The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.

Dolph said:
why should people be free from consequences for their active associations? remember we are talking about people who have gone to the level of actively becoming a party member.
Click to expand...

Why should someone be sacked from their job for joining a lawful political party, if they are performing their job correctly and not allowing any bias they MAY have to actually manifest itself in their work?

If we bar anyone who has any personal biases from jobs then the workplaces would be empty. Judge people's performance at work on what they do and not what they think.

You are a strange liberal or libertarian who thinks people should be persecuted and victimised for their legitimate and lawful political beliefs.
 
Last edited:
dirtydog said:
That might be okay (albeit they allow membership of the NBPA) but didn't Von say that even if you aren't a member of the BNP and you aren't an activist, admitting you sympathise with or vote for them is forbidden too?
Click to expand...

I would imagine it would depend on whether your expression of support was a breach of stated policy or not (same applies in most companies. Saying you're voting BNP to get rid of all the <insert racial epiphet here> will put you at risk of disciplinary action just about anywhere if it's reported), but the recruiting guidelines don't mention it.

http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/eligibility_requirements.html

We also have a policy of prohibiting any of our officers, staff and volunteers from becoming members of the BNP or similar organisations whose aims or pronouncements may contradict the duty to promote race equality.
Click to expand...

There are lots of restrictions as to who can and cannot join the police force though, so I'm not sure why the major concern on this one.
 
Should we ban Muslims from working, or indeed from entering the country just in case they blow up a tube train or a bus full of commuters? What's the difference?
 
dirtydog said:
Why should someone be sacked from their job for joining a lawful political party, if they are performing their job correctly and not allowing any bias they MAY have to actually manifest itself in their work?

If we bar anyone who has any personal biases from jobs then the workplaces would be empty. Judge people's performance at work on what they do and not what they think.
Click to expand...

How can we test for any bias though? How can we be 100% sure that these people, being paid by the taxpayer to work for the taxpayer, will not allow their sympathy for a racist party's policies affect how they treat the people they're helping? We can't.

However, I would have thought it was fairly obvious that if someone votes for and becomes a member of a racist party, then they too hold those racist views. Otherwise why would they support them? It's a big issue, it's not something you can single out. You either support all of the BNPs values or your don't. And if you do, I think it's safe to say you have those values too.

We can't allow members of the BNP to be in a position where their political views COULD harm their work, could upset patients, etc etc. We can't take that chance.
 
dirtydog said:
Why should someone be sacked from their job for joining a lawful political party, if they are performing their job correctly and not allowing any bias they MAY have to actually manifest itself in their work?
Click to expand...

Because the membership conflicts with the company or organisations expectations of their employees and the image they would like to present?

Having a job is not a right, it's a contract exchanging time for benefits which usually comes with a load of restrictions on the behaviour of both parties as part and parcel of the agreement.

If we bar anyone who has any personal biases from jobs then the workplaces would be empty. Judge people's performance at work on what they do and not what they think.
Click to expand...

It's not about any personal biases, it's about specific personal biases and how they reflect on the company. If your personal bias means you cost the company more than your work produces due to negative image, then yes, it's absolutely correct to not employ you any more. Your effect on the brand image is part of your personal performance.
 
dirtydog said:
Should we ban Muslims from working, or indeed from entering the country just in case they blow up a tube train or a bus full of commuters? What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Because Islam doesn't condone terrorism. Terrorists condone terrorism, whether they be muslim, christian, hindu, whatever.

The BNP does condone racism, and by extension, so do all it's members.
 
Captain_Slick said:
I hope to God that you're never trusted with any aspect of my care, Spannerton.
Click to expand...

Why?

Im better than ANY immigrant.

Also in relation to the point above about where the BRITISH docs and nurses are...well I can tell you that the immigrants take a lot of their training places, as the Unis favour the immigrants because they get more money from them.

We need to stop Muslim police with immediate effect, we need to halt any additional immigrant recruitment within the NHS and have a proper drive for UK quality staff.

More immigrant Docs get struck off than anyone else.

Its always an indian or ****-stani that is involved in some groping case etc, like recently with the doc touching the womans bum and asking sexual questions.

http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news...oping-nurses--newsinkent22448.aspx?news=local

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7962500.stm

http://www.managementinpractice.com...fover"inappropriate"touching&article.id=16678

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/39Walter-Mitty39-doctor-struck-off.1793483.jp

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...r-offering-live-kidney-transplant-641497.html

The above is just a small selection of whats going on.

