This websites 2010 General Election poll has received over 1,000 votes for the BNP (British National Party) and hundreds of supporting comments from BNP supporters who argue (amongst other things) that the BNP are no longer (or has never been) a racist political party. That sort of discussion isn’t really what I created the general […]
Continue Reading Are the BNP Racists Poll?
Oops!
On my previous comment I said that “our unelected prime minister Gordon Brown is about to surrender our national sovereignty to this Orwellian superstate against our will by denying us a referendum”.
In actual fact he has already this. What we now have is a puppet government. Only a complete withdrawel from the EU can restore our demcratic right to live as a Sovereign Nation
View Comment
Since when have we elected our prime ministers? Major wasn’t elected, neither was Callaghan, Douglas-Home or Churchill the first time round. We elect governments: a PM isn’t the same as a president.
As far as I know the BNP is the only political party where the members elect the leader.
[[ Comment on Are the BNP Racists Poll? (November 29th, 2009 at 20:43)
As far as I know the BNP is the only political party where the members elect the leader.]]
That would make all other parties dictatorships.
However….
Labour Party http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/82507.stm
Conservative Party
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/81998.stm
Liberal Democrats
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/oct/16/liberaldemocrats.uk1
UKIP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8381992.stm
Green Party
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/caroline-lucas-is-first-green-party-leader.html
The BNP’s leadership election rules give the candidate very little time to prepare and actually make it very difficult to campaign.
http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2007/07/legal-challenge-to-make-bnp-leadership.html
The BNP have only ever had two leaders and Griffin stabbed Tyndall in the back in order to become leader.
View Comment
All polictical parties have elections for their leader. Labour did not with Brown because no body stood against him.
The term racist is usually applied only to well defined members of our society.Others acting in the same way will not be called racists.
Thus –
I watched a comic on a TV programme called “Live at the Apollo”.
His joke – “which key will open any door ?” Answer “A Pikey” All round laughter from the audience.
A BNP member telling the same joke would be hammered.
Can anybody tell me why observers of average intelligence are easily able to accept this sort of stuff when the `right` person says it ?
Also ,the programme was a repeat.
View Comment
Sarah
How can you distort the Dictionary meaning of racism to such a degree ?
Anti-racist means not discriminating in anyone’s favour.
Someone should point out to you what a woman’s role under fascism actually entails.
Sorry Simon, Are we talking about Racism or Fascism? I thought I had made the cut and paste of the actual DICTIONARY reference of Racism quite clear… How exactly do you think I have distorted it?
Racial Policies within the UK benefit immigrants yet they are allowed to be openly Racist to the white indigenous population.
I do believe that the laws should work both ways in that if any other Race within this country is allowed to discriminate against me whether it is for my religious beliefs or my origin then I should have an equal recourse – at this point in time our laws are unbalanced in favour of ethnic minorities.
If wanting to retain the British culture and reduce the number of foreigners arriving is Racist then I’m happy to stick my hand up.
If wanting to close the doors to those who wish to arrive and abuse our welfare system, my hand is still up (Google Toorpakai Saiedi on this one!).
If wanting to deport foreign criminals (who have abused our hospitality) back to their country of origin then I’ve got both hands up.
View Comment
Dictionary definitions are there for a reason; they are based on the etymology of words. A dictionary definition is based on fact, history and parlance. One man alone cannot change the usage of an established word. It is foolish and delusional to think he can.
It amuses me that Nick Griffin THINKS he can attribute random meanings to words, but the simple fact is he can’t.
It makes me sad that people like you believe he can. Yo will have your own peculiar, out-of-context little language, soon. Like Klingon, but more monosyllabic and profane.
View Comment
Sarah :
You distorted the meaning in the post following your C & P of the Dictionary definition.
The Race Relations Act DOES work both ways that IS what it is there for. Racial discrimination works both ways look up the statute in your library, ask the Police or your MP for clarification f you are unclear
View Comment
No Simon, it doesn’t, or at least the nice (black) policeman told us it didn’t when we were abused by 2 sets of Pakistani neighbours and the very nice policeman arrived to arrest my husband for the Racist abuse we suffered!
I imagine it’s because us strong Brits with our pride and heritage can take it on the chin.
