View Full Version : Nick Griffin - BNP
I see that Nick Griffin has been cleared in open court of charges of inciting racial hatred. Can we now expect to see other openly racial organisations such as the Muslim Council of Great Britain and the Black Police Officers Organisation subjected to public scrutiny in an open forum. I fear not showing once again that racism is a one way street to our over politically correct government.
percy toboggan
12-Nov-06, 10:38
Griffin said no more than what many ordinary people say in private.
I support his right to say what he said 100%.
Furthermore the BNP does not promote violence , bombing, or head removal. It is a legitimate party and has a place amongst the panoply of British political life.
At best it can only ever be a catalyst to fundamental change. Whatever it's eventual role it is for now, a necessary anit-dote to all the liberal and left wing 'diversity' twaddle we hear so much of in our daily lives.
How can a court convict Griffin of inciting racial hatred towards Islam when Islam is not a race AND the Koran is littered with verses that incite racial hatred?:roll:
OK, the Koran is not all like that as it provides a 'pick and mix' blend of reading material to suit the mental frame of the reader. Much the same as the Bible.
frank ward
12-Nov-06, 13:45
percy says "the BNP does not promote violence."
He is either naive or a crafty mole. Given some of his previous posts on the BNP's favourite topics - immigration, muslims, etc etc - I suggest the latter.
Before you line up to defend the BNP – using the same “only speaking for the common man” twaddle - perhaps we should discover the nature of the BNP at these sites:
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/
http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/
http://www.uaf.org.uk/
Thuggery has always been the stock-in-trade of the far right, be they the medieval fascists of the Al-Qaida brand or the shirt-and-tie respectability of Nick Griffin and his goons.
Apart from anti-fascist organisations, you can also visit the website of the nazi BNP itself for an example of how fascist filth presents itself as patriotic etc etc etc.
How can a court convict Griffin of inciting racial hatred towards Islam when Islam is not a race AND the Koran is littered with verses that incite racial hatred?:roll:
OK, the Koran is not all like that as it provides a 'pick and mix' blend of reading material to suit the mental frame of the reader. Much the same as the Bible.
Not sure if you are supporting the BNP or just making a legal point. Hope it is the latter as I do not think someone with a poppy as a motif should be backing a right wing, sudo-nazis group!
Not sure if you are supporting the BNP or just making a legal point. Hope it is the latter as I do not think someone with a poppy as a motif should be backing a right wing, sudo-nazis group!
Purely making a legal point, my mother would be horrified if I was supporting the BNP.:lol:
I never looked at Franks links but i've got a fair idea of their content. Violence is always associated with the BNP whether Griffins denial of it carries any truth or not. It's a fair sign that they need watched. Percys right though millions feel like him.
Liberal values, as much as Percy denys them are not going to go away though. It's here to stay. We have to learn to live with it. The world and it's people are changing and it's happening in front of our very eyes.:eek:
Nick Griffin is a well dressed, far right politician who echoes the thoughts of millions. He has a point. Any time I have listened to him he has presented a good case for the introduction of laws to Anglicise the UK.
It gives me an uncomfortable feeling though.
I can never forget the humble beginnings of the nazis who preyed on a similar fear in the German people to come to power.
I do not think someone with a poppy as a motif should be backing a right wing, sudo-nazis group!
I have thought about your comment and my first reaction was to agree with you but I now have second thoughts.
First of all, a little background information. Rudyard Kipling wrote many poems that captured the 'spirit of the times' or the Zeitgeist of the nation during the first world war and before. Those poems shed some light on the British attitudes to non-Britons not necessarily German. He has been judged as a Nazi by modern day apologists but he was appointed the Poet Laureate as a token that he summed up the ethos of the times. Needless to say some of his writings would not be out of place in a Nick Griffin speech. However, it would ludicrous to suggest that the WW1 veterans should not be allowed to wear a poppy on Remembrance Sunday. Similiarly, it should be ludicrous to deny Griffin's right to wear a poppy on Remembrance Sunday when, ironically, his views albeit antiquated and unjust now, would have been shared by many if not most of the fallen during WW1 and WW2.
I think politics should be kept out of Remembrance from any quarter it comes. It is a personal thing and I am glad that it is having a resurgence.
Boozeburglar
12-Nov-06, 21:28
"Similiarly, it should be ludicrous to deny Griffin's right to wear a poppy on Remembrance Sunday when, ironically, his views albeit antiquated and unjust now, would have been shared by many if not most of the fallen during WW1 and WW2."
Based on what evidence exactly.
Twaddle.
The_man_from_del_monte
12-Nov-06, 21:29
Just do a google for BNP and you'll find their website, I don't see any reference to violence or thuggery on it and some of the articles on the site seem extremely sensible and well written.
Boozeburglar
12-Nov-06, 21:40
"Can we now expect to see other openly racial organisations such as the Muslim Council of Great Britain and the Black Police Officers Organisation"
Can you give some evidence for your assertion that these are opnly racist organisations?
Rubbish.
