BNP Update


by Jai
19th May, 2010 at 11:47 am    

A roundup of some of the major developments involving the BNP since the recent General Election:

1. An excellent summary from the Guardian here.

2. Nick Griffin’s delusional post-election “analysis”, addressed to BNP members, including a huge exaggeration of the number of MPs the BNP would theoretically possess under the proposed proportional representation system.

3. Griffin’s subsequent message in relation to the escalating civil war within the BNP. More ranting.

4. Griffin’s third public message, including fabricated “percentages” of Barking & Dagenham’s non-white electorate along with the assertion that the BNP is the “British Resistance”. Believe or not, Griffin’s apocalyptic faux-Churchillian call to arms isn’t actually a spoof; he really did write this message.

5. Griffin’s latest message, which can be summarised as “denial, denial, denial”. According to Griffin, any incriminating information which reflects badly on the BNP (described by Griffin as a “movement of national salvation”) is falsified and part of a huge global conspiracy.

6. The BNP is facing a renewed legal prosecution over their constitution, since it turns out that they haven’t actually removed the problematic racist clauses as instructed (re: the previous successful prosecution by the EHRC) but just moved them to different parts of the document and slightly reworded them in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Griffin was directly responsible for this, so he could be charged with contempt of court and potentially be imprisoned.

7. The BNP’s London organiser Bob Bailey has been arrested for assault (and bailed until July) due to the clash with a group of Asians in Barking a day before the election. Two of the Asians involved have also been arrested on suspicion of assault and affray, and have subsequently been bailed.

8. Just before Griffin was leaving the premises after the election results for Barking & Dagenham, he was confronted by Nick Lowles from Searchlight about the incident in Barking involving Bailey. Lowles’ impromptu confrontation with Griffin was captured on video. Griffin makes false allegations about the Asians carrying knives and also refuses to condemn Bailey’s actions (especially Bailey’s attempt to forcefully kick the Asian lying on the ground) despite being repeatedly questioned about the matter by Lowles. Also note Griffin’s Freudian slip when he refers to the [white] “British majority” and then corrects himself by stuttering “minority”, along with his claim that the BNP now needs to change into a “civil rights” organisation for them.

9. A very professional and thorough analysis of the legal ramifications of ‘Marmitegate’. The use of Marmite was a deliberate publicity stunt by Griffin, and the BNP’s Legal Director Lee John Barnes was also fully aware of this despite the potentially catastrophic legal consequences. This has obviously backfired spectacularly, as the huge multinational company Unilever is using its full resources to launch a prosecution against the BNP. The party’s disgruntled webmaster Simon Bennett is also involved in assisting the prosecution, so this may result in a further exposé of “where all the bodies are buried”. The BNP recently attempted to launch a “gagging order” against Bennett in order to scare him into silence, but Bennett has refused to back down, resulting in Griffin and the BNP now dropping their court action; this has been estimated to have cost the BNP £3000 in legal fees, unwittingly funded by the BNP’s members.

10. The BNP implosion continues, with ex-Director of Publicity Mark Collett now publicly joining in the attacks on Griffin. Collett is the individual Griffin has recently accused of plotting to assassinate him.

11. The BNP has effectively split in two; Simon Bennett and rival for the leadership Eddy Butler have set up a new website demanding that Griffin resigns and calling for an urgent internal debate within the BNP. Bennett has also unilaterally removed Griffin’s personal EU website. He was responsible for sabotaging the BNP’s official website and terminating the party’s Facebook pages and Twitter feeds shortly before the General Election, thereby completely derailing the BNP’s online propaganda campaign.

12. Multiple articles from ‘Vote No to the BNP’. Includes Eddy Butler’s letter to BNP members, an article about BNP councillor (and governor at two Stoke-on-Trent secondary schools) Steve Batkin’s affiliations with three neo-Nazis photographed giving Nazi salutes next to a war memorial and who are members of the “Blood and Honour” fascist group, and Simon Bennett’s removal of the BNP’s private Trafalgar Club website (used by the BNP to fund Griffin by donations from people who do not want there to be any public records of their donations to the BNP).

