So yesterday I came home from work to find, polluting my doorstep, a leaflet from the BNP regarding the upcoming European elections. Initially my urge was to tear up the leaflet and stick it in the bin, however I've decided instead to send it back to them. I'm just not sure in what manner I should do so.
I'm thinking about tying it to a brick and posting it back without a stamp so the buggers have to pay to get their own leaflet back. It also occurred to me to use it as a substitute for toilet paper first but its made of rather shinny sharp paper so may end up doing some damage.
Any other suggestions? I need to get it out of my Flat asap as its presence is making me feel dirty.
Put it in an envelope with other junk mail and send it back. In the US, the utility companies tend to put assorted ads and fliers in with your bill - I have a friend who mails the ads back to them with his check (or cheque for you Brits).
Well then,stuff friggin posting it to them(I'm guessing from the brick you weren't gina any way).Chuck a brick through their local office window,right on it,"Stuff you,you morons!"
Deff Dread red Edition wrote:Well then,stuff friggin posting it to them(I'm guessing from the brick you weren't gina any way).Chuck a brick through their local office window,right on it,"Stuff you,you morons!"
That's not a stones throw (no pun intended) away from, 'if you can't beat them, join them.'
Deff Dread red Edition wrote:Well then,stuff friggin posting it to them(I'm guessing from the brick you weren't gina any way).Chuck a brick through their local office window,right on it,"Stuff you,you morons!"
Yes because nothing so demorlizes a party complaining about being oppressed like a brick through the window.
Hundreds. There are three main ones; New Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, that share pretty much all the seats in parliament. The EU elections that are coming up work by a different system that means minor parties have far more of a chance of gaining seats, a fact parties as diverse as the Green Party and UKIP (the UK Independence Party) have taken advantage of.
Deff Dread red Edition wrote:How many political partys are there in the UK.
There are the three main ones listed above, in all honesty it's always been a toss up between Labour or the Conservatives, but the Lib Dems have made a fair few gains of late and I don't think it will be too long until they possibily become the deal breakers in a coalition Govt. In the UK.
Essentially though if you're not in or allied with a major party then you don't really count in the overall scheme of things. This may of course change at the next election.
LuciusAR wrote:So yesterday I came home from work to find, polluting my doorstep, a leaflet from the BNP regarding the upcoming European elections. Initially my urge was to tear up the leaflet and stick it in the bin, however I've decided instead to send it back to them. I'm just not sure in what manner I should do so.
I'm thinking about tying it to a brick and posting it back without a stamp so the buggers have to pay to get their own leaflet back. It also occurred to me to use it as a substitute for toilet paper first but its made of rather shinny sharp paper so may end up doing some damage.
Any other suggestions? I need to get it out of my Flat asap as its presence is making me feel dirty.
Vote against them. It isn't hatemail, because I doubt that it was directed personally at you. I get exposed to a lot of opinions that I don't agree with but I don't consider it hateful, I just disagree with it.
From what I've read, the BNP being racist depends on how you define racist. I doubt they are motivated by hate as much as fear and frustration. Like most people, they want pretty much the same thing, they just want to go about it in a manner which you or I might not agree with.
Greebynog wrote:I think wanting every non-white person out of the country's pretty racist...
Depends on your point of view. Now, keep in mind I'm taking the devils advocate here, but are they saying non white or immigrant populations? Also some people just want to live amongst people who are like them. I have people I don't like, but unfortunately I can't characterize them as a racial group but only as individuals I don't particularly like. Anyhow, there are racists in this world, big deal. Why waste so much energy worrying about it?
From what I've read, the BNP being racist depends on how you define racist. I doubt they are motivated by hate as much as fear and frustration. Like most people, they want pretty much the same thing, they just want to go about it in a manner which you or I might not agree with.
They're a legitimate organization made up of racist idiots. It's the nice face of some pretty bad feelings, and it's not a particularly nice face. They have some reasonable ideas, and some very unreasonable ones but the underlining ideals behind their ideas are almost all illogical and racist.
From what I've read, the BNP being racist depends on how you define racist. I doubt they are motivated by hate as much as fear and frustration. Like most people, they want pretty much the same thing, they just want to go about it in a manner which you or I might not agree with.
They're a legitimate organization made up of racist idiots. It's the nice face of some pretty bad feelings, and it's not a particularly nice face. They have some reasonable ideas, and some very unreasonable ones but the underlining ideals behind their ideas are almost all illogical and racist.
It's basically the british whites party.
They are widely considered a racial separatist party. Still, the best solution is to vote against them if you don't like it. If you do nasty things you're just going to justify their view of being persecuted, and the way you deal with being persecuted is separatism. I don't understand why people get so riled at that sort of thing.
I agree with you Grignard that two wrongs don't make a right. I have protested peacefully against the BNP, and will be voting against them. They want all non-whites out of the country, even those born here. To me that is the very meaning of racist.
From what I've read, the BNP being racist depends on how you define racist. I doubt they are motivated by hate as much as fear and frustration. Like most people, they want pretty much the same thing, they just want to go about it in a manner which you or I might not agree with.
They're a legitimate organization made up of racist idiots. It's the nice face of some pretty bad feelings, and it's not a particularly nice face. They have some reasonable ideas, and some very unreasonable ones but the underlining ideals behind their ideas are almost all illogical and racist.
It's basically the british whites party.
They are widely considered a racial separatist party. Still, the best solution is to vote against them if you don't like it. If you do nasty things you're just going to justify their view of being persecuted, and the way you deal with being persecuted is separatism. I don't understand why people get so riled at that sort of thing.
From what I've read, the BNP being racist depends on how you define racist. I doubt they are motivated by hate as much as fear and frustration. Like most people, they want pretty much the same thing, they just want to go about it in a manner which you or I might not agree with.
They're a legitimate organization made up of racist idiots. It's the nice face of some pretty bad feelings, and it's not a particularly nice face. They have some reasonable ideas, and some very unreasonable ones but the underlining ideals behind their ideas are almost all illogical and racist.
It's basically the british whites party.
They are widely considered a racial separatist party. Still, the best solution is to vote against them if you don't like it. If you do nasty things you're just going to justify their view of being persecuted, and the way you deal with being persecuted is separatism. I don't understand why people get so riled at that sort of thing.
