BNP
Comments
-
No. You are confusing asylum with immigration.PARIS75 wrote:Always Tyred wrote:
Other countries, like Canada and Australia, simply achieve the same ends by including language skills in the points system. It is simple.
good point but there are a great deal of Afghans entering the country illegally at the moment attempting to escape a war zone
Should we subject them to an English test?
Stranger still, they travel through France but dont feel inclined to stop off in this so called safe country... :!: can anyone explain why :?:
However, irrespective of motive or origin, if the question is as to immigration, then fluency in one of the national languages of a given state is a reasonable preference, yes. As are skills deemed desirable at the time. One year it might be IT, another year it might be healthcare. I certainly think these issues are more relevant than being able to memorise a few pointless and condescending bits of general knowledge and I certainly wouldn't want someone to be excluded because they haven't revised enough about the role of the Queen in the constitution, given that half the population born here probably couldn't successfully point to Wales on a world atlas.
Interestingly, in the countries I've specified (which are the only ones I know about) having a great wad of money gets you over the bar anyway. Make of that what you will.0 -
No im talking about immigration
In this case Illegal...0 -
How is it relevant to the point we are discussing then?PARIS75 wrote:No im talking about immigration
In this case Illegal...0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
How is it relevant to the point we are discussing then?PARIS75 wrote:No im talking about immigration
In this case Illegal...
I think because to those not deeply informed in the issue. Immigration, illegal immigrants, migration, eloping, and asylum seekers all come under one banner....
People entering a foreign country, in this case England specifically.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Yes, I think you are right.DonDaddyD wrote:Always Tyred wrote:
How is it relevant to the point we are discussing then?PARIS75 wrote:No im talking about immigration
In this case Illegal...
I think because to those not deeply informed in the issue. Immigration, illegal immigrants, migration, eloping, and asylum seekers all come under one banner....
People entering a foreign country, in this case England specifically.
To be bonest, the Tories are guilty of playing on this.
I've not heard them recently, but I can't remember an interview through 2007/8 on the issue by the tories where immigration and asylum weren't discussed together. They are such hugely different issues so as to fail to do justice to either by discussing them together.
I am suspicious of their motives for so doing.0 -
they are not hugely different issues hence my original post..asylum is dodgy ground
Most Afghans entering the country for example, will the avoid the Asylum route for fear of failure. They would rather chance their arm and not get taken into custody.
What is the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant ?
One gets caught the other doesnt......if you choose to place the same person in two differnt boxes then carry on0 -
What are you on about? Asylum is a legal process and an asylum seeker some one availing themselves of that process, openly and accountably. You are on about an undefined subset of illegal immigrants and confusing them with legitimate asylum seekers.PARIS75 wrote:they are not hugely different issues hence my original post..asylum is dodgy ground
Most Afghans entering the country for example, will the avoid the Asylum route for fear of failure. They would rather chance their arm and not get taken into custody.
What is the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant ?
One gets caught the other doesnt......if you choose to place the same person in two differnt boxes then carry on
Don't you see that this sort of befuddled thinking is precisely the problem?0 -
I think Paris is just a bit ignorant of asylum laws.Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.0
-
Yes, asylum laws.Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.0
-
Don't follow leaders0
-
What does that mean in relation to asylum laws?Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.0
-
With only one appearance on that show BNP has become the topic of discussion on every single forum i read/use ..
Still the programme itself was flawed and biased simply because of what griffon's party stands for
Let's consider this they have had Martin McGuiness are murdering terrorist that should never have been invited on that show by any means !!! And he never got the same treatment
And the topic of mp expenses was non existant stephen gatelys death got more air time0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
Its not a mystery. Simply, never over estimate the intelligence and/or never underestimate the ignorance of the average member of the population.Sewinman wrote:petejuk wrote: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.
+100. Nail, head, hit.
Additionally, racism, or pretty much any difference-ism is possibly a lot more common than we would lke to admit. There are lots of people who basically don't like foreigners or indeed anyone unfamiliar. Its a pretty basic primate fear response.
The rest of the BNP's vote comes from people who don't really know or understand their policies and, similarly, don't know or understand the policies of anyone else. Since its pretty fashionable to hate anyone in government, or anyone likely to be in government, when operating in an information and cognitive vacuum, "anyone else" might seem a reasonable option.
It is that kind of arrogance that probably led to one million BNP votes!0 -
Mr Sworld wrote:
Is there a Leona Lewis version or do I have to visit a book signing for that one?
Bob0 -
Sewinman wrote:Always Tyred wrote:
Its not a mystery. Simply, never over estimate the intelligence and/or never underestimate the ignorance of the average member of the population.Sewinman wrote:petejuk wrote: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.
+100. Nail, head, hit.
Additionally, racism, or pretty much any difference-ism is possibly a lot more common than we would lke to admit. There are lots of people who basically don't like foreigners or indeed anyone unfamiliar. Its a pretty basic primate fear response.
The rest of the BNP's vote comes from people who don't really know or understand their policies and, similarly, don't know or understand the policies of anyone else. Since its pretty fashionable to hate anyone in government, or anyone likely to be in government, when operating in an information and cognitive vacuum, "anyone else" might seem a reasonable option.
It is that kind of arrogance that probably led to one million BNP votes!
So you're saying people voted for the BNP because they were annoyed with smug liberals banging on about how only stupid people vote for the BNP?0 -
biondino wrote:
..........
So you're saying people voted for the BNP because they were annoyed with smug liberals banging on about how only stupid people vote for the BNP?
I think there's more than an element of truth in that statement. A number of the electorate willl have voted BNP because they see the other parties as telling them not to - in a sort of "---- you" mentality.0 -
Thanks for calling me arrogant. Do you have a better explanation, or indeed any other explanation other than a combination of innate racism and/or ignorance? Can you explain the flaws in my reasoning? Or would you just like to call me arrogant and have me reply by calling you "idiot" or something like that?Sewinman wrote:It is that kind of arrogance that probably led to one million BNP votes!0 -
biondino wrote:So you're saying people voted for the BNP because they were annoyed with smug liberals banging on about how only stupid people vote for the BNP?
No, I am saying that simply dismissing them as stupid is terribly patronising (possibly dangerous) and ignores any real issues that may have led them to feel dis-enfranchised from main stream politics.
That is partly why I thought the QT programme was poor - it was not far off throwing rotten veg. at the big bad fat man, and then congratulating ourselves for how enlightened we all are.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
Thanks for calling me arrogant. Do you have a better explanation, or indeed any other explanation other than a combination of innate racism and/or ignorance? Can you explain the flaws in my reasoning? Or would you just like to call me arrogant and have me reply by calling you "idiot" or something like that?Sewinman wrote:It is that kind of arrogance that probably led to one million BNP votes!
No I don't have a better explanation - that is my point! I don't see any reasoning, just an assumption that they are all stupid racists. Perhaps they are, but I don't think that has been tested.
Call me anything you wish.0 -
It was an inevitable consequence of freedom of speech. The BNP are devisive. Thus, although they might have, for example, 5% support in some areas, the great majority of the remaining 95% will be actively opposed to them, rather than indifferent. In a sense, it is quite reassuring that he got a hard time. It would have been quite disturbing if a racist bigot would have been treated with a great deal of respect. The BNP bang on about freedom of speech, so that have to take the rough with the smooth.Sewinman wrote:biondino wrote:So you're saying people voted for the BNP because they were annoyed with smug liberals banging on about how only stupid people vote for the BNP?
No, I am saying that simply dismissing them as stupid is terribly patronising (possibly dangerous) and ignores any real issues that may have led them to feel dis-enfranchised from main stream politics.
That is partly why I thought the QT programme was poor - it was not far off throwing rotten veg. at the big bad fat man, and then congratulating ourselves for how enlightened we all are.
I didn't merely refer to them as stupid. You should read the post more fully. I said of the BNP support:-
some people are stupid
some people are ignorant
some people are racist
Please tell me what you disagree with.0 -
I think you are an idiot.Sewinman wrote:Always Tyred wrote:
Thanks for calling me arrogant. Do you have a better explanation, or indeed any other explanation other than a combination of innate racism and/or ignorance? Can you explain the flaws in my reasoning? Or would you just like to call me arrogant and have me reply by calling you "idiot" or something like that?Sewinman wrote:It is that kind of arrogance that probably led to one million BNP votes!
No I don't have a better explanation - that is my point! I don't see any reasoning, just an assumption that they are all stupid racists. Perhaps they are, but I don't think that has been tested.
Call me anything you wish.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
It was an inevitable consequence of freedom of speach. The BNP are devisive. Thus, although they might have, for example, 5% support in some areas, the great majority of the remaining 95% will be actively opposed to them, rather than indifferent. In a sense, it is quite reassuring that he got a hard time. It would have been quite disturbing if a racist bigot would have been treated with a great deal of respect. The BNP bang on about freedom of speach, so that have to take the rough with the smooth.Sewinman wrote:biondino wrote:So you're saying people voted for the BNP because they were annoyed with smug liberals banging on about how only stupid people vote for the BNP?
No, I am saying that simply dismissing them as stupid is terribly patronising (possibly dangerous) and ignores any real issues that may have led them to feel dis-enfranchised from main stream politics.
