BNP
Comments
-
prj45 wrote:PARIS75 wrote:I live in the UK and im bloody sure our future population stats are based around future immigration figures
Well, if you want to "control" immigration you'd better vote BNP then.
When they're dragging your neighbours out of their houses because it decides they are not "british", locking up people for being gay, removing the right to vote from people who don't do national service and putting down disabled people at birth don't come running to me.
Thats the strange thing with some people....you see controlling immigration in the eyes of a normal person is all about stronger border controls, sending back illegal immigrants (dependant on status and reason for entry properly assessed etc).
Then there are people like you who make posts like this. What do gay people have to do with the thread ? Disabled people?
Dragging people out of houses.... :shock:0 -
pastryboy wrote:Just because someone votes for a party doesn't mean they support all of their policies. The pledge to deport everyone not ethnically British is ridiculous and unworkable. However, there's a lot of sensible policies too - like no building on green belt land, not paying for the priveledge of being goverened by Europe and President Blair, no illegal wars, keeping the population under control, etc.0
-
PARIS75 wrote:Thats the strange thing with some people....you see controlling immigration in the eyes of a normal person is all about stronger border controls, sending back illegal immigrants (dependant on status and reason for entry properly assessed etc).
Ah yes, in the eyes of a normal person.
The BNP has stated it want's the UK population to be solely white "british" how do you think it would achieve that?
From it's constitution:The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic
character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial
integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed
to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by
legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the
British population that existed in Britain prior to 19480 -
prj45 wrote:pastryboy wrote:I
I can't quite believe you're defending Nick Griffin.
He is the leader of a "politcal" party that specifically exludes people it considers not white from being members.
Read this and then if you can continue to say "he's got a point" then frankly, there's no point in discussing this any more.
http://antiracistnetwork.wordpress.com/ ... a-fascist/
So Nick Griffin is posting under the username PARIS75 is he? That's certainly news to me.0 -
pastryboy wrote:RedJohn wrote:[
At leats the last 2.5 years, which is as long as I have been checking immigrants' right to work in the UK.
I hope you're a bit better at it than Baronness Scotland..
It may be a relatively recent thing then. It was only a few years ago we were getting mugged by 'health tourists' on the NHS and new rules had to be put in place for that.
Also applies to EU migrants.
Sorry, look, hate to trouble you again Pastryboy, because I know you are inherrently reasonable and all that, but can you remind me.... exactly WHEN where we "mugged by health tourists"? How many of them were there? What did they look like?
I know there were documented cases, but, you know there are 60 million people in the UK right? You know that's a lot of zeroes, yes? Seven of them, no less. So proportionally were there a lot of them? I mean, I know you WANT to be able to point to this evident abuse of the UK's generosity, but numbers would be good, rather than Sun headlines.0 -
PARIS75 wrote:your enthusiasm to jump to conclusions clearly exceeds your ability for rational debatePARIS75 wrote:Thats the strange thing with some people....you see controlling immigration in the eyes of a normal person is all about stronger border controls, sending back illegal immigrants (dependant on status and reason for entry properly assessed etc).
Ah yes, in the eyes of a normal person.
The BNP has stated it want's the UK population to be solely white "british" how do you think it would achieve that?
From it's constitution:The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic
character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial
integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed
to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by
legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the
British population that existed in Britain prior to 19480 -
Always Tyred wrote:pastryboy wrote:Just because someone votes for a party doesn't mean they support all of their policies. The pledge to deport everyone not ethnically British is ridiculous and unworkable. However, there's a lot of sensible policies too - like no building on green belt land, not paying for the priveledge of being goverened by Europe and President Blair, no illegal wars, keeping the population under control, etc.
I said they have some reasonable policies. I didn't specify exactly which ones but again you're jumping to conclusions to make an argument.
This is a pointless thread because people are determined to turn everything into an argument based on their assumption of what is meant rather than what's actually been said. The fact I get accused of defending Nick Griffin when I was defending PARIS75's post proves exactly that.
I don't support the BNP, if they got into power quite a few members of my family would get deported for being brown - not really something I'd sign up for. Nick Griffin is a horrible slimey man with a murky past and would be without doubt the worst leader the country could ever have.
