'My neighbour is an enthusiastic campaigner for the BNP...'
'...needless to say it makes for more lively disputes than the usual neighbourly feuds over leylandii!' writes iPM listener Tom Wyatt from Shrewsbury.
That neighbour is fellow listener Alan Coles, who IS an enthusiastic campaigner for the BNP.
So on one side of the road you have Tom who is 18 and fervently anti BNP. On the other side, Alan, who's 69 and a keen BNP supporter.
They're neighbours who haven't spoken to each other in many years. Until iPM asked them in to our studio in Shrewsbury this week.
Listen to the interview as it was played on the programme, Eddie hosts the discussion (9.07 mins).
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Neighbours are like family. One should try to get on with the neighbours. They are closer to us than most other people.
In this case, listening to each other is the fastest way to understanding. It was clear that our BNP candidate did not fully subscribe to their agenda, but did not realise the implications of membership. The neighbour did not realise that his friend over the road was not in agreement with all the tenets of his chosen party and may well have had a thirst for enlightenment. A lot of listening is called for.
I could see a friendship was just waiting in the wings. Neither had personal feelings against his neighbour, so could be friends, despite their differing views.
Complain about this comment
This interview, suprisingly, made me feel far more sympathetic to Alan than I thought possible, as a liberal leaning voter. Tom's self righteous hectoring tone and patronising, condescending attitude would drive any listener into the arms of the extremist parties.
Whilst I feel the work that anti-facist or anti-racist campaigners do is admirable, I have a deep suspicion of any movement whose whole 'raison d'etre'is to be 'anti...' this or that. This view was confirmed by Tom failing to address any of Alan's concerns that he raised, and was clearly unable to see the world from Alan's perspective. Tom could only rant about racism instead of taking the opportunity to reach out to a neighbour, and dismantle the BNP's argument clearly and logically.
Here was a man from an older generation, working class and a long time resident of the area. He has obviously seen changes in his lifetime, many of which he is not happy about. And he feels that the BNP provides the answers to his problems. Alan raised the issue of the poor treatment of the elderly by the NHS. Here was a point begging to be made, that should the BNP have their way with forced repatriation, half our educated, talented and hard working doctors and nurses would be forced to leave the country, leaving the Service in disarray.
Sadly, it will only entrench the position of the BNP's supporters if they are faced with this kind of debate. The egg throwing, car vandalising and apopletic, incoherent response to the BNP's continued existence will make them feel victimised, martyred, and convinced of their own rightness.
Instead we need to reach out to all kinds of people, people who are different from us, people who have different politics to us, and show by example, by being friendly, by being welcoming, that diversity begins at home. It begins with good neigbourliness, not ostracizing those in the street who have differing views to us. Only in this way will we combat bigotry and hatred, with a bit of peace and understanding.
Complain about this comment
Is it stating the blooming obvious to say that the real difference between Allan and Tom is one of age.
I was about Tom's age when immigration was getting under way and I can remember taking the multicultural (though we didn't have the word then) view and arguing with my father.
Now I am about Alan's age and voted BNP for the first time on much the same grounds as he gives for supporting them.
I'd like to think that this is the wisdom of experience versus the natural naivety of youth. What's the saying about being left wing when you are young but being right wing when you are mature ? I think a lot of old white working-class lefties like me have travelled the road to Damascus and seen the light.
I wonder if in 50 years time Tom will look back at his juvenillia with some embarrassment assuming of course he is still free to think anything.
By the way why do BNP detractors assume that the over 900,000 BNP voters are too stupid to understand what they are doing, while they - the lefties - are so clever ?
Complain about this comment
The conversation on today's IPM between liberal Tom and BNP supporter Alan was a fascinating example of how unreasonable views can be put reasonably and reasonable views put unreasonably. Tom was hectoring and patronising to Alan whereas Alan courteous and restrained to Tom. Tom - I'm afraid you actually made the BNP sound almost acceptable - quite an achievement - and I decided I'd much rather live next door to Alan than to you! Why not invite Alan round for a cup of tea and try listening to him instead of talking at him? The party he supports may be obnoxious but he actually sounds like quite a nice bloke! You could learn a lot from him, maybe not about politics but about communication!
Complain about this comment
As a BNP supporter I have to say that I heard this discussion on PM last evening with a certain amount of bias. But I do think it is fair to say that liberal Tom was hectoring and patronising, and he did no service to his cause.
Perhaps people reading this blog might like to visit this address and hear the a BNP member's experience of Sunday night's count.
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/06/a-long-night-in-bury/
For the people, like Tom, who have already type-cast a BNP member, I would suggest they didn't bother, the shock and disappointment might be too much for them
Complain about this comment
There is an update in The Times on related issues: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/06/talking_to_the_bnpupdate.shtml
Complain about this comment
Maybe when Tom listens to his interview, he will realise that he comes across as the close-minded bigot he accuses Alan of being. Our recent governments should hang their heads in shame at this bright young man's comment that 'Britishness' is a 'fatuous concept' which 'doesn't mean anything'. How can he understand the world if he has no concept of nationality and homeland? Tom's comment proved Alan's belief that over his lifetime he has seen his country and culture eroded on the altar of multiculturalism. Tom should be made to study what it is to be British and gain a sense of nationality and pride.
Tom considers himself to be someone 'who respects and fights for the rights of the individual and oppressed minorities' and yet stands back and lets his neighbour be intimidated and his property vandalised simply for his political views.
It is a matter of very serious concern that the violence and intimidation against Alan resulted in him not standing as a candidate for a legal party. I hope this matter will be investigated more thoroughly by the relevant authorities and I wonder whether this has happened elsewhere. It would be disgraceful to discover in our so-called democracy that people are not standing as candidates due to intimidation from those who do not agree with their views.
Tom is young and does not have experience of the workplace. Over the last decade much legislation has been put in place to prevent employer discrimination against coloured and female employees. There is no legislation to protect white males like Tom. Companies can put white men at the top of the redundancy list wihout fear of a discrimination lawsuit. I'd like to hear Tom's views if he finds himself at the receiving end of this discrimination especially if he has a family to support. Perhaps he won't feel quite so liberal.
Tom disapproves of a party which he says discriminates on the basis of skin colour. Yet he has said nothing about the various associations which do just that like the Black Police Officers Association etc.
Tom says the BNP are 'usurping people's concerns'. They are not. They are merely daring to address concerns which the mainstream parties ignore.
The mainstream parties just don't get it. Only this week we heard that the Tories would cut spending (our taxes) on everything but education, health and foreign aid. Foreign Aid? What planet are they on? Don't they realise that they need to look after their own constituents first and only then when those needs are satisfied worry about others who have their own governments to look out for them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm dissapointed, and disheartened to hear that Allan voted for the BNP after agreeing with only "One or two" of their policies - a reason the BNP have used to gain votes, a lot of non-racists are going to agree with protection of employment, especially during a recession, but that is surely not a reason to vote for people who (if elected) would then ban same-sex relations, mixed-race relationships for "Mongrelising the white race" (in their own words) enforce an apartheid system, and eventually remove all "non-whites" from the UK. Well. They said "non-British".... but they also said "no black person can be considered British".
So that's basically a gigantic fascist statement right there. What next?
Also a lot of you are comlaining that Tom has "not enough knowledge" of life or being British - but unfortunately that is not the case, as a Student obviously taking politics and with a keen sense for debate, he obviously knows his stuff, and, you cannot deny that racist violence and hatred (and of course the actions and motivations of our "Good old friends" the BNP) mean that Tom's views of "Being a Patriot" has amassed to nothing more of regret. He is a humanist, believing all are equal and deserve equality, not to be thrown out of a country he genuinely loves.
Allan's accusation of Tom's perspective being warped by "Communism" along with many of the previous comments attacks of Tom being a hypocritical bigot are also unfounded. Yes, students generally tend to lean more to the left, as liberals or SOCIALISTS, not Communists (there is a difference, y'know?) as well as ridiculous comments such as this:
"Tom disapproves of a party which he says discriminates on the basis of skin colour. Yet he has said nothing about the various associations which do just that like the Black Police Officers Association etc."
Sorry? The BPOA is racist? No it's not, you right wing, mentally stunted BNP supporter.... any organisation set up to protect the rights of a certain minority is not racist, only seeking to weed out racism (such as the BPOA and America's NAACP) from an already biased society.
And as for the post linking to the BNP site saying "our views will change"? Look down the comments there...
And I quote:
"What a shame that you could not get to the seat allocation, due to the risk of encountering the FASCIST UAF SCUM.
No woman (or man) has to fear attack from BNP members as our members have respect for every law abiding citizen and believe in democracy. Unfortunately the ignorant members of the UAF do not know what the words respect and democracy mean. Like the RABID dogs they are, they will and do attack and try to murder decent people. Their criminal actions are seen all to often and the police turn a blind eye, as they do with most violent criminals. Britain desperately needs a BNP government, that will compel the police to do the job that they get paid so well to do"
Fascist UAF? Excuse me, but I swear to god protecting rights and trying to eradicate fascism.... is not fascist? The BNP do not condone "Violence against law abiding citizens"? So, being a minority is a crime?
There is plenty of right wing (and definitely scary) stuff being spouted here, along with a false belief that the BNP are victims?
And this one, blatantly self-titled fascism:
"The definition of fascism in my dictionary is to oppose socialism and communism. These thugs that call us fascists and spit feathers at the mention of the BNP must be socialists and communists and want us to live in a totalitarian state. The BNP wants us to live in a free and democratic country."
