Turn on thread page Beta

UK Politics - Attempt to ban a legal UK political party watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    Answer me this Llamas, why does the BNP consistently score a higher vote in areas with large ethnic minority populations, places where people have experience of 'diversity' and 'multi-culturism', places where false propaganda and scaremongering about ethnic minorities would become redundant
    I'll be happy to answer your question. You're wrong.

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2...nk/ewouteu.asp

    Brent has the highest proportion of people born outside the EU residing there, guess how many BNP councilors? That's right, ZERO!

    Next is Newham, guess how many? Again! ZERO!!

    Where does the BNP have councilors, let's see.

    Bradford... 38th
    Sandwell... 54th
    Brighton and Hove... 68th
    Kirklees... 71st
    Welwyn & Hatfield... 80th
    Epping... 119th
    Burnley... 120th
    Calderdale... 134th
    Broxbourne... 143rd
    Dudley... 193rd
    Stoke-on-Trent... 204th
    South Staffordshire... 339th

    Come on, that's hardly a resounding positive corellation between ethnic minorities and BNP election success. More often than not, the BNP comes either last or nearly last in elections.

    You claimed that large populations of ethnic minorities meant the BNP had electoral success. NONE of those areas the BNP has been elected in are in the top 10% of ethnically diverse areas. Only 5 out of the top 100 areas has seen a BNP candidate elected.

    I'm pretty sure I got all the areas the BNP has been elected in there, but correct me if I'm wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In response to Speciez99 comments about the BNP policies.

    The one where they said we, the native population of the islands, will be in a minority in 60 years - we are not the original population - we are decended mainly of anglo-saxon tribes - guess where they came from, thats right they were Germanic. By their policies we must also be doported back to Germany.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)
    As I've mentioned before, liberals are the greatest threat to our nation. Those filthy desert arabs are no match for our civilisation. But liberals allow hundreds of thousands of young, angry, male muslims from Algeria to Afghanistan into our country and place policies that protect them from certain security measures, and get us to pay billions in taxes to pay for a police force that has its hands tied.

    Liberals are nihilists. Nihilism is the death-instinct. It is the anti-thesis of life. It is its denial.
    So you are saying someone who has lived in this country all their life, who can trace their family as being british for many generations should just be deported. To where exactly. There is no justification for this other than the fact that their view oppose yours. What make you so sure that the views you hold are justified when a liberal left wing view isn't. What gives you the right to say that people with liberal attitudes should be deported.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ECONOMY - British workers first!

    Globalisation, with its export of jobs to the Third World, is bringing ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities that depend on them. Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers. When this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish, at last getting our people back to work and ending the waste and injustice of having more than 4 million people in a hidden army of the unemployed concealed by Labour’s statistical fiddles. We further believe that British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people. To that end we will restore our economy and land to British ownership. We also call for preference in the job market to be given to native Britons. We will take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants. Finally we will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes.
    It again makes no economic sense. Tariffs would isolate Britain in the world, no one would trade with us and our economy would fail. Britain is developing more and more tertiary services the last thing it need is a return to manufacturing. Nor is this going to lead to the end of unemployment. Nationalising everything is hardly going to help either. Sounds very like communism at the end there and we all know what happened to the people under Stalin.
    EDUCATION - discipline, standards, achievement!

    We are against the ‘trendy’ teaching methods that have made Britain one of the most poorly educated nations in Europe. We will end the practice of politically correct indoctrination in all its guises and we will restore discipline in the classroom, give authority back to teachers and put far greater emphasis on training young people in the industrial and technological skills necessary in the modern world. We will also seek to instill in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain.
    Poorly educated nations in Europe? Erm think again. Oh and great what the Germans called “culture lessons” in the 1930’s
    AGRICULTURE - quality before quantity!

    We see a strong, healthy agriculture sector as vital to the country. Britain's farming industry will be encouraged to produce a much greater part of the nation's need in food products. Priority will be switched from quantity to quality, as we move from competing in a global economy to maximum self-sufficiency for Britain. We will ensure a major shift to healthier and more sustainable organic farming. We are pledged to ensure the restoration of Britain's once great fishing industry with the reimposition of the former exclusion zones around our coast.
    Economically ludicrous again.
    HEALTH - first-class healthcare for all!

    We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens. We will revitalise the Health Service by boosting staff and bed numbers, slashing unnecessary bureaucracy and by addressing the root cause of low recruitment and retention – low pay. We will see to it that no money is given in foreign aid while our own hospitals are short of beds and the staff to run them. More emphasis must be placed on healthy living with greater understanding of sickness prevention through physical exercise, a healthier environment and improved diets.
    Cutting foreign aid isnt a good move either, its morally wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Where does the BNP have councilors, let's see.
    Stoke-on-Trent... 204th
    South Staffordshire... 339th
    And we're very ashamed of that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    It again makes no economic sense. Tariffs would isolate Britain in the world, no one would trade with us and our economy would fail. Britain is developing more and more tertiary services the last thing it need is a return to manufacturing. Nor is this going to lead to the end of unemployment. Nationalising everything is hardly going to help either. Sounds very like communism at the end there and we all know what happened to the people under Stalin.
    These people have clearly not knowledge of economics whatsoever. This was the reason that the Soviet system collapsed - do they have no knowledge of history either?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)
    You’re a 28-year-old ugly Irish socialist **** who resents British rule in Ulster. Why don’t you piss off back to bloody leprechaun Republic?

    BTW, do you really believe that by posting half-naked pics on this website of your chubby body that you'll succeed in seducing a 17 year old A-level student?

    1) You are wrong as to my age, I'm not that old.
    2) Check my page on facethejury.com (postmanpol), I can't be that ugly with a score like that!
    3) I'm 5'10 and only weigh 10.5stone, hardly chubby!
    4) I'm perfectly happy with my girlfriend (23) of 3.5 years, so why would I want to pull someone so young? If I did, do you not think I'd go to a club to do it rather than try to talk to people from all over the world on the internet.
    5) British rule in part of Ulster (note number of counties in the province is nine, not six) is illegal. I do not "resent" it, I acknowledge it as a crime against the Irish nation.
    6) There is no such thing as the Irish Republic on a map. The Free State refuses to term their statelet the Irish Republic because that term refers to the 32-county Republic. They have a variety of other names (look on wekipedia.com).
    7) The leprauchan is a mythical creature. I'm sorry if this comes as a surprise to you.

    Why do you think I'm a socialist? I consider myself somewhat right-wing. The fact that I don't like British right-wingers is evident - they wouldn't like me. I am no supporter of Blair nor Scargill nor any of those other lefties.

    You are ignorant and pathetic. I shall refrain from going any further with this unless you want to. If it comes down to it, however, I am almost certainly significantly more intelligent than you, and I challenge you to put yourself on facethejury.com to see if your score is any higher than mine
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    TRANSPORT - time to invest!

    Increased investment is needed in Britain’s public transport system to bring it up to the highest standards in the world. The fiasco of rail privatisation with different companies running services and track leading to higher fares and lower safety also needs to be resolved. Congestion of our towns and cities must be eased by the provision of greater incentives to use rail and bus transport instead of private cars. The first step is to end the crime and squalor that puts so many people off public transport. Motorists must not be made the scapegoats for government failure. Fuel tax should be cut, motorway speed limits raised, and hidden speed cameras should be banned. Far more must be done to encourage the development and use of cleaner fuels.
    Best yet, harmless at least, despite the fact it makes no mention of how its going to fund it on their bankrupt economy.
    ENVIRONMENT - NO to pollution!

    Our ideal for Britain is that of a clean, beautiful country, free of pollution in all its forms. We will enforce standards to curb those practices, whether by business or the individual, which cause environmental damage. “The polluter pays to clean up the mess” must become a fact of life, not an electioneering slogan. In towns we would work to replace the brutalist modernism of 1960s-style-architecture with a blend of traditional local styles and materials and a more human scale.
    Ok, who is going to pay for this architecture? i can't believe this is one of their major policies. And we need to save the British people so lets spend the taxes on architecture, wow there is no sense in that one. Again harmless.
    FOREIGN AID - time to spend our money on our own people!