View Comment
It does not work both ways Simon , you are living in a dream world.
I haven’t distorted the meaning of Racism, the Government has.
One question;
Why has it taken legal action to get the BNP to change their membership rules?
And now for some other interesting titbits about them.
In their General Election manifesto for 2005, the BNP pledged among other things;
Race Relations Act to be abolished.
Abolition of Income Tax.
Withdrawal from NATO and the EU.
Foreign imports to be restricted.
Capital Punishment to be reinstated.
National Service to be reinstated (with an interesting twist, anybody refusing to do their NS in the military but doing it in the civilian sector will NOT BE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE – EVER.)
Every ex-military person will have the right to own an assault rifle.
All foreign military bases will be closed.
Need I go on?
View Comment
[[ Why has it taken legal action to get the BNP to change their membership rules? ]]
Why should they have even had to? The law compelling them to accept people they did not wish to is illiberal. However, now that they are accepting “non-whites” (or more correctly, those who are not of British ethnic origin), albeit under pressure, it will help the party image.
[[ Race Relations Act to be abolished. ]]
Illiberal legislation – should be abolished. It should be up to the individual who they wish to provide services for.
[[ Abolition of Income Tax. ]]
Don’t recall that part.
[[ Withdrawal from NATO and the EU. ]]
Thereby promoting sovereignty of Britain, rather than having illiberal legislation imposed upon us by Brussels. The point about the EU especially is a pull factor – remember, the UK populous is pretty split with regards to the EU.
[[ Foreign imports to be restricted. ]]
… and? Wherever possible, we SHOULD manufacture basic necessities, and grow our own produce. A country should always be as self-sufficient as possible. Why? Should the situation arise (hopefully it wont) Britain winds up in conflict with another country, if they are supplying things we need, they could charge extortionate rates, or just not supply to us at all. If such things are essential, Britain could be crippled.
[[ Capital Punishment to be reinstated. ]]
Again, another issue the public are split on. It’s pretty 50/50… A lot of people DO want it reinstated.
[[ National Service to be reinstated (with an interesting twist, anybody refusing to do their NS in the military but doing it in the civilian sector will NOT BE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE – EVER. ]]
Wrong. “National Service” INCLUDES “Civil Service” and the right to vote would only be taken away until a person does complete NS or CS. “Civil Service” is a great way to build community spirit, and although it would be highly illiberal to take away the right to vote, it wouldn’t be all that different to USA’s “three strikes” system.
[[ Every ex-military person will have the right to own an assault rifle. ]]
Assault rifle? I thought it was just a handgun, as well as being available for ALL *shrugs* I am rather split on the idea of a right to bear arms (something which we did originally have under the British Bill of Rights 1689). On one hand, it’s illiberal to ban guns. On the other hand, violent crime may increase. Then again, the threat of retaliation may dissuade from reckless action.
[[ All foreign military bases will be closed. ]]
Not sure on the logistics of this one either – with regards to the military, we should aim to achieve good relationships with as many countries as possible (but I do NOT mean to the extent a**-licking).
View Comment
I must disagree about the losing the right to vote part, in their manifesto on this link,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4477193.stm
they state under ‘National Defence’ page 52;
“7. The compulsory National Service system…..would begin at the age of 18 with a period of basic training in the army. This
would include full training with the citizens’ assault rifle.
\ A citizen’s assault rifle?\
They continue;
“Conscientious objectors who refuse to undertake military service would be allocated other constructive work for the community, but would not receive the citizen’s right to be armed, or the right to vote.”
On the contents page point 11 it says “Abolition of Income Tax” kinda surprised you missed that but whatever.
“[[ Race Relations Act to be abolished. ]]
Illiberal legislation – should be abolished. It should be up to the individual who they wish to provide services for.”
Illiberal legislation??? Since when has equal opportunities for everybody been illiberal?
View Comment
[[Why should they have even had to? The law compelling them to accept people they did not wish to is illiberal. However, now that they are accepting “non-whites” (or more correctly, those who are not of British ethnic origin), albeit under pressure, it will help the party image.]]
No, they can except anyone they like as long as they do it based on what they are like as a person, not on something utterly irrational such as skin colour. Or are you OK with WHITES getting less in the way of government money, housing etc?
