BNP tonight on QT - UK Debate Forum

	Advanced Search

Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.


	BNP tonight on QT - UK Debate Forum I'm sure a lot of people are looking forward to this;the protesters could not have given Mr G a better advert. There is Diane Abbot saying they should ot be allowed on QT,a true democrat.One og the usual put downs is the 'fascist violence',from the BNP.honestly i haven't heard of any for many many years,am i wrong?i remembe the National Front used to have some back in the 70's / 80's,but isnt this remark a bit dated to say the least and just intended as a (rather unimaginative) put down? Well i hope there is good debate,though i doubt it somehow


	Diane abbot "In 1996 Abbott was accused of racism when she suggested that "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" in her local hospital in West London were unsuitable as nurses because they "may never have met a black person before". Conservative MP Ian Bruce stated that he had "never heard such racist rubbish from a Member of Parliament in recent years".[17] Moreover, Abbott was also accused of ignorance, as not all Finnish people have these features; It also later emerged that one of the Finnish nurses was in fact black, as was Lola Odusoga, Miss Finland at the time. Abbott apologised for her remarks. " "Once elected, Abbott attempted to establish a Black caucus within the Labour party along with Bernie Grant. However, she was the only person to attend the inaugural meeting. Abbott tried again in 1989 but the it soon failed as senior black MPs did not want to join, with some suggesting it was fundamentally racist to create a "party within a party" ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Allegation_of_racism_against_white_nurses Says it all.


	Everything stops at 10.30 tonight; This must be the most talked about and watched (or will be watched) programme for a long time.


	I would like to see a debate , when i know that those on the panel will use the same marker words to try and influence the public. The main partys are not trusted , so to take the pressure off they will try and bully N.G. And as usual avoid answering the questions put to them as they are the masters of this. The audience, hostile but remember that the bbc had control over who is in .


	Quote: from: Gus on October 22, 2009, 20:54:38 I would like to see a debate , when i know that those on the panel will use the same marker words to try and influence the public. Well Griffin is very well rehearesed (or appears to be) whenever he meets the media. As for debate it is question time More rhetoric than debate.


	What happened to Question Time? I thought it was a discussion on the current news stories. Not a attack on a individual party.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 22, 2009, 22:15:22 What happened to Question Time? I thought it was a discussion on the current news stories. Not a attack on a individual party. Well it's going to be all about the BNP... It's not often we get a facist party leader on QT now is it? ;)


	Do you think they would have had Hitler, had it been around then?


	Quote: from: ranger121 on October 22, 2009, 22:29:47 Do you think they would have had Hitler, had it been around then? Considering the monarch supported him, yes.


	Quote: from: ranger121 on October 22, 2009, 22:29:47 Do you think they would have had Hitler, had it been around then? Imagine the ratings :o I am sooo evi !dvl!


	See Nick shaking with emotion there....it's like reading a book. I think on the whole he didn't make a complete tool of himself..and laughed when insulted..not as stupid as he seems. Interesting.


	Quote: : Do you think they would have had Hitler, had it been around then? If his party had one seats then they should have. Are we really comparing putting Adolph and Nick G in the same boat?? Sadly i grow more and more sympathy for NG and his BNP. All he is really saying is that he wants white English people to be recognised.you can be English Pakistani,African English etc etc,but as soon as white English people are mentioned,well apparently we have no home,we dont exist there is no such thing,and we are just being racist. what a load of hogwash.


	Quote: from: stonefish on October 22, 2009, 22:43:04 If his party had one seats then they should have. Are we really comparing putting Adolph and Nick G in the same boat?? Sadly i grow more and more sympathy for NG and his BNP. All he is really saying is that he wants white English people to be recognised.you can be English Pakistani,African English etc etc,but as soon as white English people are mentioned,well apparently we have no home,we dont exist there is no such thing,and we are just being racist. what a load of hogwash. Yes they were unfair to him..altruistically. They also denied his evidence that the British are a unique people (race), derided his scientific source..which is not incorrect. Fascinating...


	Quote: from: ranger121 on October 22, 2009, 22:29:47 Do you think they would have had Hitler, had it been around then? I doubt it; He was an Austrian in power in Germany. But if he had been English, probably.


	He was bullied. The American woman was pointless. Griffin was speaking a lot of sense. Jack Straw "the British people don't want...." - He doesn't speak for all of us. I'm still voting BNP.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 22, 2009, 22:49:36 He was bullied. The American woman was pointless. Griffin was speaking a lot of sense. Jack Straw "the British people don't want...." - He doesn't speak for all of us. I'm still voting BNP. I thought they should have let him speak more and be questioned more.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 22, 2009, 22:49:36 He was bullied. The American woman was pointless. Griffin was speaking a lot of sense. Jack Straw "the British people don't want...." - He doesn't speak for all of us. I'm still voting BNP. Whoa! Are you insane? No seriously... Ok so he admits he is pro christian, homophobic and anti europe...wants to revive our manufacturing industry...and many other frighteningly impractical protectionist economic ideas....that still all good with you?


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 22, 2009, 22:58:02 Whoa! Are you insane? No seriously... Ok so he admits he is pro christian, homophobic and anti europe...wants to revive our manufacturing industry...and many other frighteningly impractical protectionist economic ideas....that still all good with you? I'd rather pro-Christianity than anything else. He said he'd rather homosexual practises aren't taught to kids, and I agree. Although, I'm happy for anyone to adhere to any sexual preference they wish - just not in front of kids. And yes, I'm all for protectionism.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 22, 2009, 23:00:51 I'd rather pro-Christianity than anything else. He said he'd rather homosexual practises aren't taught to kids, and I agree. Although, I'm happy for anyone to adhere to any sexual preference they wish - just not in front of kids. And yes, I'm all for protectionism. But homosexual and heterosexual practices are not taught to kids anyway.


	Quote: from: voice on October 22, 2009, 23:10:01 But homosexual and heterosexual practices are not taught to kids anyway. Then there's no problem then.


	Quote: : But homosexual and heterosexual practices are not taught to kids anyway. I believe that is about to change and for kids as young as 8.


	Quote: : Ok so he admits he is pro christian, homophobic and anti europe...wants to revive our manufacturing industry...and many other frighteningly impractical protectionist economic ideas....that still all good with you? Pro Christian.better than most alternatives homophobic didnt he just say he didnt want such things exposed to young children? Anti Europe.bit of a generalisation,im all for trade with europe,that's about it.I think he thinks the same revive manufacturing.why not Triumph have done it well with motorbikes,very well in fact.some manufacturing could certainly be revived;we can be very good at it.


	Quote: from: stonefish on October 22, 2009, 23:14:03 I believe that is about to change and for kids as young as 8. I think we have a problem of interpretation here. "Practices" will not be taught. However, they may teach about different relationships; Which is totally different thing.


	Quote: from: voice on October 22, 2009, 23:17:35 I think we have a problem of interpretation here. "Practices" will not be taught. However, they may teach about different relationships; Which is totally different thing. Shouldn't be taught to kids nonetheless. I don't want my little girl going to school learning about lesbian relationships. If she so turns out to be one then fair enough, but taught about it at school? No.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 22, 2009, 22:15:22 What happened to Question Time? I thought it was a discussion on the current news stories. Not a attack on a individual party. With a stacked audiance and a stacked panel, and with a biased charman there was a certain inevtability about it. It has certainly got the immigration skeleton out of the cupboard if nothing else.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 22, 2009, 23:21:38 Shouldn't be taught to kids nonetheless. I don't want my little girl going to school learning about lesbian relationships. If she so turns out to be one then fair enough, but taught about it at school? No. I wasn't saying she should be taught it; I was just talking about interpretation.


	Not sure who to vote for in the next election, but it won't be BNP. As for a stacked audience and panel it was always going to be so, and with so much pre show hype and comments made by Nick Griffin in the press this week the questions were always going to be oriented to exposing BNP policy. I thought he came across as a biggoted knob, who tried to play down the darker side of his party politics but failed to do so. Some very interesting comments came out about the current state of immigration policy (or lack of), with some good audience responces,but the QT 'lets move to the next question' halted it too early. The ruling that the BNP have to allow the 'non indigenous' to join the party will be worth keeping an eye on; If enough non-white, gay, jewish and muslems join and become the majority within the party I can see a regime and policy change in the BNP that will be the U turn of the century!


	It was predicted repeatedly "give him enough rope and he will hang himself". Did he do that? I don't think he did hang himself. I think he was hanged by the mob on that show. The programme had about as much credibility as its audience selection. Reminds me of the time they flooded the audience with Asians after 7/7. It was so OTT it attracted mainstream criticism, but then the BBC is officially biased according to its own report so another rigged programme is no change from the daily diet anyway. It was a bit dull as panelists fell over each other to interrupt while if you notice, Griffin's interjections were conspicuously rare. We all know Dimbleby would have pounced on the opportunity to play school master to great effect had Griffin interrupted as the others did ;) Given that few people seem interested in fairness over this (because the BNP are excluded from such considerations by virtue of their being "odious racist... Fill in your diatribe..."), I don't suppose there's much to left to consider except perhaps that today in some small measure democracy was fleetingly seen to be enacted. Back to the usual cosy crew next week then.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 22, 2009, 23:00:51 And yes, I'm all for protectionism. If a nation is self reliant for all it's needs like food, energy, raw materials etc...then yes it can afford to be protectionist, and impose high taxes on imports and foreign labor for example..fact is though we are not self reliant for food or energy etc.. And thus cannot afford to be protectionist, not if we want to export our own products and services to pay for the things we lack.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 22, 2009, 23:21:38 Shouldn't be taught to kids nonetheless. I don't want my little girl going to school learning about lesbian relationships. If she so turns out to be one then fair enough, but taught about it at school? No. So keep it taboo then?


	Why is Homosexuality something to teach? :-\ I would rather say "something to be explained" with no fear or shame. Kids are very curious and intelligent creatures, it is fair to let them know about things in life...:) Also it would be very helpful in case it happens, some kids feel "different", it is important they know it is OK...


	Quote: : So keep it taboo then? No,just let things take their natural course.Kids especially should be allowed to retain some innocence;it might in fact help their fragile minds from getting warped;which i believe happens a lot these days.


	It isnt....it is something which needs to be explained to the young ones that it happens sometimes for various people and is perfectly natural and quite common...and that furthermore in a civilised society we do not persecute people for it. I'd say as soon as teenagers are being taught sexual health they should be taught about what homosexuality is and how it can effect peoples lives...and how we come to terms with it


	Quote: from: stonefish on October 23, 2009, 01:02:26 No,just let things take their natural course.Kids especially should be allowed to retain some innocence;it might in fact help their fragile minds from getting warped;which i believe happens a lot these days. If two men love each other or two women what is warped about that? Aside from all the hot sex... ::)


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 23, 2009, 01:05:44 It isnt....it is something which needs to be explained to the young ones that it happens sometimes for various people and is perfectly natural and quite common...and that furthermore in a civilised society we do not persecute people for it. I'd say as soon as teenagers are being taught sexual health they should be taught about what homosexuality is and how it can effect peoples lives...and how we come to terms with it Agreed. It is a natural thing, and it must be accepted and understood as any other things of human life...


	Quote: : If two men love each other or two women what is warped about that? Warped may not be the right word for relations between adults,but kids minds are warped by scenes of violence,sex etc at too young an age,of that im sure. I'm sorry but i disagree that homosexuality is natural;it is normal to have homosexuality in a small group of males,but;and i mean no offence by this remark; It is an aberation,like albinos are.That is looking at it objectively i believe I simply do not believe than man was designed to procreate with another man.If so the species wouldn't last very long would it. I have nothing agains't gay people at all,but being gay is not 'how god intended it'. I love other men and im not gay,i dont feel the need to become a 'tail gunner',rather he is my brother,not my lover.


	Well it certainly was the Nick Griffin show, made sure of that by Dimbleby. It's not what QT is usually about (attacking one of the panellists) with a hostile audience aimed at one person....so where was the fairness in that? It was IMO made to show up the BNP which maybe will have had an opposite reaction where some might even have felt sorry for NG. Ridiculous in my opinion....the questions weren't about politics and finding out where the BNP stood on certain matters, but a wholeheared attack on one person. Waste of time!


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 23, 2009, 01:05:44 It isnt....it is something which needs to be explained to the young ones that it happens sometimes for various people and is perfectly natural and quite common...and that furthermore in a civilised society we do not persecute people for it. I'd say as soon as teenagers are being taught sexual health they should be taught about what homosexuality is and how it can effect peoples lives...and how we come to terms with it Spot on. Quote: from: classylady on October 23, 2009, 06:22:10 Well it certainly was the Nick Griffin show, made sure of that by Dimbleby. It's not what QT is usually about (attacking one of the panellists) with a hostile audience aimed at one person....so where was the fairness in that? It was IMO made to show up the BNP which maybe will have had an opposite reaction where some might even have felt sorry for NG. Ridiculous in my opinion....the questions weren't about politics and finding out where the BNP stood on certain matters, but a wholeheared attack on one person. Waste of time! Yup. Eyes and words like daggers. Inevitable that the focus would be on him and throwing abuse at him though really wasn't it? I can certainly say inevitable in hindsight (if that's not a contrasiction of terms) The Thinker


	Quote: from: stonefish on October 23, 2009, 01:02:26 No,just let things take their natural course.Kids especially should be allowed to retain some innocence;it might in fact help their fragile minds from getting warped;which i believe happens a lot these days. Agreed.


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 23, 2009, 01:05:44 It isnt....it is something which needs to be explained to the young ones that it happens sometimes for various people and is perfectly natural and quite common...and that furthermore in a civilised society we do not persecute people for it. I'd say as soon as teenagers are being taught sexual health they should be taught about what homosexuality is and how it can effect peoples lives...and how we come to terms with it Yes, I'm happy for youngsters to be taught about homosexuality when in their teens, but as children, no way. 15+ maybe


	Unfortunately (or not as you care to see it) there is always some bright spark in a school who knows aboiut sexuak preferences far earlier than others...who hs aquired a warped moral view of "different" relkatinships and who can't wait to poison the minds (sorrry...tell everyone else) about what s/he knows. Kids need protecting from this first exposure to sex by being given a fundamental knowledge abiut the fact that sex is various and that all expresssins of it are equally valid. (in kiddir speak of course). They need protecting from prejudice by having some knowledge of the subject. I find it sad that kids can't enjoy an innocent childhood but their peers do not allow them this luxury anymore.


	Quote: from: dunloadin on October 23, 2009, 00:02:19 Not sure who to vote for in the next election, but it won't be BNP. As for a stacked audience and panel it was always going to be so, and with so much pre show hype and comments made by Nick Griffin in the press this week the questions were always going to be oriented to exposing BNP policy. I thought he came across as a biggoted knob, who tried to play down the darker side of his party politics but failed to do so. Some very interesting comments came out about the current state of immigration policy (or lack of), with some good audience responces,but the QT 'lets move to the next question' halted it too early. The ruling that the BNP have to allow the 'non indigenous' to join the party will be worth keeping an eye on; If enough non-white, gay, jewish and muslems join and become the majority within the party I can see a regime and policy change in the BNP that will be the U turn of the century! Did your opinion change after the programme, or was it always the same with nothing changed? I suspect the latter Unbiased objectivity is always welcomed .


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 23, 2009, 01:07:51 Agreed. It is a natural thing, and it must be accepted and understood as any other things of human life... Its against the natural laws of nature and the theries of evolution. And is inevatably a barren relationship. If there was a 'cure' for it which lifestyle would people chose,and how many woul d take it, and which 'geneder' would parents chose for their child if the choice was available? If the choices were made as most people wouild assume they would be , how then could it be described as natural and accepted and undersood?


	I hate it when people go on and on about choice. Why would gay people make the choice to be gay, what is meant by that ?! They can't help it, there's nothing wrong with it, they're not harming people by doing it ! /S:


	Quote: from: The Thinker on October 23, 2009, 09:40:57 I hate it when people go on and on about choice. Why would gay people make the choice to be gay, what is meant by that ?! They can't help it, there's nothing wrong with it, they're not harming people by doing it ! /S: I agree and I've always thought that there is a third gender (homosexual) which has been dictated by nature, it's not something IMO that people choose, they are naturally that way, as in naturally being male or female. Things do go "wrong" in nature and we should accept it though it's always human nature to pick on anything that is different to "the norm" - whatever that is!!


	Seriously little johnny isnt going to grow a tash and take a liking to spandex if you tell him that people who are gay don't deserve to be bullied.


	Yes


	TBH I have never understood the furore about who goes to bed with whom. (given that we are talking about consenting adults). It isn't my business and frankly I don't care.


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 23, 2009, 10:36:18 TBH I have never understood the furore about who goes to bed with whom. (given that we are talking about consenting adults). It isn't my business and frankly I don't care. People resent homosexuals for all kinds of reasons....I don't care who sleeps with who either...it's none of the state's business...it is the business of the state however to ensure homosexuals are not being persecuted against by the idiots.


	Yep...the first duty of a state is to protect its citizens...unreservedly.


	I Quote: : find it sad that kids can't enjoy an innocent childhood but their peers do not allow them this luxury anymore. I dont agree,info filters though to young people at a natural rate.If parents took a bit more responsibility as to what their children see on tv etc,things might be better.If a kid is interested in homosexuality he/she can find plenty of info these days,very easily If i had kids,i would not allow them to be taught about homosexuality at school,they can find out about it themselves as i did and not have it shoved down their thoats.I'd go to prison on that principle if necesary. Leave the poor kids alone!!Enough damage has been done with all this 'modern' thinking.Schools are there to teach maths,english,biology etc.They pick up social skills in the playground,and that is it.


	Having ago at NG is easy , 50 minutes of muck slinging , well i kinder knew it would be. And fair play too . The only real sense came when that black fella asked Straw if immigration was working here. And straw could not anwser. Thank god someone made a good point otherwise the who show would have been a compleat waste of time .


	I think issues should have been debated more and less attacking of Griffin. It would have been more effective to discredit the BNP with intelligent arguments. (I had no idea what bonnie greer was on about half the time) Some of the audience were retard in their statements/questions.


	Quote: from: Ender on October 23, 2009, 12:24:31 Some of the audience were retard in their statements/questions. Did you see that male specimen at the back, wearing a shabby coat and glasses? Positively Neolithic...c'mon dude its TV...make the effort. !bgrin!


	That WAS an effort!! ;D


	Quote: from: voice on October 22, 2009, 23:10:01 But homosexual and heterosexual practices are not taught to kids anyway. "What is taught at what age? Where reproduction is taught as part of the Science curriculum in England, children will be expected to understand the following areas: 5-7 years old * how animals and humans reproduce, and how their offspring grow into adults * how to recognize external parts of both the male and female human body * how to recognise similarities and differences, and to treat others with sensitivity 7-11 years old * learning about the growth and reproduction processes common to humans and other animals * stages of the human life cycle 11-14 years old * learning how the fusion of a male and a female cell causes fertilisation * the physical and emotional changes that take place during puberty * the menstrual cycle and how it relates to human reproduction * how a foetus develops in the uterus 14-16 years old * how hormonal control occurs, and how sex hormones affect the body * how hormones are used medically, including both how they control and aid fertility. * how sex is determined in humans " ref http://www.bbc.co.uk/barefacts/sex_education.shtml Hope this helps.


	Quote: from: Admiral Arnold Morgan on October 23, 2009, 12:20:50 Having ago at NG is easy , 50 minutes of muck slinging , well i kinder knew it would be. And fair play too . The only real sense came when that black fella asked Straw if immigration was working here. And straw could not anwser. Thank god someone made a good point otherwise the who show would have been a compleat waste of time . You would think that straw would of known the answer to that,,,but then again he would know the answer to what can be claimed and what cannot.


	I think N.G. done well to hold up to the barrage of questions and the disection of every word he spoke,,,just would like the same done to say a libour party member, at least he told straw that the B.N.P. Had not killed any muslims where as the liebour party has over a million muslim deaths on there hands,strange that is it not. Who is the real facist party.


	It would have been rather odd if the BNP had killed anyone, considering they were not in control of teh forein poloicy oif this country but merely individual citizens. Common...you know that. It was apples and pears.


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 23, 2009, 10:48:13 People resent homosexuals for all kinds of reasons....I don't care who sleeps with who either...it's none of the state's business...it is the business of the state however to ensure homosexuals are not being persecuted against by the idiots. Usually they resent homosexuals because of ignorance and bad education. Being homosexual or heterosexual is just part of nature; I.e. we are what we are.


	Exactly so Voice, well said! ;D


	Quote: from: The Thinker on October 23, 2009, 18:13:19 exactly so Voice, well said! ;D Some people will argue from a religious angle that it is wrong; This is a review I did on a book a year or so ago (ignore the bit where I said I just read it; Ive just copied and pasted it from my forum). Ive just finished Reading a brilliant, and very stimulating book called What the Bible really says about homosexuality. It was written by Daniel A. Helminiak Ph.D. He states that the Bible and backs up what he says does not condemn homosexuality but the ignorant have miss read/ miss Quote: d what was actually said. He states in his book that it should be considered outrageous for any educated person to Quote: the Bible to condemn homosexuality. He then goes on and says, At the very least, the meaning of the relevant texts is so disputed that, in fairness and honesty, no one can use them that way, the fact is that the Bible offers no condemnation pertinent to days discussion. He says that fundamentalists has taken the Bible at its literal Reading... Rather than what was actually meant at the time. He concludes his book with The literal approach to the Bible claims not to interpret the Bible but merely to take it for what it obviously says. The words of the Bible in modern translation are taken to mean what they mean to the reader today. On this basis the Bible is said to condemn homosexuality in a number of places. But in historical-critical approach reads the Bible in its original historical and cultural context. This approach takes the Bible to mean best as can be determined, what its human authors intended to say in their own time and in their own way. Understood on its own terms, the Bible was not addressing our current questions about sexual ethics. The Bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today. I recommend to those that are religious and also condemn homosexuality because of how they interpreted or their teachers interpreted the Bible. The book wasnt written by just any old philosopher/ scientist or even somebody who is anti-religious etc but by a respected theologian and Roman Catholic priest.


	Ha. So they think they can use the Bible to condemn the gay community?...'I fart in their general direction!' ;D (http://www.sondrak.com/archive/skpics/monty%20python%20french.jpg)


	Quote: from: The Thinker on October 23, 2009, 19:11:26 Ha. So they think they can use the Bible to condemn the gay community?...'I fart in their general direction!' ;D (http://www.sondrak.com/archive/skpics/monty%20python%20french.jpg) People who use the bible to attack gay people misread it only to back up their prejudices. The problem isn't the bible but the readers interpretation of it.


	Quite so. I shall give you positive feedback for that. The Thinker.


	Quote: from: voice on October 23, 2009, 19:18:32 People who use the bible to attack gay people misread it only to back up their prejudices. The problem isn't the bible but the readers interpretation of it. Levictus 20:13 ''If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; Their blood will be on their own heads.'' Levictus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; That is detestable.'' Romans 1:27 ''In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.'' These verses seem pretty clear to me. However Jesus never raises the subject once...which shows how little Jesus worries about it ;)


	Yes these certainly can be easily interpretted in this way....oh I don't care frankly what the Bible MAY say about it. The Thinker.


	Quote: from: Admiral Arnold Morgan on October 23, 2009, 12:20:50 Having ago at NG is easy , 50 minutes of muck slinging , well i kinder knew it would be. And fair play too . The only real sense came when that black fella asked Straw if immigration was working here. And straw could not anwser. Thank god someone made a good point otherwise the who show would have been a compleat waste of time . Hi Admiral, Blimey That Jack Straw is such a joke..He has no morals or principles, he just bend with the wind :-X.... I hate his guts.. >:(


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 23, 2009, 19:25:34 However Jesus never raises the subject once...which shows how little Jesus worries about it ;) Paul does mention it I think. But the idea of judgement, and punishment. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, is a central theme to Christianity. Only God can judge.


	Well we all judge but I know what you mean, He has the final say. Though there are the old arguments: Why would he punish us for being the way we are' we can't help it - he created us!... Obviously God didn't bother reading his Ikea manual when he put us all together. ;D The thinker ;)


	Quote: from: The Thinker on October 23, 2009, 19:40:26 Well we all judge but I know what you mean, He has the final say. Though there are the old arguments: Why would he punish us for being the way we are, we can't help it he created us... Obviously God didn't bother reading his Ikead manual when he put us all together. ;D The thinker ;) The moral of the story is though, who are we to judge when we are not perfect ourselves.


	How true how true stupid git! ;D ;D


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 23, 2009, 19:25:34 Levictus 20:13 ''If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; Their blood will be on their own heads.'' Levictus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; That is detestable.'' Romans 1:27 ''In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.'' These verses seem pretty clear to me. However Jesus never raises the subject once...which shows how little Jesus worries about it ;) First of all the bible is about interpretation. Let us take Levictus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; That is detestable.'' This was meant in a sexual way. But no man lies with another as he does with a woman. Therefore a homosexual is following the letter of the biblical law. It is all about interpretation. If you are bigoted you obviously would read it in a negative way.


