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

[Dolph]

That's the problem, if you are patriotic, you are instantly labeled as racist pretty much.

No, the problem is racists hiding behind patriotism, and claiming their racism is just patriotism, not the other way around.

 

[MaX_PoWah]

im not loving the merging of the topics, it was hard enough keeping up when posts kept getting deleted

 

[robmiller]

Also can you imagine the confusion if all elections were conducted within the same week or even same month, it's hard enough getting people motivated to vote in one election and separating the issues nevermind trying to do three in a short space of time.

But equally it's easier to get them motivated if they only have to go to the polling station once, and then fill in three or four ballot forms.

 

[Delvis]

No, the problem is racists hiding behind patriotism, and claiming their racism is just patriotism, not the other way around.

Can be used the other way also.

People see patriotism and say they are just racist people hiding behind the flag, when they just love their country

 

[semi-pro waster]

But equally it's easier to get them motivated if they only have to go to the polling station once, and then fill in three or four ballot forms.

True enough, it's easier to go for one trip that three but could you adequately differentiate between the various parties and their position in the hierarchies of local/national/supranational levels? Even if you could do you think that most of the voting public would be able to and not get confused to a certain degree without quite specific instructions?

 

[Delvis]

True enough, it's easier to go for one trip that three but could you adequately differentiate between the various parties and their position in the hierarchies of local/national/supranational levels? Even if you could do you think that most of the voting public would be able to and not get confused to a certain degree without quite specific instructions?

Surely if you're going to vote for one party of a local level, you would want the same party at a national level?

 

[deuse]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Thats racist
Its Pot. Kettle. Ethnic

 

[semi-pro waster]

Surely if you're going to vote for one party of a local level, you would want the same party at a national level?

Doesn't necessarily follow, the example I gave you above is one possible reason but it works with almost any party, they might be good on a local level but if you're aware that the national level is composed of people who give imbeciles a bad name then quite reasonably you'd vote for someone else. Similarly for national - supranational level, I might think that the Lib Dems would work well in government but wouldn't be as effective for my concerns at an EU level as the Green party or whoever.

 

[Spektor]

Can be used the other way also.

People see patriotism and say they are just racist people hiding behind the flag, when they just love their country

Well since Patriotism is to love ones country and devote yourself to what it stands for... and everything the BNP believes in flies in the face of what being British stands for in the modern world, then they clearly aren't patriots and can never be aslong as they hold those views. They're backward nationalists.

 

[Dolph]

As former "parasite" should your care be less until we can fully make babies in tubes?

When you can get a fetus to survive without being linked to the mother, this will become a better option in some cases than abortion, well except the child will still need to be cared for. until then, the right of the woman to detach an unwanted growth wins out, it doesn't matter what it may grow in to

 

[robmiller]

Surely if you're going to vote for one party of a local level, you would want the same party at a national level?

No, not at all. Until recently in my area, for example, the Lib Dems fairly consistently took the borough council because of their past good performance, but we've had a Tory MP for as long as the constituency has existed (the same MP, unfortunately).

 

[robmiller]

When you can get a fetus to survive without being linked to the mother, this will become a better option in some cases than abortion, well except the child will still need to be cared for. until then, the right of the woman to detach an unwanted growth wins out, it doesn't matter what it may grow in to

I have never agreed with you more

 

[MotherMayI]

Hello everyone,

Im sure by now most of you have read my other thread "Who are you voting for on Thursday?" I posted this thread originally as I find politics fascinating and in todays current political climate I wanted to get a real sense of how people on these forums felt and as the title suggests wanted to know who people where actually going to vote for.

Now, none of you know who I am in the real world, and ive never had a problem with anyone on these forums up until I stated id voted BNP and tried to explain my reasons as to why. It seems despite me trying to explain my opinions in an intelligent and clear mannor ive been met with hostility.

Lets get this straight I am a Nationalist, I love the United Kingdom, I dont think there is a finer country. This does not mean that I hate people based on Race or Religious background and I can not stress this point enough. There are an awful lot of things in this country that I do hate, most of which im sure the vast majority of you despise aswell.

I loathe the fact that an un elected prime minister refuses to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which goes directly against our own National Constitution. I loathe the fact that those who have been elected to represent us have no interest in our opinions and are purely motivated by greed, take the expenses scandal. I hate the fact that the government had determined that despite historically and currently fighting for our country the Gurkhas etc and there family's who retired before a certain point where refused the right to live here until recentley when there is essentially unlimited immigration. I hate the fact that we pay out roughly forty million a day to the European Union and receive practically no benefits for this, money which would be far better spent in my opinion on things such as Schools, Hospitals and other very important infastructures. I cant stand the abuse of our welfare system by scroungers of any description, meaning both our native scroungers who are of this Ancestral home and immigrant scroungers from any part of the globe.

In my opinion the British National Party are the only party that have good strong policies. I dont agree with them all ofcourse but feel a lot of it does make good sense, a good solid plan to repatriate illeagal immigrants with a financial insentive for example. This does not make me a Racist, A white Supremicist, a Nazi, Facist, Jew Hater or Holocaust denier. I am none of these things though I understand there ofcourse are unsavoury characters associated with the BNP.

I enjoy being a member of this community and can only hope that despite the fact my political views differ from the majority that we can all agree to disagree and get along as normal. I for one would never jump to conclusions about someone just because of there political views.