As long as you're white.
Complain about this comment
I'm mildly disappointed in the lack of support for Tom Wyatt. He raised a variety of very well informed points, and if given perhaps more time, he would have extended these points further. What the majority of listeners seem to have interpreted as a patronizing or bigoted tone, I would interpret as a deep conviction and passion for what he believed in. Rather ironically, the listeners seem to have patronized Tom, dismissing him as young and therefore holding frivolous, extreme views. Views, which I myself hold and will not change with age Im afraid, and Im sure that Tom would join me in saying that he would never condone what can only be described as "racism". As Tom rightly pointed out, being British is a fatuous concept that divides communities. We are all just human beings. I hope for the day when the colour of ones eyes is just as unremarkable as the colour of ones skin. As long as the BNP reels in followers, there will always be pathetic physical labels to facture society and allow for prejudice to take seed.
Alan, although clearly a nice man, appealed to the listeners sympathies by repeatedly confessing his lack of education. Tom was right to ask Alan not to do this. Whether intentional or not, it has diverted the listeners views from the issue at hand and in effect, he played the listeners for fools, drawing upon our sympathies instead of leading the debate into an intelligent discussion. If anyone didnt justify their viewpoint, it was Alan and perhaps if he wasnt prepared to enter fully into debate on this issue with his 18 year old neighbour, perhaps he should have declined the request to appear on Radio 4. Being working class does not diminish your intelligence or make your opinions any less valid. Again, this seems to be another fatuous label which Alan has put upon himself to make him seem like the underdog and gain favour in an argument which morally, he would never be able to win.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
i think that people have been very harsh towards tom who i honestly doesnt come across as patronising against someone i think you doesnt know exactly what he`s truly voting for in the BNP hence the massive hesitation towards answering the question of why does he vote BNP. furthermore knowing tom personally he is none of the things people says he comes across in this debate and i agree with tom that he shouldnt have played the disadvantaged card as much as he did as it was just a political debate and if you vote for a party especially such a right wing party you should know exactly what you are voting for so if he knew exactly what the party was about he wouldnt have been as he put it "disadvantaged" in this debate as it was solely a political debate and finally im just intrigued as to whether he knows that the leader denies the holocaust and the use of gas chambers and so on which is a ridiculous claim. i understand that alot of BNP supporters probably dont think the same as Nick Griffin in respect to this or atleast i hope not but the fact remains that the person who is the leader of this party believes this and thats why i fail to have too much sympathy towards Alan in this debate because of his vote being cast towards this party.
Complain about this comment
@9 (RobCoxxy)
In response, I suggest you calm down and take a shower as you must be covered in spit after such a venemous tirade of abuse. You should then try to understand that others can have viewpoints which differ from your own without being 'mentally stunted' and I am not a BNP supporter per se.
However, we do not live in Utopia and our public services (health, education, transport and welfare) have limited resources. We cannot cope with the mass immigration (black and white) that has taken place over the last ten years. Given limited resources, I believe that it is only fair that those people (black or white) who have paid for these services with their taxes over a lifetime should be first in the queue. Currently, they are often being leapfrogged by those who have paid little and are newly arrived in this country. The mainstream parties do not address this injustice. The BNP does and that is why its share of the vote nationally has increased by nearly 2% since the last European election.
@10 (Ohforgodsake2)
In response, your comment: 'being British is a fatuous concept that divides communities' is a travesty. How can you have pride in your homeland and country if you feel this way? It is not divisive to be British. However, it IS divisive to import an alien culture and seek to establish a separate community within a community. I have travelled extensively and I have always respected the culture and customs of any country I have visited. I also expect that those who come to my country (especially to live) should respect my culture. True cohesion is achieved through integration. In modern Britain, for example, we do not support the oppression of women: the wearing of burkhas and honour killings have no place here and practising of both shows a refusal to integrate. We are a western country and although our fashion is wide-ranging, British and western women do not wear saris: the wearing of saris shows a reluctance to integrate. We are a Christian country and whilst I respect the right of those who seek asylum to quietly practice their religion here, I do not expect to hear a muezzin calling across the spires of Oxford and mosques proliferating in our towns. Divisiveness is caused by those who refuse to integrate and those who (for whatever reason) feel they cannot integrate with British culture should find themselves a country whose culture they feel more comfortable with.
Complain about this comment
I don't believe that Tom acted at all out of order in this debate! When confronted with groups like the BNP, sometimes one has to be hard with them, no matter how bad it can seem. Let's not forget that Alan was a BNP candidate and so will be used to dealing with anti-BNP protestors; the nice, charming persona that he showed might be one he is very used to adopting.
It is a shame that Tom wasn't given more time to express his views as I think it would have made him seem less vitriolic to those who think he was being. Knowing him personally, I know that he is a very passionate person who knows exactly what he is talking, so anyone who thinks that just because he is young means he should be discounted should reassess - there is no-one that I know with more conviction and confidence that what he is saying is right.
People have the right to have their own individual beliefs and ideals, but if someone (like Alan) holds such extreme views, they shouldn't be so shocked when the majority of people disagree with them - and BNP supporters shouldn't assume that someone who is being passionately anti-BNP is being any more patronising than they themselves are when they say that an immigrant is any less of a human being than a British citizen.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
R:E Female Rambo
In regards to your addressing RobCoxxy, his open mindedness to other viewpoints cannot truly be classed as limited from this one comment. I also find a certain irony in your criticising RobCoxxy for being close minded, when in doing so you are rejecting his viewpoint. Open mindedness doesn't guarantee acceptance. RobCoxxy has considered the BNP's standpoint, and understandably rejected it.
As far as your view that those who have paid taxes over their lifetime should take priority over immigrants. Say though, that we have a young Brit who's been only been paying taxes for 3 years. By your very argument, an immigrant who's been paying his taxes for 5 years has more of a right to stay in Britain. I ask, would you accept this as a result of your own argument?
Secondly,you put such importance on British culture, and those who refuse to integrate into it. Yet you seem unable to define a british culture, all you can say is what the British are not. Practically all your examples use religion or religious practices, yet religion is only a small part of culture, more significant to a individual than a community or nation. Also, you maintain that we are a Christian country, yet I bet that if we were to look at the statistics, more of the muslim community regularly attend mosque than those who identify as Christian attend church.
Finally, your example of saris as being a refusal to integrate, integration works both ways. We have taken so much from other cultures, are you suggesting that this is a pollution of our supposedly British culture?
Complain about this comment
@16 Adlahd
In response to your posting, I must confess there IS something that I very much regret in my last posting. My spelling of 'venomous' was incorrect (I spotted it as soon as I pressed the submit button). I apologise for that...but for nothing else.
I think we shall have to agree to differ with regard to RobCoxxy's willingness to see another's viewpoint: apart from the personal insults directed at myself, the rest of his posting seemed to be a diatribe against anyone who did not share his opinion and I see his last posting was rejected by the moderators - so goodness knows what that contained. Probably would have needed an umbrella given the amount of spit flying though.
With regard to your point on taxes, I was not referring to the right to stay in Britain, but the right to claim welfare benefits, housing, free health and education. The 'young Brit' in your example although only working for say 3 years will have normally had parents who have paid taxes for many years previously on their behalf. They may well have paid taxes themselves in the form of VAT and inheritance tax. The main thing is that they were British. Unfortunately, our resources are limited. You probably heard the news today about the NHS budget problems. My belief is that those resources should be first available to British familes before they are made available to immigrants. How would YOU manage the needs for these limited resources when there is not enough to provide to all? Who would you have lose out?
You are right in that it is easier to define Britishness by what it is NOT rather than by what it IS. However, there is a common bond that unites us and it is not skin colour. In my lifetime, I have worked with and been friends with many people from different racial groups, who I regarded as British. What was common to all of them is that they were fully integrated: they spoke native English; they dressed in western clothes and if they were religious they practised their religion privately and didn't expect any special treatment like refusing to wear a badge on a police helmet because it contained a cross etc; refusing to comply with hospital practices to combat MRSA (short sleeves etc); refusing to wear school uniform. It is the immigrants that do not speak English; form their own separate communities and expect special treatment who cause divisions and resentments in our country.
Presumably since you consider the concept of being British a fatuous one, you will be leaving your British passport behind when you travel abroad. I don't think you will get very far declaring that you are a 'human being' bit like Oscar Wilde declaring his genius and if you take your passport with you and lose it abroad, I am sure you will try your hardest to prove how British you are then.
We are a Christian country, but are mostly secular. However, many of our traditions and culture have grown up around the Christian religion: Christmas, Easter, Harvest Festival etc. Whilst I do not mind my child learing about other religions, I do not think it right that she should celebrate Diwali at school for instance. We do not believe in the Goddess Laxmi and it is therefore meaningless. You are right that the muslims are more devout and I understand Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world....but I want no part of it and definitely do not want it to increase its influence in this country.
Complain about this comment
@17 Female Rambo
Whilst i accept that my "Young Brit" example was flawed, i find your using the example of the NHS to support your argument completely absurd. The very basis of the medical profession, as found in the Hippocratic Oath, is "First do no harm". To select one person over another based on anything other than severity of condition completely contradicts the nature of the NHS. And whilst we're at it, what of the significant proportion of the British medical sector who are themselves immigrants? Would you see them fired? You ask me who should lose out as far as limited medical resources are concerned. Whoever needs it the most, it's as simple as that. Deciding that one group has more of a right to potentially life saving treatment over another is something i can't even comprehend.
