Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x 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

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    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.

    Could you give an example?
    It's actually not as bad as it was. They do still talk about co-operatives and worker ownership far too much... but even then it sounds more like the supply-side share ownership schemes which do actually tend to boost productivity and GDP.

    I guess the ground upon which I disagree with the BNP is narrowing over time.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    Then you are, or at least were, more noble than I thought.
    Why thankyou.

    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.
    No. I am not referring to the re-criminalisation of homosexuality.
    Seriously, look up 's.28', you have no idea how stupid that comment makes you look.

    Can you offer any evidence for this claim?
    Nope. I'm just a supremely prejudice tosser. Not a problem I hope?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flux)
    Despite being a BNP supporter I agree with you that in their current form they would not be fit to govern the country, but hopefully if they manage to expand, tone down some policies, win more support, more knowledgable people will be temped to join the party and hopefully improve their policies on the economy etc.
    If people could push those changes I think attitudes would change a lot.

    I think to many BNP members spend to much time attacking everyone else, and blaming everyone else, for failings that are to often their own.

    If you look at the thread Howard started you will see how similar peoples views and attitudes are on this one.

    It's the BNP that has to change, and I don't mean saying good bye to the core beliefs of anti-immigration, or a believe in preserving the culture they so love, I mean in terms of personel, right to the very top, and attitude, image etc.

    I can't see me ever voting for the BNP, but I could see a lot more than 0.7% if they focused on healing themselves, and pushed for real internal changes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flux)
    ...hopefully improve their policies on the economy etc.
    The BNPs current economic policies are awful and they need more than 'improving'. They should be thrown in the bin and re-written.

    Their approach to healthcare, education, taxation et al (atleast the policies you actually have concerning these critical areas) looks like it could just as comfortably fit into a socialist manifesto!
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    The BNPs current economic policies are awful and they need more than 'improving'. They should be thrown in the bin and re-written.

    Their approach to healthcare, education, taxation et al (atleast the policies you actually have concerning these critical areas) looks like it could just as comfortably fit into a socialist manifesto!
    Actually I must disagree. There are a lot of things in the new manifesto which conform with the post-Thatcher economic consensus. They seem to be developing a genuine appreciation for sensible economic policies.

    There are s till problems, but whilst I could rip the previous manifesto to peices. The 2005 version is a lot better.

    My problem with the BNP is that they are a racist party. However their policy on immigration does highlight some real concerns. Concerns which are not being recognised by the main parties...

    Form this morning's Telegraph:

    "During the 2005 General Election campaign, Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, insisted that "we want more immigration". He, like many other well-off people, may well want more immigration: it reduces the wages that need to be paid to house cleaners, nannies, painters and plumbers, and increases the choice of restaurant cuisines available. But many poorer voters, for whom immigration means lower wages, longer queues for social housing, and unwelcome changes to the familiar form of the local community, do not want more immigration.

    In last year's election, Tony Blair boasted that he had presided over strict controls to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. This was blatantly false. Far from imposing strict controls, Labour has increased the number of work permits given to immigrants and their dependants by a factor of four since 1997. More than 1.2 million have arrived in Britain in the past eight years from outside the EU. Many communities have experienced a major transformation as a result.

    The drift towards the BNP in some areas is a sign that portions of the electorate have noticed that Labour has deceived them about immigration. They see, or believe they see, new arrivals getting preferential treatment in housing, medical care and education. They believe that as established citizens who have paid taxes, they are entitled to any benefits the state may dispense before the new arrivals.

    Britain is a multi-racial society, and by far the majority of Britons are happy with that: racism is not the sole explanation for the growing number prepared to vote for the BNP. But distrust of, and disaffection with, "multiculturalism" is a different matter. Many Britons do not want to see their communities fragmented into different and isolated factions; nor do they want their traditional values of tolerance and liberty replaced by conformity to religious diktat.

