected it may jolt the two main parties off of their perceived "centrist" ground which is in my view the primary cause for plummetting turnout. I don't hold out much hope though.

The BNP and UKIP should not be allowed to run, some people worry about extreme islamic terrorism, what about the extreme right parties we allow in britain, aren't they a greater threat, as they walk unopposed.

I personally would physically fight against the BNP or UKIP if they tried to stand in stockport.
But i do wonder what it would be like for them to be in power, and what effect there would be. Obviously it would be immensly horrible, but intresting.

They have to be allowed to run. Quite simply, it is both unteneble and proposterous to ban a political party in modern day Britain. Surely if their policies are as repulsive as you find them, than publicating them will be the refute they deserve. However, banning them merely gives their policies a legitmiacy and appeal that they otherwise lack.

It would be nice if the occassional immigrant spoke, or for that matter understood, intelligible English. If they cannot, deport them.
You'd be surprised, but the majority do. Illegal immigrants are less likely, but they're also the most likely to be deported. What with being illegal and everything. Most immigrants to this country come because of the job prospects - not crappy menial work, like cleaning or cockle picking, but proper office jobs. They have to have a decent level of English at the very least, not to mention other qualifications. Just because you haven't had experience of educated immigrants doesn't mean you can generalise across the entire country.

The BNP aim at people like you - people who don't understand the true picture. That's why they're most successful in areas that have a significant majority (>95%) of white people, and they don't even bother to campaign in places like Leicester, Luton, East London, etc. It doesn't surprise me that you've fallen for the empty slogans and skewed statistics they've fed you.

The BNP as racist thugs. However they have a right to be elected just like any other party. What would rock the political boat is a good gain by the Liberal democrats (which are my party).
UKIP and BNP go against the reality of globalisation.

The Blithering Nuts Party should just go back to hell :rolleyes:

The Blithering Nuts Party should just go back to hell :rolleyes:

I'd say Bigoted Nazi-esque Pricks

Okay folks, for those of you who don't know what the BNP is, I'll post some excerpts from Wikipedia that sum it up:


The British National Party (BNP) is the most popular political party of the far right in the United Kingdom. Unlike some of its European analogues, it has no presence in the national Parliament, and a very low number of councillors in local government

In accordance with its goal to establish a racially and culturally homogenous Britian, the BNP advocates the voluntary resettlement of all non-white ethnic minorities from the UK to their home nation and also bars non-whites from becoming party members. The BNP reject claims its supporters are racists instead referring to them as patriots and realists.

At its founding, the BNP was explicitly racist. In October 1990, the BNP was described by the European Parliament's committee on racism and xenophobia as an "openly Nazi party... whose leadership have serious criminal convictions". When asked in 1993 if the BNP was racist, its deputy leader Richard Edmonds said, "We are 100 per cent racist, yes". Founder John Tyndall proclaimed that "Mein Kampf is my bible".

Race is still important in the BNP’s understanding of nation and identity. The BNP is opposed to mixed-race relationships on the stated ground that racial differences must be preserved; it argues that when a white person produces a mixed-race child, "a white family line that stretches back into deep pre-history is destroyed."

In the early 1990s, the BNP regularly and openly published the journal Holocaust News; a newspaper whose sole purpose was to deny the Holocaust

So, now that you know what the BNP believes in and is all about, lets learn a bit about its members. Again, from Wikipedia:

* Tony Lecomber was jailed for possessing explosives in 1985, after a nail bomb exploded while he was carrying it near the offices of the Workers' Revolutionary Party; and for assault in 1991, when he almost killed a man on the London Underground. He was Nick Griffin's key deputy in the party from 1999 until January 2006. (See article on Lecomber for details.)

* Kevin Scott, the BNP's North East regional organiser[33], has two convictions for assault and using threatening words and behaviour.[34]
* Joe Owens, a BNP candidate in Merseyside and former bodyguard to Nick Griffin, He has served eight months in prison for sending razor blades in the post to Jewish people and another term for carrying CS gas and knuckledusters.[35]

* Tony Wentworth, BNP student organiser, was convicted alongside Mr Owens for assaulting demonstrators at an anti-BNP event in 2003.[36]
* Jason Douglas, a BNP candidate in the 2004 London local elections, is a convicted football hooligan.[37]
* Mick Treacy, the Oldham organiser has five convictions for violence, theft, and handling stolen goods [38]
* Colin Smith, BNP South East London organiser has 17 convictions for burglary, theft, stealing cars, possession of drugs and assaulting a police officer[39]

To sum it all up, the BNP is a racist, nazi party that is allowed to operate due to free speech. It hardly wins any positions in local government and never wins any seats in Parliament. Most of its members are violent, convicted criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#Violence_and_criminal_behaviour

People are jaundiced though.

And it's not like, in many parts of the country, you can shake things up by electing a mainstream party. It's just exchanging one set of kelptocrats with another.

That said, I doubt the BNP will amount to much. My guess is that the real shock for labour is going to come in the North, when they loose a lot to the Lib Dems. Though how boosting Ming the Merciless's ego is going to help any is beyond me.

People may be jaundiced, but electing councillors for the BNP, or any other right obsessive party of that nature, only does two things:-
(1) Hardens the rhetoric the kleptocrats (nice terminology for them) use against such parties
(2) leads to the kleptocrats stealing their clothing but dressing it up in "responsible" policy - note M. Thatcher doing so at the height of the NF's power in the late 70s, her comments about "being swamped" etc, note the ratcheting up of the obsession about immigration in the nineties and noughties after Derek Beackon's election for the BNP in Tower Hamlets.

Basically, for anyone with an ounce of sense, not a nice prospect to look forward to.

*snip*
I had the strangest feeling that that Wikipedia article would have "neutrality disputed" messages. :rolleyes:

And all I can say is "don't elect them, for they are stubborn parties who hold onto outmoded beliefs and are astonishingly racist, and there's nothing wrong with leftists".

Theres nothing wrong with the Right Wing either... but people dont see that, if youa re on the Right side of the Conservatives your are borderline Facist and therefore scum.

Why can people see the people on the LEft of Labour are borderline Communists...They should be treated exactly as Fasicts do.

Frankly, the latter is a bloody superb idea, the former inconceivable.
Why should minority races be deported?

It would be nice if the occassional immigrant spoke, or for that matter understood, intelligible English. If they cannot, deport them.
Most of them do. Those that don't should be made to learn English, not deported.

That said, I doubt the BNP will amount to much.
I agree. The BNP's heyday is long gone.

If you want to rock the political boat, elect the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. If you want wars in Europe and the deportation of minority races, elect the UKIP or the BNP.

I agree. The BNP actually stand for something, whereas the MRLP party are a joke - if they win more seats than the BNP it does two things:
1.) Shows up the BNP - it would just go to show how pathetic they are that the MRLP got more votes.
2.) Serve a better protest vote - since the MRLP's aim is to serve as an actual protest party that would be a better indication as one can never really know if someone agrees with the BNP's policies or if ts just a protest vote.

The BNP's racist crap is absolutely stupid. I am a dual citizenship commonwealth citizen - I hold both British and Malaysian citizenship. It's fairly obvious that I'm not entirely English and throughout my life people have picked up on that. But I myself am one of the most patriotic people I know, I love Britain, its history, its heritage, its culture, and for the most part its people. I love everything about it, and the only time I would ever leave this country to live in another place is if a government like the BNP was elected in to government. In fact, if they were, I would hope that the Monarchy/Lords (if they still existed) would force a civil war.

The BNP or the New National Front (as it should be named) aren't true patriots - a true patriot is someone that loves Britain, not the British race.

That's why they're most successful in areas that have a significant majority (>95%) of white people, and they don't even bother to campaign in places like Leicester, Luton, East London, etc. It doesn't surprise me that you've fallen for the empty slogans and skewed statistics they've fed you.

2001 Census Statistics - Foleshill ward, Coventry
http://www.coventry.gov.uk/ccm/content/city-development-directorate/coventrystatistics/ward-profiles.en
# of People Percentage
White 7,799 43.4
Asian and/or Asian British 8,673 48.3
Black or Black British 581 3.2
Mixed 545 3.0
Other 370 2.1

2006 Candidates - Foleshill ward

JONES Thomas Paul
British National Party Candidate

Nope, we don't stand anywhere where white people are in a minority...

Theres nothing wrong with the Right Wing either... but people dont see that, if youa re on the Right side of the Conservatives your are borderline Facist and therefore scum.

Why can people see the people on the LEft of Labour are borderline Communists...They should be treated exactly as Fasicts do.

Because Communism is ostensibly about the brotherhood of mankind, and Nazi-ism is about hating all other sections of mankind?

I had the strangest feeling that that Wikipedia article would have "neutrality disputed" messages. :rolleyes:

They actually only occur in regards to the "violence and criminal behavior" section that I linked. The rest of it doesn't seem to be disputed.

They actually only occur in regards to the "violence and criminal behavior" section that I linked. The rest of it doesn't seem to be disputed.

Maybe, but if one section's neutrality is disputed, the entire article's neutrality is compromised.

Because Communism is ostensibly about the brotherhood of mankind, and Nazi-ism is about hating all other sections of mankind?

NAzism was about getting the best for YOUR people, Communism is about supporting the lazy.

And im proably now a grade A fasict and hatd by the world for saying what i think.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41363000/jpg/_41363192_griffin203ap.jpg
Doesn't he look like such a fucking hobo?

Maybe, but if one section's neutrality is disputed, the entire article's neutrality is compromised.

The "disputation" is nonsense. It's recognised fact that the people named were convicted for the crimes stated.

NAzism was about getting the best for YOUR people, Communism is about supporting the lazy.

And im proably now a grade A fasict and hatd by the world for saying what i think.

Getting the best for "YOUR" people?

All people are my people. You don't understand communism. You lose.

NAzism was about getting the best for YOUR people, Communism is about supporting the lazy.

Communism is about usurping the rule of the lazy.

The BNP or the New National Front (as it should be named) aren't true patriots - a true patriot is someone that loves Britain, not the British race.

Bilge. Simply because the average IQ of a BNP member is lower than that of a sand dune does not withdraw a perspectiveof britain from them. They are, to an extent, right. Whilst their use of historical precedent is generally false, their assertion of a "British race" is not. If patriotism requires one to be porud simply of the country, irrespective of ones membership of the race, than I am a French patriot. However, French citizen or racial member I am not.

2001 Census Statistics - Foleshill ward, Coventry
http://www.coventry.gov.uk/ccm/content/city-development-directorate/coventrystatistics/ward-profiles.en
# of People Percentage
White 7,799 43.4
Asian and/or Asian British 8,673 48.3
Black or Black British 581 3.2
Mixed 545 3.0
Other 370 2.1

2006 Candidates - Foleshill ward

JONES Thomas Paul
British National Party Candidate

Nope, we don't stand anywhere where white people are in a minority...
I didn't say you don't stand, I said you don't campaign. There's a difference between campaigning (not just for elections) and putting forward a candidate. I frequently see campaigners for political parties where I live as a student - Leicester - and not just around election time.

Getting the best for "YOUR" people?

All people are my people. You don't understand communism. You lose.

C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain

NAzism was about getting the best for YOUR people, Communism is about supporting the lazy.

And im proably now a grade A fasict and hatd by the world for saying what i think.

Wrong. You misunderstand communism, however the summary of fascism is, to a perspective, correct.

Maybe, but if one section's neutrality is disputed, the entire article's neutrality is compromised.

Uh, no. That isn't how Wikipedia works. As it states, "this section's neutrality is disputed." Each section is evaluated on an individual basis. If the racist, anti-Semitic, nazi bigots that didn't want their leaders criminal convictions to show up on Wikipedia disputed the rest, they could have attempted to dispute it in other sections too. But they didn't.

I agree. The BNP actually stand for something, whereas the MRLP party are a joke - if they win more seats than the BNP it does two things:
1.) Shows up the BNP - it would just go to show how pathetic they are that the MRLP got more votes.
2.) Serve a better protest vote - since the MRLP's aim is to serve as an actual protest party that would be a better indication as one can never really know if someone agrees with the BNP's policies or if ts just a protest vote.

The BNP's racist crap is absolutely stupid. I am a dual citizenship commonwealth citizen - I hold both British and Malaysian citizenship. It's fairly obvious that I'm not entirely English and throughout my life people have picked up on that. But I myself am one of the most patriotic people I know, I love Britain, its history, its heritage, its culture, and for the most part its people. I love everything about it, and the only time I would ever leave this country to live in another place is if a government like the BNP was elected in to government. In fact, if they were, I would hope that the Monarchy/Lords (if they still existed) would force a civil war.

The BNP or the New National Front (as it should be named) aren't true patriots - a true patriot is someone that loves Britain, not the British race.
Hear, hear! They don't understand British history, they don't understand what being British means. They are a cheap imitation of patriotism and they've got it all wrong.

Off topic: I hardly think that UKIP can be compared to the BNP

Bilge. Simply because the average IQ of a BNP member is lower than that of a sand dune does not withdraw a perspectiveof britain from them. They are, to an extent, right. Whilst their use of historical precedent is generally false, their assertion of a "British race" is not. If patriotism requires one to be porud simply of the country, irrespective of ones membership of the race, than I am a French patriot. However, French citizen or racial member I am not.

That's not what I meant. If you are British born Pakistani and you are proud of your country, are you inferior to a British born Englishman who is proud of his country?

Edit: The one good thing about the BNP is that they would increase defence budget. That is it.

1.The ending of immigration to the UK
2."A massively-funded and permanent programme ... to irradicate, by voluntary resettlement to their lands of racial origin, non-white ethnic minorities living in Britain" [16]
3.The removal of all illegal immigrants [17]
4.The repeal of all equality and anti-discrimination legislation, including measures aimed at employing people with disabilities.
5.Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the pursuit of protectionist economic measures.
6.Encouraging greater share ownership and worker co-operatives.
7.Restricting foreign aid to the support of countries receiving "repatriated" members of ethnic minorities. Griffin argued against giving unconditional foreign aid, including disaster aid, claiming 'charity' is not an acceptable use of public funds[18].
8.The introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the introduction of capital punishment for paedophiles and terrorists and its reintroduction for murderers.
9.The reintroduction of national service and the deprivation of some civil rights from conscientious objectors, including the right to vote.
10.The requirement of all law-abiding adults completing national service to maintain a standard issue automatic rifle in their home.
11.A mandatory jail term for anyone assaulting an NHS worker.

12.Other policies include the promotion of organic farming, funding to encourage women (in every family) to stay home and raise children not yet of school age, and increasing defence spending.

I agree with 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12

Number 2 is ridiculous.

EDIT: The thing is, is that many people are tired of constantly Centrist views, there is no real left or right wing, there is no action anymore, its just all talk, the two parties (Liberals at the moment are still joke). People want to see action, they know illegal Immigration is a crisis, we know that money is being wasted on people who dont want to work. We know that Gypsy camps are being set up with out planning permission, because the councils are to afraid of being labelled rascist. Thats what Political Correctness is, its Appeasement of minorities. What about the MAJORITY do we count for nothing?

If I was old enough i would vote either Conservative or BNP but im only 16.

That's not what I meant. If you are British born Pakistani and you are proud of your country, are you inferior to a British born Englishman who is proud of his country?

To the BNP, yes. I think that they contend that whilst Britain has always been home to immigrants, they are generally white, whereas the post war immigrants are not, and thus not British.

Bilge. Simply because the average IQ of a BNP member is lower than that of a sand dune does not withdraw a perspectiveof britain from them. They are, to an extent, right. Whilst their use of historical precedent is generally false, their assertion of a "British race" is not. If patriotism requires one to be porud simply of the country, irrespective of ones membership of the race, than I am a French patriot. However, French citizen or racial member I am not.

There is no such thing as a "british" race.

There's a song on Julian Cope's album "Jehovahkill" called "give me back my flag". On it, Julian moans mournfully
"give me back my flag,
it's all i have"
and
"in the islands
of albion,
we're much too frightened
to carry on"
Whenever this discussion arises, those words echo round my head. Because, to me, they sum up the BNP in all it's sad little glory. You have a pathetic attachment to a concept such as "nation" or "race" on the one hand, excluding wider feeling of human emotion, sympathy, empathy, tolerance, kindness, etfuckingcetera. And on the other, you have the true root of this attachment.

Fear.

When people use the word "xenophobia", they often misuse it to mean "fear of the foreigner", when of course, it means "fear of the other". But i happen to believe that in the case of people such as the BNP, it goes beyond simple fear of the other. Put simply, these people are afraid of reality. They are afraid of, and constantly lie to reinvent, the past. They are afraid of the present. And they are scared shitless of the future. Absofuckinglutely terrified.

The fear and reinvention of the past is a good place to start. Racists in general constantly paint the UK pre-1950whatnot as some lost paradise, a golden land in a golden age where people were safe to walk the streets at night, there were no rapes, no crimes, there was no deprivation, no poverty, the UK was truly a past time paradise.

Of course, anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the historical facts KNOWS that the past was shittier than the present. There was no golden age of anything. Sure, i may bemoan thatcherism, but pre-thatcher the country was pretty shitty, and i don't want to go back to the seventies thank you very much. The rule of the day is, whatever the temporary blip, life *does* keep improving. Seen many children die of malnutrition in this country recently? Nope, me neither.

