BNP on Question Time

I think it's important to allow freedom of speech to such people, as, in the end, they will condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

Freedom of speech is a little like a being pregnant, in as much as you can't be a bit pregnant, and you can't have a bit of freedom of speech. Everyone has it or nobody has it.

This of course means that all kinds of lunatics can attract the gullible, incite them to acts of terrorism and so forth. I still prefer that to the alternative. Although clearly New Labour doesn't.

I think that there are absolutes on this - and that the BNP cross the line. I would not allow fascists or racists a platform. I think that UKIP is obnoxious but I do not think they should be denied a voice - but the BNP are far, far worse. I'm afraid to say that I wouldn't debate with them - there's nothing to debate. They are vile and that is that.

I agree with Tony. I think there's a limit. I will watch though and make my son watch too. I hope they make fools of themselves. Perhaps I will make popcorn to throw.

That is my point IPFNH, I think they should be given every opportunity to show themselves for what they are. I also believe any whiff of martyrdom, such as denying them a platform, is likely to fan the flames and that is a very bad thing.

The worst thing we could do with some of the more rabid Islamic figures in Britain would be to gag them.

Maybe we should dub Nick Griffin's voice; the guy who used to do Gerry Adams is out of a job, I wonder if he could manage fascist-speak?

"Freedom of speech is a little like a being pregnant, in as much as you can't be a bit pregnant, and you can't have a bit of freedom of speech. Everyone has it or nobody has it."

Well, that's right in the sense that everyone should have the same freedoms (and restrictions on their freedom) but we already have lots of (mostly quite sensible) limits on freedom of speech - some political, some practical, some based on the protection of other personal freedoms.

Whether the BNP should be allowed on the BBC isn't a question of freedom of speech. No one's advocating that they should be prevented from saying what they think in their own meetings or on street corners (provided they don't break the law in the process), the question is whether the BBC should put them on the TV and broadcast these views to millions of people.

Having your opinion broadcast to millions of people isn't a human right.

Whether it really will expose there views to scrutiny and lead to a reduction in their support is anyone's guess. My guess is that it won't.

If Nick Griffin goes on Question Time and tells people that they've just lost their job because an asylum seeker took it, the fact that David Dimbleby will ask him to justify the statement with some evidence and that he won't be able to won't necessarily stop him picking up a few thousand extra votes off the back of his initial statement.

That's the problem then isn't it, we all need to be protected from such things? Who decides on our behalf then? What you're saying is that everyone is too stupid to see through them, right? Perhaps we should deny people the vote if they're so stupid.

I'm just saying it's the thin end of the wedge. I hold absolutely no brief for lunatics of any stripe. But I bet you any money there wouldn't be much outcry if Iftikhar's mates were on national TV. (And I think they should be, for many of the same reasons.)

I wish I could agree, but I honestly think there is a line. I wouldn't debate with them either. I do see your point about martyrdom etc, but I still think they have no place on question time.

wasn't that the weirdest thing when Gerry Adams suddenly changed his voice? I preferred the first one

Yes, I got used to it too. It was a ridiculous situation and I think it made everyone who was party to the decision to do it look ridiculous too.

On a more serious note, if everyone doesn't have a right to be allowed on TV, why do the X-Factor and Britain's Got Talent exist?

Those are sedatives Ewan. They keep people's minds off the inflammatory stuff.

It was totally ridiculous, about Gerry Adams, and yes it made england a laughing stock

I've never watched either of those programmes - do you get them in spain?

I think all parties who have a certain number of candidates can do a party political broadcast - there is a rule isn't there? Did the BnP do one last election? And anyone can go and look at their website. I would like to know who else is going to be on with them - I'll go and have a look

ooh jack straw - I like him - and no tory! Why ever not?

What I'm hoping will happen on Question Time is that the panelists will confront Griffin with the loathsome baggage he carries with him.

The fact that he has spoken approvingly of Hitler and Mein Kampf, the fact that he has praised the SS (who of course ran Hitler's death camps) yet attacked the RAF for its actions during the last war, the fact that when he was asked as an MEP how we should respond to African refugees arriving in Europe by boat his response was that we should blow them out of the water.

PS: Insertponcey, yes the BNP did do a party election broadcast last time and what's so great about Jack Straw? He was one of the architects of and long-time apologist for the entirely unnecessary war in Iraq.

At least Question Time isn't a program that would normally attract the BNP's natural supporters. The faithful will watch this once, knowing that the BNP is on, but probably not those who might be persuaded by them.

I detest Jack Straw for saving his own son without saving anybody else's. He sank the liner, then when he realised his son was a passenger and would drown too, built a lifeboat for his son's exclusive use. In my eyes, this is filth beyond anything the BNP could ever do, simply because Straw was Home Secretary at the time, an office one hopes and trusts will never be held by any BNP member.

Truly a Straw Man

Can you put a straw man in a wicker man? I do hope so.

One of the biggest problems with democracy is that not everyone has the intellect to actually see clearly the consciquences(spelling mistake) of the impact of their vote, as someone said earlier just cause Nick Griffin cant justify his views with fact doesnt mean people wouldn't beleive what he says.
The BNP should not be on BBC, because this will lead gullible people to think that cause they are on telly they must be alright. Thats how hitler got to power.(probably not exactly how he got to power) but fact is it is free publicity for the BNP, all publicity is good publicity.

Follow the movement, follow the music, myspace.com/butchandsundanceuk

"But I bet you any money there wouldn't be much outcry if Iftikhar's mates were on national TV. (And I think they should be, for many of the same reasons.)"

I don't know who Iftikhar represents other than himself but, as far as I know, no representative of Al Mahajaroun (sp?) or similar organisations has been invited on to Question Time.

It's not being on TV that's the issue. Griffin's been on TV loads of times - far too often in my opinion given his actual electoral appeal.

But the question here is whether the BNP should have the privilelge of being considered an acceptable part of mainstream political debate.

On that basis, I'd say no to the BNP and to Islamic extremists and to David Icke.

I'm with bukharin on this one. There are limits and you have to accept them. If a politician is stating that he or she wishes to remove the right to free speech to other members of the community then they should not be allowed on to mainstream state television. The outcome, as it was for Le Pen in France, is that the BNP will gain credibility from this appearance and that is appalling.

Even so, doesn't that mean that we would be telling the BBC to decide what the public should or shouldn't be allowed to see? Surely it's the government's job to ban them from Question Time? My fervent hope is that the BNP actually break the law on mainstream television. Anything could happen if the public are involved, after all.

This is one of the problems with the West imposing democracy on, sorry, bringing democracy to, Iraq and Afghanistan: if the elections are free and fair, there's no guarantee they'll vote the way you want.

Are you willing to accept that what you're saying is that gullible, disenfranchised people should be protected from themselves?

The vast majority of people in this country would never allow Nick Griffin to get anywhere near the levers of government.

