They took 6.2% of the national vote, more than that in some constituencies, and are trending upwards. It's something that has worrying implications and that needs to be talked about.
The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.
- Thread starter Stolly
- Start date
They took 6.2% of the national vote, more than that in some constituencies, and are trending upwards. It's something that has worrying implications and that needs to be talked about.
You can feel anything you like. That doesn't necessarily mean it's true. It's politically useful for BNP members to play the victim card, but it is just a political tool.
You claim you aren't racist, yet you support a party that exists primarily for the purpose of promoting racism according to your own definition. I'd like you to explain why you are doing that, but it appears you've come here just to make one post in which you contradict yourself.
Given that your post implies a degree of intelligence and education, I conclude that you are a racist and a fascist who knows exactly what they're doing, rather than a useful idiot who supports the BNP without knowing what they really stand for.
That's an insult, but it isn't a ridiculous assumption.
Monster raving loonies for the victory (eff tee double-you is starred :s)
I'm very tempted to stand for them and, when questioned about immigration insist that it's in the interest of the environment and preventing terrorism to stop people going anywhere, and that I plan to make it illegal to leave your house for anything other than a bacon buttie from diggles.
Think about it, if nobody goes anywhere there's no greenhouse gases - and if nobody goes on holiday there's no planes to fly into stuff.
*taps forehead* one step ahead, that's me.
I'm very tempted to stand for them and, when questioned about immigration insist that it's in the interest of the environment and preventing terrorism to stop people going anywhere, and that I plan to make it illegal to leave your house for anything other than a bacon buttie from diggles.
Think about it, if nobody goes anywhere there's no greenhouse gases - and if nobody goes on holiday there's no planes to fly into stuff.
*taps forehead* one step ahead, that's me.
Last edited:
Pretty much like muslims and Islam in this country then, they make up like 2% of the population and want their own laws and everyone to bend to their way of life.
Just another opportunity to speak of the flyer a family member recieved through his letter box from the BNP...
"If there were no Muslims in Britain, there would be no need for CCTV"
I'd bet you'd like to get rid of CCTV as well...
A typically smug and condescending article. Who cares if the BNP's party political broadcast wasn't as slick or professional as that of Labour or the Tories - the BNP doesn't receive the millions from big business and donations that the big parties do. How typical of the Guardian and the leftist media to sneer at the BNP for that, or for using stock photography in its leaflets (OMG that man isn't actually a BNP member, he's an actor oh noes!) rather than recognise the real reasons that people have turned to the BNP.
I thought this was a good reader comment:
Bit too much aesthetic analysis here Charlie - maybe we should just be thankful BNP don't have the dosh to access top PR/Spin/Ad agencies, unlike the Tories - who always manage to disguise what they really are.
I think the (real) point here is your (unspoken) fear that the 'conventional' parties have played into the hands of the BNP. Well they have! to some extent. So why don't you try realistically to address how that happened?
The big thing usually at the top of BNP's agenda is immigration. Well, unfortunately, this is a real issue as far as I'm concerned; of course, for you it's an issue that daren't speak its name 'cos that would - and for most lefty cosmopolitan media types - break some cardinal rule of political correctness. How unfortunate you can't deal with that reality.
'Immigration issues' are not as simple as black & white (sic!) and have many, many facets. The word so often brought into arguments in debate is 'race' and 'racism'. As far as I'm concerned this is a bit facile, because most often it's not race, ie colour difference that causes problems, it's actually 'cultural' and religious differences. Or should I say they are the potential seeds for a serious problem. It ignites when you add: Poverty, Overcrowding, Sky-high house prices/rents, Dumbed-down culture, Media myopia, along with a perceived 'threat to cultural identity'.
Well, those are some of the conditions that have been created here, by politicians implementing policies which I think they really have no idea as to the consequences of.
Logistically, UK's infrastructure is overburdened in almost every way. Just one tiny example. When I was at school, they were always going on about trying to get class limits down to 30. Well... thirty years later, they still haven't done it. So imagine how a teacher is supposed to cope with a big multilingual class and how much time they can devote to each pupil. Another example of culture dictating: when I left my junior school, this was in Yorkshire, I had to go to a boys only school, I never really understood or was told why. Later I found out schools had to be segregated because Muslim parents would not let their girls attend a mixed school. So as a result the whole school population had to be segregated by sex. Culture, not race! If you look at Pakistan at the moment, the 'problems' are not because of race, they are because an extreme subculture, ie the Taliban, grown up within another culture. I think you are smart enough to know how this happened.
The point is, yes we can all live together in 'peace and harmony', but not when shoved together to serve some economic rationale by naive and dangerous politicians who don't have any real insight into human nature.
Finally, re:
"But by referring to "professional politicians", Griffin is presumably suggesting we should elect amateurs instead."
Come on Charlie, most of them are 'amateurs' anyway. What does Alan Johnson know about health matters, he was a Communication Workers rep? What does, etc., etc., go though them all.. I'm not suggesting they should be a bunch of technocrats like the Chinese, but you need some grounding; there's more than policy, there's the mechanics of how things really work. And Gordon Brown's a historian not an economist: "no more boom & bust", sure! Probably the nearest you get to professionalism is Her Majesty, who had a very thorough apprenticship before taking the job
Please start writing something less predictable will you and address the real underlying issues.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,626
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I don't consider myself as being well educated.
I got 3 O levels at school in 1974 and went on to do an Engineering Apprenticeship so I'm very good with my hands.
I'm also very good with the main 4 rock musical instruments + vocals and made quite a bit of money over the years so once again I'm good with my hands (working class).
However, I failed in Further Education (before 2007)and never went to Higher Education.
My point?
I attended MANY BNP meetings and even had two 1:1s with Nick Griffin.
Besides Griffin I was easily the most educated person in a room of about 250 BNP supporters and Griffin also spotted that.
I can say 100% that the main voters are of low intelligence.
Get yourself to a BNP meeting and watch & listen to the people you're voting for and you'll see what I mean.
That article uses the ropey broadcast as a platform to rubbish your backward views in general. Plus, nobody has turned to the BNP, people just turned away from labour which gave you a default increase in share... so yes, how typical of lefties to sneer at racists and their mental views.
Another smug Guardian article which I post in order to post some telling reader comments.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...pean-elections-bnp-gordon-brown?commentpage=1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...pean-elections-bnp-gordon-brown?commentpage=1
I like how you get called out as being a racist. A bigoted idiot scared of foreigners destroying a backwardly fabricated view of what it is to be British. That in fact the hateful views you hold are an anathema to the true values British society holds, your entire ideology as an affront to Human civilization and the amazing things it can achieve...
However we, according to you...
are a little bit smug, bit full of ourselves for knowing we're right and you're wrong... swines!
Did you read the reader comments I posted? Have you ever read those or any of the innumerable comments like them, and truly digested and taken on board the points which are raised? Can you honestly say those points are not valid?
Or is it easier just to dismiss me and the million who voted BNP as racists. Not to mention all the UKIP voters who hold similar views on immigration and multiculturalism etc. Views which are also shared by many other people who didn't vote for either party.
I don't know. How many British people have seen brand new immigrants jump over them in priority for housing? Does anyone have a figure? Speaking as an immigrant who was not eligible for housing at all, I'd be very interested to know!
In 2008, immigrants took up less than 5% of the social housing in England and Wales.
Thus:
* There is no evidence to suggest that the present system of social housing allocation demonstrates measurable bias against any group, including UK-born nationals.
* There is no evidence of any abuse of the system including 'queue jumping' to the significant detriment of any group.
* Most new migrants to the UK over the last five years, particularly from the recent European Union accession countries such as Poland, are not eligible to claim entitlement to social housing unless they have been resident in the UK and in work for at least 12 months and must then meet general criteria applied to the population at large.
* Recent migrants to the UK over the last five years make up fewer than 2 per cent of those in social housing.
* 90 per cent of those in social housing are UK-born.
(Source).
So let's have no more of the "immigrants are taking up all the social housing at the expense of British citizens" line. It's old, it's false, and it's been refuted many times.
Why in goodness's name does one single immigrant get given social housing?
Immigrants should go right to the back of the queue. While there is one single British person on the housing list, no immigrant should get social housing.
It really is time we started looking after our own people first.
Last edited:
So immigrants have jumped the queue if there are British people on the waiting list for social housing and have been on the waiting list for longer than the immigrants who have social housing were.
Not necessarily. It depends on where the person is and the criteria for getting social housing. If it is being applied equally then no one is "jumping the queue" as it were. At worst you get immigrants given equal treatment.
Nevertheless, if you've been waiting for X years for social housing, and then an immigrant family come into the country and are given social housing because they tick more boxes than you. You have to wonder "would I have got that house if they hadn't come into the country?", and then you can't wonder why people vote BNP.
As DD said, why should any immigrant* get social housing ahead of a British person?
*I exclude asylum seekers here because they are a different issue altogether.