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

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    One a basic level there's nothing better than a racist with poop covering their copy of today's Daily Mail and that's my non-political head talking on the other hand freedom of speech, freedom of association etc etc.

    It's the same conflict as punching the bully in the face at school, my god it feels so good and he so deserves it yet on a mature level you're just as bad as him (not quite as bad since he deserved it but still bad).
    So meeting conversation with physical assult, is that what you're saying? Wanting to hurt people you don't agree with, just because of what they say? Exactly who are the intolerant here?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    So meeting conversation with physical assult, is that what you're saying? Wanting to hurt people you don't agree with, just because of what they say? Exactly who are the intolerant here?
    I didn't claim to be tolerant of the BNP. I am very intolerant of the BNP yet I am tolerant of a liberal democracy which says they should be allowed to spout their bile.

    The BNP are thugs. Prove me wrong.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    I didn't claim to be tolerant of the BNP. I am very intolerant of the BNP yet I am tolerant of a liberal democracy which says they should be allowed to spout their bile.

    The BNP are thugs. Prove me wrong.
    By what standard are we measuring "thuggery"? In contrast to the UAF they're entirely legitimate. Their official message is just that, language. Language is nothing but words. That's why there's a big difference between freedom of expression, and freedom to assault. I don't even think there is such thing as "language thuggery". The 'fascist' label is ridiculous. If you ever met a real fascist (i.e. in Rome) you'd **** youself and run a mile.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    By what standard are we measuring "thuggery"? In contrast to the UAF they're entirely legitimate. Their official message is just that, language. Language is nothing but words. That's why there's a big difference between freedom of expression, and freedom to assault. I don't even think there is such thing as "language thuggery". The 'fascist' label is ridiculous. If you ever met a real fascist (i.e. in Rome) you'd **** youself and run a mile.
    Griffin meets a real fascist quite frequently. His name is Roberto Fiori - a life-long friend and mentor. And a member of the group that bombed Bologna's railway station - killing 90 men, women and children.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    By what standard are we measuring "thuggery"? In contrast to the UAF they're entirely legitimate. Their official message is just that, language. Language is nothing but words. That's why there's a big difference between freedom of expression, and freedom to assault. I don't even think there is such thing as "language thuggery". The 'fascist' label is ridiculous. If you ever met a real fascist (i.e. in Rome) you'd **** youself and run a mile.
    I've never said that the BNP are facist, I too think that label is always misused in relation to modern far-right parties.

    The politics of the far-right have always been associated with intolerence and intolerence leads to violence. There are tonnes of examples out there of times when the BNP have been violent. I am always torn about UAF and I don't support them outright although I do support their goals. The BNP is full of violent thugs, some of them live on my street, I know the kind of people who join and are active within the BNP. This list shows some of them and, yes, I know it's a biased source but the things listed are facts.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    I've never said that the BNP are facist, I too think that label is always misused in relation to modern far-right parties.

    The politics of the far-right have always been associated with intolerence and intolerence leads to violence.
    Not necessarily.

    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    There are tonnes of examples out there of times when the BNP have been violent. I am always torn about UAF and I don't support them outright although I do support their goals. The BNP is full of violent thugs, some of them live on my street, I know the kind of people who join and are active within the BNP. This list shows some of them and, yes, I know it's a biased source but the things listed are facts.
    So a list of less than 30 members yes (one of which, David Copeland, I know was in NSM when he did the bombings - I'd assume some of the others are midleading too)? I ask, what about the other 13,970 or so members in this party? Can you show me evidence that these are all criminals too? Is there any evidence that these attacks were organised from above? Have you even stopped to check how many violent criminals are in the Labour Party?

    Edit: some of them are listed as mere "supporters" too. How on earth can this be used against the organisation itself?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Not necessarily.



    So a list of less than 30 members yes (one of which, David Copeland, I know was in NSM when he did the bombings - I'd assume some of the others are midleading too)? I ask, what about the other 13,970 or so members in this party? Can you show me evidence that these are all criminals too? Is there any evidence that these attacks were organised from above? Have you even stopped to check how many violent criminals are in the Labour Party?

    Edit: some of them are listed as mere "supporters" too. How on earth can this be used against the organisation itself?
    Can you name any examples of a far-right movement without violent and intolerent views?

    I can't deny that the press may have misrepresented some members of the BNP but you cannot deny the fact that it's violent, it's associated with the National Front. In my town there have been numerous cases where BNP members have beaten up people from ethnic minorities and a Jewish man. The worst thing that's happened to a BNP member here is having scum spraypainted across their windows.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    Can you name any examples of a far-right movement without violent and intolerent views?
    Does that mean both violent and intolerant, or one or the other?