    We reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. We will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, whereby those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The billions of pounds saved every year by this policy will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain.
    Foreign aid to the voluntary resettlement programmes? Not a good idea, aid should go where it is needed not to seek political favours. Oh is where the money is going to come from their savings here, hmm I don’t think so, they seemed to have forgotten about the fact that their going to be in a diplomatic hell hole after cutting our major trade links.
    PENSIONERS - pensioners before asylum seekers!

    The conditions in which many of Britain’s old people are forced to live are a national disgrace. We are pledged to ensure that all our old folk are able to live in comfortable homes, and will restore the earnings link with pensions. Elderly people who have paid a lifetime of taxes and reared families should not have to sell their homes to pay for care.
    Apart from not making any sense? Why do the pensioners deserve the money more? There is the question of funding? This is supposedly going to come from the savings but as we have already said their economic policy makes no sense and is going to send Britain into huge debts so these plans are completely unrealistic.

    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)
    Granted, we're not the original people, but nor are the Celts. And in North America the so-called "Native Americans" are not the "original" people either.

    But I think that being here for 1,600 years gives us a certain claim to this land, don’t you?

    You are advocating the genocide of our people by overwhelming immigration from alien nations.

    Personally, I'd have people like you terminated. But that would be un-PC, now wouldn't it?

    Anyway, I should not be surprised: all nations have a life and death cycle, of ascendancy and decay. Britain’s glory days are gone - she is in terminal decline, and the death-instinct of allowing others to take us over has set in.

    England cannot be redeemed. She is finished. She is not worthy of great men anymore.

    If England is to go, then let her fall be spectacular, let her native people vanish within two centuries, let her annihilation be so great as to send shock waves throughout the annals of time as a warning to others.

    History will say that Britain temporarily gained the world but forever lost her soul.
    how could an ignorant fool like you be going to LSE, if anyone needs to be 'terminated' its you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)
    Granted, we're not the original people, but nor are the Celts. And in North America the so-called "Native Americans" are not the "original" people either.

    But I think that being here for 1,600 years gives us a certain claim to this land, don’t you?

    You are advocating the genocide of our people by overwhelming immigration from alien nations.

    Personally, I'd have people like you terminated. But that would be un-PC, now wouldn't it?

    Anyway, I should not be surprised: all nations have a life and death cycle, of ascendancy and decay. Britain’s glory days are gone - she is in terminal decline, and the death-instinct of allowing others to take us over has set in.

    England cannot be redeemed. She is finished. She is not worthy of great men anymore.

    If England is to go, then let her fall be spectacular, let her native people vanish within two centuries, let her annihilation be so great as to send shock waves throughout the annals of time as a warning to others.

    History will say that Britain temporarily gained the world but forever lost her soul.
    I was wondering when it would come down to threats and reterick. BTW - how does being here for 1,600 years give us any right - YOU havn't been here for 1,600 years. Some of those who you would deport have lived in this country for a lot longer than you. You also seem to be forgetting that immigration is what made this country great in the first place - people like Mark from Marks and Spencers' (Mark was a Jewish immigrant).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by s-man)
    how could an ignorant fool like you be going to LSE, if anyone needs to be 'terminated' its you
    Actually, LSE seem to have somewhat of a tradition for turning out right-wing morons.

    http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/s...ickgriffin.htm

    The plot to destabilise the UKIP
    Griffin was keen for us to meet his right-hand man, somebody who had "only been in the BNP for a year, but showed great promise". This man was Mark Deavin, who had just completed his PhD in international politics at the London School of Economics. Though largely a behind-the-scenes activist, Deavin was responsible for organising the BNP's propaganda and for much of its election manifesto.

    Deavin, now in his mid twenties, comes from Birmingham, where his father was a member of the National Front in the 1970s. He has always considered himself to be on the right although he has only recently become active in the BNP. "I was born that way," he asserted to our undercover men, "I have family history within our politics. From an early age I felt I had a destiny, a mission."