He has an impossible mountain to climb. Not one single mainstream newspaper (not even the right wing rags) support him. Indeed the Mail and the Express have published some of the most damning stories about him.

Every major mainstream figure in Britain who has been questioned about this agrees he is totally beyond the pale.

On top of all that, communications facilities in 21st century Britain are light years away from those in Germany in the 1920s and '30s. Griffin's every word and move, his every slip and stumble will be made instantly available to Mr and Mrs Britain and their kids Johnny and Joanna Britain.

His past record and utterances too are extremely damaging, and he can never escape all that baggage.

I have friends and colleagues of every political hue, but I know of no one who has anything but vitriol to offer when asked about the BNP.

I just don't see how he can escape from all of that. So (famous last words!) I really don't think we have anything to fear from this tinpot Nazi appearing on QT.

'I really don't think we have anything to fear from this tinpot Nazi appearing on QT.'

I think there is a great deal to fear, the inevitable TV showboating of intellectual and moral arguments will, no doubt, belittle Griffins particular brand of malice and misinformation, but may serve to further distance a growing section of the viewing public that gave him and the flurry of elected BNP members their mandate on the basis of fear, uncertainty and anger.

Ewan makes a point 'Are you willing to accept that what you're saying is that gullible, disenfranchised people should be protected from themselves?'

Perhaps, we need to consider why the BNP have achieved enough prominence to be invited in the first instance.That the question that frightens me.

C A Jones
I see what some of you mean about not letting Nick Griffin on Question Time - he's a very persuasive politician - but the people he influences are unlikely to be watching Question Time. And while we are on the subject of fascism, Labour and Conservatives are both tending that way. They expect chaos to be a consequence of global warming - as indeed it will - and they are putting things in place to control us with as we speak. CCTV, biometric passports, ID cards etc.
Who'd have thought that George Orwell's 1984 was only 30 years out?

CA Jones, what makes you think that the very people who are prepared to USE their vote are unlikely to watch Question Time? I would be wary of being dismissive.

C A Jones
Do stupid people watch Question Time? BNP voters do not, in my experience.

There was one in the audience once. I don't know whether they were watching but they did heckle. But I dare say most will be watching Fatties Sing the Funniest Songs on ITV.

I've never been on Question Time, but that doesn't mean I'm banned, just that the BBC hasn't yet asked me to appear. Not inviting someone to come on your show isn't equivalent to suppressing free speech.

Bear in mind that Question Time isn't the House of Commons - it's entertainment, not politics. I dare say the decision to invite our boy was made to provoke just such a debate as this and to up the viewing figures for QT, not because anyone thought Griffin's views were worth a damn.

After all this I was too busy tinkering with the clockwork of ABC to watch the show. Did I miss anything?

I genuinely believe the BBC when they say this wasn't about viewing figures but about honouring their responsibilities under their charter. The viewing figures are just a bonus.

Having watched the show I thought he was hammered into the ground and made to look extremely evasive and flakey.

My one fear is that the disaffected might see this as the establishment ganging up on one of their own and feel empathy with him.

But the things he has said in the past that were quoted back at him were fairly damning and his feeble attempts to laugh it all off just made him look pathetic.

Basically, he was hopelessly out of his depth and at times seemed like the proverbial headlight illuminated rabbit.

C A Jones
I heard a fair amount on Radio 4. It sounded exactly as I expected. He sounded evasive and full of the proverbial. It can only do him harm.

FTSE! How can you be so naïve? I have it on good authority that you are on the rumoured Cricklewood Black-list: it consists almost entirely of ABC members who will never be invited on to Gardener's Question Time. However, you may be pleased to know you are in exalted company, since Albert F, Skunk, Mouffette, Crackersville and several others are also purported to be on this nebulous list. They say it was drafted by John Birt and John Fortune, before the latter went on to a much more fecund comic partnership.

I thought Griffin was very unimpressive, particularly when he was trying to blame race crime legislation for not being able to explain why he'd 'changed' his views.

However, I would not dream of claiming he is not a dangerous man.

A German diarist, Klemperer, had this to say about Hitler:

"I have never been able to understand how Hitler was capable, with his unmelodious and raucous voice, with his crude, often un-Germanically constructed sentences, and with a conspicuous rhetoric entirely at odds with the character of the German language, of winning over the masses with his speeches, of holding their attention and subjugating them for such appalling lengths of time."

C A Jones
Cricklewood black list? Tell me more.

Griffin is dangerous for the same reason - he can carry a crowd with him when he gives a speech. Shit! he nearly converted me twice!
That's why having him on a debating platform is a good idea. He may be great with the rhetoric but he can't back it up with reasoned argument when confronted.

I didn't watch it (I very rarely do), but it would strike me as very odd if the BBC had chosen not to represent the political views of a significant proportion of it's licence payers.

Being on telly doesn't make the BNP look respectable, getting votes and attaining public office makes the BNP look respectable.

The tendency of both major parties to blather on about immigration has allowed the BNP to position themselves as a fringe single-issue minority at the forefront of political debate (not so different than the greens in that respect).

If the BNP are a credible political force (which is measured in votes), then they should be on the telly.

"Being on telly doesn't make the BNP look respectable, getting votes and attaining public office makes the BNP look respectable."

Absolutely.

C A Jones
I often wonder if people should have to take a test before being given the vote. It seems to me that a lot of people don't think for themselves when voting, but rather vote thd way their father voted, or their husband or their mates. Few people think of the consequences for the future. It is not true that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from increasing state control.
The State is incompetent - of course we should be worried.

One person, one vote is the bedrock of our society. The second we begin to pick and choose those that may have the vote then we begin to select in every other area - those who are worthy of education, those who are worthy of housing, those who are worthy of life - and we become fascists.

Of course we need to educate everyone as to the issues around the vote and we need a system that reflects the thoughts and opinions of our society. We are in real trouble at the moment due to a growing disaffection between the haves and the have nots both nationally and internationally - and when that happens then violence is often not far behind. It's that violence and that disaffection that feeds the likes of the BNP and we need to address those issues now.

Exactly so, Mr Cook.

C A Jones
Can't argue with that.
I vote Liberal Democrat but I'm really a dictator in waiting. B-)

Okay folks, I'll make myself unpopular here by not accepting your premises.

The people we have in government at the moment are jolly nice chaps, not at all like the BNP, yes? Tell me anything the BNP have ever done, or are ever likely to do, that compares in any way with Guantanamo Bay and other torture camps. Is there really much difference between justifying your ugly policies by 'asylum seekers steal our jobs' and 'Moslems frighten me and make me think of bombs'?

If I had one piece of advice for Mr. Griffin it would be, stop talking about immigration, but propose far worse treatment of foreigners with the justification of national security. Then you can torture niggers to your heart's content, as we love to help the Americans do (in addition to a great deal of freelance torture our own troops have engaged in) and you'll still be a respected member of the political establishment.

Sorry to spoil the game. Do carry on.