David from Stockport
12-Nov-06, 22:24
The BNP are only putting accross what so many of us think becouse the mainstream party s do so little to alay our fears . Although i want immigration stopping in its present mass and uncontrolled way i dont actualy like Nick Griffin and if you look at the pondlife that stand as BNP councillors etc you can see what type of people a lot of them are - personnaly whilst id control immigration very tightly id also build more prisons for our own homegrown scumbags thugs etc which im sure would account for some of Mr Griffins supporters. Mind you if the BNP found a pleasent person with a decent personality to lead them then they would pick up plenty of votes . Someone mentioned the Black police officers association , of course its racist - were is the white police officers association ? and when are the awards for -music of white origein , white business awards etc and will the people who shout about quotas of ethnic people in jobs like the Police or the BBC or anything like that be extending this to include say football and athelitics becouse if we get rid of enough blacks in sport so that they reflect racial makeup of the UK we may never win another medal but it would be fair!!!!!!!!!! or does it not work that way . My system is employ the best person for the job regardless of colour, age , sex etc .
Boozeburglar
12-Nov-06, 23:10
Idiot.
Do some research before you post.
Any association of whatever Police Officers or whatever exists to support the members from that background in facing the challenges their background poses to them in acquiring/progressing in their job.
Suggesting that is racist is like suggesting there should be no disability groups/blind groups etc. They are not trying to promote the idea of an all black police force, they are trying to increase opportunity/promote equality.
There is no such need in football, as the recruitement policy, being skills based, allows players of any background total equality in opportunity.
This is unusual and the result of strong market forces.
Where recruitment can reflect background at the whim of personal choice, you will find inequality reflecting inherent prejudices in society and that is why there have to be lobby groups to attempt to redress that imbalance.
http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/CP/the_edge/issue16/howblack.aspx?ComponentId=4324&SourcePageId=4455
http://www.sundayherald.com/49028
By the way, up yours to anyone who supports the BNP
British Nazi Party
I see that Nick Griffin has been cleared in open court of charges of inciting racial hatred. Can we now expect to see other openly racial organisations such as the Muslim Council of Great Britain and the Black Police Officers Organisation subjected to public scrutiny in an open forum. I fear not showing once again that racism is a one way street to our over politically correct government.
Islam is a religion.
Egg & Spoon is a race.
So.... why are you surprised that he was cleared of inciting racial hatred??
pultneytooner
12-Nov-06, 23:28
You will all be suporting the B'N'P in the end.[lol]
Your culture, way of life is being eradicated, are you all happy with that?
If you are, good luck to you but prepare for the worst.
You will all be suporting the B'N'P in the end.[lol]
Your culture, way of life is being eradicated, are you all happy with that?
If you are, good luck to you but prepare for the worst.
Agree 100%
We are all so busy being "tolerant"......... How tolerant of our culture will the Muslims be, once they have majority in power?
Australia seem to have a better handle on this than the UK.
David from Stockport
13-Nov-06, 00:18
Well mr boozeburgler you dont need a black police assoiciation , the blacks within in police just need to be good policemen and they will find that there fellow white officers in the main dont give a damn what colour they are , if a white officer is getting his head kicked in all he wants is a colleage to assist and he doesnt give a toss what colour they are believe me , all special groups for blacks etc does is wind up the whites. we just need a level playing field anyone that choses anyone on colour and not ability only shoots themself in the foot in the long term.
From the quotes I heard which the BBC News took from their own programme and chose as examples of what was said in the Speech the problem seems to be more in the minds of the programme makers than in the speech itself.
Had the alleged offences been true then I would ask who was more likely to create racial tension, hatred and violence, someone making the speech to a small handful of like minded people in a hall, or a National Television source broadcasting the speech to what must by now be an audience of millions?
I do not like what Nick Griffin said nor do I like what the BNP stands for, but I could say the same for certain others who's political views are at the other extremes of politics.
The fact I might not like them or find their attitudes palatable does not make it a Criminal Offence.
I would question why the BBC, or any other similar Media source, would choose to broadcast something that they had obviously decided to raise Racial Tensions, Hatred and Violence. By doing so they are doing exactly the same thing that they are claiming is wrong and illegal, but on a far more massive scale than the BNP could ever dream of, let alone expect.
No doubt they would claim "Public Interest" and cry "The Public have a right to know!", but does that give them the right to broadcast exactly the things which they claim are not only dangerous but also illegal?
Surely the right action to take in order to prevent the spread of such "Dangerous Racial Prejudice" to a wider audience would have been to take the evidence to the appropriate authorities for the necessary action to be taken. Broadcasting the speech to a vast audience was, to say the least, irresponsible and could even be said to be contributing to the alleged offence had it been proved.
By putting their own interests first the BBC not only did more to spread the BNP’s Message that they themselves ever could. They also provided the BNP with a very credible defence that, despite the additional publicity given to the speech by the BBC, there was nothing to show that a single person’s attitude was altered or any ones actions changed.
As a result of that, the case against Nick Griffin and his cohort failed completely.
"Similiarly, it should be ludicrous to deny Griffin's right to wear a poppy on Remembrance Sunday when, ironically, his views albeit antiquated and unjust now, would have been shared by many if not most of the fallen during WW1 and WW2."