    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    I can't deny that the press may have misrepresented some members of the BNP but you cannot deny the fact that it's violent, it's associated with the National Front.
    The National Front was only ever strong in the '70s, and its members hate Nick Griffin. There's a film on YouTube of one of the NF's chief members saying the BNP are "sold out" because they've accepted Turkish and Jewish members. The BNP may have grown out of the NF, but, just as the Labour Party "grew out" of the unions, this has pretty much no effect on either's position.

    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    In my town there have been numerous cases where BNP members have beaten up people from ethnic minorities and a Jewish man. The worst thing that's happened to a BNP member here is having scum spraypainted across their windows.
    Again, for this point to be valid at all, you'd have to prove that this was orchestrated from above, and that these were BNP members, and not just a group of football/C18 thugs. Sure you can give all these little anecdotes, but you can't say that an organisation is inherently violent because of these incidents, which, I guess, are pretty isolated. Just like you can't say the Lib Dems are an intrinsically gay party because many of their eminent members are gay, or that New Labour is a Marxist party because some of their lower ranked members are Marxists (and many of their leading pack ex-Marxists). It's just not rational.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Not necessarily.



    So a list of less than 30 members yes (one of which, David Copeland, I know was in NSM when he did the bombings - I'd assume some of the others are midleading too)? I ask, what about the other 13,970 or so members in this party? Can you show me evidence that these are all criminals too? Is there any evidence that these attacks were organised from above? Have you even stopped to check how many violent criminals are in the Labour Party?

    Edit: some of them are listed as mere "supporters" too. How on earth can this be used against the organisation itself?

    The labour party has 200,000 members. The BNP - according to the list - had about 5,000 with paid-up subs, not 13,000.

    Yet off the top of my head I can list the following SENIOR members -

    Lambertus Nieuwhof - Attempted child-killer.
    Runs the BNP website and senior figure in the BNP solidarity "union".

    Arthur Kemp - Murderer and snitch (ratted out his fellow Nazis in return for a reduced sentence).
    Runs the BNP e-commerce operation. Close friend and confidante of Griffin. Pseudo-Intellectual nut case - author of a hilariously stupid book claiming all significant achievements (including the Pyramids and the Portuguese voyges of discovery) for the "nordic race".

    Tony Lecomber - nail bomber, GBH of a Jewish teacher (attempted murder should have been the charge).
    Former number 2 in the BNP. Now subject to a police enquiry regarding soliciting murder.

    That's 3 very senior figures in the BNP - now please come back with
    40 X 3 = 120 senior Labour figures with similar backgrounds.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    The labour party has 200,000 members. The BNP - according to the list - had about 5,000 with paid-up subs, not 13,000.
    The BNP list had over 12,000 members on it. Get your facts right.

    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    Yet off the top of my head I can list the following SENIOR members -

    Lambertus Nieuwhof - Attempted child-killer.
    Runs the BNP website and senior figure in the BNP solidarity "union".

    Arthur Kemp - Murderer and snitch (ratted out his fellow Nazis in return for a reduced sentence).
    Runs the BNP e-commerce operation. Close friend and confidante of Griffin. Pseudo-Intellectual nut case - author of a hilariously stupid book claiming all significant achievements (including the Pyramids and the Portuguese voyges of discovery) for the "nordic race".

    Tony Lecomber - nail bomber, GBH of a Jewish teacher (attempted murder should have been the charge).
    Former number 2 in the BNP. Now subject to a police enquiry regarding soliciting murder.

    That's 3 very senior figures in the BNP - now please come back with
    40 X 3 = 120 senior Labour figures with similar backgrounds.
    And are any of them still members?

    I came across a list on the BNP website of eminent Labour members with convictions, when I was researching them the other week. I'll see if I can find it.

    And, as I said, this "totting up" of convictions is pointless in the extreme. The Labour Party aren't criminal, just as the BNP aren't. If the BNP were as inherently violent as you claim they are they'd be illegal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    The BNP list had over 12,000 members on it. Get your facts right.



    And are any of them still members?

    I came across a list on the BNP website of eminent Labour members with convictions, when I was researching them the other week. I'll see if I can find it.
    Nieuwhof, Kemp and Lecomber are still members and very tight with Griffin. The first two are very senior figures in the party. Lecomber was demoted to await the outcome of the "soliciting murder" enquiry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    The BNP list had over 12,000 members on it.
    It had 12,000 names - but only 5,000 were current fully paid-up members.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd be more supportive of Unite Against Fascism if they quit their absolute obsession with the British National Party and placed a bit of emphasis on other fascist ideologies such as Islamic fundamentalism - I don't see how the policies and philosophy of the British National Party is any more worthy of the label 'fascist' than Islam.