    The problem is that these people have not been consulted about the vast social experiment in which they have been forced to participate. Nor can they discuss their anger without being labelled "racist". Until the Government - and the opposition parties - confront the issues raised by immigration, directly and honestly, the poison of the BNP will continue to spread."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    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.
    To be fair, he does make a couple of reasonable points. After all, what makes an area 'politically sensitive'? Surely its all about context. A protest about teachers pay, for example, is generally a lot less offensive than an average BNP rally. Consequently, while London maybe an appropriate venue for 9/10 protests (including the peaceful demonstrations the week later), it was not appropriate to walk through the streets of London celebrating the terrorist attack that was commited just a few months earlier. Londoners, who may very well have been trapped in the dark just a few months ealier, should not have been forced to deal with that. The protest was easily as politically insensitive as anything the BNP will ever do, and should have been nipped in the bud.

    Its good that some were arrested, and i hope they're charged under good old incitement laws rather than any of Blair's dodgy new social controls. However, I can't help but notice a slight difference in the two examples you describe. In your example, The BNP are asked to modify their behaviour as a preemptive measure, while the protestors were only dealt with after the fact...and after a notable press 'uproar'. Personally, i would hope that the reason for this stems from the spontaneous nature of the protests against the Muhammed cartoons, and that the police were simply applying logical crowd control measures to avoid the risk of rioting. Considering how politicised policing is, however, i really don't know.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flux)
    I couldn't agree more, the BNP have spent so much time on the immigration issue they have neglected the rest of it and a lot of the latest manifesto seems to have been thrown together at the last minute. But again hopefully this is something that will improve with time.

    But on the other hand, immigration is where the BNP are going to win most of their votes, being the only party opposed to it.
    To be frank, immigration is not a "wave of erosion" to Britain. The media & politicians are empathizing the issue as "problems".

    The official statistics on immigration are manipulated, over-estimated and selectively being used by the media and politicians as a "tool for winning" votes, sound-bites and bias views.

    There is no real problem, its just change. Migration is inevitable, change is inevitable. Culture never stays the same.

    You’re just the product of the mass fears and panics; this is what the BNP is about, fear of change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    To be fair, he does make a couple of reasonable points. After all, what makes an area 'politically sensitive'? Surely its all about context. A protest about teachers pay, for example, is generally a lot less offensive than an average BNP rally. Consequently, while London maybe an appropriate venue for 9/10 protests (including the peaceful demonstrations the week later), it was not appropriate to walk through the streets of London celebrating the terrorist attack that was commited just a few months earlier.
    I would personally agree, don't get me wrong, but London is an accepted venue, and considered for those purposes to be politically neutral.

    Just about every colour and flavour of politics has been allowed to protest in London, and will continue to be allowed, including the BNP, National Front, anti-war, pro-war, Anti-Neuclear, anti-Hunting, pro-Hunting, pro-IRA, communist, facist, etc. etc.

    It's almost like an unwritten rule, where as the rest of the nation is considered on the sensitive nature of it's population.

    Its good that some were arrested, and i hope they're charged under good old incitement laws rather than any of Blair's dodgy new social controls.
    I agree.

    I think some of those placards were totally unacceptable, regardless of race, colour, creed or political leanings.

    However, I can't help but notice a slight difference in the two examples you describe. In your example, The BNP are asked to modify their behaviour as a preemptive measure, while the protestors were only dealt with after the fact...and after a notable press 'uproar'.
    The difference is, as I'm sure I explained somewhere, is numbers.

    When you have hundreds of people protesting, the police are cautioned to monitor the situation, and collect evidence, until such time as it's safe to act, and there by avoiding confrontation, and possible rioting etc.

    When you have one man and his dog you confront him straight away.

    It's basic procedure.

    Personally, i would hope that the reason for this stems from the spontaneous nature of the protests against the Muhammed cartoons, and that the police were simply applying logical crowd control measures to avoid the risk of rioting. Considering how politicised policing is, however, i really don't know.
    It's all down to numbers, sensitivity again, and avoiding escalating and inflaming a situation.

    Stems back to the 80's I believe, guidelines after a few police **** ups at public events that saw the police being hammered in the press etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flux)
    Of course culture has always evolved with time, but never as dramatically as it is today. Never such vastly contrasting cultures, never in such numbers and never so quickly. At least not without a war anyway.
    "Dramatic" isn't the term to be used.