It is true that Christianity has influenced our traditions, but i would argue that they are now to the majority of people, more a tradition than a practice of religious significance. Christmas, to most, now is nothing more than presents, Easter, nothing more than an excuse to gorge on chocolate. The religious significance of these holidays to the masses is all but gone, and as such your argument that Christianity still holds sway, is in my view weakened. Show me the last time Christianity had a massive effect on Britain
Thus far you have stressed that being integrated into British society involves keeping your religious beliefs private, that this is intrinsic to being British. Why then should Diwalli not be celebrated yet christmas and easter allowed? Last time i checked there were no more significant proof for God than Allah, Yahweh, Brahman etc. Until you can prove Chistianity is superior, shouldn't all religions b treated equally?
And just for the record, my passport tells people nothing more than that I live in Britain.After all i speak english and dress in western clothes, what more proof do they need?
Complain about this comment
@18 Adlahd
In response to your comments: I think you are trying to make the situation in which you are required to make a decision on the allocation of limited resources too easy for yourself. Firstly, with regard to health services, the majority of conditions do not present themselves as life or death situations and secondly, you have limited resources which means that if two patients present themselves to you with the same condition and the same need for treatment, you only have resources to treat one. This is the real world - how would you make your decision? The current government chooses according to postcode and which patient got there first. For example, there was a recent case where a British woman presented herself in labour to her local maternity hospital and was turned away. She evenutually had to travel some incredible distance to receive treatment and was fortunate her baby did not die as a result. Her local hospital was full up due to the increased pressure on it from the influx of immigrant families with no corresponding increase in the provision of maternity care.
The purpose of the NHS is (as the name suggests)is to provide a free health service to the nationals of this country. It cannot possibly be expected to provide a free health service to half of Europe and anyone else who chooses to come here.
Our health service should only be free to British citizens and visitors to this country should ensure that they have adequate health insurance or independent means to pay for their own treatment. This would indirectly reduce the pressure on the health service because less people would want to come here.
With regard to those working in the NHS, their temporary right to stay should be based on a points system calculated according to our need for their services. In the meantime, we should be training British citizens to undertake their duties so that eventually there will be no need for them.
Likewise, when making your decision on the allocation of resources, there is not sufficient welfare resources to pay benefits to all. Our welfare system should only be available to British nationals not anyone who presents themselves at our door.
How would you allocate school places? In the Utopian world that you would like to inhabit, every school would be a good school providing an excellent education. In the real world, there are excellent schools and there are failing schools. How would YOU allocate places at those schools? Our current government has organised a system based predominantly on catchment area. New arrrivals who move to the catchment area can effectively leapfrog over British people and get their child a place in the best schools within our state education system. I do not think this is fair and feel the children of British families should be catered for first and then places allocated to immigrant families once this has been achieved.
I don't really understand your point on Christianity. In my posting, I said we were a predominantly secular society but many of our traditions and culture are based on a Christian religion. Diwali has no place because we are not Hindus. I am not religious and do not therefore feel one person's religion is any more superior or credible than another. It is simply that Christianity is part of my culture - even Richard Dawkins celebrates Easter etc. The Queen is the Head of the Church of England and also of our government. Our laws have developed over millenia because of our Christian outlook (probably why there is a free for all at the moment and evil thugs quite literally get away with murder). So I do not think that all religions should be treated equally by the State.
As regards your passport, I would encourage you to read it (especially the first page). It is not true that your passport tells people nothing else than you live in Britain. It tells people that you are a British citizen and should be accorded protection/respect and be allowed to pass freely without hindrance. The implication is that if you are not treated in this way, Her Britannic Majesty will send an aircraft carrier and the Royal Marines to come and rescue you. That is why generations have fought to defend our interests and for the privilege of being British.
Complain about this comment
@19 FemaleRambo
So, as to your point on the NHS, are you suggesting that we allow foreign people or immigrants to die because they are not 'British'? How is that a sane or reasonable argument? Surely it's a human right to receive healthcare if you need it, and the monetary issues can be sorted out afterwards?
You say 'Our welfare system should only be available to British nationals not anyone who presents themselves at our door', well surely an immigrant or an asylum seeker who has been granted citizenship IS a British national? So, what's your point? Did you mean 'indigineous British nationals'?
As a practising Christian myself, I find it abhorrent to suggest that Christianity is a superior religion to the others. I would hate to live in a country where other people's religions weren't as accepted and applauded as my own, and I fear that is what Britain would become if someone like FemaleRambo were in power. Of course all religions should be treated equally, just as all sexualities should be treated equally, and all races should be treated equally.
And oh please, these aren't the days of the Roman Empire! The government would only send an aircraft carrier and some Marines to save someone if the person under threat was the Prime Minister! However unfortunate it may be, we no longer live in a country which can punch above its weight - we have to rely on the US for our global power. People should really stop deluding themselves that we are still a viable military force.
Complain about this comment
@FemaleRambo
You mention a post with personal insults that didn't get past the moderators. You complained and had it removed. How else would you know?
Anyway, that clearly shows you are uncomfortable with my logic:
Why vote for a racist party if you only agree with one or two issues?
Surely you must be at least a little racist to still vote, knowing their main policy. I hardly see how I'm saying everyone but me is right (Which you seem to be doing yourself, you flaming hypocrite). All I did was say it's hard to stick up for racists. As I'm sure you knew before flagging it.
Your obsession with my spit is a little disturbing. I'm not shouting. I'm not angry. I'm casually typing.
And yes, my shower was LOVELY.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@21 RobCoxxy
Ah - Mr RobCoxxy how lovely to hear from you again...I am afraid it wasn't me who complained about your last comment. I was referring to the insults in your FIRST posting. (I could've complained about the insults in the first invective, but thought it a greater disservice to you to let it stand).
Your second comment was 'referred to the moderator' and not published that is how I know you said something rather impolite. I have no idea what it said. Why don't you re-submit your posting and take out the really rude bits? I can then reply to any points you raised.
You are being a bit presumptuous to dare to suggest you know how I voted or even if I voted at all.
You do not seem to realise that there are people in this country who are fed up with immigration and the constant pandering to minority interests who are not racist and are capable of rational thought.
Glad you enjoyed your shower I thought you had calmed down a bit.
Complain about this comment
@19 FemaleRambo
I must say I find your views on the future of the NHS sickening. You say that I have tried to make the allocation of limited resources too easy on myself, yet I am simply suggesting the view that will try to save as many lives as possible. You appear to have taken the easy way out, deeming a group in society unworthy, or simply considering us indigenous brits better than others. I agree wholeheartedly with TomJB6 on this point, necessary medical treatment should precede financial issues. Here you are putting a value on the lives of human beings and have decided that it's one the NHS doesn't need to spend. I ask, were somebody you know, or indeed yourself, for whatever reason in another country and required emergency medical treatment your insurance didn't cover, would you be ok with the doctors discussing whether you deserved to be treated whilst your life were potentially i the balance?
As far as your example of the woman in labour is concerned, unless you could prove significantly that this hospital was overcrowded due to immigrants as opposed to normal population growth or lack of staff, then why should i believe such a clear piece of BNP propaganda?
You keep criticising your opponents for trying to live in a Utopian world, but i put it to you that once you stop striving for a better, more equal world, then we've all lost. I know this sounds idealistic, and i am fully aware of the state the world is in, but all human kind deserve the best life possible. Your solution guarantees a better life for some than others, robbing them of basic rights. How can we seek to make the world a better place for anybody if it is at the expense of another?
I would also say that the obvious solution to your school problem is to try and make those failing schools as equal in quality as those you consider "excellent". Perhaps easier said than done but this is a problem long pervading mass immigration so to suggest it as the main cause is ludicrous.
My point about Christianity is that it no longer has the role in the running of British society that you seem to place upon it. You say Diwalli has no place because "we are not Hindus". Yet you yourself admit to not being religious, so why should somebody who feels like you be subject to a celebration of Christianity in their school? As such, if you are going to allow the celebrations of one religion, you should allow the celebration of others. As far as your examples are concerned, I believe that I pointed out that the religious meaning of Christian festival has been lost? Were Richard Dawkins to celebrate Easter, I'm sure it would be an exchange of easter eggs with his family and not a mention of jesus. The Queen may be Head of the Church and government but once again in name only, how much power does the monarch really have in either. Ours is a constitutional monarchy with pretty much all their powers surrendered long ago. Our laws may have origin in biblical teachings, but ask somebody on the street and they would say we have a law against murder because it is common sense, murder is wrong, not because it is one of the 10 commandments and committing such an act will send you to hell. Whilst Christianity still has a profound effect on the lives of the individual, I would say that the role of a religion in our politics has died out, and rightly so.
My passport I know, says a lot more than i gave it credit. My intention with my comment was to express that to me and probably the person checking it, it says nothing more than a few basic details, one of which being that I am registered as a British citizen. not that I am a British citizen and as such have a distinct personality, belief system or collection of characteristics because of this.
Last, I would ask you, since you consider your argument to be the just way to operate government, would you expect other governments to do likewise and subject Brits living overseas to the same treatment as immigrants in Britain, even going as far as deportation?