	And 24 hours later it seems people see last nights show as a missed opportunity Nothing was debated , no in depth questions fully examined , just a bunch of people slinging crap at Griffin , a chance lost i fear. No one wants to get down to the real thorny issues here , they really dont , people are just blinded by pure hate of Griffin. Griffin did not have to fall far thats for sure , but as for the rest of them they achieved nothing but a self congratulating pat on the back , a bad evening for debate, playing around with the suface slime helps no one. I could well be said that racism here is hidden by just cause ? Ignor the just cause seems to be the way of the panal last night. NG did not come across well , but i think he still stands head and shoulders above the rest , what he said is different to what he is , debate what he said please . And why are you worried , he is the head honcho on the BNP , proof enough it aint going no whEre , you haVe nothing to fear there, RIGHT NOW ? What you do need to fear is doing nothing about immigration and its ill effect on your life should you live in the UK .


	Quote: from: Admiral Arnold Morgan on October 23, 2009, 20:13:51 NG did not come across well , but i think he still stands head and shoulders above the rest , what he said is different to what he is , debate what he said please . How is that, he has lied, he acts like a politican, he has dodgy "associates", not to mention he has a past which is similar to most politicans under the category "career poltician".


	I still blame the rest of the political establishment for driving desperate people into the arms of the BNP, because they have NOT listened to concerns of the common man but instead have pursued a left wing political dogms of multicutural madness taken to it's extreme and not settled for moderation which works every time, but worse still, they refuse to accept responsibility and see the their own wrongdoings, to me that is worse than the likes of Nick Griffin, he at least is a man of conviction, as wrong as those convictions may be, he on the other hand HAS listened. Rich.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 20:51:20 I still blame the rest of the political establishment for driving desperate people into the arms of the BNP, because they have NOT listened to concerns of the common man but instead have pursued a left wing political dogms of multicutural madness taken to it's extreme and not settled for moderation which works every time, but worse still, they refuse to accept responsibility and see the their own wrongdoings, to me that is worse than the likes of Nick Griffin, he at least is a man of conviction, as wrong as those convictions may be, he on the other hand HAS listened. Rich. Griffin is more concerned about multiethnisism than multiculturalism.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 23, 2009, 20:55:20 Griffin is more concerned about multiethnisism than multiculturalism. SO WHAT!! He at least is responding to concerns instead of being in denial. Rich.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 20:57:53 SO WHAT!! He at least is responding to concerns instead of being in denial. Rich. Most people on this forum, that incluces the BNP supporters are more concerned about cultural issues, not ethnic ones. Or they are concerned with pressure on our public services. Not many seem to want an all white, indigenous Britain based upon the ethnic make up of this nation 13,000 years ago.


	Watching the programme last night it was not a good advertisement for a good debate; I don't think anybody was shown in a good light. They should have kept to the facts and one their case that way.


	Quote: from: voice on October 23, 2009, 19:59:47 First of all the bible is about interpretation. Let us take Levictus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; That is detestable.'' This was meant in a sexual way. But no man lies with another as he does with a woman. Therefore a homosexual is following the letter of the biblical law. It is all about interpretation. If you are bigoted you obviously would read it in a negative way. Yeah whatever....sounds like homo talk to me ;) A man can only 'lie' with a man in two standard ways really...and I think Levicticus knows no man has a vagina...


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 23, 2009, 20:44:11 How is that, he has lied, he acts like a politican, he has dodgy "associates", not to mention he has a past which is similar to most politicans under the category "career poltician". And the rest are just perfect ? Think again .


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 23, 2009, 21:06:27 Most people on this forum, that incluces the BNP supporters are more concerned about cultural issues, not ethnic ones. Or they are concerned with pressure on our public services. Not many seem to want an all white, indigenous Britain based upon the ethnic make up of this nation 13,000 years ago. What most people on this forum want is the right of the British taxpayer to stand a good chance of gaining employment, whatever their colour or creed, the more that come in then the less chance of that happening, if you wish to realise your avatar, think long and hard about the consequences of unrestrained immigration. Rich.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 23, 2009, 20:55:20 Griffin is more concerned about multiethnisism than multiculturalism. I do not think he separates the two But it does have a point about few issues which are never raised by the ones that are at the top....As Rich says they are in denial or to be more precise in a coma which had spun for over 30 years of abusive power and greed..There will be more NG's in the future you can be sure because now the door is open and this is another change that these mad policies of bad and mislead "diversity" society is build on ,and frankly i see many are confortable with it... :-X.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:15:04 What most people on this forum want is the right of the British taxpayer to stand a good chance of gaining employment, whatever their colour or creed, the more that come in then the less chance of that happening, if you wish to realise your avatar, think long and hard about the consequences of unrestrained immigration. Rich. This is very true.


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 23, 2009, 21:12:14 Yeah whatever....sounds like homo talk to me ;) I am not disagree; All I am saying is that anything can be interpreted in a way to support ones case. Nobody knows what the original wording of the bible was or who wrote it. What has survived is centuries after the original (and we don't know if the original was written down or word of mouth) and what we do have in writing is copies, of copies of copies. Also; what we do have left wasn't in the original language. Scholars don't know if they were changed to fit with local times or/ and prejudices.


	Quote: from: voice on October 23, 2009, 21:17:28 I am not disagree; All I am saying is that anything can be interpreted in a way to support ones case. Nobody knows what the original wording of the bible was or who wrote it. What has survived is centuries after the original (and we don't know if the original was written down or word of mouth) and what we do have in writing is copies, of copies of copies. Also; what we do have left wasn't in the original language. Scholars don't know if they were changed to fit with local times or/ and prejudices. I edited my short response !bgrin!


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:15:04 What most people on this forum want is the right of the British taxpayer to stand a good chance of gaining employment, whatever their colour or creed, the more that come in then the less chance of that happening, if you wish to realise your avatar, think long and hard about the consequences of unrestrained immigration. Rich. Spot on. !clp! !clp! !clp!..Rich, maybe our Queen could do soemthing about that..What do you think H? ;) :) ;D


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:15:04 What most people on this forum want is the right of the British taxpayer to stand a good chance of gaining employment, whatever their colour or creed, the more that come in then the less chance of that happening, if you wish to realise your avatar, think long and hard about the consequences of unrestrained immigration. Rich. ? I made no reference to me believing in unrestrained immigration. Which we do not have as we deport 60,000 a year. As for the BNP, they are the only ones? UKIP and English Democrats So again, I do not see how ethnic nationalism is to be of the concern of the average British person, which you have already stated.


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 23, 2009, 21:19:02 Spot on...Rich, maybe our Queen could do soemthing about that..What do you think H? Oh haha.... ::) Or did you really want my opinion? :-\


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 23, 2009, 21:15:54 I do not think he separates the two But it does have a point about few issues which are never raised by the ones that are at the top....As Rich says they are in denial or to be more precise in a coma which had spun for over 30 years of abusive power and greed..There will be more NG's in the future you can be sure because now the door is open and this is another change that these mad policies of bad and mislead "diversity" society is build on ,and frankly i see many are confortable with it... :-X. So why two ethnic classifications? Why an emphasis on indigenous make up going back 13,000 years?


	Quote: from: voice on October 23, 2009, 21:17:28 I am not disagree; All I am saying is that anything can be interpreted in a way to support ones case. Nobody knows what the original wording of the bible was or who wrote it. What has survived is centuries after the original (and we don't know if the original was written down or word of mouth) and what we do have in writing is copies, of copies of copies. Also; what we do have left wasn't in the original language. Scholars don't know if they were changed to fit with local times or/ and prejudices. But we DO know that the writings of Hans christian andersen, the brothers grimm, Enid blyton et al ARE authentic. Rich.


	Quote: from: voice on October 23, 2009, 21:17:28 I am not disagree; All I am saying is that anything can be interpreted in a way to support ones case. Nobody knows what the original wording of the bible was or who wrote it. What has survived is centuries after the original (and we don't know if the original was written down or word of mouth) and what we do have in writing is copies, of copies of copies. Also; what we do have left wasn't in the original language. Scholars don't know if they were changed to fit with local times or/ and prejudices. Interesting idea for a thread tho...;) I agree that much in the Scriptures has been altered in content and context...the laws of entropy demand it! It (the Bible) is the product of man...and not to be taken too seriously.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:21:36 But we DO know that the writings of Hans christian andersen, the brothers grimm, Enid blyton et al ARE authentic. Rich. I wrote a story of Noddy and Big Ears and political correction ;D ;)


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:15:04 What most people on this forum want is the right of the British taxpayer to stand a good chance of gaining employment, whatever their colour or creed, the more that come in then the less chance of that happening, if you wish to realise your avatar, think long and hard about the consequences of unrestrained immigration. Rich. Also what avatar?


	I agree that much has altered in content and context...the laws of entropy demand it! How do you know if you have not been privvy to the supposed original texts, how does anyone know? Rich.


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 23, 2009, 21:23:02 Interesting idea for a thread tho...;) I agree that much in the Scriptures has been altered in content and context...the laws of entropy demand it! It (the Bible) is the product of man...and not to be taken too seriously. All religious and none religious books are the invention of some productive, imaginative and inventive person.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 23, 2009, 21:26:31 Also what avatar? ILIKELIBERTY try and hang on to it, while you can. Rich.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:26:34 I agree that much has altered in content and context...the laws of entropy demand it! How do you know if you have not been privvy to the supposed original texts, how does anyone know? Rich. Because everything loses information everytime it is copied/edited/translated. Photocopy a letter and keep photocopying the copy each time...very quickly you will have an illegible mess...and thats a machine...which is near as perfect as possible. Entropy effects everything...nothing is immune. So I know the Bible has changed..it must have done to obey the laws of nature.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:32:59 ILIKELIBERTY try and hang on to it, while you can. Rich. My name, I thought avatar was the little picture.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 23, 2009, 21:19:14 As for the BNP, they are the only ones? UKIP and English Democrats So again, I do not see how ethnic nationalism is to be of the concern of the average British person, which you have already stated. HI ILL :) What do you mean? ILL if u aare interested to know my opinion i am sure UKIP is nothing like BNP ohterwise i would never had voted for them...I am not suicidal, i love England and i want to live here, which means that i want to live in a good balanced society, healthy. United and english with no other cultures taking over...Is that a crime? ILL we all do respect, the fact is some of us we do not want have nothing to do with EU, we want to freeze immigration is a really good thing and does need to be justified IMO.. Drastic situation require extreme measures, right now we reached that point that need to do what it is necessary to make this country "livibale" for everyone ...And that's what i DO CARE..Nothing personal against anybody in particular, but if they do not abide by our country rules and customes, we do need anyone....And we need people with balls to patch up this big mess.. :-X.. PS:Should we wanted the same for our Britain? :-\


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 23, 2009, 21:33:39 Because everything loses information everytime it is copied/edited/translated. Photocopy a letter and keep photocopying the copy each time...very quickly you will have an illegible mess. Entropy effects everything...nothing is immune. So I know the Bible has changed..it must have done to obey the laws of nature. Entropy effects everything...nothing is immune. And obviously the mind. Rich.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:35:50 Entropy effects everything...nothing is immune. And obviously the mind. Rich. In that case a good pint of lager could help to get it right again, right Rich..? :P ;) :) ;D.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:35:50 Entropy effects everything...nothing is immune. And obviously the mind. Rich. Keep it active....thats the key.


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 23, 2009, 21:39:38 In that case a good pint of lager could help to get it right again, right Rich.. :P ;) :) ;D. Babycham for me plz. ;)


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 23, 2009, 21:39:38 In that case a good pint of lager could help to get it right again, right Rich.. :P ;) :) ;D. I am making up for lost time, now that I have had my operation. /8/ ;D ;D ;D Rich.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:44:19 I am making up for lost time, now that I have had my operation. /8/ ;D ;D ;D Rich. Cheers.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:44:19 I am making up for lost time, now that I have had my operation. /8/ ;D ;D ;D Rich. I am glad everything is alright, how do i know? Your pint is with you. :) /8/...God bless!! :-* !wav! I had an operation myself a month ago. I was scared....Everything went ok i my docs ans surgeons were the best in London and Europe ...Even so, i know it can be quite an ordeal...


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 23, 2009, 21:53:41 I am glad everything is alright, how do i know? Your pint is with you. :) /8/...God bless!! :-* !wav! I had an operation myself a month ago. I was scared....Everything went ok i my docs ans surgeons were the best in London and Europe ...Even so, i know it can be quite an ordeal... Good for you Nerval, you have certainly stuck to your guns through thick and thin, an admirable quality. Rich. /8/


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 22:00:12 Good for you Nerval, you have certainly stuck to your guns through thick and thin, an admirable quality. Rich. /8/ I did? Thank you Sir... :) ;) !wav!