I think ill go ahead and piss you off even more by backing them Why? simply because i can.
I wont go into too much detail as it tends to de-rail threads.
JD21290 wrote:I think ill go ahead and piss you off even more by backing them Why? simply because i can.
I wont go into too much detail as it tends to de-rail threads.
This thread is about the BNP, I can't think of a better place for it. Really JD, voting for the BNP 'because you can' is ridiculous.
JD21290 wrote:I think ill go ahead and piss you off even more by backing them Why? simply because i can.
I wont go into too much detail as it tends to de-rail threads.
This thread is about the BNP, I can't think of a better place for it. Really JD, voting for the BNP 'because you can' is ridiculous.
I don't know, that was the primary reason I voted the way I did when I was in grad school. I liked to poke at people to see what would happen. I still do to some extent.
Fair point there greeby.
They do have alot of good ideas, granted some may be rather extreme, but lets face it, the UK is fethed at the moment and its only getting worse, might aswell welcome them in here as a do or die plan
Considering the BNP are the most homophobic, racist, anti-semitic political party in existence in the UK, I think I'd rather vote Labour than them. And considering how much I despise New Labour, that's really saying something.
JD21290 wrote:Fair point there greeby.
They do have alot of good ideas, granted some may be rather extreme, but lets face it, the UK is fethed at the moment and its only getting worse, might aswell welcome them in here as a do or die plan
Edit: missed out 2 words.
Why not? It worked when the German Workers party overthrew the Weimar Republic.
Remember that? Some new guys with some racist and incredibly extreme views rose up during a period of economic failure? How well did that one go again?
Anyhow, there are racists in this world, big deal. Why waste so much energy worrying about it?
Pick any one of History's many Ethic cleansing or genocides. I pick the USA's native Americans. Not only do they have the heart beaking trail of tears but Jefferson takes some cheap shot at them in the decleration of Independence
JD21290@ England has survived the full brunt of Hitler, horrible plagues, Tyrant like Kings, and a host of other things, they owned a good chunk of the world at one point. I'm sure they can handle a lil downturn.
And another thing. There are many reasons to do something, but simply because you can is never a good thing. First it shows a complete lack of understading consequences for your actions, what innocents might be harmed and so forth. What raises humans above other animals is their reasoning. Don't something that can have so much impact for no reason other than "I can" is a mark of a spoiled kid or a sure sign of Imaturity (Not saying you are any of those). A grown man or woman knows that something as important as a vote has long reaching world wide effects. How would the world react to this party? How would your Allies respond when their citizens come back with stories of opression. What about the fodder it give the terrorists. Nature has gifted you with the worlds most complex brain.
sexiest_hero wrote:Nature has gifted you with the worlds most complex brain.
Also the most complex arrangement of matter in the known universe. Which kind of makes it even sadder that groups like the BNP don't just die with the passage of time.
Cheese Elemental wrote:So are they self-confessed Holocaust deniers and Hitler lovers?
Yep, I posted a load of quotes from them on here about a week ago I think, but yes, they deny the holocaust, support an all-white Britain and think Hitler had the right idea. I fear if I type my opinion of them on here the Dakka expletive filter will explode.
If it's gone through the postal system, a simple NOTA-RTS* and pop it back into the local system takes care of the issue (at least around here.) - of course, this is provided it's actually addressed to someone, rather than "the occupant", or just slipped into your mailbox.
[*Not At This Address - Return To Sender]
My favourite one though was Greens propaganda.
For a group dedicating itself to "eco friendly" they sure use a lot of dead-tree. I plan to collect up a batch, shred it and send it back to them in a black plastic mailing bag, with the slogan "practice what you preach".
Cheese Elemental wrote:So are they self-confessed Holocaust deniers and Hitler lovers?
Oh yes indeedy, Check out this clip. its about 12 years old but this guy is still the leader of the BNP. If you honestly think these guys are worth voting for, even as a protest vote, I feel sorry for you. I'd rather spoilt my vote or give it to the 'Stood at the back dressed stupidly and looking stupid party' than this shower.
Even worse is the corruption of the young people like the young man with the shaved head chanting BNP.It makes me mad as skinheads did not start out as racist group but sort of a counter culture to Mods.They acted and dressed like their working class parents and had their own music style called "oi" .The groups like the BNP convinced them that immigrants had stolen their working class jobs and thats when they started beating people of other ethnic and racial back rounds.
JD21290 wrote:I think ill go ahead and piss you off even more by backing them Why? simply because i can.
I wont go into too much detail as it tends to de-rail threads.
Anyone who backs the Facist in the UK defiles and undermines the names of the millions who died opposing or at the hands of facists in World War 2, the BNP are simply Mosley's brownshirts reincarnated. Many of my family died battling that ideology of hate, my grandfather lost 6 brothers fighting the Nazi.
I was, back in the day, a member of the ANL and whilst that pales besides what has gone before to combat the breeders of hatred in this nation, I was proud to be part of several very unpeaceful protests against the BNP and Combat 18 during their marches through London.
You are worth more than this, you are not a facist.
@ the OP: There is a club i work at in Manchester where we have laminated a couple of the BNP flyers, then glued them to the bottom of the club toilets. This gives people an excellent opportunity to express their sentiments towards said party on a regular basis.
I heard a discussion on the radio between a priest and a high up BNP rep, if I remember rightly it was just after a policeman was sacked for being a BNP member. (this isn't word for word, just the general gist of the conversation)
BNP; He shouldn't have been sacked, anyone from any class could be in the BNP. Even as a priest, you could be in the BNP.
Priest; No, I'm black.
BNP; Oh. (falters)
If you're interested you can read his speech here.... might want an exprresso or two if you do though.
in summary
Williams said he was not endorsing the harsh punishments meted out in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, where murderers and drug traffickers are publicly beheaded or hanged.
"Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states, the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women," he said.
Any use of sharia in Britain should not take precedence over "the rights that are guaranteed to ... citizens in general".Muslims should have a choice in legal disputes over marriage and financial matters, Williams said.
"There are ways of looking at marital dispute, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: No, not least as he didn't quite say that.
..well, upon reflection he sort of did but it's been taken out of context.
Williams is a strange old bird though, very polite and amiable in person.
..really ? How odd. I don't really see it being any different than allowing Jewish/Hindu/whatever marriage services etc. It's not like it's being forced upon us heathens.