Complain about this comment
@22 FemaleRambo
You said 'When there is only a budget and physical capacity for x number of hip operations, and you have x+1000 patients requiring a hip operation how do you decide whose need is greatest?', well you are the one deciding that a British citizen has a greater need than anyone else. There is nothing fair in what you are saying - maybe some people come here because of our health system; if they were to stay in, say, Africa, then they might die if they contract a serious disease, whereas if they were living here they would not. Please don't assume that because I am disagreeing with you, that I am some lefty liberal who would allow all and sundry into our country. I am not. What I found unfathomable about your stance is that you somehow see the 'British race' as one that is superior to others.
As to religion, you yourself said 'So I do not think that all religions should be treated equally by the State.' Who are you to decide whose faith is more important? Please do not assume that all Christians call themselves Christians and therefore hold exactly the same beliefs as your friend. Yes, I believe that my faith is the one that is correct, and no I don't believe Jesus is superseded by Mohammed. You obviously cannot comprehend that I can understand and congratulate another person on being, for example, Muslim, and not believe in their religion. I am Christian, but I can respect other religions without being a member of a religion! And you completely misrepresent the entire Muslim faith - I doubt that there are many Muslims in this country who would want to behead ANYONE, let alone Christians.
I really do hope that by saying 'anyone who plots and schemes to blow up London buses and British soldiers in Afghanistan' you are not meaning Muslims in general. Because the extremist Muslims who do this represent a tiny proportion of Islam's followers (probably less than 1%). Of course we should do all we can to stop terrorism, but that doesn't mean sending every single Muslim person home!
Actually, I did mean the Roman Empire, which leads me to wonder how brilliant your own education was. It was Julius Caesar (the man who started the Empire, in case you don't know) who said that if a Roman citizen was anywhere in the world, all they had to say to enyone was 'Citizen Romanus' (I am a Roman citizen) and no one would harm them because they knew the terrible retribution that the Romans would bring if they did.
Tell me, at what point since World War II has Great Britain turned up on someone's doorstep? Yes, there's the Falklands, but that was only Argentina; not, for example, China. We may have the fourth largest military expenditure but could we really hope to stand up against China or Russia or America, if it came to it? I think not.
Oh please. Don't be so patronising. OF COURSE I love this country, I wouldn't live anywhere else. And I really do admire and respect our armed forces (I would join up if there was a proper war). So please do not assume that Alan or any member of the BNP has a greater love for this country than anyone else. Other people obviously love humanity a bit more than you do.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As yet another friend of Tom's, it's interesting to see my peers commenting on this. I'm a bit disappointed that RobCoxxy felt compelled to call FemaleRambo "mentally stunted", but then I have never understood why people have no compunctions about posting vitriol on the internet.
With regards to the existence of the National Black Police Association, I think that whilst it's obviously important to address the issues of racism in attempts to achieve more equal treatment, the formation of associations which discriminate membership on race is fundamentally wrong and should not be tolerated. That said, their website states: "There is no bar to membership based on colour". This would perhaps imply that their continuous mention as an analogous situation to the BNP's policy that members should be limited to "indigenous Caucasian and defined ethnic groups emanating from that race" is misguided. I'm quite surprised that I've seen this argument so many times from BNP supporters who didn't actually bother to look at the website of the organisation. I'm sure there are other examples where membership is restricted to a particular race, and just to reiterate, I think that is wrong.
I'd also like to reinforce the argument against FemaleRambo's views on the allocation of treatment within the NHS. Why stop at "nationals" versus "immigrants"? Why not go further and allocate points based on the duration of time the person has had ancestors in Britain? Surely by your logic somebody who has a direct line of descent from the first ever settler in Britain would be at the front of every queue for treatment ahead of those whose lineage only goes back a few paltry generations? The NHS is a fantastic system, although it does have its faults, and to propose such ludicrous bias in allocating treatments is something I cannot comprehend. The same goes for school places, and other resources.
The concept of Britishness is obviously difficult to pin down, as it means clearly wildly different things to different people. I am not "proud" to be British, but I am glad to be British. Our country, despite its failings, is at its best democratic and tolerant, with the right to free speech for all. The continual interplay between different cultures is a very tricky business, and I think that it is right we should strive to integrate all into society, but I would hate to sacrifice tolerance for the society proposed by FemaleRambo where mosques cannot be built in Oxford, for example. Personally I think society should be as secular as possible, but obviously people should have the right to practise their religion.
And TomJB6, I think you were a bit mean in suggesting that maybe Alan was adopting a kind demeanour in a clever bit of PR. I think Alan is an excellent example of the typical BNP supporter - he is not a Nazi, he is just disillusioned and feels that the BNP represent his views best. Obviously I completely disagree with the BNP on so many of their policies, but I genuinely believe the best way to convince people is to talk to them. I was shocked to hear of the damage done to his property.
Freedom of speech is absolutely integral to our society, and it sickens me to hear spokespeople from the UAF saying "We don't believe in free speech for fascists". Freedom of speech for views you like is not freedom of speech at all!
Anyway, that's my substantially more than two cents.
Complain about this comment
@27 Another_Student
You make a fair point. I think what I was trying to say was that he's obviously had a lot of experience dealing with this sort of thing and will know how to deal with it. For example, with the whole 'I'm less educated than Tom' thing.
Complain about this comment
@26 RobCoxxy
Looks like you need another shower!
@24 Adlahd
For heaven's sake please don't be sickened over the NHS there are already too many demands on the health service as it stands without you adding to it!
I am beginning to feel like David Cameron questioning Gordon Brown at PMQ's. You STILL have not answered my question on limited resources and the NHS.
So here we go again. We shall take it as read that what you REALLY want is to provide a free health service to all those who need it; you want to abolish suffering and hunger in the world and teach the world to sing in perfect harmony...right, okay, accepted.
Now back to the real world. There are limited resources (that's money, staff, hospitals and equipment available) and that is after a colossal NHS budget which dwarfs the money spent on defence. The system is collapsing and yesterday a report by NHS managers warned that the health service faces its 'most severe and sustained financial shortfall in its history'. Britain has suffered immigration on an unprecedented scale. There are not enough resources to treat everyone who wants and needs it. My question is that assuming AN EQUAL NEED who do you think should receive treatment? British citizens who have paid for the service with their taxes or citizens of other countries who have come to this country for whatever purpose? Because we can't treat everybody. That is the question that has to be answered. It's not nice but reality isn't always how we would like it to be. The mainstream political parties are in a tailspin not knowing what to do about it either.
In answer to your comment regarding my needing medical treatment in another country: I always travel with insurance and I always ensure that the insurance is adequate for my needs.
Regarding the woman in labour, I seem to recall it was in Slough. And it was reported by the BBC and not the BNP.
I have never suggested that mass immigration is the cause of our failing schools. My complaint is that we have a system which allows newly arrived immigrants to leapfrog over British citizens for places at our best state schools.
British culture has developed against a Christian backdrop and therefore Christian festivals are part of British culture Hindu festivals are not. We live in a Christian country. I respect the wish of Hindus in this country to celebrate Diwali, but I do not agree that there should be a government diktat to celebrate it in our state schools.
In answer to your final point, British citizens overseas ARE subject to deportation from other countries and often do not qualify for the same rights as the people who live there.
Complain about this comment
@25 TomJB6
You still haven't answered my question on allocating limited resources. Please read my posting above to Adlahd. Given the same scenario- what would your answer be?
I do not understand your comment: you somehow see the 'British race' as one that is superior to others. Being British has nothing to do with race. To me, 'race' means your ethnic origin and colour of your skin. I am not racist. When I say that our government should concern itself with the needs of British citizens over non-British in the allocation of resources I mean that it should concern itself with the needs of all British citizens (whatever their skin colour) over immigrants (whatever their colour).
I have never suggested that 'every Muslim should be sent home'. However, British citizenship is a privilege and I think Muslims who refuse to integrate should have their British citizenship revoked. The Muslims seem to be the most vocal in demanding that our way of life is changed to accommodate them. I understand their wish to change the country more to their liking, but I expect the British government to not agree with them. They knew this was a Christian country when they emigrated here and they should respect that.
Your reference to Roman Empire was rather obscure - I now see your point. I think your personal comment regarding my education was unwarranted and actually says far more about your own education than mine.
With regard to humanity: I think it is inhuman to allow a situation with our public services which is only going to get worse and be shy of taking concerted action to prevent this happening.
Complain about this comment
@FemaleRambo
this is getting silly. I hardly said anything in that post; just that in the original i'd also said nothing wrong.
Just implied Nicky Griffin was somewhat similair to a certain moustachioed dictactor from last century.
Complain about this comment
@29+30 FemaleRambo
I think that neither Adlahd and myself have answered your allocating limited resources question because it is, to be honest, fatuous and completely manufactured to support your own argument.
You said to Adlahd: 'In answer to your comment regarding my needing medical treatment in another country: I always travel with insurance and I always ensure that the insurance is adequate for my needs.' Of course you do, because you live in a country where that sort of thing is possible - some of the immigrants who come here don't have ANY insurance, how can we possibly expect them to have prepared that level of financial support for themselves; if they could do that in their original country, they might not be coming to this country.
Yes, of course immigrants should expect to have to integrate into our society, but I don't think for a moment that that means that we shouldn't change as well! Don't you think that now so much of our economic and foreign policy is influenced by the predominantly Muslim areas of the world, we should be trying to learn about and understand their culture? People coming to this country should learn to adjust to our society, but perhaps with the world shrinking, and migration globally growing, we should try to adjust ourselves to their culture as well? British society is by no means greater than any other society. In fact, it could be easy to say that the eastern cultures are the oldest and greatest. I also do not think that this country could be truly called a Christian one by means; there have been so many different religions here for so long that it isn't mainly Christian.