You do realise, your forum name makes me, and no probably others, doubt every single decent word you say in relation to politics/race/nationalism?

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Gah, bloody blacks. Don't you just hate them?!

 

[Sankari]

and most of those people were not doing productive jobs, hence why our economy was completely *******.

The simple fact that when we stopped employing people for non-jobs the economy boomed shows this.

Now we have Labour who have shoved several million non-jobs into the civil service (as they didn't have nationalised industry to put them in) and have to go through the whole process again, as our national borrowing and predicted borrowing clearly demonstrates.

'Employing' people in non-productive tasks at the taxpayer's expense isn't employment, it's economic suicide, and it's one of Labour's core policies.

You make this claim a lot, but I've never seen you substantiate it. Can you tell me more about these "millions of non-jobs" created by Labour? What is a "non-job", exactly? Are people being paid to do nothing? What details, statistical evidence and hard data do you have for all of this? When you say that Labour creates "non-jobs at the expense of the public", what does this mean exactly? Do you mean the public pays for them because they're government employed? Are you saying that you prefer fewer jobs and more unemployment (and consequently more people on benefits)?

Please give me 20 different examples of "non-jobs" created by Labour. With "millions of non-jobs" to choose from, it shouldn't be difficult.

Thanks.

 

[Doohickey]

Being a racist is not illegal or have I missed something

Oh thank goodness. You are correct- you are not doing anything illegal by being a racist.

The NHS isn't a 'business' and indeed if there were patients who chose to go private instead, it actually helps the NHS because the more 'customers' the NHS has, the worse it does financially!

The NHS is the probably the largest 'business' in the United Kingdom.

 

[Burnsy2023]

im not loving the merging of the topics, it was hard enough keeping up when posts kept getting deleted

OcUK doesn't need more than one topic of BNP crap.

 

[Delvis]

Yet they where different subjects.

Nevermind.

 

[Dolph]

You make this claim a lot, but I've never seen you substantiate it. Can you tell me more about these "millions of non-jobs" created by Labour? What is a "non-job", exactly? Are people being paid to do nothing? What details, statistical evidence and hard data do you have for all of this? When you say that Labour creates "non-jobs at the expense of the public", what does this mean exactly? Do you mean the public pays for them because they're government employed? Are you saying that you prefer fewer jobs and more unemployment (and consequently more people on benefits)?

We can start here.

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto112320081848123861&referrer_id=yahoofinance

Which shows the huge expansion of the public sector under Labour.

We can then use the lack of improvement in most areas of the public sector (about the only area where there has been improvement is the NHS, but even that is debatable and not being delivered efficiently) to determine that the extra employees are not productive.

As for them being on the dole vs employed by the taxpayer, the dole is cheaper for the taxpayer, so yes, I'd prefer them to be on the dole than in a subsidised but largely irrelevant role at a higher cost.

Please give me 20 different examples of "non-jobs" created by Labour. With "millions of non-jobs" to choose from, it shouldn't be difficult.

I would go one better, let's have a look at the lists of agencies and groups that make up the 'civil service' (never mind the public sector) and evaluate the new ones.

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/jobs/Departments-NDPBs-AtoL/A-to-L.aspx

First one on the list, 11 million.

11 MILLION is a national organisation led by the Children’s Commissioner for England, Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green. The Children’s Commissioner is a position created by the Children Act 2004.

What do we do?
We have a statutory role to promote the views and interests of children and young people across England. This gives us a unique role in bringing children’s ideas into the centre of the decision-making process.

Pointless and irrelevant, a jobs club.

Next under scrutiny, the 'commission for rural communities'

The Commission for Rural Communities was established on 1 April 2005 as an operating division of the Countryside Agency, as a voice for rural people. It will provide well-informed, independent advice to government and others, and ensure that policies reflect the real needs of those who live and work in rural England, especially the disadvantaged. The Commission’s three functions are Rural Advocate, Expert Adviser and Independent Watchdog.

Another jobs club that should not be a government agency

Communities scotland?

The establishment of Communities Scotland as an executive Agency on November 1, 2001 was a major step in the Scottish Executive's modernisation of housing and regeneration

Another waste of time quango.

Regional development bodies, such as the east midlands development agency (there are 9 of these)?

What is the EMDA?
East Midlands Development Agency is a Government funded body. It is one of nine English Regional Development Agencies set up by Government in April 1999 to bring economic decision making to the regions. Our business-led Board works as a team for the benefit of the region as a whole. Our work is wide ranging and includes:
• Furthering economic development and regeneration
• Promoting business efficiency, investment and competitiveness
• Promoting employment
• Enhancing development and the application of skills for business
• Contributing to the achievement of sustainable development

Another waste of time, taxpayers money should not be going to form what are basically pressure groups for areas.

The food standards agency? I'm yet to be convinced of their real value.

Identities and passport service? A massive expansion of the previous passport office in preparation for ID cards and biometrics.

That's the A-L page just for a start, do you want me to continue on to the other second page? I haven't even looked at the expansions of existing departments, or the failure to close pointless quangos from previous administrations yet, all the departments highlighted above have been created by Labour.

All these people are being employed through taxation, they aren't producing direct benefits, otherwise their work could be funded without using the money that people have no choice but to hand over, they are pointless jobs.

 

[chuck990]

yay BNP have their first two seats