Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gwar! wrote:

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)

huh?

Gwar! wrote:

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?

reds8n wrote:

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.

Well, he said English, not British.

Does the Elizabeth Hurley accent-is that normal or fake?

...err..... que ? I think that's how she talks the whole time...?

So how is that vs. the accent that sounds like orks or an early version of Aussie?
Is that local or just pretentious? Inquiring minds want to know?

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.

Sadly the Colonies never copped on

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 ?

Grignard wrote:

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.

Gwar! wrote:

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.

Lol, while on the subject of gak, heres an amusing one in the paper today

"Tory MP of Gosport takes £30,000 of taxpayers money to pay for his duckpond at home"

now, why the feth would i vote for tossers like that?
all little things that lose people votes.

Grignard wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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

Greebynog wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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.

Grignard wrote:

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'.

Grignard wrote:

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.

We are caught between two evils.

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.

Grignard wrote:

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.

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?