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 23, 2009, 21:35:29 HI ILL :) What do you mean? ILL if u aare interested to know my opinion i am sure UKIP is nothing like BNP ohterwise i would never had voted for them...I am not suicidal, i love England and i want to live here, which means that i want to live in a good balanced society, healthy. United and english with no other cultures taking over...Is that a crime? ILL we all do respect, the fact is some of us we do not want have nothing to do with EU, we want to freeze immigration is a really good thing and does need to be justified IMO.. Drastic situation require extreme measures, right now we reached that point that need to do what it is necessary to make this country "livibale" for everyone ...And that's what i DO CARE..Nothing personal against anybody in particular, but if they do not abide by our country rules and customes, we do need anyone....And we need people with balls to patch up this big mess.. :-X.. PS:Should we wanted the same for our Britain? :-\ I am not saying UKIP or English Democrats are like the BNP, im just saying they share concerns on the BNP.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 23, 2009, 22:11:03 I am not saying UKIP or English Democrats are like the BNP, im just saying they share concerns on the BNP. And they listen and learn, which is why, slowly but surely folks are turning to them in desperation. Rich.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 22:16:45 And they listen and learn, which is why, slowly but surely folks are turning to them in desperation. Rich. I meant to say share concerns on immigration.


	Quote: from: voice on October 23, 2009, 21:12:10 Watching the programme last night it was not a good advertisement for a good debate; I don't think anybody was shown in a good light. They should have kept to the facts and one their case that way. On radio Kent today it was said that 75% of the Emails they received from the listeners thought that the QT programme was bised against Griffin, and was unfair to him.


	Quote: from: Tytoalba on October 23, 2009, 23:08:05 On radio Kent today it was said that 75% of the Emails they received from the listeners thought that the QT programme was bised against Griffin, and was unfair to him. That doesn't surprise me. I put on this forum - somewhere - that it said on the news tonight that Question time might have helped him out.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 23, 2009, 22:11:03 I am not saying UKIP or English Democrats are like the BNP, im just saying they share concerns on the BNP. Ok. ;) :) Because i know that sometimes i can come across quite passionate about England and people who came here, that's because i do not want people from other countries think that we are "stupid" or "naive". We do know what's going on, i do care about my land and i want to protect it from anyone who does not see it as their nation, love her, and respect her, but just an "oasis" to something else.... :-X


	Quote: from: Rich on October 23, 2009, 21:15:04 What most people on this forum want is the right of the British taxpayer to stand a good chance of gaining employment, whatever their colour or creed, the more that come in then the less chance of that happening, if you wish to realise your avatar, think long and hard about the consequences of unrestrained immigration. Rich. We do not have unrestrained immigration. It is this kind of emotional generality that allows pepople like NG to receive any kind of notice.


	Well support IS growing for them now. The 30% increase which was dismissed here as just being people looking at their web, is in fact, membership registrations. 22% of people polled said they'd seriously consider voting for the BNP. 240 people complained to the BBC at the unfair treatment that NG recieved. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8323638.stm


	Quote: from: Charles on October 24, 2009, 10:01:06 Well support IS growing for them now. The 30% increase which was dismissed here as just being people looking at their web, is in fact, membership registrations. 22% of people polled said they'd seriously consider voting for the BNP. 240 people complained to the BBC at the unfair treatment that NG recieved. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8323638.stm It had to come because it was an out and out slaughter, pre arranged and orchestrated by all concerned. The problem with that is, the British public see through things like that and whether they like or loathe a person, fair play is all they want and if people don't get it, then the complaints will come in and so will the support. Television is the medium from which most people base their opinions (rightly or wrongly) and if things are on there that people take exception to, then sure as night follows day....there will be people picking up on content and making their own minds up about a situation.


	Curious, though, that only 240 people out of the 8 million who watched bothered to complain.


	Quote: from: ranger121 on October 24, 2009, 10:09:13 Curious, though, that only 240 people out of the 8 million who watched bothered to complain. They were probably BNP members <smirk>


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 24, 2009, 08:29:07 We do not have unrestrained immigration. We do , dated "Published: 7:57PM BST 21 Oct 2009" unless there has been some dramatic change since then. " Statistics don't usually set the blood racing. But here are a few, published yesterday by the Office for National Statistics, that might shake you. In the next 20 years, the population of the UK will rise from 61 million to 70 million and then go on rising. The bulk of that growth will be due to immigration, which will have added seven million seven cities the size of Birmingham to our population by 2034. In the next 10 years alone the British population will rise by four million. Traditionally, a major characteristic of this country was the stability of our population. In fact, up until the mid-eighties more people left than wished to come here to live. Twenty-five years later the picture has been transformed: the population has grown by more than 4.4 million. How has this happened? Three forces account for this transformation. First, governments simply gave up taking an interest in whether people who came to this country as visitors, workers or students ever left again. The last Conservative government abolished the need to keep note of who was leaving Britain for Europe, while the present Government abolished the same check on those going to the rest of the world. The message was clear: Britain had no interest in challenging people who stayed beyond their allotted time. Second, the Government has not dealt fairly with those making asylum claims. It is the mark of a nation how it stands by those in need, yet our system has not worked; It has collapsed, to the detriment of genuine asylum seekers. Decades later, some are still waiting for their cases to be concluded. Third and most important the present Government has acted as a recruiting sergeant to enrol workers from abroad. Before the EU expanded, ministers asserted that no more than 13,000 would come each year from the new countries to find work in this country. All too quickly the numbers swelled towards a million. But the jokes about Polish plumbers have hidden a key fact: two thirds of immigration comes from outside Europe, and is of people who want to make our country their home for good. Overwhelmingly, this increase in immigration has been in England which, within the past 15 years, has become the most densely populated country in Europe. England is being fundamentally changed. All too many schools report that English is not the first language for the vast majority of students. Yesterday's statistics show that, over time, the increase in population will to an even greater degree be down to those coming here and their offspring. We have failed fully to integrate many of our newcomers: this shift will further tilt the balance away from a cohesive national identity. Rather than use its energies to control these waves of immigration, the Government has instead clamped down on any public debate about the issue it has studiously avoided seeking voter approval for the changes Britain has undergone. Gordon Brown's 6,435-word address to the Labour Party conference last month contained a mere 83 words about immigration. At the Conservative conference, David Cameron offered a mere 58 words out of 6,387. So much for the new era of honesty in politics. Politicians' failure to address what voters have always regarded as one of their top two priorities (the other is the economy) has opened the door to the BNP. Nick Griffin does not owe his opportunity to peddle evil views on tonight's Question Time to some faulty judgment of the BBC. His vote in the European elections earned it for him. And that opportunity only arose because of the political cowardice and irresponsibility of the two main parties but particularly of the Labour Party. Poll after poll shows BNP support coming from ex-Labour voters who believe their party has deserted them on immigration, and failed to represent their interests as underdogs in what until recently was a country characterised by unparalleled prosperity. Social strains caused by immigration were all too obvious even during a period of record public spending increases. Immigration now accounts for 40 per cent of new households formed, just as the waiting list for social housing in England tops 1.8 million an incredible 80 per cent increase in the past six years. We are now into a period of unparalleled austerity. The social tensions that are already present could be massively exacerbated, especially as yesterday's figures suggest the population will increase by a further two million over the next Parliament and a further two million in the Parliament after that. It was the dereliction of duty by Parliament to discuss a key voter priority that led us to establish last year the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration. All of our members readily testify to the advantages that immigration can bring to any country. But it is the scale of immigration, and its impact on our population, that have concerned us. A key demand of our group has been for the Government to cut the link between people coming here to work and automatically gaining citizenship. Once a person has been in this country for four or five years they practically always gain citizenship. The present Home Secretary, to his credit, is consulting on our proposals of a two-stage entry to citizenship. Stage one would determine how many people are allowed into the country each year to work. A second and new set of procedures would then come into play, whereby people applying for citizenship would have to prove their worth. That status would no longer be automatically granted. Far from it. If we are to reduce immigration sufficiently to prevent Britain crashing through the 70 million population barrier then the criteria for entry as well as for citizenship will have to be very tough. Earlier this year, in a little-noticed interview on Radio Five Live, David Cameron said he wished to bring immigration back to the levels of the 80s and 90s. To achieve that objective would mean cutting 2007's level of immigration by 75 per cent, but current Conservative policies would only cut immigration by a quarter. Even a 75 per cent reduction would keep our population just below 70 million. Migration must be brought into balance if we are to stabilise our population at 65 million, compared to today's 61 million. A fight-back against the BNP will only begin when the party leaders give a full pledge that our population will not breach the 65 million barrier. That would then set in train a whole series of restrictions that Balanced Migration believes crucial if our country is to regain some sense of cohesion and identity. Politicians want to rebuild trust in politics. We agree and here is a good place to start. Frank Field, Labour MP for Birkenhead, and Nicholas Soames, Conservative MP for Mid Sussex, co-chair the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration. " ref http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6400553/Cowardice-on-immigration-has-allowed-the-BNP-to-flourish.html


	Thanks for that Gus, most of us knew it to be the case anyway (runaway immigration et al) but it's good to see that some bods in the know are actually saying it!


	Quote: from: ranger121 on October 24, 2009, 10:09:13 Curious, though, that only 240 people out of the 8 million who watched bothered to complain. Yes, but from that article, note that only 100 wrote in to complain about the BNP being there. 240 vs 100+[it says "over 100"]


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 24, 2009, 00:30:12 Ok. ;) :) Because i know that sometimes i can come across quite passionate about England and people who came here, that's because i do not want people from other countries think that we are "stupid" or "naive". We do know what's going on, i do care about my land and i want to protect it from anyone who does not see it as their nation, love her, and respect her, but just an "oasis" to something else.... :-X I stand shoulder to shoulder with you Nerval.


	Quote: from: Tytoalba on October 24, 2009, 11:11:57 I stand shoulder to shoulder with you Nerval. I've heard that hawkish bullsh*t before from T Blair and G Bush.


	Quote: from: Gus on October 24, 2009, 10:16:35 We do , dated "Published: 7:57PM BST 21 Oct 2009" unless there has been some dramatic change since then. " Statistics don't usually set the blood racing. But here are a few, published yesterday by the Office for National Statistics, that might shake you. Imagine what GB would be like if imigration rally WERE unrestrained! Nothing in that article mentions immigration being unrestrained...I could Quote: you the entire text of the Immigration Act 2002 to prove just how restrained immigration is.


	Quote: from: Tytoalba on October 24, 2009, 11:11:57 I stand shoulder to shoulder with you Nerval. Tell me T...just how do you decide which immigrants support GB and which don't? Or are you happy enough to throw them all out just to be sure?


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 24, 2009, 11:23:05 I've heard that hawkish bullsh*t before from T Blair and G Bush. Bullshit grows the best Rhubarb. 8-)


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 24, 2009, 11:25:47 Imagine what GB would be like if imigration rally WERE unrestrained! Nothing in that article mentions immigration being unrestrained...I could Quote: you the entire text of the Immigration Act 2002 to prove just how restrained immigration is. Why is the populationm expected to grow to 70 million in such a short space of time The indiginous population must be at it like rabbits to acheive that.


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 24, 2009, 11:28:08 Tell me T...just how do you decide which immigrants support GB and which don't? Or are you happy enough to throw them all out just to be sure? The illegal ones certainly. Im a great fan of law and orderand abiding by the laws of the land I agree with arranged marriages, but would change the law, but with our nationals chosing to do so having to join their new partners, not them joining us. That should stop the flow of immigrants in that direction. Laws are man made and can be changed with the will to do so.


	Those numbers are a guess made on current trends. Such stats were also put about years ago which predicted such numbers. Being achieved now..and they have not happened. But I have posted suggestions fot controlling such a rise in population...instead of going into a handwringing tailspin about them, why not discuss solutions OTHER than illegal ones? This is now the fifth time I have asked you to do so.


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 24, 2009, 11:49:05 Those numbers are a guess made on current trends. Such stats were also put about years ago which predicted such numbers. Being achieved now..and they have not happened. But I have posted suggestions fot controlling such a rise in population...instead of going into a handwringing tailspin about them, why not discuss solutions OTHER than illegal ones? This is now the fifth time I have asked you to do so. Immigration is fine as long as the immigrants become emigrants at the end of their contracts.


	Quote: from: Tytoalba on October 24, 2009, 11:38:44 Bullshit grows the best Rhubarb. 8-) True lol


	"No doubt the debate about BNP leader Nick Griffin's appearance on BBC "Question Time" will rumble on for several days to come, so here's our grumpy take on it: it was an appalling exhibition and brought no credit to almost anyone involved - Griffin himself, the panellists, chairman David Dimbleby, the audience or the BBC. The one possible exception was Sayeeda Warsi, conservative spokesman on "social cohesion", whatever that is. Despite being the panellist who had the most reason to despise Griffin, being both asian and a Muslim, she was impressive - firm, clear, coherent and fluent. She put Jack Straw and Chris Huhne to shame. The remaining panellist was the coloured (are we allowed to say that?) academic Bonnie Greer, who was intelligent and likeable but seemed to be taking the whole thing a bit too personally for comfort or clarity. Speaking this morning, Diane Abbott MP accused bosses of turning Griffin into a victim as he was so strongly savaged by panellists and the audience. Miss Abbott, the country's best-known black politician, claimed the format had been deliberately engineered to humiliate the BNP leader. 'Its all very well in the morning to say "oh well, he got smashed" but in the long run people who are attracted to the BNP will come away saying "he was a victim",' she said. She's right. The BBC has so far received 357 complaints about last night's Question Time, of which 243 callers actually alleged bias against Mr Griffin. A record number of viewers tuned in to watch this edition of Question Time, but if they thought they were finally going to get a look at the BNP and its leader, to hear from the horse's mouth what this controversial and disreputable party are all about, they were disappointed. The great majority of the programme was devoted to the chairman, the panellists and the audience telling Griffin what he said, what he believed, and what his policies were. On the rare occasions when he was allowed to speak for himself, he was incoherent, rambling and faintly ridiculous. Plainly if this had been a rational discussion about actual issues, he would have exposed himself for the fraud he certainly is, but the BBC had obviously decided that this was not to be. Most of the blame for this must be directed at the chairman, David Dimbleby. There's a tradition among us old folk that a chairman must conduct himself impartially and do everything to facilitate a fair and balanced discussion, but clearly we are out of date. Dimbleby was anything but impartial. On the contrary, he joined in the witch-hunt as much as anyone else. But the BBC had nobbled the whole thing from the start - this was never intended to be a reasonable and informative discussion. It was intended to be a public lynching. The audience was packed with liberal lefties and minority activists, grinning through their teeth and baying as they watched their enemy stripped, laid bare and savaged. They'd come to give the pathetic little fascist a good kicking, and they were having a really good time. One audience member, David Kernohan from Norfolk, is Quote: d in the Daily Mail as saying 'He came across very badly. By the end, the audience were essentially ridiculing him and shouting things at him. He was obviously very nervous. I don't think he would be pleased with the performance. He made a fool of himself and will have turned moderate people off the party. He's shot himself in the foot. It was excellent - a good day for democracy.' Nice, David Kernohan. Politics in the vocabulary of the football terraces, and that's a good day for democracy? Though Griffin's grasp of history was evidently very selective - he plainly studied at the David Icke School of Sociology - he wasn't the only one. He attracted huge amounts of opprobrium for using the expression "indigenous people", by which he meant the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish, but in fact it was his attackers who were adrift: "indigenous" means "born of, or produced naturally in, a region" (Concise Oxford). Insofar as anyone can be said to be indigenous in these islands which have been subject to a number of invasions in early history, most recently by the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans, it has to be the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish. We've been born naturally here for many generations. The man may be objectionable, but in this respect he wasn't wrong, and the rest of the panel were. Of course this begs the question of the children of immigrants - surely, they are born here naturally as well? But no one said that. There was no mileage in being logical. Griffin also got into deep water when he attempted - amateurishly and rather rashly, it has to be said - to address the issue of homosexuality. Yet again he was howled down. Bonnie Greer said afterwards that he was shaking like a leaf throughout. You might say he deserved it - he probably did. But that's not the point, is it? He may deserve this treatment, but we don't. We have a right to expect that our publicly funded broadcaster will try to present us with the facts in a rational manner. We have a right to expect that prominent politicians like Straw and Huhne will demonstrate to us why their policies are right and the BNP's are wrong. We have a right to expect that an experienced and influential broadcaster and commentator like Dimbleby will manage the programme in such a way that we are able to make up our own minds about what to think, not to be bludgeoned by a baying mob. Because, frankly, this is too important a matter to be decided by the liberal left and their mock outrage. Sooner or later we, the voters, are going to have to make up our own minds. The BNP has already achieved some small electoral success, and the public humiliation of their leader isn't going to stop them. If anything, last night's débacle will make them stronger. You see, in so far as the BNP can be said to have any policies, they are our policies. The BNP has had the low, shallow cunning to recognise what the majority of people think, and adapt its own stance to suit. The majority of people in this country are concerned about the bullying tactics of the gay lobby, and about the excessive rights the government have allowed them. Gay adoption is a case in point, and so is the idea that gay issues can be introduced to young children in school. But anyone who raises a dissenting or even questioning voice is immediately plastered with "homophobe" labels. Balanced, rational discussion is something as alien to the left as it is to the far right. The staple diet of the far right in the middle of the twentieth century was their hatred of the Jews. But there's no stomach among white people in this country for anti-Semitism today, so that has quietly dropped out of Nick Griffin's ideology. On the other hand, the majority of the people in this country are very worried about uncontrolled immigration - and whatever the government says, we all know that it is uncontrolled. We learned only this week that they haven't the faintest idea where 40,000 illegal immigrants are. They just "assume" that they've all gone home. Yes, that's really likely. The majority of people are dismayed by the massive increase in our population and the predicted increase over the next few years - and being dismayed about it doesn't mean that they are racist, it just means that they realise who it is that will have to foot the bill, who it is that will pay for the schools that need to be built, the already overstretched NHS facilities that will have to be expanded, the extra teachers, the extra doctors and nurses, the extra welfare payments. That's not racist. It's good financial sense, and ALL political parties should be seen to have robust and sensible policies to deal with it. At the moment, only the BNP is offering policies that are easy to understand. They're absurd, but they coincide with the fears of the man in the street, and no amount of left-wing posturing can alter that. Unless the main parties can offer an appealing alternative, it's inevitable that the BNP will continue to prosper. But that's a bit too hard for our left-leaning institutions to manage, isn't it? They'd rather take refuge in spite and invective, and even though they're directed at someone who almost certainly deserves both, they are no proper, civilised alternative to effective political debate. If there had been an effective political debate, the man would have been shown for the light-weight opportunist he is. But there wasn't, and it's our notion of democracy that suffered. " Pretty accurate summary, I thought. Source (http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/nick%20griffin.asp)


	But that's a bit too hard for our left-leaning institutions to manage, isn't it? They'd rather take refuge in spite and invective, and even though they're directed at someone who almost certainly deserves both, they are no proper, civilised alternative to effective political debate. If there had been an effective political debate, the man would have been shown for the light-weight opportunist he is. But there wasn't, and it's our notion of democracy that suffered. " Pretty accurate summary, I thought. Exactly right IMO. Isnt the fact that the BNP has led to an honest and open discussion on matters of concern to the many, of the very greatest of importance to us all? Their rise in support has come about because of the control of free speech and expression, and we now have a media where we can say what we want to say , in the way we want to say it, freely expressing a strong, if uncomfortable opinion, just by putting a little cross on a ballot paper. All without anyone shouting at us that we are racist, homophobic, zenophobic fascist or politically incorrect.


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 24, 2009, 00:30:12 Ok. ;) :) Because i know that sometimes i can come across quite passionate about England and people who came here, that's because i do not want people from other countries think that we are "stupid" or "naive". We do know what's going on, i do care about my land and i want to protect it from anyone who does not see it as their nation, love her, and respect her, but just an "oasis" to something else.... :-X Im seriously thinking about voting UKIP.


	What I seen of it Warisi did very well.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 13:57:49 Im seriously thinking about voting UKIP. I voted for them in the European elections and i will probably vote for them in the General election. I have also voted for them in the past.


	Quote: from: voice on October 24, 2009, 14:00:30 I voted for them in the European elections and i will probably vote for them in the General election. I have also voted for them in the past. University is making me more right wing, while everyone around me is moving to the left :)


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 24, 2009, 12:51:57 True lol Quote: from: Tytoalba on October 24, 2009, 11:38:44 Bullshit grows the best Rhubarb. 8-) !clp! !And we can make a lovely Rhuburb crumble and eat it together while crossing "brains" !bgrin!;) :) Yammy!!! :P /8/ !clp! !wav!


	Quote: from: Tytoalba on October 24, 2009, 13:39:37 But that's a bit too hard for our left-leaning institutions to manage, isn't it? They'd rather take refuge in spite and invective, and even though they're directed at someone who almost certainly deserves both, they are no proper, civilised alternative to effective political debate. If there had been an effective political debate, the man would have been shown for the light-weight opportunist he is. But there wasn't, and it's our notion of democracy that suffered. " Pretty accurate summary, I thought. Exactly right IMO. Isnt the fact that the BNP has led to an honest and open discussion on matters of concern to the many, of the very greatest of importance to us all? Their rise in support has come about because of the control of free speech and expression, and we now have a media where we can say what we want to say , in the way we want to say it, freely expressing a strong, if uncomfortable opinion, just by putting a little cross on a ballot paper. All without anyone shouting at us that we are racist, homophobic, zenophobic fascist or politically incorrect. NO they most certainly have not. I would wager that the future employment, wealth and very existence on the international stage is of great importance to everyone. But at the moment everyone is blaming the unstable vision of that on immigrants. So the BNP highlights immigration as the root cause and sole reason why there is a question about the future design of GB. What they DO NOT do is trumpet the rests of their policies...which, like it ir not, come bundled with the populist stuff. That the very seeds of Britian's demise and slow death is within those very policies that noone cares to or takes the time to read. Let alone project forward 50 years. The very essence T of that article is that we do NOT have a fair and unbiased media/press. NG did not express much of anything...least of all given the opportunity to hang himself. I brought my knitting along as I turned on the TV but I was disappointed...it would have been so easy to have cut him up slowly into little pieces simply by asking him to comment on currrent events and what the BNP would do about them. What would he have said about the 2002 immigration act? How would he solve illegal immigration...by definition a covert and difficult issue for any security force to deal with? Does he agree with privatising the Post Office? How would he deal with immigrant or extranationally owned companies as a BNP govt? I don't mean let him get away with propagandist generalities...I mean ASK the PARTICULARS. The questions and Dimbleby himself showed a distressing lack of intelligence in how to go abut achieving their aims. They went instead for historical and personal mudslinging when the task was all to easy anyway. Noone has controlled free speech and expression in this country in at lest the last 100 years...since female suffrage. Noone has prevented anyone from offering an opinion. Unfortunately NG and his crionies come from a background of intimidation and violent demonstration...the closest thing I have seen to the denial of free speech and expression since women's suffrage. Noone has misrepresented the truth as much as the BNP in its website and online magazine...simply by selection of issues aired. Beware...the very suppression of truth and honesty that we all see in our politicians is inherently there too, in their dislike of airing anything other than the issue of immigration. There are other options if it is a protest vote that you want. In a democracy it is incumbent on us all to be aware of what we are voting for...all of it, not the front window. The BNP policies on most things are unrealistic, simplistic, unworkable and unreasonable. They are not connected to the real world but read like a wish list devised by a 15 year old in an essay on the subject "If I Ruled the World". And finally, I have found this whole exercise here to be very interesting. Almost all , except JoG who has sky rocketed IMO, have ignored any conversation about anything of the BNP except their immigration policy. I am happy to be proven wrong in my reading of their policies but at least HE is happy to take it on and look at it. HE is congisant of the fact that the BNP has other policies. Ignoring those policies is like burying your head in the sand...they are extremely dangerous for this country in ways which are not merely subject to national opinion but are subject to the rules and constructions of international finance. And I suggest to you that they are the Road to Ruin. Look ahead, see what is on the horizon which will be the effects of this party's policies. Don't just run madly behind and jump onto the cart...look to see where it is going. Then consider another form of transport.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 13:57:49 Im seriously thinking about voting UKIP. Yeh that's the spirit, fighting back in just and reason not violence!? /8/ !clp! ;) I am so proud of you understand how nuch i care and i love your land sorry our land....Thank you... :) ;D !wav!


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 24, 2009, 14:25:38 Yeh that's the spirit, fighting back in just and reason not violence!? /8/ !clp! ;) I am so proud of you understand how nuch i care and i love your land sorry our land....Thank you... :) ;D !wav! I have been thinking UKIP for some time, the left do not have a real anti-EU party.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 24, 2009, 10:01:06 Well support IS growing for them now. The 30% increase which was dismissed here as just being people looking at their web, is in fact, membership registrations. 22% of people polled said they'd seriously consider voting for the BNP. 240 people complained to the BBC at the unfair treatment that NG recieved. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8323638.stm No comprable poll is their? As most polls do not focus around one party, they give the person being asked a question a choice. The question on this is appears to be, "would you vote BNP?", not "who would you vote for?".


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 14:31:19 I have been thinking UKIP for some time, the left do not have a real anti-EU party. Nobody does really only UKIP IMO is within the parameter that suit me what i want Britain, which to achieve a sort of peace and balance, unity but above all i want our beautiful Britain especially England to be freed by people with a political corrtness ideology which is totallya kind of regime, if you know what i mean.. :-X.


	Http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/23/muslim-reaction-nick-griffin Just thought it might be polite to ask those he loathes what their reaction was...this is, after all, part of free speech and expression...


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 14:33:04 No comprable poll is their? As most polls do not focus around one party, they give the person being asked a question a choice. The question on this is appears to be, "would you vote BNP?", not "who would you vote for?". So what's your point? It's got New Labour worried, that's a result in itself.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 24, 2009, 15:52:48 So what's your point? It's got New Labour worried, that's a result in itself. My point is, the question and context are required before you can make the conclusion the BNP see an increase in support.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 15:56:23 My point is, the question and context are required before you can make the conclusion the BNP see an increase in support. Well, it's a yougov poll so I'm sure it'll be pretty well structured. From the sounds of it they've utilised quantitative and qualitative analysis.


	Quote: from: Nerval on October 24, 2009, 14:12:22 !clp! !And we can make a lovely Rhuburb crumble and eat it together while crossing "brains" !bgrin!;) :) Yammy!!! :P /8/ !clp! !wav! Rhubarb crumble my favourite dessert in fact with custard or ice cream....so nice.


	Quote: : What I seen of it Warisi did very well. Yeah not bad,until she claimed 'there is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker'.! Er sorry,i beg to differ,there are plenty,more bogus than not would say.


	Quote: from: stonefish on October 24, 2009, 16:20:45 Yeah not bad,until she claimed 'there is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker'.! Er sorry,i beg to differ,there are plenty,more bogus than not would say. Indeed...a very retarded comment.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 24, 2009, 16:01:55 Well, it's a yougov poll so I'm sure it'll be pretty well structured. From the sounds of it they've utilised quantitative and qualitative analysis. But as my original point said. Their is no comparable poll, the poll is different of that of opinion polls. The question on this is appears to be, "would you vote BNP?", not "who would you vote for?".


	Quote: : NO they most certainly have not. I would wager that the future employment, wealth and very existence on the international stage is of great importance to everyone. But at the moment everyone is blaming the unstable vision of that on immigrants. So the BNP highlights immigration as the root cause and sole reason why there is a question about the future design of GB. What they DO NOT do is trumpet the rests of their policies...which, like it ir not, come bundled with the populist stuff. That the very seeds of Britian's demise and slow death is within those very policies that noone cares to or takes the time to read. Let alone project forward 50 years. The very essence T of that article is that we do NOT have a fair and unbiased media/press. NG did not express much of anything... Least of all given the opportunity to hang himself. I brought my knitting along as I turned on the TV but I was disappointed...it would have been so easy to have cut him up slowly into little pieces simply by asking him to comment on currrent events and what the BNP would do about them. What would he have said about the 2002 immigration act? How would he solve illegal immigration...by definition a covert and difficult issue for any security force to deal with? Does he agree with privatising the Post Office? How would he deal with immigrant or extranationally owned companies as a BNP govt? I don't mean let him get away with propagandist generalities...I mean ASK the PARTICULARS. The questions and Dimbleby himself showed a distressing lack of intelligence in how to go abut achieving their aims. They went instead for historical and personal mudslinging when the task was all to easy anyway. Noone has controlled free speech and expression in this country in at lest the last 100 years...since female suffrage. Noone has prevented anyone from offering an opinion. Unfortunately NG and his crionies come from a background of intimidation and violent demonstration...the closest thing I have seen to the denial of free speech and expression since women's suffrage. Noone has misrepresented the truth as much as the BNP in its website and online magazine...simply by selection of issues aired. Beware...the very suppression of truth and honesty that we all see in our politicians is inherently there too, in their dislike of airing anything other than the issue of immigration. There are other options if it is a protest vote that you want. In a democracy it is incumbent on us all to be aware of what we are voting for...all of it, not the front window. The BNP policies on most things are unrealistic, simplistic, unworkable and unreasonable. They are not connected to the real world but read like a wish list devised by a 15 year old in an essay on the subject "If I Ruled the World". And finally, I have found this whole exercise here to be very interesting. Almost all , except JoG who has sky rocketed IMO, have ignored any conversation about anything of the BNP except their immigration policy. I am happy to be proven wrong in my reading of their policies but at least HE is happy to take it on and look at it. HE is congisant of the fact that the BNP has other policies. Ignoring those policies is like burying your head in the sand...they are extremely dangerous for this country in ways which are not merely subject to national opinion but are subject to the rules and constructions of international finance. And I suggest to you that they are the Road to Ruin. Look ahead, see what is on the horizon which will be the effects of this party's policies. Don't just run madly behind and jump onto the cart...look to see where it is going. Then consider another form of transport. « Last Edit: Today at 15:23:39 by Sweet Pea » So what are you trying to say? I doubt i will vote BNP,i'm a UKIP voter;however lets get a few things straight.It seems youre blaming him for not passing comments on other plicies,but he was never asked,that's hardly his fault is it. His issues on immigration are valid,he wants a much harder stance and frankly so do most of the UK public. He was pretty bang on with his coments on the muslim faith;he was honest on that ,people dont like to spell or hear the truth sometimes,they dont want to be disliked. I wouldn't underestimate Griffin he is not dumb,tearing him to pieces verbally is not as easy as it might seem


	Quote: from: stonefish on October 24, 2009, 16:29:28 So what are you trying to say? I doubt i will vote BNP,i'm a UKIP voter;however lets get a few things straight.It seems youre blaming him for not passing comments on other plicies,but he was never asked,that's hardly his fault is it. His issues on immigration are valid,he wants a much harder stance and frankly so do most of the UK public. He was pretty bang on with his coments on the muslim faith;he was honest on that ,people dont like to spell or hear the truth sometimes,they dont want to be disliked. I wouldn't underestimate Griffin he is not dumb,tearing him to pieces verbally is not as easy as it might seem I thought I made myself clear...vote BNP and you geet not just what he publicises but all the dark underbelly of their policies as well. ISTM that there are many people who don't know what ELSE he proposes via his party. There is more than one way to be "harder" on immigration. Tossing them back "home" isn't one of them. Making sure the currrent laws are enforced rigidly IS. There is more than one "truth" about Islam as well...in fact there are many "truths" about Islam. As for being dumb...he relies on the ignorance of the general public...that they are happy to see just the superficial image. In that I suppose you could say he is not dumb. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6888062.ece


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 24, 2009, 16:57:25 I thought I made myself clear...vote BNP and you geet not just what he publicises but all the dark underbelly of their policies as well. ISTM that there are many people who don't know what ELSE he proposes via his party. There is more than one way to be "harder" on immigration. Tossing them back "home" isn't one of them. Making sure the currrent laws are enforced rigidly IS. There is more than one "truth" about Islam as well...in fact there are many "truths" about Islam. As for being dumb...he relies on the ignorance of the general public...that they are happy to see just the superficial image. In that I suppose you could say he is not dumb. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6888062.ece A really good post. Well said SP. You shall have some rep!


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 16:29:10 But as my original point said. Their is no comparable poll, the poll is different of that of opinion polls. The question on this is appears to be, "would you vote BNP?", not "who would you vote for?". This doesn't change the fact that 22% of people would "seriously consider" voting for the BNP.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 24, 2009, 17:47:16 This doesn't change the fact that 22% of people would "seriously consider" voting for the BNP. But how can such a thing be attributed to an increase if their is no comparable poll. The figure is likley to be exgarated also for two reasons, the question asked and the context at which the poll was taken.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 18:26:54 But how can such a thing be attributed to an increase if their is no comparable poll. The figure is likley to be exgarated also for two reasons, the question asked and the context at which the poll was taken. Because the BNP have asserted that they have had a 30% increase in membership registrations - this augments the findings of the poll. I'm under the impression that "yougov" polls are constructed in relation to social research principles, and thus in turn creating a positive framework from which to ascertain a credible conclusion.


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 24, 2009, 14:18:08 NO they most certainly have not. I would wager that the future employment, wealth and very existence on the international stage is of great importance to everyone. But at the moment everyone is blaming the unstable vision of that on immigrants. So the BNP highlights immigration as the root cause and sole reason why there is a question about the future design of GB. What they DO NOT do is trumpet the rests of their policies...which, like it ir not, come bundled with the populist stuff. That the very seeds of Britian's demise and slow death is within those very policies that noone cares to or takes the time to read. Let alone project forward 50 years. The very essence T of that article is that we do NOT have a fair and unbiased media/press. NG did not express much of anything...least of all given the opportunity to hang himself. I brought my knitting along as I turned on the TV but I was disappointed...it would have been so easy to have cut him up slowly into little pieces simply by asking him to comment on currrent events and what the BNP would do about them. What would he have said about the 2002 immigration act? How would he solve illegal immigration...by definition a covert and difficult issue for any security force to deal with? Does he agree with privatising the Post Office? How would he deal with immigrant or extranationally owned companies as a BNP govt? I don't mean let him get away with propagandist generalities...I mean ASK the PARTICULARS. The questions and Dimbleby himself showed a distressing lack of intelligence in how to go abut achieving their aims. They went instead for historical and personal mudslinging when the task was all to easy anyway. Noone has controlled free speech and expression in this country in at lest the last 100 years...since female suffrage. Noone has prevented anyone from offering an opinion. Unfortunately NG and his crionies come from a background of intimidation and violent demonstration...the closest thing I have seen to the denial of free speech and expression since women's suffrage. Noone has misrepresented the truth as much as the BNP in its website and online magazine...simply by selection of issues aired. Beware...the very suppression of truth and honesty that we all see in our politicians is inherently there too, in their dislike of airing anything other than the issue of immigration. There are other options if it is a protest vote that you want. In a democracy it is incumbent on us all to be aware of what we are voting for...all of it, not the front window. The BNP policies on most things are unrealistic, simplistic, unworkable and unreasonable. They are not connected to the real world but read like a wish list devised by a 15 year old in an essay on the subject "If I Ruled the World". And finally, I have found this whole exercise here to be very interesting. Almost all , except JoG who has sky rocketed IMO, have ignored any conversation about anything of the BNP except their immigration policy. I am happy to be proven wrong in my reading of their policies but at least HE is happy to take it on and look at it. HE is congisant of the fact that the BNP has other policies. Ignoring those policies is like burying your head in the sand...they are extremely dangerous for this country in ways which are not merely subject to national opinion but are subject to the rules and constructions of international finance. And I suggest to you that they are the Road to Ruin. Look ahead, see what is on the horizon which will be the effects of this party's policies. Don't just run madly behind and jump onto the cart...look to see where it is going. Then consider another form of transport. I think immigration, population explosion and demgraphic and religious change is our greater concerns, even beyond economic growth. The economy can be changed many times , but what is taking place will be permanent, even go well beyond present levels. There has been many a recent admission that immigration policies have been suppressed, and an report today has said it was government policy to make the change, and had little to do with economic need for immigrant workers. I think my comment is accurate, so I disagree with your interpretation, which I see is just an attempt to justify the changes and to defend the failed policies that have taken place, and your refusal to accept that there has been a hidden agenda and supression of free speech. You may still be in a majority of the current opinion, but it looks as if a big chunk has been bitten out of it. Events dear lady, are so unpredictable. Who would have guessed that since only two days ago that the BNP support would jump to 20% in public support.? That is going to cause some late night candle burning in all political party head quarters, and an adjustment of policies.


	Quote: : There is more than one "truth" about Islam as well...in fact there are many "truths" about Islam. Yes and here are a few While i was in Egypt ( moderte muslim country ) 14 men were hanged together for practising homosexuality. Though made illegal by the govt it is still common practice to circumcise young girls. It is not uncommon for men to kill their wives if they suspect them of having being unfaithfull.If it goes to court,minmum sentencing is given Etc etc this is all to do with the uslim religion and practised as i said in a liberal muslim country,sounds good eh


	Quote: : There is more than one way to be "harder" on immigration. Tossing them back "home" isn't one of them If they are illegal why not??? If you're talking about legal immigrants,well no one is saying toss them back;though they shouldn't have been allowed to stay anyway. We just don't need any more people here,any problems we do have can be resolved internally,indeed stopping immigration will help solve some of them on its own


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 24, 2009, 16:57:25 I thought I made myself clear...vote BNP and you geet not just what he publicises but all the dark underbelly of their policies as well. ISTM that there are many people who don't know what ELSE he proposes via his party. There is more than one way to be "harder" on immigration. Tossing them back "home" isn't one of them. Making sure the currrent laws are enforced rigidly IS. There is more than one "truth" about Islam as well...in fact there are many "truths" about Islam. As for being dumb...he relies on the ignorance of the general public...that they are happy to see just the superficial image. In that I suppose you could say he is not dumb. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6888062.ece Ignorance of the General public just because many see it differently to yourself. ? So you think the General public are ignorant, and did that apply to the QT audiance and the demonstrators outside? Isnt that a tad patronising?


	Quote: from: stonefish on October 24, 2009, 18:39:31 Yes and here are a few While i was in Egypt ( moderte muslim country ) 14 men were hanged together for practising homosexuality. Though made illegal by the govt it is still common practice to circumcise young girls. It is not uncommon for men to kill their wives if they suspect them of having being unfaithfull.If it goes to court,minmum sentencing is given Etc etc this is all to do with the uslim religion and practised as i said in a liberal muslim country,sounds good eh Islam is not a humanist religion and does not pretend to be...only liberal minded Islamic apologists try to redirect the glare of scrutiny from the more 'old school' aspects of Islam...possibly with the of best of intentions....ah well.


	Quote: from: Tytoalba on October 24, 2009, 18:39:17 Events dear lady, are so unpredictable. Who would have guessed that since only two days ago that the BNP support would jump to 20% in public support.? It has not though. People said they would seriously considering voting for them, in a poll just about them. The poll, was not "who would you vote for?", it was "would you consider voting for the BNP?", see the difference. So unless their is a poll, which includes the other parties, on a question "who would you vote for?" it is not representative of the voting intentions of the public to put one party in isolation in a poll.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 24, 2009, 18:33:20 Because the BNP have asserted that they have had a 30% increase in membership registrations - this augments the findings of the poll. I'm under the impression that "yougov" polls are constructed in relation to social research principles, and thus in turn creating a positive framework from which to ascertain a credible conclusion. If their is no comparable poll, it is not possible to see if their is an increase in support. If they used a poll "who would you vote for?", then they can compare figures from other polls to note an increase.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 18:57:36 If their is no comparable poll, it is not possible to see if their is an increase in support. If they used a poll "who would you vote for?", then they can compare figures from other polls to note an increase. So, how do you know what the structure of the poll was? You seem certain is was directed soley at the BNP - if you know the exact structure of the poll, please, share it.


	Quote: from: Charles on October 24, 2009, 18:59:55 So, how do you know what the structure of the poll was? You seem certain is was directed soley at the BNP - if you know the exact structure of the poll, please, share it. Well it is not the same as the other ones as other polls you state who you would vote for. This poll's results are based around how serious someone would consider supporting the BNP. So the structure is different to that of a "If their was a general election tommorow, who would you vote for?" poll. As the seriousness of support and not support does not come up in the results of such polls, the results of such polls are Conservative 40%, Labour 30%, Liberal Democrats 20% etc. Polls question appears to be, "would you consider voting for the BNP, if so how serious?"


	Polls question appears to be, "would you consider voting for the BNP, if so how serious?" The same could be said of any party, it's the returns on the night that are important, anything else is assumation, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Rich.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 24, 2009, 19:46:11 Polls question appears to be, "would you consider voting for the BNP, if so how serious?" The same could be said of any party, it's the returns on the night that are important, anything else is assumation, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Rich. Opinion polls which state "Who would you vote for if their was a general election tommorow?", are likely to yeild more accurate results, they do not state any political parties, they do not take into account how serious a person is (as all votes count for one in a constituency). So they present the person answering the question with a choice similar to that of voting.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 19:52:31 Opinion polls which state "Who would you vote for if their was a general election tommorow?", are likely to yeild more accurate results, they do not state any political parties, they do not take into account how serious a person is (as all votes count for one in a constituency). So they present the person answering the question with a choice similar to that of voting. But there is not a general election TOMORROW, and that's the difference, it's like supermarket shopping, what was good last week may well be bettered by something this week, it's called fecklessness, unless of course you have a long, hard, callous memory. Rich.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 24, 2009, 19:57:33 But there is not a general election TOMORROW, and that's the difference, it's like supermarket shopping, what was good last week may well be bettered by something this week, it's called fecklessness, unless of course you have a long, hard, callous memory. Rich. Yes but they present a more accurate indiciation of public opinion and a more accurate indication of voting intention, than questions which are based around one party and support measured in "seriousness".


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 20:04:10 Yes but they present a more accurate indiciation of public opinion and a more accurate indication of voting intention. If I told you I was going to catch a bus at 0800 hrs tomorrow morning, would you bet on it being true? Rich.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 24, 2009, 19:57:33 But there is not a general election TOMORROW, and that's the difference, it's like supermarket shopping, what was good last week may well be bettered by something this week, it's called fecklessness, unless of course you have a long, hard, callous memory. Rich. Yes, and it's how you feel at the time. People may have hated the BNP even more after the Question Time event, or loved them even more. If there was an election tomorrow some people would act on a sort or emotional impulse, like the day I saw a person on a keyboard and then went out and spend £80 on a yamaha keyboard. What a tit am I.


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 14:02:55 University is making me more right wing, while everyone around me is moving to the left :) Seeing life in real terms and up close normally make people lean to the right. Living in a small unit detached from everyday life normally makes people lean to the left


	True. Though I can imagine it being the other way round. Then again I suppose that's why you said 'normally'.


	Quote: from: The Thinker on October 24, 2009, 20:32:06 True. Though I can imagine it being the other way round. Then again I suppose that's why you said 'normally'. Most on my degree are Left-Wing; And most of the British students refer to themselves as "Europeans", not "British" - Twas a truly truly awful day that one.


	Gosh. I may well be on my way to university next year, so I shan't flaunt by political views around all over the place! :)


	The day after the show , when I was at work , we were having a chat about NG comments on homosexuality and one fella said he agreed with NG saying most people are appalled by two men kissing in public and he confirmed that he was too. I asked him if he felt the same way when he saw two women kissing there was a delay then a smile that's different he said. ::) and it was my turn to smile I believe in freedom of speech and found myself at odds with many on the left over whether the BNP should have the right to state their case I think they should. The resulting massacre of NG is no surprise the BBC is part of the establishment the people who don't want things to change that's why we wouldn't see someone from the extreme Left on there either. The parameters of acceptable ( to the establishment ) political debate/opinion are particularly narrow here IMHO and our political choice is even narrower 3 differing factions of the same party the Business Party I think it is that that has contributed most to the rise in support for the BNP.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 24, 2009, 20:06:20 If I told you I was going to catch a bus at 0800 hrs tomorrow morning, would you bet on it being true? Rich. Such a point disproves the validity of all opinion polls :)


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 21:06:27 Such a point disproves the validity of all opinion polls :) Quite so, the definitive word being "opinion" as opposed to actual choice on the day, just because I have an opinion on this forum does not mean that you can gauge anything from it, it may change tomorrow with circumstances. Opinion polls are for pundits only. Rich.


	Quote: from: Rich on October 24, 2009, 21:10:03 Quite so, the definitive word being "opinion" as opposed to actual choice on the day, just because I have an opinion on this forum does not mean that you can gauge anything from it, it may change tomorrow with circumstances. Opinion polls are for pundits only. Rich. I am aware of that, what I was saying was, the opinion poll which is "If their was a general election tommorow who would you vote for?" is likely to be more accurate than "Would you vote for the BNP, if so how serious are you?", as one takes into account all political parties and presents the person answering the question with a choice of other political parties, the other restricts choice of other political parties and does not measure in terms of actually going out and voting, but with an ambigeous term of "serious" which is likely to be subject to many interpreatations.


	Was it worth having Griffin on TV? Eight million tuned in and message boards up and down the country are discussing it, so it was worth it, it seems. He's created a debate and got people tuning into a political channel who normally wouldn't have tuned in. So the next question must be; When are they bringing him back?


	Quote: from: Hermaphrodites on October 24, 2009, 16:07:13 Rhubarb crumble my favourite dessert in fact with custard or ice cream....so nice. That's my Hermaphroditeness in all your essence!?... /8/ ;) ;D :) :-* I m gaining weight just by reading this!! :P


	Quote: from: voice on October 24, 2009, 21:56:59 Was it worth having Griffin on TV? Eight million tuned in and message boards up and down the country are discussing it, so it was worth it, it seems. He's created a debate and got people tuning into a political channel who normally wouldn't have tuned in. So the next question must be; When are they bringing him back? I agree his appearance did indeed get people talking something the main partys IMHO really don't want on such important issues as immigration discussed as the main partys have tried their best to duck the issue IMHO


	Yes, an important subject now out in the open in front of millions. Straw messed up his chance to persuade me that Labour's immigration measures were up to scratch. I think that goes for a lot of people's views.


	Quote: from: Old Git on October 25, 2009, 08:08:32 I agree his appearance did indeed get people talking something the main partys IMHO really don't want on such important issues as immigration discussed as the main partys have tried their best to duck the issue IMHO Exactly. Immigration is very important to the British people (whatever sex, colour or sexuality one is).


	Quote: from: The Thinker on October 25, 2009, 08:45:45 Yes, an important subject now out in the open in front of millions. Straw messed up his chance to persuade me that Labour's immigration measures were up to scratch. I think that goes for a lot of people's views. I think he persuaded everybody that it is in free fall. The man's an idiot.


	Quote: from: voice on October 25, 2009, 10:17:40 Exactly. Immigration is very important to the British people (whatever sex, colour or sexuality one is). That is why Jack Straw said very little on QT he and Blair according to one paper today opened the flood gates to change the face of Britain for ever a deliberate move on their part. Thats if you accept what the Mail has printed today the source of their informaton is a former aide and speech writer to both of them who claims they did just that


	Quote: from: Old Git on October 25, 2009, 10:24:48 That is why Jack Straw said very little on QT he and Blair according to one paper today opened the flood gates to change the face of Britain for ever a deliberate move on their part. Thats if you accept what the Mail has printed today the source of their informaton is a former aide and speech writer to both of them who claims they did just that I thing the Labour party always had an agenda that was secret from the British public.


	Quote: from: voice on October 25, 2009, 10:29:25 I thing the Labour party always had an agenda that was secret from the British public. I'm with you on that one V.


	Quote: from: classylady on October 25, 2009, 10:31:08 I'm with you on that one V. ;)


	Quote: from: ILikeLiberty on October 24, 2009, 19:52:31 Opinion polls which state "Who would you vote for if their was a general election tommorow?", are likely to yeild more accurate results, they do not state any political parties, they do not take into account how serious a person is (as all votes count for one in a constituency). So they present the person answering the question with a choice similar to that of voting. You make a strong case for holding more referendums on a whole range of issues. As our politicians see themselves as delegates, not representatives, they would just hate that, especially if the outcomes goes against their own hidden political agendas There are a few on this board who would hate it as wel,l even those that claim to represent the majority, for they know in their heart of hearts that they could be on the losing side.


	Quote: from: Old Git on October 24, 2009, 20:26:15 Seeing life in real terms and up close normally make people lean to the right. Living in a small unit detached from everyday life normally makes people lean to the left LOL They need to escape from their own comfort zones occasionally. They are unable to relate the smart well dressed polite criminals in the dock with the violent cruel and vicious criminal in the streets.


	Quote: from: The Thinker on October 24, 2009, 20:24:49 Yes, and it's how you feel at the time. People may have hated the BNP even more after the Question Time event, or loved them even more. If there was an election tomorrow some people would act on a sort or emotional impulse, like the day I saw a person on a keyboard and then went out and spend £80 on a yamaha keyboard. What a tit am I. Like the BNP you just need to perservere. :) {Did you not think to pay a bit more for it, for they can play themselves and you just pretend?}


	Quote: from: Tytoalba on October 25, 2009, 11:31:01 LOL They need to escape from their own comfort zones occasionally. They are unable to relate the smart well dressed polite criminals in the dock with the violent cruel and vicious criminal in the streets. Indeed I have met some very evil well dressed attractive charming and wealthy people in my time...I lived with one for four months...bad times...such is the ignorance of youth....what glitters is not always gold.


	Quote: from: Old Git on October 25, 2009, 10:24:48 That is why Jack Straw said very little on QT he and Blair according to one paper today opened the flood gates to change the face of Britain for ever a deliberate move on their part. Thats if you accept what the Mail has printed today the source of their informaton is a former aide and speech writer to both of them who claims they did just that Another of the Marxist Labour parties political agendas.


	I cannot understand why OG does not read the whole article... see how hatred is so easily put about...all it takes is closed minds, closed eyes and a chorus of populist lies.


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 25, 2009, 15:56:27 I cannot understand why OG does not read the whole article... see how hatred is so easily put about...all it takes is closed minds, closed eyes and a chorus of populist lies. ...all it takes is closed minds, closed eyes and a chorus of populist lies. Read New labour for that. Rich.