Based on what evidence exactly.
Twaddle.
Just read history why don't you, we, as the British nation were the biggest racists on the planet. It is just that at the time it was considered morally right to be racially superior to everyone else. How the 'spirit of the times' do change. We've come a long way since then, thankfully.
I have the misfortune to live in a city where The BNP had a stronghold a few years back.
"Paki Bashing," and homophobia were their delights and almost every weekend there were incidents that would make any thinking person cringe.
Whilst appreciating the fact that we have freedom of speech and that in this case Nick did not trangress the law but very deftly exploited a loophole, I am horrified by the extremism of the far right, in fact all extremism needs to be adressed whether from the left or the right.
To me the person that hides behind the bullet and the bomb is a coward and those that cannot judge their fellow man on their individual worth need to step back, take a good look at themselves and question their ideals, although I doubt that they would know what that means.
At the end of the day, all the majority of us ask is to live our lives in peace,educate our children, protect what is important to us and just maybe offer the hand of friendship to those who have the same asperations.
Rheghead, I would dispute that we were any worse or indeed any better than many other Countries, it's just that we are more willing to admit the fact rather than just not mention it.
As for the rest of what you say I could not agree more. If we are to pass judgement on people's attitudes in the past then we should judge them according to the attitudes and actions of their day.
Boozeburglar
13-Nov-06, 02:32
Well mr boozeburgler you dont need a black police assoiciation , the blacks within in police just need to be good policemen and they will find that there fellow white officers in the main dont give a damn what colour they are , if a white officer is getting his head kicked in all he wants is a colleage to assist and he doesnt give a toss what colour they are believe me , all special groups for blacks etc does is wind up the whites. we just need a level playing field anyone that choses anyone on colour and not ability only shoots themself in the foot in the long term.
Rubbish.
The force themselves agree they are instituionally racist.
Perhaps you don't understand what that means.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain.
Boozeburglar
13-Nov-06, 02:38
You can't relate views in the 21st Century and correlate them with views in the 1930s or 40s, with any relevance at all.
With that logic, you would be arguing against universal suffrage, and numerous other improvements we have made.
Idiot.
Boozeburglar
13-Nov-06, 02:42
I don't need to act apologist for the police force and their problems, read their own websites and do some research.
I do, however, have a sister in law who happens to be a black police officer in the Met, and friends who are minorities in the force elsewhere.
I don't intend to get any further into this here, it is not a game to me.
Keith Shelley
13-Nov-06, 02:49
We need to be carefull. To the Germans Adolph Hitler looked ok until he was in power. Unfortunately, because all the current mainstream political parties can only be seperated by the width of a hair, people will take the lunatic fringe seriously. They are still a bunch of lunatics no matter how they dress themselves up. Our proper political parties need to pay heed to this or we run the risk of letting complete lunatics into power.
Keith
Boozeburglar
13-Nov-06, 02:55
Thanks for the voice of reason Keith.
We are indeed in danger of letting the fringe view dominate the centre ground, and meanwhile the oppressed will have no real voice.
To boozeburglars earlier post re BPOO etc being racist - of course they are. If I attempted to set up WOOF (white offshore operators federation) I would expect to be severely criticised and even prosecuted for my actions. If however I set up BOOF (black offshore operators federation) then I would probably receive a knighthood.
In a similar fashion many employment openings, especially government, are now openly racist by setting minimum employment levels for ethnic minorities. If they do not have suitably qualified applicants then they take next best. Enough said!
David from Stockport
13-Nov-06, 12:42
Boose burgler you said that even the police said that they are racist! - this is incorrect -a few top police officers have said that the force is racist , this seems to be an attempt by them to show how pc they are ,these views believe me are not held by the rank and file of the force (or should i be pc and call it service) in fact there was a lot of discust from normal bobbies on the beat when these comments were made , of course there will be officers who are racist the same as any other job but the majority attempt to do there job not blinded by colour and i maintain you dont need a Black association . Unforuantly in these days of quota s etc like the force the other month that is now being sued after only inviting ethnic minorities for interview and binning applications from white s, when a minority does turn up for his first day on duty he may well be viewed with more suspicion than a white starter becouse whilst such positive discrimination is in force other officers will wonder if they got in becouse they a) had what it takes b)were the right colour . There is one way for the minority to overcome this and that is work hard back up your colleages and dont bring up the colour of your skin when you have had a bad day.
Of course more blacks than whites get stopped and searched in places like London but thats becouse they commit the majority of streetcrimes , muggings , drugs etc , this is not racism its doing the job. More whites than blacks get arrested for corporate crime etc which probaly costs us more money that muggings etc , this is not a type of crime that a stop and search would detect but it is still a crime .
percy toboggan
13-Nov-06, 20:41
percy says "the BNP does not promote violence."
He is either naive or a crafty mole. Given some of his previous posts on the BNP's favourite topics - immigration, muslims, etc etc - I suggest the latter.
You can suggest what you like.
Frank, I don't give a hoover.*
I'm neither 'naive ' nor a 'mole' but I am a free thinker who is not afraid to speak his mind be it controversially or otherwise.
