Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    How many BNP candidates have stood for election there? :rolleyes:

    You do know that a party does have to stand in an election to get a representative elected, don't you?

    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.

    No, this is not true. The BNP rarely come last in elections.
    You're really not very good at maths are you. If a ward has lots of people from ethnic minorities in it then it makes no sense for the BNP to win. ALL THE PEOPLE FROM THE MINORITIES WOULD VOTE AGAINST THEM. As far as whether the BNP are running or not, surely if support for the BNP in an area is high then they are more likely to field a candidate. Maybe you should write to your fuhrer and tell him to field candidates if he's missing out so much :rolleyes:

    And I said they mostly come last or nearly last. Which is true, look:

    http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/s...esults2004.php

    Mostly they come either last, second last or 6th place or more where there's a ton of independants/whatevers standing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    Well, I'm sure under a BNP government it wouldn't be more expensive.
    Yeah, you'd end up executing innocent people because you're too lazy to have a decent justice system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    Yet we have one of the highest population densities...



    Nearly 90% of asylum seekers stay in the UK, whether or not they are granted asylum. Thus, the 'vast majority' stay.



    Wow! Just like Tony Blair and Beverley Hughes said they would. What does BRACE stand for again?
    Can't you read?

    Removals

    For the first quarter of 2004, the number of principal applicants removed was 3,320, 1 per cent higher than in the previous quarter (3,295) and 27 per cent more than in the first quarter of 2003 (2,620). Including dependants, a total of 4,085 asylum seekers were removed in the first quarter. 13,190 principal applicants were removed in 2003/04.
    3320 out of 8940 were removed already. That's already 37% of them gone. So much for 90% stay in the country :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    Well, I'm sure under a BNP government it wouldn't be more expensive.
    Oh the drive by tactic ah?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    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.
    I can't keep up with this thread. A lot of your criticism seems to be based on conflicting opinion, which isn't an attack on the policies at all. As for the other arguments, i'll reply to them another time if I feel like it. Sorry.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    I can't keep up with this thread. A lot of your criticism seems to be based on conflicting opinion, which isn't an attack on the policies at all. As for the other arguments, i'll reply to them another time if I feel like it. Sorry.
    Sure no problem. You are one, and refuting an attack on every policy the BNP seems to hold obvious takes time to prepare. I am going to bed be anyway now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    You're really not very good at maths are you. If a ward has lots of people from ethnic minorities in it then it makes no sense for the BNP to win. ALL THE PEOPLE FROM THE MINORITIES WOULD VOTE AGAINST THEM.
    Damnit! That's where we've been going wrong all along.
    We don't stand in areas where the ethnic population is ridiculously high, we tend to stand where the ethnic population is just large enough for people to get a taste of multi-culturism.

    (Original post by Llamas)
    As far as whether the BNP are running or not, surely if support for the BNP in an area is high then they are more likely to field a candidate.
    I'm sorry, this is stupid. The whole argument is about why support for the BNP would be high in an area. It feels like a step has been taken back from the original premise

    (Original post by Llamas)
    And I said they mostly come last or nearly last. Which is true, look:

    http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/s...esults2004.php

    Mostly they come either last, second last or 6th place or more where there's a ton of independants/whatevers standing.
    I read them:
    East Midlands, 1 of 2 came last or second to last.
    Eastern, 5 of 16 came last or second to last.
    I can't be bothered to count the rest.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Yeah, you'd end up executing innocent people because you're too lazy to have a decent justice system.
    :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    3320 out of 8940 were removed already. That's already 37% of them gone. So much for 90% stay in the country :rolleyes:
    90% is based on the figures for 2002.
    Please explain what your 'vast majority' is based on, as 37% does not constitute a 'vast majority'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    Damnit! That's where we've been going wrong all along.
    We don't stand in areas where the ethnic population is ridiculously high, we tend to stand where the ethnic population is just large enough for people to get a taste of multi-culturism.

    I'm sorry, this is stupid. The whole argument is about why support for the BNP would be high in an area. It feels like a step has been taken back from the original premise

    I read them:
    East Midlands, 1 of 2 came last or second to last.
    Eastern, 5 of 16 came last or second to last.
    I can't be bothered to count the rest.
    But out of the list of 379 areas only 12 had BNP councilors. There was no correllation between the BNP winning seats and the size of the ethnic minority.

    Try the south east, all came either last or second to last except one. That was 7th out of 10. In Wales only three stood but all came last. In the south west only two stood and both came second to last. In places like Sunderland (25 seats), where they came last in every seat except two were 4/6 and one was 5/6.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    :confused:
    The reason it costs a lot is because you want to make sure you don't kill an innocent person. This means not only ensuring the evidence is of a high standard but giving them a few years on death row to appeal etc. You can only make it cheap if you have cheap justice.

    (Original post by benm)
    90% is based on the figures for 2002.
    Please explain what your 'vast majority' is based on, as 37% does not constitute a 'vast majority'.
    That is 37% of the total applications. I think 13% were allowed to stay.

    The actual figure for people who were refused and removed by the end of March was 42.6% This is already nearly half and we don't know how many have subsequently been removed in the second quarter.

    What I was talking about was that the vast majority were refused. I know a lot still stay, but then again you're talking to someone who would happily let them work here and stay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)

    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?

    England cannot be redeemed. She is finished. She is not worthy of great men anymore.
    In all honesty, I don’t think it’s a particularly persuasive argument at all. You speak about Britain having been great, so lets take that as our objective. If that is one’s outlook, then the historical entitlement argument is very weak indeed. There are people in Britain who are lazy, illiterate and lacking in the human capital that markets demand of them, and much else besides. Many of such people, no doubt, are able to trace their British based ancestry going back over many centuries. However, their presence here does not make Britain ‘great’ in any way, they’re in effect a drain on the country’s resources. Now, if your primary motivation was to make this country a place ‘worthy of great men’, then the ‘problem’ is not one of immigration, but rather its nature. If this is the key criterion, immigration could indeed help, however, it would have to be highly selective immigration. Thus one would only accept people who are sufficiently qualified to fulfill the demands of our economy.

    So, if you’re looking to terminate, why not terminate the unproductive white population too? Then grind to a halt immigration from those feeling persecution and the like, and only open the country's doors to highly skilled professionals. You can even take it to an extreme, for instance, each local authority could rank people based on their human capital and its potential for development. Then immigrants can then be admitted if they’re able to exceed the index of human capital awarded to the person ranked lowest on that list. Thereafter the immigrant is admitted, and simultaneously the person of low rank is shot, or perhaps publically humiliated and then shot out of a cannon stripped bare naked. Now, an economist may respond by suggesting we need people of varying degrees of human capital to fulfill openings across the spectrum, and thus my attempt at human capital optimisation runs contrary to economic theory. This would be correct under normal conditions, however, not for Great Britain. In a country worthy of 'great men', we need people of great value throughout, even our roads weepers will be PhDs in Astrophysics, imagine that? Also, it would help keep the population stabile, would also ensure a swift reversal in Britain’s relative decline. However, one’s place in society may not be particularly safe, in fact this is an even better reason to implement the system, it gives people an incentive to develop their productivity; what better incentive than the fear of death? However, only drawback is that your own position in society may not be particularly safe either, just think of the one billion work-obsessed Chinamen, with their sweaty palms who’d be itching to take your place. Ah well, it's all in the name of our great country, surely you’d sacrifice yourself to restore the eminence of the country of your ancestors, do them proud boy!
 
 
 
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.