[[Illiberal legislation – should be abolished. It should be up to the individual who they wish to provide services for.]]
Oh, that’s funny ‘illiberal’ legislation created by liberals. That’s how it goes isn’t it? So you think it’s OK to refuse to serve someone for no other reason than them being black for example? What about a doctor refusing to treat black or Asian patients, that OK with you?
[[“Abolition of Income Tax.”
Don’t recall that part.]]
It’s there all right and totally unworkable.
“Withdrawal from NATO and the EU.”
[[“Withdrawal from NATO and the EU.”
Thereby promoting sovereignty of Britain, rather than having illiberal legislation imposed upon us by Brussels. The point about the EU especially is a pull factor – remember, the UK populous is pretty split with regards to the EU.]]
Does that the BNP are liberals if they oppose illiberal legislation? In fact what it would do would be to politically isolate Britain.
[[ “Foreign imports to be restricted.”
… and? Wherever possible, we SHOULD manufacture basic necessities, and grow our own produce. A country should always be as self-sufficient as possible. Why? Should the situation arise (hopefully it wont) Britain winds up in conflict with another country, if they are supplying things we need, they could charge extortionate rates, or just not supply to us at all. If such things are essential, Britain could be crippled.]]
We aren’t self sufficient; we have at least 20 million too many people. We needed to be supplied during WWI and WWII, but if we cut ourselves off from our allies where’s it going to come from net time? Do you really think we’ll be able to sell as much as we do now to other countries if we restrict them from importing stuff?
[[ “Capital Punishment to be reinstated.”
Again, another issue the public are split on. It’s pretty 50/50… A lot of people DO want it reinstated.]]
Doubtless the BNP will reinstate it for treason; meaning anyone who disagrees with the BNP.
[[Wrong. “National Service” INCLUDES “Civil Service” and the right to vote would only be taken away until a person does complete NS or CS. “Civil Service” is a great way to build community spirit, and although it would be highly illiberal to take away the right to vote, it wouldn’t be all that different to USA’s “three strikes” system.]]
No YOU are wrong. Like Paul says, if you do the civvie option you do not have the right to vote or own a citizen’s rifle. Go check it up.
[[ Assault rifle? I thought it was just a handgun, as well as being available for ALL *shrugs* I am rather split on the idea of a right to bear arms (something which we did originally have under the British Bill of Rights 1689). On one hand, it’s illiberal to ban guns. On the other hand, violent crime may increase. Then again, the threat of retaliation may dissuade from reckless action.]]
Are you trying to see how many times you can include ‘illiberal’ in one post? It says ‘citizen’s rifle’. The Bill of Rights (1689) does not confer a 100% right to bear arms. It says citizens have the right to bear arms to whatever extent the Government wishes. Go read it.
[[ Not sure on the logistics of this one either – with regards to the military, we should aim to achieve good relationships with as many countries as possible (but I do NOT mean to the extent a**-licking). ]]
But you just said you agreed with leaving NATO and the EU. This why the BNP’s policies make no sense. They think we can go round sticking two fingers up at the world, but think the world will carry on being nice to us. Leaving NATO and the EU would stick us out in the cold. It will utterly sour our good relations.
View Comment
It did not take legal action to get the BNP to change their constitution, they were planning to do so anyway but the members decided to challenge the ruling against the advice of Nick Griffin. The problem the BNP had was they were the only white organisation in Britain who as with black or asian organisations, wished to campaign for rights for their ethnic group. This problem will be solved by the formation of Britains first ever white association outside the party leaving the party to work for people of all races legally in the country.
View Comment
The BNP believe in White supremacy and will alter their constitution “relunctantly” according to Nick Griffin.
Neither the BNP or Griffin have changed their views fundamentally , they just wish people to think they have.
Luckily 98% of the electorate are not taken in by this deliberate deceit
View Comment
Well so far, Simon 60% of the people who Voted on here disagree with you :)
[[ thoughtly
Comment on Are the BNP Racists Poll? (November 29th, 2009 at 20:40)
It did not take legal action to get the BNP to change their constitution, they were planning to do so anyway but the members decided to challenge the ruling against the advice of Nick Griffin. ]]
But Griffin is the party leader and according to the BNP’s constitution has the final say in everything. If he was so desperate to go multi-racial, something he has very vocally opposed, why spend 100’s of 1,000’s from the party’s coffers to fight the legal action? Why waste all that money when the party was going to change anyway.