Another oldie but goodie from the racist stable is to waffle on about how this sceptred island has suddenly been swamped with immigration, causing trouble for the po' indigenous white folk. On this, i have to agree. Since the Brythonic/Celtic/call them whatever you want to call them hordes came over in time immemorial BC, life on this island has got pretty shitty for the descendants of the Beaker People. So much so that we celts *he says, running his hand through his ruffled welsh mane of hair* wiped the poor fuckers out. Thats when we came to England and Wales and Scotland via Ireland via Spain via central Asia and, way way back, via the Kenyan rift valley from which all life according to reputable archaeologists sprung.

Or perchance it's the celts we are taking as "indigenous"? Mmmmm, so that means all those descended from the Roman invaders should fuck off then? Oh, slight problem, they gradually assimilated into Celtic society until Britain was "Romano-Celtic". (As an aside, when people speak of the Roman invaders, do they think of latin invaders, italian hordes who came in and gave us culture and art and shit? Well, ummm, yeah. The first invaders were from Italy. But the thing is, when the roman legionnaire reached the end of his time in the army, he retired home to Rome. So they didn't have much of an impact. The forces that ended up garrisoning this island, on the other hand, did. Forces from Syria, Egypt, Mauretania - thats Libya for you crazy kids, Hispania - which at the time was not "white". So......Romano Celtic? Heh. More like "AfroEurasian polyglot Celtic" baby).

Perhaps those lovely BNP types mean the Romano-Celts as the "indigenous" inhabitants of the island then? Oh, but wait, whats that hoving into view? It's the warships of the various Germanic tribes we have simplified in our history books as Angles, Saxons and Jutes. (As an aside, how come the Jutes got such a bad deal? Angles get a world dominating language, Angles and Saxons get a racial type, what do those poor damn Jutes get? Some islands off the coast of europe? pretty poor fucking deal if you ask me. JUSTICE FOR THE JUTES!)

Oh, but wait, there's those pesky Norsemen a coming along, raping and a pillaging, carrying off our by now slightly confused AfroEurasianpolyglot/romano/celtic/anglosaxonjutish/maybeeventheoddbeakerperson women to produce red hair and a capacity for axe wielding.

And just when we assimilate THOSE buggers, this other bunch of ex norsemen who've been living in France for a couple of hundred years, and have gone all native, well they come over and take the whole damn COUNTRY over!

Now it's at THIS point here that the BNP history actually starts. Basically, they say "our ancestors came over in various waves and shagged/killed/assimilated with the original inhabitants and post THIS point in history, well, we were all one big happy family and nothing happened then till those pesky West Indians got off that Windrush boat in 1950whaddever".
Well, ummm, to a point. In that, yeah, we didn't have any more *invasions*, this is true. But you could throw in massive immigration from France (400,000 Hugeonots in under 100 years baby), Central Europe (shitloads of all nationalities, including lots and lots of jews), Southern Europe (same with the jews again - remember the Inquisition in Spain? You had three options - convert, get burned or fuck off out of the country. Lots of Spanish jews took the third option. Many of them ended up here), Africa - hey, we had slaves in this country in the 1600s. We have always had a black population here since. There's a famous tombstone in Bath? or Bristol? of a dead slave which reads something like "i was born a heathen, but by gods grace i died a christian Englishman". Poor sod. The Indian Subcontinent? Check - you think all those half indian/half english types stayed out there in the Raj? think again baby.
Look around any town or city in the country, and there has always been a "non white" presence. Cardiff had a Somali community from the turn of the century onwards. Seeds of empire baby - if you WILL go fucking with other people's countries, then some of them will follow you home. Simple fact. Deal with it.

So, this homogenised white land of milk and honey never DID exist. And it never CAN exist either. The BNP don't count jews as white, so it's bye bye quintessential Englishman Stephen Fry if they ever got their mad and deluded paws on the state (descendant of Austrian jews, baby). It's bye bye quintessential Englishman Sir Geoffrey Elton, premiere historian of the Tudor state and uncle of Ben Elton (Austrian jew again). Bye bye Matthew Freud, brainbox behind most of the late 90s PR (oh yeah, Austrian jew).
And it's bye bye Andi Peters, Shirley Bassey, Linford Christie, Lennox Lewis (CANADIAN WEST INDIAN!), Cuddly Uncle Tom Frank Bruno, Meera Syal, Waheed Ali (britains first gay muslim peer, and man behind Planet 24 and the big breakfast), that guy whose name escapes me who founded Joe Bloggs jeans (asian), that guy who founded Pataks pastes (asian), Hanif Kurieshi, nice cuddly Trevor McDonald, Micheal Howard - ex Tory Leader and grandson of Rumanian jews (via Llanelli), bye bye Iain Duncan Smith with his japanese grannie, bye bye cornershop - no more brimful of asha, bye bye the so solid crew, bye bye craig david, bye bye goldie, bye bye talvin singh, bye bye Diane Abbott MP,bye bye Ken Hom, bye bye goodness gracious me, bye bye that guy who played Ash in casualty, bye bye Angela Griffin, bye bye the dreem teem, bye bye Asian Dub Foundation, bye bye Fun*da*Mental, bye bye Black Star Liner, bye bye Kermit from Black Grape, bye bye Salman Rushdie,bye bye Will Self - i could fucking go on all night, naming famous or influential or simply PART OF THE FURNITURE people who are not "anglo saxon" by BNP definition who they would like to see deported.
Now, do you want a country like that? Bleached white, with half a football team - Matthew Upson in central defence instead of Sol or Rio, with no culture that isn't "indigenous" white, with no health service - none of my local doctors are white baby, large lumps of the armed forces gone, large lumps of the service industries gone, large lumps of the entertainment industries gone, no taxi drivers after ten pm - fuck, you aren't going to get a white bloke drive a taxi in London after dark are you? What planet are you on? They think they are too good for it. You want a country hideously bland and dull and uniform with no differences, no cultural traffic, no melding, no CHANGE, a country where it's permanently 1953 and our children don't listen to this new fangled rock and roll nonsense because it's black folks music?

You want that country? Sit on your fucking arses and don't vote then.
Or do you want this country to face up to reality and the adult world and live for the future? Sure it will be messy, sure things will *change*. But change is good baby, chaos is good, chaos is what killed the dinosaurs, as Christian Slater said in his most lucid film role. You want to be adults, or do you want to run away forever under the nice comfort blanket of a golden age past that never existed?

Next time, vote. And vote for the country you want to see. Don't vote for people afraid of ordinary life. Don't vote for dumb flag scum, selling your quality of life down the river because they can't handle the sight of a black guy presenting the news.

Um, which would you prefer to move to our country, an Iraqi doctor with a masters in his proffesion that moves to Britain and now helps our health system, or some dole-leeching chav?

I didn't say you don't stand, I said you don't campaign. There's a difference between campaigning (not just for elections) and putting forward a candidate. I frequently see campaigners for political parties where I live as a student - Leicester - and not just around election time.

Ah, I'm not sure whether anyone's campaigning in Foleshill as it happens, I was too busy thinking 'who won the grand national' (my horse, at that!) at the last meeting when they were talking canvassing.

1.The ending of immigration to the UK
2."A massively-funded and permanent programme ... to irradicate, by voluntary resettlement to their lands of racial origin, non-white ethnic minorities living in Britain" [16]
3.The removal of all illegal immigrants [17]
4.The repeal of all equality and anti-discrimination legislation, including measures aimed at employing people with disabilities.
5.Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the pursuit of protectionist economic measures.
6.Encouraging greater share ownership and worker co-operatives.
7.Restricting foreign aid to the support of countries receiving "repatriated" members of ethnic minorities. Griffin argued against giving unconditional foreign aid, including disaster aid, claiming 'charity' is not an acceptable use of public funds[18].
8.The introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the introduction of capital punishment for paedophiles and terrorists and its reintroduction for murderers.
9.The reintroduction of national service and the deprivation of some civil rights from conscientious objectors, including the right to vote.
10.The requirement of all law-abiding adults completing national service to maintain a standard issue automatic rifle in their home.
11.A mandatory jail term for anyone assaulting an NHS worker.

12.Other policies include the promotion of organic farming, funding to encourage women (in every family) to stay home and raise children not yet of school age, and increasing defence spending.



What a fucking Nazi party

Um, which would you prefer to move to our country, an Iraqi doctor with a masters in his proffesion that moves to Britain and now helps our health system, or some dole-leeching chav?

Well assuming that in my Britain dole does not exist after two months, and the NHs privatised, the latter.

Not only do they run their entire election platform on immoral grounds (they support deporting all non-whites, even thouse who have lived here fore three or four generations and are as British as the Queen [who's of German descent, fatties]), their economic policies are as unrealistic as the Communist parties. They say they'll reduce income tax yet use magical pixies to make the NHS free abd better, improve police funding etc.

They're also hypocrites and liars. All their main leaders have serious convictions - assault and the like - yet they claim to want to "crack down on crime" and restore the death penalty for murder etc. Which would effectively mean killing half their members, probably.

Their most retarded position EVER is that they want to withdraw from NATO. Oh, that and compuslory military service.

Idiots.

Off topic: I hardly think that UKIP can be compared to the BNP

I still don't understand why the UKIP is seen as similar to the BNP.

I oppose the EU, and I think one can have free trade without having joint government structures like the EuroParliament, or, God forbid, joint currency.

Look at the Schengen agreements, and see how they slowly leech national independence.

How in the seven hells does believing that make me a Nazi?

1.The ending of immigration to the UK
2."A massively-funded and permanent programme ... to irradicate, by voluntary resettlement to their lands of racial origin, non-white ethnic minorities living in Britain" [16]
3.The removal of all illegal immigrants [17]
4.The repeal of all equality and anti-discrimination legislation, including measures aimed at employing people with disabilities.
5.Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the pursuit of protectionist economic measures.
6.Encouraging greater share ownership and worker co-operatives.
7.Restricting foreign aid to the support of countries receiving "repatriated" members of ethnic minorities. Griffin argued against giving unconditional foreign aid, including disaster aid, claiming 'charity' is not an acceptable use of public funds[18].
8.The introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the introduction of capital punishment for paedophiles and terrorists and its reintroduction for murderers.
9.The reintroduction of national service and the deprivation of some civil rights from conscientious objectors, including the right to vote.
10.The requirement of all law-abiding adults completing national service to maintain a standard issue automatic rifle in their home.
11.A mandatory jail term for anyone assaulting an NHS worker.

12.Other policies include the promotion of organic farming, funding to encourage women (in every family) to stay home and raise children not yet of school age, and increasing defence spending.

1.) ...Because we don't need those damn towelheads/nignogs/ching chong chinamen coming in and helping us heal our diseases, fight our wars, and put our trash in the bin?

2.) You've already said thats BS so I won't contend that.

3.) What about the dole leeching chavs and non workers that are pulling our country down the drain? Getting rid of illegal immigrants is easy, halt the former first before we try any of that.

4.) That's just absolute bullshit. 'Sorry, you are not qualified for this job' 'Why? I suceed all the qualifiations' 'Well I guess it's because you smell of vindaloo LOLOLOLLOLOL' That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone support. Why should you be turned down from a job because you are a different colour? Moron.

5.) Shrug. Can't really disagree.

6.) Can't either.

7.) Right, not an effective use, why is it then that the British people gave the most of any country to the Tsunami? OBVIOUSLY its because noone here supports foreign aid...

8.) Can't disagrere.

9.) Agreed, except the right to vote thingy.

10.) Also agreed.

11.) Agreed, but this should be lengthened to any public service worker, especially teachers, not just NHS workers.

12.) I agree with defence spending, but women should be free to choose what they want to do just as men, not treated as 2nd class citizens.

I still don't understand why the UKIP is seen as similar to the BNP.

I oppose the EU, and I think one can have free trade without having joint government structures like the EuroParliament, or, God forbid, joint currency.

Look at the Schengen agreements, and see how they slowly leech national independence.

How in the seven hells does believing that make me a Nazi?

That is a very good point...ive never seen UKIP talked about with BNP like this before.

To the BNP, yes. I think that they contend that whilst Britain has always been home to immigrants, they are generally white, whereas the post war immigrants are not, and thus not British.
And here is where they fail from a historical perspective. Britain has never been a country has bought into racialism as other countries have done in the past. At the height of the slave trade, very few slaves were owned in Britain itself. All manner of different nationalities and races (including blacks) served side-by-side at Trafalgar. Britain needs immigrants from an economic perspective - the problem is what you do with them. If you isolate them, force them inwards into their own mini-communities and ostracise them from mainstream society, they form little "immigrant-towns" and don't become or feel part of Britain. Equally, if you give them special privelages and benefits then people feel jealous and turn on them. In practice, neither of these is going to work. What is needed is a system whereby immigrants are treated the same as indigenous citizens (other than, say, giving them language lessons) and where they are taught about and given reasons to be proud of Britain's history, heritage and culture.

Why is this not being done? Because the Labour government is not proud of Britain's history, heritage and culture. In fact, they hate it. They hate the Empire and its residue. They hate the capitalist-liberalist past of the country and they hate our historic industries and our aristocracy who they perceive as the enemy of the 'working man'. They have shown as much in moving the House of Lords towards an American-style Senate, in bleeding our armed forces of funding, in essentially removing anything regarding Britain's history between the industrial revolution (which mainly focusses on chimney sweeps and children being forced down coal mines than anything else) and WWI, which again is portrayed has being a futile and badly conducted war (I know several people who are studying / have studied history at degree level who disagree). If anything, the current government and the current political climate politely turns its nose up at Britain's history and culture. This is why people turn to extremists like the BNP, and this is why immigrants don't feel like they find anything worth integrating into, and feeling proud of.

Oh and another thing, sort of ties in with social darwinism, what about those immigrant British servicemen who were crippled or killed during combat, are they just worthless pawns? Is the service to their country not valued because of their skin colour?

UKIP is still a bad concept for a party.

And here is where they fail from a historical perspective. Britain has never been a country has bought into racialism as other countries have done in the past. At the height of the slave trade, very few slaves were owned in Britain itself. All manner of different nationalities and races (including blacks) served side-by-side at Trafalgar. Britain needs immigrants from an economic perspective - the problem is what you do with them. If you isolate them, force them inwards into their own mini-communities and ostracise them from mainstream society, they form little "immigrant-towns" and don't become or feel part of Britain. Equally, if you give them special privelages and benefits then people feel jealous and turn on them. In practice, neither of these is going to work. What is needed is a system whereby immigrants are treated the same as indigenous citizens (other than, say, giving them language lessons) and where they are taught about and given reasons to be proud of Britain's history, heritage and culture.

Why is this not being done? Because the Labour government is not proud of Britain's history, heritage and culture. In fact, they hate it. They hate the Empire and its residue. They hate the capitalist-liberalist past of the country and they hate our historic industries and our aristocracy who they perceive as the enemy of the 'working man'. They have shown as much in moving the House of Lords towards an American-style Senate, in bleeding our armed forces of funding, in essentially removing anything regarding Britain's history between the industrial revolution (which mainly focusses on chimney sweeps and children being forced down coal mines than anything else) and WWI, which again is portrayed has being a futile and badly conducted war (I know several people who are studying / have studied history at degree level who disagree). If anything, the current government and the current political climate politely turns its nose up at Britain's history and culture. This is why people turn to extremists like the BNP, and this is why immigrants don't feel like they find anything worth integrating into, and feeling proud of.

Bravo

UKIP is still a bad concept for a party.

Do you have any kind of way to back this up, or are you just making a statement of opinion which you want us to believe as fact?

Anglo Germany, you said this originally, I would like you to reply:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10777991&postcount=54

And here is where they fail from a historical perspective. Britain has never been a country has bought into racialism as other countries have done in the past. At the height of the slave trade, very few slaves were owned in Britain itself. All manner of different nationalities and races (including blacks) served side-by-side at Trafalgar. Britain needs immigrants from an economic perspective - the problem is what you do with them. If you isolate them, force them inwards into their own mini-communities and ostracise them from mainstream society, they form little "immigrant-towns" and don't become or feel part of Britain. Equally, if you give them special privelages and benefits then people feel jealous and turn on them. In practice, neither of these is going to work. What is needed is a system whereby immigrants are treated the same as indigenous citizens (other than, say, giving them language lessons) and where they are taught about and given reasons to be proud of Britain's history, heritage and culture.

Why is this not being done? Because the Labour government is not proud of Britain's history, heritage and culture. In fact, they hate it. They hate the Empire and its residue. They hate the capitalist-liberalist past of the country and they hate our historic industries and our aristocracy who they perceive as the enemy of the 'working man'. They have shown as much in moving the House of Lords towards an American-style Senate, in bleeding our armed forces of funding, in essentially removing anything regarding Britain's history between the industrial revolution (which mainly focusses on chimney sweeps and children being forced down coal mines than anything else) and WWI, which again is portrayed has being a futile and badly conducted war (I know several people who are studying / have studied history at degree level who disagree). If anything, the current government and the current political climate politely turns its nose up at Britain's history and culture. This is why people turn to extremists like the BNP, and this is why immigrants don't feel like they find anything worth integrating into, and feeling proud of.

Thankyou. The sole notion that draws people to the BNP is the lack of "Brittania" in both the major parties. The "silent majority", who, I assume, the BNP appeal to, have an acute sense of Brittania that is not reflected by mainstream politics.

1.The ending of immigration to the UK
This would be economically disastorous. We need:

1) Cheap, unskilled labour.
2) High level skilled labour (nurses and the like).

Our native populace doesn't seem to want to do either of these.

