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.
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
I mentioned this in anything goes, how I was telling him about the theory that all people are descended from people in Africa, and that the chances of Jesus being white were non-existant (the fact he lived in the Middle East).
As soon as I mentioned all this, he declared that it was bollocks and that black people should be kicked out the country or exterminated in order to prevent their filthy genes being passed along.
He also threatened to do nasty things if I insisted that the theory was true.
With people like that representing it, the BNP should be declared illegal. To vote it in would see a return of Nazi Germany, but in England.
The worst thing we can do is censor these creeps.
but thats the whole point mate, most people in this country, if they heard that would run a mile and stay away from the BNP for the rest of their lives. That guy sounds like a psycho and nobody could take him seriously.
Getting them to show their true colours in public view is whats needed. It will put people off. At the moment, most people only hear these vague references to 'anti-political correctness' or 'rights for british people', 'voluntary repatriation' or 'an end to positive discrimination'....All the stuff we hear about these days sounds relatively moderate. Most people dont have the will to go and do more research on these people and the 'no platform' thing makes sure they dont hear about it on TV or any other mass media, so they just go on believing that if such a party has these 'reasonable' views then they must have other reasonable policies and secure in their ignorance they go and put the X in the BNP box.
This is a democracy, making them illegal is not permitted. Not unless they start breaking the law.
Declaring it illegal wouldn't be any better. If we cannot argue with or allow dissenting voices then we are no better. If the BNP is what the people want, then we must accept that - this country is a democracy, isn't it?
I have enough faith in my countrymen to believe that this wouldn't happen...
In the letters to the Mail on Friday (yes I had the mail :crazyeyes ) one man wrote a letter concerning Sangatte and claimed that if a third of our population were of ethnic minorities which subsequently disadvantaged the economy and that if a party didn't deal with the 'problem' of immigration then he would be 'forced' to vote BNP...........
Now this mans opinion is based mainly on ignorance it would appear (which the Mail disgustingly did not try to change, no reply from them on the real facts :mad: )
True facts will emerge in debate, they would be torn to shit.......
And another thing is inviting them to speak at a university, which no one is obliged to do, it is a non-official and voluntary act and does not form part of an election process. This is a privately-held event and if any individual or group is banned it is a matter for the organisers. The BNP are still invited to radio debates across the country and have more than enough exposure from the media and chances to put their message across.
The students of that university where naturally revolted at the prospect of having such scum speaking there and moved to block them. This does not mean the little Hitlers have been banned from speaking up. Simply that the residents/students of a venerable institution don't want it stained with the fetid presence of such people.
Im confused as to what your argument is now Aladdin...Are we talking about this specific case or are we talking about the wider 'no platform' issue. If we are talking about specifics then your earlier posts seem a little misplaced
Also, its just the labour group who got this event banned. I wonder what the numbers involved were. It takes 13 complaints to get a TV ad taken off the air regardless of the positive comments. Interesting to know how this worked and whether it was another case of the vocal minority getting them banned...Obviously not many would stand up openly for the BNP at cambridge but i wonder how many were interested in hearing them. Worrying stuff..
Toadborg, the letters section of the mail is just that, a letters section. They dont get into debates and they dont answer questions.
and once again, bollocks. like I said earlier, the students union passed a motion against it - after a vigourous debate - and lots of other uni wide societies, mostly those representing minority groups but some other ones too, backed it. I disagree with them about whether he should have spoken or not, but I'd say that's pretty strong evidence that this isn't just considered miportant by a tiny minority. WHat happened was, a petition was signed which persuaded the original venue to cancel, after which it got moved to the union, whichwasn't actually the organiser. Then, there was a motion at the STUDENTS union (different to the union - weird, I know) which people argued about at length and voted on.
Also, if the previous week's debate on a similar issue was anything to go by, as I mentioned before, then I'd say lots of people are interested in hearing Griffin and manage at the same time to disagree with him vehemently and think he's scum. The mood at the past debate was united and passionately against the likes of Griffin.
Please don't make sinsinuate students here are racist (which you certainly did with 'stained with their fetid presence) unless you know what you're talking about.
I never said that all the students were racist but youve said that all of them are not. Which is more plausible? Please think before jumping down my throat
As for the second part, it was genuine interest..Thank you for enlightening me but the bollocks is rarely needed :rolleyes: ...Im only going on what ive read in here, i dont know the internal workings of cambridge.
the second part may have been genuine interest but it seemed to me a little loaded in one direction - ie only a very few people at cambridge gave a shit, and if they were interested in hearing griffin's point of view they were probably edging towards sharing it. if I was wrong then I'm sorry.
anyhow. nighty night.
Presence certainly doesnt mean virulent and active force, you are just grasping now.
Anyway, totally off the point...Just saying that i know 7 people currently at cambridge who hold far more right wing views than my own...supposedly intelligent people as well.
I'm sure there are plenty of right wing people at cambridge, but I wouldn't call that the same thing as being racist, would you? and either you're extremely left wing or you've met a very peculiar sample of the students. also, it seems a bit odd to accuse me of assuming that because the people I know aren't racist that there aren't any racists and then say that because you know a whole seven right wing people there it's an automatically right wing uni.
Maybe right wing was the wrong word but I thought my previous post would have let you know what I meant...They are active BNP supporters. Clear enough?
Oh and please point out where ive classed the entire uni as right wing or anything else for that matter..Im not the one making crass generalisations here.
If a BNP member had come to debate with an MP at Cambridge, would that mean the university had a major problem with racism and right wing feeling? If not then the way I took your statement about fetid presence was correct.
Anyway, pointless and petty convo so im out...PM me if you wanna argue further and to no end.
so, um, feeling quite moronic at the moment. anyway. Will shut up now and go and hide in the corner.