That does not change the fact that the party raise some very valid points. I'm glad the BNP exist because without them a lot of these issues would be swept under the carpet by the liberals in power.0 -
prj45 wrote:PARIS75 wrote:your enthusiasm to jump to conclusions clearly exceeds your ability for rational debatePARIS75 wrote:Thats the strange thing with some people....you see controlling immigration in the eyes of a normal person is all about stronger border controls, sending back illegal immigrants (dependant on status and reason for entry properly assessed etc).
Ah yes, in the eyes of a normal person.
The BNP has stated it want's the UK population to be solely white "british" how do you think it would achieve that?
From it's constitution:The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic
character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial
integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed
to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by
legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the
British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948
thanks for that
are you some sandal wearing student type who thinks than anyone who dares debate immigration is a BNP member ?0 -
I agree with most here that the policies of the BNP are dispicable and I would summise that there is a good cross section of society posting on this topic. The questions of who voted for them and why still haven't been answered. Aside from a few fascist, racist bigots there were a number of other people who must have voted BNP. This should send alarm bells ringing throughout government.
I believe that this is an indication that something in society is broken and no one has seen their way to fixing it. Only when the politicians of the major parties immerse themselves in the issues of the BNP voting electorate will they understand what possessed them to make a vote of desperation.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
Sorry, look, hate to trouble you again Pastryboy, because I know you are inherrently reasonable and all that, but can you remind me.... exactly WHEN where we "mugged by health tourists"? How many of them were there? What did they look like?
I know there were documented cases, but, you know there are 60 million people in the UK right? You know that's a lot of zeroes, yes? Seven of them, no less. So proportionally were there a lot of them? I mean, I know you WANT to be able to point to this evident abuse of the UK's generosity, but numbers would be good, rather than Sun headlines.
Don't forget to check out all the related articles on the right hand side too, they should provide you with all the information you seek:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3356255.stm0 -
pastryboy wrote:That does not change the fact that the party raise some very valid points.
You've got to be very careful about appearing to give credence to anything the BNP might say IMO.
You know what it [the BNP] is, I know what it is and even if the same things came out of your mouths about any given subject I wouldn't be saying you agree with the BNP given what's at its core.
That's like saying you think Hitler was right about roads and ignoring he wanted to exterminate all Jewish people.0 -
PARIS75 wrote:are you some sandal wearing student type who thinks than anyone who dares debate immigration is a BNP member ?
No, by all means debate immigration, but when it's suggested that the BNP have got the right idea (or even some good ideas) then it goes past that, considering the BNP are coming from a completly different angle, i.e. a total halt to it, and then deportation of anybody it considers not British.0 -
pastryboy wrote:Always Tyred wrote:pastryboy wrote:Just because someone votes for a party doesn't mean they support all of their policies. The pledge to deport everyone not ethnically British is ridiculous and unworkable. However, there's a lot of sensible policies too - like no building on green belt land, not paying for the priveledge of being goverened by Europe and President Blair, no illegal wars, keeping the population under control, etc.
I said they have some reasonable policies. I didn't specify exactly which ones but again you're jumping to conclusions to make an argument.
If you don't agree with the BNP's immigration policy, that's good.0 -
pastryboy wrote:Don't forget to check out all the related articles on the right hand side too, they should provide you with all the information you seek:
Your link suggests it's not the problem that people perceive it to be.
As for the government setting up a task force to stop it, that's it pandering to Daily Mail paranoia (it likes to do that).0 -
Always Tyred wrote:Look, its a tricky topic. As such, if you indicate that certain policies are reasonable and list them, its not unreaasonable to conclude that the policies in that list are policies you agree with.
With the BNP though you've got to take the whole pacakge, as it's so narrowly defined.
Voting Conservative but not agreeing with it's attitude on contraception advice for under 16s is a whole lot different from voting BNP but not agreeing with it's detailed policy on immigration/social makeup (which involves sending people back to "where they came from" and disallowing "racial mixing"). The BNP is defined by it's policy on immigration and social makeup.0 -
BNP Immigration policy (just googled it as didnt have a clue)
The BNP’s policy is to:
- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;
- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;
- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;
- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;
- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.0 -
prj45 wrote:pastryboy wrote:Don't forget to check out all the related articles on the right hand side too, they should provide you with all the information you seek:
Your link suggests it's not the problem that people perceive it to be.
As for the government setting up a task force to stop it, that's it pandering to Daily Mail paranoia (it likes to do that).
How much did we give the banks?
