GrimHams

I don't agree with them, and they actually do incite racial hatred, the BNP doesn't. The BNP doesn't go to muslims countries and try to change their society in a negative way so i don't think they should do the same to us. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realise that peoples opinions change, there is no genuine point to bring up the Holocaust as part of a modern political party, it has no basis on the BNP and as i have said should be left to historians. Don't bring up an old quotation where Nick said on Monday that the BNP does think the Holocaust happened. Also Nick said in the past that he believes there isn't concrete enough proof that the Holocaust happened in the severity thats publisised, not that he denies that the Nazi's killed some jews. I think the Holocaust happened and the current stance by Nick and the BNP is that they don't refute it. Nick was trialed for the "incitement of racial hatred", a law that doesn't apply to the modern BNP's beliefs, and came off innocent in 2006 . . http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm And i can assure you that if there was even a hint that he was infact inciting racial hatred he would have gone down for it. Take Nick to court if you really think hes inciting racial hatred, because it would be profitable for the BNP's cause to prove wrong again. Why don't people like you, instead of trying to take away legitimate political parties like the BNP's speech challenge them and win if you're in the right. The BNP are crying about this? nah, its those who throw their toys out of the pram when people like Nick don't see things in the brainwashed PC way, that the mass media inprint on peoples minds. I don't believe for a second that only the left are against the BNP. If the BNP stayed in the racist past i wouldn't have joined, nor would i support their right to promote racism, but they are no longer racist and it seems the likes of the protestors are angry because Nick's views will make sense to a growing amount of people.

Really? Because, from what I heard, there was only one person that got into trouble with the police that night, and I seem to recall it was a member of the BNP trying to provoke trouble from those "anti fascists" on the way to the pub after the debate. You know what's another beauty of democracy? Everyone is equal. Yes, that includes ethnic minorities and migrant workers. Maybe you should have a look at your own party's stance towards equality before lecturing us on democracy, m'kay? Chortle, i'm not sure where you get the idea that the poor left were being pushed about by the big evil BNP. What i find even more hilarious is that this debate had nothing to do with the BNP's policies, but was made that way by the media and far left idiocy. The antics of the protestors were incredibly "i'm throwing the toys out of my pram because i don't agree with Nick Griffin", and i think a lot of people saw it that way. The thing you are misinterpreting is that the BNP doesn't blame all the immigrants, its the government allowing so many into Britain. If people agree that mass immigration threatens Britain in different ways then the BNP has a stand to make, if other parties refuse to have a proper stand on immigration that will protect me then i see the BNP as an alternative. Protecting indigenous British people is a legitimate policy and its something i'm sure someone who promotes mass immigration and the PC propaganda against white British people will hate. I'm sure they'll sleep soundly at night knowing that they've stood up for the poor immigrants who love Britain and its values so much. Heres a little taster off the Timesonline site in response to this article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 951490.ece

Yes, Nick Griffin was invited to talk about free speech, and the irony is that the apparant "anti fascists" protesting were trying to stop Nick's free speech. I think the BNP came off very well from this with the idiocy of the far left (+ Oxford toffs) making a mockery of themselves. I haven't heard the debate (i believe its on youtube or i could get it somewhere) but i expect many thought Nick would be destroyed in the debate and the evil BNP shown to be what the mass media have decided they are. Unfortunately for them i hear Nick came across very well and put his legitimate views across. (clapping at the end i hear?). Free speech should be allowed to anyone, thats a beauty of democracy and if Nick and the BNP weren't allowed to speak it would cause utter outrage, you may not agree with people but the way to win is to discuss with them their views, unfortunately for the "anti fascists" Nick's views are perfectly reasonable from an increasing amount of British peoples view. I don't believe what those protestors do, that unless you have PC views you're evil and wrong, i'd happily let the far left talk because free speech is what this country needs to gain alternative views in politics etc. I'd also like to make the distinction between the BNP and holocaust deniers, the BNP does not deny the holocaust, Nick used to in a sense but as people progress they change their beliefs. Irving, contrary to popular belief does not deny the holocaust happened, he says that there isn't solid proof that it happened in the severity (6 million dead) as is publicised. I don't agree with Irving and believe that the numbers are irrelivant, wanting genocide against the jews was utterly despicable and the Nazi's should be shown as they were. It shows how scared some fascists are if they want to stop Nick talking because they're so scared his views are going to make sense to people, i think monday was a victory for the BNP and a victory for free speech. People say wherever the BNP goes violence goes? Indeed, by the far left causing problems.