I really don't think that's going to happen anytime soon..... there's enough complaints when they put the price of a pint up let alone if they tried to ban it altogether.
sexiest_hero wrote:
Nature has gifted you with the worlds most complex brain.
So says my shrink but not for reasons that have to do with critical thinking
sexiest_hero wrote:
And another thing. There are many reasons to do something, but simply because you can is never a good thing.
Sure it is. I think it is good to rattle fashionably liberal, upper middle class kids who think they're making a real difference in the world who apparently really know all about the struggles of the disenfranchised in America.
sexiest_hero wrote:
First it shows a complete lack of understading consequences for your actions, what innocents might be harmed and so forth. What raises humans above other animals is their reasoning. Don't something that can have so much impact for no reason other than "I can" is a mark of a spoiled kid or a sure sign of Imaturity (Not saying you are any of those). A grown man or woman knows that something as important as a vote has long reaching world wide effects. How would the world react to this party? How would your Allies respond when their citizens come back with stories of opression.
Nah, it is a sure sign of almost two decades of cynicism.
We all know that one person pulling that voting lever ( button, etc) is pulling the lever that moves the world. Yep.
reds8n wrote: I really don't think that's going to happen anytime soon..... there's enough complaints when they put the price of a pint up let alone if they tried to ban it altogether.
Step 1. the British lose their beer.
Step 2. The heads of the members of Parliament end up on pikes.
I think i have just figured out how to mobilize the public for war, say the enemy is going take their beer away.
Anyone with 3 Braincells is not a member, Police are banned from being a member, oh, and apparently they don't like it when member lists are leaked online (hmmm I wonder why?)
Anyone with 3 Braincells is not a member, Police are banned from being a member, oh, and apparently they don't like it when member lists are leaked online (hmmm I wonder why?)
I don't think someone's political interests should cost them a job, no matter how distasteful or hateful you find it. It is just like membership in a communist party will disqualify you from certain US government jobs, still.
Anyone with 3 Braincells is not a member, Police are banned from being a member, oh, and apparently they don't like it when member lists are leaked online (hmmm I wonder why?)
I don't think someone's political interests should cost them a job, no matter how distasteful or hateful you find it. It is just like membership in a communist party will disqualify you from certain US government jobs, still.
"Hi there Mr Muslim/Asian/Polish, I am a Policeman who Is a Member of the British National party. I, as a rule, hate Muslims, Asians, Poles or anyone else who isn't White and British. Oh look, you are looking at me funny! You're arrested! Resting Arrest? POLICE BRUTALITY YAY!"
Or are you saying that Members of Such radical and Racist groups should be allowed to Staff out (supposedly) Impartial Police and Armed Force?
No one cares if your a Jew or Muslim or Catholic or whatever, so Long as you are not a Nazi or go around Stoning People for working on the Sabbath, you wont have a Problem.
Or are you saying that Members of Such radical and Racist groups should be allowed to Staff out (supposedly) Impartial Police and Armed Force?
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Their personal beliefs should have no bearing on their employment. I have no doubt that the guards transporting, say, Tim McVeigh, would have liked to take out their service weapon and put some lead in him. They didn't, however, because they had a job to do. Please note that I'm not trying to draw a moral comparison here, but rather point out that personal beliefs don't necessarily reflect how someone does a job.
But when you have the Public Second Guessing every single thing the Police does (as we Did with the Stephen Lawrance Case all those years back) the Police forces themselves decided that they needed some sort of safeguard, so they banned people from being a part of these racist groups. You don't like it? Don't be a Police officer, there are millions of other jobs who will let you be, just not this one.
Gwar! wrote:But when you have the Public Second Guessing every single thing the Police does (as we Did with the Stephen Lawrance Case all those years back) the Police forces themselves decided that they needed some sort of safeguard, so they banned people from being a part of these racist groups. You don't like it? Don't be a Police officer, there are millions of other jobs who will let you be, just not this one.
Devil's advocate here, but you're really saying Britain shouldn't have freedom of speech and association then?
There is a difference between freedom of speech and association and freedom to do or believe whatever you like and still be in a particular job.
The Police are supposed to uphold the law equally no matter the colour of your skin. I don't see how juries would accept that BNP party members would be capable of doing that.
It would be simple for the defence to destroy a lot of criminal cases against minorities by the simple means of showing that the arresting officer was a BNP member.
Kilkrazy wrote:There is a difference between freedom of speech and association and freedom to do or believe whatever you like and still be in a particular job.
The Police are supposed to uphold the law equally no matter the colour of your skin. I don't see how juries would accept that BNP party members would be capable of doing that.
It would be simple for the defence to destroy a lot of criminal cases against minorities by the simple means of showing that the arresting officer was a BNP member.
Meh, whatever. I think that exclusionary things like that just make them feel justified in their position.
So If your arresting officer was Black and was a Member of a Black Supremacy Group, you wouldn't bring that up in your court case? (assuming you are white of course, I don't know you. You Could be a Galgameckian for all I freaking know)
Yeah, Right.
The fact is, in order for Police to function at all, they must remain impartial. Being a member of the BNP or some Radical Religious Sect damages that. That's why you don't get the situations here like you do in America of Cops Kicking already Submitted Suspects in the fact because they are Latino, or officers Beating Black Drivers when they fail to stop, being witnessed by OTHER officers, and not being reported for over a year.
Things like that no Longer happen in the UK because of these Laws and Restrictions.
Gwar! wrote:So If your arresting officer was Black and was a Member of a Black Supremacy Group, you wouldn't bring that up in your court case? (assuming you are white of course, I don't know you. You Could be a Galgameckian for all I freaking know)
Yeah, Right.
The fact is, in order for Police to function at all, they must remain impartial. Being a member of the BNP or some Radical Religious Sect damages that. That's why you don't get the situations here like you do in America of Cops Kicking already Submitted Suspects in the fact because they are Latino, or officers Beating Black Drivers when they fail to stop, being witnessed by OTHER officers, and not being reported for over a year.
Things like that no Longer happen in the UK because of these Laws and Restrictions.
So by that reasoning we should forbid anyone who believes strongly in a particular religion from being on the police force, because you assume that they'll abuse their position when confronted by someone of a different religion? What about atheists?