My first impression of you is that you do not have not a clue what you are talking about.
weeboyagee
13-Nov-06, 20:57
...He has a point. Any time I have listened to him he has presented a good case for the introduction of laws to Anglicise the UK.
It gives me an uncomfortable feeling though...I can never forget the humble beginnings of the nazis who preyed on a similar fear in the German people to come to power.
Hmm,.....my thoughts as well here. Nick has a knack of putting a point across very well and with some ability to convince, however the followers of his party that believe they are the "enforcers" of everything that is good and "British" for the "British" people show the real face of his party - in a most undemocratic fashion.
Jaws, I think you're post on this was brilliant.
I don't need to act apologist for the police force and their problems, read their own websites and do some research.
I do, however, have a sister in law who happens to be a black police officer in the Met, and friends who are minorities in the force elsewhere.
I don't intend to get any further into this here, it is not a game to me.Nobody suggested it was a "game". I was just wondering where the "Institutionalised" came into it.
In any large organisation there will be Racists, and that is not to say their views should be accepted or tolerated.
To say it is "Institutionalised" would seem to indicate, certainly to me, that being “Racist” is considered to be some sort of requirement in order to belong to an Organisation described as such.
I am well aware of the origins of the phrase and the reasons behind the Met’s comments concerning it, but that’s a different story.
pultneytooner
13-Nov-06, 21:15
Any association of whatever Police Officers or whatever exists to support the members from that background in facing the challenges their background poses to them in acquiring/progressing in their job.
Suggesting that is racist is like suggesting there should be no disability groups/blind groups etc. They are not trying to promote the idea of an all black police force, they are trying to increase opportunity/promote equality.
How would people react if there was an association of white police officers, I reckon they would be screaming blue murder at the very thought. These types of associations should be disbanded immediately.
j4bberw0ck
13-Nov-06, 21:26
Eeh bah goom, there's some weird and wonderful views about.
The thing I find fascinating is that since Nick-what's-his-face was acquitted by a jury of his peers for not actually saying anything that contravened the Race Relations Act, you've got every publicity seeking liberal politician starting at Gordon Brown and working downwards from there wanting to rewrite the law books so that next time they can get him.
Now call me cynical if you will, but isn't it very, very dangerous when politicians start wanting to outlaw "hate"? What goes next? Love? Faith? Hope? Charity? Forget Hitler; now we're in the realms of George Orwell and 1984, "thought police" and the sort of world that Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and others would recognise and probably approve of. Fascism beckons, all right - but not from the direction you all seem to be looking.
And before any socialists and trendy liberals accuse me of supporting the BNP - nope. Wrong again.
And before any socialists and trendy liberals accuse me of supporting the BNP - nope. Wrong again.
The Monster Raving Loonie Party by any chance then?[lol]
j4bberw0ck
13-Nov-06, 21:41
Some would say so, golach.... :lol::lol:
We need to be carefull. To the Germans Adolph Hitler looked ok until he was in power. Unfortunately, because all the current mainstream political parties can only be seperated by the width of a hair, people will take the lunatic fringe seriously. They are still a bunch of lunatics no matter how they dress themselves up. Our proper political parties need to pay heed to this or we run the risk of letting complete lunatics into power.
KeithThe reason people turn to the extremes of politics is is when they start to believe that Mainstream Politicians have become heedless of their concerns. That was the reason that Hitler was able to convince the German voters to place him in power.
During the recent Local Government Elections in England some Politicians, who’s anti-racist qualifications are beyond any doubt and have been consistent for decades, put their heads above the parapet and warned of the support the BNP were attracting.
What they pointed out was something which should have been obvious. If people who have concerns and fears, real or imagined, are given a label, abused and told to “shut up” or be pilloried, then they will turn to those who they believe will listen.
If the Mainstream Parties would stop hiding from the fact that there are people who have what they see as real concerns about Race and face up to addressing those concerns then the BNP would cease to increase it’s support.
The Mainstream Parties need to treat people who feel they have genuine concerns seriously and listen to them. By doing that they can then attempt to put those fears into some sort of perspective or even show them to be unfounded.
At the moment those fears are being allowed to fester and grow and all that does is leave a wide open gap that the BNP is only too eager to fill.
The Mainstream Parties need to fill the gap by engaging in open dialogue, to treat those fear seriously and to provide sensible responses, solutions and policies in order to fill the gap before the Nutters do it for them.
percy toboggan
13-Nov-06, 22:49
The BNP is growing all the time in terms of membership numbers. Are all of these people 'nutters'? They got five per cent of the vote at the 2005 General Election - all nutters?
For some it's obligatory to use words like 'lunatics' and 'nutters' whenever they mention the BNP. This is akin to public hand washing or spitting after saying something unpleasant.As if the very letters themselves might be attached to the utterer and attract the unwelcome attention of the mind police.
I don't dispute the fact that the BNP was borne out of rampant racism, and included in it's originators a posse of Nazi sympathisers.How much would todays Labour luvvies have in common with those who forged the party from Trade Union beginnings?