I'm not going to get into personal remarks, you were the one who started that off, by doubting my education first.
I think it is inhumane to start complaining about our public services, when there are countries in the world whose services are decades, even centuries, behind our own. You seemed very annoyed by the Tories' plan to keep Foreign Aid levels high - surely if we are having to turn more people away now, we should be doing our best to get their original country's levels up to something similar to ours. That's the humane thing to do.
Complain about this comment
Ha. My earlier comments were removed for being racist. (Despite the fact they opposed racism completely).
Something tells me these moderators don't... THOURGOUGHLY check these comments.
Complain about this comment
@32 Tom JB6
Ah so YOU think the reason you haven't answered my question is because the question is 'fatuous'. Mm..I think when you attack a reasonable question by calling it fatuous and refuse to answer...you have admitted defeat and lost the argument. Difficult choices have to be made and it is not being racist to put British people first.
You say: ' Yes, of course immigrants should expect to have to integrate into our society'. You are right but there is no 'of course' about it, as the policy that has been followed by our government for decades has been one of multiculturalism rather than integration. Whenever anyone spoke out as areas of the country were transformed into replicas of various foreign countries, they were accused by the liberals and immigrants themselves of being racist. Now the dangers of that policy are apparent and Trevor Phillips who chairs the Commission for Racial Equality has said 'multiculturalism suggests separateness and has ceased to be useful in modern Britain. Oops! Sorry about that Bradford et al.
By the way, he has also said that it is necessary to assert a core of Britishness for all citizens. Lucky he's black or some might call him a BNP supporter and racist with a comment like that!
We need to understand foreign cultures, but I see no reason to adopt them unless it suits us.
You are mistaken in your belief that this country could not 'truly be called a Christian one by any means'. The state religion is Christian and our whole legal system grew up around a Christian faith. There are Hindu and Muslim countries in this world. The UK is not one of them and the majority do not wish it to be converted to one. It is for that reason that if any religion is celebrated in state schools, it should be the Christian faith.
I have never cast aspersions on your level of education and neither should you on mine. Your lack of apology in this respect does you no credit.
I am not complaining about our public services. I am simply stating the current state of resources and the need for there to be a change in the way they are allocated. I don't really understand your point about third world countries having poor public services are you suggesting the British taxpayer can support them too? And, given the impending doom in our health service, I don't think a future Tory government should be worrying itself much over foreign aid. I suppose that makes me racist too, does it?
In closing, I would just like to say that I have enjoyed this debate and am actually heartened by your obvious caring attitude for other cultures. But before you condemn people like Alan and myself, you should seek to understand where we are coming from. Being British is not divisive and promoting the interests of British citizens in Britain is not being racist.
Complain about this comment
@34 FemaleRambo
As far as this question of healthcare goes, I have given you an answer. Even if equal need should exist, you treat who you can, where you can, the preservation of life above consideration of cost, citizenship status etc.
I know you will see this as yet another idealistic unrealistic view of somebody trying to achieve Utopia. But all i see from your argument, is somebody who due to the sad state of affairs we are in, is scared. So scared in fact, that they become withdrawn, a self preservationist. Unfortunately in our society where a level of equality exists, you can see no way for the continuation of the lifestyle you cherish, the rights you enjoy, unless the same things are first taken from others.
But who deserves to miss out? Well of course a minority will get the blame, after all, let's just face it, they're different. They have the nerve to try and hold onto the rich language, history and traditions of their forefathers, the audacity to actually be proud of them and let this be known. They are so selfish, that they have left behind the country they were born in, their home, to try and make a better life for themselves. They try to have their children educated, to have their loved ones looked after when taken ill, and all at our expense?! Of course they pay taxes too, but not as long as us indigenous brits eh?
Your views are vile and arguments flawed. We have answered your concerns about the NHS and you ignored. You insist we are still a Christian country, yet cannot show a practical role Christianity has in society that maintains a religious message. Your definition of the "britsh-ness" you long to preserve could apply to any western country.You've shown your religious and cultural intolerance and have convinced me even more that the BNP need to be stopped and with peopl like Tom Wyatt leading the charge, I don't see how we can fail
Complain about this comment
I think it's really important that we as a society understand what freedom of speech entails. People (everyday folk) have been talking about it for weeks now, regarding this issue and they don't seem have the faintest idea what it actually is, when they say things like "don't throw eggs at them, that compromises our freedom of speech".
Freedom of speech means we are able to criticise other people's views, as they are free to vent them. Ie, the BNP, if they really want to, can infer that ALL the problems in this particular mass of land are due to the influx of immigration. At this point I excercise my freedom of speech and say "that's ludicrous."
I have not silenced the BNP. On the contrary, I am using my freedom to point out that someone else (in using theirs) is a moron. Do you get it?
Please read the last two paragraphs again if you don't. If you still don't comprehend freedom of speech your use of it in conversation is like someone coming round to fix my washing machine and putting a lightbulb in it.
I have a way of explaining it though.
If Gordon Brown and David Cameron are engaged in wholly competitive but highly boring art of debate you will notice that when the former points out that the other's idea is stupid we would not then stand around saying "stop denying his freedom of speech."
There's all this talk of "stooping to their level." I think the protestors will have to do a lot better than egg throwing, burning flags or stealing giant signs to compete with these bad boys. In the event that .shouting. and .mass genocide. were in a competition to see who was the nastiest I think the latter would win hands down. I'll put a bet on for me and for you if you like.
If parties were illegalised I suppose that would be undemocratic but no one's stopped the BNP from running. And it'd be blatant censorship for the media to give them no air time or opportunities to vent their views but they do. They're getting tax-payers funding every time they win a seat somewhere as well.
I sympathise a little with Alan because he's seen things change a lot, but countries are ALWAYS changing. The people are always different. I symapthise with Alan because he seems confused with the political process and my god it can be a confusing pile of horse manure at times. But his ignorance here doesn't really score him many points. Surely our views on politics should be shaped by informed people, and our politicians SHOULD be educated. This is to say, they should understand politics. It's when people don't understand politics that they start to focus upon the simple ( and these are usually the most damaging) explanations. To say this country is over-crowded because of immigration is simply not true. To say the country is over-crowded is not true. People are always coming and going. Besides, if you think about it, there's PLENTY of land here. If we shared it out a bit more, we'd have a great deal more space for all kinds of new neighbours.
But I don't think intelligence is really the issue either. Some of the most self-professed apolitical I know, or least politically and socially informed people I have met would never vote BNP, because they are good of heart.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@ Adlahd
You talk of my intolerance and your tolerance and yet throughout this debate, you and the rest of Tom's clique have peppered your postings with personal insults (e.g. you right wing mentally stunted BNP supporter/you flaming hypocrite/I wonder how briliant your education was/other people love humanity more than you/your views are vile). Whereas I have not insulted one of you once.
Your sarcastic comment with regard to minorities underlines your double standards. You think it is right for minorities "to try and hold onto the rich language, history and traditions of their forefathers", and yet you think Alan is racist and I am a scared nationalist for wanting to hold onto ours. You think it is fine for minorities "to be proud of (their heritage) and let this be known", but you disagree with anyone who wants to do the same for British culture. And you even say being British is a fatuous concept, divisive and doesn't mean anything
What are my 'vile' views? You cannot define my views as racist. I have repeatedly said that skin colour does not define Britishness. I have told you that throughout my life I have worked with and been friends with people of various ethnic origins who I regarded as British.
You seem to have very stereotypical ideas as to what constitutes a British person and an immigrant. To me, black Trevor Phillips the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality is British whereas a white Polish builder working in this country is an immigrant. You seem to think all immigrants are non-white and all British citizens are white.
You still refuse to answer my question regarding allocation of resources in the NHS given restricted resources. And for goodness sakes stop banging on about life-threatening conditions. How do you decide who gets a hip operation? Resources are restricted (that's staff, equipment and money) and you have two patients requiring treatment. You can only treat one. I say the treatment should go to a British national who has paid for the NHS. You think this is vile. But how would you decide? By post code? Name out of a hat? Or, perhaps, by who says ouch the loudest?
You and your friends have repeatedly deprecated Britain (people should really stop deluding themselves that we are still a viable military force/my passport tell people nothing more than I live in Britain/British Society is by no means greater than any other society in fact it could be easy to say that eastern cultures are the oldest and greatest).
Actually, we are in fact #4 in the world for military spend and have a formidable nuclear deterrent. Your British passport means a great deal and British society has evolved one of the best systems of law for respecting equality and human rights.
You seek to deny we are a Christian country. Well, like it or not, Christianity is the state religion and the Christian faith is enshrined in our laws and culture. You seem to be hung up on how many practising Christians there are.
In my last posting I said I was heartened that you appeared to care for other cultures. Actually, I now realise that you are dreadfully misguided and spurred on by stereotypical images of race and nationality which you project onto others. You seem to have a lot of respect for other cultures and little respect and tolerance for what should be your own.
Complain about this comment
This is a revised edition of my posting @22. The previous posting referred to the actions of extreme Islamic fundamentalists.
@20 TomJB6
If you are going to comment on my posting, you should first ensure you have read and comprehended what I have said.