    In other words, I ask for consistency.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    Nieuwhof, Kemp and Lecomber are still members and very tight with Griffin. The first two are very senior figures in the party. Lecomber was demoted to await the outcome of the "soliciting murder" enquiry.
    Evidence? Because Nick Griffin went on record stating "Tony Lecomber is no longer even a member of the British National Party". Plus, there's absolutely no evidence that Arthur Kemp was a "murderer" (did you get that from Searchlight - whose editor, Gerry Gable, has a conviction - too?).
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Human Condition)
    I'd be more supportive of Unite Against Fascism if they quit their absolute obsession with the British National Party and placed a bit of emphasis on other fascist ideologies such as Islamic fundamentalism - I don't see how the policies and philosophy of the British National Party is any more worthy of the label 'fascist' than Islam.

    In other words, I ask for consistency.
    In that the BNP are a specifically political-power seeking and 'coherent' organisation in a way that Islamic extremism isn't I suppose this makes them a more obvious target for UAF but I think your point is still a reasonable one. Defenders of the UAF might argue that they are an organisation which specificlly emerged to counter the BNP, and that's fair enough, but their case would still be strengthened, I think, if they made it plain that all ideologies which have a fascistic quality were in their sights as far as was practicable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Evidence? Because Nick Griffin went on record stating "Tony Lecomber is no longer even a member of the British National Party". Plus, there's absolutely no evidence that Arthur Kemp was a "murderer" (did you get that from Searchlight - whose editor, Gerry Gable, has a conviction - too?).
    Kemp admitted his part in the murder of Chris Hani (the leader of the SACP). He didn't pull the trigger - he supplied the gun and intelligence.

    Well if Lecomber and Griffin have finally fallen-out well and good.

    Nieuwhof and Kemp are still very much at the heart of the BNP.
    As is Griffin (convicted of incitement to racial hatred for his articles in "The Rune" ) .
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    Kemp admitted his part in the murder of Chris Hani (the leader of the SACP). He didn't pull the trigger - he supplied the gun and intelligence.

    Well if Lecomber and Griffin have finally fallen-out well and good.

    Nieuwhof and Kemp are still very much at the heart of the BNP.
    As is Griffin (convicted of incitement to racial hatred for his articles in "The Rune" ) .
    Have you seen Arthur Kemp now? He's old, squeaky-voiced and four-eyed. Kemp and Nieuwhof may be at the centre of the party, but to say that people are thugs because of the inevitable polarisation that came with apartheid, is foolish in the extreme. Propaganda isn't violence.

    Rather than these, why don't you consider the other people at its "heart". Richard Barnbrook, their GLA member, was willing to accept Simone Clarke's mixed-race child as "his own", before they fell out, and decided not to marry. His sister-in-law is an Afro-Caribbean. If you're going to charge this party then ALL factors have to be brought in, not just those which may be fitting to your argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    In that the BNP are a specifically political-power seeking and 'coherent' organisation in a way that Islamic extremism isn't I suppose this makes them a more obvious target for UAF but I think your point is still a reasonable one. Defenders of the UAF might argue that they are an organisation which specificlly emerged to counter the BNP, and that's fair enough, but their case would still be strengthened, I think, if they made it plain that all ideologies which have a fascistic quality were in their sights as far as was practicable.
    To be honest, I don't know that much about the UAF, so if it's true that they were founded directly as a response to the BNP, then the extent of the resources they spend on combating the BNP is slightly more understanble. However, as you said, it wouldn't hurt if they were as critical of all ideologies with a fascistic streak; after all, they're called Unite Against Fascism, not Unite Against the BNP. For example, the UAF could target certain Muslim fundamentalist organisations such as Al-Muhajiroun.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Human Condition)
    I'd be more supportive of Unite Against Fascism if they quit their absolute obsession with the British National Party and placed a bit of emphasis on other fascist ideologies such as Islamic fundamentalism - I don't see how the policies and philosophy of the British National Party is any more worthy of the label 'fascist' than Islam.

    In other words, I ask for consistency.
    As much as I am critical of some of the Muslims, Islamic fundamentalism is not fascist in any meaning of the term. The BNP may be closer to that ideal but I don't think that they can qualify as well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No, I hate them. They make things bloody worse... Morons. Let's just hope that in the near future we have a competent 'anti-fascist' organisation, if there is a need for one.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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