    Unlike most of the right, Deavin is a highly educated man. His thesis, of which he kindly provided us with a copy, is a revisionist history of Britain's entry into Europe. In it he writes: "The movement for European federalism did not evolve naturally or inevitably out of unavoidable circumstances at the end of World War Two. It was the product of an ideological determination to reshape the wider international order on the part of a homogeneous transatlantic, political and financial elite - an elite whose agenda both transcended and encompassed the superficial division of the world between 'capitalism' and 'socialism' … Its aim was the creation of a new world order through the development of regional and continental federations which supplant the system of independent nation-states and form the basis for global governance."

    Deavin was careful not to get too carried away in his academic work. This elite was simply "with an almost identical social and religious background. … European federalism and Atlantic integration originated from the same source, had the same promoters."

    In a document given to our undercover men he was more open in his views. In The Grand Plan - The origins of non-White immigration, Deavin clearly singles out the group responsible for undermining western civilisation. "These concerns were Jewish in origin and Zionist in motivation. Thus the promotion of World Government can also be seen to be in line with traditional Jewish messianic thinking."

    To create this new world order, this élite set about undermining Western society by introducing non-white immigration. "The mass immigration of non-Europeans into every White country on earth has not evolved by accident or as a natural outgrowth of economic realities. On the contrary, the growing evidence suggests that it has actually been the product of an ideological plan on the part of a homogeneous transatlantic political and financial elite to destroy the national identities and create a raceless new world order."

    Deavin claimed that it was important to "understand who our enemies are, how they plan to destroy us and where they are now in their plans". Presumably this was the motive behind his research for the recently produced BNP magazine Mind-Benders, which purports to name Jewish personalities in the media. The publication is simply another piece of nauseating antisemitism which is becoming increasingly vocal as Griffin tightens his grip on the BNP. While the magazine has no public author, Deavin let slip to our undercover man that he did the research while Griffin put it together.

    Deavin's supervisor at the LSE was Dr Alan Sked, better known as the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), of whom Deavin wrote, "whose loyalty and encouragement over the past four years has been one of my biggest assets".

    Deavin certainly has a strange way of repaying his assistance, as he proceeded to talk disparagingly of Dr Sked and how they planned to wreck the UKIP, fearing that it was a potential obstacle to them gaining recruits after the election. In the eyes of Griffin and Deavin the UKIP could attract disaffected Conservatives who might otherwise join the BNP. Their plan was simple, to destabilise the UKIP.

    "After the election, if Blair becomes the Prime Minister, the BNP will be the official opposition in the inner cities, in working-class areas. The UKIP will be the opposition in the shires, the county areas, the middle-class opposition. That party is a serious opposition to us in middle England, but, if we had the resources, we could tear it to pieces."

    Griffin, obviously buoyed by the prospect of receiving the funds to achieve his takeover of the BNP, boasted that this was a serious proposition. "Mark has a very strong connection with the inner circle of this party and others among our people do as well. Mark could have a job in their office tomorrow working on their membership files."

    When Searchlight approached Dr Sked about the BNP plan, he was deeply shocked. "I don't believe it. Mark is a good friend of mine, both personally and academically." When shown the evidence he promised to take firm action: "Give me the names of these people and I'll expel every one of them from the UKIP".

    Deavin has no doubt that Tyndall has to be replaced by Griffin. "Tyndall is actually an obstacle in the way of the organisation developing, but Nick is basically the leader in waiting for the BNP, even the current leader realises that. The key question comes down to the fact that Nick has to become leader of the BNP.

    "We have all the ideas," he continued. "Nick and I have the ideas, we have the people in mind. What we need from you is experience, knowledge and finance." And without realising the tragic irony of the situation he concluded: "It gives us heart that you are interested in us as well, that you are interested in what's going on in this country. I mean that certainly gives us the inspiration."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    NORTHERN IRELAND - NO to sectarianism!

    Britain has shamefully allowed the terrorists in N.I. to come close to winning when the IRA could have been destroyed years ago. Government weakness has led to hundreds of deaths and given those same terrorists a share in government. We would end all attempts to force the people of Northern Ireland to accept foreign interference in their affairs and deal with terrorism – from whatever side – once and for all. No one with links to a terrorist organisation that refuses to lay down its arms should be allowed to enter government. We would abolish state-supported segregation in education. In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles.
    This is political sucide, lasting peace which is what all sides want is never ever going to be achieve with this policy. Words do not express my contempt for this policy enough, its pure madness.
    DEFENCE - no more cuts!