2."A massively-funded and permanent programme ... to irradicate, by voluntary resettlement to their lands of racial origin, non-white ethnic minorities living in Britain" [16]
It is voluntary I suppose, so it's not as insidious as it could be, but it's still pretty damn unnecessary.

3.The removal of all illegal immigrants [17]
I see no problem with this. By definition, illegal immigrants ought to be removed and every major political party + the courts agree.

4.The repeal of all equality and anti-discrimination legislation, including measures aimed at employing people with disabilities.
I would support this, tentatively. It makes no sense that a shop in the middle of Cornwall operating on tiny profit margins should have to fit ramps and such to their tiny shop which probably gets 1 disabled customer a year. Really, the free market will punish failure to account for disabled customers / failure to hire productive disabled employees where appropriate. Of course, it could be abused.

5.Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the pursuit of protectionist economic measures.
Agree to the first bit but for precisely the same reasons disagree with the second bit. We don't want protectionism here, thanks, except for recipracation.

6.Encouraging greater share ownership and worker co-operatives.
Yay, Communism. No thanks.

7.Restricting foreign aid to the support of countries receiving "repatriated" members of ethnic minorities. Griffin argued against giving unconditional foreign aid, including disaster aid, claiming 'charity' is not an acceptable use of public funds[18].
I agree with the principle. You shouldn't force people on pain of imprisonment to give to charity. But as I don't support the repatriation thing, I don't support the first bit of this.

8.The introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the introduction of capital punishment for paedophiles and terrorists and its reintroduction for murderers.
Against this, but pretty ambivalent really.

9.The reintroduction of national service and the deprivation of some civil rights from conscientious objectors, including the right to vote.
Fuck off.

10.The requirement of all law-abiding adults completing national service to maintain a standard issue automatic rifle in their home.[quote]
Again, illiberal. I don't want to be forced to own a gun any more than I want to be banned from owning one.

[quote]11.A mandatory jail term for anyone assaulting an NHS worker.
Fair enough. So long as the person in question wants press charges, there are no mitigating circumstances, Etc. Doesn't the law already do this?

12.Other policies include the promotion of organic farming, funding to encourage women (in every family) to stay home and raise children not yet of school age, and increasing defence spending.
Disagree with all of this except the last one. I want industrialised farming, not enviro-nonesense. Equally encouraging women to stay at home is illiberal and reduces the workforce.

Overall Manifesto Rating: 3/10. Terrible, but could be worse.

Do you have any kind of way to back this up, or are you just making a statement of opinion which you want us to believe as fact?
The EU prevents war in Europe and UKIP wishes to withdraw from the EU, which would undoubtedly see its collapse.

The EU prevents war in Europe and UKIP wishes to withdraw from the EU, which would undoubtedly see its collapse.

Oh yes, because the French and Germans are shouting at each other and have got tanks on either side of the Rhine and only the EU can stop them from fighting!

60 years ago, maybe. Today...I don't think so.

Anglo Germany, you said this originally, I would like you to reply:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10777991&postcount=54

I dont see what i have to reply to...

Oh yes, because the French and Germans are shouting at each other and have got tanks on either side of the Rhine and only the EU can stop them from fighting!

60 years ago, maybe. Today...I don't think so.

Not necessarily France and Germany...

UKIP is a one idea party, even its name is one aimed.

After their aim, out of europe, there apears to be no other ideas really. Thats why it's an awful idea, as well as the fact they want to get out of europe, which we seem to be barely part of anyway.

The EU prevents war in Europe and UKIP wishes to withdraw from the EU, which would undoubtedly see its collapse.
Yep, not that NATO has anything to do with that. And of course, before the Maastricht Treaty the Great European War of the 60s and 70s was raging away, just longing for some authoritarian social democrat bureacrats to break it up. Nevermind that the EU is not a military organisation in any way shape or form.

1.The ending of immigration to the UK

Good. An unequivocal yes.

2."A massively-funded and permanent programme ... to irradicate, by voluntary resettlement to their lands of racial origin, non-white ethnic minorities living in Britain" [16]

In principle, and grantd it is voluntary, yes.

3.The removal of all illegal immigrants [17]

As painfully as possible.

4.The repeal of all equality and anti-discrimination legislation, including measures aimed at employing people with disabilities.

Not entirely. Positive discrimination ought to be dispensed with, anti-discrimination merely reduced in both strength, and the severity of punishment.

5.Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the pursuit of protectionist economic measures.

No.

6.Encouraging greater share ownership and worker co-operatives.

Piss off. If only they had a degree of conservatism in their economic policy.

7.Restricting foreign aid to the support of countries receiving "repatriated" members of ethnic minorities. Griffin argued against giving unconditional foreign aid, including disaster aid, claiming 'charity' is not an acceptable use of public funds[18].

Most certinly yes.

8.The introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the introduction of capital punishment for paedophiles and terrorists and its reintroduction for murderers.

Capital Punishment, yes, granted the legal system is both entirely objective and regulated, capital punishment, no.

9.The reintroduction of national service and the deprivation of some civil rights from conscientious objectors, including the right to vote.

Fuck off. I echo Praetonia here.

10.The requirement of all law-abiding adults completing national service to maintain a standard issue automatic rifle in their home.

By extension, no.

11.A mandatory jail term for anyone assaulting an NHS worker.

Given that I would privatise it, no.

12.Other policies include the promotion of organic farming, funding to encourage women (in every family) to stay home and raise children not yet of school age, and increasing defence spending.


Organic foods, yes. Women, no. Defence, yes.

Not necessarily France and Germany...

I'm not aware of any hostilities in the EU, except maybe a few people becoming a bit aware of Putin being a bit more dictatorial now and then.

Anyway, this is going off topic.

At last... Someone who shares my Views!!!
and another.

UKIP is a one idea party, even its name is one aimed.

After their aim, out of europe, there apears to be no other ideas really. Thats why it's an awful idea, as well as the fact they want to get out of europe, which we seem to be barely part of anyway.
Aye, they're good for the EU elections, but in the national elections they just take votes off the Conservatives. Although looking at what Cameron is turning the Conservatives into, I'm seriously considering voting UKIP (and it would have sounded so absurd 6 months ago).

Anyway, this is going off topic.
Oh God, please don't let it go off topic.

KIP is a one idea party, even its name is one aimed.

After their aim, out of europe, there apears to be no other ideas really. Thats why it's an awful idea, as well as the fact they want to get out of europe, which we seem to be barely part of anyway.

Is Britain a part of Shengen? Ah! It is? Now go and telll me what Shengen does.

Also, yes, UKIP mostly (they have a variety of nice policies in other areas) is a one-idea party. Thats' because that idea (independence) has been abandoned by other parties.

1.The ending of immigration to the UK
2."A massively-funded and permanent programme ... to irradicate, by voluntary resettlement to their lands of racial origin, non-white ethnic minorities living in Britain" [16]
3.The removal of all illegal immigrants [17]
4.The repeal of all equality and anti-discrimination legislation, including measures aimed at employing people with disabilities.
5.Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the pursuit of protectionist economic measures.
6.Encouraging greater share ownership and worker co-operatives.
7.Restricting foreign aid to the support of countries receiving "repatriated" members of ethnic minorities. Griffin argued against giving unconditional foreign aid, including disaster aid, claiming 'charity' is not an acceptable use of public funds[18].
8.The introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the introduction of capital punishment for paedophiles and terrorists and its reintroduction for murderers.
9.The reintroduction of national service and the deprivation of some civil rights from conscientious objectors, including the right to vote.
10.The requirement of all law-abiding adults completing national service to maintain a standard issue automatic rifle in their home.
11.A mandatory jail term for anyone assaulting an NHS worker.

12.Other policies include the promotion of organic farming, funding to encourage women (in every family) to stay home and raise children not yet of school age, and increasing defence spending.

I agree with 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12

Number 2 is ridiculous.

You agree with all but #2. Right. Here's why you shouldn't (except #6):
1. If there's no immigration to this country, our population will, within the next 10 years, start to decline. Our current population growth rate is 0.28%/year, of which approximately two-thirds to three-quarters is through legal immigration. With our aging population, the death rate (currently around 0.5/1000 lower than the birth rate) will increase considerably. With a declining population, we will lose our place as an economic power (currently the 4th largest economy in the world - we'll soon be overtaken by China and India, but that's only to be expected). Among other things, there will be a recession, which some forecasters say could be worse than in the 1930s.

3. Right. Many illegal immigrants take jobs that neither you nor I would want. Menial tasks that still help the economy in a small way. If you only undertook this policy, I wouldn't mind, but with the other immigration policies this again screws our economy, as I explained above.

4. I'll focus on the first part of this. From your support of this, I can only assume that you would prefer an under-qualified white person to have a skilled job rather than a qualified non-white? In which case you're a racist. If that isn't the case, I don't understand any reason for supporting this.

5. This one's a matter of economic politics. I'm personally an internationalist with the view that a global market is inevitable and desirable. Protectionism goes directly against that. Only through free trade will we be able to help LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries). Protectionism harmed our economy throughout the 'Golden Age' of the second half of the 20th century - had we adopted free trade principles our economic growth rate could have been double what it was, and we would now be challenging Germany as an economic power rather than France.

7. Foreign aid goes hand in hand with free trade. While this is partially an economic politics issue, there is more to it. Aid frequently (more often than not, in fact) is in the form of loans. The IMF and the World Bank are obviously the main lenders, but individual countries do so as well. By encouraging industrial development in LEDCs, they will be able to not only pay back the loans (with interest) but also compete in the global market, as they will doubtless have comparative advantages in some areas of production. Again, I'm an internationalist, so this is only my view, but it is also the most likely way, in the long term, that LEDCs will not have to rely on other countries for basic aid.

8. Rehabilitation > Punishment. The justice system is not for punishment. Those criminals that repeatedly offend should perhaps be subject to punishment, as it is clear that they are not being rehabilitated. However, execution is never the answer except for multiple-repeat offenders.

9. So pacifists lose their right to vote? What do you want, a military dictatorship?! National service would mean a rise in the defence budget. This is money that could be spent on improving education, healthcare, social welfare, etc. I do not believe it is justified to spend the money on the military when it could be spent on more progressive policies.

10. As I'm against national service, I would clearly be against this. I believe suitable force can be used in cases of encountering an intruder in your home, but this does not mean the option of shooting them with a government-issued weapon should be open to every man in the country. In terms of having them for military use only, this would require refresher training every two years at the most, which is another waste of public funds.

11. Define assault. Why just NHS workers? What if they're not on duty? We already have an overcrowded prison system, and this wouldn't help. More money that could be used in other areas.

12. Encourage women to stay at home? Why? They can make perfectly good careers for themselves. I personally intend to look after my kids myself and let my partner have a career, because that's what she wants. This is just chauvinism disguised as a progressive social policy. Increasing defence spending, I've already argued against. Organic farming is fine as it is. It doesn't need promotion - if consumers want it, it will be promoted anyway. There's no point in forcing anything like this in a capitalist society. Again, it's just another waste of public funds.

Yep, not that NATO has anything to do with that. And of course, before the Maastricht Treaty the Great European War of the 60s and 70s was raging away, just longing for some authoritarian social democrat bureacrats to break it up. Nevermind that the EU is not a military organisation in any way shape or form.

The EU is preventative; it helps to avoid a climate in which extremist parties can rise to power. Of course, NATO is a crucial part of peace in Europe as well.

And what happens when prevention fails..

'Any war planned by a coalition will fail'

The EU is preventative; it helps to avoid a climate in which extremist parties can rise to power. Of course, NATO is a crucial part of peace in Europe as well.
As far as I can see, the EU and its bureaucratic anti-sovereigntist wrangling is one of the primary causes for extremists existing and gaining popularity in Europe. I'll have my sovereignty, thanks, and trust in the democratic process to stay the hand of Fascists and Communists.

You agree with all but #2. Right. Here's why you shouldn't (except #6):
1. If there's no immigration to this country, our population will, within the next 10 years, start to decline. Our current population growth rate is 0.28%/year, of which approximately two-thirds to three-quarters is through legal immigration. With our aging population, the death rate (currently around 0.5/1000 lower than the birth rate) will increase considerably. With a declining population, we will lose our place as an economic power (currently the 4th largest economy in the world - we'll soon be overtaken by China and India, but that's only to be expected). Among other things, there will be a recession, which some forecasters say could be worse than in the 1930s.

3. Right. Many illegal immigrants take jobs that neither you nor I would want. Menial tasks that still help the economy in a small way. If you only undertook this policy, I wouldn't mind, but with the other immigration policies this again screws our economy, as I explained above.

4. I'll focus on the first part of this. From your support of this, I can only assume that you would prefer an under-qualified white person to have a skilled job rather than a qualified non-white? In which case you're a racist. If that isn't the case, I don't understand any reason for supporting this.

5. This one's a matter of economic politics. I'm personally an internationalist with the view that a global market is inevitable and desirable. Protectionism goes directly against that. Only through free trade will we be able to help LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries). Protectionism harmed our economy throughout the 'Golden Age' of the second half of the 20th century - had we adopted free trade principles our economic growth rate could have been double what it was, and we would now be challenging Germany as an economic power rather than France.

7. Foreign aid goes hand in hand with free trade. While this is partially an economic politics issue, there is more to it. Aid frequently (more often than not, in fact) is in the form of loans. The IMF and the World Bank are obviously the main lenders, but individual countries do so as well. By encouraging industrial development in LEDCs, they will be able to not only pay back the loans (with interest) but also compete in the global market, as they will doubtless have comparative advantages in some areas of production. Again, I'm an internationalist, so this is only my view, but it is also the most likely way, in the long term, that LEDCs will not have to rely on other countries for basic aid.

8. Rehabilitation > Punishment. The justice system is not for punishment. Those criminals that repeatedly offend should perhaps be subject to punishment, as it is clear that they are not being rehabilitated. However, execution is never the answer except for multiple-repeat offenders.

9. So pacifists lose their right to vote? What do you want, a military dictatorship?! National service would mean a rise in the defence budget. This is money that could be spent on improving education, healthcare, social welfare, etc. I do not believe it is justified to spend the money on the military when it could be spent on more progressive policies.

10. As I'm against national service, I would clearly be against this. I believe suitable force can be used in cases of encountering an intruder in your home, but this does not mean the option of shooting them with a government-issued weapon should be open to every man in the country. In terms of having them for military use only, this would require refresher training every two years at the most, which is another waste of public funds.

11. Define assault. Why just NHS workers? What if they're not on duty? We already have an overcrowded prison system, and this wouldn't help. More money that could be used in other areas.

12. Encourage women to stay at home? Why? They can make perfectly good careers for themselves. I personally intend to look after my kids myself and let my partner have a career, because that's what she wants. This is just chauvinism disguised as a progressive social policy. Increasing defence spending, I've already argued against. Organic farming is fine as it is. It doesn't need promotion - if consumers want it, it will be promoted anyway. There's no point in forcing anything like this in a capitalist society. Again, it's just another waste of public funds.

BTW im not part of the BNP and I cant vote for them (im 16)
But
1 and 12. Within the next 10 years, birth rate could pick up from ENCOURAGING not forcing Mothers staying at home more, as well as promoting marriage, which would incedentaly decrease the housing shrotage.

3. There is an Illegal Immigration crisis, most people in here will agree with me, it shouldnt be allowed.

4. But potentially you can have qualified White people being passed over in active positive Discrimination, I will use the usual one at the moment of the Police, where it is undeniable it is happening, because Sir Ian said he would.

5 and 7. Why should we be supporting other economies? And Germanys hardly a bundle of laughs with its post-war high Unemployment, and countries are lending irresponsibly to 3rd world nations, as well as them borrowing iresponsibly, they cant afford the loans, so ask for it to be wiped losing us money! Little improvment is being made in some countries. And the JApanese government donated the most to the Tsunami Victims.

8.It should work for punishment, retribution, being executed does preven Recidivism, fact.

9. I personally think that an increase in the Defence Budget would be the best thing the government could do at the moment. Money is thrown at the NHS little improvment is made, my 3 nearest Hospitals are due to close by Christmas.

10. I agree, it shouldnt be Compulsory, but it should be encouraged.

11. I agree, with you. Prison for assault should happen in ANY case. Answer stop throwing money at the NHS, cut down on the Red Tape, and build more Prisons.

Sorry it took so long to reply.

Do you have any kind of way to back this up, or are you just making a statement of opinion which you want us to believe as fact?
Can you say why the EU is worth withdrawing from? It's inefficient, granted, but that will be improved with a constitution. Surely unilateral free trade and cooperation is a good thing? Why do people place so much value on imaginary lines drawn on a map? Integration will no more destroy culture than the integration of the USA destroyed the individual cultures of the states, probably even much less so.

Unless you can tell us why the EU is so bad, the UKIP remains irrelevant, since apart from it's anti-EU stance it's practically a clone of the Conservatives.

Besides, you're neither British nor European, so why are you so interested in the first place?

Your not Korean or Japanese, why are you interested if North Korea has NBC artillery that can hit Seoul...

Can you say why the EU is worth withdrawing from? It's inefficient, granted, but that will be improved with a constitution. Surely unilateral free trade and cooperation is a good thing? Why do people place so much value on imaginary lines drawn on a map? Integration will no more destroy culture than the integration of the USA destroyed the individual cultures of the states, probably even much less so.

Unless you can tell us why the EU is so bad, the UKIP remains irrelevant, since apart from it's anti-EU stance it's practically a clone of the Conservatives.