    Change has always been happening in vast numbers over 30 in the United Kingdom.

    What I'm trying to point out is the media's & politicians focus of stereotyping and labelling this migration has caused this "mass" hysteria among the BNP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    I would personally agree, don't get me wrong, but London is an accepted venue, and considered for those purposes to be politically neutral.

    Just about every colour and flavour of politics has been allowed to protest in London, and will continue to be allowed, including the BNP, National Front, anti-war, pro-war, Anti-Neuclear, anti-Hunting, pro-Hunting, pro-IRA, communist, facist, etc. etc.

    It's almost like an unwritten rule, where as the rest of the nation is considered on the sensitive nature of it's population.
    Yes, and under any normal circumstances i'd argue that London is the obvious venue of choice. However, if you're protest is going to involve both the celebration and the threat of repetition of a major terrorist attack on the capital that is less than 6 months old, then it is not appropriate to hold the protest in London. Londoners did not recieve the kind of consideration that would be granted to practically anyone else in the entire country.



    Stems back to the 80's I believe, guidelines after a few police **** ups at public events that saw the police being hammered in the press etc.
    That's what i hope, and that does seem the most logical way to go about things. However, it does seem unfortunate that the timing of the thing does make it seem like the police were essentially ordered about by the press...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Element54)
    To be frank, immigration is not a "wave of erosion" to Britain. The media & politicians are empathizing the issue as "problems".

    The official statistics on immigration are manipulated, over-estimated and selectively being used by the media and politicians as a "tool for winning" votes, sound-bites and bias views.

    There is no real problem, its just change. Migration is inevitable, change is inevitable. Culture never stays the same.

    You’re just the product of the mass fears and panics; this is what the BNP is about, fear of change.
    What a terribly fatalistic view!

    The BNP are the wrong party to engage with this issue - and I reckon they need to back off and shut up if they really care about their constituents.

    After all, most reasonable people agree that immigration is too high under the present Blair government and it needs to be brought into line with the economic needs of this country. It is also right to stress the fundamental importance of current British subjects in a debate like this.

    Obvioulsy I think any form of re-patriation is fundamentally wrong-headed and goes against the beliefs and values which hold together our society - and any real British Nationalist would be against this policy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Yes, and under any normal circumstances i'd argue that London is the obvious venue of choice. However, if you're protest is going to involve both the celebration and the threat of repetition of a major terrorist attack on the capital that is less than 6 months old, then it is not appropriate to hold the protest in London. Londoners did not recieve the kind of consideration that would be granted to practically anyone else in the entire country.
    Like I say, I don't disagree, but it's the accepted norm, as I said, there has been pro-IRA marches through London in the past, and they killed how many people, and attacked London how many times?

    I don't see why the sympathies of the people of London shouldn't be considered, but it is the unwritten rule.

    That's what i hope, and that does seem the most logical way to go about things. However, it does seem unfortunate that the timing of the thing does make it seem like the police were essentially ordered about by the press...
    I think perhaps better PR work is needed on something like that, like announcements before hand that all protestors will be monitored and anyone inciting violence etc. will be arrested, if not at the demo, then at some later stage, that way the public stay informed, and see it more clearly, rather than as a knee jerk reaction.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    What a terribly fatalistic view!

    The BNP are the wrong party to engage with this issue - and I reckon they need to back off and shut up if they really care about their constituents.

    After all, most reasonable people agree that immigration is too high under the present Blair government and it needs to be brought into line with the economic needs of this country. It is also right to stress the fundamental importance of current British subjects in a debate like this.

    Obvioulsy I think any form of re-patriation is fundamentally wrong-headed and goes against the beliefs and values which hold together our society - and any real British Nationalist would be against this policy.
    Agreed this is the wrong topic to widely discuss ideological and political issues with society.