13. More information about Steve Batkin via ‘Nothing British about the BNP’. Apparently the BNP have refused to sack him; ex-BNP councillor Alby Walker claims that Batkin is not an exception, and that this is the reason that he left the party (more information about the BNP’s real agenda and ideology via Walker here). Walker also states that his aim is to now expose to the public the true face of the BNP. The National Union of Teachers has called for Batkin to resign his school governorships, and South Staffordshire Royal British Legion manager Peter Smith expressed revulsion at the photo, saying “Three hundred and twenty six thousand servicemen and women died in World War II so that we wouldn’t have Nazi salutes on the streets of Britain”.

14. BNP school governor Debra Kent, also an administrator of the BNP’s official Facebook page and authorised by Griffin to stand as PPC for Lancaster and Fleetwood, has angrily claimed online that “Jews have a massive influence in this country. The BBC and most of the media is Jewish-owned”. This is yet another well-known antisemitic myth.

15. Just in case Nick Griffin’s own hatred of Jews needed any further clarification, here is video footage of Griffin stating on the record to Dominic Carman that “If Hitler hadn’t been so daft, they’d have exterminated the German Jews”. Griffin is also on record stating “The Jews have bought the West and control the press for their own political ends”.

Some further information:

• Griffin believes in the ”New World Order” global conspiracy (a paranoid theory particularly prevalent amongst members of the extreme far-Right in the US). He has mentioned the “New World Order” in every speech he’s given at the EU parliament, and this article includes a video clip of his assertions on the topic and the alleged links to a global conspiracy involving climate change/global warming (it’s the first video, titled “EU Parliament – Nick Griffin MEP on Global Warming”).

• Griffin is on record claiming that there is a “criminal gene” which justifies a Nazi-style eugenics policy involving the sterilisation of criminals. The hypocrisy continues to mount, considering how many BNP members possess criminal records and the fact that Griffin himself is on record boasting about repeatedly breaking British laws.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: The BNP






73 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: BNP Update http://bit.ly/9kmxym


  2. Ian Ahuja

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: BNP Update http://bit.ly/9kmxym


  3. SSP Campsie

    RT @sunny_hundal Blog post:: BNP Update http://short.to/2gv21


  4. Beth Watts

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: BNP Update http://bit.ly/9kmxym


  5. Tara B

    Its nice to read abt racists imploding RT @sunny_hundal Blog post:: BNP Update http://bit.ly/9kmxym


  6. Billy

    *coughs up lung from laughing* http://bit.ly/bF9I1B


  7. Noxi

    Pickled Politics » BNP Update http://ow.ly/1Ndw6 british national party nick griffin


  8. How Not To Run A Political Party | Sim-O

    [...] Such as… 4. Griffin’s third public message, including fabricated ‘percentages’ of Barking & Dagenham’s non-white electorate along with the assertion that the BNP is the ‘British Resistance’. Believe or not, Griffin’s apocalyptic faux-Churchillian call to arms isn’t actually a spoof; he really did write this message. [...]


  9. Nolan Sylvia

    PolitiK: Pickled Politics » BNP Update: How Not To Run A Political Party | Sim-O. [...] Such as… 4. Griffin's thir… http://bit.ly/bqrcMJ


  10. Simon

    Pickled Politics » BNP Update http://bit.ly/dvM439


  11. james kirk

    Pickled Politics » BNP Update http://bit.ly/bqrcMJ


  12. Politics&Government

    Pickled Politics » BNP Update http://bit.ly/96QrPQ


  13. Nolan Sylvia

    Pickled Politics » BNP Update: How Not To Run A Political Party | Sim-O. [...] Such as… 4. Griffin's third public … http://bit.ly/bqrcMJ


  14. james o kirk

    Pickled Politics » BNP Update http://bit.ly/bqrcMJ


  15. Denise Taylor

    Pickled Politics » BNP Update: How Not To Run A Political Party | Sim-O. [...] Such as… 4. Griffin's third public … http://bit.ly/aKNunN


  16. Yakoub Islam

    How long before Nick Griffin starts wearing turquoise (as advised by David Icke)? http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/8727 #bnp




  1. MaidMarian — on 19th May, 2010 at 1:01 pm  

    The more interesting question in here is perhaps quite how such a sudden collapse came about. It is possible that the BNP were always in trouble, but had that masked by a good 2006 vote that was more to do with the faults of others rather than BNP strengths.