Like I said, big number in the abstract, but proportionally insignificant out of a total NHS budget of about £100 Bn. Somewhere between 0.05 and 0.2%... or actually, if the £1million figure is nearer the mark, about 0.001%.
Is that being mugged?
You see, Pastryboy, I know it wasn't deliberate, but you've inadvertently been sucked in by headlines and inadvertently hold a prejudiced view not supported by the facts.
It is suprisingly common.0 -
- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
EDIT - bit churlish not to run to teching them English though.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:prj45 wrote:pastryboy wrote:Don't forget to check out all the related articles on the right hand side too, they should provide you with all the information you seek:
Your link suggests it's not the problem that people perceive it to be.
As for the government setting up a task force to stop it, that's it pandering to Daily Mail paranoia (it likes to do that).
How much did we give the banks?
Like I said, big number in the abstract, but proportionally insignificant out of a total NHS budget of about £100 Bn. Somewhere between 0.05 and 0.2%... or actually, if the £1million figure is nearer the mark, about 0.001%.
Is that being mugged?
You see, Pastryboy, I know it wasn't deliberate, but you've inadvertently been sucked in by headlines and inadvertently hold a prejudiced view not supported by the facts.
It is suprisingly common.
So should we just accept a £200 million deficit that is totally avoidable? Or just brush it under the carpet as you seem to have just done alwaysTyred
The reason I ask this is that my local constabulary have been told to reduce their operating budget by £15 million over the next 3 years and this is being repeated around the country.....your blind eye approach is perhaps the reason the BNP are now attracting votes0 -
It's a tricky subject but people read between the lines too much though that is down to being a message board where you can only get so much across and people can't interrupt for clarification. The immigration policy is on their website - it says nothing about compulsory deportation (though it does refer to voluntary). Most of their immigration policy is common sense and shouldn't be necessary.
prj45 -
An interpreation of your choosing. The other interpretation is that it was a growing problem hence the need for government action before it got too bad.
Whether it was a big problem or not is irrelevant - it is a fact that it was happening. Even if it only happened once that would be one person entitled to care who got pushed down the list and that should not happen. Even if you don't care how your tax money is spent I'm sure you wouldn't want your family to be the ones losing out. Again though, fault lies mainly with those that let it happen.
edit: I am more than happy with the statement being 'mugged by health tourists' - it's exactly what was happening. If someone stopped you at knife point and took some of your money you'd still have been mugged!0 -
How much would it cost to fix, and how many people would have to be caused to prove their origins and entitlement in order to remedy the matter?
~Yes, that is precisely what I am arguing. £1million, or £50m or £200m is absolute peanuts and unequivocally not worth the racial tension and beauracratic burden that we would all have to face in order to avoid it. Its also about 2 pence per head of the population, if the later estimates are to be believed. I can afford it.0 -
pastryboy wrote:The immigration policy is on their website - it says nothing about compulsory deportation (though it does refer to voluntary). Most of their immigration policy is common sense and shouldn't be necessary.
And you think what it says on it's webnsite is what it's members think, or that it could be watered down somewhat?
Remember this is an organisation who's roots are motivated by "white power". I can easily find pictures of Griffin in a "White Power" t -shirt (he was the leader of the National Front) and John Tyndall (founder of the BNP) dressed up as a Nazi (not for a fancy dress party) posing alongside a picture of Hilter.
It's pretty clear to me, britain under the BNP would clearly make South Africa's aparthied regime look like a walk in the park.
And you say it is reasonable?0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
or actually, if the £1million figure is nearer the mark, about 0.001%.
*Sigh*
The figure of £1m referred to a single trust.
Don't actually check your facts before making a post - 'it is surprisingly common'.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:~Yes, that is precisely what I am arguing. £1million, or £50m or £200m is absolute peanuts
And probably balanced out by medical care that UK citizens get abroad.0 -
prj45 wrote:Always Tyred wrote:~Yes, that is precisely what I am arguing. £1million, or £50m or £200m is absolute peanuts
And probably balanced out by medical care that UK citizens get abroad.
but its not free to UK residents...also balance that against the billions uk residents pump into foreign enconomies through spending, property purchase etc
You dont see too many unemployed / homeless brits fleeing abroad now do you0 -
pastryboy wrote:The immigration policy is on their website - it says nothing about compulsory deportation (though it does refer to voluntary). Most of their immigration policy is common sense and shouldn't be necessary.
Do you think their beliefs have? Are you THAT naive?0