If you re-read my previous posting you will see that I said that most situations do not fall into the dramatic life and death scenarios you are so keen to concentrate on. Take for example maternity services or a hip operation. When there is only a budget and physical capacity for x number of hip operations, and you have x+1000 patients requiring a hip operation how do you decide? With health services, it is not just a case of money. There are, for example, a limited number of surgeons and hospitals able to carry out heart operations. And don't say you would buy more surgeons because a) they don't grow on trees and b) you don't have the money to pay for them. Given limited resources, I believe our government should first and foremost look after British nationals (whatever their skin colour)so they are first in the queue for hip operations etc rather than visitors from other countries. You still have not answered what you would do in the real world.
When I say British nationals, I suppose I mean those people who have been granted British citizenship and who have integrated into our society. I believe that British citizenship should be considered a privilege and it should be withdrawn from those who refuse to speak English as their primary language and generally refuse to accept and integrate with British society.
Once again you have misread my comments with regard to religion. If you re-read my previous posting I said: I am not religious and do not therefore feel one person's religion is any more superior or credible than another. How on earth you derived the idea that I think Christianity is a 'superior religion' from this statement is baffling. It does however provide a backdrop to British culture as we have been a Christian nation for a millennia. As I do not have strong religious views either way, it is easier for me to give equal respect to all religions whilst being sceptical of all of them.
On the other hand, you say that you are a practising Christian. I find it incomprehensible that you can 'accept and applaud' other religions which are diametrically opposed to your own beliefs. Tolerate yes, but 'accept and applaud'? For example, surely you cannot genuinely believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died on the cross for our salvation etc. and at the same time believe that he was actually only a minor prophet (not the Son of God at all) who was superseded by Mohammed who has given us the true holy book. You must believe that one belief is correct (superior) even if you are prepared to tolerate the other person's point of view.
I don't understand your obscure reference to the Roman Empire did you mean British Empire?
Once again you are incorrect in your assumption that we are not a 'viable military force'. Actually, we are #4 in the world for military spend; possess a formidable nuclear capability together with one of the world's strongest (and toughest) conventional military forces.
Complain about this comment
@ 36 humanitarian7
I agree with you that criticising somebody else's views, calling them stupid, or protesting against them, does not infringe on their freedom of speech or society's in general. However, my point (I presume you were referring to my post) was that the statement "We don't believe in free speech for fascists", whilst obviously you have the right to say it, is wrong in my opinion. I do believe in free speech for fascists.
There is a long-standing tradition of throwing eggs at British politicians. This doesn't make it right. I think the manner in which the protest was conducted gave the BNP enormous publicity, and allowed Nick Griffin to play the wounded hero, appearing on TV with egg on his jacket. I mean, come on! He even then managed to artfully turn it around and speak out in favour of their right to protest as noisily as they like, as long as it's peaceable. It came across as a massive own goal for UAF, and I think their spokespeople did themselves no favours. If nothing else, this incident should be an indication that using tactics like this against the BNP is a bad idea.
Complain about this comment
I felt that the interviewer was far too soft on the smug and intellectually precious 18 year old Tom Wyatt and his evident wish to go on a witch-hunt against his quite pleasant-sounding BNP neighbour aged 69. And I would have liked to know what Wyatt would have said if quizzed about the vandalistic attacks on the neighbour's car and house, attacks which led his wife to be terrified and beg her husband not to stick up for the BNP locally. Even if Wyatt did not do the attacks personally, did he know about them? How many pseudo "anti-fascist" ideologues can there be in one small neighbourhood?...Personally I am not a BNP member (I am broader ideologically but more radical) and in fact belong to no party. A voice should be raised to the usual propaganda about how people who stand up for European race and culture are stupid or ill-educated. I myself have an IQ measured at 156 (within top 1% of UK population), have a degree (pre-dumbing down days) and two professional qualifications. And I salute the victories of the BNP, which will give them a real platform (which of course is why the "claque" try to use violence to shut them up). Cameron talks about "thugs" of the BNP but the violence (as against the National Front in the 70's) is almost all AGAINST the BNP. The opposition fear the arguments. There is a System: Cameron, Brown, Blair and people like Hain are part of that System. I hope that all northern Europe will awake and join with Scandinavia and Russia!
Complain about this comment
@36 humanitarian7
I wasn't going to post again, but your posting takes the biscuit.
Your view of what constitutes freedom of speech is seriously confused. Freedom of speech means the right to stand up and speak your views without fear of intimidation or consequence. With that freedom of speech comes the responsibility to not use that right to foster or incite hatred and violence and to cast a slur.
Whether you like it or not, the BNP is a legal british party and Nick Griffin is an elected MEP and the head of the party which achieved nearly 1 million votes in the last election. He has the right in our democracy to stand up and speak without fear of intimidation. Others have the right to listen to what he says. His right to free speech was denied him when he was mobbed by a crowd of egg-throwing activists who disagreed with him. That is why people say (as you put it) "don't throw eggs at them, that compromises our freedom of speech". No-one got to hear what he had to say because he was intimidated by the screaming mob and whisked away in a car.
You seem to think the egg throwing mob on the one side were 'shouting' but that this was nothing compared to 'mass genocide' on the other. The BNP website does not contain any reference to their support for mass genocide and they have never engaged in it. Surely you can find something in their manifesto to criticise without fabricating preposterous claims of mass genocide. In reality, what I saw was an egg throwing and shouting mob on the one side and a man trying to speak on the other.
Mass genocide by the way was committed by Hitler, a right wing fascist but it was also committed by Stalin, a left wing dictator.
Your comment: "To say the country is over-crowded is not true ..... Besides, if you think about it, there's PLENTY of land here. If we shared it out a bit more, we'd have a great deal more space for all kinds of new neighbours". Well, really. Words fail me and that doesn't happen very often!
You say: "It's when people don't understand politics that they start to focus upon the simple ( and these are usually the most damaging) explanations." Given your basic grasp of politics, the phrase regarding people in glass houses springs to mind here.
Complain about this comment
@41 EuropeAwake
You said 'I myself have an IQ measured at 156 (within top 1% of UK population), have a degree (pre-dumbing down days) and two professional qualifications.' Well, firstly, let me congratulate you on being so intellectually superior to the rest of us. Secondly, when was the last time you had anything to do with a university, allowing you to make that rather tediously over-used statement about degrees?
Also, please do not make such insulting and false claims against Tom Wyatt. I know the guy, and trust me, he would wish no harm on Alan or his property. So don't start insinuating that Tom had anything to do with them - I am sure that he would abhor such needless violence. Have you ever been to Shrewsbury? It's bigger than you obviously think it is; of course there are different anti-BNP ideologues.
'Cameron talks about "thugs" of the BNP but the violence (as against the National Front in the 70's) is almost all AGAINST the BNP.' Perhaps Cameron means a different sort of thug - not a necessarily physical or violent one, but an ideological thug. Yes, it may be of a vague and wishy-washy term, but that is what the BNP are - ideological thugs. There is no compromise or sense of understanding in their policies. There is no compassion, for want of a better term, no wish to create better relations with ALL peoples, not just those of white skin and English language.
Complain about this comment
@ FemaleRambo
I was not going to post gain but have found one of your comments in our response to me beyond comprehension. When throughout my posts have I given any reason to suggest that I work in the mindset of racial stereotypes?
To all else, quotes from members of the party some of you have seen fit to defend
Nick Griffin on the holocaust-"Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat... I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."
Nick Eriksen BNP on rape-"I've never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime ... Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal."
Mark Collett BNP director of publicity, on AIDS- "it's a friendly disease because blacks, drug users and gays have it"
And you seek to justify a party with members like these?
Complain about this comment
Sorry, but how can you not understand that the BNP is a racist fascistic party based on hate and discrimination?
Previously I tried to include some BNP quotes to illustrate my point, but the moderators found them too diabolical even to post on this website. Nick Griffin, the party leader is a self confessed holocaust denier and has expressed some horrible, racist views. Mark Collett, leader of Young BNP on Channel 4 in 2002 also expressed his racist, homophobic and generally fascistic views. In areas where the BNP rise, there is often a rise in racially motivated crime and actually many BNP members themselves have been convicted of such crimes.
I agree that the main parties are all awful, but as Tom said this is no excuse to vote for the BNP. There are an array of alternative parties who do not represent the undeniably fascistic views. Tom here was portrayed as the "liberal elite", but I do not think we can judge their characters on a short interview.
When confronted with their true ideology, BNP voters must admit either that they were naive or fascistic, willing to use minorities as scapegoats for the problems which the main parties have failed to address.
Complain about this comment
@femalerambo
Is it just warped priorities of pure hipocrisy that leads to you criticising the lack of NHS funds and resources, whilst at the same time being proud of HUGE military spending, and the HUGE tax drain that is the 'great' British royal family?
Maybe if you are worried about foreigners taking your money or your land you could ask the queen for a loan? or camp on her THOUSANDS of acres of land.
Tom did a great job, petty things like perceived patronising tones or intellectual difference are surely so insignificant when discussing an issue as important as the rise of a fascist party in modern day britain? Another case of warped priorities perhaps.
Britishness is not The Queen or having the best tanks or roast beef or enforced christianity, its having the chance to give back to people what we have taken from them during hundreds of year of the British empire. None of us did anything to give us the right of ownership of this country, it was by chance we were born here, this sense of entitlement and greed is what lead to us being the biggest tyrants in history (take that Genghis). We now (as an educated, free society) have the chance to right some wrongs by being an open country to racial integration and multi-culturalism, it is progressive (a historically british virtue) and it is right and just.