I don't understand how you can assert that the sort of events you describe happen in the United States but never in your country, or even if that were the case, that you can draw a causual relationship between "these Laws and Restrictions" and incidents of misconduct.
Gwar! wrote:So If your arresting officer was Black and was a Member of a Black Supremacy Group, you wouldn't bring that up in your court case? (assuming you are white of course, I don't know you. You Could be a Galgameckian for all I freaking know)
Yeah, Right.
The fact is, in order for Police to function at all, they must remain impartial. Being a member of the BNP or some Radical Religious Sect damages that. That's why you don't get the situations here like you do in America of Cops Kicking already Submitted Suspects in the fact because they are Latino, or officers Beating Black Drivers when they fail to stop, being witnessed by OTHER officers, and not being reported for over a year.
Things like that no Longer happen in the UK because of these Laws and Restrictions.
So by that reasoning we should forbid anyone who believes strongly in a particular religion from being on the police force, because you assume that they'll abuse their position when confronted by someone of a different religion? What about atheists?
I don't understand how you can assert that the sort of events you describe happen in the United States but never in your country, or even if that were the case, that you can draw a causual relationship between "these Laws and Restrictions" and incidents of misconduct.
I never intended to say they "never" happen, but I can see a good 2 or 3 Police abuse news stories coming from america recently, yet I see none from the UK in years.
Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.
Lol.
Firstly: There are Multiple Networks, and 90% of the Population has access to Sky and the Like, so they have Many, many news Channels.
Secondly: The BBC is government funded, but they have no say as to what they do or don't do. The FCC is far more restrictive in your country about what private Networks do.
Thirdly: Internets
Gwar! wrote:So If your arresting officer was Black and was a Member of a Black Supremacy Group, you wouldn't bring that up in your court case? (assuming you are white of course, I don't know you. You Could be a Galgameckian for all I freaking know)
Yeah, Right.
The fact is, in order for Police to function at all, they must remain impartial. Being a member of the BNP or some Radical Religious Sect damages that. That's why you don't get the situations here like you do in America of Cops Kicking already Submitted Suspects in the fact because they are Latino, or officers Beating Black Drivers when they fail to stop, being witnessed by OTHER officers, and not being reported for over a year.
Things like that no Longer happen in the UK because of these Laws and Restrictions.
So by that reasoning we should forbid anyone who believes strongly in a particular religion from being on the police force, because you assume that they'll abuse their position when confronted by someone of a different religion? What about atheists?
I don't understand how you can assert that the sort of events you describe happen in the United States but never in your country, or even if that were the case, that you can draw a causual relationship between "these Laws and Restrictions" and incidents of misconduct.
I never intended to say they "never" happen, but I can see a good 2 or 3 Police abuse news stories coming from america recently, yet I see none from the UK in years.
I don't really keep up with the news, but are you sure you're not seeing the stories you want to see, and perhaps not looking out for those that you do not? Even if this is true, it does not address my original point. Also, again assuming what you're saying is accurate, I don't think you've established a causual link between these two things. You're looking at fewer cases of misuse of police powers, and making the assumption that is because they don't allow BNP members to be officers. You're going to have to prove that there is a link there before you can convince me that is a good policy. Otherwise this sounds like a nationalistic jab at the US, and nothing more.
Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.
Lol.
Firstly: There are Multiple Networks, and 90% of the Population has access to Sky and the Like, so they have Many, many news Channels.
Secondly: The BBC is government funded, but they have no say as to what they do or don't do. The FCC is far more restrictive in your country about what private Networks do.
Thirdly: Internets
If you fund something you control something. first rule of the politician.
Sky? You have a network named Sky? Who do they compete with, Dirt?
Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.
Lol.
Firstly: There are Multiple Networks, and 90% of the Population has access to Sky and the Like, so they have Many, many news Channels.
Secondly: The BBC is government funded, but they have no say as to what they do or don't do. The FCC is far more restrictive in your country about what private Networks do.
Thirdly: Internets
If you fund something you control something. first rule of the politician.
Sky? You have a network named Sky? Who do they compete with, Dirt?
I have to agree with Fraz here. If someone has something you want, and they provide it or provide the funds for it, there is a power inequity there. It doesn't matter how much someone says otherwise, there is always a potential for control when someone funds something.
Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.
Nope.
Firstly we have many channels other than the BBC.
Secondly the BBC is NOT funded by the Govt. but by the TV license that you pay for in the UK.
It is separate and not controlled by the Govt anymore than, say, the Judiciary. Of course the Govt. can, and do, make life awkward for the BBC, but they're no puppet masters telling them what to say and do.
The BBC has a long and established record of independence, to the extent that it's news broadcasts and webpages are even cited as a reference by many foreign Govts. as to being trustworthy and should be used as a safe and neutral POV.
Sky is part of News International and so is controlled by Murdoch. You know, the guy who owns Fox, the channel so beloved by rightwingers and generally viewed as a source of great amusement by those outside of the USA. Or those capable of independent thinking.
As to the other issues....
.... well.. I doubt there's much difference between the levels of racism between the two nations. As the BNP ban... well, all it does is prevent membership of the organisation, not the holding of views in agreement with said parties stupid policies.
Who collects the TV license fees? Who enforces the fees? Who appoints executive management? Who guards the guards?
Face it your BBC is no more free than Pravda (ducks under asbestos cover in back of bunker).
This is fun...tee hee.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.
Nope.
Firstly we have many channels other than the BBC.
Secondly the BBC is NOT funded by the Govt. but by the TV license that you pay for in the UK.
It is separate and not controlled by the Govt anymore than, say, the Judiciary. Of course the Govt. can, and do, make life awkward for the BBC, but they're no puppet masters telling them what to say and do.
The BBC has a long and established record of independence, to the extent that it's news broadcasts and webpages are even cited as a reference by many foreign Govts. as to being trustworthy and should be used as a safe and neutral POV.
Sky is part of News International and so is controlled by Murdoch. You know, the guy who owns Fox, the channel so beloved by rightwingers and generally viewed as a source of great amusement by those outside of the USA. Or those capable of independent thinking.
As to the other issues....
.... well.. I doubt there's much difference between the levels of racism between the two nations. As the BNP ban... well, all it does is prevent membership of the organisation, not the holding of views in agreement with said parties stupid policies.
Whats to keep the party in power from saying members of their primary competition cannot be in the police then?