Asylum seekers have no business being in Britain, there are plenty of perfectly good countries for them to go to in order to get away from a violent and oppressive native country. Why should Britain be the first stop for them? Other countries aren't, its because Britain is a soft touch. Funnily enough i was just listening to Nick Griffin's side of this debate on youtube and someone posted this: Keith Vaz claimed we have "the toughest immigration policy that (he) has ever seen." Doubtful. Is he not aware of Australia, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Sweden and Canada? All of those countries feature an immigration policy that requires all people seeking asylum to possess a skill that would benefit them. A manual or professional skill. That's a system the UK ought to adopt. - Even if you don't agree with me that Britain doesn't need immigrants then surely a step in the right direction is to only accept skilled workers, the BNP has stated (i might find if i have time) that they will only accept immigrants that are extremely beneficial to Britain (special cases), otherwise we can work to get our own people back to work instead of getting cheap labour from foreign immigrants. Solving work force problems by getting immigrants to do the jobs saves the big business's money, but this is not in the best interests of the British people. And finally on illegal immigrants they should be rooted out and exported back to their native country, its not much of a debate. Heres an extract from Mr Griffin to people i was previously talking to, its a valid point: Nick Griffin Newsnight 25/5/07 "Racism was a concept invented by Leon Trotsky, a communist mass murderer, to demonise his opponents and stop people talking about certain issues. And that's been taken on by the Labour party and by the BBC and the British people have been cowed, so they feel they can't talk about these things".

Refer to my above post to see my opinion on cultural and racial diversity, black people have a culture and a traditional way of life that is different to that of indigenous British people, pointing this out is apparantly racist.. You need to realise that the BNP is looking to the future of Britain, not the quick fix that the current government relies on to keep the British people happy. I could blurt out some BNP propaganda here but i'm not going to, mainly because you're probably some far left communist without a grasp on reality, or the future that could be reality. I can imagine this forum is packed to the rafters with the far left, who shout racist and bigot to anyone beyond the conventional PC politics. If immigration isn't being addressed i don't trust the current government to do anything about it. The only party who would actually make a difference is the BNP, if you disagree with the politics of the BNP then thats fine, i'm not here to make you agree with me, but openly implying the BNP is racist for looking out for the indigenous people of Britain i think is wrong. The point of this thread in the first place is that the amount of immigrants is going to rise in the next 60 or so years to the point that there will be 90 million people in Britain, much of these will be immigrants. Labour/conservative's all agree with the latest immigration debate that they realise the strain mass immigration will cause Britain, the only difference is that they think we need a large amount of immigrants and the BNP thinks we don't need them at all. Thinking that asylum seekers are here because they have nowhere else to go is frankly naive, there are plenty of safe countries for them to go to but they come here because the current government does nothing to stop them. I believe im justified in saying that I want Britain for British people instead of Britain for any immigrant the government is too scared to show away. Statistics don't tell the story as far as saying the government is harsh on immigration because in reality it isn't. Wanting to stop immigration is not because they're black or any other ethnic group, its about preserving British culture (which i'm forever saying but you notice about 3 words in my entire post) and the kinds of government statistics that back up the idea that mass immigration is detremental for not only Britain's transport systems etc but the cultural diversity of British people as a whole. Take a trip to a part of a city dominated by black people, then tell me that we're exactly the same. Its quite insulting to black people to imply that they are exactly the same as white people, which i'm sure they would agree.