    It’s potentially true what I said. I wouldn't say it’s fatalistic however, it's enlightening to realise that it could possibly be true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    No. I am not referring to the re-criminalisation of homosexuality.
    Seriously, look up 's.28', you have no idea how stupid that comment makes you look.
    I used the words 'have a feeling' for the reason that I was not sure. I was not so far off the mark, however. It appears that s.28 forbid the promotion of homosexuality in schools. My point then, still stands, for this is no longer a part of their manifesto.

    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    Nope. I'm just a supremely prejudice tosser. Not a problem I hope?
    It makes your views on any connected matter almost worthless. If you are comfortable with this then you may continue in like vein.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Like I say, I don't disagree, but it's the accepted norm, as I said, there has been pro-IRA marches through London in the past, and they killed how many people, and attacked London how many times?

    I don't see why the sympathies of the people of London shouldn't be considered, but it is the unwritten rule.
    I don't think that's quite the same thing though...announcing support for people who've bombed london isn't quite the same as revelling in the attack itself - and threatening another.

    To be fair, if you look at it objectively, you can see why people might be tempted to vote for the BNP. If it was anyone else in any other part of the country, it would not be acceptable. It is understandable why Londoners may feel angry at not recieveing the same consideration granted to everyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    I don't think that's quite the same thing though...announcing support for people who've bombed london isn't quite the same as revelling in the attack itself - and threatening another.
    Are you sure that didn't happen on the other marches?

    Most of them were way before my time, obviously, but I have heard tell of large marches, and some despicable stuff chanted/banners waved, as well as some very aggressive banter and even fighting against counter protestors.

    I'm not defending what happened, I think these things should be thought about more, but then again you do that and you are only going to have people complaining about a lack of rights to protest and demonstrate/lack of freedom of speech, so I guess it's a lose/lose situation, but I don't see how it's pro, or anti, any particular group.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Are you sure that didn't happen on the other marches?

    Most of them were way before my time, obviously, but I have heard tell of large marches, and some despicable stuff chanted/banners waved, as well as some very aggressive banter and even fighting against counter protestors.

    I'm not defending what happened, I think these things should be thought about more, but then again you do that and you are only going to have people complaining about a lack of rights to protest and demonstrate/lack of freedom of speech, so I guess it's a lose/lose situation, but I don't see how it's pro, or anti, any particular group.
    Personally i'd pretty much let anyone get away with what they want within the bounds of the existing incitement laws. However, if the authorities are going to insist on intervening and preventing people from marching, than it only seems fair that the same restrictions are put onto everybody.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Personally i'd pretty much let anyone get away with what they want within the bounds of the existing incitement laws. However, if the authorities are going to insist on intervening and preventing people from marching, than it only seems fair that the same restrictions are put onto everybody.
    Well they are, except for the one location (London), and even there the different "rule" applies to everyone equally.

    Besides, the BNP are quick to tell us they are not allowed to protest etc, but think of Leeds, during the Griffin trial, 150 people(?) all with their BNP banners and placards etc.

    It was allowed, no problems.

    The rules are there, we may or may not agree with them, but they apply to everyone, and are enforced according to guidelines and procedures.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    obviously good:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/dl1601.xml

    "The growth of support for the British National Party is extremely disturbing. Margaret Hodge, the Minister of State for Employment, told this newspaper that eight out of ten white voters she canvassed in Barking and Dagenham admitted that they were considering voting for the BNP in the May local elections."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...16/nbnp16.xml:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amon.)
    obviously good:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/dl1601.xml

    "The growth of support for the British National Party is extremely disturbing. Margaret Hodge, the Minister of State for Employment, told this newspaper that eight out of ten white voters she canvassed in Barking and Dagenham admitted that they were considering voting for the BNP in the May local elections."
    That should worry you.

    It's an obvious attempt to stop people voting for you, and other minor parties, by ramping up your popularity, and scaring them off making a protest vote (and I'm sure Mrs Hodge is hoping into Labour hands), as is common in such elections.

    You do realise that?

    It's not a statement of facts, it's a scare story playing the race card.

    Interesting, so your position is almost identical to 1974?

    (ok, slightly above)

    EDIT: Interesting point, at the nadir, 1983, wasn't Griffin in charge then too?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.