Frazzled wrote:Whats to keep the party in power from saying members of their primary competition cannot be in the police then?
Lol. because the Public Wont let it happen. You see, we English don't give a rats arse about the feelings of Racists. If they don't like it, we don't care, and No Judge in the Land will say otherwise.
And that is Why UK > US
Also the BNP is not recognised as a Legitimate Party in the UK. They try and Run in Elections, but they have to technically do it as Independents.
You really don't appreciate the constituitional set up of the UK.
The BBC holds a royal charter, this reviewed every 10 years ( around that anyway) and outside of that there's nothing really any sitting GOvt. can do-- subject to mahoosive THISISWAR etc, obviously.
Whats to keep the party in power from saying members of their primary competition cannot be in the police then?
Aside from the impracticality of enforcing that you mean ? Unless something insane like the BNP or a similar fringe group coming to power then there's no way any of the main political parties would ever get something like that past the House of Commons. And then if they did the House of Lords would negate it. And so on and so forth.
You've got to do better than that. Remember our parlimentary democracy has run, quite successfully, for a few centuries now.
You can come back and moan when your entire country has that much history.
You see, we English don't give a rats arse about the feelings of Racists. If they don't like it, we don't care, and No Judge in the Land will say otherwise
..errmm I don't think so. They have as many rights as ...as.... ....normal people too.
Sure. You're a paragon of virtue. Just ask the Irish, Scots, and Indians how enlightened you have been. Didn't you machine gun a soccer stadium full of Irish?
"You can take our lives, but you'll never take...our rrrrr's!" (or our Haggis)
Or as MD Grotsnik would say
"yyyooo kon take urrrrr lives, but yulll never take rrrr FREEDOM! Where's and English poof I can wail on..."
(I should prfeace I gave blood before this train of thought got going and am less lucid than even normal weeha!!!)
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK this is way more important... Does the Elizabeth Hurley accent-is that normal or fake? More importantly how I can I get She Who Must Be Obeyed to talk with that accent?
Didn't you machine gun a soccer stadium full of Irish?
Not recently anyway.
.... Are Rangers playing Celtic again already ?
I would also point out the Scots and the Irish ( some of them anyway) are part of the UK anyway.
Does the Elizabeth Hurley accent-is that normal or fake?
...err..... que ? I think that's how she talks the whole time...?
More importantly how I can I get She Who Must Be Obeyed to talk with that accent?
Centuries of breeding old bean ! Sorry. Toodle pip. Luv a duck. Mary Poppins. etc etc.
..Or a good school.
Or get that Supernanny to come round ! Don't think we haven;t noticed your subconscious national desire to return to the comforting skirt and bosom of your mother nation. The firm "thwack" of proper discipline.
Frazzled wrote:Does the Elizabeth Hurley accent-is that normal or fake? More importantly how I can I get She Who Must Be Obeyed to talk with that accent?
It's not fake it's just posh. Try shoving a plumb down her throat, I'm told that's how it works.
Frazzled wrote:Sure. You're a paragon of virtue. Just ask the Irish, Scots, and Indians how enlightened you have been. Didn't you machine gun a soccer stadium full of Irish?
Only because they Bombed us first. (and it was a Crappy Gaelic Football Game, nothing Important)
-Still has Nightmares about the School lessons when 5 about running like your arse was on fire if you say a Bag Unattended-
Frazzled wrote:Sure. You're a paragon of virtue. Just ask the Irish, Scots, and Indians how enlightened you have been. Didn't you machine gun a soccer stadium full of Irish?
Only because they Bombed us first. (and it was a Crappy Gaelic Football Game, nothing Important)
Frazzled wrote:Whats to keep the party in power from saying members of their primary competition cannot be in the police then?
Lol. because the Public Wont let it happen. You see, we English don't give a rats arse about the feelings of Racists. If they don't like it, we don't care, and No Judge in the Land will say otherwise.
And that is Why UK > US
Also the BNP is not recognised as a Legitimate Party in the UK. They try and Run in Elections, but they have to technically do it as Independents.
But what fundamentally prevents it though? What if all of a sudden you find yourself with an opnion that the collective public doesn't agree with. Would you not sing a different tune then?
But what fundamentally prevents it though? What if all of a sudden you find yourself with an opinion that the collective public doesn't agree with. Would you not sing a different tune then?
The crown and/or the House of Lords.
I think that much/some of the Euro legislation we're signed up to would as well.
IN the UK there is no specific legislation that bans or outlaws political thought. There are a couple of exceptions-- like the Police force and recently the CoE ( maybe the armed forces ? I'm not sure)-- that have specific contract legislation that can prevent X Y or Z but no more so than any other country or like many other jobs require certain forms and patterns of behaviour. For example Freedom of Speech laws don't permit Insider Trading do they ?
@ Mr. Frazzled.... I have no idea what you're on about with the whole stadium thing.
With regards to the accent...hmm..... that is very much what is called "Queen's English". That would be how the H'upper Classes are learned 'ow to speek proper not like us lott of menials.
You used to here it a lot on the BBC years and years back as it encourages a very clean and clipped pronunciation. I think, apart from it being the way that POSH ( as in proper posh, Port Out, Starboard Home) types were educated at their expensive schools it was also to do with the whole Empire thing, it being easier to try and teach an accent free dialect than the gibberish most of us vomit out.
reds8n wrote: You used to here it a lot on the BBC years and years back as it encourages a very clean and clipped pronunciation. I think, apart from it being the way that POSH ( as in proper posh, Port Out, Starboard Home) types were educated at their expensive schools it was also to do with the whole Empire thing, it being easier to try and teach an accent free dialect than the gibberish most of us vomit out.
No need. We have our own accents. I heard our gangsta styles are being emulated-you're learning OUR accents now tee hee (actually I'm really sorry about that).
The stadium incident happened in Ireland in the 20s I believe.
To the topic though, I'm actually ok with excluding them from the police if they are that bad (I have no knowledge). I would have serious difficulties with Klan being in the police or New Black panthers for similar reasons.
Frazzled wrote:To the topic though, I'm actually ok with excluding them from the police if they are that bad (I have no knowledge). I would have serious difficulties with Klan being in the police or New Black panthers for similar reasons.