If however, you look at the BNP website there is little that an average working bloke would find to disagree with.
Within the Labour party there are (still) hard left views and if that instituion can be a 'broad church' why not the British National Party?
They will never come remotely close to power - not under this current leadership anyway. Griffin's face is not photogenic enough and he has little charisma. Both pre-requisites for electoral success in this sad nation. Too many of their candidates and councillors are lacking in mental dexterity. They, as I said earlier can only act as a catalyst for change.
What is needed is a new party with the courage to tackle delicate issues.It won't happen in a hurry. Let's face it, England is lost and many people with enough brass are wanting away. Some are heading your way, the less selective and the easily pleased go in the opposite direction.
I don't only class the BNP as Nutters, I class all "extremists" as such.
I don't think it as any secret that I class the extreme end of the PC Brigade in very much the same manner.
I consider many of their attitudes are one of the main reasons for the increasing popularity of the BNP.
As to what the BNP "say" they stand for, I have said on here before, sometimes it is what people avoid saying which tells you more about both them and their intentions.
I am always mindful that Hitler was a Democratically Elected Leader even though he did rapidly change the Rules so he could not be removed.
pultneytooner
13-Nov-06, 23:26
I am always mindful that Hitler was a Democratically Elected Leader even though he did rapidly change the Rules so he could not be removed.
Isn't george bush doing the same thing?
pultneytooner
13-Nov-06, 23:57
Hamas the Hook was allowed to get away with spouting racist, anti West poison for years and was only stopped when the u.s.a wanted to extradite him, so he was locked away to prevent this by the Government and there's a world of difference between actively encouraging people to go out and attack an ethnic group, and calling Islam, 'a wicked religion'. If one can't criticise belief systems, we're doomed!
Nope, the only changes that have been made regarding the term a President can serve in the US is that they can serve for no longer than Two Terms.
Even if, by some strange happening, Bush became the most popular Politician in the Country, in two years time he has to go.
To make comparisons between Bush and Hitler is to do nothing other than to cheapen and trivialise the evils and horrors that Hitler and his followers carried out.
The reason Hamas was allowed to behave as he did for so long was the fear that anybody acting against him ran the risk of being accused of having "Racist Motives" and of risking "Inflaming Racial Tensions".
The reason for the lack of action had more to do with appearances than any legal considerations. Ignoring his actions was a simple matter of expediency, no action was less controversial than action.
To act was seen as simply putting yourself in the firing line from the usual apologists and excusers and for long enough nobody had the guts to do it.
pultneytooner
14-Nov-06, 00:24
Nope, the only changes that have been made regarding the term a President can serve in the US is that they can serve for no longer than Two Terms.
Even if, by some strange happening, Bush became the most popular Politician in the Country, in two years time he has to go.
To make comparisons between Bush and Hitler is to do nothing other than to cheapen and trivialise the evils and horrors that Hitler and his followers carried out.
On October 17, George W. Bush signed the United States Military Commissions Act of 2006. This act frees the United States from having to abide by the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't say so explicitly, but this is what the act will do. Here is the relevant section: "the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions" [Act section 6(a)(3)(A)].
It may sound incredible, but the upshot of the act is this: The Geneva Convention will no longer dictate how America's prisoners are treated. Instead, George W. Bush will. Are we to believe that Bush can be trusted to ensure that the rights of these prisoners will be respected and that they will be treated humanely? Before answering this question, let's take a look at Bush's record with regard to torture, sadism and cruelty.
How's that for a comparison?
The_man_from_del_monte
14-Nov-06, 00:50
How's that for a comparison?
A very good one at that ;)
j4bberw0ck
14-Nov-06, 09:17
Any country can withdraw from the Geneva Convention; it's their democratic right. Some aren't even signatories in the first place, shock, horror. Plus it didn't apply to the captives of the Afghanistan war anyway. They weren't military personnel wearing the uniform of their country under the flag of their country.
The President signs the Act into law, but it has to go through the poltical structure first; you seem to imply that W got out of bed one morning, and thought "Ooh, I think we'll have an Act today!" The President has very little personal power - that's the irony of the whole thing, if you like.
As for comparisons with him holding on to power, that's just fatuous and if you could just see past your anti-Bush / anti-American prejudice, however deeply fashionable it might be.......
Unless of course you're Nick Griffin in disguise and have decided America is next on your list of countries to criticise? :lol:
Dreadnought
14-Nov-06, 09:41
The President has very little personal power - that's the irony of the whole thing, if you like.
Anyon who thinks Dubya makes any decision is deluding themselves. Cheney on the other hand...
As for comparisons with him holding on to power, that's just fatuous and if you could just see past your anti-Bush / anti-American prejudice, however deeply fashionable it might be.......
Anti-Bush does not equal anti-American. That is the rhetoric of fans of the Patriot Act: 'If you oppose the war you must be a traitor... you must hate America...' That is pure bull.
I love my country, the fact that B. Liar has dragged Britain's name into the cesspool along with his master Bush sickens me. I feel ashamed that we are involved in the Bush administration's lies and deceit.