C A Jones
Like I said before, fascist parties already alternate in ruling this country.

The crucial difference is that the torturers can be brought to book in the current system - but in BNP world that would never happen - and there would be far more torture with lots of added genocide.

I know that our current system has a great deal wrong with it - and that Bush and Blair may never be brought to account for their wrong doings. But some people will be made to account for their actions at some stage - and we were able to get rid of Blair and Bush and we are still able, although with considerable difficulty, to bring about change in our political, social and cultural system. That would not be possible in a fascist world.

It could well be that a few individual soldiers will be brought to account for recreational torture fun. Nobody will ever be brought to account for that Old News And Therefore Boring camp in Cuba, or for 'extreme rendition' (torture kidnap). If the answer is that Bush and Blair can be disposed of at election time, surely so can Griffin?

C A Jones
I'm a firm believer in proportional representation.

Not under Griffin's system you couldn't. Hitler, you may recall, wasn't too keen on elections.

So FTSE the threat of never being allowed on Garderner's Question Time means nothing to you? This only shows that you are not one of us!

It seems we are agreed that politicians are bad people: but what about the people who vote them in, shouldn't they bear some responsibility for their elected represantatives' actions? We gave them the power and the mandate, for ever and ever amen it seems... oh no that was to the one before, wasn't it. We appear to have an unelected leader now.

It does seem as though George and Tony's Iraqi Adventure wasn't the feelgood block-buster they thought it would be. I expect the sequel, Carry on Regardless up the Khyber will not turn out any better.

Quite so, Ewan. Americans on this very site of ours think they are blameless for their country's actions because it was Bush what done it. Presumably somebody voted for him? Twice?

The kind of Americans who voted for Bush aren't likely to post here FTSE. There were lots of them. They were mostly looking for revenge for 911 IMO. The only thing they feel bad about is failing.

This is a great discussion BTW. As an expat I don't feel that I have anything useful to add. I think the BBC were right to bring it into the open but I tend to agree with tony's point about social inequality and frustration being at the root of it. Griffin is just a symptom.

I agree, chuck. I don't have anything against any individual American, particularly not those who post on ABC, but I do find American society and politics such a child's garden of diseases that it fills me with loathing and disgust. One can get carried away.

Also agree that people who find life hard, through no fault of their own, are all too willing to listen to anybody who claims to know who is to blame, whether the guilty be immigrants or bankers.

America is going through a period of great confusion at the moment FTSE. They've lost their way and it ain't pretty. There are plenty of heavily armed Nick Griffins lurking in the bushes.

It seems that America is driven almost entirely by fear. I saw a TV show recently about the way they treat paedophiles. Now this is a delicate area, paedophiles being one of the torturable classes, but I contend that firstly they didn't choose to be that way, and secondly they are still human beings. I can, incidentally, hold this belief without being a paedophile myself.

According to the TV, which is always 100% reliable ho ho, when convicted paedophiles finish their sentences they are sent to a warehousing facility where they are kept indefinitely. There they play all kinds of fun games with them, including physical castration. Few are ever released, even those who have been castrated.

Only in America, one is tempted to say.

Sorry to change the subject when we're doing wars and stuff, but in terms of losing their way, Americans are so deep in the bushes (an almost pun) that one wonders what it would take for them ever to find their way out again.

Yeah well I have my own theories about what's going on. The social pressures are largely due to overpopulation I think. But of course I've made a few contributions to that myself.

In America? Sounds intriguing. I found an unaccounted-for son on MySpace the other day. I haven't yet decided whether or how to introduce myself.

Mine are scattered around the globe. I take full responsibility for them. This conversation is getting a little too personal :) Back to the BNP please.

Don't worry chuck, I won't tell anybody ;). Can't think of anything more to say about the BNP. They're a bad thing, but there are worse. Now I'm going to have a nice cuppa and dream of a better world.

Was für ein Paar von dunkelen Pferden!

A.Hitler Jr.
Pittsburgh

C A Jones
I said in 1972 that if anyone starts another world war it will be the USA - the most paranoid nation on earth. Remember the McCarthy years.
Why do we British think we have a 'special relationship' with the US - let's not forget their plan during the Cold War; a 'limited nuclear war in Europe'. That is here.
They believe they are 'God's country' and that everyone hn the world wants what they have.
Now I know individual Americans are not all like this but, unfortunately, a majority are.
They continue to scare me with their empire-building and their belief in their 'God-given right' to police the world.

C A Jones
Ewan. Nein sprecken deutsch.

Americans aren't all bad. In fact they have many fine qualities.

After all how many countries are there where the majority of people with one colour skin would vote in as leader someone of a different colour skin?

I don't see that happening anytime soon in Britain.

C A Jones
Do you remember Token in South Park?

"The people we have in government at the moment are jolly nice chaps, not at all like the BNP, yes? Tell me anything the BNP have ever done, or are ever likely to do, that compares in any way with Guantanamo Bay and other torture camps."

Well, the BNP have never been in government at a local or national level so they haven't taken any policy decisions at all. I think they could do things much worse than Guantanamo given the chance. Let's hope we never get to find out.

As far as I know, no mainstream parties in the UK have done Guantanamo Bay or other torture camps.

The US runs Guantanamo and its ongoing existence has been opposed by the UK government for many years. You can have theories about their sincerity but however sincere they have or haven't been, they don't have either the influence or military might to force the US to close it.

"Like I said before, fascist parties already alternate in ruling this country."

Well, unless you're talking about the specific policy agenda followed by Mussolini, fascism has a fairly elastic meaning.

You might think Labour and the Tories follow an authoritarian right-wing agenda. The BNP's policy platform is a lot more authoritarian and a lot more right-wing. The manifesto is available on their website.

In the US Obama is getting called a fascist and a Nazi by the right. It's all very confusing.

C A Jones
Its not really confusing, although I, too, didn't understand. Fascism - extreme right wing; Communist - extreme left wing. The difference is neglible. Both ideologies need to use force and fear to control the people. There are always yes-men to dob everyone in. Petty rivalries can be resolved by a slight hint of dissention to the authorities. Once, we English believed ourselves above this shit - now people think its clever. Its not.

I think in the US it's more a case of Fascist and Nazi being the worst things you can say about somebody. Commie is pretty bad too. Commie fascist muslim trumps everything.

Just to answer your question, C A, I don't remember Token in South Park.

I am one of those weird people who watches almost no television so have never seen South Park, although I am aware it is some kind of anarchic, post watershed, animated US comedy series that makes the Simpsons look like Terry and June. Or something like that.

C A Jones
Its not really confusing, although I, too, didn't understand. Fascism - extreme right wing; Communist - extreme left wing. The difference is neglible. Both ideologies need to use force and fear to control the people. There are always yes-men to dob everyone in. Petty rivalries can be resolved by a slight hint of dissention to the authorities. Once, we English believed ourselves above this shit - now people think its clever. Its not.