Imagine the Klan, except a Lot More Wealthy, a Lot More "Educated", and Publicly running for Office. Thats about the BNP
Frazzled wrote:No need. We have our own accents. I heard our gangsta styles are being emulated-you're learning OUR accents now tee hee (actually I'm really sorry about that).
To be fair the English language has always been a weird melting pot of the worlds tongues, many of the words we use day to day have been "borrowed" and let's not even get into the whole slang term thing !
There is an annoying tendency of late, and I apologise now for how this sounds, for kids to insert the word "like" randomly into sentences and also to raise their tone of voice at the end of a sentence...EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT ASKING A fething QUESTION ...
But that's just the effects of Tv/movies etc.
In urban or "street" culture the cool thing to do seemingly is to try and affect a Jamaican style accent ( known as jafaikan ) so lots of " ya, me bredren, me bluds" kind of thing.
Which amuses me no end, especially when some tracksuit wearing, burberry capped little gakker comes up and tries to give it gangsta style and pretend he's a yardie dealer, when you know his name is actually Jonathan, he's 17, his dad's an architect and his mother works as a dentists (yes , we do have them!) receptionist.
Good times.
The stadium incident happened in Ireland in the 20s I believe.
...umm.. okay. Don't know it, sorry/
To the topic though, I'm actually ok with excluding them from the police if they are that bad (I have no knowledge). I would have serious difficulties with Klan being in the police or New Black panthers for similar reasons.
Those are very good examples. And, if you never believe anything else I type, believe that the BNP are nasty racist scum of the lowest kind. You know how there's things about American culture that "we" comment on and you just think "uh... nope, that's not how it is", this is the same type of scenario. They can change their haircuts and talk about green issues and fluffy kittens as much as you want, but when one of your central policies is the forced deportation of any non white citizen ( even those born here) for any jail-able offence you know that they are A. In a dream world... send them to where exactly ? and B. Racist spankers clinging to their nostalgia of an age that never existed.
They go on and on about "British History" seemingly ignorant of the vast mixing pot that Britain has been throughout the centuries and the affects this has had on our culture. "Labour let the darkies in" they'll chant, well... those legionnaires from Africa that we have records of manning Hadrian's wall back during the time of the Roman Empire.... what colour do you think they were then ?
Gwar! wrote:So If your arresting officer was Black and was a Member of a Black Supremacy Group, you wouldn't bring that up in your court case? (assuming you are white of course, I don't know you. You Could be a Galgameckian for all I freaking know)
Yeah, Right.
The fact is, in order for Police to function at all, they must remain impartial. Being a member of the BNP or some Radical Religious Sect damages that. That's why you don't get the situations here like you do in America of Cops Kicking already Submitted Suspects in the fact because they are Latino, or officers Beating Black Drivers when they fail to stop, being witnessed by OTHER officers, and not being reported for over a year.
Things like that no Longer happen in the UK because of these Laws and Restrictions.
So by that reasoning we should forbid anyone who believes strongly in a particular religion from being on the police force, because you assume that they'll abuse their position when confronted by someone of a different religion? What about atheists?
I don't understand how you can assert that the sort of events you describe happen in the United States but never in your country, or even if that were the case, that you can draw a causual relationship between "these Laws and Restrictions" and incidents of misconduct.
Not at all!
Everyone who belongs to a religion doesn't necessarily discriminate against people of other religions, even if they can tell from outward appearances what religion the other person is.
The stated policy of the BNP is to discriminate against everyone who isn't white. You can't be a member without subscribing to this policy. You can't subscribe to this policy and be fair to people who aren't white.
QED.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.
Lol.
Firstly: There are Multiple Networks, and 90% of the Population has access to Sky and the Like, so they have Many, many news Channels.
Secondly: The BBC is government funded, but they have no say as to what they do or don't do. The FCC is far more restrictive in your country about what private Networks do.
Thirdly: Internets
If you fund something you control something. first rule of the politician.
Sky? You have a network named Sky? Who do they compete with, Dirt?
Sky TV is indeed owned and directed by the Dirty Digger. I am sure it is a very fair and unpartisan channel, as is his Fox News channel in the USA.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My wife is Japanese and my daughter is half-Japanese, so I will never support the BNP even if Hell freezes over.
They are vile, base scum who deserve to be treated with derision and contempt.
Well, I don't agree with, to use an example, the Black Panthers, or the Communist party, or the Klan, or whatever. I do, however, think that people should be judged as individuals. If someone in any of the groups I mentioned, or any other that the rest of you judge to be "radical", can follow the same laws as everyone, I don't see why they should be treated different, just because they don't like groups of people. Keep in mind that opinions vary within these groups, and there is a world of difference between statements like " I think all Jews need to be shipped to Madagascar" and " I don't particularly feel comfortable around black people".
What gets me is that you have so much vituperation for the BNP, when most of you probably have no stake in it at all, except perhaps appearing appropriately disdainful of them to fit in with your friends. Ok, someone like Kilkrazy I can see being riled ( For what its worth most white supremacists I have met seem obsessed with Japanese culture for some reason, in spite of their "non whiteness"), I know I certainly would be if someone said something about one of my best friends or family members. That's different, it's personal then.
What many of you refuse to realize is that it is highly probable that if everyone said "hey, that is cool, you don't like people who don't look like you, big deal" then walk off, most of these people would never say another word. Keep in mind I'm not advocating their beliefs...in fact, what I would worry about with groups like this is that the guy in charge all of a sudden changes his opinion on who is white, since there is no real consensus if the term has any real meaning. For instance, half the people that groups like the BNP have a problem with are generally considered caucasian ( Jews, Arabs, Iranians, etc.), which I don't know if you all realize or not.
I realize I'm not going to get any sympathy at all here, which is fine, as I'm used to being the lone guy on the hill taking the devil's advocate for strange and unaccepted beliefs. That is part of the game for me. But, and I don't mean offense, I think the lot of you are blind if you're not seeing the double standard here.
Grignard wrote:I realize I'm not going to get any sympathy at all here, which is fine, as I'm used to being the lone guy on the hill taking the devil's advocate for strange and unaccepted beliefs. That is part of the game for me. But, and I don't mean offense, I think the lot of you are blind if you're not seeing the double standard here.
How is it a Double Standard? How is baring a Police Officer from being part of a Group that Actively Discriminates and Intimidates Non Whites, who's very ethos requires him to discriminate against non whites, be expected to act in his duty to the public, all the public.