That is not fashionable, it is a genuine point of view. Dissent is patriotic too.
j4bberw0ck
14-Nov-06, 11:44
Anyon who thinks Dubya makes any decision is deluding themselves. Cheney on the other hand...
Ah. Then I'm sorry. I didn't realise you have such intimate sources of accurate information direct from The White House and the Oval Office.
You do, don't you?
Anti-Bush does not equal anti-American. That is the rhetoric of fans of the Patriot Act: 'If you oppose the war you must be a traitor... you must hate America...' That is pure bull.
Yes, it is. And it's not what I meant. I made a comment specific to the poster of the original comment.
I love my country, the fact that B. Liar has dragged Britain's name into the cesspool along with his master Bush sickens me. I feel ashamed that we are involved in the Bush administration's lies and deceit.
That is not fashionable, it is a genuine point of view. Dissent is patriotic too.
Yes, it can be. You'll have your opportunity to show your disgust at the next Election. That's the way we do things here - delegative democracy. You grant the Government the power, for their term of office, to run the country in whatever way they promised and in whatever way is needed to in the light of changing circumstances. You no like? You get to vote them out next time round. Much better than having referenda every five minutes (so nothing ever gets done), or political horsetrading and governments lasting for a year, like the Italians have had under PR since the Second World War.
pultneytooner
14-Nov-06, 12:36
Any country can withdraw from the Geneva Convention; it's their democratic right. :lol:
Why would a civilised country want to distance themselves from the geneva convention?
The President signs the Act into law, but it has to go through the poltical structure first; you seem to imply that W got out of bed one morning, and thought "Ooh, I think we'll have an Act today!" The President has very little personal power - that's the irony of the whole thing, if you like.
I don't imply anything, it's a fact that the american government reserves the right to torture prisoners of war whenever it sees fit and that includes the torture of women and children.
As for comparisons with him holding on to power, that's just fatuous and if you could just see past your anti-Bush / anti-American prejudice, however deeply fashionable it might be.
Never been anti-american in my life, I couldn't care less what anybodys nationality is or what colour they are or what religion they practice. I don't like the current american government and their practices which is a bit different from being totaly anti-american.
j4bberw0ck
14-Nov-06, 14:19
Why would a civilised country want to distance themselves from the geneva convention?
No idea. I don't have access to Dreadnought's sources of information :lol: . If I had to guess I'd say it's so they can, if they wish, fight fire with fire; terrorists never were covered under the GC. You have to wear a uniform, and fight on the orders of a legitimate government in order to qualify. Maybe the Americans just want to clarify the situation to avoid lawyers clogging up the court system with compensation claims?
pultneytooner
14-Nov-06, 17:02
No idea. I don't have access to Dreadnought's sources of information :lol: . If I had to guess I'd say it's so they can, if they wish, fight fire with fire; terrorists never were covered under the GC. You have to wear a uniform, and fight on the orders of a legitimate government in order to qualify. Maybe the Americans just want to clarify the situation to avoid lawyers clogging up the court system with compensation claims?
No matter if they are wearing a uniform or not, torture is totally wrong in my eyes.
blueheart
14-Nov-06, 19:39
Firstly, I would never ever vote for the BNP, and I do believe they are racist and a front for many other factions that are linked to this party, such as NF etc
However, if the government took proper action against assylum seekers who have ABUSED the immigration system, the BNP would never have become so popular.
Lets take Caithness out of the equation. Lets face it, assylum is not an issue in your area (and I do know about Caithness I lived there 24 years), and it would be hard for someone to raise any kind of debate regarding the BNP if you have never seen the 'bigger picture' and only what you've seen on your TV and newspapers. It is larger cities further down south where it is a major problem. I know of several people, who have lived in the City I have lived all their lives, and could not get a decent place of accomodation, yet non working assylum seekers have been given fully furnished flats! That is one of the main reasons the BNP have unfortunately gained such popularity down south. And it is the reason they will continue to do so, for as long as the governments bungled attempt at controlling assylum contiunues. (and they've even had to admit that their attempts have been diabolical).
I personally know of assylum seekers who have abused the system, I am ALL FOR people coming into the United Kingdom and CONTRIBUTING to the economy. But I do not appreciate those coming in and claiming benefits to the detriment of individuals who have been born and bred here, and not even bothered about finding work - that goes for Eastern Europeans, Somalians, Zimbabweans, and any other large assylum seeking groups. the colour is not an issue, the principle of abusing the system is. Many people from the countries I've mentioned have not been legitimately seeking assylum, many have not been in any danger in the aforementioned countries, yes that includes Zimbabwe - although the UK is no longer a safe haven for Zimbabweans after discovering that many of their assylum claims were not legitimate.
So please, don't try to be 'politically correct' and jump to the conclusion the BNP are racist purely from what you've heard in the media (and if you've only ever lived in Caithness, you will not have seen the bigger picture). The BNP are of course racist in my opinion, but have a look at the bigger picture and realise why so many people support them. E.g. Have some experience to back up what you say up.
Adios.
blueheart
Boozeburglar
17-Nov-06, 21:03
Just a note to say sorry if anyone has been offended by my use of the term "idiot".