Besides, you're neither British nor European, so why are you so interested in the first place?
The EU is unnecessary. You don't need a common Parliament to have free trade, nor do you need to have political integration in general. The EU is the source of some of the silliest, most illiberal and anti-laissez faire laws that have graced Britain's shores. Why do we need to be banned from selling things in Imperial units? What is the purpose? Surely in a free market, you could sell things in whatever units you want? Why do we need a common Work Time directive? What is the purpose? None of these things (and many, many more that I don't have time to go into here) would never be passed by the British Parliament, so why should we be subject to them? On the one hand the EU allows free trade, but only a tiny part of it is necessary to do that. Every scrap of economic liberalism it gives out is compensated for and more by internal labour laws, health and safety laws (which have, for example, totally banned the extraction of mercury anywhere in the EU and have banned many chemicals because they are estimated to kill dozens of people in hundreds of millions, based on extrapolations of tests on half a dozen laboratory mice) and environmental laws, all of which are passed practically unnoticed by the people of the memberstates, who barely know what is going on in the corrupt organisation that overbears them. We're only a few steps away from European ID cards. That is a truely terrifying prospect.

And that fact is that none of that side of the EU is in any way necessaey for the free market. France, Germany and Italy may want to, but frankly I do not want to be governed by authoritarian social democrats, especially when that governance serves no purpose whatsoever, and is barely accountable to me in any way.

France, Germany and Italy may want to, but frankly I do not want to be governed by authoritarian social democrats, especially when that governance serves no purpose whatsoever, and is barely accountable to me in any way.Conservatives. Europe is currently governed by conservatives.

THese people may be conservative by the measure of their own nations, but they are regardless pursuing a variety of big government paternalist policies.

The EU is unnecessary. You don't need a common Parliament to have free trade, nor do you need to have political integration in general. The EU is the source of some of the silliest, most illiberal and anti-laissez faire laws that have graced Britain's shores. Why do we need to be banned from selling things in Imperial units? What is the purpose? Surely in a free market, you could sell things in whatever units you want? Why do we need a common Work Time directive? What is the purpose? None of these things (and many, many more that I don't have time to go into here) would never be passed by the British Parliament, so why should we be subject to them? On the one hand the EU allows free trade, but only a tiny part of it is necessary to do that. Every scrap of economic liberalism it gives out is compensated for and more by internal labour laws, health and safety laws (which have, for example, totally banned the extraction of mercury anywhere in the EU and have banned many chemicals because they are estimated to kill dozens of people in hundreds of millions, based on extrapolations of tests on half a dozen laboratory mice) and environmental laws, all of which are passed practically unnoticed by the people of the memberstates, who barely know what is going on in the corrupt organisation that overbears them. We're only a few steps away from European ID cards. That is a truely terrifying prospect.


Don't forget the Shengen agreement - and it's imposition of a variety of laws on guns, drugs, etc.

You might be FOR gun control, but shouldn't the people of Britain at least have the option of changing their minds on the subject?

Conservatives. Europe is currently governed by conservatives.
The largest group is conservative, but they hold only 32% of the seats. If you add up all the socialist and green (who are universally socialist) groups then you have a majority - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_Election_2004#Votes_by_political_group But really, whatever they're called, I don't want to be governed by them. I would much prefer Britian was governed by people elected solely by Britons.

m. I would much prefer Britian was governed by people elected solely by Britons.

Outrageous! Actual NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE! WHAT!:)

Outrageous! Actual NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE! WHAT!:)

How dare we old boy! (Feels an NBIP "thang" approaching....)

So what does Everyone think of the BNP, running in 300+ seats in May.
Personaly Im praying the BNP win seats. Not because I support them, but because it will Rock the Political Boat. And I cant wait, for the sharp shock the two main parties are in for, if the BNP gain council seats.

And please, can nobody start shouting Rasicst at me because I hope the BNP gains seats, the BNP are a legal party.

I hope they lose their deposit in every one of them. Nor do I give two shites if they're legal, semi-legal, or illegal. They're a bunch of nazi thugs who the world would be much better off without.

And Blair wiyh his constant harping on about "terror" and his alliance with Dubya has created a sufficient atmosphre of Islamophobia for these arseholes to flourish in.

This country would be so much worse off without immigration

Recently I have been considering voting for ever the BNP or UKIP as every other so called party seems to want to let the population of the country down.

The only potential MP I've talked to (UKIP) said that we should get out of Europe because sooner rather than later a bunch of Belgians or even worse French will get voted in and will take away all our Economic gains all our sovernty and military forces and leave us penny less and defenceless.

SAY NO TO EU RULE!

1 and 12. Within the next 10 years, birth rate could pick up from ENCOURAGING not forcing Mothers staying at home more, as well as promoting marriage, which would incedentaly decrease the housing shrotage.
I never said 'forcing'. It's still chauvinistic. Women are equal to men. Governments should not 'encourage women' to stay at home looking after kids - they should encourage parents to do so. Both men and women should take equal responsibility for looking after kids. The birth rate wouldn't necessarily increase. There are already massive amounts of benefits for people who have young children - £500 upon the birth of a child, plus upwards of around £75 a week per child. Then there's tax credits which reduce the amount of tax a family has to pay by up to £529.
Promoting marriage will not decrease the housing shortage. It will increase the number of married people living together, and decrease the number of co-habiting couples. The housing shortage has come about only partially due to the increasing population. The other main reason is that land development firms seem obsessed with building in the south-east and the Home Counties. There is no housing shortage there. There is, in fact, a surplus of houses. The shortage is everywhere else, because no houses are being built there. Doesn't take a fucking idiot to work out what to do about this, but sadly we've got John Prescott.

3. There is an Illegal Immigration crisis, most people in here will agree with me, it shouldnt be allowed.
This may come as a surprise to you, but illegal immigration isn't actually allowed. Which is why it is referred to as 'illegal' immigration, and not 'legal' immigration. :rolleyes:

4. But potentially you can have qualified White people being passed over in active positive Discrimination, I will use the usual one at the moment of the Police, where it is undeniable it is happening, because Sir Ian said he would.
Positive discrimination occurs less than you think, and not because of laws on racial/gender discrimination. It generally occurs in areas with high concentrations of non-white minorites. It happens because otherwise there are economic benefits for the companies that do it - if you were of Pakistani origin, and you had to contact, say, your local bank, you would feel more comfortable talking to someone who is also of Pakistani origin than you would talking to someone from a different ethnic background. Economic sense.

5 and 7. Why should we be supporting other economies? And Germanys hardly a bundle of laughs with its post-war high Unemployment, and countries are lending irresponsibly to 3rd world nations, as well as them borrowing iresponsibly, they cant afford the loans, so ask for it to be wiped losing us money! Little improvment is being made in some countries. And the JApanese government donated the most to the Tsunami Victims.
Well, if you're going to close your borders and implement protectionist policies, then helping other nations won't help you. It will also leave the country technologically and economically behind other countries, which is something we can't afford to do. Globalisation is inevitable, and to be successful, companies must embrace it. If the country starts a policy of protectionism, this harms its companies and its economy. Loans to LEDCs are beneficial to both, generally because there are trade conditions (most favoured nation clauses especially) attached to the loan. The LEDC develops, and it is legally obliged to make us its main market. Governments, with all their economic advisors, take into account the risk of loans being defaulted, yet still give loans to LEDCs. Surely that tells you that they must think it's beneficial? I'm not quite sure what your point is about the Japanes donating to the tsunami fund.

8.It should work for punishment, retribution, being executed does preven Recidivism, fact.
No shit, does it? It also means that those who are unfairly convicted are a bit fucked, don't you think? Corporal punishment isn't a deterrent either - the criminal would just take the flogging (or whatever), go to the hospital (where healthcare is free, let me remind you), and be on his/her way, stealing car radios left, right and centre while s/he's at it.

9. I personally think that an increase in the Defence Budget would be the best thing the government could do at the moment. Money is thrown at the NHS little improvment is made, my 3 nearest Hospitals are due to close by Christmas.
What? So we can throw it away on stupid wars over oil in the Middle East? Improvement is being made in the NHS. It was only 3 years ago that Gordon Brown announced the massive investment in the healthcare system. If you want quick results, start betting on horses.

10. I agree, it shouldnt be Compulsory, but it should be encouraged.
You think gun ownership should be encouraged? Yet you're also accepting policies that have at their heart the implication that society is falling down around us? That's either incredible hypocrisy, or incredible stupidity.

11. I agree, with you. Prison for assault should happen in ANY case. Answer stop throwing money at the NHS, cut down on the Red Tape, and build more Prisons.
Build more prisons. When you think there's a housing shortage? You can't have it both ways, y'know. Money is not being 'thrown at the NHS', it is, in the majority of cases, being invested sensibly. Yes, cut down on bureaucracy, but all that will do will save a few hundred million a year. The budget is somewhere in the region of £500 billion a year. It's a tiny percentage. And you haven't defined assault. Personally, I think that provoked assault isn't worth a jail sentence - a community service order, but nothing more. A person who commits an unprovoked assault on another person is unlikely to be contrite about it, whereas someone who was provoked is far more likely to accept their punishment.

Sorry it took so long to reply.
Ditto.

Positive discrimination occurs less than you think, and not because of laws on racial/gender discrimination. It generally occurs in areas with high concentrations of non-white minorites. It happens because otherwise there are economic benefits for the companies that do it - if you were of Pakistani origin, and you had to contact, say, your local bank, you would feel more comfortable talking to someone who is also of Pakistani origin than you would talking to someone from a different ethnic background. Economic sense.



That's just as illegal as discriminating against ethnic minorities

Quite frankly I hope the 'closet' racists crash and burn, along with the morons of UKIP. But thats just me.

With the 'answers' they are providing for immigration and social policies we're only going to decline as a country and not progress.

That's just as illegal as discriminating against ethnic minorities
It's not necessarily discrimination though. If two applicants are equally qualified in all other areas for a job, the company will always choose the one that will provide the greatest profit.

The BNP? Racist?

Are you guys honestly this stupid?

The BNP is merely trying to protect British cultural identity, there's nothing wrong with that.

They aren't going around tarring non-whites and lynching them.

I hope the BNP wins seats too, for too long i have had to but up with people in stupid little cities saying that greens and lib dems r the way forward! they are nothing but facists in disguise, at least the BNP are open about it! at least they stand up for wot they believe in! the greens expect us all to follow them in wotever way they choose the BNP expect you to have ur own mind and say that u should sstand up for the Britain in you and that the way the British live and have lived over its history as a worlds power and before is correct! let them win sits let them win all the f in seats!!!

--- MODEDIT: Do not use large fonts. ---

It's not necessarily discrimination though. If two applicants are equally qualified in all other areas for a job, the company will always choose the one that will provide the greatest profit.

Do you understand what discrimination means? In that case they would be discriminating against the white applicant because of his race.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I don't know what I like best about that, the greens are fascists in disguise, the massive font, the incoherent idiocy, it's all gold!

Do you understand what discrimination means? In that case they would be discriminating against the white applicant because of his race.

Your right, discrimination works both ways round.

Do you understand what discrimination means? In that case they would be discriminating against the white applicant because of his race.
No, they would be discriminating against the white applicant for economic reasons. Which, uh, correct me if I'm wrong here, but is exactly the same as the reason they'd be discriminating against him if he were less qualified.

lol, thanks Greater Londres.:rolleyes:

No, they would be discriminating against the white applicant for economic reasons. Which, uh, correct me if I'm wrong here, but is exactly the same as the reason they'd be discriminating against him if he were less qualified.

You're cute. I've used this example before:

My company sells to builders, if I had a white applicant and a black applicant it would make sense for me to hire the white applicant - not out of racism on my part - but to ensure more sales to this often xenophobic group. This would be an economic move but I would be discriminating against the black applicant on the basis of his race nonetheless. I would be breaking the law.

For what it's worth, my country, Holland (who will win the World Cup!, but that's another story and debate), was seriously invaded by fascists some time ago, and (probably wrongly, but I just don't care) I equate the BNP with that sort. So, if the BNP get any power, I will be there on the front line working against them. :upyours:

lol, thanks Greater Londres.:rolleyes:

It's ok, you ever want to talk sense with the big boys then I'm here waiting :)

The BNP? Racist?

Are you guys honestly this stupid?

The BNP is merely trying to protect British cultural identity, there's nothing wrong with that.

They aren't going around tarring non-whites and lynching them.

Ever been to Burnley?

And I sincerely hope that the BNP, Veritas, UKIP etc. all fail horribly and stop fucking pestering us.

Can't people move on?

Yes, Britain was once a superpower. Now it's a wealthy island, and nothing more. We don't need to take over the world again, that would be foolish. What we actually need is more mates, especially in Europe.

And racist attitudes towards those on the continent do Britain no favours. If you actually do want to keep yourself free then chumming up with the EU is preferable to becoming the US' puppet and having martial law, no?

No, they would be discriminating against the white applicant for economic reasons. Which, uh, correct me if I'm wrong here, but is exactly the same as the reason they'd be discriminating against him if he were less qualified.

I agree with the notion of the positive discrimination, but I think you're wrong there. Discriminating against him for his poor qualifications, is different to discriminating against him because of his race.

The BNP? Racist?

Are you guys honestly this stupid?

The BNP is merely trying to protect British cultural identity, there's nothing wrong with that.

They aren't going around tarring non-whites and lynching them.

So the fact that here in Bradford their members have been actually beaten up/abused those of non-British background frequently means nothing to you?

Hows about the times in Keighly that they deliberately hold up the building of a Mosque because they think they should not be built?

Not racist? Pull the other one.

You're cute. I've used this example before:

My company sells to builders, if I had a white applicant and a black applicant it would make sense for me to hire the white applicant - not out of racism on my part - but to ensure more sales to this often xenophobic group. This would be an economic move but I would be discriminating against the black applicant on the basis of his race nonetheless. I would be breaking the law.
If you were actually prosecuted and could prove in a court of law that there was a justified reason behind hiring the white applicant over the black applicant then you would be acquitted. Exact same situation.

I've done work experience at a solicitor's and sat through an entire case almost identical to the one you described (it was a plumbing company, IIRC), and the defendant was acquitted. I fully supported the verdict. Even the guy I was doing the work experience under, who was prosecuting, agreed (in private) with the verdict.

I never said 'forcing'. It's still chauvinistic. Women are equal to men. Governments should not 'encourage women' to stay at home looking after kids - they should encourage parents to do so. Both men and women should take equal responsibility for looking after kids. The birth rate wouldn't necessarily increase. There are already massive amounts of benefits for people who have young children - £500 upon the birth of a child, plus upwards of around £75 a week per child. Then there's tax credits which reduce the amount of tax a family has to pay by up to £529.
Promoting marriage will not decrease the housing shortage. It will increase the number of married people living together, and decrease the number of co-habiting couples. The housing shortage has come about only partially due to the increasing population. The other main reason is that land development firms seem obsessed with building in the south-east and the Home Counties. There is no housing shortage there. There is, in fact, a surplus of houses. The shortage is everywhere else, because no houses are being built there. Doesn't take a fucking idiot to work out what to do about this, but sadly we've got John Prescott.


This may come as a surprise to you, but illegal immigration isn't actually allowed. Which is why it is referred to as 'illegal' immigration, and not 'legal' immigration. :rolleyes:


Positive discrimination occurs less than you think, and not because of laws on racial/gender discrimination. It generally occurs in areas with high concentrations of non-white minorites. It happens because otherwise there are economic benefits for the companies that do it - if you were of Pakistani origin, and you had to contact, say, your local bank, you would feel more comfortable talking to someone who is also of Pakistani origin than you would talking to someone from a different ethnic background. Economic sense.


Well, if you're going to close your borders and implement protectionist policies, then helping other nations won't help you. It will also leave the country technologically and economically behind other countries, which is something we can't afford to do. Globalisation is inevitable, and to be successful, companies must embrace it. If the country starts a policy of protectionism, this harms its companies and its economy. Loans to LEDCs are beneficial to both, generally because there are trade conditions (most favoured nation clauses especially) attached to the loan. The LEDC develops, and it is legally obliged to make us its main market. Governments, with all their economic advisors, take into account the risk of loans being defaulted, yet still give loans to LEDCs. Surely that tells you that they must think it's beneficial? I'm not quite sure what your point is about the Japanes donating to the tsunami fund.


No shit, does it? It also means that those who are unfairly convicted are a bit fucked, don't you think? Corporal punishment isn't a deterrent either - the criminal would just take the flogging (or whatever), go to the hospital (where healthcare is free, let me remind you), and be on his/her way, stealing car radios left, right and centre while s/he's at it.


What? So we can throw it away on stupid wars over oil in the Middle East? Improvement is being made in the NHS. It was only 3 years ago that Gordon Brown announced the massive investment in the healthcare system. If you want quick results, start betting on horses.


You think gun ownership should be encouraged? Yet you're also accepting policies that have at their heart the implication that society is falling down around us? That's either incredible hypocrisy, or incredible stupidity.


Build more prisons. When you think there's a housing shortage? You can't have it both ways, y'know. Money is not being 'thrown at the NHS', it is, in the majority of cases, being invested sensibly. Yes, cut down on bureaucracy, but all that will do will save a few hundred million a year. The budget is somewhere in the region of £500 billion a year. It's a tiny percentage. And you haven't defined assault. Personally, I think that provoked assault isn't worth a jail sentence - a community service order, but nothing more. A person who commits an unprovoked assault on another person is unlikely to be contrite about it, whereas someone who was provoked is far more likely to accept their punishment.


Ditto.