Grignard wrote:I realize I'm not going to get any sympathy at all here, which is fine, as I'm used to being the lone guy on the hill taking the devil's advocate for strange and unaccepted beliefs. That is part of the game for me. But, and I don't mean offense, I think the lot of you are blind if you're not seeing the double standard here.
How is it a Double Standard? How is baring a Police Officer from being part of a Group that Actively Discriminates and Intimidates Non Whites, who's very ethos requires him to discriminate against non whites, be expected to act in his duty to the public, all the public.
The double standard, and the irony, is that you're excluding a group because of their opinions on excluding people.
Grignard wrote:I realize I'm not going to get any sympathy at all here, which is fine, as I'm used to being the lone guy on the hill taking the devil's advocate for strange and unaccepted beliefs. That is part of the game for me. But, and I don't mean offense, I think the lot of you are blind if you're not seeing the double standard here.
How is it a Double Standard? How is baring a Police Officer from being part of a Group that Actively Discriminates and Intimidates Non Whites, who's very ethos requires him to discriminate against non whites, be expected to act in his duty to the public, all the public.
The double standard, and the irony, is that you're excluding a group because of their opinions on excluding people.
That's not a double standard. I have every right to exclude someone for their beliefs. They chose them, they are hateful and harmful. I do not have the right to exclude someone on the basis of race, it's arbitrary, unimportant and not something they chose. Can you see the difference?
Oh, and my Aunt and cousins are British-Asian, does that mean I'm allowed to be angry? Apparently only people with direct family ties to the people targeted are allowed to be...
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. - Albert Einstein
Grignard wrote:I realize I'm not going to get any sympathy at all here, which is fine, as I'm used to being the lone guy on the hill taking the devil's advocate for strange and unaccepted beliefs. That is part of the game for me. But, and I don't mean offense, I think the lot of you are blind if you're not seeing the double standard here.
How is it a Double Standard? How is baring a Police Officer from being part of a Group that Actively Discriminates and Intimidates Non Whites, who's very ethos requires him to discriminate against non whites, be expected to act in his duty to the public, all the public.
The double standard, and the irony, is that you're excluding a group because of their opinions on excluding people.
That's not a double standard. I have every right to exclude someone for their beliefs. They chose them, they are hateful and harmful. I do not have the right to exclude someone on the basis of race, it's arbitrary, unimportant and not something they chose. Can you see the difference?
Oh, and my Aunt and cousins are British-Asian, does that mean I'm allowed to be angry? Apparently only people with direct family ties to the people targeted are allowed to be...
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. - Albert Einstein
I can see the difference, I'm not even saying your opinion is unreasonable, but I'm not sure you're 100% right. I'm not talking about your opinion. You certainly have a right to exclude someone, for any reason you choose. You have a right to be a racist for that matter. You *do* have a right to be exclusive in terms of race, even if other people don't even believe in your *concept* of the *existence* of race. What I'm talking about is the *public* sphere, which at least according to our laws, is not supposed to exclude ( Even though it actually does. If you apply for the FBI, being a communist is still a disqualifier, at least last time I looked at their forms).
I'm not clear on why you should be angry because you have Asian cousins, but that is certainly your right.
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. - Albert Einstein
Then go out and save the world, because I am not going to.
I can see the difference, I'm not even saying your opinion is unreasonable, but I'm not sure you're 100% right. I'm not talking about your opinion. You certainly have a right to exclude someone, for any reason you choose. You have a right to be a racist for that matter. You *do* have a right to be exclusive in terms of race, even if other people don't even believe in your *concept* of the *existence* of race. What I'm talking about is the *public* sphere, which at least according to our laws, is not supposed to exclude ( Even though it actually does. If you apply for the FBI, being a communist is still a disqualifier, at least last time I looked at their forms).
Being racist obviously means you cannot fairly and justly enforce the laws of this land. Should we allow former criminals to be police officers? How about sociopaths? If we're not meant to exclude at all, surely that's fine?
Grignard wrote:I'm not clear on why you should be angry because you have Asian cousins, but that is certainly your right.
I should have perhaps multi-quoted here. I was referencing an earlier post in which you said you understood Kilkrazy's anger due to his Japanese family, but not why anyone else was bothered. It's not because of my Asian family I'm angered by the BNP, I would be without them, but it certainly riles me when a group tells me those little girls who were born here have no right to live here.
Free speech is a two-way street. The BNP have a right to spout their bollocks, I have a right to call them ignorant fascist fethers. They don't have a right to incite violence though, and they have regularly done so, promising in one chaming quote to take power by 'boot and fist'.
What gets me is that you have so much vituperation for the BNP, when most of you probably have no stake in it at all, except perhaps appearing appropriately disdainful of them to fit in with your friends. Ok, someone like Kilkrazy I can see being riled ( For what its worth most white supremacists I have met seem obsessed with Japanese culture for some reason, in spite of their "non whiteness"), I know I certainly would be if someone said something about one of my best friends or family members. That's different, it's personal then.
What many of you refuse to realize is that it is highly probable that if everyone said "hey, that is cool, you don't like people who don't look like you, big deal" then walk off, most of these people would never say another word. Keep in mind I'm not advocating their beliefs...in fact, what I would worry about with groups like this is that the guy in charge all of a sudden changes his opinion on who is white, since there is no real consensus if the term has any real meaning. For instance, half the people that groups like the BNP have a problem with are generally considered caucasian ( Jews, Arabs, Iranians, etc.), which I don't know if you all realize or not.
Firstly I don't think what I do about the BNP to "fit in with my friends". I would rather live in a modern multicultural, country that is moving forwards rather than one that is obsessed with some mythical past "when everything was great and white". I really don't see how hard that that is to understand. Would you feel great about your country if genuine Neo nazis took seats in congress ?
Jack Warner, the Fifa vice-president and key power-broker, said that inviting a British National Party councillor to England's 2018 World Cup launch at Wembley while having only white and male speakers addressing the audience was an "error" that needed correcting quickly.
Warner, who as head of Concacaf controls three of the 24 votes cast by the Fifa executive committee that will decide who hosts the 2018 tournament, said: "It's unfortunate that they did not consider minorities and had the BNP there – they made an error."
Because nothing says we'd be good hosts for an international sporting event than white supremacists.
I like to think we've left the days of "No blacks no Irish" well and truly behind us.
BNP wanting a rise of the far right, and politically correct dogmatists who think everything is moving forward swiftly in a New Britain.
The amount of times I have seen or experienced cases of people not being able to get work in government departments because they are the wrong colour, ethnic only housing lists, and chronic bias.
It is sad that the only people whom are speaking out are the BNP. Ok ocassionally the government/local government is caught out and the mainstream criticises but such times are rare.
I live in a new estate which was earmarked for Asian only accomodation because it seemed 'fairer' to dogmaticsts do do this. Why should I not get housed because I am not brown? Fortuneately someone leaked this to the press and the council was forced to cancel the project and sell the land to a housing association and developer instead. That is just one story, but before anyone starts bleating 'hearsay' hearsay' I can tell you there are plenty more.
I dont see too much difference between you are not welcome because you arent white, and you arent welcome because you are. The only real difference is that there is a 'positive' spin on the latter. There is nothing positive about posivbtive discrimination. People are afraid of their jobs and housing opportunities because of this dogma. If the mainstream parties dealt with this issue rather than sweeping it under ther carpet or worse labelling anyone who raises the problem a "racist" the BNP scare would soon die away.
Fortuneately the BNP are their own worst enemies, faking photos for their brochure has cost them, and their rigid adherence to old dogmas and hatreds of their own. One indication of how far things have sunk was the incidents of black people voting for the BNP in some East london broughs, and beyond, because they were the only party to address some front door issues.
Perhaps we are lucky that the BNP leadership has no brains, if they changed their tune only slightly and went onto a specific target hatred they could fool a lot of people, as it so happens they are no real threat because they have no savvy.
Greebynog wrote:
Being racist obviously means you cannot fairly and justly enforce the laws of this land. Should we allow former criminals to be police officers? How about sociopaths? If we're not meant to exclude at all, surely that's fine?
No, it does not obviously mean that. And you're comparing apples and oranges. Criminals and sociapthas are excluded because of things they have *done*. The people you're talking about have just expressed an opinon or voted a certain way.
Greebynog wrote:
I should have perhaps multi-quoted here. I was referencing an earlier post in which you said you understood Kilkrazy's anger due to his Japanese family, but not why anyone else was bothered. It's not because of my Asian family I'm angered by the BNP, I would be without them, but it certainly riles me when a group tells me those little girls who were born here have no right to live here.
Free speech is a two-way street. The BNP have a right to spout their bollocks, I have a right to call them ignorant fascist fethers. They don't have a right to incite violence though, and they have regularly done so, promising in one chaming quote to take power by 'boot and fist'.
I never said you didn't have a right to say that. I'm not talking about your right to say anything at all.
reds8n wrote:
Firstly I don't think what I do about the BNP to "fit in with my friends". I would rather live in a modern multicultural, country that is moving forwards rather than one that is obsessed with some mythical past "when everything was great and white". I really don't see how hard that that is to understand. Would you feel great about your country if genuine Neo nazis took seats in congress ?
I'll tell you what I think if it ever really happens. There aren't enough Neo Nazis for that to occur. If it did, I'd still have to get up and go to work, pay my bills, etc. Life goes on.
Futhermore, what does "moving forward" mean? Moving forward toward what? How do you define the direction of your arrow of movement? What is moving backward as opposed to moving forward? Who defines what is forward and if that is desireable, the group with the most voices? It is all smoke and mirrors, and a dream.
reds8n wrote:
Jack Warner, the Fifa vice-president and key power-broker, said that inviting a British National Party councillor to England's 2018 World Cup launch at Wembley while having only white and male speakers addressing the audience was an "error" that needed correcting quickly.
Warner, who as head of Concacaf controls three of the 24 votes cast by the Fifa executive committee that will decide who hosts the 2018 tournament, said: "It's unfortunate that they did not consider minorities and had the BNP there – they made an error."
Because nothing says we'd be good hosts for an international sporting event than white supremacists.
I like to think we've left the days of "No blacks no Irish" well and truly behind us.
What are they going to do to correct it? Grab some random person who is darker than them off the street? Isn't that, well, arbitrary? Did anyone intentionally set it up so only male or white people would be there?
This is exemplary of the point I'm trying to get at. Who really gives a rats ass? I mean, if tommorrow someone came up with irrefutable evidence that race or sex X is better than race or sex Y, why does that matter? At the same time, why should we make sure that no one thinks they are? Life is just too short to worry about things like this.
Jack Warner, the Fifa vice-president and key power-broker, said that inviting a British National Party councillor to England's 2018 World Cup launch at Wembley while having only white and male speakers addressing the audience was an "error" that needed correcting quickly.
Warner, who as head of Concacaf controls three of the 24 votes cast by the Fifa executive committee that will decide who hosts the 2018 tournament, said: "It's unfortunate that they did not consider minorities and had the BNP there – they made an error."
Because nothing says we'd be good hosts for an international sporting event than white supremacists.
I like to think we've left the days of "No blacks no Irish" well and truly behind us.
What are they going to do to correct it? Grab some random person who is darker than them off the street? Isn't that, well, arbitrary? Did anyone intentionally set it up so only male or white people would be there?
This is exemplary of the point I'm trying to get at. Who really gives a rats ass? I mean, if tommorrow someone came up with irrefutable evidence that race or sex X is better than race or sex Y, why does that matter? At the same time, why should we make sure that no one thinks they are? Life is just too short to worry about things like this.
They could have just had one of the many black or mixed race England players there. I agree though that it is a bit off just to have someone there because of their race, smacks of quota-filling, but if we've got a BNP member there, and we're trying to impress the rest of the world enough to give us a world cup, they should have done it. Jump through those hoops, I want to go to the world cup final at Wembley.
Greebynog wrote:
They could have just had one of the many black or mixed race England players there. I agree though that it is a bit off just to have someone there because of their race, smacks of quota-filling, but if we've got a BNP member there, and we're trying to impress the rest of the world enough to give us a world cup, they should have done it. Jump through those hoops, I want to go to the world cup final at Wembley.
I can see the point from a purely public relations standpoint.
I'm not intimately familiar with the game, but is this somewhat like getting the olympic committee to let you host the olympics?