    Successive cuts in defence spending have left Britain’s armed forces perilously weak. We will boost Britain’s armed forces to ensure that they are able to deal with any emergency, and defend our homeland and our independence. We will bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO, since recent political developments make both commitments obsolete. We will close all foreign military bases on British soil, and refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peace-keeping’ missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake – a position of armed neutrality. We will also restore national service for our young with the option of civil or military service.
    Why? No reasons why we need to do this what so ever. Our independence is not under treat from anyone so I cannot see what they are going on about.
    FOREIGN AFFAIRS - Britain's interests first!

    Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interest and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics. We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. We will maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the ‘international community’, or any other country.
    Ok we are withdrawing from both Europe and cutting our links with the US? Again more madness, the benefits of both relationships far out weight any detrimental effects.
    DEMOCRACY - letting the people decide!

    The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in recent years the British people have been denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by a Politically Correct ‘élite’ which thinks it knows best. On immigration, on Capital Punishment, on the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other areas, democracy has been absent as Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems conspire in election after election to offer the British people no real choice on such vital issues. The BNP exists to give the British people, that choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, not just at national but at regional and local level. Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them. We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive Governments over the last 40 years. We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people. We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.
    LOL what curbs on the freedom of speech? What is freedoms do you want? The right to burn books on the 3rd Wednesday of every month? This is a joke as there is no problem to fix.

    That is what is wrong with BNP policy, its based in economic cookcoo land, attempts to appeal to a small proportion of society and hence is not for the greater good of this country and in terms of FP is awful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    No evidence for that opening fact I see.
    The demographic trends were published by the Independant or the Guardian.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Voluntary resettlement? Are you mad? I am not paying for one for us to send people out of this country merely because of their ethnic origin.
    That's relative to opinion, in my opinion it is a good idea to encourage those practising a foreign culture to return to countries that practice their native culture.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    And generous my ass.
    You're attacking the policy by claiming their undisclosed resettlement fund will not be generous. Absurd.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Flood of asylum seekers again another urban myth.
    I would consider 100,000 to be a flood.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    No evidence again.
    The amount of asylum seekers that come to Britain is published by the Home Office anually, this qualifies as evidence...

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    No consideration either for the moral implications of asylum seekers.
    If there were moral implications then they would seek asylum in the first safe country they come across.

    ....................

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Right so vote for UKIP or the conservatives who actually have policies rather than statements of intent.
    The conservatives don't intend to withdraw from the EU, UKIP are only a single issue party.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    No facts either for their statistics again.
    Try looking on the internet.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    These policies are not particularly bad, part from the fact they make no economic sense as surely if you want to increase trade you trade with everyone you can trade with rather than limiting yourself to Australia, Canada and New Zealand? and why these countries? Hardly economically sounds or particularly expressive but at least it isnt racist.
    LAW AND ORDER - crack down on crime!
    I can't say I'm aware of the relevance in re-establishing trading ties with the afforementioned countries. They do state that they will "trade with the rest of the world as it suits us" though. I don't think this policy statement is particularly concerned with economic issue, it is more to do with British independance and a retreat from federal Europe.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Coporal punishment, a return to the dark ages then?
    Are you claiming arab countries are living in the dark ages? :eek: you racist!
    Seriously though, I agree I am not in favour of corporal punishment, hopefully this policy will be removed with with the expansion of BNP ideology.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Does the author know the meaning of human rights or the morality of his argument? Same goes for capital punishment.
    Capital punishments morality is again relative to opinion. I deem it wrong to attack a policy by claiming it is immoral due to your perception of it being immoral.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Both would be more expensive than our current options.
    How would capital punishment possibly be cheaper than a lifetime imprisonment?

