Turn on thread page Beta

BNP. good or bad ? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: what do you think of the BNP?
    good - positive role models for everyone
    14
    8.00%
    ok, but could be better
    18
    10.29%
    bad - wannabee nazis with ****** for leader
    143
    81.71%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    Then, instead of letting your prejudice get in the way, tell us why the 'truth' which the BNP put forward is so conspicuously false.
    I didn't say it is, I just find it highly amusing when some inbred starts lecturing me about the world, and the so-called 'truth' that somehow the other 99.3% of the country, myself included, hasn't quite picked up on.

    Hehe, funny though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    I had had a similar thought myself, it was only the time (2:15am) that put me off the idea, but seeing as it's up I'll take a look now, and maybe post in it in the morning.
    Ah, I forgot the time in the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    I didn't say it is, I just find it highly amusing when some inbred starts lecturing me about the world, and the so-called 'truth' that somehow the other 99.3% of the country, myself included, hasn't quite picked up on.
    Is he an inbred and, if so, does this matter?

    They have a message which they put forward which they believe to be true. Perhaps you should consider it before dismissing it on the ground that it is an unpopular message.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    Is he an inbred and, if so, does this matter?

    They have a message which they put forward which they believe to be true. Perhaps you should consider it before dismissing it on the ground that it is an unpopular message.
    You're new to this forum and you clearly know very little about me.

    About 10 months ago there was a small influx of BNP members, most notably LC01, and they received a lot of hostility and i mean a lot. Pretty much the only non-BNP member to stand up for them was me, because I felt members like LC01 were getting a raw deal and were being unfairly neg repped.

    I've been here now for over a year and I've spoken to plenty of BNP members and such minded individuals and I would say I made my mind up about 5 months ago and decided I actually oppose the BNP flat out. A big factor in this decision was seeing BNP members holding a 'keep s.28' banner up at a demonstration.

    I've considered the BNP's crappy opinions enough and i'm sick of reading about them tbh. They won less than one percentage of the vote and yet we seem to debate about the BNP more than we do about the Government.

    Oh and yes, the fact that they are generally a Party of uneducated state inbreds does increase the amusement factor slightly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    You're new to this forum and you clearly know very little about me.

    About 10 months ago there was a small influx of BNP members, most notably LC01, and they received a lot of hostility and i mean a lot. Pretty much the only non-BNP member to stand up for them was me, because I felt members like LC01 were getting a raw deal and were being unfairly neg repped.

    I've been here now for over a year and I've spoken to plenty of BNP members and such minded individuals and I would say I made my mind up about 5 months ago and decided I actually oppose the BNP flat out. A big factor in this decision was seeing BNP members holding a 'keep s.28' banner up at a demonstration.

    I've considered the BNP's crappy opinions enough and i'm sick of reading about them tbh. They won less than one percentage of the vote and yet we seem to debate about the BNP more than we do about the Government.

    Oh and yes, the fact that they are generally a Party of uneducated state inbreds does increase the amusement factor slightly.
    A big factor in this decision was seeing BNP members holding a 'keep s.28' banner up at a demonstration.
    That was the NF.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flux)
    The fact is that BNP are unfairly persecuted by the governement, police ect.

    Look at this video, a cherrypicker adorned with BNP logos was stopped by the police and forced to remove the BNP logos before it was allowed to move. The incident was filmed by someone who didn't support the BNP until they saw this happening.

    http://66.90.73.194/northwest/cherrypicker.wmv

    Also last week a small army of police officers were sent to stop BNP members from playing Rule Britannia in public as part of their campaign.
    That video footage sums things up perfectly. The police force are becoming increasingly involved in policing opinion and stifling the BNP. Reason can not be deployed to oppose the BNP, thus a whole host of devious tactics must be used. Police harrassment is one of many.

    Just to put this into some sort of perspective. A man was stopped and ordered to remove a BNP logo from his vehicle. Muslims were chaperoned through the streets of London brandishing placards saying "Behead those who insult Islam". No more need be said.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MB__)
    Reason can not be deployed to oppose the BNP, thus a whole host of devious tactics must be used.
    Don't they teach you to read in Romford?