    Even so however the speed of disintegration is staggering.

  2. douglas clark — on 19th May, 2010 at 1:16 pm  

    Is anyone else having trouble reading this?

  3. Jai — on 19th May, 2010 at 1:25 pm  

    There’s a problem with PP’s technical systems. However, the formatting in the article should be corrected later today. Please bear with us.

  4. fred — on 19th May, 2010 at 2:18 pm  

    When you say the BNP have split in two, how many members have moved to another party and which one?

  5. fred — on 19th May, 2010 at 2:53 pm  

    Hi, when you say the BNP have split in two, how many members have moved to another party and which one?

    And I am just curious as to why a reference to ‘indigenous’ as per BNP constitution is racist?

  6. douglas clark — on 19th May, 2010 at 3:18 pm  

    Jai,

    No worries, I was just wondering whether if it was my computer that was jiggered!

  7. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 19th May, 2010 at 5:24 pm  

    Nice to see the daft racists falling apart at the seams, good stuff.

  8. sim-o — on 19th May, 2010 at 8:41 pm  

    What a lovely mood-lifter of a post.

  9. Rumbold — on 19th May, 2010 at 9:15 pm  

    Heh Jai. Post now fixed.

  10. Yakoub — on 20th May, 2010 at 6:45 am  

    How long before Nick starts wearing turquoise?

  11. Jai — on 20th May, 2010 at 10:24 am  

    Glad to see most of the formatting problems have been fixed. The aforementioned technical issues (which temporarily affected most of PP’s articles) have also merged points #9 & 10 in the article above, but that will be rectified later today.

  12. Jai — on 20th May, 2010 at 10:46 am  

    MaidMarian,

    The more interesting question in here is perhaps quite how such a sudden collapse came about. It is possible that the BNP were always in trouble, but had that masked by a good 2006 vote that was more to do with the faults of others rather than BNP strengths.

    There’s a detailed but very funny analysis of it by “Denise” here: http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2010/05/touch-of-moonies.html

    As the author said, nobody can (rationally) argue with the fact that getting only 1.9% of the vote is an absolutely appalling result for the BNP.

    So much for Griffin’s previous claims about aiming to create a “political earthquake” this year and being “on the verge of a breakthrough”.

  13. Jai — on 20th May, 2010 at 10:54 am  

    Nick Griffin has also sent out yet another post-election email, this time geared towards extracting more money from BNP members by “inviting” them to upgrade their memberships…..for a hefty fee, of course. His message is displayed in full below.

    Again, incredibly this isn’t actually a spoof — and take note of the “perks” he’s offering, especially the Gold membership badge as a fashion accessory which “makes a superb addition to any clothing, whether a suit or casual” and, specially for Life members…..a “limited edition 8×10 signed portrait” of himself. You couldn’t make it up.

    Source: http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.com/2010/05/despite-recent-electoral-disaster-and.html

    Email:

    “Dear Fellow Patriot,

    The vast majority of people join the British National Party as standard members. Our membership is the fastest growing of any political party in Britain, and if you have decided to take the plunge and join the BNP, I applaud your courage and dedication to our Cause.

    If you feel like you want to do more, to go that extra mile, to show your commitment and dedication in a unique and special way, then why not upgrade your membership?

    The BNP has 2 upgraded membership options: Gold membership and Life membership.

    Gold members are the ‘elite’ of the Party – they go that extra mile and quite rightly display their Gold membership badge with pride at Party meetings and events. The Gold membership badge also makes a superb addition to any type of clothing, whether a suit or casual.