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    No mention of what the BNP hopes to do about anti social behaviour, internet fraud or a whole host of current issues.
    Nope. As of yet the stance and q&a pages are mainly to give someone interested in the BNP an idea of our views so that they can make a considered opinion as to whether or not to support us. I am sure that as our party expands, so will the extent and range of policies and solutions we offer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Benm I will let you reply to all the point if you are going to before I start again. i May summerise as this topic is expanding quite exponentially.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    How would capital punishment possibly be cheaper than a lifetime imprisonment?
    I take it that that was a typo and you meant to say how would capital punishment be more expensive (otherwise you don't really have any point). Capital punishment IS more expensive - look on the web.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    If there were moral implications then they would seek asylum in the first safe country they come across.
    The majority do, only a small proportion of all migration and asylum seeking is between an LEDC and an MEDC. The majority is between two LEDC's. So why is it such a problem that a small percentage come here. Surely it is unfair to expect the neighbouring countries to accept all the asylum surely we as a wealthier country with no Asylum from our neighbours should accept some.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    I would consider 100,000 to be a flood.

    The amount of asylum seekers that come to Britain is published by the Home Office anually, this qualifies as evidence...

    If there were moral implications then they would seek asylum in the first safe country they come across.
    We share the burden of asylum with our fellow European nations. As far as Europe goes we are actually smack bang in the middle of the table for asylum seekers with proportion to population.

    It was only ever 100,000 applications, the vast majority of which were. Now it's far less.

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nug...ank=1&Rank=192

    This shows that less than 10,000 people applied in the first quarter of 2004. Applications have nearly halved. (51,015 in 2003/04, 49 per cent less than 100,830 in 2002/03)

    There were 14,640 initial decisions in the first quarter of 2004, 2 per cent lower than the previous quarter. Of these, 4 per cent were granted asylum, 9 per cent granted either humanitarian protection (HP) or discretionary leave (DL) and 88 per cent refused.
    More of a trickle than a flood.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    I'll be happy to answer your question. You're wrong.

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2...nk/ewouteu.asp

    Brent has the highest proportion of people born outside the EU residing there, guess how many BNP councilors? That's right, ZERO!
    How many BNP candidates have stood for election there? :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Llamas)
    Next is Newham, guess how many? Again! ZERO!!
    You do know that a party does have to stand in an election to get a representative elected, don't you?

    (Original post by Llamas)
    Where does the BNP have councilors, let's see.

    Bradford... 38th
    Sandwell... 54th
    Brighton and Hove... 68th
    Kirklees... 71st
    Welwyn & Hatfield... 80th
    Epping... 119th
    Burnley... 120th
    Calderdale... 134th
    Broxbourne... 143rd
    Dudley... 193rd
    Stoke-on-Trent... 204th
    South Staffordshire... 339th
    Councillors stand for elections in wards, individual wards belonging to local authorities which often have vastly different ethnic make-ups.
    Please study a few of the BNP scores in wards where they did well and not so well, and then compare it to the ethnic composition of the ward.

    (Original post by Llamas)
    Come on, that's hardly a resounding positive corellation between ethnic minorities and BNP election success. More often than not, the BNP comes either last or nearly last in elections.
    No, this is not true. The BNP rarely come last in elections.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    We share the burden of asylum with our fellow European nations. As far as Europe goes we are actually smack bang in the middle of the table for asylum seekers with proportion to population.
    Yet we have one of the highest population densities...

    (Original post by Llamas)
    It was only ever 100,000 applications, the vast majority of which were. Now it's far less.
    Nearly 90% of asylum seekers stay in the UK, whether or not they are granted asylum. Thus, the 'vast majority' stay.

    (Original post by Llamas)
    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nug...ank=1&Rank=192

    This shows that less than 10,000 people applied in the first quarter of 2004. Applications have nearly halved. (51,015 in 2003/04, 49 per cent less than 100,830 in 2002/03)
    Wow! Just like Tony Blair and Beverley Hughes said they would. What does BRACE stand for again?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    I take it that that was a typo and you meant to say how would capital punishment be more expensive (otherwise you don't really have any point). Capital punishment IS more expensive - look on the web.
    Well, I'm sure under a BNP government it wouldn't be more expensive.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.