On what factual basis? I sincerely doubt you'll manage to answer that question without slipping straight into the dictionary definition of racism, but go ahead and try. I'd just like to say that "slipping into the dictionary definiton of racism" actually trumps your idea that because you think that because i want to preserve white culture i am automatically racist, but i'll look at it another way. So you're trying to tell me that blacks and whites are exactly the same? Wheres your sense of cultural diversity? i have never said that whites are better than blacks or any other ethnic group, but that we have different values and different traditions, black people stayed in Africa and white people built modern western civilisation, that is a difference. We are from different places so we cannot be compared directly. Black culture and white culture differ would you agree? Therefore we are different, i have no idea why anyone could try to argue that there are no diversity between ethnic groups. And to the person above your little internet "godwinns law" crap has nothing to do with anything. Being a member of the BNP i can expect people to shout 'fascist" and "nazi" and his response told me that he did think i was a Nazi, he said something like "you are one and the same" or something similar.

darkmage099 that previous post wasn't in response to you, this one is. : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... aria19.xml I'm not going to go into a full blown discussion about Islam with you, but 40% is a ridiculously high percentage would you agree? Sharia law is not what (i hope) any of you would agree with being implimented in Britain, and although i understand that there are many muslims who don't want Sharia law i think its beside the point as far as my stance on immigration is concerned. The BNP has no problem with islam in their native countries because its not our problem or our business what they do as long as it doesn't directly affect us. Its much the same as the war in iraq, i dont think the west has the right to march into eastern countries and try to "westernise" it. I have respect for other cultures and the utmost respect for my own, this is being threatened by immigration so i believe the BNP is the only party that properly addresses my concern. (By the way i'm off now, if you respond and think im ignoring you or "running away" then send it by pm.)

Reasoning to why the BNP doesn't support immigration was not fully elaborated because it wasn't an essay on why the BNP doesn't want immigration. Maybe thats the reason. It is not racist because the BNP thinks that every race deserves a homeland, uncontrolled immigration threatens the essence of what it is to be British, the BNP isn't about hating other races, its about preserving the indigenous people of Britain. If thats racist to you then god help us all. Were we asked whether we wanted mass immigration? No we weren't. I'm not sure where you're coming from because labour/conservatives/lib dems all realise that the native british people don't want to be overrun with foreigners, the only difference with that and the BNP stance is how far do we want to stop immigration. If the "hug a hoody" politicians in government stopped trying to please the foreigners and put us british first then we wouldn't be staring down the barrel of forecasts such as the ones this thread was intended to highlight. viii. Do you believe that blacks or other races are inferior? No, we have never claimed any such thing. We simply believe that the different races are different, just as men and women are different, and as such they cannot be directly compared. ix. If you believe that the races are different then you are racists. Not at all. The definition of a racist is someone who hates people of other races. We do not hate anybody. Anyone who says the BNP is racist is either misinformed or a liar. Thats off the BNP london "truth about the BNP" page. If the BNP was still racist, which it was in the past i would not have joined, i think hating an ethnic group is wrong, but wanting Britain to remain ethnically British is right. The culture of Britain is a beautiful thing and mass immigration is killing it, that is my opinion and you're fine to disagree, but accusing me of being racist for that is stupid. Moreover about the BNP in general, I also quote this, again, from your own party's website: Sorry, i'm just editing here: Would you agree that diversity exists between races? Black people are different to white people, to say that white people and black people are exactly the same would be wrong. Although it is argued that all humans started in the same boat but white people have adapted in different ways because we are of the west. Britain is part of our culture and immigrants, not their fault personally i may add, are changing it in a way i don't support (it is actually politicans fault). It is the same principle as saying someone who grows up in a scientists environment is different to that of me, we have evolved in different surroundings and therefore are different. That isn't me thinking whites are better, it is seeing cultural and ethnic differences. xi. Why don't you let blacks and Asians into the BNP? For the same reason the Girl Guides don't allow boys to join. Does that mean they are sexist? Does it mean they hate boys? Of course not, it's just that their aim is to cater for the interests of girls, and similarly the BNP isn't racist, but our purpose is to cater for the interests of the indigenous British population. The indigenous population of Britain is now the only group which is facing systematic, legalised and institutionalised discrimination, harassment and oppression. That's precisely why the British people need the BNP - because we are the one and only organisation that has their interests at heart. There are hundreds of organisations exclusively for blacks or Asians, but only one organisation for the indigenous population - the BNP. The BNP is more than just a political party: it is a civil rights movement for the indigenous British people. I was by no means accusing all of you of have your bnp is racist blinkers on, i've had interesting discussion with baron8000 (i think thats his full name) and i wouldn't for a second think hes ignorant, but the person who likened the BNP to the nazi party is either misinformed or just wrong. You seemed to have rather selective reading skills because what i just found was on the BNP's website.