The problem is that you get MORE support if you are a single parent, there is no requirment to stay together, as the state will paper over any financial cracks. Next year, the state will give me £30 a week for coming from a broken home.
Im sure you said something like Illegal Immigrants do the jobs we dont want to do for less though?
and if i was of English Origin and tried to contact BT i would get an INdian on the phone, I would feel more comfortable speaking to Brit, but i dont get that choice.
The Tsunami thing was in response to someone elses critisism, but got caught up in an answer for you. I agree extreme protectionism can be a bad thing, but it hasnt harmed Britain so far. Im sure Luxury car Import Tax is a form of PRotectionism. And us being made the main market with an LEDC doesn't always work because they will take loans from several countries normally, therfore dividng the market between all the nations.
I still dont see how someone can be wrongfully executed, if all the evidence points to you, I dnt see how it cant be you. I also imagine that criminals would have their right to free NHS treatment taken from them. (But that is a guess)
Money on the Military is NEVER wasted, pacifists would be the first ones to cry if somebody invaded us, (Despite the fact the possibilty is so remote its probably nill). How can you excpect soldiers to fight without enough ammuntion or the correct boots, or without the right gear. Iraq wasnt just about Oil, it was also about toppling a dictator, and so what if it was for oil, if it gets us cheaper oil, im all for it.
I beleive Gun ownership would reduce petty crime, if Johnny Burglar knew that a majority of men are trained to shoot and kill someone, and are armed, they will think twice about burglary.
Okay then, money isnt being thrown at the NHS, but surly there is enough money in the NHS to stop Hospitals closing. 3 wiltshire hospitals have announced ehty are closing in 6 months, these arnt little hospitals either, they are average sized, most maternity units have shut down around this area. We have gone from 8 to 2 maternity units. Money is being wasted somewhere. Devizes hospital sacked three nurses last year to pay (indirectly) for a new manager to come "observe" the Hospital.
To be honest, I dont know enough about Assault and the Law, to say anything about it. But why would a NHS nurse provoke somone to assault?

But one thing we seem to agree on is John Prescott at least. He is a tit.:p

I agree with the notion of the positive discrimination, but I think you're wrong there. Discriminating against him for his poor qualifications, is different to discriminating against him because of his race.
But in the first instance I was saying that the discrimination was for economic reasons, and in the second instance I was saying that the discrimination was for economic reasons. In both instances, it was because of profit.

So the fact that here in Bradford their members have been actually beaten up/abused those of non-British background frequently means nothing to you?

Hows about the times in Keighly that they deliberately hold up the building of a Mosque because they think they should not be built?

Not racist? Pull the other one.

I was actually referring to the fact that they said that the BNP weren't racist. I know full-well what a horrible bunch of fuckers they are.

If you were actually prosecuted and could prove in a court of law that there was a justified reason behind hiring the white applicant over the black applicant then you would be acquitted. Exact same situation.

I've done work experience at a solicitor's and sat through an entire case almost identical to the one you described (it was a plumbing company, IIRC), and the defendant was acquitted. I fully supported the verdict. Even the guy I was doing the work experience under, who was prosecuting, agreed (in private) with the verdict.

That's true if the white applicant was better qualified, had more relevant experience etc that is very different to deciding that because of his race he would be either more or less effective.

For what it's worth, my country, Holland who will win the World Cup!, but that's another story and debate)

Best joke I heard all day ;)


...was seriously invaded by fascists some time ago, and (probably wrongly, but I just don't care) I equate the BNP with that sort. So, if the BNP get any power, I will be there on the front line working against them. :upyours:

After the programme about Nick Griffin and his 'political speeches' I hold them in exactly the same contempt as I do the Nazis.

But in the first instance I was saying that the discrimination was for economic reasons, and in the second instance I was saying that the discrimination was for economic reasons. In both instances, it was because of profit.

All right, you seem to know what you're talking about. Like I said, I agree with the notion.

I was actually referring to the fact that they said that the BNP weren't racist. I know full-well what a horrible bunch of fuckers they are.

My apologies...I didn't read the text right! :)

Ever been to Burnley?

And I sincerely hope that the BNP, Veritas, UKIP etc. all fail horribly and stop fucking pestering us.

Can't people move on?

Yes, Britain was once a superpower. Now it's a wealthy island, and nothing more. We don't need to take over the world again, that would be foolish. What we actually need is more mates, especially in Europe.

And racist attitudes towards those on the continent do Britain no favours. If you actually do want to keep yourself free then chumming up with the EU is preferable to becoming the US' puppet and having martial law, no?

Personally to rule the world really isn't that bad an idea if one country ruled the world then you could see al the benefits it would bring, there would be no war for one and poverty would be sincerly reduced! i think you're a green facist! i think that if u looked at the parts of the world britain ruled you would see that they are the vest areas compared to others! for instance the USA, canada, india, australia, RSA + Kenya (the best and most successful countries in Africa) you are short sighted and a green facist!

Where I used to live there was a hugh population of foreigners. The place I was working at the time had the standard pay of £5.75 p\h. Then Eastern European workers came along and the pay dropped to £5.05 p/h and most of the British work staff were forced to resign. The best part is that about 12 of them stole some products and were arrested then deported, so they didn't hold a job down in the end.

Greater Londres should we leave this short sighted rabble? They are obvioulsy stupid and cannot accept that the BNP are legal and have quite a point in their argument.:gundge:

Where I used to live there was a hugh population of foreigners. The place I was working at the time had the standard pay of £5.75 p\h. Then Eastern European workers came along and the pay dropped to £5.05 p/h and most of the British work staff were forced to resign. The best part is that about 12 of them stole some products and were arrested then deported, so they didn't hold a job down in the end.

But if they could have done the same job, for less money, what would have been the problem?

Greater Londres should we leave this short sighted rabble? They are obvioulsy stupid and cannot accept that the BNP are legal and have quite a point in their argument.:gundge:

Yeah, the point about immigration would be superb if it wasn't so racist and wrong. Their views on law & order are similarly excellent, once you get over the small problem that they are unworkable.

Bloody green fascists with their sustainable, enlightened views and total opposition to fascism, the fascists

Greater Londres should we leave this short sighted rabble? They are obvioulsy stupid and cannot accept that the BNP are legal and have quite a point in their argument.:gundge:

How ironic. Someone who cannot type out the word "obviously" and who doesn't realise that the BNP is singular, calls us stupid.

lol hope to cya around agen greater!

Personally to rule the world really isn't that bad an idea if one country ruled the world then you could see al the benefits it would bring, there would be no war for one and poverty would be sincerly reduced! i think you're a green facist! i think that if u looked at the parts of the world britain ruled you would see that they are the vest areas compared to others! for instance the USA, canada, india, australia, RSA + Kenya (the best and most successful countries in Africa) you are short sighted and a green facist!

For starters I call troll.

Secondly... we left South Africa to rule itself and look at the horror of the townships and the Aparteid. Yeah, nice success there...

USA kicked us out and we barely scratched the surface in terms of how much we ruled so we can hardly be said to have been the main reason for their success.

Canada had nothing there (bar the local tribes whose interest's we never exactly catered to) so lets face it, it was quite easy to build something, same with Oz.

India, we left/got kicked out, the country got split and now both have nuclear weapons and a grudge against each other... nice one by us there.

Personally to rule the world really isn't that bad an idea if one country ruled the world then you could see al the benefits it would bring, there would be no war for one and poverty would be sincerly reduced! i think you're a green facist! i think that if u looked at the parts of the world britain ruled you would see that they are the vest areas compared to others! for instance the USA, canada, india, australia, RSA + Kenya (the best and most successful countries in Africa) you are short sighted and a green facist!

What about the poverty of nations that had been taken over?

How would someone in the USA react if their wealth was "balanced up" with the poorest people in Chad?

And how would there be no war? What about civil war? Would would the nationalists of the world have to say?

And who would lead? Would it be a benevolent dictatorship?

What system of government would be used? Anarcho-communism? Pure capitalism?

What person could process information quickly enough to deal with all of the various problems on the planet?

How would pollution be dealt with?

How's about immigration between the different provinces?

You're the short-sighted one here.

Hey Greater Londres and Muftafa I got some thing fo you's

http://www.bnp.org.uk/bnptv/bnptv.php

But in the first instance I was saying that the discrimination was for economic reasons, and in the second instance I was saying that the discrimination was for economic reasons. In both instances, it was because of profit.

The first is to do with qualifications/ experience. Unless I want a dustman for my job, I pretty much need to base my choices on that. The second is to do with race and regardless of wether it would benefit my company or not, it would be illegal

Bloody green fascists with their sustainable, enlightened views and total opposition to fascism, the fascists

Look at fascist regimes of the last hundred years and tell me about a good one. Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were all incredibly poor leaders.

And I'd rather have sustainable, enlightened views than Daily Mail idiocy.

Look at fascist regimes of the last hundred years and tell me about a good one. Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were all incredibly poor leaders.

And I'd rather have sustainable, enlightened views than Daily Mail idiocy.

Yeah, it's almost like I was being sarcastic. The contradicting points of view in my post must have really thrown you off

-snip-
Currently it's better financially for a couple to be married, due to various benefits. Second best financial situation is to live together, due to lower living costs. £30 a week for coming from a broken home? That wouldn't cover my rent.

If you'd feel more comfortable speaking to a British person, that's fine by you. BT was perfectly within its rights to relocate its call centres to India. It's a private company, and as such is driven solely by profit generation. You could always switch your phone line provider to a company that has call centres in Britain, but you'd probably have to pay more.

Protectionism has harmed us. I said in my first reply to you that if we'd followed free trade principles during the Golden Age (1950-73) our economic growth rate would have been double what it was. As we didn't we are now feeling the effects of this disadvantage. Luxury car import tax is a form of protectionism, but I'm saying we should abolish that sort of thing.

Yes, the LEDCs generally take loans from different countries, but there will be conditions attached that the loans go on different forms of industrial development. Example: Countries A, B, and C, all MEDCs (M stands for More), loan £1 billion (or currency equivalent) to country X which is an LEDC. Country A stipulates the loan is used to develop the car manufacturing industry, country B wants the loan used for oil extraction, and country C says the loan is to be used for irrigation schemes. Country A then gets cheap cars, country B gets cheap oil, country C gets cheap corn (or whatever).

If all the evidence points to you, and you are actually guilty, then clearly it won't be a wrongful execution (well, it will, because I don't think the death penalty should be used except in extreme cases). My point was that in some cases, a person is convicted of a crime they didn't commit. If they are executed, then proven to be innocent, it's a bit late. If they're still in jail, they can be released, and can sue for damages.

I imagine you'd be right about criminals having their legal rights taken away from them if they've been committed of petty crimes. Hey! He once stole a loaf of bread! And now he's suffering from stomach cancer! Let's not treat him, that'll teach the bastard!

I wasn't saying money spent on the military is wasted. I was saying an increase in the defence budget would be a waste. We currently have more than enough resources for our armed forces, they don't need more money.

Iraq was all about oil. Don't believe the propaganda. And has it resulted in cheaper oil? Price of crude oil per barrel in September 2003 was $25. On April 3rd this year, it was $69.32. Even allowing for inflation (which isn't much over two-and-a-bit years), that's a price rise of over 100%.

If Johnny Burglar had also gone through his legally required national service, he's going to have been trained to use a gun himself! And he'll have one! Free! Fucking genius idea!

If you're going to be subjective about the health service, I'm not going to bother arguing.

I wasn't saying an NHS nurse would provoke an assault. You said that ALL assault should be punished with a jail term. Some assaults are the result of provocation. If a group of white men were racially taunting someone of Asian origin, and that man suddenly snapped and started attacking the group with a broken bottle, that's provoked. I think that should result in a lesser sentence than if he'd just attacked them as they were walking down the street talking among themselves.

Yeah, it's almost like I was being sarcastic. The contradicting points of view in my post must have really thrown you off

D'oh!

All right, you seem to know what you're talking about. Like I said, I agree with the notion.
Heh. I'm not just limited to the Second World War! ;)

I found their Manifesto for those who are intrested:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/election2006/manifesto2006.pdf

One of my all time favorite quotes is from the BNP manifesto

On Northern Ireland, they pledge: "An End To Sectarianism!"

Well gee, why didn't we think of that?

Heh. I'm not just limited to the Second World War! ;)

I'd appreciate it if you could get back to my point. Was this court case about the qualifications of the applicant or the race?

I found their Manifesto for those who are intrested:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/election2006/manifesto2006.pdf

Wow, must have been real hard to find... ;)

The BNP? Racist?

Are you guys honestly this stupid?

The BNP is merely trying to protect British cultural identity, there's nothing wrong with that.

They aren't going around tarring non-whites and lynching them.
I know this has been replied to, but have you heard of Great White Records?

Basically, oh, you'll laugh at this, it's a record company funded entirely by the BNP. And do you want to guess what sort of music it releases? Go on, guess. Oh, ok, I'll tell you. White power music! Who'd've thunk it?! A record company, funded by a racist political party...releasing racist music! I think I need to lie down.

Wow, must have been real hard to find... ;)

It all seems reasonable. It must have been watered down a few hundred times :D

I know this has been replied to, but have you heard of Great White Records?

Basically, oh, you'll laugh at this, it's a record company funded entirely by the BNP. And do you want to guess what sort of music it releases? Go on, guess. Oh, ok, I'll tell you. White power music! Who'd've thunk it?! A record company, funded by a racist political party...releasing racist music! I think I need to lie down.

*Fluffs a pillow*

There there, it'll be ok...


and if you've listened to the music, you'll know it'll never get near the mainstream...

I'd appreciate it if you could get back to my point. Was this court case about the qualifications of the applicant or the race?
A black man brough the case agains the company, claiming he'd been discriminated against because of his race. The company defended itself by saying that the majority of its customers would prefer to have a white man fix their pipes.

A nice defence actually - the company implied its customers were racist bigots.

I know this has been replied to, but have you heard of Great White Records?

Basically, oh, you'll laugh at this, it's a record company funded entirely by the BNP. And do you want to guess what sort of music it releases? Go on, guess. Oh, ok, I'll tell you. White power music! Who'd've thunk it?! A record company, funded by a racist political party...releasing racist music! I think I need to lie down.

Whats white power music?

A black man brough the case agains the company, claiming he'd been discriminated against because of his race. The company defended itself by saying that the majority of its customers would prefer to have a white man fix their pipes.

A nice defence actually - the company implied its customers were racist bigots.

That's illegal, pure and simple. You must have the details of that wrong, or be omitting a more relevant piece of information

Ace! It says they're going to beat up kids at school for not doing well and they'll also take out foreign students to work on their own! Hurrah!

Are they aiming for the top-end wankers age 40+ who want things "how they used to be" and such?

And how do they know if the new brand of teachers are or aren't working? Do they have snivelling little shits of students looking for BNP members and going "I don't like my teacher! He doesn't smack us enough! Big up the kinky spanking massive!" or something?

*Fluffs a pillow*

There there, it'll be ok...


and if you've listened to the music, you'll know it'll never get near the mainstream...
:p I've heard white power music before, though nothing from Great White. I had a look at their website earlier, and one of the main stories on the front page is about a documentary that was shown on Channel 5 in February. Apparently, and I quote (from www.greatwhiterecords.com) that the documentary "cause[d] GWR unfavourable publicity by trying to link us to extremists". Beautiful!

That's illegal, pure and simple. You must have the details of that wrong, or be omitting a more relevant piece of information
I wasn't commenting on the legality. I was simply conveying the facts of the case. I could find my notes on that case somewhere if you want. Might take me a few minutes.

Whats white power music?
Music that idolises the 'Aryan race'. Music that proclaims the superiority of whites. Et cetera.

I wasn't commenting on the legality. I was simply conveying the facts of the case. I could find my notes on that case somewhere if you want. Might take me a few minutes.

If you please - and I thought you said that both instances would on an economic basis would be legal discrimination?

Music that idolises the 'Aryan race'. Music that proclaims the superiority of whites. Et cetera.

Sounds like pretty moving stuff...

Moving towards the band members' houses with a molotov cocktail made of petrol, nails and sweet, sweet justice, anyway.

If you please - and I thought you said that both instances would on an economic basis would be legal discrimination?
Yes, but I didn't say that in reference to the case I was describing. If the court acquits the defendant then it's legal, no?

Edit: Sorry, 'acquits' is the wrong word to use. It should be 'clears the defendant of any wrongdoing'.

Oh, wow! Just found this on the GWR website:

"Great White Records is determined to create the musical revolution amongst our people, especially the young that will educate our people to the issues of concern, most namely the thinly-disguised genocide of the indigenous natives of the British Isles perpetrated by the policy of present government pushing mass immigration and multi-culturalism on the British native population."

Thinly-disguised genocide? What? And who are the indigenous natives of the British Isles? Britons? Celts? Irish? Scots? Picts? Angles? Saxons? Jutes? Romans? Normans? French? Germans?

You'd think but it just sounds so out there, I'm convinced that you must have got it wrong. That's not a reflection on you btw :D just it seems the most likely explanation and I'd rather believe that than believe we have such rubbish laws :D

Oh, wow! Just found this on the GWR website:

"Great White Records is determined to create the musical revolution amongst our people, especially the young that will educate our people to the issues of concern, most namely the thinly-disguised genocide of the indigenous natives of the British Isles perpetrated by the policy of present government pushing mass immigration and multi-culturalism on the British native population."