    Try reading the thread, reason and logic is seen in hundreds of posts in this thread, that oppose the BNP.

    It's really not that hard.

    Just to put this into some sort of perspective. A man was stopped and ordered to remove a BNP logo from his vehicle. Muslims were chaperoned through the streets of London brandishing placards saying "Behead those who insult Islam". No more need be said.
    Well that's not quite accurate is it, the BNP used to march through London (when there was still enough people who supported them to get out on the street) and they used to carry provocative banners, and this was allowed.

    The same is in reverse, if a lone muslim, or small number of muslims, were to try and enter a white, or hostile enviroment, with their banners then the police would (and have in the past) stop them.

    I use an example previously in this thread, about how a conservative would have been stopped from entering certain areas, brandishing conservative material (that could have been considered hostile) during the miners strike.

    Many more examples could be given.

    It's all to do with public order acts.

    If it applies likewise to muslims, conservatives, and every other section of the community, then it is not an anti-BNP measure, is it?

    This whole BNP "paranoia" thing, where they make total mountains out of molehills that the rest of us face, regardless of colour, or political affiliation is very off putting, it's a bit like a crying child, at first you feel a little sorry for them, because no one likes to see something so weak and vulnerable crying, but after a while you just have to tell them to stop it, and grow up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    You're new to this forum and you clearly know very little about me.
    I became a member of this forum in April 2005. I tend to visit intermittently.

    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    About 10 months ago there was a small influx of BNP members, most notably LC01, and they received a lot of hostility and i mean a lot. Pretty much the only non-BNP member to stand up for them was me, because I felt members like LC01 were getting a raw deal and were being unfairly neg repped.

    Then you are, or at least were, more noble than I thought.

    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    I've been here now for over a year and I've spoken to plenty of BNP members and such minded individuals and I would say I made my mind up about 5 months ago and decided I actually oppose the BNP flat out. A big factor in this decision was seeing BNP members holding a 'keep s.28' banner up at a demonstration.

    Section 28 of which Act?

    I recall that s.28 of the Scotland Act was quite contentious. However, I have a feeling that you are referring to the re-criminalisation of homosexuality. This is no longer part of their manifesto.

    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    I've considered the BNP's crappy opinions enough and i'm sick of reading about them tbh. They won less than one percentage of the vote and yet we seem to debate about the BNP more than we do about the Government.

    Then read more selectively.

    I see no problem with debating about the BNP.

    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    Oh and yes, the fact that they are generally a Party of uneducated state inbreds does increase the amusement factor slightly.

    Can you offer any evidence for this claim?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    There is now no mention of homosexuality in their manifesto, in either a positive or a negative light, so we must look back to their last utterings on the mater in their 1997 manifesto - and I'm afraid they take a very illiberal view in that manifesto!

    I simply do not believe that progressive legislation like civil partnership, equality of consent laws and tihngs like the repeal of section 28 would be safe under the BNP.

    The BNP should take homosexuals seriously, because we comprise about 10% of the vote which is 10 times more than you won in the last General Election. Compared to the BNP, we are a force to be taken seriously - and the BNP would have done well to not have pissed us off
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The BNP will never get into power.. Bunch of lunatics
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brooklyn123)
    The BNP will never get into power.. Bunch of lunatics
    You hold unfounded opinions.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    You hold unfounded opinions.
    0.7% of the vote was it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Don't they teach you to read in Romford?


    Well that's not quite accurate is it, the BNP used to march through London (when there was still enough people who supported them to get out on the street) and they used to carry provocative banners, and this was allowed.

    The same is in reverse, if a lone muslim, or small number of muslims, were to try and enter a white, or hostile enviroment, with their banners then the police would (and have in the past) stop them.
    Instead of throwing in childish insults about my reading ability, perhaps you should have considered what I said.