Anyone who thinks immigrant doctors are better than ours needs medical attention (from a BRITISH person)
 
Captain_Slick said:
How can we test for any bias though? How can we be 100% sure that these people, being paid by the taxpayer to work for the taxpayer, will not allow their sympathy for a racist party's policies affect how they treat the people they're helping? We can't.

However, I would have thought it was fairly obvious that if someone votes for and becomes a member of a racist party, then they too hold those racist views. Otherwise why would they support them? It's a big issue, it's not something you can single out. You either support all of the BNPs values or your don't. And if you do, I think it's safe to say you have those values too.

We can't allow members of the BNP to be in a position where their political views COULD harm their work, could upset patients, etc etc. We can't take that chance.
Click to expand...

How can we be sure a Muslim won't strap on a suicide vest? They COULD therefore we shouldn't let them enter the country. You agree, right? If not, why not?

And no, being a member of a party or voting for them doesn't mean you support ALL their policies. I expect few people endorse every single policy of a party they support, whatever that party may be.
 
robmiller said:
That doesn't make sense :confused: The point of positive discrimination is that it is controlled, temporary, and has positive consequences before ultimately making itself redundant. You want to retain an uncontrolled, permanent, negative discrimination because for some stupid reason you think that all discrimination is bad.
Click to expand...

It is less of a positive thing though if you are the person that is negatively effected by "positive discrimination". While white males as a whole are indeed in a more priviliged position it is individuals that are being discriminated against and individuals that will suffer because of it.


Dolph said:
why should people be free from consequences for their active associations? remember we are talking about people who have gone to the level of actively becoming a party member.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it is a very limited group that are being punished for their active associations. It is not something that is done generally. If you are going to ban members of a legal political party then you should ban members of all legal political parties as all of them could have bias. If you are going to ban members of one organisation that practices discrimination then you should ban members of all organisations that practice discrimination.
 
I refer you to my last post, dirtydog.

Muslims are not terrorists. Terrorists are terrorists. They can christian, muslim, hindu or athiest.

I COULD strap on a suicide vest. Anyone could.

If a muslim comes to this country and is a member of Al Qaeda, THEN they shouldn't be allowed to enter the country.

They may not support all of the BNPs policies personally, but by supporting just one of them, they are supporting all of them. It's an automatic and fair assumption.
 
Martins said:
Because freedom of association is protected by the EU Convention of Human Rights?
Click to expand...

Indeed.

It is coming to something when you can be sacked and victimised for joining a party - the only party in this country - which represents your own people and their interests. As Nick Griffin has said, every other group of people has organisations which stick up for their interests. But white British? It's not allowed, join them or maybe even dare admit you vote for them and face the sack.
 
Captain_Slick said:
I refer you to my last post, dirtydog.

Muslims are not terrorists. Terrorists are terrorists. They can christian, muslim, hindu or athiest.

I COULD strap on a suicide vest. Anyone could.

If a muslim comes to this country and is a member of Al Qaeda, THEN they shouldn't be allowed to enter the country.

They may not support all of the BNPs policies personally, but by supporting just one of them, they are supporting all of them. It's an automatic and fair assumption.
Click to expand...

But a member of the Labour party or the Tory party COULD be racist. A Catholic nurse COULD sexually abuse a patient. Lots of people COULD do anything. We can't ban them all from working in the NHS just in case they do something bad :rolleyes:
 
dirtydog said:
But a member of the Labour party or the Tory party COULD be racist. A Catholic nurse COULD sexually abuse a patient. Lots of people COULD do anything. We can't ban them all from working in the NHS just in case they do something bad :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Labour and the Tory party don't condone racism though. Catholicsm doesn't condone sexual abuse.

The BNP does condone racism. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
 
Dolph said:
Termination of employment is not prevention of freedom of association, just as it's not prevention of freedom of speech.

Freedom of association or speech is not freedom from consquences of those actions.
Click to expand...
So why should religious views have greater protection than political ones in employment law?

Why am I not allowed to specifically say "Wanted: Secretary, No Muslims" but it seems to be ok to say "Wanted: Nurse, no BNP Members"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom