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

vonhelmet said:
Are they locked up for life on the third offence? If so that's a massive cost.
Click to expand...

Yes they are.

If you only apply '3 strikes' to serious crime (such as burglary, drug dealing, carrying a gun, and so on) and you also make the likely assumption that such people convicted three times have actually committed many more offences, I think it is reasonable to lock them up for life without the possibility of parole, at that point. It costs, but there are savings on the flip side, of reduced crime and all the financial and human costs which that incurs.
 
dirtydog said:
Yes they are.

If you only apply '3 strikes' to serious crime (such as burglary, drug dealing, carrying a gun, and so on) and you also make the likely assumption that such people convicted three times have actually committed many more offences, I think it is reasonable to lock them up for life without the possibility of parole, at that point. It costs, but there are savings on the flip side, of reduced crime and all the financial and human costs which that incurs.
Click to expand...

Maybe there are. I'd be curious to see whether those savings are borne out in practice and whether rehabilitation could provide similar results.
 
dirtydog said:
Yes they are.

If you only apply '3 strikes' to serious crime (such as burglary, drug dealing, carrying a gun, and so on) and you also make the likely assumption that such people convicted three times have actually committed many more offences, I think it is reasonable to lock them up for life without the possibility of parole, at that point. It costs, but there are savings on the flip side, of reduced crime and all the financial and human costs which that incurs.
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered, what is your version of a petty crime when Burglary is considered a serious crime. NOTE: Your petty crimes are apparently solved through corporal punishment.
 
Peter Oborne is spot on in the Mail:

The BNP - the most successful fascist party Britain has produced - was effectively created by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw and the New Labour project. New Labour's success was based on relentless courtship of mainly middle-class swing voters in marginal constituencies in the South and Midlands.

This strategy worked brilliantly in destroying the Conservative Party but the victims were Labour's traditional working-class supporters. Tony Blair and Jack Straw just took them for granted as both men did nothing to halt mass immigration.

Of course this influx of foreign workers worked well for Labour's new-found friends in business because wages fell, raising company profits.

But it was the working-class areas, which had traditionally supported Labour, that paid the price.

Mass immigration led to unsustainable pressure on vital public services such as housing, health and education. And those who warned of the dire social and economical consequences, such as the Labour MP for Dagenham Jon Cruddas, were ignored.

As a result, hundreds of thousands of former Labour voters have switched their allegiance to the BNP.

Labour has become the party of what Nick Griffin labels, not inaccurately, 'the political elite'. It is no coincidence that practically all of the BNP's electoral success has taken place in former Labour areas.

The truth is that New Labour has treated its core voters with contempt. Tragically, after Question Time many of them will have concluded, and with good reason, that - compared with Jack Straw at least - Nick Griffin is an honest politician.
Click to expand...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1222622/Nick-Griffin-The-ogre-panto.html

I am one such previous Labour voter (and member) who switched to the BNP.
 
daily%20fail.png


Surprised no one here noticed before.

Its still up on their site as some have mentioned.
 
And the immediate thing to jump out is that it's got Nick Griffin twice, and not a Jack Straw in site ;)

IIRC it's the standard form they always use for the header, and that the question should be provocative ("said of a debate, argument, etc: controversial, but often stimulating"*, rather than it's other meanings), isn't a one off, but rather intended to encourage an interesting debate.

The only thing that changes week to week is the information on who is on, and it's always (from memory) got the name of the rep of the government at the top, at least when it's not been photoshopped.


*Chambers Dictonary
 
Werewolf said:
And the immediate thing to jump out is that it's got Nick Griffin twice, and not a Jack Straw in site ;)

IIRC it's the standard form they always use for the header, and the question should be provocative (said of a debate, argument, etc: controversial, but often stimulating).

The only thing that changes week to week is the information on who is on, and it's always (from memory) got the name of the rep of the government at the top, at least when it's not been photoshopped.
Click to expand...

You know that the release of the edited list is clearly part of the anti-BNP conspiracy in a hugely and unnecessarily elaborate double bluff...
 
Aye, it's all part of the Anti BNP conspiracy orchestrated by the evil extremist devil loving Muslims (IE all of them) and the non anglo saxons, and their apologists.
They've even got into positions of trust inside the BNP it's that widespread... :p

slightly more seriously, I didn't spot it had already been posted earlier :)
 
dirtydog said:
Do you think the audience on Question Time was representative of the public at large, and do you think Nick Griffin was treated fairly?
Click to expand...

Yes and Yes.

Yes because there are a minor fraction of BNP supporters in this country (and as shown in the show by the few cricket claps when NG spoke)

Yes, NG may on the surface look like he's being 'lynched' by the public and panel BUT this IS the first time Nick Griffin was allowed on QT, this is the first time 'The Public' as a general representation of Greater London, was allowed to freely ask questions and comment Nick Griffin.
And don't you dare say David Dimbleby was bullying him as he does pick on people who refuses to answer questions directly or attempt to 'outmanoeuvre' their way out, not just at NG, not just at Jack Straw. I know as I almost watch this show weekly since 2007.

HOWEVER, Britain as a public has always been one to have a soft spot for the underdog or 'picked on' victim. NG was unfortunate to be bombarded by many direct questions which certain new to the show members (due to mass media coverage leading up to the show) might find too much - possibly majority of the over 250 complains to the BBC were them.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jones said:
Yes and Yes.
Click to expand...
Is your name Werewolf? ;)

Yes because there are a minor fraction of BNP supporters in this country (and as shown in the show by the few cricket claps when NG spoke)
Click to expand...
That point was covered earlier in the thread, namely that it isn't only BNP supporters per se that have sympathy with BNP policies. A truly representative crowd would not have thus been so hostile.

Nobody, well hardly anyone then as you obviously don't, seriously thinks this wasn't a stitch-up :)
 
dirtydog said:
Do you think the audience on Question Time was representative of the public at large, and do you think Nick Griffin was treated fairly?
Click to expand...

Using the daily mail's own picture (they probably tried to get the best picture to match their point).

daily%20fail%202.png


Even then, that looks fine to me for London. People are quite young (for various reasons) and so that is one of the reasons why it is a bit less "white" than it could be.

48 people.

31 people white ~ 65%. (I've marked them with a yellow line, feel free to disagree)
5 people black ~10%.

The rest of various skin colours ranging from Mediterranean to Indian subcontinent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom