If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
X
Of course, they have a right to say these things. But it does not make them correct. I don't quite understand how people could agree with Nick Griffin on any subject. I don't think I've ever heard anything from his, or his parties, mouth that is worth lending an ear to.
X
Not the point - I could say that about other political parties as well. There are two reasons to allow him on QT, the tactical and the moral
The tactical reason is that attempts to ignore the BNP or shout them down have obviously comprehensively failed given that policy has been followed for years and the BNP has risen from a party with no councillors to one with dozens and two MEPs
The second is moral and that is free speech applies to the BNP as to anyone else.
Maybe I missed something. Can someone please explain to me why Britain's nationalist party has members in the European Parliament?
Nationalists in an international parliament
How many people are there in the US federal government arguing to take powers from the central government and give them to individual states? No different.
There is a very large difference. States in the U.S. are not actually states in the sense that they are not actually fully sovereign. Representatives who advocate for devolution of power from our federal government to the states are not state-nationalists, it is more an issue of tipping the balance of power away from the federal government.
And it's an issue of tipping the balance of power away from the European parliament. I doesn't make any difference if we're talking about countries vs. states. It's the same principle. That's more UKIP's opinion though. The BNP seem to be against Europe, but in favour of an authoritarian national government instead, which is ridiculous. But then the BNP are ridiculous.
Can the EU make legislation which directly changes the laws inside the UK?
I stand corrected then. My mistake.
And since I've already derailed the thread, does the EU level taxes as well?
Though they're working on it. Probably.
Bastards.
Oh, christ yeah. But at this time we are talking about The British National Party.
I'm sure I could find fault with every party there is. But, in my views, BNP out does every other party on pointlessness. (spelling?)
X
Perhaps you should do a little more research then.
I've just had a scan through their policies and, the well-publicised ones aside, here are some extracts:
Law & Order: remove the oppressive bureaucracy from the legislate and the police so they can get back to the business of catching and locking up bad guys. Reading the excellent blogs by Nightjack (formerly), Inspector Gadget and the Magistrate's Blog "The Law West of Ealing Broadway", if they're at all indicative of the opinion of the wider police and legislative population, the bureaucracy does need to go if they are to do their jobs properly.
Agriculture: More investment in organic farming, reimposition of exclusion zones around the coast for fishing
Health: Fully committed to the NHS, more money for doctors and nurses
Transport: More investment in public transport, opposition to extra runway at Heathrow and more investment in rail travel to bring it up to the standard of the rest of Europe
Environment: "The polluter cleans up the mess", move away from ghastly 60's Stalinist architecture
Few more tasty titbits:
- More devolution of power to the people for Gov't decisions, i.e. referenda on key decisions, something which has been noticable by its absence in recent years
- More money for old folks
- No more defence spending cuts
- Pull out of Afghanistan
Clearly the rantings of the lunatic fringe...
Call me a raving fascist pig if you like, but those seem like sensible policies. I won't be voting for them for some of their more extreme views, but the above is as credible as anything else I've read from any of the other main parties.
I think your "no" is challenged by Council Directive 2006/112/EC.
The BNP is, has always been, and will always be, a one issue party. We all know what that issue is.
And furthermore, there can be no doubt on anyone's mind who is not naive to the point of hopelessness that in the hypothetical case the BNP won a general election with overall majority, they would try to uninstall the democratic system and most civil liberties and rights if they thought they had but the slimmest chance of getting away with it. Precisely what their ideological mentors did in Germany within 18 months of being democratically elected in 1933. And we all know how that one panned out...
If that were to happen, I would at least have a small comfort to warm my heart throughout those black days: the looks on the faces of all those people who so nobly and gallantly had defended full right of free speech and participation in the democratic process by the BNP, and now found themselves victims of a dictatorship with no right of free speech imposed by the very same chaps they fought so hard for.
The BNP are not going to get in power by allowing their leader to appear on QT; the people participating in this thread can't even agree whether or not it'll do them more harm than good, let alone elect them into government.
Like it or not the BNP are a party with democratically elected members. Inherent in democracy is the issue of dealing with parties, people and policies you don't like and may well find odious. Just because the BNP and racism is your hot-button, doesn't mean you get to side-step free speech and the democratic process. I find policies which discriminate against the most vulnerable people in society, policies which are going to come in under the Tories, equally as upsetting as racism. I'm not, however, banning the Tories from appearing on the BBC - something which using your ethos would be perfectly fine.
I'm not even going to bother with refuting comparisons between post-First World War Germany, and modern-day Britain. It's a comparison that's all but useless.
If he said "let's end poverty in England" he'd follow it with "By sending away all the people involved to live somewhere else. We wont actually address the problem, but it wont be on our land anymore."
I just hate BNP. Simples.
X
I think it's unhelpful to be so polarised about the issue. Retreating into Them and Us camps does no-one any favours. All that happens is people balkanize and very little useful gets achieved.
Part of the the BNPs support can be attributed to them campaigning on issues which people feel the main parties simply aren't addressing. I think it's understandable that when you feel voiceless you go with the guy who says they'll give you a voice. I think the cure for the BNP is educating people about them, not calling them names for supporting them.
Every single rightwing tabloid, which includes the two biggest selling newspapers in this country, is raving 24/7 about the evils of Johnny Foreigner and all those illegal immigrants and Muslims destroying our economy and way of life. They might not claim "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" on the front page, but their agenda is actually worse and more poisoning.
Racial and religious-racial tensions in many inner cities are worrying, and not getting any better. And where you had Blackshirts marching in the East End against Jews in the 30s, today we have BNP and "English Defence League" cunts doing the same in Asian-populated areas.
Oh, I'd say the comparisons between that era and today are very much valid, and something we should consider carefully.
Well yeah, but it's like every political party in the UK has a policy of offering goodies to as many people as possible. But they don't have any so they have to forcibly take them from someone first, so it's completely relevant.
Polarised hyperbole like this is a detriment to reasoned debate. There are issues surrounding Islam and immigration in the UK. Dismissing people, either out of hand or otherwise, who raise their concerns over these topics, is part of the problem. And you making making out that people who aren't for abandoning free speech and the democratic process, are committing acts tantamount to ushering in the Third Reich, is far from helpful.
There are plenty of things that are worrying about today's society, but the way to deal with it isn't by picking your particular bugbear and gagging people with opposing opinions. Drawing comparisons between Hitler and whatever it is that pisses you of doesn't gain you any ground, in fact it shows a lack of understanding of any of the details of a situation; you don't get arbitrate what I can and can't be exposed to by decrying Nazis.
By the way: If a P&D meet ever happens I'd love buy you a beer and have these topics out with you in person!
if P&D ever meets the riot cops will be so overwhelmed they'll have to call in the army
While I'm not suggesting the country is on the verge of civil war, nor was it on the 30s either. But I really believe there is similar amount of discontent and resentment on the streets, and certainly similar numbers of fascist/racist troublemakers stirring trouble, to that of the Mosley years.
The BNP is nowhere near the strenght of the National Socialist Party either. But the seed for a stronger, more appealing fascist party could be being planted right now. The very powerful right wing tabloid press is not helping matters either.
I suspect that even the most ardent supporter of free speech for everybody would have to betray their beliefs if they were offered the chance to climb onto a time machine and ban the National Socialist Party, and any subsequent reincarnations of it, before they had the chance to win the 1933 election. Would you not?
I'll be wearing my Hitler comedy moustache for the occasion