    I can't quite make out the comparison you've made above. You've compared events of many years ago with a distortion of present day events. The BNP and NF marched many years ago, but today an individual may not have a BNP logo on their vehicle without fear of police harrassment. The video footage is proof of this. There is also video evidence of Muslims being allowed to call for beheadings and massacre in the capital city of this country. The police didn't "stop them", as you claim. In fact, there is also video evidence of a police officer threatening a White man with arrest because he was verbally challenging the protesters. If anyone has that link, please post it up.

    How do you reconcile that difference - without appealing to the BNP/NF marches of many years ago?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MB__)
    Instead of throwing in childish insults about my reading ability, perhaps you should have considered what I said.
    Childish insult?

    No, an observation.

    Had you followed the advice offered you'd have saved yourself from looking as stupid as you did.

    I can't quite make out the comparison you've made above. You've compared events of many years ago with a distortion of present day events.
    No, I have compared like with like, which shows your whinging and whining like a child.

    I have shown there is no calculated agenda to go after the BNP, and that you are subjected to the same conditions as everyone else.

    If that is beyond your comprehension then so be it, but it does not change the facts.

    The BNP and NF marched many years ago, but today an individual may not have a BNP logo on their vehicle without fear of police harrassment
    No, it is perfectly legal and possible to have a logo on your car, go out, try it now, what is illegal is to then drive into an area with that logo in an attempt to incite people, something that is applicable to everyone.

    The video footage is proof of this.
    No it is not, see everyones responses.

    (there is that reading thing again :rolleyes: )

    There is also video evidence of Muslims being allowed to call for beheadings and massacre in the capital city of this country.
    For which many have been arrested.

    If they had tried to enter other areas with those placards they would also have been arrested.

    These rules apply for everyone you know.

    Just because your a paranoid big girls blouse it's not our fault.

    The police didn't "stop them", as you claim.
    And now you are just plain lying, on incapable of reading what I said.

    I said they would be stopped if they moved into a sensitive area, as it was they were allowed to proceed, to avoid incident, and many have been arrested, or cautioned since, according to the proper legal proceedings, that apply to everyone.

    I personally think the march was handled badly, but it was still handled within the same laws that are applicable to everyone else, and you crying foul, and making a song and dance about it doesn't change a thing.

    Didn't your leader scrape a 3rd in law?

    Ask him.

    How do you reconcile that difference - without appealing to the BNP/NF marches of many years ago?
    See above, including all the posts you've ignored.

    Do you think the law should be made different for you?

    If so why so?

    If not, STFU and stop complaining.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    0.7% of the vote was it?
    That is not to say that the party will never take power. Nor is it accurate to describe the party as harbouring a 'bunch of lunatics'. This kind of statement is, without qualification, meaningless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    There is now no mention of homosexuality in their manifesto, in either a positive or a negative light, so we must look back to their last utterings on the mater in their 1997 manifesto - and I'm afraid they take a very illiberal view in that manifesto!
    Turning to their previous manifesto to acertain their likely present stance is without merit.

    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    I simply do not believe that progressive legislation like civil partnership, equality of consent laws and tihngs like the repeal of section 28 would be safe under the BNP.

    It would not be 'safe' under any Government. To say that it would be more likely to be repealed under the BNP is, without knowing their actual stance, mere conjecture.

    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    The BNP should take homosexuals seriously, because we comprise about 10% of the vote which is 10 times more than you won in the last General Election. Compared to the BNP, we are a force to be taken seriously - and the BNP would have done well to not have pissed us off

    Which part of their current manifesto has 'pissed' you off?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    Turning to their previous manifesto to acertain their likely present stance is without merit.

    It would not be 'safe' under any Government. To say that it would be more likely to be repealed under the BNP is, without knowing their actual stance, mere conjecture.

    Which part of their current manifesto has 'pissed' you off?
    Looking at their most recent statement about homosexuality one could not possibly conclude anything about their current view?! Yeah. That makes perfect sense! What was I thinking?

    Homosexuality is not mentioned in the current manifesto. Although they do mention plenty of reasons to worry about the state of the British economy.