Thinly-disguised genocide? What? And who are the indigenous natives of the British Isles? Britons? Celts? Irish? Scots? Picts? Angles? Saxons? Jutes? Romans? Normans? French? Germans?

Race Studies, anyone?

Sounds like pretty moving stuff...

Moving towards the band members' houses with a molotov cocktail made of petrol, nails and sweet, sweet justice, anyway.

Like the Blonde twin duo called 'Aryan Future' or something equally shite they released a single not long ago... from russia or something...

They had been brain washed since birth to believe a form of facist doctorine and now sang about it... utter bollocks mind you

Like the Blonde twin duo called 'Aryan Future' or something equally shite they released a single not long ago... from russia or something...

They had been brain washed since birth to believe a form of facist doctorine and now sang about it... utter bollocks mind you

Cripes in a burberry bonnet...

I have a question for anyone in the BNP/any of you sympathisers - How do you feel about Apartheid?

You'd think but it just sounds so out there, I'm convinced that you must have got it wrong. That's not a reflection on you btw :D just it seems the most likely explanation and I'd rather believe that than believe we have such rubbish laws :D
It's not 'out there'. I imagine it's fairly common - the judge made no comment on the extraordinariness of the case, which a different judge did with another case, the basis of which escapes me at the moment. The fact is that there is no way to choose between two applicants if they are identically qualified.

From the notes I've found, it seems that they had both recently gained City & Guilds qualifications 6089 and 6129, which I think are basic plumbing qualifications, and neither had any experience in plumbing. The position they were applying for was something along the lines of plumber's apprentice. That's as far as my notes go on their qualifications and the job title. And the hearing only lasted 20 minutes...unless it started again after lunch, even though the employer had been cleared, and I missed it...

This is what I recorded of the defendant's statement (it's in note-form, I don't know shorthand):
"Accepts both apps = qual. Cust. views must b accounted 4. Most cust. = white, would want white plumber. If could give both apps. job, would. Don't want 2 lose custs. Business in troub. as is."
From which I can only imagine I meant:
"I accept both applicants are equally qualified, but customer's views must be accounted for. Most of my customers are white, and would want a white plumber. If I could give both applicants the job, I would. I don't want to lose customers - my business is in [financial] trouble as it is."

Like the Blonde twin duo called 'Aryan Future' or something equally shite they released a single not long ago... from russia or something...

They had been brain washed since birth to believe a form of facist doctorine and now sang about it... utter bollocks mind you
Prussian Blue. Yeah. They're cute though. ;)

Prussian Blue. Yeah. They're cute though. ;)

Thats the one...cute but F**KED IN THE HEAD!!!

<snip>

Ah, well, if the two applicants were equally capable then it could be anything - appearance, haircut, ability to drive etc etc - anything that makes a difference would allow the employer to say he made the decision. Sounds like the judge chose to overlook the comment on the customers if he had otherwise proved he had valid reasons for his choice.

I'm not saying the case was extraordinary but if it were true people were allowed to discriminate on race then that would be extraordinary

Prussian Blue. Yeah. They're cute though. ;)

Bugger me sideways with a balloon, I forgot about them. Let's go and crach their board again!!!!!!!!!

Thats the one...cute but F**KED IN THE HEAD!!!
From what I remember, they didn't really have much of a choice in the matter. Didn't their mum home-school them, and chose to feed them a load of white power bullshit?

Bugger me sideways with a balloon, I forgot about them. Let's go and crach their board again!!!!!!!!!
*winces* Sideways? With a balloon? :eek:

I wasn't saying money spent on the military is wasted. I was saying an increase in the defence budget would be a waste. We currently have more than enough resources for our armed forces, they don't need more money.
You must have had your head in the sand for that last couple of decades to think that. The military has consistently suffered cuts, soldiers are being fired, brand new ships sold to random countries like Romania, orders for pretty much everything we've ordered have been reduced and reduced and due to budget constraints hardly anything is being developed to replace our current generation of equipment. The military is deployed to 60+ countries around the world and that has obviously increased with the Iraq war, which the governmnet has expected the MoD to pay for out of its own budget whilst keeping that budget static. The military budget is and has been used since the fall of the Empire in the 50s and early 60s as a piggybank that can be raided at any convenient moment to fund socially desireable programmes and cover up more serious budget deficits. This kind of thinking is horribly short-termist, naive and just plain irresponsible.

The NHS budget has doubled since 1997, and stands at about three times the defence budget. The social welfare budget is a full seven times the defence budget, and has also increased. Education has and is increasing rapidly too. The defence budget had remained static since 1997. In real terms, it has dropped substantially due to inflation. The military is at the weakest it has ever been as a share of world military power since somewhere around the 17th century. People are dying in Iraq because of budget cuts that mean there is not enough equipment available for them. I find the idea that this is all well and good so long as we can pay more people more money to be unemployed with the money we save frankly disgusting.

From what I remember, they didn't really have much of a choice in the matter. Didn't their mum home-school them, and chose to feed them a load of white power bullshit?

Indeed, hence I pity them...but come on, would you want to spend time with them?!? Even if they are kinda cute ish...

The NHS budget has doubled since 1997, and stands at about three times the defence budget. The social welfare budget is a full seven times the defence budget, and has also increased. Education has and is increasing rapidly too. The defence budget had remained static since 1997. In real terms, it has dropped substantially due to inflation. The military is at the weakest it has ever been as a share of world military power since somewhere around the 17th century. People are dying in Iraq because of budget cuts that mean there is not enough equipment available for them. I find the idea that this is all well and good so long as we can pay more people more money to be unemployed with the money we save frankly disgusting.

Actually, £3+ billion has recently been put into the army to make it better. It's wasted money entirely. All Britain needs is a self-defence force like the FDF, we don't need to go on Dubya's fucking crusades like his little minion.

And I'd rather we tackled unemployment than killed people in the Middle East on a pack of lies. A bigger military budget will cause more people to die, not less. Less Brits, granted, but more Iraqis/Afghanistanis/Persians (in the not too distant future) will die.

Or do you see a British life as more important?

fuck the BNP, vote socialist

Actually, £3+ billion has recently been put into the army to make it better. It's wasted money entirely. All Britain needs is a self-defence force like the FDF, we don't need to go on Dubya's fucking crusades like his little minion.

And I'd rather we tackled unemployment than killed people in the Middle East on a pack of lies. A bigger military budget will cause more people to die, not less. Less Brits, granted, but more Iraqis/Afghanistanis/Persians (in the not too distant future) will die.

Or do you see a British life as more important?

No offence but i see MY life as more important and as im British im goin to go with that if that's ok with you you green facist!

No offence but i see MY life as more important and as im British im goin to go with that if that's ok with you you green facist!

And why do you think that?

And why do you think that?

I'd argue a British citizen is more important to us than as you argued (a middle eastern citizen) due to the fact they're are part of our culture and society + they pay taxes. Not to say a non British citizens life is worthless, but surely we should take extra measures for the people building our country.

I'd argue a British citizen is more important to us than as you argued (a middle eastern citizen) due to the fact they're are part of our culture and society + they pay taxes. Not to say a non British citizens life is worthless, but surely we should take extra measures for the people building our country.

Yeah, but people are people. If they then come and live here, do they "gain" value to you?

Yeah, but people are people. If they then come and live here, do they "gain" value to you?

Sure if they intergrate into of our culture and society and they pay taxes than I accept them 100%. I'm not much of a fan for the so called multi culturalism but in reality lots of towns full of nation X immigrants that only stick to their own kind...(why not just live in your own country if you want to do that) then complain they're discriminated against while competely rejecting our culture. Different topic I suppose though.

You must have had your head in the sand for that last couple of decades to think that. The military has consistently suffered cuts, soldiers are being fired, brand new ships sold to random countries like Romania, orders for pretty much everything we've ordered have been reduced and reduced and due to budget constraints hardly anything is being developed to replace our current generation of equipment. The military is deployed to 60+ countries around the world and that has obviously increased with the Iraq war, which the governmnet has expected the MoD to pay for out of its own budget whilst keeping that budget static. The military budget is and has been used since the fall of the Empire in the 50s and early 60s as a piggybank that can be raided at any convenient moment to fund socially desireable programmes and cover up more serious budget deficits. This kind of thinking is horribly short-termist, naive and just plain irresponsible.
You do realise this just proves my point? What I said was that the military "currently [has] more than enough resources" and "[doesn't] need more money".

The military is deployed in 60+ countries around the world? To me, that says it's overstretched. If we cut back on that to a level more fitting with our size, then we'd save a shitload. We don't need a goddamn military! The only serious threat of war that this country faces is ones we start ourselves!

You do realise this just proves my point? What I said was that the military "currently [has] more than enough resources" and "[doesn't] need more money".

The military is deployed in 60+ countries around the world? To me, that says it's overstretched. If we cut back on that to a level more fitting with our size, then we'd save a shitload. We don't need a goddamn military! The only serious threat of war that this country faces is ones we start ourselves!

"If you want peace you must prepare for war"

Having little in a way of independent defense is asking people to annoy us with little in a way of retaliation. Sure nuclear wepons have proved very successful in avoiding any major conflict, but if thats all we have it might = a lot of appeasement.

They wont get seats. With a white minority in this country how could they ever get in??

"If you want peace you must prepare for war"
Utter bollocks. If you want peace - don't piss anyone off. Doesn't take a genius.

Having little in a way of independent defense is asking people to annoy us with little in a way of retaliation. Sure nuclear wepons have proved very successful in avoiding any major conflict, but if thats all we have it might = a lot of appeasement.
Why, in this day and age, would anyone attack us? It wouldn't be to their benefit.

They wont get seats. With a white minority in this country how could they ever get in??
Erm...what white minority? Britain's population is about 90% white.

Erm...what white minority? Britain's population is about 90% white.

Not in my town pal!

lol

I hope they lose the seats they have. While islamic fundamentalists and the Albanian mafia are becoming increasingly annoying, the BNP dont have an answer. theyre just Nazi's in disguise. Infact they are worse than Nazis because at least they were well organised and efficient and had dandy uniforms. The BNP are just wankers. Immigrants annoy us, but thats all they really do. They are not responsible for the state the country is in. People like The BNP and the conservatives and UKip are responsible. Because they are selfish and hateful and dont want to make things better for everyone, but just hang on to what theyve got at everyone elses expense.

Not in my town pal!

lol
True. I go to uni there.

Leicesters economy would collapse if the BNP got in.

Up the mobile phone shops and bling alloys I say! Oh, and cheap underwear...?! Oh and the most taxis outside New York, apart from when they wont fkin stop on a saturday night.

Utter bollocks. If you want peace - don't piss anyone off. Doesn't take a genius.
.

What if you're dealing with fundamentalist muslims, should we tread carefully not to piss them off. Its not good getting rid of our army, then on the off chance some huge conflic arises looking for countries like America to have 100% say on what to do.

What if you're dealing with fundamentalist muslims, should we tread carefully not to piss them off. Its not good getting rid of our army, then on the off chance some huge conflic arises looking for countries like America to have 100% say on what to do.
Strangely, there are around about approximately in the region of absolutely no fundamentalist muslims in charge of foreign policy anywhere in the world. Even if there were, they wouldn't be stupid enough to attack any developed country. You know why? Because they're not fucking morons.

Strangely, there are around about approximately in the region of absolutely no fundamentalist muslims in charge of foreign policy anywhere in the world. Even if there were, they wouldn't be stupid enough to attack any developed country. You know why? Because they're not fucking morons.

Apart from Iran, and Saudi Arabia. and soon Iraq if we're unlucky. I could really live without Iran being able to destroy a whole country. And if theyre not fucking morons why do they keep blowing themselves up? I very much doubt the threat of retaliation would put them off attacking us since they dont care if they die.

And the way for peace is not to avoid pissing anyone off. Half the time the ones who get pissed off are at fault. like the situation with the muhammad cartoons. there was no problem till they got pissed off. The way for peace is to not get pissed off and overreact like a twat the way the BNP do.

The way for peace is to not get pissed off and overreact like a twat the way the BNP do.

Sounds like a double standard. They hold riots and sanctions against are allies have appauling human rights at home and run the risk of threatening to suicide bomb us. How should we retaliate? Tolerate them and disassemble our army......

Sounds like a double standard. They hold riots and sanctions against are allies have appauling human rights at home and run the risk of threatening to suicide bomb us. How should we retaliate? Tolerate them and disassemble our army......

Here's a better idea! Let's invade random countries that are absolutely no harm to us and just piss off even more of the Middle Eastern Community. Because that's worked so much better...

Apart from Iran, and Saudi Arabia. and soon Iraq if we're unlucky. I could really live without Iran being able to destroy a whole country. And if theyre not fucking morons why do they keep blowing themselves up? I very much doubt the threat of retaliation would put them off attacking us since they dont care if they die.
It's called religion. If they believe it's worth dying for, fine. But they're not part of the army. Do you know why? Because they know the army would never be called upon to attack us or America or anyone else.

Iran isn't going to do anything with a nuclear bomb. The technology they have is almost certainly being developed as a form of energy, rather than military. Even if they do decide to build a nuke, they're not stupid enough to use it. For once, people have learnt from history, and they saw what the Cold War did for the world.


And I think we should get back on topic.

Here's a better idea! Let's invade random countries that are absolutely no harm to us and just piss off even more of the Middle Eastern Community. Because that's worked so much better...

I'll agree perhaps not the best aproach but I certainly wouldn't like to see what being tolerant and leaving riots and suicide bombings unanswerd will lead to.

Actually, £3+ billion has recently been put into the army to make it better. It's wasted money entirely.
That's what the Labour manifesto says. That it doesnt tell you is that the MoD has to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan with the money, which costs £5bn+ per year. Everythng (personel, hardware, deployments, reserves, everything) in the army is being cut, and more cuts are planned.

All Britain needs is a self-defence force like the FDF, we don't need to go on Dubya's fucking crusades like his little minion.
If this happened then Britain would completely ceade any right to interests beyond its own borders, and this would be disastorous in the long term. In addition, your contention that Britain will never again be involved in a major war simply because it doesnt look like it'll happen at the moment is frankly crap.

And I'd rather we tackled unemployment than killed people in the Middle East
I also think that paying lazy benefit-scroungers is a better policy that installing liberal democracy in oppressive dictatorships that gas their own people. No wait, that's the wrong way around.

on a pack of lies.
Now, now. This is probably libel. Saying that someone "lied" is different from saying that someone said something that turned out not to be the case. The former involves deliberate and knowing duplicity, whereas the latter requires only that one is misinformed or not fully informed of the facts. Considering that military intelligence is a sketchy business, this seems likely. Or do you think they just made it up, obviously expecting no-one to notice that they won't actually find anything?

A bigger military budget will cause more people to die, not less.
Yes, because spending money kills people.

Less Brits, granted, but more Iraqis/Afghanistanis/Persians (in the not too distant future) will die.

Or do you see a British life as more important?
Wait a minute. Are you saying that it is a good thing that British servicemen get killed because there aren't enough radios, bodyarmour and ammunition? You're saying you want the islamo-nazi terrorists who want to eject the coalition from and then take over and create a theocracy in Iraq to win? You, sir, are insane.

You do realise this just proves my point? What I said was that the military "currently [has] more than enough resources" and "[doesn't] need more money".

The military is deployed in 60+ countries around the world? To me, that says it's overstretched. If we cut back on that to a level more fitting with our size, then we'd save a shitload.
95% of these deployments are peacekeeping and protecting small, former colonies. You may not value this, but I think it's very important work, and I'm proud that Britain is doing it. Of course, perhaps you would just prefer to "save a shitload" to spend on socialism than save peoples' lives. And what do you mean by "our size"? Britain has the 4th strongest economy in the world by GDP, 2nd largest by GNP. It is infitting with "our size" (unless you mean population, which is and always has been an irrelevent measure). The only things that cause that "size" to shrink are reductions in our commitment to our foreign interests.

We don't need a goddamn military! The only serious threat of war that this country faces is ones we start ourselves!
:rolleyes: Truely, I am overcome by the stupidity of these two statements.

That's what the Labour manifesto says. That it doesnt tell you is that the MoD has to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan with the money, which costs £5bn+ per year. Everythng (personel, hardware, deployments, reserves, everything) in the army is being cut, and more cuts are planned.


If this happened then Britain would completely ceade any right to interests beyond its own borders, and this would be disastorous in the long term. In addition, your contention that Britain will never again be involved in a major war simply because it doesnt look like it'll happen at the moment is frankly crap.

No, we'd stop any military action beyond our own borders. We can still negotiate with economics, we live in one of the richer countries of the world.

And possibly if we stopped fucking around in the Middle East and had an army that was trained to defend the country then we'd save billions of our military budget and could spend it on making the army much more effective, just in combat in our own lands.

I also think that paying lazy benefit-scroungers is a better policy that installing liberal democracy in oppressive dictatorships that gas their own people. No wait, that's the wrong way around.

Liberal democracy's all fine and dandy in a country with stability. In Iraq, a brutal dictatorship is the way forward, I'm afraid. Either that, or let it split up into various countries for the different factions.

And the Americans are doing the gassing/napalming/torturing now. It's no different at all, they even have martial law. They killed everyone in Falluja. They've even shot up the Kurds, whilst taking the moral high ground over Saddam, and actually selling him various chemical weapons.

http://www.daanspeak.com/SaddamRumsfeld.jpg

Does that picture mean anything to you?