"Both ideologies need to use force and fear to control the people."

That's nothing to do with extremism. All governments need to use force and fear - amongst other things - to control people. The vast majority of the population of the UK want a government that does this - to a lesser or greater extent.

People who live in Somalia - a country where the government is entirely unable to control people - are often very keen to move to countries where the government can do so.

The question is whether the extent of the governments control and its methods of imposing it are morally right.

In the case of dictatorships (fascist or communist) it definitely isn't. It a democracy, everyone can argue about it.

I'm not sure you are right about the question being 'whether the extent of the governments control and its methods of imposing it are morally right', Bukh.

In Thailand many of the Right claim that the one man one vote form of Democracy leads to a 'tyranny of the majority' and hence PAD and its call for New Politics.
Maybe the real question is...
do the ends justify the means?
Can you have a benevolent dictatorship?
Can you have a manevolent democracy?

As for Obama the Right can't call him a 'nigger' so they call him a 'socialist' or anything else they think might appeal to large enough sections of biggots to help pressure him and his administration.

I welcome the foresight of the people who realised just how much Obama would need the Nobel Peace prize and anticipated it would help highlight exactly who Obama's real enemies were!

"I'm not sure you are right about the question being 'whether the extent of the government's control and its methods of imposing it are morally right', Bukh."

Well, I might add 'and/or practically useful'.

My point is that there's no point having a government if it doesn't have any control at all.

So, for example, I can't imagine many people in the UK would support a government whose attitude to terrorism was 'please carry on with your terrorism if you feel like it'.

So there's both moral and practical arguments about how far you restrict everyone's freedoms to prevent some people doing really bad things.

"Maybe the real question is...
do the ends justify the means?
Can you have a benevolent dictatorship?
Can you have a manevolent democracy?"

You certainly can have malevolent people elected in a democracy. Then the question is whether the other bits of the democracy - judiciary, wider civil society - are strong enough for it to remain a democracy.

You can have a well intentioned dictatorship. You can have a 'not as bad as the most likely alternative' dictorship. I don't think you can have a benevolent dictatorship in the long term.

C A Jones: -
Obama is ok, so far. I don't believe his colour is anything to do with his popularity. Its his policies. How many times have we British voted people in on account of their policies only to see them do absolutely nothing?
B-)

Griffin has complained to the BBC for providing him with a rotten audience on QT. That made I larf.

I thought you gave a very good reply to my post Bukh.
I think you hit the nail on the head with 'the question is whether the other bits of the democracy - judiciary, wider civil society - are strong enough for it to remain a democracy'.

In my opinion these other 'bits' are never strong enough to oppose a determined challenge from the 'elite' who actually really run things and the best that you can hope for is that the 'elite' are content enough with the status quo to find ways to get what they want without displaying blatent disregard for the wishes of the people.

As for Griffin, I notice a recent poll claims that over 20% of those polled said they would consider voting BNP which suggests to me that the BBC probably did choose an audience which reflected the views the government wished to be reinforced...
which is one of the ways that 'democracy' uses to point people in the direction it wishes them to go ;O)
http://news.aol.co.uk/one-in-five-would-back-bnp/article/200910231843572...

Obama is a dreamer and people like dreamers... until it becomes (or seems) obvious that the dreams are only that.

If you believe the Bible then you see that Christ was very popular with large sections of the public until the 'staus quo' (represented by the Romans but in reality the Jewish Royalists and the religious leaders) used its power.

Then we see that the people become so disillusioned with Christ that they chose to free a thief and murderer (Barabbas) rather than Christ.

The fact that Obama is black simply makes it harder for his detractors to attack him personally but, because he is a dreamer, they only need to suceed in destroying faith in his 'vision' to defeat him!

C A Jones
You are a clever person, M.
The reason we get debate is so that we feel our views are being expressed and represented. The same with political satire. A sop to the masses as no-one in power actually gives a toss and nothing changes.

I think free speech has to be an absolute. Autonomy only has a valid limiting principle when it directly harms the autonomy of another.

I agree with Ayn Rand that racism "is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism...Even if it were proved -- which it is not -- that the incidence of men of potentially superior brain power is greater among the members of certain races than among the members of others, it would still tell us nothing about any given individual and it would be irrelevant to one's judgment of him. A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race -- and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin. "

Rand opposed racism. However, she did not let this compromise her belief in individual freedom. She believed all people, regardless of race had the same freedoms. However a man's freedom could not, for example encroach in the freedom of a small businessman who to employ people only of a certain race.

In other words, Rand opposed racism because it is illogical but she acknowledged the freedom of the individual to be racist.

The BNP would never have appeared on QT if it hadn't been for NuLabs open door policy of the past decade which has alienated and disenfranchised poor, white communities. They had to be invited to QT because they have elected MEPs and a London Assembly member. For me, as a second generation cape-coloured, who grew up in a well-integrated environment of tolerance and opportunity, the frightening rise of racism is more due to Labour than the BNP. There will always be a neo-nazi lunatic fringe but don’t give them reasons for people to vote for them.

jude

C A Jones
Hey Jude! (sorry)
I agree with everything you say.

I'm not sure I can follow the logic of your post, Jude.
Surely the BNP LIKE morons - they recruit enough!

Personally, I'm not that convinced that 'superior brain power' is neccessarily a good thing anyway.

Surely we've listened to the 'brainy' and they have consistently led us is wrong directions and then simply used their brain power to convince us that it wasn't their fault!

Give me people who are right not people who are bright.

I was talking with a Right-wing American recently who was trying to tell me that Al Gore was not very bright...
I was very tempted to ask if he thought that Bush was but instead I pointed out that Gore had been right about Global Warming and right that the US should not attack Iraq after 9/11 but rather concentrate on finishing what it had started in Afghanistan.

I can't say whether Al Gore is bright or not but I can say that Bush and all the bright people he employed in his administration were quite simply WRONG. Or they were bright enough to realise that lying was the best way to proceed!

Talking about Rightwing lying...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-e-burns/fox-news-is-the-story-wit_b_3...

Does free speech stop at yelling fire in a crowded theater? On some of these other points, the economic model that included a middle/working class is gone so America is in a post-industrial identity crisis. When people can run their lives and support their families then government control isn’t necessary, the economy just runs and you have a more passive maintenance mode type of government, per Jefferson. I agree that Obama is a dreamer, but people respond to hope and positive messages over the longer term than hatred and the hunt for boogymen, or even concrete results. This is why Jesus the Nazarene was successful at that time, and there were scores of these preacher/messiahs. He was actually executed for tax sedition, despite his insistence that followers should stay at home (stop following him around on tour) and render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. This has nothing to do with magic, the son of god scenario, or any of these other allegories used by writers to make organized religion. Extremists emerge to rebuild a disappeared floor as happened in the Weimar Republic. I’m seeing confederate flags and stickers now and live in the North where you never saw this pre-Obama. We have these angry right wing tea parties and racial tensions have increased noticeably. We shipped the middle/working class economy overseas, gave illegal workers the remaining jobs below the standard of living, and primarily manufacture financial speculation and entertainment now so if (or when) the dollar collapses it wouldn’t be that surprising to see some outwardly fascist figure appear here at the national level.