That is partly why I thought the QT programme was poor - it was not far off throwing rotten veg. at the big bad fat man, and then congratulating ourselves for how enlightened we all are.
I didn't merely refer to them as stupid. You should read the post more fully. I said of the BNP support:-
some people are stupid
some people are ignorant
some people are racist
Please tell me what you disagree with.
I disagree with the complete guess work. I would prefer to know why people vote BNP, hence my point.0 -
Why is it just guesswork?Sewinman wrote:Always Tyred wrote:
It was an inevitable consequence of freedom of speach. The BNP are devisive. Thus, although they might have, for example, 5% support in some areas, the great majority of the remaining 95% will be actively opposed to them, rather than indifferent. In a sense, it is quite reassuring that he got a hard time. It would have been quite disturbing if a racist bigot would have been treated with a great deal of respect. The BNP bang on about freedom of speach, so that have to take the rough with the smooth.Sewinman wrote:biondino wrote:So you're saying people voted for the BNP because they were annoyed with smug liberals banging on about how only stupid people vote for the BNP?
No, I am saying that simply dismissing them as stupid is terribly patronising (possibly dangerous) and ignores any real issues that may have led them to feel dis-enfranchised from main stream politics.
That is partly why I thought the QT programme was poor - it was not far off throwing rotten veg. at the big bad fat man, and then congratulating ourselves for how enlightened we all are.
I didn't merely refer to them as stupid. You should read the post more fully. I said of the BNP support:-
some people are stupid
some people are ignorant
some people are racist
Please tell me what you disagree with.
I disagree with the complete guess work. I would prefer to know why people vote BNP, hence my point.0 -
So, in short, to vote for the BNP you have to be either racist, stupid or ignorant (or any combination of the three)?
I can't see anything wrong with that statement myself.0 -
Well, why isn’t it?
You can say such things about ‘some’ people who vote for any political party. It is not particularly helpful in explaining why a million voters have turned to an overtly racist party. Are they all racist? Have particular issues made them feel they have no representation in mainstream politics? Or is it just a protest vote and we should not be worried? Are they just stupid?
I think mainstream politics would rather dismiss them, it avoids them addressing their failures.0 -
I have said nothing exclusive of this statement. If you think about it, which you aren't doing, the categories I have proposed are quite inclusive. I have said nothing about the proportions of each category. All of your questions relate to one or other of the categories I have proposed.Sewinman wrote:Well, why isn’t it?
You can say such things about ‘some’ people who vote for any political party. It is not particularly helpful in explaining why a million voters have turned to an overtly racist party. Are they all racist? Have particular issues made them feel they have no representation in mainstream politics? Or is it just a protest vote and we should not be worried? Are they just stupid?
I think mainstream politics would rather dismiss them, it avoids them addressing their failures.
For example - if it is a protest vote, either the voters in question are aware or unaware of the BNP''s actual position. If they are aware, then they may be racist to some degree, If they are not racist but are aware of the policies, then they have failed to understand something and are therefore probably "stupid" (your word, not mine). If they are not aware, then they are ignorant (this meaning lacking knowledge, literally) and may, or may not, be "stupid".
So you agree with me, can't think of anything that I've not thought of and covered, but think I am arrogant. Nice one.0 -
Sewinman wrote:biondino wrote:So you're saying people voted for the BNP because they were annoyed with smug liberals banging on about how only stupid people vote for the BNP?
No, I am saying that simply dismissing them as stupid is terribly patronising (possibly dangerous) and ignores any real issues that may have led them to feel dis-enfranchised from main stream politics.
I think you also need to be careful about going the other way and treating them the same way as other political parties, which could legitimise them in the eyes of more considered folk, rather than the "f*** you Brown" brigade outlined above.
You simply can't ignore the massive (white) elephant in the room when considering the BNP. It's such a big deal that it dwarfs everything else they may say. If a rapist gave money to charity and helped old ladies across the road, would you forgive the rape?0 -
Always Tyred, you ARE arrogant, always have been, long before this thread
0 -
Well this is true.* However in the context of this thread, I take issue with throwing out a certain statement because, frankly, one was brought up not to call people stupid, thus it must be wrong.biondino wrote:Always Tyred, you ARE arrogant, always have been, long before this thread
Yet clearly some people ARE stupid, by any measure. Clearly some people ARE racist. Clearly some people ARE ignorant. I think when discussing a group of ignorant racists (the leader of which came over to me as fairly stupid) it is worthwhile being completely frank. There is no "lets all be nice about this shall we" about dealing with the BNP.
All that said, the question of how to go about persuading stupid and/or racist and/or ignorant people not to support a revolting group of people like the BNP is rather more difficult.
*Not in person I'm not, honest.**
**but you'll never be able to verify this.0
