Home Politics & Debate
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

BNP leaflets with those cartoons...

We live in difficult times in the UK. Racial and religious tensions are fairly high at the moment. You wouldn't want to risk enraging people further, would you? So, you can always trust the BNP to completely ignore any sensitivities;

<< DETAILS >>

Yes, the party that calls Muslims "criminals" (despite the fact most BNP members and workers have criminal records as long as time itself) is up to its old tricks. Apparently, the leaflets are a reaction against the British media's sensible decision not to publish the highly offensive cartoons. The BNP's resident scum.. sorry, I mean spokesman, said; “What the leaflet says is which do you find most offensive? The cartoon or Muslim demonstrators calling for terrorist attacks on Europe?”

Alright, so calling for suicide bombers to strike the world's cities is bang out of order. But so is creating even more offence than has already been caused, is it not?

What do you think? Is the BNP just playing politics again?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its a stupid party trying to get itself in the headlines again, just turn away and dont look at them, hopefully they'll go away.

    The cartoons arent even funny or clever they're just crap.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They're playing EXACTLY the same game as the muslim extremists who pop up when the opportunity arises, in order to inflame the situation and arouse hatred. Both of these groups want to achieve the same goal.

    In fact it wouldn't suprise me if there is some contact between members of the BNP and muslim extremists - in the same way a football firm would ring up an opposing firm to arrange some mayhem.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am deeply offended by the very existence of the BNP. Any chance we get a ban on the publication of any literature, stories, coments and press releases from them?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Typical moronic racist and offensive BNP stratergy. I hope Nick Griffin gets killed in a riot.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote:
    Typical moronic racist and offensive BNP stratergy. I hope Nick Griffin gets killed in a riot.
    One occasion when I actually agree with you.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I am deeply offended by the very existence of the BNP. Any chance we get a ban on the publication of any literature, stories, coments and press releases from them?

    :rolleyes:

    If you think that's the way to defeat fascism then you're sadly mistaken.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    :rolleyes: If you think that's the way to defeat fascism then you're sadly mistaken.
    It's classic Aladdin. He didn't like fox hunting, so he supported this Government's attempt to ban it. This despite the fact the law has more holes than a document about Iraqi WMD. And he doesn't like smoking, so he supports an illiberal ban on it. Just another textbook case from the man himself.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    :rolleyes:

    If you think that's the way to defeat fascism then you're sadly mistaken.
    Given that whenever they are allowed to speak freely they manage to convince/brainwash a few idiots who should know better, don't you think the less exposure they have, the better?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    It's classic Aladdin. He didn't like fox hunting, so he supported this Government's attempt to ban it.
    What on earth is wrong with that?

    Forgive me for not liking having animals killed in the most cruel way imaginable.
    This despite the fact the law has more holes than a document about Iraqi WMD.
    Perhaps if the government hadn't faced indescribably hostile opposition (and yet completely unrepresentative of the public's opinion) for 7 long years by largely a bunch of selfish twats looking after their own interests and hobbies, the legislation would have been better drafted.
    And he doesn't like smoking, so he supports an illiberal ban on it. Just another textbook case from the man himself.
    Oops. You've fucked up there mate. I'm against the ban. Go check it out.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Al is in favour of anything as long as 51 out of every hundred want it to happen.

    Unless it's something he doesn't like, ofc. Then everyone is an idiot.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Perhaps if the government hadn't faced indescribably hostile opposition (and yet completely unrepresentative of the public's opinion) for 7 long years by largely a bunch of selfish twats looking after their own interests and hobbies, the legislation would have been better drafted.
    Couldn't they have done it in 1997? They had an enormous majority. The Government could have done almost anything it wanted. But no. It squandered the huge mandate it was given and we now have a pathetic mish-mash bill that doesn't help foxes any more than it helps anyone else.

    Apologies for getting it wrong about your views on the smoking ban, however.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd imagine they would have done it, if not in 1997 at least in 1999 or 2000 had the Lords not decided to torpedo the bill repeteadly.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I'd imagine they would have done it, if not in 1997 at least in 1999 or 2000 had the Lords not decided to torpedo the bill repeteadly.
    Couldn't they foresee that the Lords would do this? I reckon they did. So, what did they do? Why, take out (no pun intended) lots of peers and replace them with Tony's cronies. (a peerage is practically handed out with a Labour Party donation now, but that's another issue.) By the end, I was just screaming at the telly "oh, if you're going to ban it, fucking ban it already, you bastards!".
Sign In or Register to comment.