Go on then, break down the details to prove that the BNP is the same as the Nazi party. If this was carried out by the BNP then you might have a reason to tell me that the BNP is evil and trying to destroy the minds of good people like yourself, the fact is this has nothing to do with the BNP and is simply what the government statistic blokes have to say. Its become disgustingly commonplace to literally ignore anyone or brand them bigots if they even comment on immigration. I said in my post that i didnt make this thread to discuss the BNP but you seem to think with your "horrible little view" that because the government are producing statistics that prove the BNP has a point in this debate it automatically makes it racist. Read the BNP's ACTUAL view on immigration then come back to me, probably best in pm because you seem to have your "bnp is racist" blinkers on and will probably ignore any discussion. You made it perfectly clear that you don't care what the BNP's real stance is on anything because you've made up your opinion already judged on the mass media's bias representation. So you'd rather Britain dissapear into an Islamic republic than have people who want to preserve British culture. Ok. Respond in PM if you'd like to take this further, i don't like to blot the view of any forum with a discussion with someone who will probably refuse to see anything from the other persons view, but theres always sense in trying. :) (Also i'm sure you had an utter spaz at me before for making a joke about scotland in footballing terms, it'll be nice to reacquaint).

Ouch, right in the eye. Its news, i said in my post that i'm not posting it because i'm a member of the BNP, just because i think its valid news that could effect people on the forum. Shielding people from government predictions isn't a good thing. Also with the "bigot" comment, you might as well go the whole way and just call me a nazi. :roll:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... pop125.xml Also Also a small point at the bottom casts fears over education: Britain's schools are being pushed to breaking point by the rising tide of immigrant pupils, according to the National Association of Headteachers. It said that many schools could not cope with the influx, which threatens to change the culture of some schools. Time continue sticking our heads in the sand to stay "PC" and keep the liberals and immigrants in our country happy? or is it time to do something about the threat of immigration to the UK. Ok i'm not going to try to say "you should all join the BNP and agree with me that multi-culturalism doesn't work" but at least try to get the likes of the tories and Labour to give us some concrete plans to stop immigration in such numbers. Some fake proposals to keep the British people happy is not good enough at the moment, and strict measures need to be in place. Lets discuss this and not take it to a "is the BNP evil or not" thanks.

I hardly ever know what i want for christmas or my birthday (considering its coming up on the 5th december), so i generally ask for nothing. I don't need stuff and i hate knowing that friends/family are trying to find me something when i can't even think of anything i want. I suppose for christmas i'll ask for vouchers for stuff or just money, so i can get something i truely want when it takes my fancy. Walking around and finding something i like the look of + just buying it is better for me than getting a bunch of presents i'll hardly use..like my xbox360. :o

As if any of your brides would give you the choice of not having a massive wedding that bankrupts you. :lol: I think most of the guys on this board are underestimating women and their powers..

Personally, if I were old enough, I'd vote for the lesser of two evils. It's highly likely that no matter which PM we get, they'll be a jerk. So, Rudd, I suppose. At least he has more hair on top of his head than he does on his eyebrows. You know, they did that in Germany in the 1930's. :lol:

Because RC pking makes cash, without them the price of nature runes would lower and ironically wouldn't benefit runecrafters.

1. In your opinion, what is truth? Truth is what cannot be refuted, this means not much is truth. 2. Do you believe in God or Allah or Buddha or any other deity or higher force, power, or being? I believe that God is not a physical being but a force of good or evil that judges how people live their lives. Saying that allah definitely doesn't exist in any form is wrong because those who follow god/allah use them in their everyday life and something abstract such as god doesn't have to exist as a thing but as a feeling or a set of emotions that people use to live their life more "holy". 3. Can you give any reasons for why you believe/disbelieve in the above? Even if god doesn't exist in a physical form the belief in him has drastically effected the world, in a way its irrelivant if hes a "real" thing. 4. How would you describe this being etc(the answer to number 2)? (If "yes to 3") As i've said a mental form that changes peoples views on life and their experiences, god is abstract the same way love is, changing lives but not existing as a physical entity. Considering people who don't believe in god will use the bible to say "well that didnt happen", i personally believe the bible should not be taken literally, but as a set of morals that good christians should abide by. I doubt many christians would say that god created the heavens and the earth in 6 days but the stories have a more spiritual meaning over some overly scientific justification.

What is it with people and having absolutely no value for the life of a soldier :| ? They're humans, just like you and me. Maybe it's better to have a soldier die on the battefield than a civilian, considering they're equpped for it... but do you really advocate so whimsically throwing away human lives? I was saying that soldiers are trained and are the ones meant to fight a war, a civilian has no business being anywhere near a battle and if some people are going to die in a war then it should be an army. Its not that i have no value for the life of a soldier because they are more important in a state of war because they will ultimately win or lose, although civilians are useful economically and producing weapons without the army a country would be defensless. Don't put words in my mouth trying to say that i don't care about the deaths of people in the army, i do care but my priorities are for those who have nothing to do with a war. A soldier is meant to go to combat, a civilian is not meant to become a victim of an opposing army. Its a bit confusing that you disagree with my point, then later in the same paragraph sum up exactly what i said. :-s

So then, by your logic it would be justified if Irak started showering the usa with atomic weapons? I woulnt exactly go that far Japan Blatenly Back Stabbed America, No warning or anything, It may be True america invaded Iraw for the wrong reasons, but at least they got a warning I'm sure that warning meant a lot to the Iraqis when they knew you'd defeat them in a war with almost contemptuous ease anyway. Japan attacks a military base, with hardly any civilian deaths, and that justifies the deaths and life-long effects of radiation inflicted on tens of thousands of completely innocent people? It's completely disproprotionate, and hardly a justification. To put it into a less complicated scenario, it's like shooting someone dead for being slapped around the head once. The second bomb was most definitely not justified. Japan was considering surrender - they should have been given time to make their decision, and peace talks made. They were fighting a war of attrition; they simply couldn't have carried on. The only reason America dropped those bombs were to set an example to the Soviets. They took the lives of masses of innocent people to achieve that, and it didn't work either. There is no way, therefore, the bombs can be justified. Utterly agreed, people forget the radiation and utter contempt for human life that the bombings caused. If i were a leader i'd send thousands of trained men to their death over dropping these bombs over Japan. Although the Japanese were fanatical in their support for their leader giving them the chance to conceed after the first bomb (even though it was unjustified) was the humane course of action, continuing to kill people in the most disgusting fashion who had done nothing to America is a cheap shot of massive proportions. And people wonder why everyone hates america. :roll:

I don't support the bombing of civilian areas when a war between two armies is still optional. America should have sent their own men to death rather than dropping bombs on populated towns. America should be ashamed of taking the "easy way out" of an extended war, the fact is they did not maintain any lengths of the devistation that other countries had and to do what they did was barbaric. I think dropping bombs on a naval base is justified in the state or war, but deliberately going out to kill innocent civilians cannot be justified even if it does save an armies life. There is a difference between a man who is trained to be in an army and a civilian, judging them as one and the same is an act of extreme evil.

Not England certainly. We need a manager who knows what hes doing, one whos tactically sound and can get the best out of his players. Mclaren is a donkey and has never been good enough to lead a leading country in world football. Hes a disgrace to England and a disgrace to football, should be sacked on the spot and get a proper manager in. Hmm i think shearer would cope pretty well tbh Does Shearer even have any managerial badges? We need someone like Capello, Lippi or Mourinho who know exactly what they're doing and can turn england into a tactically astute side. At the moment the side is picked too much on the "star" factor with players like gerrard and lampard consistently playing poorly but getting in the side. The teamwork is abysmal, they play like a group of strangers and mclaren can't even make them run themselves into the ground for their country. Shearer would be a good assistant or in the setup but isn't ready for such a massive job IMO. We need someone who isn't scared to drop a few and play the youngsters who deserve to be in the side. I feel like im talking similarly to how i thought about Jol losing his job at spurs, i'm happy with Ramos because hes tactically what spurs needed, its the same with england.

I'm sorry but I feel a need to question you here. What exactly could either Brown or Darling have done to ensure this didn't happen? Likewise, they appoint people, who are payed bucket-loads of money, to ensure this doesn't happen. As for "answering" to the problems, he's ordered an investigation into why this was allowed to happen. We'll await the results of that report and see what action he takes before jumping to hasty conclusions. Are you seriously suggesting Brown's job is to keep an eye on every single person (and there are thousands) who work in an office related to government? The Tories won't profit from this either. All this will do in undermine the already fragile confidence the public have in our political system. I'm amazed you, as a BNP supporter, don't realise that the only people who take advantage from this politically are radical parties such as yourself. The country is going to see this as a blunder that will ultimately affect Browns position as prime minister. What im trying to say is not in some official way Brown is at fault because he personally didn't do anything wrong, but the effects of the people in his party will be largely whether he is seen as a credible prime minister. If the people are going to blame someone for this they won't look at some random person in the labour party, they'll look at Brown because he is the face of Labour. Its a bit naive to think people aren't going to look at Brown for this, mess ups like this will show in opinion polls and hopefully in future elections.

Not England certainly. We need a manager who knows what hes doing, one whos tactically sound and can get the best out of his players. Mclaren is a donkey and has never been good enough to lead a leading country in world football. Hes a disgrace to England and a disgrace to football, should be sacked on the spot and get a proper manager in.

Brown is responsible for these kind of mess ups as far as who are the people meant to blame. Hes the prime minister for a reason, and he has to answer to problems his members create. Utter incompetence. Old Paxman hinted that this could be an example of what turns the people further against Brown and the Conservatives may profit if they capitalise.

The more patriotic than democratic chitchat aside, as an apparently succesful result of the swedish public schooling system's goal of creating democratic citizens, it is is my sincere conviction that the "right" to vote is also a responsibility for every citizen in any nation that wishes to remain democratic. When enough people lean back and just let it slide because their "votes won't matter anyway", that's when a democratic system turns towards collapse into autocracy. I mean seriously, it's not like not voting at all is going to matter more than actually voting no matter how you look at it. Okay, maybe it might in the longrun, but not in a good way... Yes, its your duty to vote, the good people of Britain died so i could have the right to vote instead of a dicatorship. Not voting implies you don't care about the country you live in and if you don't vote you're (in an official sense) saying "i don't care if *insert fascist/communist party*" gets into power. A vote even if its not in favour of a party but simply against one you don't agree with is better than leaving the job to other people. I wouldn't give up my right to vote because it would feel as if i'm leaving the door open to any idiots to get into power. That doesn't make much sense because if you voted bnp the so called "idiots" would still go into power no? Yes, but if everyone who didn't want the likes of PR Dave in power didnt vote he would get into power. People have to think collectively instead of "1 vote in millions makes no difference". Thinking in that mindset spits on democracy.

The more patriotic than democratic chitchat aside, as an apparently succesful result of the swedish public schooling system's goal of creating democratic citizens, it is is my sincere conviction that the "right" to vote is also a responsibility for every citizen in any nation that wishes to remain democratic. When enough people lean back and just let it slide because their "votes won't matter anyway", that's when a democratic system turns towards collapse into autocracy. I mean seriously, it's not like not voting at all is going to matter more than actually voting no matter how you look at it. Okay, maybe it might in the longrun, but not in a good way... Yes, its your duty to vote, the good people of Britain died so i could have the right to vote instead of a dicatorship. Not voting implies you don't care about the country you live in and if you don't vote you're (in an official sense) saying "i don't care if *insert fascist/communist party*" gets into power. A vote even if its not in favour of a party but simply against one you don't agree with is better than leaving the job to other people. I wouldn't give up my right to vote because it would feel as if i'm leaving the door open to any idiots to get into power.