Complain about this comment
I'm from Shrewsbury and am glad to say the anti-fascist movement is a lot healthier than the BNP at the moment.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So what do these 'anti fascist' campaigners actually do? Why don't they enter the democratic process and stand in local elections?
Until they start contesting elections themselves, it's hard for me to see them as anything other than a bunch of egg throwing, placard waving, flag burning thrill seekers.
Complain about this comment
@48 FemaleRambo
I really wish you wouldn't tar us all with the same brush, just because we are all arguing against your minority, extremist views. I am actually Conservative, so really really not Socialist. We don't all share the same political beliefs, we just all share the same opposition to the views that you are expressing so vehemently.
And, also, please don't assume that just because I am anti-BNP, I am anti-Britain. I have already said to you that I love this country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I think you do us all a great inustice by suggesting that we hate this country and disregard it. If we did, we wouldn't be so bothered about the BNP getting in power.
So, yes we are number 4 on the military spending list, and I do disagree with the people on the liberal left that defence spending should decrease, but I don't understand why you're making such an issue out of this statistic - what is your point?
You said that 'the British legal system is considered one of the fairest and most equitable in the world'. Two things: firstly, I will coin one of your favourite words and say that your statement is clearly erroneous. There is a massively unrepresentative proportion of upper-class white men in the legal system. Secondly, yes it is much fairer and equitable compared to other countries, and that is because is it increasingly tolerant of different cultures. I don't understand how you can say that it's really fair and then say that it should exclude different cultures?
Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, no doubt you'll say I am even if I'm not, but France has within its society a more vocal extreme right than we have here, and there are many more examples of racism (riots in Paris?) so I'm not sure that if I were an African looking for somewhere else to live I'd choose France over Britain.
In the same vain, I don't think that you can describe 'Britishness' as being racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc. I would say it's about a sense of fair play, and of moving with the times, not wanting to go back to pre-War times.
Yes, the mainstream parties need to get their act together. But why should we all become extreme right-wingers because of some scandal among the main parties?
Please, I don't know what you were trying to do in your last paragraph, but you were either being horrifically naive, or insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this site. OF COURSE the BNP wouldn't put those comments on their website; they like to create this cloak of decency to cover their real aims. Just do any basic Internet search, and you'll come up with their actual beliefs. Hitler had Jewish ancestors, Goebbels had six children, Himmler was squeamish, (oh, and none of the three had blonde hair or blue eyes) but that didn't stop the Nazis. So don't start suggesting that because Griffin has a wife and four kids and was educated at Cambridge, that makes him any more acceptable.
Complain about this comment
@TomJB6
I've spoken to many Conservative Party members who say that they're opposed to the BNP as a political rival - but still agree with many of the BNP's main policies on immigration, EU, the return of the death penalty, etc.
Not all Conservatives subscribe to the new Cameronesque 'PC' liberal brand of toryism. Many are unhappy that their once-great party has turned into a New Labour/Lib Dem hybrid - lacking in substance, purpose and any ideological base.
What's the point of being a Conservative if you're not even sure what you want to conservative?
Love them or loathe them - at least the BNP's policies and motives are there for all to see.
Complain about this comment
@ 50 TomJB6
Nice last paragraph...Sadly this comes across as verging on paranoia. Whilst people within the BNP might hold fascist views, and the BNP has an undeniably fascist background, I'm fed up of this election of 2 MEPs being compared to the rise of the Nazis. Making out that the BNP are fascists, or even Nazis, and continuously stating so, is far too easy to apparently disprove. Even, and I stress, even if they are at heart, all they have to do is say 'look at our policies' which clearly don't fulfil the criteria. Fascism is such a loose term as well that it can be wriggled out of by choosing a definition to suit.
They're racist, they're silly, they're wrong. Are they fascists? That's an interesting debate. I refer you to this excellent article: http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/pages/Latest/BNP.html
We should be wary, but not panicky. Let's get this into perspective.
Complain about this comment
@52 Another_Student
Yeah I see your point. To be honest, I wasn't really using the Nazis as comparison policies-wise, so it was a bad example because other people have compared their policies. I was using it as an example of another extreme party that had seemingly "normal, acceptable" leaders, but still did those awful things once in power. I'm not comparing the rise of the Nazis to the "rise of the BNP", merely using it as an example. I apologise if that wasn't clear.
Complain about this comment
@53
I'm not happy with my own explanation! My point is this, someone may look presentable and seem acceptable (ie educated, with a family) but that doesn't mean that we have to find their ideals and policies any more acceptable, just because they seem to fit to social norm.
Complain about this comment
@FemaleRambo
If you care to read my previous message and the quotes in "Adlahd"'s message, then you can see the truth behind the image of the BNP.
I would have to disagree with "merrymoonclanger" in reference to
"Love them or loathe them - at least the BNP's policies and motives are there for all to see".
Unfortunately the BNP's policies are not there for all to see. The BNP have changed their image, but not their ideology. They are increasingly trying to establish themselves as a viable alternative to the main parties, but behind this front there are some truly dispicable beliefs.
Complain about this comment
@50 TomJB6
All of my postings have been measured and never 'vehement'. I don't do vehement I'm too boringly middle-aged for that.
You ask why I feel you don't like this country. Well, most of the deprecating remarks regarding Britain listed in my posting @38 were expressed by you. There have been more deprecating remarks left by your friends since. If you want to show allegiance to your country then stop bashing it.
I mentioned military spend in my last posting because I was responding to @46 JRALLAN 's accusations of 'hipocrisy" (sic) for 'being proud' of our (in their words HUGE) military spend. As you know I only pointed out our military spend in defence of your comment that we were no longer a viable force. He then inexplicably went on a rant about my being proud of the Royal Family despite my never having mentioned them before. If you cannot understand the point I am making about expenditure on the NHS and the serious situation that faces us from my posting @48, I am afraid I cannot help you any further just read it.
Yes..sorry I lazily used the word 'erroneous' a couple of times and I should have used 'incorrect' or 'wrong' a couple of times to break up the monotony. But it is tedious when you are constantly having to correct factually incorrect statements. Your remarks regarding our legal system are contradictory: on the one hand you tell me I am erroneous to suggest our legal system is one of the fairest and equitable and then you immediately say: " yes it is much fairer and equitable compared to other countries. Forgive my confusion, but what are you trying to say? Either it is or it isn't.
The reason I mentioned our legal system was in defence of a previous deprecating remark made by either you or one of your friends that our system based on Christian culture was not superior and was in fact not as good as some other systems based on Eastern culture.
I have never said our legal system should exclude other cultures. I have said that it has arisen as a result of our Christian culture. We remain a predominantly Christian country (thank goodness) and I see no reason for our legal system to be changed to accommodate, for example, Sharia Law though.
You may be correct in your comments on France, but I don't think it is the whole answer. But as I said I 'd like to know what we give them in comparison with other European countries.
I must really take issue with your comment: I don't think that you can describe 'Britishness' as being racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc. I would NEVER describe Britishness as that and have defended the concept of Britishness since this blog began. I have also made it quite clear (and it is worth repeating) that seeking to defend British culture and traditions and promote the interests of British citizens in Britain is NONE of those things either. You are 'extreme' if you think it is.
I don't know a lot about the BNP and Nick Griffin. I can only discuss the policies on their website. Whenever I have heard him interviewed (when the left wing mob lets him speak) recently he sounds rational to me. Whereas the screaming thugs who try to silence him earn no respect at all. I don't like others intimidating others to suppress their point of view. They are like the sheep in Orwell's '1984' bleating over any questioning by the animals.
I was impressed with his talk on peak oil on the BNP website, which is why I looked at his background. You all erroneously (oops! there I go again) keep assuming I am a member of the BNP despite my telling you repeatedly that I am not. You assume I am racist and yet I have said repeatedly that I do not consider the colour of your skin a deciding factor in whether you are a British citizen see my comment @38 for instance. Having said that I find I agree with quite a few of the BNP polices. And like Alan, I welcome that they are finally speaking out about immigration and the EU and dropping all the PC woolly liberal thinking that has brought this country to such dire straits.
I mentioned Griffin's background because I was genuinely surprised to find he had a law degree from Cambridge and was privately educated . Your friend was right to point out your paranoia and I am afraid it makes you sound like a fantasist. If you are going to fight him, you had better stop screaming Hitler at every turn. You adopt the same attitude to me - calling me racist etc because I have the temerity to suggest that given limited resources our government should put the British people first and we should insist on integration as a requisite for British citizenship.
Complain about this comment
@49 merrymoonclanger
Umm... well I haven't thrown an egg in my life or burned a flag.
I have been to conferences, meetings and other UAF events though. Most of the campaigning includes leafleting anti-BNP materials either door to door or handing them out to the public in the middle of town. UAF also helps with the organisation of events celebrating diversity such as "Rock Against Racism" The aim of this is to raise awareness and educate voters of the true nature of the BNP and then leave it up to them.
UAF would not stand in an election because it is not campaigning for power. It is not a political party, it is a pressure group - like UNISON, TUC, Liberty, Snowdrop, Greenpeace etc etc.
As "Another student" said there is a long British tradition of throwing eggs at politicians, and while I may find such occasions slightly amusing, I would certainly not do it myself.
UAF is a very large organisation made up of ordinary members of the public, union representatives, businessmen and politicians across the political spectrum. Don't let a single news report give you a false impression of the organisation as a who;e. If we all threw eggs, I don't think there would be enough for breakfast.