[[The problem the BNP had was they were the only white organisation in Britain who as with black or asian organisations, wished to campaign for rights for their ethnic group.]]
Rubbish. They are not a rights-for-whites organisation. They are a political party and if elected will rule anything from a council ward to the UK. If they are whites-only, where does that leave the millions of other people who won’t be represented? Ethnic minority groups, who for one thing don’t actually have race-bars, are not political parties and do not seek to rule white people or control their lives.
[[This problem will be solved by the formation of Britains first ever white association outside the party leaving the party to work for people of all races legally in the country.]]
OK I agree with that on the principle that no political party should only seek to represent one section of society in Parliament. What actual need there is for such a thing I don’t know, seeing as such organisations are mostly set up by disadvantaged minorities.
View Comment
“Are the BNP a Racist Political Party poll?”
To balance this artical there should be a poll,
“are the labour party liars poll”
possible answers
1. yes the labour party are Liars
2. no the labour are not liars, but used to be
3. no no the labour are not liars, never have been.
“britishbred
Comment on Are the BNP Racists Poll? (November 28th, 2009 at 12:34)
“Are the BNP a Racist Political Party poll?”
To balance this artical there should be a poll,
“are the labour party liars poll””
Why should there be? Because all anti-BNP are pro-Labour? Wow, he really does have you all believing the recycled old Nazi lies doesn’t he?
The BNP wants repatriation of who IT (not history, science or anything else rational or accepted) deems to not be British enough, while it’s leader lies about his own immigrant heritage!
It’s key policies – i.e. the only ones that actually have action plans and are not just manifesto filler to appease the masses – are all divisive, intolerant and based on propaganda and half-truths.
It targets Islam as ‘the enemy’, just as Hitler targetted the Jews. It feeds off populist taboid rumour and pub-room rhetoric, manipulating headlines and stats to fit it’s agenda.
Please someone enlighten me as to what is NOT racist, hateful, and totalitarian about this warped methodology?
View Comment
Tory 4 the Win,
The point is with this is that the BNP are answering a lot of (angry) people’s issues.
They are not going to win so what does it matter if they are Racist? Really?
What matters is that they have an appeal to a lot of angry people who feel that their lives are being ground down and eroded away and that they don’t feel that they can openly celebrate Britishness.
A BNP Government would be horrific and would economically bring the UK to it’s (already) bended knees. What matter’s is that the main 3 are still not listening to the fear’s of those people who are moving to protest vote.
BNP managed to get 2 MEP’s elected, UKIP got 13 and yet LibLabCon still don’t seem to be listening and allaying people’s fears.
Continuance of the EU project is not going to control immigration (only increase it when Turkey join), it’s not going to give back the fundamental rights to victims of crime over the perpetrators, it’s not going to give the rights of Governments to make their own laws that reflect their own needs.
I’m actually voting UKIP because I do believe we need a moratorium on immigration and I do believe that there should be a choice to the people on whether the EU should be so embedded in our lives and we be governed from afar. I believe that schools should be able to choose whether to use corporal punishment (something the Tory Party abolished and now we have the Yob Culture 15 years later!)if they deem it necessary.
View Comment
UKIP FTW ;D
Even if the BNP won(let’s imagine here),I can’t think of anyone who is capable of running a governmental department!!Where are the academics in the BNP?I never heard of any.
To implement the BNP policies would be easy,but to carry them out would take at least 3 parlimentary terms in office.
It’s impossible BNP you just wont win 3 terms in office.GIVE IT UP!!!!,vote Ukip.They have all the right qualified people to run this country EFFECTIVLY.
If you really are that angry and revengeful and want blood to flow,may i suggest voting for the libertarian party.At least they will legalise firearms so you can blow each others brains out.
Wake up yourselves BNPers get real,it wont happen,voting ukip should be your only alternative.
It’s better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.
Good luck out there men ;D
View Comment