Of course I meant idiotic.
I ws struggling with a Coke encrusted keybord and a late night after a long day...
Sorry again.
;)
Dreadnought
17-Nov-06, 21:16
No idea. I don't have access to Dreadnought's sources of information :lol: .
Yes you do. Newspapers, BBC News, radio, internet forums. Or maybe you're just too arrogant to lower yourself to such mundane sources? Or could it just be you consider yourself the fount of all wisdom and just want to sit there in your ivory tower laughing at us mere mortals? :roll:
Maybe you don't have access to my North American relatives and friends (particularly those in the NOLA region) who have had to live with Bush's incompetence and his Administration's wholesale attack on the American public's liberties.
Hopefully though, things are about to change for the better.
percy toboggan
17-Nov-06, 21:50
I am ALL FOR people coming into the United Kingdom and CONTRIBUTING to the economy.
blueheart
Given the state of our housing stock, and it's wildly escalating prices. Not to mention rising unemployment of indigenous workers when will you cease to be 'all for people coming here to contribute'? For it strikes me we have more than enough already.
Besides this, not absolutely everything revolves around money, wage earning , and the economy. Social cohesion, community relations and local services are being put under enormous strain in places that interface with our new 'contributors. We have schools where thirty different languages are spoken. Would you object to your kid being held back while his new classmates catch up? I would. Perhaps you'd be keen to celebrate all the diversity around her/him and the fact that your child was learning more about world religions than his/her own countries history. Personally I do not want 'diversity' I want one country with a single culture based on a work ethic and a degree of tolerance. Not the extent of tolerance that allows unfettered immigration totally without control. The single culture is capable of being multi - stranded of course but the fundamental essence should be British first, with migrants willing to assimilate by leaving much of their religious and cultural issues back in the homeland they couldn't wait to get out of.
This is still (just about) Great Britain, and no-body I know ever asked for it to become a microcosm of the whole world and all it's attendant problems. If there is much joy in diversity then I'm afraid I have seen little of it. If I want it, I'll look for it where it originates.
David from Stockport
17-Nov-06, 22:19
Percy and Blueheart you are so right immigration is stupid now in England ,as ive said on here before how can i work 6/7 days a week and not afford to buy even the most basic of flats becouse of the shortage of housing down here .
At work last week a member of staff complained that the store we work at employs to many forigners !! and he is a Nigerian who has only been in the country 2 years . His problem was how can he learn English when all the people he works with cannot speak it!!!.
Once again i repeat we dont need migrants to do jobs our own wont do - we just need to make our 7.8 million (todays figures) economically inactive get off there backsides - no work -no benefits.
percy toboggan
17-Nov-06, 22:56
Once again i repeat we dont need migrants to do jobs our own wont do - we just need to make our 7.8 million (todays figures) economically inactive get off there backsides - no work -no benefits.
hmmmm..I'm not altogether with you here David but I understand your ire.
We cannot make or force ex-miners from Peterlee and ex-dockers from Bootle on incapacity benefit to go and pick carrots in Norfolk. This is an extreme example I know but we do need energetic E.U. youngsters to do some of our less attractive jobs. As long as they are paid the going rate. Many of the 7 million you quote will be genuinely sick people. I work full time but there are healthier men than me on incapacity benefit and long term sick. It's not about self-respect for me , I just like the hundred quid a week I can put by every week after all commitments and spends are taken out of my packet. I'm lucky, and have a very inexpensive mortgage.
The social upheaval that resulted from the deconstruction of heavy industries has left a generation of men with now't much to do. The Tories shepherded them onto invalidity benefeit to mask unemployment figures. Many of these guys are now in their late fifties. I don't begrudge them their subsistence level pittance. Much better that than to force march them to farmers fields and break their backs picking vegetables out of frozen ground, or gutting chickens on some mindless production line. Soon those men will be as dead as the proud industries that made Britain great. Let them retain a vestige of diginity please.
Dreadnought
17-Nov-06, 23:05
hmmmm..I'm not altogether with you here David but I understand your ire.
We cannot make or force ex-miners from Peterlee and ex-dockers from Bootle on incapacity benefit to go and pick carrots in Norfolk. This is an extreme example I know but we do need energetic E.U. youngsters to do some of our less attractive jobs.
Good point but what about our own 'energetic youngsters'? The ones I see every day lounging around street corners drinking and smoking? The ones who spend all day every day at their friend's houses watching TV, playing video games and smoking dope? Earning a few extra each week to top up their dole by selling weed.
percy toboggan
17-Nov-06, 23:12
Good point but what about our own 'energetic youngsters'? The ones I see every day lounging around street corners drinking and smoking? The ones who spend all day every day at their friend's houses watching TV, playing video games and smoking dope? Earning a few extra each week to top up their dole by selling weed.
These people, seemingly and surprisingly abandoned by a government that wants to poke its' nose into every corner of life should be conscripted. A uniformed force for six months community work AWAY FROM HOME AND PEOPLE THEY KNOW - at minimum wage - no play ball no benefit - Smoking dope should be punishable by imprisonment on cold islands.Dealing in dope, and any kind of illicit drug should carry a minimum twelve year prison sentence with no hope of an early release. They will get the message far sooner than a lung busted hewer of coal forced from a redundant coal face because some idiot decided to import the stuff from Australia.