	Quote: from: voice on October 25, 2009, 10:29:25 I thing the Labour party always had an agenda that was secret from the British public. Absolutely...Do you think their voters realize that? :-\


	Quote: : Absolutely...Do you think their voters realize that? I think enough do to put the Tories in power,unfortunately i'm 90% certain things will be no better with them in charge. We need more options,at least 4/5 parties with a serious chance of winning an election,that should open things up a bit and create a bit more imagination from the knobheads at the top. ( more imagination on how to screw us though i suspect :) )


	We need a party that isnt affraid to upset people, both from other countries and this one. They are all too worried about being, or being seen to be politically correct that they wont actually do anything that this country needs. It needs such a radical change in policy without the influence of others that I just dont think that the main three are able or willing to do it. On a side not I think its funny that I was round a friends house Friday night and a quick question jumped to mind. They could all tell me the leader of the BNP but nobody in the room could tell me the leader of the LIB Dems


	They could all tell me the leader of the BNP but nobody in the room could tell me the leader of the LIB Dems See what publicity does for you! btw...we need a coalition government IMHO, always believed in that but not sure the majority would!


	I think propotional representation would be a good thing. It would remove the "vote chasing" and make them think about the country more rather than not upsetting people incase they dont vote for them!


	Quote: from: classylady on October 26, 2009, 08:02:16 They could all tell me the leader of the BNP but nobody in the room could tell me the leader of the LIB Dems See what publicity does for you! btw...we need a coalition government IMHO, always believed in that but not sure the majority would! Agreed that , A coaltion of honesty , integraty and robust solutions , im sure such people reside in each poiltical party , but with no way to change the current corrupt system we are at a loss. Everything done in the UK is the wrong way , there would be no BNP if our current government gave no grounds for it , anything deemed to be a success of the BNP is really a huge failing of our current elected pillocks , the BNP is just a yardstick for government failings , those responsable for insighting racial hatred are not the BNP but our ruling classes. I do wish people would get over this ANTI BNP stuff , Lets not forget (some dont even know mind) that racism / dislike of immigrants / anti immigration or any other policy championed by the BNP does not start and finnish at the BNP. Sure the BNP are an easy target , having known racists within there ranks marks them out as an easy target everytime for any right minded person, but dont get consumed by the BNP as it does not show the full picture. Whats not as yet calculated of factored in is what people think of this country and why they think it , sure it may well mirror the BNP to a tee in some cases but for many people its about numbers , sustainabillity,jobs,social harmony and a better future for all who work here and pay tax, just without any hint of racism. That a bigger picture felt by so many people today strugling along trying to make ends meet on their own feet .


	I do wish people would get over this ANTI BNP stuff , Lets not forget (some dont even know mind) that racism / dislike of immigrants / anti immigration or any other policy championed by the BNP does not start and finnish at the BNP. Then why are almost to a "T" every member is exactly such a person? That if yoiu are such a person and a political animal, that is where you sign up? aftrer last week you are asking that people forget the BNP??? Your assertion that the current love-in with the BNP is really about jobs etc...,aybe for YOU...but every vote for the BNP by YOUR narrow concerns (relative to whole manifestos) is a vote for the rest of the impossible, destructive policies they hold. YOU are playing with fire...thiunking that somehoe voto9ng bNP is macho or daring or New or a celeb kind of vote. It isn't. It is a vote for economic destruction in this country. You can't vote them in on one issue...the rest are bundled up together and cannot be separated. hHat is why I have suggested other ways of dealing with yoour primary concern of immigration...but as usual, most people don't want to discussus alternatives...merely follow the loudest voice. Take the easiest route..especially if it is a current populaist view...no matter that it hasn't been thought out properly. If you think that the main stream parties have ulterior motives...just think aboutt he oportunities written into the agenda of the BNP,,,so full of holes and as unexplained a wish list as befuddles and impresses those who want a quick fix. The lemmings.


	With all due respect, the lemmings are across the channel and coming here on a daily basis. Rich.


	It is easy to change the context of a post, Rich...and to lay the blame at someone else's door. If I lived in Ethiopia and saw my family starving, or in Afghanistan where I saw my family blown to bits...body parts hanging off the ruins of my home, I would risk everything to get to Europe. As for th eillegals, it isn't right IMO to go for the ones who walk across the sahara desert or over mountains for days...it is the traffikers who need stopping...and they are out of British control. The migrant have been told that London's streets are paved with gold..and habve beeen robbed for the privilege. And finally you can blame the lack of investment in border controls...the ones I would blame last are the migrants.


	Quote: from: stonefish on October 26, 2009, 06:17:23 I think enough do to put the Tories in power,unfortunately i'm 90% certain things will be no better with them in charge. We need more options,at least 4/5 parties with a serious chance of winning an election,that should open things up a bit and create a bit more imagination from the knobheads at the top. ( more imagination on how to screw us though i suspect :) ) UKIP ;) :) !wav!


	Quote: from: Rich on October 25, 2009, 20:33:12 ...all it takes is closed minds, closed eyes and a chorus of populist lies. Read New labour for that. Rich. you know Rich, i do not mind people obviously have an intollerance about "hatred"...BUt when i see that "hatred" is seen only one way around, i really start to worry, because it this kind of people that are dangerous for having such "sterortypes" in mind all wrong!? I just mentions some thing i read rencently on here about the minorities the "only" ones "hated", or the immigrants are the one to be rescued bla bla bla Or what about that one about anyone can speak the language the are more confortable with? ::) Also i am really uncofortable that people use the word "hatred" with no responsabiltiy of what they put out there for people to hear!? :-X How can we work together to build a more stable society if people keep "axing our feet" and have this distubing ideas? It is already hard to fight politicians and the system but sometimes it seems to me impossible to let people see what it is right in front of them, and this really worries me..I wonder how many people are, out there like that? :-\ :-X


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 26, 2009, 10:06:59 It is easy to change the context of a post, Rich...and to lay the blame at someone else's door. If I lived in Ethiopia and saw my family starving, or in Afghanistan where I saw my family blown to bits...body parts hanging off the ruins of my home, I would risk everything to get to Europe. As for th eillegals, it isn't right IMO to go for the ones who walk across the sahara desert or over mountains for days...it is the traffikers who need stopping...and they are out of British control. The migrant have been told that London's streets are paved with gold..and habve beeen robbed for the privilege. And finally you can blame the lack of investment in border controls...the ones I would blame last are the migrants. Now give the other side for those that do not want any more immigrants. I do like a balanced approach and taking the part of the Devils advocate does help to do that.


	Quote: from: Tytoalba on October 26, 2009, 10:59:53 Now give the other side for those that do not want any more immigrants. I do like a balanced approach and taking the part of the Devils advocate does help to do that. ;) :) Well a this point i can say TY to some people to go on mission for "humanitarian aid" ( UN already does it) in Afganistan or Ethiopa (apparently these the only countries visible on their map), keeping put their nose in other people bussiness as Labour has done all along, but i will apppreciate if they do not decide for others or reach wrong conclusions, just do what you can outside Britain the world is big for "good deeds"., because there is a world out there other than Africa and ME or Asia.... /8/ .. PS: Some people TY still think we are the British Empire in the 1700 and need to rescue the colonies!? :-X


	If steps were taken as I suggested, your "people who want immigration stopped" would be more satisfied. The silver bullet is not the answer...a combination of all sorts of national and international things need to be implemented. Rather like the drugs trade...there are intermediaries, poor producers in third world countries who only want to be able to feed their families, and an open market here for the stuff. Throwing out all the drugs in this country is not a pratical answer..as simple and obvious as it sounds. Biorer controls are not tight enough. BOth "problems" need a coordination of responses to deal with the problems they cause.


	The biggest problems in third woeld countries are corrupt govt and overpopulation.Farming practices are causing desertification in many areas.The land simply cannot support the people. Despite years of attempts to encourage use of birth control,it seems this has been largely unsuccessfull,as have alternative farming techniques. While i have sympathy with Ethiopians etc,the fact is droughts happen and will continue to happen.This will incur loss of life and is one of mother natures ways of controlling overpopulation. i really think we need to get away from this idea of preserving human life no matter what the consequences.Sure its a natural thing to do,but we need to take a harder look at this. As D Attenborough says on TV,during his broadcasting career the pop of the world has gone from 3 to 6 BILLION !!!Almost unbelievable,it is forecast to go to 9 BILLION in the next few years.completely unsustainable. tough decisions need to be made. We cannot house all immigrants here,we are full and its not the answer anyway.no one benefits in the end.


	Then why do you not take up my challenge to discuss my proposal for cutting back severely ALL child benefit?


	Fine let's discuss the proposal of cutting back severly ALL child benefits. Bad idea / good idea. And how heavily, bearing in mind our subjective view of what 'heavily' means obviously? The Thinker


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 26, 2009, 14:01:34 Then why do you not take up my challenge to discuss my proposal for cutting back severely ALL child benefit? Because it is a dumb proposal? One of the dumbest I have heard recently actually.... Happy to explain why !bgrin! In easy to understand terms....


	I have a proposal for you sweet pea....give up teaching....you obviously despise children...especially poor children...no worries when the 'revolution' comes... ;) People like you....just fuel my fire.... 8-)


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 26, 2009, 14:01:34 Then why do you not take up my challenge to discuss my proposal for cutting back severely ALL child benefit? If i was a cynic i would say its because you paid into a system (tax) and you never got anything out of it via child benefits. Hey i could be wrong on this but there you go .


	Quote: from: Admiral Arnold Morgan on October 26, 2009, 16:27:48 If i was a cynic i would say its because you paid into a system (tax) and you never got anything out of it via child benefits. Hey i could be wrong on this but there you go . One could say that most are in that same position, including yourself. !dvl!


	All wrong...far too personal. The problem we are trying to solve is overpopulation As agreed by a majority here as being the problem. Too many people are coming to GB and producing children and getting a lot of money for 18 years for each child..possibly far more than they often need. OUr population is also aging and around for far longer than 25 years ago. Who is getting child benefit? Everyone, from London barristers to Newcastle unemployed. That in and of itslef seems nonsense to me. But if you means test it, you are left with the poorest getting paid to have babies...not what you want soince much of the social problems and future workforce wuld come from the porest sections of the community. That is biased policy. So IMO it is necessary to leet everyone below childbeaaring age NOW that in future, there will be a draconian cutback in child benefit after the first baby. The state will support one..after that you are pretty much on your own. Result? A tumble in the number of immigrants cominghere and a tumble in the population over the next 25 years. However, be aware of what that would mean for GDP and pensions...


	Quote: from: Admiral Arnold Morgan on October 26, 2009, 16:27:48 If i was a cynic i would say its because you paid into a system (tax) and you never got anything out of it via child benefits. Hey i could be wrong on this but there you go . Possibly....


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 26, 2009, 16:27:48 However, be aware of what that would mean for GDP and pensions... It would mean: you think pensions are bad now lol? It would also mean SP that poverty and crime would escalate to epidemic levels....nice work /8/ Congrats...you would have single handedly f*cked this nation up and turned it into a complete hell hole.


	Quote: from: Sweet Pea on October 26, 2009, 16:55:50 All wrong...far too personal. Just warming up...I like it when children and poor people are attacked in this way...I feel no guilt.


	Quote: : Then why do you not take up my challenge to discuss my proposal for cutting back severely ALL child benefit? YES !!! I 100% agree SP. I don't have kids because i took the decision there are too many of us already and also decided i didnt' have the finances sufficient to raise one as i would like. As a result of that decision i am still alive,i have my health,nothing horrible happened to me,wow i can live without having a kid.if i can so can a lot of others Its time to take responsibility


	Quote: : Because it is a dumb proposal? One of the dumbest I have heard recently actually.... Happy to explain why In easy to understand terms.... Not dumb at all, indeed anyone with half a brain would see that needs to happen


	Quote: : If i was a cynic i would say its because you paid into a system (tax) and you never got anything out of it via child benefits. Hey i could be wrong on this but there you go . Right,so why the hell should i pay for someone elses snotty nosed little kid exactly???


	Quote: : It would mean: you think pensions are bad now lol? It would also mean SP that poverty and crime would escalate to epidemic levels....nice work Congrats...you would have single handedly f*cked this nation up and turned it into a complete hell hole. Massive assumptions based on a little knowledge.There is more than enough wealth in this country to pay for peoples pensions,it just depends how it is distributed. Many countries are poorer than us yet they manage,how is that i wonder? Why would crime escalate??What to pay for the snotty kids as they cant keep it in their pockets?No problem sterilise the b-


	[

Discussion Title: BNP tonight on QT
Title Keywords: tonight Debate Forum

Omgili Home

About

FAQ

Plugins

Usenet