Now, now. This is probably libel. Saying that someone "lied" is different from saying that someone said something that turned out not to be the case. The former involves deliberate and knowing duplicity, whereas the latter requires only that one is misinformed or not fully informed of the facts. Considering that military intelligence is a sketchy business, this seems likely. Or do you think they just made it up, obviously expecting no-one to notice that they won't actually find anything?

I actually think that they probably wanted to invade, picked an option which seemed quite a likely a reason (WMDs) and then when they found out this was not true, then claimed to have invaded to "help Iraqi freedom" or something like that, so that the public wasn't utterly disolusioned, whilst claiming "poor intellligence" on the WMD issue. The only poor intelligence was that of Blair, Bush and co.

Yes, because spending money kills people.

Yes, when it's spent on weapons.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that it is a good thing that British servicemen get killed because there aren't enough radios, bodyarmour and ammunition? You're saying you want the islamo-nazi terrorists who want to eject the coalition from and then take over and create a theocracy in Iraq to win? You, sir, are insane.

Cripes, Islamo-Nazi terrorists. Are they commies, too?

The BNP supposedly stand for "Christian Values". Does that mean they're Christi-Nazi terrorists? (because they intimidate people, which is an act of terror if you think about it).

But back to the point. What I actually think should happen is that we should pull ALL of our troops out from any country that isn't just used for training (like German and Norway, for example, we should probably train troops up there) and stop chumming up with Bush over every pointless invasion.

And the 'Islamo-Fascist Nazis' or whatever wouldn't be a problem if we hadn't invaded in the first place. It would still be a secular state, ruled in a brutal but necessary manner.

95% of these deployments are peacekeeping and protecting small, former colonies. You may not value this, but I think it's very important work, and I'm proud that Britain is doing it. Of course, perhaps you would just prefer to "save a shitload" to spend on socialism than save peoples' lives.

Socialism saves more lives than oppressing our former colonies. And we would probably be better off giving aid to our colonies rather than a military presence.

:rolleyes: Truely, I am overcome by the stupidity of these two statements.

It's truly, and why are they stupid?

Would you rather that unfortunate people starved than we went galavanting around the planet? In all honesty?

That's what the Labour manifesto says. That it doesnt tell you is that the MoD has to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan with the money, which costs £5bn+ per year. Everythng (personel, hardware, deployments, reserves, everything) in the army is being cut, and more cuts are planned.
Good. We don't need to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even if you think it's justified in having foreign military personnel over there, I could just argue that America could easily cover the loss if we pulled out.

If this happened then Britain would completely ceade any right to interests beyond its own borders, and this would be disastorous in the long term. In addition, your contention that Britain will never again be involved in a major war simply because it doesnt look like it'll happen at the moment is frankly crap.
No. We'd cede any military interests. Not any interests. We'd still be trading and helping other countries develop their economies. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but generating trade revenue is in fact not disastrous in the long term, and is really quite the opposite.

As for us not being involved in major wars, I will say only this: we only need to take part in defensive wars, ie. if we are attacked. However, we have nuclear weapons. No country has ever declared war on another country knowing the attacked country has nuclear weapons. It would be the single most insane military idea ever though up.

I also think that paying lazy benefit-scroungers is a better policy that installing liberal democracy in oppressive dictatorships that gas their own people. No wait, that's the wrong way around.
Because that's all the unemployed are, isn't it? And militarily forcing 'liberal democracy' (you know, it took me a good couple of minutes to stop laughing when I read that) is just perfect isn't it?

How about we invade a country that frequently uses helicopter gunships to attack its neighbour? That'd be Israel. Or invade a country that has a worse civil rights record than China? That'd be Uzbekistan. Or force a religious regime on a country that had democratically elected a government? No, wait, we did that with Iran, didn't we?

Now, now. This is probably libel. Saying that someone "lied" is different from saying that someone said something that turned out not to be the case. The former involves deliberate and knowing duplicity, whereas the latter requires only that one is misinformed or not fully informed of the facts. Considering that military intelligence is a sketchy business, this seems likely. Or do you think they just made it up, obviously expecting no-one to notice that they won't actually find anything?
Misinformed? You think the British government seriously believed Iraq could fire a missile at us within 45 minutes? Fuck me. Various documents have shown that Blair knew, not 'could have known' or 'wasn't sure', actually 100% must have known, that Iraq was not a threat, yet he supported the invasion anyway. Why didn't we invade Iraq when they were actually gassing the Kurds? Do you know? Because we were getting a lot of business from there by selling military equipment in return for oil. Absolutely no one protested when France sold nuclear secrets to Iraq.

Yes, because spending money kills people.
So does deliberately misunderstanding people.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that it is a good thing that British servicemen get killed because there aren't enough radios, bodyarmour and ammunition? You're saying you want the islamo-nazi terrorists who want to eject the coalition from and then take over and create a theocracy in Iraq to win? You, sir, are insane.
What's wrong with a theocracy? Please don't come back with ZOMG!Teh ev1l 1sl4m1st5 w4nt 2 k1ll us all!!!!1!!11!!one!!

95% of these deployments are peacekeeping and protecting small, former colonies. You may not value this, but I think it's very important work, and I'm proud that Britain is doing it. Of course, perhaps you would just prefer to "save a shitload" to spend on socialism than save peoples' lives. And what do you mean by "our size"? Britain has the 4th strongest economy in the world by GDP, 2nd largest by GNP. It is infitting with "our size" (unless you mean population, which is and always has been an irrelevent measure). The only things that cause that "size" to shrink are reductions in our commitment to our foreign interests.
It's not important. It's us trying to prove that our dick really is big enough to compete in international politics. Oooh, look at us, we can keep the peace in Sierra Leone! And Rwanda! Oh, no, wait, we can't. Bugger. Interventionism is never a good idea, it just makes people hate us.
How about size in terms of international reputation? In which case we're only not quite as buggered as the US. Why does having the fourth largest economy justify sending our troops to countries that don't really want us there?

:rolleyes: Truely, I am overcome by the stupidity of these two statements.
I can see the first one's stupid, though I was exaggerating for dramatic effect. The second one isn't stupid. When was the last time anyone declared war on us before we declared war on them? Answers on a postcard.

Edit: Hey, Yootopia. I see you got there first.

I can’t even begin to express how stupidly self-destructive most of these policies are. I know why people are shifting towards this party and maybe we need them to do well to wake up the rest of us and because we do have to look at the way in which some non Anglo-Saxons integrate (or fail to) and the reasons why some working class families are failing to keep pace with Britain’s economic shifts. The BNP have a few policies which aren’t crack pot and they are sometimes used to camouflage the rest, but wake up…..!

1.The ending of immigration to the UKWith the prevailing demographics and economics this is impossible. Without immigration, the UK’s ageing population will reach a point where we will have to kill little old ladies in their beds to prevent an economic meltdown if we followed this route. This also disregards the fact that Britain’s population lacks enough home-grown doctors, scientists, nurses on one hand and cleaners, carers and street sweepers on the other to sustain itself.

2."A massively-funded and permanent programme ... to eradicate, by voluntary resettlement to their lands of racial origin, non-white ethnic minorities living in Britain"
What about those of us who are mixed, or those of us who don’t speak Urdu, Shona, Mandarin because they grew up in Hackney or Chelsea or the outer Hebrides and had to learn English? Just leave them in their “homelands” to be raped, beaten, murdered, robbed – because of their skin colour. This resembles what Mugabe has done to my people (white and mixed race Zimbabweans) and what Idi Amin did to the Indians in Uganda.

3.The removal of all illegal immigrants
i) Financially impossible
ii) Economically suicidal
iii) Socially reprehensible
iv) Ultimately fruitless

4.The repeal of all equality and anti-discrimination legislation, including measures aimed at employing people with disabilities.
Maybe some legislation has gone too far, is impractical or racist in itself, but repealing all of them is just too far the other way – reform what exists and add some common bloody sense

5.Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the pursuit of protectionist economic measures.
Yes, if you want to bankrupt Britain, start another European war; a genocidal civil war and ultimately the death of the UK… Britain needs Europe, because the Empire no longer exists, because the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are too far away, Because the Commonwealth has a disdain for British governments in general and because Europe is going to happen regardless of whether the UK is in it or not. Sorry, you may not agree with what I’m about to say, but tough – Britain, outside the EU will shrivel into a shadow of its former glories, she will become an Albania or Eritrea, not a Switzerland. The EU will succeed despite its persistent need to reform because too many people stand to loose if it fails. All of that doesn’t even begin to take into account the inevitability of Scottish self rule and Welsh nationalism

6.Encouraging greater share ownership and worker co-operatives.
“we’ll keep the red flag flying…” gimmick

7.Restricting foreign aid to the support of countries receiving "repatriated" members of ethnic minorities. Griffin argued against giving unconditional foreign aid, including disaster aid, claiming 'charity' is not an acceptable use of public funds.
The most dangerous foreign policy idea since “ooh, you know what’ll be a good idea, lets tax tea to the colonies…” Countries fortunes wax and wane, one day Britain will have a disaster that it can not deal with on its own because she won’t have assets or know how – then if we have abused and held ransom other nations, how quickly will they come running?

8.The introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the introduction of capital punishment for paedophiles and terrorists and its reintroduction for murderers.
The re-introduction of corporal punishment in schools is something (I can’t believe I’m about to say this) that I have come round to agreeing with, likewise Capital punishment for treason in times of war and some murderers. The executing of paedophiles is a gimmick just like the Labour party’s willingness to sacrifice habeas corpus for rape case – simply to woo the swing voters (the majority of whom are female)

9.The reintroduction of national service and the deprivation of some civil rights from conscientious objectors, including the right to vote.
Reintroduce national service – and have tax deterrents for not accepting call up - yes. Remove right to vote – never!

10.The requirement of all law-abiding adults completing national service to maintain a standard issue automatic rifle in their home.
Quickest route to US style gun crime… define law abiding – party membership????

11.A mandatory jail term for anyone assaulting an NHS worker.
Not sure about how bad or good an idea this is….

12.Other policies include the promotion of organic farming,
First really good idea, pity Lib Dems and greens already got there….

…. funding to encourage women (in every family) to stay home and raise children not yet of school age,...
Good demographic policy – completely unfeasible economically

and increasing defence spending.
Great big “Duhh!” any fool and is in-bred uncle could tell you that, and I could tell you that not British government since Pit the younger has been able to do so without a war about to breakout or a Navy on the horizon.

The real problem is that the Labour Party and Tory party aren’t ideologically apposed anymore and somewhere along the line, a strain of racism was reintroduced to Britain through the right wing or the Tories and the tabloid papers. We should be looking at curbing Newscorp not people who have a different pigment in their epidermis. Likewise we should be looking at why the Muslim population in Britain (in particular) has failed to integrate and ways of making white people more at ease with non-whites.

“If I was old enough I would vote either Conservative or BNP but I’m only 16.”
I will probably vote Tory, because the Labour government should not be allowed to get too comfortable, but they are not the BNP and the racist strain within their party is slowly being purged. The BNP are dangerous and maybe your youth prevents you from realising this.

No, we'd stop any military action beyond our own borders.
With what? Air?

We can still negotiate with economics, we live in one of the richer countries of the world.
Economics doesn't matter much when someone is taking over your possessions (such as the British Antarctic Territory, which contains 50bn+ barrels of oil). As a share of world trade, we are irrelevent considering that most of our potential enemies are either:

a) embargoed already
b) tied into strong regional trade agreements which are their primary sources of trade

And possibly if we stopped fucking around in the Middle East and had an army that was trained to defend the country then we'd save billions of our military budget and could spend it on making the army much more effective, just in combat in our own lands.
So your argument is not with the principle that we have interests, but with Gulf War II? You can have a military to protect your interests without necessarily using it in a certain way. Personally, I think that liberating people from vicious dictatorships is a laudable thing to do, but that's somewhat irrelevent, because it isn't an either or situation.

Liberal democracy's all fine and dandy in a country with stability. In Iraq, a brutal dictatorship is the way forward, I'm afraid. Either that, or let it split up into various countries for the different factions.
Presumably the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the fall of the Soviet Union were all perfectly stable and so our transition to democracy and theirs are obviously entirely different. No, seriously, you are someone who believes (for whatever reason) that to prevent people dying we should not stop genocidal manmen gassing their populace. This is a profoundly illogical position to take, and I think that views such as yours are extremely naive, damaging and frankly uncaring and unconcerning of anyone except yourself. Perhaps if it were your family that was woken up in the middle of the night, dragged off to an Iraqi jail and tortured and executed, your views would be somewhat different.

And the Americans are doing the gassing/napalming/torturing now.
America has not gassed or napalmed anyone. It may have tortured people in Guantanimo Bay, and I am against that, but you can be against the illegitimate torture (and if it is occuring, it is occuring on a very small scale) without being against the war. Looking at it from a cost/benefit perspective, the Americans are torturing far fewer people than Saddam was.

It's no different at all, they even have martial law. They killed everyone in Falluja.
Errr... they gave the civilians about a week to get out. They killed all the insurgents, and probably a small number of civilians accidently who were caught in the crossfire. That is far preferable to an Iran-style psychotic theocracy that the insurgents want to put in place, and far preferable to Saddam's rule, especially as this is actually making progress towards stability.

They've even shot up the Kurds,
I'm not sure if you've ever studied history, but what Saddam did was somewhat different (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war#The_end_of_hostilities) to shooting some Kurdish insurgents, or accidently shooting a handful of civilians.

whilst taking the moral high ground over Saddam, and actually selling him various chemical weapons.

<picture>

Does that picture mean anything to you?
And I think that that was wrong. Then again, I'm not the American government, have never said that I unequivicably support everything the American government has ever done, and have not (as far as I am aware) ever mentioned America before this post in this entire debate, which is about British politics. So I don't see what point you're trying to make. If you're trying to convince me that being friendly with Iraq in the 80s was wrong, then you needn't bother, because I already think that. If you're just trying to smear the US / US foreign policy / US politicians, then I don't see what that has to do with this thread.

I actually think that they probably wanted to invade, picked an option which seemed quite a likely a reason (WMDs) and then when they found out this was not true, then claimed to have invaded to "help Iraqi freedom" or something like that, so that the public wasn't utterly disolusioned, whilst claiming "poor intellligence" on the WMD issue. The only poor intelligence was that of Blair, Bush and co.
I think I can safely say that both Blair and Bush are far more intelligent than you, considering that they managed to persuade millions to vote for them. I don't believe for one moment that, with any reasonable doubts in their minds about the existance of WMDs, they would have continued anyway. Both of them knew they would need to fight re-election campaigns around the time it would become clear if there were any such weapons (and there certainly were in the past) and they both knew that that would cause problems. If it is a conspiracy, it's a pretty shit one.

Yes, when it's spent on weapons.
Buying weapons does not precipitate their use. Using weapons does not necessarily entail the worst possible outcome, as we can see from Iraq. Saddam Huissein killed more than 300,000 people during his reign, many with WMDs. If the US had done that then you and your ilk would be demanding regime change in the US. Nay, you would probably be flying out yourself to fight a guerilla war against the US government. I think it's a more than a little hypocritical for you to be so supportive of Saddam when even the wildly biased and inaccurate iraqbodycount (www.iraqbodycount.org) predicts an order of magnitude fewer deaths have occured due to the invasion, and most of them during the high-intensity conflict period of the invasion! The future for Iraq is now bright, with democracy and stability. Leaving Saddam in place would only have brought more killing, more repression and no end in sight.

Cripes, Islamo-Nazi terrorists. Are they commies, too?
Errr, no. What does communism have to do with any of this? The people involved in Iraq fall into three categories:

Al-Quaeda et al. - They want to hurt the Americans. They are also Islamist fundamentalists.
Ba'athists - They're pissed off that they, a tiny minority of the population, no longer hold supreme power. Admittedly, these people are not Islamists.
Islamists - They want to introduce a theocracy (Islamo-Nazis). The most insidious of the lot, and many from neighbouring countries.

Of course, these three groups overlap quite a lot. The Ba'athists espouse to be socialists, but none of them are communists.

The BNP supposedly stand for "Christian Values". Does that mean they're Christi-Nazi terrorists? (because they intimidate people, which is an act of terror if you think about it).
They are probably "Christi-Nazis" as you say. I don't think they're terrorists though. They are a political party, afterall. Combat 18 are terrorists.

But back to the point. What I actually think should happen is that we should pull ALL of our troops out from any country that isn't just used for training (like German and Norway, for example, we should probably train troops up there) and stop chumming up with Bush over every pointless invasion.
Excellent idea. I'm sure that the Iraqis will love the subsequent civil war and they'll be just extatic about the Iranian-sponsored theocracy that will follow. Huzzah for social-liberalism!

And the 'Islamo-Fascist Nazis' or whatever wouldn't be a problem if we hadn't invaded in the first place. It would still be a secular state, ruled in a brutal but necessary manner.
Heh. If I were talking to you in real life I would be slowly backing away from you at this point, but I suppose at least you are honest. Most socialists try to deny that they are authoritarian are like middle-east dictatorships, like your friend George Galloway here:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41137000/jpg/_41137517_galloway_saddam_ap.jpg

Socialism saves more lives than oppressing our former colonies. And we would probably be better off giving aid to our colonies rather than a military presence.
Almost all of our former colonies are democracies. Most of the countries we have major deployments to (most of our deployments are company or battalion sized) are not former colonies and are either unstable and need peacekeepers to keep them safe (like Sierra-Leone and Bosnia - wait, aren't they UN sanctioned missions? Surely you love the UN - it's an unaccountable supra-national government organisation!) or are under threat of invasion (somewhat rarer, but we have stopped people invading Malaysia in the past with our deployments of paratroops).



It's truly,
Your incredible typo-busting siklls mean I obsviously lose the debate.

and why are they stupid?
Because we obviously need a military, not only to protect our shores but to protection and promote our interests abroad. I'm not entirely sure if invasions of places like Iraq are in the national interest, but they are certainly good things to do from a moral perspective, so they are also good things we can do with the military. And no, the only risk of war is not only those we start. The Argentinians are eyeing up the falklands (and its thousands of inhabitants who want to be British, as well as the oil supplies in the BAT) and I hardly think that the Chinese are going to stay within their own borders for long. Nor do I think that Iran is going to be nice and "responsible" with its coming uranium-tipped missiles pointing at Israel. You can't predict what is going to happen in the future. If you want to give away our national sovereignty so that we can increase the dole, then it is your right to think that, but massive numbers of people who think like you are the main reason I'm probably going to leave Britain in the next ten years. There is no future for this country that seems to loathe itself with a passion.

Would you rather that unfortunate people starved than we went galavanting around the planet? In all honesty?
Yey, a classic "you hate the poor" statement. A few points here:

1) Feeding starving Britons and maintaining / increasing the defence budget are not mutually exclusive.

2) Maintaining / increasing the defence budget does not mean you have to deploy the military abroad. Your (wrong, in my opinion) opposition to certain deployments does not mean that you have to oppose the very existance of the military as well.

3) Yes, I do think that promoting Britain's interests are important. I also support the Iraq war.

I V Stalin - Your soc-dem hardline-pacifist rhetoric is exactly the same as his (well, it contains factual inaccuracies that his doesn't but still) so you can just extrapolate what I said here to cover your own post. If I can be bothered, I might reply to yours as well but I wouldn't count on it.

I V Stalin - Your soc-dem hardline-pacifist rhetoric is exactly the same as his (well, it contains factual inaccuracies that his doesn't but still) so you can just extrapolate what I said here to cover your own post. If I can be bothered, I might reply to yours as well but I wouldn't count on it.
Maybe you could enlighten me as to what these are.

<double post>

<ah, triple post>

We'd still be trading and helping other countries develop their economies. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but generating trade revenue is in fact not disastrous in the long term, and is really quite the opposite.
This isn't wrong so much as it doesn't make any logical sense. Getting rid of the military wouldn't improve trade - it would happen the same anyway - so it isn't relevent to your point about disbanding the military in any way.

And militarily forcing 'liberal democracy' (you know, it took me a good couple of minutes to stop laughing when I read that) is just perfect isn't it?
This is also silly (although not "wrong", per se, as it only implies a point rather than stating one), as every democracy in the history of mankind was installed after a war by a victorious power (Germany, Japan, etc.) or as a result of civil war / strife.


Misinformed? You think the British government seriously believed Iraq could fire a missile at us within 45 minutes? Fuck me.
This is wrong. It was never claimed that they could fire a missile at us at all. It was claimed that they could fire a missile within 45 minutes (presumably at Israel, as they did in the last war). 45 minutes is actually a very slow launch time for a missile.

Various documents have shown that Blair knew, not 'could have known' or 'wasn't sure', actually 100% must have known,
This is also wrong. They show that there were doubts about the intel, they don't show that the intel was known to be wrong (incidently, it may not have been wrong - it is not inconceivable that the weapons were moved abroad, hidden or destryoed; non-weaponised nerve gas has actually been found).

that Iraq was not a threat, yet he supported the invasion anyway.
This is disingunous. Iraq has never been a threat to us directly, but it has been a threat to its neighbours (and hence our oil supply, as well as the liberal democracy Israel).

So does deliberately misunderstanding people [kill people].
...it does?


What's wrong with a theocracy?
At this, I burst out in laughter.

Oooh, look at us, we can keep the peace in... Rwanda! Oh, no, wait, we can't. Bugger.
That was a UN mission, and no British troops were involved.

When was the last time anyone declared war on us before we declared war on them?
1982, Falklands War. If you want the last time that someone declared war on an ally of ours first, that was in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

----------

Maybe you could enlighten me as to what these are.
Will that do you?

Praetonia, gigantic messages, which are far too long for my ADHD ridden brain to read, are not helpful for me. :D

They're not really that long, just heavily interspersed with quotes. Read some of my messages that contain no quotes - only about 2 paragraphs long or so, at most ;)

This isn't wrong so much as it doesn't make any logical sense. Getting rid of the military wouldn't improve trade - it would happen the same anyway - so it isn't relevent to your point about disbanding the military in any way.
My point wasn't that it would increase trade (in fact this is what I said: We'd still be trading and helping other countries develop their economies. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but generating trade revenue is in fact not disastrous in the long term, and is really quite the opposite"). If you inferred from that that I meant a reduced military would increase trade, then possibly I should have made it clearer. Though I'm not sure how I'd have managed that.


This is also silly (although not "wrong", per se, as it only implies a point rather than stating one), as every democracy in the history of mankind was installed after a war by a victorious power (Germany, Japan, etc.) or as a result of civil war / strife.
Actually, I think Germany and Japan are the only two notable examples of democracy being imposed by a foreign power. Yes, democracy is generally brought about through conflict, but, again generally, it's from within rather than without.

This is wrong. It was never claimed that they could fire a missile at us at all. It was claimed that they could fire a missile within 45 minutes (presumably at Israel, as they did in the last war). 45 minutes is actually a very slow launch time for a missile.
Hmmm...poor wording. 'Us' meant 'our allies' (actually, do we have any sort of treaty with Israel?). Sorry, that should've been clearer. I think the 45 minutes was irrelevant (as a detail) anyway - the point was that it was time within which an attacked country would not be able to react/defend itself.

This is also wrong. They show that there were doubts about the intel, they don't show that the intel was known to be wrong (incidently, it may not have been wrong - it is not inconceivable that the weapons were moved abroad, hidden or destryoed; non-weaponised nerve gas has actually been found).
Moral of the story - don't trust the Guardian. That and the BBC were the only news sources I used around that time. Though I should have checked it. I'll hold up my hands and admit I'm wrong on this.

This is disingenuous. Iraq has never been a threat to us directly, but it has been a threat to its neighbours (and hence our oil supply, as well as the liberal democracy Israel).
Israel's a liberal democracy? Perhaps for the Israelis, but they're not the only people who live there. The majority of our oil comes from countries that Iraq never threatened - countries like Saudi Arabia.

...it does?
It can. That was actually in response to this exchange between yourself and Yootopia:
Yootopia: A bigger military budget will cause more people to die, not less.
Praetonia: Yes, because spending money kills people.
The obvious (to me) point that Yootopia was making was that with a greater military budget we will be able to spend more on warfare, thus making the probability of warfare likely. I believe that you deliberately ignored this and focused on another possible meaning of what he said.

At this, I burst out in laughter.
That doesn't answer the question. Prove to me that a theocracy is a bad system of government.

That was a UN mission, and no British troops were involved.
Ah, well. I didn't know that. I'll have to take your word on the lack of British troops. I assumed (yeah, I know, I shouldn't) that a UN mission was likely to have a British contingent of some size.

1982, Falklands War. If you want the last time that someone declared war on an ally of ours first, that was in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
No. Argentina took control over the Falkland Islands so we declared war on them.

Will that do you?
Thank you.

My point wasn't that it would increase trade (in fact this is what I said: We'd still be trading and helping other countries develop their economies. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but generating trade revenue is in fact not disastrous in the long term, and is really quite the opposite"). If you inferred from that that I meant a reduced military would increase trade, then possibly I should have made it clearer. Though I'm not sure how I'd have managed that.
I didn't infer that, I was just struggling to understand it. If your point is "We would still be able to trade without a military." then fine, I agree. I've never disputed this and don't see what relevence it has, if it has anyway.

Actually, I think Germany and Japan are the only two notable examples of democracy being imposed by a foreign power.
Actually Italy is also a notable example example. But in any case, that's why I said democracy was imposed by foreign invasion or through internal strife. *mutters about reading comprehension*

Yes, democracy is generally brought about through conflict, but, again generally, it's from within rather than without.
Germany, Japan and Italy say no.

Hmmm...poor wording. 'Us' meant 'our allies' (actually, do we have any sort of treaty with Israel?). Sorry, that should've been clearer. I think the 45 minutes was irrelevant (as a detail) anyway - the point was that it was time within which an attacked country would not be able to react/defend itself.
"Our allies" is still wrong. They said they can launch a missile, in general. It was also probably true. Scuds don't take 45 minutes to launch, and Iraq has them.

Moral of the story - don't trust the Guardian. That and the BBC were the only news sources I used around that time. Though I should have checked it. I'll hold up my hands and admit I'm wrong on this.
Thanks

Israel's a liberal democracy? Perhaps for the Israelis, but they're not the only people who live there.
Yes, generally only nationals of a country are allow to vote in its elections. That's why we can't vote in their elections, and Russians can't vote in either of our elections. The Palestinians don't live in Israel (most of them don't anyway) and they have their own elections (that have been pretty widely publicised recently).

The majority of our oil comes from countries that Iraq never threatened - countries like Saudi Arabia.
And Kuwait. That Iraq invaded in 1991.

It can. That was actually in response to this exchange between yourself and Yootopia:
Yootopia: A bigger military budget will cause more people to die, not less.
Praetonia: Yes, because spending money kills people.
The obvious (to me) point that Yootopia was making was that with a greater military budget we will be able to spend more on warfare, thus making the probability of warfare likely. I believe that you deliberately ignored this and focused on another possible meaning of what he said.
Ok... that's not what you said. It's also not what I said. I said we should increase the defence budget, not spend more money "on warfare". Eitherway, you are both wrong.

That doesn't answer the question. Prove to me that a theocracy is a bad system of government.
Turn on the news some time.

Ah, well. I didn't know that. I'll have to take your word on the lack of British troops. I assumed (yeah, I know, I shouldn't) that a UN mission was likely to have a British contingent of some size.
Thanks.

No. Argentina took control over the Falkland Islands so we declared war on them.
Ok, so even though they invaded our land and annexed it, you count it as a war that we started? Um... right. :headbang:

Thank you.
You're most welcome.

I didn't infer that, I was just struggling to understand it. If your point is "We would still be able to trade without a military." then fine, I agree. I've never disputed this and don't see what relevence it has, if it has anyway.
I'm sure it was relevant at the time, but it's got to the point where I can't be arsed going back to have a look.

Actually Italy is also a notable example example. But in any case, that's why I said democracy was imposed by foreign invasion or through internal strife. *mutters about reading comprehension*

Germany, Japan and Italy say no.
Hence my use of the word 'generally'.

"Our allies" is still wrong. They said they can launch a missile, in general. It was also probably true. Scuds don't take 45 minutes to launch, and Iraq has them.
I can't remember what the original point was. And it's got to the point where I can't be arsed going back to have a look.

Yes, generally only nationals of a country are allow to vote in its elections. That's why we can't vote in their elections, and Russians can't vote in either of our elections. The Palestinians don't live in Israel (most of them don't anyway) and they have their own elections (that have been pretty widely publicised recently).
I don't want to find it right now, but I will find a link at some point to the Guardian's report on the abuses of the civil rights of the Palestinians living in Israel.

And Kuwait. That Iraq invaded in 1991.
Kuwait makes up a tiny part of our oil supply, because it is a tiny country. Saudi Arabia makes up a larger part of our oil supply, because it is a larger country.

Ok... that's not what you said. It's also not what I said. I said we should increase the defence budget, not spend more money "on warfare". Either way, you are both wrong.
Yeah, but increases in the defence budget lead to the probability of war increasing. Inalienable fact.

Turn on the news some time.
So I can hear nasty things about Iran? That doesn't prove your case. It's one example.

Ok, so even though they invaded our land and annexed it, you count it as a war that we started? Um... right. :headbang:
My original post never said 'wars we started' it said (do I have to find it?) "When was the last time anyone declared war on us before we declared war on them?"
Yeah, I'm getting you on a technicality here. The actual answer is 1914.

I'm sure it was relevant at the time, but it's got to the point where I can't be arsed going back to have a look.
I don't think it was at all, but whatever

Hence my use of the word 'generally'.
The thing I'm struggling to understand is why you said that at all. Clearly both have happened in the past, and that is what I have said. Why argue with that? It doesn't really matter though I suppose.


I can't remember what the original point was. And it's got to the point where I can't be arsed going back to have a look.
In all honesty, neither can I.

I don't want to find it right now, but I will find a link at some point to the Guardian's report on the abuses of the civil rights of the Palestinians living in Israel.
Civil rights abuses doesn't stop you being a liberal democracy, especially when they are committed against foreigners. I'm not saying I support them, but it doesn't stop Israel from being a liberal democracy.

Kuwait makes up a tiny part of our oil supply, because it is a tiny country. Saudi Arabia makes up a larger part of our oil supply, because it is a larger country.
Australia is a huge country and it makes up no part of our oil supply. Attacks on Kuwait (or, indeed, Saudia, which Saddam was perfectly capable of doing) would send oil prices soaring.

Yeah, but increases in the defence budget lead to the probability of war increasing. Inalienable fact.
Inalienable crap. I fail to see the causal link between an increase in the defence budget and an increase in wars. Britain doesn't start wars just because it has some money to burn. :rolleyes:

So I can hear nasty things about Iran? That doesn't prove your case. It's one example.
Every example. Iran, Afghanistan, the Spanish Inquisition, Etc. Theocracies are, by necessity, repressive and undemocratic.

My original post never said 'wars we started' it said (do I have to find it?) "When was the last time anyone declared war on us before we declared war on them?"
Yeah, I'm getting you on a technicality here. The actual answer is 1914.
No, we declared war in 1914 as well, because of the German attack on Belgium and that doesn't count, because otherwise the answer would have been 1991. We didn't declare war first in the Boer War either, or the Crimean War. The actual answer is the Napoleonic Wars, somewhere in the early 19th or late 18th century. You haven't "got me on a technicality", you've skewed a relevent point into an irrelevent and stupid one.

I don't think it was at all, but whatever

I think it might be "that could hit our army bases in the surrounding area in 45minutes"

The thing I'm struggling to understand is why you said that at all. Clearly both have happened in the past, and that is what I have said. Why argue with that? It doesn't really matter though I suppose.

The past reflects heavily on the future.

Civil rights abuses doesn't stop you being a liberal democracy, especially when they are committed against foreigners. I'm not saying I support them, but it doesn't stop Israel from being a liberal democracy.

It's not especially liberal, it's practically under martial law. But it is a democracy, that's true.

Australia is a huge country and it makes up no part of our oil supply. Attacks on Kuwait (or, indeed, Saudia, which Saddam was perfectly capable of doing) would send oil prices soaring.

Your point about Australia is utterly irrelevant. I V Stalin was talking about countries with oil in them. And an attack on Kuwait wouldn't send prices soaring. They'd just be a bit higher. An attack on Chad, Nigeria and Khazakstan at the same time would send oil prices soaring.

Inalienable crap. I fail to see the causal link between an increase in the defence budget and an increase in wars. Britain doesn't start wars just because it has some money to burn. :rolleyes:

The more ammunition and the better the weapons the soldiers over in Afghanistan and Iraq have, the easier it will be for them to kill "insurgents" or whatever. And if they can, they will. Hence there will be more loss of life. Not British lives, granted, but every human being is equal, at least in my eyes.

Every example. Iran, Afghanistan, the Spanish Inquisition, Etc. Theocracies are, by necessity, repressive and undemocratic.

The Spanish Inquisition is not a country. Spain at that time was not especially repressive.

No, we declared war in 1914 as well, because of the German attack on Belgium and that doesn't count, because otherwise the answer would have been 1991. We didn't declare war first in the Boer War either, or the Crimean War. The actual answer is the Napoleonic Wars, somewhere in the early 19th or late 18th century. You haven't "got me on a technicality", you've skewed a relevent point into an irrelevent and stupid one.

Praetonia is actually correct here. We declared war on the Germans, they declared war on France, Belgium and Russia, rather than the Triple Entente as a whole, and hence we weren't included.

I think it might be "that could hit our army bases in the surrounding area in 45minutes"
No, it wasn't, but whatever.

The past reflects heavily on the future.
wtf? *takes deep breaths* Again, I'm struggling to see the relevence of this comment.

It's not especially liberal, it's practically under martial law. But it is a democracy, that's true.
Israel isn't under martial law.

Your point about Australia is utterly irrelevant. I V Stalin was talking about countries with oil in them.
Yes, it is. I was being snide.

And an attack on Kuwait wouldn't send prices soaring. They'd just be a bit higher. An attack on Chad, Nigeria and Khazakstan at the same time would send oil prices soaring.
It would, in the short term, mostly through fear of escalation. OPEC is somewhat oppurtunistic, you see.

The more ammunition and the better the weapons the soldiers over in Afghanistan and Iraq have, the easier it will be for them to kill "insurgents" or whatever. And if they can, they will. Hence there will be more loss of life. Not British lives, granted, but every human being is equal, at least in my eyes.
This is a different point. You aren't saying that increased spending will result in more wars, but that it will allow Britain to do better in current wars with fewer casualties. That is why I want it to be increased. Personally, I have no qualms about saving British troops from being killed by terrorists and insurgents.

The Spanish Inquisition is not a country.
No, but it is an "example".

Spain at that time was not especially repressive.
Except for the religious persecution, torture and murder. And lack of democratic government. Instead a fuedal government that took its authority from god.