We are talking common sense here, so do not expect any spineless lickspittle M.P. to suggest such measures
j4bberw0ck
20-Nov-06, 12:45
Yes you do. Newspapers, BBC News, radio, internet forums.
All of which need to be viewed as editorialised and given a common-sense "once over" before swallowing twhat they say hook, line and sinker. Fred and sjwahwah believed everything they read, too.
Or maybe you're just too arrogant to lower yourself to such mundane sources? Or could it just be you consider yourself the fount of all wisdom and just want to sit there in your ivory tower laughing at us mere mortals? :roll:
What a shame you see it that way. Are you just trying to be rude, or do you have a point to make?
Maybe you don't have access to my North American relatives and friends (particularly those in the NOLA region)
True. Are they another source of editorialised information?
Hopefully though, things are about to change for the better.
I wouldn't bet on it, when the US under Democrat rule gives Iran and Syria whatever they want so they "get engaged" in solving the Iraq mess, so they can claim political kudos for "getting their boys home". A nuclear Iran, Ahmadinejad's renewed threats to wipe Israel off the map, and Syria and Iran both free to fund Hizbollah as much as they like is a recipe, potentially, for a lead-underpants future for all of us, and could be a disaster for the Middle East.
My apologies for the delay in responding, but I'm moving house just now and access to computers is limited....
Dreadnought
20-Nov-06, 14:40
All of which need to be viewed as editorialised and given a common-sense "once over" before swallowing twhat they say hook, line and sinker. Fred and sjwahwah believed everything they read, too.
I do not believe everything I read, neither do I blindly dismiss what I read just because I do not agree with it. I do read as many sources as possible, from as many viewpoints as possible.
If you just want to read The Sun, that's up to you. Although going by your posts you do not watch the news, you do not listen to the news and you do not read the news, so I must take a leaf from your book and make an assumption that you hail from the Mystic Meg school of informed comment and that those are psychic antennae in your avatar.
What a shame you see it that way. Are you just trying to be rude, or do you have a point to make?
You posted:
"I didn't realise you have such intimate sources of accurate information direct from The White House and the Oval Office.
You do, don't you?"
in an attempt to belittle my opinions, and then a little later you did it again:
"I don't have access to Dreadnought's sources of information :lol:"
and you have the cheek to accuse me of being rude? If you can't take it sonny, don't dish it out.
True. Are they another source of editorialised information?
No, they are first hand accounts of corruption and failing by Bush's administration, FEMA and the NO Mayoral Office while my friends and relatives were left with nothing after Katrina.
I wouldn't bet on it, when the US under Democrat rule gives Iran and Syria whatever they want so they "get engaged" in solving the Iraq mess, so they can claim political kudos for "getting their boys home". A nuclear Iran, Ahmadinejad's renewed threats to wipe Israel off the map, and Syria and Iran both free to fund Hizbollah as much as they like is a recipe, potentially, for a lead-underpants future for all of us, and could be a disaster for the Middle East.
As opposed to the Republican solution of 'pre-emptive' strikes (nice euphemism for 'blow the bejesus out of any nation that suits your interests best', kind of like Hitler's Germany), massive Government intrusion into private life ie. phone tapping at will without authorisation.
I see the Gord has just promised £100,000,000 of our hard earned for Iraq, on top of the military costs so far incurred, while we in Britain have failing Health, Education and Law and Order. [disgust] My personal view is get our troops out of the Middle East, stop throwing money at the richest region on Earth, and let them get on with it! If they want to turn the Middle East into a smouldering crater, let them. Who are we to dictate to other nations what they can and cannot do? We have nukes, why shouldn't they have nukes?
My apologies for the delay in responding, but I'm moving house just now and access to computers is limited....
Sure.
j4bberw0ck
21-Nov-06, 10:02
If you just want to read The Sun, that's up to you. Although going by your posts you do not watch the news, you do not listen to the news and you do not read the news
I'm genuinely surprised that anyone could reach such a conclusion, but it probably says more about you than me!
If you can't take it sonny, don't dish it out.
Believe me, Dreaders, I'm unlikely to lose any sleep :lol:
Who are we to dictate to other nations what they can and cannot do? We have nukes, why shouldn't they have nukes?
Because having nuclear weapons is an exercise in balancing risk. As long as you have a couple of major powers with them experience is that the balance is manageable, if precarious at times. When you have a single-agenda extremist nation driven not by economic factors but religious idealism, and a stated aim of wiping Israel off the map, not to mention the overthrow of the secular Western countries and their conversion to Islamic beliefs, then the balance is lost. Israel itself isn't far from being such a nation but then again, they're surrounded by several hundred million Arabs who all seem to want them dead; if it wasn't for that then chances are that Israel would be as economically focused as the Western nations. The first time a tactical nuclear warhead is used in the Middle East the economic and political consequences will be extreme.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.