Oops, sorry Carole, edited and so jumped to the bottom of the thread.

I presumed when you said that you agreed with everything Jude said that you included the inference that Jude agreed with Ms Rand...
"She believed all people, regardless of race had the same freedoms."
Hence my question -

You really believe that all people, regardless of race, have the same freedoms, Miss Jones?
We must live in different worlds.

I believe that all people, regardless of race, religion or richness, SHOULD have the same freedoms!

To be honest I don't agree that freedom of speech should be absolute either.
I don't believe that hatred, bile and bigotry should be consider to be speech! So long as it is then the bad and the mad will continue to sow their seeds of deception and destruction.

In Thailand a media mogul was allowed to use his TV (ASTV) outlet to spread hate and lies because it was useful to the 'elite' who wanted to bring down the democratically elected government.
The tactic worked but resulted in terrible rift which has left Thailand on the brink ever since.
The most ironic aspect of this freedom of speech is that a young woman was recently sentenced to 18 years in prison for Lese Majesty (insulting the Royal Family).
So it's not what you say but who you say it about that makes the difference.

Meanwhile Sondi L the mogul whose lies, smears and hatred caused so much division has been sentenced (yet again) to 2 years imprisonment for defamation...
yet he has always, somehow, avoided going to prison.

Last I heard he was still free even though he had promised that he would be happy to go to jail if he was allowed a month in which to appeal - that was a couple of months ago and he has been voted leader of the new political arm of PAD in the meantime
(PAD is essentially a pressure group but has recently decided to chance its arm in the political arena).

Ah, having had time to read your post properly Carole it seems that you are not a bigot but probably an elitist - in my book there is little difference :O)

Just found this -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-sindell/breaking-fox-news-spun-of_b...
Can it possibly be true???
It's common knowledge that Rupert is strapped for cash at the moment - mind you I'm sure many would do it for free ;O)

C A Jones
I'm a realist. Most people are not intelligent or informed as far as I can see. Mind you, I am living in N Devon where they still tug their forelock. I'm from Wigan, Manchester so I find this repulsive. Its a relief to talk to people like yourself, Mr. Mangone.
C

"I'm not sure I can follow the logic of your post, Jude."

Well, M, it is actually Ayn Rand's logic, not mine because she measured human worth/ value by brains. The reasoning still holds however you measure human value; integrity, truth, courage. You could equally argue that racism is illogical because "Even if it were proved -- which it is not -- that the incidence good and noble men is greater among the members of certain races than among the members of others, it would still tell us nothing about any given individual and it would be irrelevant to one's judgment of him. A good man is a good man, regardless of the number of evil men who belong to the same race -- and an evil man is an evil man, regardless of the number of noble men who share his racial origin. "

I ought to add that I think our immigration policy is becoming more balanced but the BNPs support could be quashed if the government took a few simple steps.
Firstly they should stop spending a small fortune on translation services. I am looking to buy a house in Spain in a couple of years and am therefore learning Spanish. Even then I will have to pay a bilingual lawyer to help. I do not expect the Lecrin Valley council and the people there to provide English documentation for my benefit. Stopping translation services will not only save money but will also incentivise learning English therefore improving people's life chances.

Secondly, there needs to be a time-limit on welfare payments linked to the years one has paid tax. For people too young to have paid qualifying tax there can be an alternative work-fare option.

Thirdly, social and cooperative housing should become a waiting list and lottery system instead of needs-based. This will also create balanced working communities instead of ghettoes of deprivation.

When my ancestor came to England from Africa they already had three things in place i) a job ii) somewhere to live iii) fluency in English.

jude

It's fun exchanging ideas with you too, C.

You're taking me too seriously, J ;o)

I hope you manage to get to Spain although I get the impression that the English are not flavour of the month in Spain, or year, maybe even decade - so I'd advise a chat with Ewan before you make any plans.

With the frightening state of the British economy huge changes are bound to come and I fear that most will be for the worse and inevitably many people will look for scapegoats...

C A Jones
Ah but you can smoke weed in Spain. C ya l8r.

I argue that the race question has little or nothing to do with how many people with this or that 'human worth' a certain race, or class, might contain!

If it should turn out that a certain race, or a certain class did have below average intelligence so what?

The fact is that all a class says about an individual in that class is that he or she is a member of it. In other words all you can say for certain about people of any particular race is that they are of that race.

In Thailand the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and others argued that the majority of the people were too stupid to vote on the grounds that they kept voting for the wrong people. Hence they suggested a new form of Democracy where the people were essentially represented by a panel of experts who would vote for them.
So what does this tell us about PAD...
that they are elitists or liars or both?

Yet I believe that many of the very same people who seem to be appauled by racism would secretly welcome a similar suggestion for British politics - although they would qualify it by stressing that it should only be people below a certain critical IQ who should lose the vote.

My point being that we have all been so carefully indoctrinated into believing that clever people make better decisions - and are vain enough to believe we are clever - that the idea of only clever people getting the vote will appeal to many not so clever people!

Incidentally, if PAD were to get its way but passing an IQ test was added to the requirement to vote then I suspect the new PAD party wouldn't get more than half a dozen votes.

IQ testing is a crude and inaccurate tool. In Ireland, in the Seanad Éireann (House of Lords equivalent) elections, only graduates of the University of Dublin and the National University of Ireland can vote. Unfortunately they still have other methods of allocating seats but this approach seems sensible.

I would welcome a system where the House of Lords is given more power to veto legislation from the Commons, and is directly elected by alumni of the old 'UCCA' universities. I know plenty of intelligent and wise people don't go to university at all, but one has to find a reasonable system in an imperfect world.

IQ testing is very good at gauging a candidate's ability to do IQ tests.

Maybe there could be a specially devised test to ascertain whether policy makers truly understand what passes before them. For example:

Q1. The anti-drinky-drive campaign claims that in one in five (20% of) road accidents, alcohol is a 'contributory factor'. Leaving aside any question of the reliability of the figures and the meaning of 'contributory factor', what does this statement imply for road safety policy?

a) That road accidents would be reduced by 20% if everybody drove sober.
b) That road accidents would be reduced by some other amount if everybody drove sober.
c) That road accidents would be reduced by at least 80% if everybody drove drunk (since sobriety must be a contributory factor in at least 80% of road accidents.)
d) That road accidents would be reduced by some other amount if everybody drove drunk.
e) There is absolutely no conclusion that can be drawn from the statement.

And so forth...

This isn't a test of whether they know what a percentage is, there are remedial arithmetic classes for innumerate adults, but of whether they understand the implications of a commonplace, everyday assertion.