Complain about this comment
@ 56 FemaleRambo
I think you mean 'Animal Farm'. You're probably kicking yourself for that one :) And I hardly think George Orwell would appreciate being employed in support of your argument, as he's the man who wrote: "Nationalism...is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
Complain about this comment
@58 Another_student
Ouch! (of course I was only testing...just to see if anyone noticed, you'll understand!) And, well done, you did! And I shall be reporting to A & E tomorrow to obtain treatment for the kicking I justifiably gave myself!
You have made some very good points in previous postings too by the way. I shall have to watch you!
Complain about this comment
@brain_dead_student
I don't see a problem with handing out UAF leaflets in the town centre but I don't believe that it's right that the UAF should leaflet in wards where the BNP stand during election time. It makes a complete mockery of the democratic process - especially as members of the other parties (mainly Labour) are involved with the UAF.
Getting back to the main topic - I didn't hear Tom offer any sympathy towards Alan or thank him for attending the interview. I found this a little bit sad, to be honest.
Complain about this comment
This is a revision of my posting @48 with comments regarding Iranian culture in comparison with western culture removed.
@ 46 JRALLAN
Ah yet another missive from the seemingly "Socialist Republic of Shrewsbury" same old incoherent rant; same old attributing comments to me that were not made; same old failure to check facts and muddled thinking and of course same old 'Let's Bash Britain' campaign.
If you read (yes READ) all my comments on this site they are not criticising the lack of NHS funds and resources, they are simply stating there IS a dire lack of resources or as those who manage the service say "it faces its most severe and sustained financial shortfall in its history". My point is that given this shortfall, we cannot and should not continue to provide a free health service to everyone who turns up on our doorstep and British citizens who have paid for the service should be at the front of the queue.
My point about military spending was made to correct the erroneous statement by one of your comrades that Britain is 'no longer a viable military power'. In fact (you should try stating them sometimes), we are #4 in the world for military spend. In fact (there I go again), and to be #4 in the world we spend £38 billion on defence. Yes, imagine that...£38 billion. You describe our defence spending as 'HUGE' (your capitals not mine). Mmm....so what adjective would you use to describe our spending on health then? You see that's £119 billion perhaps you'd need to add a few exclamation marks too. And then of course, there is our expenditure on Social Services (welfare payments etc) .....I think you'll need capitals, exclamation marks and a few asterisks for that because it is £165 billion.
So we have a government which is hugely in debt and we have a health service that is costing us £119 billion per annum and even then still faces a 'severe financial shortfall'. At what point will you accept, that however much you would like to treat the world and its neighbour, we simply no longer have the capability. Woolly liberal thinking like yours has already bled the country dry.
So far I have not mentioned the Queen other than with reference to being Head of the Church of England and with regard to the British passport. Again you see, I merely state facts (you should try it some time it would really help your arguments). I see from the remarks in your posting that you are anti-royalist. You will not be surprised to learn that I support the Queen and monarchy. We have had a monarchy in this country for over a thousand years and I consider it part of my heritage and my British culture.
You see what comes across quite strongly in the previous postings is a complete disregard for British culture and British heritage. And there you go again deprecating Britain 'the biggest tyrants in history' eh? I suggest you check your facts there. We are not without fault, but there are far worse.
Don't you find it odd, considering that you seem to think Britain is so bad, that so many people want to come and live here? I mean, why do they cross beautiful spacious France (with just as stable a political system as ours) to camp at Calais with one goal in mind and that goal being to come here? You see I would really like to know. Obviously, the UK represents a cushy number for them or they would just stay in France (better weather, more space etc and gallons of wine). So what do we give them that France doesn't? I would really like to see a sort of immigrants' checklist of available benefits (in the format you see when comparing vacuum cleaners etc.) It would be nice to know where all my taxes are going. It is really difficult to get information on this.
Finally, you seem to think rather oddly that 'Britishness' can be defined as the British people giving everything we have away to the nationals of other countries....mmm...I think the current mainstream parties might agree with you there.
The problem is that we do not have a mainstream party that puts the interests of British people first and that is why parties like the BNP are gaining ground. Their vote rose by almost 2% nationally (it didn't fall as one your comrades erroneously stated ...). What we need is a political party that will do just that without the baggage the BNP brings with it. But for now we only have the BNP fulfilling this role. In fact, as a result of this blog, I have visited their website this week and don't think their policies are as 'obnoxious' as every man and his dog would have us believe. I couldn't see any reference to their supporting mass genocide, banning homosexual relationships, banning mixed race marriages and forcibly deporting all non-whites from the country as claimed by your comrades in their postings. There was nothing about them denying the holocaust and I was amazed to learn that Nick Griffin is apparently a privately educated Cambridge Law graduate and is married with four children. Rather more establishment than I expected and certainly not the impression you get from the media.
Complain about this comment
@44 +@45 @55 brain_dead_student and Adlah
You're right, if true, then these statements are pretty damning. But I thought I heard Nick Griffin saying something different on the holocaust when interviewed by John Humphreys after the election? They are pretty nasty things to say though if they were actually said. I would have thought the rape one was incitement to commit rape. Anyway, I shall look them up.
One of the previous postings talked about Hitler being reasonable before he came to power. Actually, he wasn't. He had already written Mein Kampf which called for removal of Jews BEFORE he came to power. And he did have his own paramilitary (the SA) before coming to power. (He later murdered them and replaced them with the SS). So any comparison with Nick Griffin is patently absurd.
Complain about this comment
@ 59 + 62 FemaleRambo
No problem. Everyone makes mistakes. All those statements by BNP members are true, but Nick Griffin has done a very good job of cleaning up the party and making it appear more respectable. His treatment of its founder, John Tyndall, is a good example of this. The BNP complain that dredging up quotes is "in a sense, rather fascist", which is of course, ludicrous. The BNP have had undeniable links to the National Front and far-right racist views, and this is why using them as a protest vote because you agree with a few issues is a bad thing in my opinion. UKIP have the policy of a complete end to immigration for 5 years, and similar hardline policies on connected matters, so maybe vote for them? Of course, I don't think they're so great either, but that's another debate.
Also, I'd be careful about making claims about the rise of the Nazis on this page, as I think you have some A-Level History students on here who do modules and modules on that specific topic! So whilst I know nothing, they might have a bit to say on your last post.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't say that dredging up quotes from past was "rather fascist" - but I would say it's rather desperate. Everyone is entitled to change their opinion -So why can't Nick Griffin? As for Erikson - he was sacked and righfully so.
I applaud the BNP for it's efforts to clean up it's act this past decade and transform itself into a credible political force.
Although I would never seek to justify any hurtful and extreme comments made by (mainly ex) BNP members, I would ask people to keep a sense of perspective. It doesn't take much research to compile a very long list of extremely dodgy Lab/Con/Lib Dem'ers. You'll find alot more serious stuff on that lot than you ever would do the BNP.
Complain about this comment
On a different note to the story - I once did some campaigning against the BNP, quite the opposite for campaigning for! They took exception to this and signed me up for every hate related publication they could, including their own, and I was receiving weekly magazines, newspapers and leaflets which made my postwomen begin to think I was a member of some rather nasty organisations....
Goes to show they are not nice people!
Matthew Anderson
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
@merrymoonclanger
@60
Well fair enough, if that is your view, but I would argue that pressure groups of any kind are rightfully a part of our democratic system and our culture which thankfully allows us freedom of speech. I find it hypocritical when people argue that the BNP should be allowed air time and free speech, but oppose pressure groups such as UAF and Hope Not Hate/Searchlight. Whether standing for power or not, they represent a vast number of people and I believe that their view should be heard. I think like most political parties the BNP try to cover up their true position and appear more acceptable to the public. I personally am beyond sceptical about the BNP's "change". Surely leafleting in constituencies is doing a service to democracy since we present the voter with all the facts and leave it up to them.
And in regards to Tom, it wasn't a live interview and they cut out a lot of what he says.
Complain about this comment
I heard the shortened version of this item on last Friday's PM programme, but I was not overly impressed by the discussion between the two neighbours regarding the BNP. What struck me most was the naivety of the anti-BNP neighbour (Tom Wyatt) with regard to the problems created by mass immigration into this small overcrowded and grossly overdeveloped country and his apparent belief that to vote for a political party it is necessary to support every single policy in its manifesto. Speaking as a floating voter, I do not agree with ALL the policies of ANY political party and so whichever party I vote for means my vote will be supporting some policies that I dislike or oppose. This is unavoidable, the only alternative is to abstain at every election! In this respect the BNP is no different to any other party.
If the BNP gains support it will largely be because of the unwillingness of the three main political parties to acknowledge that mass immigration DOES cause problems - economic, social and environmental problems. Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives all prefer to just bury their collective heads in the sand on this issue and close down meaningful debate by erroneously claiming that those who oppose immigration are, by necessity, racist. In reality, all areas of government policy are affected by the population level and the nature of the populace - this is a fundamental issue. Consequently, any political party that does not have a 'Population Policy' (which includes immigration) is totally irresponsible and does not deserve the support of any thinking voter.
Complain about this comment
@67 TerryS
Well said! You might be interested to know that the full interview is still available in the introduction if you scroll to the top of this blog item.
Complain about this comment
Ah, Griffin's "Immigration Policy":
Blow up the boats.
Hmm, liberal.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS