A poll about the BNP

Previous
Next
of 58 messages

Please also discuss

Attached poll: Who lost the most from the appearance of the BNP's Nick Griffin on Question Time?

Nick Griffin and/or the BNP
8 votes
   
The BBC
0 votes
 
The other political parties
4 votes
   
The audience
0 votes
 
Free Speech
1 votes
   
The British public
0 votes
 
Common Sense
0 votes
 
The white population
1 votes
   
The non-white population
0 votes
 
Everybody
3 votes
   

Total: 17 votes. Poll closed at 18:03 on Friday, 20 November 2009.

Christopher England <(Address removed)> said:

Please also discuss

Not that you need much to laugh at Griffin, this is worth a look! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk

glow worm 558 <(Address removed)> said:

Not that you need much to laugh at Griffin, this is worth a look!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk

I love Cassetteboy's work, although his crowning glory just has to be the 'Bloody Apprentice'. After watch Mr Griffin, I slipped down to the 'Bloody Apprentice' once more and found myself chuckling all over again.

glow worm 558 <(Address removed)> said:

laugh at Griffin, this is worth a look!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk

"This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions."

Huh!

I think that it was very clear from Question Time that Nick Griffen was holding back in giving-up his anti-Semitic behaviour of the past.

He could quite simply have said that he had said and done some silly things when he was young and he had now come to recognise the error of his ways.

Instead he was defensive.

The problem, I imagine, is that as much as he may want to distance himself from those views for reasons of electoral ambition, he still need to work with people who really do want to carry the Nazi banner.

The BBC has clearly staged managed the programme and Griffen dealt with it very badly.

My view is that the BNP will get a little more support from disaffected whites for now, but the BNP will not gain too much support in the long run.

It is not necessary to scratch very deeply into the paintwork to see the anti-Semitic layer:

--- fund raising trip to Libya

--- holocaust denial (continued)

--- conspiracy theories (mentioned)

--- talk of money lenders (mentioned)

--- talk of indigenous people from the ice age (pain daft)

From: "Sterling Times" <2@slewis.biz>


I think that it was very clear from Question Time that Nick Griffen was
holding back in giving-up his anti-Semitic behaviour of the past.

He could quite simply have said that he had said and done some silly
things when he was young and he had now come to recognise the error of
his ways.

Instead he was defensive.

The problem, I imagine, is that as much as he may want to distance
himself from those views for reasons of electoral ambition, he still
need to work with people who really do want to carry the Nazi banner.

The BBC has clearly staged managed the programme and Griffen dealt with
it very badly.

My view is that the BNP will get a little more support from disaffected
whites for now, but the BNP will not gain too much support in the long
run.

It is not necessary to scratch very deeply into the paintwork to see the
anti-Semitic layer:

--- fund raising trip to Libya

--- holocaust denial (continued)

--- conspiracy theories (mentioned)

--- talk of money lenders (mentioned)

--- talk of indigenous people from the ice age (pain daft)

I think at the moment support for the BNP is around 3%, due to the publicity I can see it rising to 5% short term, before dipping back to it's current level. The only way support for the BNP will drastically drop is if the mainstream parties stop fudging the issues of immigration like Jack Straw did on the programme. Having genuine concerns about immigration IS NOT BEING RACIST. I worry about immigration, my main concern is for economic reasons.

Steve Martin <(Address removed)> said:

I think at the moment support for the BNP is around 3%, due to the publicity
I can see it rising to 5% short term, before dipping back to it's current
level. The only way support for the BNP will drastically drop is if the
mainstream parties stop fudging the issues of immigration like Jack Straw
did on the programme. Having genuine concerns about immigration IS NOT BEING
RACIST. I worry about immigration, my main concern is for economic reasons.

I'm glad that somebody has made this point. I think that immigration is the single most popular reason why people might consider supporting the BNP. As steve says , being concerned about immigration is not being racist. Many of the social and infrastructural problems that the UK faces today and in the future are due to one fundamental factor. The UK is simply getting overcrowded ! There is nothing nasty and racist about this, it's just common sense. Over streatched hospitals and congested roads and public transport to name but two but no mainstream party has got the courage to stand up and state the obvious. I don't believe for a moment that many people at all support many of the BNP's other views.

I agree that immigration is a major problem, but exploitation by the BNP's seeking both class division and race division is not an acceptable solution.

The whole problem with immigration is the provision of social security handouts along side immigration.

This Government has the worst possible approach in its failed border management coupled with financial incentivisation for immigration.

Sterling Times <2@slewis.biz> said:

I agree that immigration is a major problem, but exploitation by the BNP's seeking both class division and race division is not an acceptable solution.

The whole problem with immigration is the provision of social security handouts along side immigration.

This Government has the worst possible approach in its failed border management coupled with financial incentivisation for immigration.

I agree with the separation of racism from the genuine problem of an overcrowded island.

I'm not about the political point being made here, though. I thought that the present government had attempted to install a sort of selection system aking to the Australian one, in which those wishing to obtain a work permit had to score a certain number of points. I presume from what you are saying that this system doesn't work, or that there must be loads of people moving into the UK with no intention of working.

But - serious question - can you tell me what the Labour government has done that has actually made the situation pre-1997 worse? I thought that the number of asylum applications was well down, etc., etc.

Oh, for an edit facility ...

I should have said that I am not SURE about the political stuff ...

... And I was wondering about a selection system AKIN to the Australian one.

Sorry for the errors. Must make better use of the Preview button.

It's very clear for all to see that the UK is the country of choice for anyone from the countries surrounding the EU nations that are desperate to start a new life. Many of these people pass through France and Germany and other western european countries with no doubt of where they are heading - few other options are considered. Clearly they have a lot more to gain from our society than they would elsewhere and yet the government insist that they are of financial benefit , not burden. I know from having worked with many migrant workers from eastern Europe that many of them work long hours and for relatively low pay and yet still find their life is better than in their own countries.The fact that these migrants are taking jobs in large numbers in the UK also gives fuel to the BNP which they try to convert into resentment and racial hatred against these people in these times of high unemployment. The fact that many of the jobs have proved almost impossible to fill from the local workforce does little to counteract the BNP's arguments against these people.

Sterling Times <2@slewis.biz> said:

I think that it was very clear from Question Time that Nick Griffen was
holding back in giving-up his anti-Semitic behaviour of the past.

What exactly was his 'behaviour'? Did it manifest itself physically or was it just how he felt and so expressed in public?

I've always been confused as to why exactly it is wrong to hate people based on whatever you decide to hate them on. I can't see a problem with that. I can see a problem with treating them differently because of that hatred. However, I would like to retain the right to hate or love who or what I want rather than have legislation telling me how I should think or that I should feel guilty for my feelings.

Christopher England <(Address removed)> said:

What exactly was his 'behaviour'? Did it manifest itself physically or
was it just how he felt and so expressed in public?

His behaviour, as far as i perceived it was remarkably reserved and that was what upset a lot of people. It was clear that he was making sure he did not say anything too radical to appeal to a wider audience. He also made it clear that he was distancing himself from many of the comments and speeches he is in recordings of having made in the past , in some cases he denied ever having said such things even though the clips are still on You tube. So in short ,he used this first mainstream TV oppertunity to present himself as a moderate right wing political figure even though he is on record as being an extreme racist with Nazi tendencies.

Christopher England <(Address removed)> said:

I would like to retain the right to hate or love who or what I want rather than have legislation telling me how I should think or that I should feel guilty for my feelings.

So would you like to be able to refuse employment on your shiny new offshore station to any jock who is black/Jewish/lesbian/left-handed/bald/impotent/menstruating ... ?

I think that we can be persuaded and cajoled about how we must feel (pretty, skippy little lamb; nasty evil rat), but in the end, no-one can stop us having certain feelings. (Well, not without that cattle prod!) If you feel "guilty" about them, perhaps that's because you know they're wrong???

Simon Crees <(Address removed)> said:

in short ,he used this first mainstream TV oppertunity to present himself as a moderate right wing political figure even though he is on record as being an extreme racist with Nazi tendencies.

And now he is presenting himself as a victim of bullying.

He should try going on anorak sites!!

Steve Martin <(Address removed)> said:

Having genuine concerns about immigration IS NOT BEING
RACIST. I worry about immigration, my main concern is for economic reasons.

I think we should also be allowed to have concerns for non-economic reasons. When I first moved to East London in the 1980s the area was predominantly "white" and "English" (even though we are not allowed to call ourselves "English" without people dissecting our heritage), with about 30% black, usually ex-Caribbean, and about 10% of "Asian" origin (covering a whole range from Bangladesh through India through Pakistan). The whites were the majority with decades of local heritage.

By the end of 20 years the "English" whites were in a very tiny minority in the area in which I lived. There were Eastern European whites, plus a complete muddle of dozens and dozens of ethnic groups, all commonly Muslim, but from an increasingly wide range of places.

The place was a complete mess. Nobody could speak the same language. English became a minority language, with most people only able to utter broken half-sentences in order to communicate across from one culture to another. I always found it fascinating to be on a bus and hear 10 or 15 different languages being spoken, none of them English. Or how about looking at the dozens of small advert cards in the windows of the local newsagents and realising that none are in English, but various Eastern European or Asian languages.

Multi-culturalism is a great idea in theory. In practice it can't and doesn't work. You end up with what was once a single geographical and cultural community being a geographical area with hundreds of parallel communities all having nothing to do with each other, getting in each other's ways and at best just about tolerating each other, at worst fighting and killing each other. Indeed, the area where I lived became the major hotspot for bomb factories and suicide bomber recruitment, such was the disdain felt about the 'community' of that part of East London.

Despite all the lovely Disney cartoon world representation of different animals all living happily side by side in the jungle, they actually don't. The different species are interrelated in each other's food chains, fight, or ignore each other. Exactly the same thing happens when you rapidly fill a geographical area with different races of humans. They occupy the same space but they are certainly not living together.

Nobody from the community with its heritage deeply rooted in the area was asked if they wanted such a fast injection of dozens of radically different cultures into East London. Nobody would have objected if it had been a slow and gradual reasonable and fair process rather than what can easily be perceived by the more frustrated as a form of genocide. Nobody asks if the original community are ok. Everybody is fussing over the newcomers, giving them houses, furniture, tax breaks if they run a local business (and are not white), and re-writing street signs in a myriad of non-English languages. When an English white puts their hand up to ask "What about me?" they are instantly condemned as racist.

Until people are treated equally, the BNP is going to keep on winning the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised. If this is part of the process of waking up the snoozing classes to how they are feeling, then so be it.

Paul Kendall <(Address removed)> said:

Christopher England <(Address removed)> said:

I would like to retain the right to hate or love who or what I want
rather than have legislation telling me how I should think or that I
should feel guilty for my feelings.

So would you like to be able to refuse employment on your shiny new
offshore station to any jock who is
black/Jewish/lesbian/left-handed/bald/impotent/menstruating ... ?

I covered that with my sentence that said, "I can see a problem with treating them differently because of that hatred." I'd add, "or treating them differently because of my love for them."

I would reserve the right to refuse employment on my shiny new offshore station (How did you know I had one on the horizon?) based on the person not being good enough. As an employer, I do employ a lot of people I wouldn't pick as friends or acquaintances, maybe even people I personally find really annoying (maybe actual hatred is not a point I really reach with them) and in one case creepy and scary, but I employ them because they are brilliant at their job. As it happens, currently I also employ a lot of Polish chaps. Each one is hired on their own merit, not because they are Polish, not because they are cheap (they get no lower payment than anybody else), but generally they just happen to outperform other races during their interview.

What would be wrong is if I was forced, as are local government and educational institutions, to employ a 'quota' of <whatever> people in order to reach somebody's idea of the correct ethnic / disability /sexual orientation mix for my company. In other words, to discriminate against those who were best for the job in order to hire those with the right coloured skin. That's pretty disgusting.


If you feel "guilty" about them, perhaps that's because you know they're
wrong???

I don't feel guilty about hating (or loving) people. My point is that I don't want people telling me I should feel guilty for hating (or loving) them. All I'm doing is just being natural and normal and honest. Being natural and normal is to love, hate or feel indifferent to those around us on an ad hoc basis!

Paul Kendall <(Address removed)> said:

And now he is presenting himself as a victim of bullying.

I dunno if it classed as bullying, but he did get a good verbal kicking! And he was on his own with 100 audience and 5 panellists all hating his guts.

He should try going on anorak sites!!

Yeah, come on, you know stuff; Why's it all gone quiet on the blogging front, eh? It's like being left with a cliffhanger at the end of, er, EastEnders. Have papers been served, premises searched, computers seized, skeletons unearthed, families destroyed, bridges been jumped off? All the bully and counter bully blogs have gone silent and there's far less 'noise' on Garry's board too. Was there an explosion with anorak entrails splashed everywhere? Or is everybody hiding whilst the time-bomb ticks the hours away until "All is revealed"?

I think we should be told.

Christopher England <(Address removed)> said:

Yeah, come on, you know stuff; Why's it all gone quiet on the blogging front, eh? It's like being left with a cliffhanger at the end of, er, EastEnders. Have papers been served, premises searched, computers seized, skeletons unearthed, families destroyed, bridges been jumped off? All the bully and counter bully blogs have gone silent and there's far less 'noise' on Garry's board too. Was there an explosion with anorak entrails splashed everywhere? Or is everybody hiding whilst the time-bomb ticks the hours away until "All is revealed"?

I think we should be told.

Well, I'm flattered that you think I know stuff. What kind of stuff would that be then, eh?

As for the rest of the whole, sad, sorry anorak scene, well ... Oh. I just said it. It's sad and sorry. And pretty damn boring.