    Gold membership for newcomers is a mere £60 – and existing BNP members need only top up their membership by £30 to become Gold members. Not much of an expense considering the desperate state of ‘multicultural’ Britain and the enormous success and progress of the British National Party.

    Upgrade your membership to Gold today:

    Life members sign up to the cause of British survival for life, not just for one year! It is the ultimate way of declaring your steadfast loyalty and commitment to our sacred mission.

    Life membership of the British National Party costs only £495 – a tiny drop in the ocean compared with the suffering and sacrifice endured by our ancestors who defended Britain through endless wars and conflicts.
    Life members also receive a large number of exclusive benefits when they sign-up:

    FREE top quality, exclusive, engraved watch, his or hers,
    FREE exclusive Life Member pin badge to wear with pride and dignity,
    FREE lifelong subscription to new Identity magazine 64pp,
    FREE lifelong ‘annual party reports’,
    FREE complimentary copies of the party’s magazine Hope and Glory,
    FREE prestigious Life Member certificate parchment scroll for framing,
    FREE limited edition 8×10 signed portrait of Party Chairman Nick Griffin MEP.
    Upgrade your membership to Life today:

    Yours sincerely,

    Nick Griffin, MEP
    Leader, British National Party”

  14. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 20th May, 2010 at 11:38 am  

    Can someone delete the comment at 10 please? Yet more tedious impersonation.

  15. Kismet Hardy — on 20th May, 2010 at 12:51 pm  

    Spoof is basically poof with an S in front of it, just like snigger is basically…

    That’s the sort of stuff I’d think about if I were a BNP type cos I’d be tupid

  16. earwicga — on 20th May, 2010 at 7:28 pm  

    Done Daniel.

  17. Shamit — on 20th May, 2010 at 11:21 pm  

    Jai -

    Come on mate – give credit where credit us due. Mr. Griffin and his merry band of stupid racists did create political earthquake –

    1) never saw a political party implode like they did

    2) never saw a political party leader ever claim after an election that his party lost because too many “foreigners” came out and voted.

    3) still having the conviction of stupidity to claim on national TV that his party’s view resonates with the British public

    4) have you ever heard of any political party where the Comms Director wants to kill the leader a week before a general election.

    Well BNP gave us all that – and Griffin did not get a seat.

  18. Jai — on 21st May, 2010 at 11:20 am  

    Shamit,

    Absolutely correct on all points. The only “political earthquake” which did occur was the one which had its destructive epicentre within the BNP itself.

    It’s even more ironic when you read the last message Griffin sent to the BNP immediately before the election. Note also the repeated requests for money, along with the reference to “race traitors”.

    See: http://1millionunited.org/blogs/notmyvoice/2010/05/03/griffins-last-chance-to-help-the-campaign-give-me-money/

  19. Jai — on 21st May, 2010 at 11:22 am  

    Format-corrected versions of #9 & 10 in the main article:

    9. A very professional and thorough analysis of the legal ramifications of ‘Marmitegate’. The use of Marmite was a deliberate publicity stunt by Griffin, and the BNP’s Legal Director Lee John Barnes was also fully aware of this despite the potentially catastrophic legal consequences. This has obviously backfired spectacularly, as the huge multinational company Unilever is using its full resources to launch a prosecution against the BNP. The party’s disgruntled webmaster Simon Bennett is also involved in assisting the prosecution, so this may result in a further exposé of “where all the bodies are buried”. The BNP recently attempted to launch a “gagging order” against Bennett in order to scare him into silence, but Bennett has refused to back down, resulting in Griffin and the BNP now dropping their court action; this has been estimated to have cost the BNP £3000 in legal fees, unwittingly funded by the BNP’s members.

    10. The BNP implosion continues, with ex-Director of Publicity Mark Collett now publicly joining in the attacks on Griffin. Collett is the individual Griffin has recently accused of plotting to assassinate him.

  20. Don — on 21st May, 2010 at 5:20 pm  

    Or it could be someone other than Earwicqa?