    Their protectionist clap-trap reminds me of Old Labour at it's worst!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    Looking at their most recent statement about homosexuality one could not possibly conclude anything about their current view?! Yeah. That makes perfect sense! What was I thinking?

    It was made nine years ago. Furthermore, that no mention of it is made in their current manifesto, is, in fact, a statement, albeit one implied. For it leads one to think that they no longer hold any wish to change current policy. If they did, then surely they would mention it.

    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    Their protectionist clap-trap reminds me of Old Labour at it's worst!
    Could you give an example?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    I said they would be stopped if they moved into a sensitive area, as it was they were allowed to proceed, to avoid incident, and many have been arrested, or cautioned since, according to the proper legal proceedings, that apply to everyone.
    That is ridiculous, to be fair. They were in a sensitive area. They were on the streets of London threatening further terrorist attacks - "7/7 on its way". Their "brothers" had been on the London transport network massacring people only months previously. They were also calling for beheadings and massacre, which is insensitive in any area. There is not an area in this country in which it is acceptable to do those things. You can not possibly reconcile that with the footage of a bloke being pulled over and forced to remove innocuous BNP logos from his vehicle. Your attempt at doing so is laughable. There is no comparison between a standard BNP logo and a placard saying "Behead those who insult Islam".

    For anyone who has not seen the footage of the protest, compare the following with the BNP logo footage:

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...donProtest.wmv
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Romford wally is back.

    (Original post by MB__)
    That is ridiculous, to be fair.
    Why is it ridiculous, because it hurts the poor little BNP's feelings?

    awww

    (It's only as childish as your argument)

    They were in a sensitive area. They were on the streets of London threatening further terrorist attacks - "7/7 on its way".
    It's the capital of our nation, and as such open to political protests of all kinds.

    A BNP protest would not be refused, and has taken place there before.

    It is not like marching, or driving into a politically sensative neighborhood.

    You are deliberately making false comparissions.

    Their "brothers" had been on the London transport network massacring people only months previously.
    Care to show me the direct family link?

    I don't play these hype games, so such bull**** is wasted on me, sort of like your fake hysteria stories about blowing up the Thames.

    With false claims like that do you wonder why you are kept out of certain areas?

    It's not because you are the BNP, it's because you lie a lot, and incite trouble.

    Big difference.

    They were also calling for beheadings and massacre, which is insensitive in any area. There is not an area in this country in which it is acceptable to do those things.
    Which is why some were arrested, or cautioned.

    Which is also why in sensitive situations you are asked to remove logos that could inflame.

    See?

    It's not an anti-BNP thing.

    You can not possibly reconcile that with the footage of a bloke being pulled over and forced to remove innocuous BNP logos from his vehicle.
    Of course I can, I can also state that if it had been hundreds of BNP members, instead of one pratt in a vehicle, they would have been allowed to proceed, and picked off at a later time, so as not to inflame the situation at that very moment.

    The rules are the same for everyone.

    Your attempt at doing so is laughable.
    The only thing laughable is that you are to stupid to see how the laws are universal, and you think everyones out to get you.

    There is no comparison between a standard BNP logo and a placard saying "Behead those who insult Islam".
    Of course there isn't, they are two opposite things, but both can be used to incite.

    You know you really do look stupid with such arguments.

    Answer me this though, if they were really out to get you, then why don't they just note you have a bomber in your party (ok, ok, I know about the phoney scaking, but he still draws a wage), a leader who has sat down with terrorists, and an accusation that your bomber recently approached a known gangster, who just happens to be a former security guard to your leader, and tried to solicite him to commit murder, with an assasination attempt on high profile public figures, make a big song and dance about it, class you as terrorists, and proscribe the party?

    It's as easy as that, 1,2,3, you are gone.

    But they don't. Why would that be?

    Perhaps it's because they simply couldn't give much of a stuff about you.

    They are not all out to get you, because you have 0.7% of the vote, and are no threat to anything, in fact your biggest purpose in life at present is as token racist extremists that can be pointed to whenever a token racist extremist is needed.

    In your present form, if you didn't already exist, the government would have to invent you.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.