:O)

In a recent poll conducted in Thailand I noticed that the better educated a person was the less likely that person was to support Thaksin Shinawatra (the deposed Prime Minister of Thailand who was overthrown by a military coup).
I began to wonder if perhaps the better educated people knew something I didn't...

Later statistics in the poll demonstrated that the higher the income a person had the less likely that person was to support Thaksin.
When I compared education to income I realised that they tended to go hand in hand.

Looking a little deeper it became apparent to me that the highly educated rich were more likely to support Thaksin than less well educated rich.
In other words education actually favoured Thaksin but wealth overpowered this trend.

My point being that you can't rely on clever people to make decisions that are in the best interest of less clever people when the clever people have a stake in the outcome.

C A Jones
The thing is, M, that when you really look at people's reaction to one just being there, you begin to see human nature's flaws. I have been sexually assaulted by a group of men, raped, drug raped and drugged and sexually assaulted. Why? I've got a large chest on a small frame so people think I "must have been up for it." Obviovsly I wasn't or they wouldn't have needed to use drugs.
I'm not only good looking, I'm talented too. People want to believe I'm loose and a drug addict. That way they have a 'reason' for what happened to me at the hands of people I trusted. All of them stupid.
Perhaps you can understand why I don't like stupid people? They are far too easily led.
Carole

Hi Carole,

Yes, I knew you'd had a hard time as I'd read your Sex is not Sacred. It's good that you and Dean have formed a band and support each other!

The name of your band sounds like it sums up Earth For Profit PLC :O)
I hope your lyrics reflect the maddness of the current practice of paying lip service to Global Warming while doing very little about it in reality because those in power seem to believe that profit is more important than the planet and most of the people who inhabit it!

You are right - there are a lot of stupid people and many of them seem to be politicians :O)

I wish you well and look forward to seeing you on TV.

C A Jones
I suppose I'm trying to say that decency is nothing to do with race but more to do with intelligence and education.
C

C A Jones
I'll send you a cd if u like. I think you'd like the lyrics on the serious tracks.

I'm not sure what decency is to do with - but I'm fairly sure it's more to do with people's nature than their intelligence, C.

In my experience many people tend to improve with age and I have to admit I often cringe when I recall what a horrible person I was as a teenager... but I didn't realise it at the time.
I'd say for me it was more a process of awakening than education but then we aren't all the same.

C A Jones
I'm surrounded by stupid people so I may be biased. Lol.

Aren't we all ;O)

C A Jones
I was dead nice and oh so trusting when I was young. I learned better. Luckily I have Viking blood.
xx
C

PS. Is it mangonne or mangoane in pronunciation?
C

It is actually pronounced Man - gone or Geow Mangon if you prefer the fruity version ;o)

C A Jones

I thougt so. Ta.

It's 'man go ne', as in 'we are the knights who go ne.' Or should that be ni? Or knee?

C A Jones
Al, you've lost it mate, big style. Lol. B-)

He's just having a joke since Mangon is Thai for dragon and knights go in search of them, C.

Knights of old
have knees I'm told
but rarely go down on one.
For married knights
Want to spend their nights
with wives and not Mangon

If they lose their horse
they must walk of course
to follow their wing-ed quarry
and they quickly find
they're left far behind
feeling tired and sorry

Yet Dragon and knight
don't always fight
although it is tradition
For dragon breeds
can make great steeds
given the right proposition

For nightly prance
with knightly lance
can conqueor codes of war
and dragons tamed
are not ashamed
to aid their paramour

She lights his fire
He takes her higher
and man and beast are one
after the flame
he's not the same
now he is Man gone.

C A Jones
Great! Mangone. I love it.
By the way, I'm a Sagittarian Dragon myself.

"The BNP would never have appeared on QT if it hadn't been for NuLabs open door policy of the past decade which has alienated and disenfranchised poor, white communities."

Well, New Labour certainly did miscalculate the number of people who'd come here from Eastern Europe EU countries after 2005.

Don't know if that's closely linked to the success of the BNP. Are there proportionately more new Eastern European immigrants in the North West and Yorkshire?

There hasn't been anything that could sensibly be described as open door policy towards anyone other than EU Eastern Europeans, rich people and students paying huge tuition fees.

Despite the stereotypes, people who are actually poor - unemployed, unskilled and semi-skilled - are generally as disinterested in voting for the BNP as they are in voting for anyone else.

The BNP main support comes from skilled working class and lower middle class people.

Net immigration for the UK is over 300k per annum and unlike Australia, we are not attracting fiscally self-sufficient english speaking post graduates.

I think immigration had an impact on the BNP vote in the London Assembly. In the Borough of Southwark there are high numbers of foreign born residents. I don't know whether they are asylum seekers, failed aylum seekers, people here on working visas, people on bogus visas. I don't really much care either. I think we need to radically cut welfare for everybody regardless of their nationality.

My own personal gripe isn't necessarily to do with immigration per se but the failure to expand infrastructure to cope. I will find it very hard to get my children into a decent school because high levels of immigration coupled with deprivation have forced the Estuary accented middle class of Southwark into Dulwich causing all the schools there to be over-subscribed. We have resigned ourselves to the high probability we will have to go private or move to Ireland. I will be frank and lay my predjudices bare - I do not want my child speaking Jafaican; at primary level I want my children to have the same 'Peter and Jane', 'Meat and two veg' education that I had.

Even if I am wrong in my desire for a moratorium on immigration (that's why I support UKIP), the perceptions that shape my feelings are widespread and I don't believe they are generated by the right wing press or fascist propaganda. They come in part from my experiences.

I feel thoroughly depressed that we seem to be unwinding the progress we made in assimilating people of different races so that I have never experienced racism or disadvantage because of my genetic heritage.

Moving to Ireland and buying a house in Spain - is P getting big bonuses J? :O)

LOL; No but thanks to the government propping up the housing bubble, his London property (which he bought back in the nineties and has a very small mortgage on) would sell for a sum that would buy us a nice house in Galway. We are both prudent savers (being punished by low interest rates to bail out the reckless borrower) with good incomes and very low outgoings. Sensibly, we moved a lot of our savings into Euro some time ago, so escaped the worst of Sterling crash. The Irish and Spanish property crashes have some way to unwind so it will be a good time to take advantage in a couple of years.

Unfortunately, I am stuck in London for the next 4-5 years as I am commencing my PhD next year. I will probably look for a post-doc job in Ireland or the US.

C A Jones
I love foreigners. I love diversity but I hate the PC that came with it.
As a white English person I find my freedom of speech curtailed. I don't undestand why people can say 'Play that funky music, white boy' but would be arrested for saying 'Play that funky music, black boy.'
Negros call themselves 'Nigger' but if I were to say it - not that its a word I use - I would be arrested. I'm a Liberal Democrat but I can understand why the 'indigenous white' people are voting BNP.

The pro/ anti immigration debate can go on endlessly. What remains is that a majority of the population, for whatever reason, think immigration is a problem, so something, somewhere has gone wrong over the last decade.

Also, you cannot police people's thoughts and feelings. You can only engineer the externals of a society. You can make racial insults illegal but that will only make their private mutterings even more embittered. You can try to convince me that having a class where 80% of the children do not have English as a first language will not be detrimental to my child's education but never in a month of Sundays am I going to send them to such a school.

If you think it's bad in the UK, Carole...
I notice that an American broadcaster is suffering a weeks suspension for making a racist remark.
It seems he suggested that a missing Columbian driver was "out having a taco."???

Speaking as someone who is part of an ethnic minority, I agree with everything that's been said in the last few posts, especially by Carole and Jude.

In my view trying to police language is largely counterproductive, not to mention stupid.

If you make individuals fearful of saying the wrong thing in front of people of other races, the result is they become frightened to speak to them and try to avoid them.

If you hammer people for being a little careless with language, the chances are you turn a non-racist or semi-racist into a fully fledged one.

In other words, you play into the hands of that guy who appeared on Question Time last week.

C A Jones
I think successive prime ministers in Britain have thought they are still in charge of an Empire. And half of Britain's population think the same.
We are no longer an Empire. We are a small island off the coast of Europe. We have very little in the way of manufacturing industries and the majority of what few we have left are foreign-owned.
The prospects are not good.

I'm with this guy...
http://blog.mlive.com/stoneyexpress/2009/10/espn_wimps_out_by_suspending...

If it does not insult or attempt to be hurtful surely those people who take it upon themselves to be offended by it in the name of solidarity with those who they think should be offended by it but aren't...
err, um... that's why I posted the link - whatever he said :O)

C A Jones
I'm with that guy too...

:O)

"The pro/anti-immigration debate can go on endlessly. What remains is that a majority of the population, for whatever reason, think immigration is a problem, so something, somewhere has gone wrong over the last decade."

Well, my main criticism of New Labour with regard to immigration is their failure to make the argument for the policies they've pursued.

"I will be frank and lay my predjudices bare - I do not want my child speaking Jafaican; at primary level I want my children to have the same 'Peter and Jane', 'Meat and two veg' education that I had."

That's a legitimate opinion in terms of education policy. I'm not sure what it's got to do with immigration - which in the last ten years has primarily been from Eastern Europe.

I'm not necessarily saying that there isn't a high proportion of students from minority groups in Southwark primary schools now but this is not a new thing in inner London.

I went to a state primary school in inner London in the 1980s and, as what Mr Griffin would probably call an Anglo-Saxon, I was generally in a minority - I'd estimate people of my grouping made up roughly 25% of most of the primary school classes I was in.

People may or may not think this was a bad thing but it's not something that's changed markedly as a result of any recent government policies.

I learned lots of slang words with their roots in Jamaica but look at all these sentences I've just strung together now.

A very high proportion of the kids at our nearest primary are children of first generation African immigrants. Somalis, Nigerians, Ghanans (sp?), Ethiopians. It is actually a very good school and several children every year win scholarships to private schools. For this reason, amazingly, several middle class parents from surrounding enclaves have started sending their children there.

If the children spoke Polish, Estonian, Lithuanian, and Slovenian, I still would have the same concerns. I would also be loathe to send my kids to school if they were likely to pick up the indigenous cockney accent. It is true that inner London has had high levels of people of non-Anglo Saxon races for decades but there used to be pockets where you could move to and find a decent school and these pockets have got smaller and smaller. As I mentioned, people like me have been cornered into Dulwich and East Dulwich and whilst there are enough primary school places in the borough as a whole, East Dulwich always runs out of places.

A persons's enunciation and articulation is just as important as their educational atainment in employment prospects. I appreciate that you and I may use slang that has its roots in Jamaican, but we both know how to speak differently in say a job interview. When I hear the secondary school children on the 148 bus every morning, they don't know any other way of speaking. I know that if I ever interviewed them for a job that required them to speak to the public, clients or our networks, I would never employ them.

jude

C A Jones
Have you considered home tutoring, Jude? My boys are grown up now but if I did it again I would do it at home. Even tho they went to good schools they still managed to pick up bad manners and unsuitable friends. Luckily they grew out of both.

I would worry about them not aquiring social skills if I kept them at home. I enjoyed school because I made lots of friends. My preferred option for primary are in this order:

i) St Anthony's Catholic School, Dulwich (top primary in the borough and around 25% ethnic minority. Free school meals to less than 5%). We are both practising Catholics so we have a very good chance of getting a place.

ii) Private school (we can afford this comfortably for one child and probably with a struggle could stretch to two).

iii) Move in with my parents in Woking, Surrey and send to local Catholic school there.

iv) Move in with Pat's parents in Laois, Ireland and send them to school there

v) Home schooling

Sending them to a failing or what I consider to be unsuitable school wouldn't even feature on the list.

In terms of secondary school, we will send them to one of the grammar schools in Orpington if they're bright, to the Oratory if they're not and if we couldn't secure either of those options, an Irish boarding school would be affordable.

jude

Maybe you should concentrate more on the joys of having them and less on what you plan to do with them Jude!

Years ago, that was possible. You had children and they simply attended the nearest school, end of story!

Also, the joy of having children and wanting the best for them are not mutually exclusive!

I would add, this isn't about immigration (at least not in the suburbs and outside big cities). There is a wider problem with declining educational standards and indiscipline in schools. I have also argued here before that I don't think the comprehensive system can ever support bright children adequately (My primary reason for supporting UKIP is their pledge for a grammar school in every town).

jude

C A Jones
I went to Grammar School and I think they should be re-instated. It is not fair for studious academics to be in classes with kids who are not. Teaching goes at the rate of the slow children leaving the bright children bored and open to mischief.

I went to a grammar school and look what happened to me!!

C A Jones
Exactly my point, Eman. The quotes that stick in my mind are things like
John Lydon's unforgettable "Turn the other cheek too often and you'll get a razor thru it!"

"A persons's enunciation and articulation is just as important as their educational atainment in employment prospects. I appreciate that you and I may use slang that has its roots in Jamaican, but we both know how to speak differently in say a job interview. When I hear the secondary school children on the 148 bus every morning, they don't know any other way of speaking."

Well, if there's one place that young people are most likely to speak in a slang filled and incomprehensible fashion, I'd say the bus journey to and from school is probably it.

I don't think this tells us anything much about their future job prospects. Most young people soon work out how they should and shouldn't talk in job interviews.

That remains to be seen. Last time I interviewed (for an admin post) around half of the applicants under the age of 25 didn't make the second round due to their 'poor verbal communication skills' as I wrote on the assessment sheets.

jude

C A Jones
Some times I think half the population are losing the use of language except of a most rudimentary nature. Txt spelin is fkn up de ritten word.
Consumerism is their new god. Advertisers learnt a lot from the Nazi war propaganda machine.

My father once interviewed somebody for a manual job. After explaining the job, he asked the interviewee if he had any questions. The reply: "What like's the ovies?"

I'm not sure you can deduce anything whatsoever from this but it still makes me laugh.

The problem is that the uneducated now have disposable income and there are a hell of a lot of them. Think on.

C A Jones
Yes, giving the ignorant a voice is not a good idea. They don't know what's good for them.

C A Jones
What's ovies?

"That remains to be seen. Last time I interviewed (for an admin post) around half of the applicants under the age of 25 didn't make the second round due to their 'poor verbal communication skills' as I wrote on the assessment sheets."

Well in the next few weeks I'll be interviewing candidates for some new jobs we're providing under the government's Future Jobs Fund - for young people aged 18 - 24 who've been unemployed for 10 months or more. I'll let you know if I can understand any of their answers.

Of those I interviewed, I could understand their answers. I just felt that their manner of speech was not appropriate for somebody answering the telephone at an organisation which has to deal with enquiries from all kinds of people from academics to students to research scientists. The job you're interviewing for may have a different requisite standard of spoken English. Also, our opinions on what kind of level of spoken English would be tolerable in a colleague are bound to be coloured by our different political bias and world-view. I suspect that more people (especially in large commercial organisations)
would gravitate towards my feelings on this issue.

jude

Ah well, I'd suggest they live a little, relax...stop working to a pro forma thinktank agenda. The economists will always be horizon scanning for the setting required for the millstone; white bread, wholemeal or f*cking tooth cracking journey bread. I know which I'd prefer :-)

C A Jones
There's always Hovis Best of Both... B-)

...high in moral fibre and kibbled goodness, hurrah for diversity :-)

I was reading a report by Labour MP Frank Field on immigration. His report claims that people from outside Europe account for two thirds of immigration. One problem is that once people have been working here for a few years citizenship is almost guaranteed. I can't see how this fits with Bukh's claim that "I'm not sure what it's got to do with immigration - which in the last ten years has primarily been from Eastern Europe".

We need some immigration because the birth rate of british born people has fallen below the 2.2 required to sustain the population. However, we have been attracting too many of the wrong kind of people and losing too many of our best graduates to a better quality of life abroad (especially in sciences). There is the argument that immigrants will do the low-paid jobs that british people won't do, but they would do them if you put a time limit on the social security safety net.

As in a recent report from America that "In the latest sign of the Las Vegas Valley’s economic free fall, U.S. citizens are starting to show up in the early mornings outside home improvement stores and plant nurseries across the Las Vegas Valley, jostling with illegal immigrants for a shot at a few hours of work".

jude

C A Jones
If you refuse 'suitable' employment your meagre benefit is halved. An ex company director must take a job as a shelf-stacker if me is on offer. If our manufacturing hadn't gone abroad for cheap labour and lax regulations we wouldn't be in this mess.

Well, as a Nazi myself, I support the Labour Party. Jack Straw is my idol. He is such a decent and right-thinking man. What's the point in just deporting Muslims out of this country, as those liberal pussies the BNP plan to do? What we need to do is get out there into Muslim countries and actually bomb the bastards in their tens of thousands, and steal their oil. That's a much better idea. So voting Labour or Conservative is perfectly acceptable, but voting BNP is outrageous. The pacifist, non-imperialistic c****.

Mr. Nazi Wifebeater - I can only say "Fuck off!"
C. A. Jones

I take it you don't agree then Carole? :O)

I got incensed before I got to the last bit. I've always had a problem with premature verbal ejaculation.

Carole

'tis but a mild suspicion, but Mr NWB may be adopting a slightly outre style, as in :

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/bnp-to-offer-f...

I'm not so sure lenchenelf. I suspect NWB is an aspiring facist using ABCtales for his own devious ends. We must be vigilant. Given half a chance he will take over the world.

Or at least Norwich ;O)

I am of course totally serious. I must be a Nazi, because anyone who isn't a liberal is a Nazi, because liberals say so.

So, yes. As a Nazi I am fully behind the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in their plan to help the Americans bomb the entire Middle East out of existence, and steal all their oil. People who vote for the BNP are a disgrace. Fancy voting for a party that only wants to deport foreigners, and doesn't even believe in bombing them and stealing their oil. And they have the cheek to call themselves nationalists? Pah! Pathetic liberal lefty wishy-washy pacifist pansies. The BNP haven't got a clue what being British is all about. It's about blowing Muslims up, and stealing their oil.

Vote Labour

oh i do so agree with mr beater. he's not so much a verbal ejaculator as a wordy dribbler

steal everbodies oil i say, and have done with it!!! norwich is but the beginning!!!!

crack on!!!!!

Excuse me, sorry to interrupt, but has anybody seen my oil?

Have you looked down the back of the sofa?

forget not! booty is in the oil of the beholder!!

Now now, Mr. Beater likes to be taken seriously. We can learn much from his posts if we apply ourselves. Let us meditate on his wisdom.

Okay, that's enough meditation. As you were, folks.

Whale oil beef hooked.

Whale oil be... oh I see, it's one of those jokey little urchins. And it's got oil in it! Are you sure that's not my oil?

C A Jones
Miss Jones.
No I don't think everyone has the same freedoms nor deserves them either. Its all very well to claim all men are equal in the sight of God, except there is no God and everyone is certainly not equal. For everyone with an IQ of 110 there is probably five with an IQ of ninety-two. That's how averages are worked out. Some really are more equal than others.
Carole

Carole
Clever, Steven00, very clever. :o)

However, it's not a question of being equal, it's a question of having the same rights whatever your IQ might be. I'm of the opinion that a large number of BNP's supporters may well have a lower IQ than yours or mine. You're suggesting they have no right to vote?

Democracy is of course flawed, but I don't agree with some of the original thinkers on ABC, who can argue with great force and skill for anarchy, for example. It seems the choices boil down to three: democracy, dictatorship (or despotism if you prefer the royalty option) or anarchy. The trouble is after a short periods of anarchy the people start demanding a strong man to lead them. Usually this turns out to be a demagogue who will blame all society's ills on a minority group. He will persuade whole countries that this group requires dealing with. People will die at places like Auschwitz or Katyn or Choeung Ek.

No, people aren't all equal, but denying people civil rights or the right to appear on a television programme on the grounds that you despise what they say is wrong. There were some arguments above that the BNP shouldn't have been allowed on Question Time, but I doubt it had any effect other than to boost the viewing figures. Doubtless these figures reflected some people who would not fall into the programme's normal demographic profile.

Personally, I feel someone who takes a country to war on the basis of a lie should be kept from our
television screens. Still, he was good enough to tell us he had taken the advice of "God".

Rant over.

I don't what to give the impression that I think
'It can't happen here': Like FZ I believe it can, I also believe that muzzling people is the first step.
Doesn't anyone read Voltaire any more?