  21. earwicga — on 21st May, 2010 at 5:23 pm  

    It was someone other than earwicga, Don. Seems like I now have an impersonator. I feel so honoured :)

  22. damon — on 21st May, 2010 at 10:26 pm  

    I presumed it was an imposter – but wasn’t 100% sure.

  23. Jai — on 24th May, 2010 at 11:49 am  

    Some further developments:

    Nick Griffin has told a BNP conference that he plans to resign as the BNP’s Chairman in 2013, apparently so that he can focus on campaining for re-election to the EU parliament.

    Full details here: http://www.vote-no-to-bnp.org.uk/2010/05/bnp-leader-says-he-will-stand-down-in-2013.html

    Quote:

    Griffin MEP announced his intention to step down as leader by the end of 2013 to concentrate on his re-election campaign to the European Parliament.

    Mr Griffin made his leadership decision announcement at the end of the first day of the proceedings.

    “By then I would have been leader of the BNP for 15 years and that is long enough,” Mr Griffin said.

    “It will be time to make way for a younger person who does not have any baggage which can be used against the party.”

    ….Mr Griffin said the timing of his move was predicated by his desire to bring about what he called the putting into place of the last “building blocks” of the BNP’s administrative and political machine.

    “This is going to take at least 18 months to implement and after that I intend to hand the party over to someone who will be able to drive support up to where it can be a serious contender for power,” he said.

  24. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 24th May, 2010 at 5:16 pm  

    The plot really does thicken…

  25. damon — on 24th May, 2010 at 8:45 pm  

    By blowing the BNP’s significance out of proportion, obsessing about the ‘rise of fascism’ and treating leader Nick Griffin’s appearance on BBC TV’s Question Time as the end of civilisation as we know it, mainstream liberals have helped the likes of Griffin fuel their image as free-speech martyrs. But more importantly, they have shown, on the one hand, the limits of their own tolerance, and, on the other, how deeply disrespectful they are of people’s right to think, believe, and listen to whatever they want.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8896/

    I think I agree with this general view.

  26. Don — on 24th May, 2010 at 9:26 pm  

    Damon,

    I don’t.

    ‘Even a brief survey of the kind of words, opinions and behaviours that have either been banned or have come to be regarded as socially unacceptable shows that no one can presume to be safe from censorship these days.’

    (my italics)

    I’m very happy that some kinds of words, opinions and behaviours have come to be regarded as socially unacceptable. Well done, everybody. That ain’t censorship. That’s just people letting you know that, in their eyes, such words, opinions and behaviours mark you out as an asshole. (Not you, obviously.)

    I certainly don’t think that the liberals or the left need feel shamed at the way the BNP has been dealt with.

    On the Walker case, as I think we have discussed, I am strongly of the opinion that certain views, strongly and sincerely held, do indeed exclude a person from some related public positions where they can directly influence the lives of others. Because real people can’t leave their core beliefs at home, I know I can’t.

    It’s a question of where the line should be drawn, not if. To pick one extreme example, suppose someone held the sincere view that all rape victims were sluts who loved it really and, while never himself offending, posted these views on the internet. Are there no public positions from which ‘the powers that be’ might reasonably exclude them? Say, Police Inspector in charge of a sexual assault unit?

  27. Ant — on 24th May, 2010 at 9:59 pm  

    Don:

    “I’m very happy that some kinds of words, opinions and behaviours have come to be regarded as socially unacceptable. Well done, everybody. That ain’t censorship.”

    Yes it is. It is the very definition of censorship to try to suppress free speech. Especially as the reality is already that some of these ‘unacceptable’ opinions carry serious career consequences these days: Is not only undemocratic it is anti-democratic.

    Aside from words, opinions and behaviours that are illegal the rest are by the very nature of a democracy ‘acceptable.’ You don’t have to agree. Who decides anyway what is ‘acceptable’? You? So-called Liberals? Who gave them that right and who makes them right?

    “I am strongly of the opinion that certain views, strongly and sincerely held, do indeed exclude a person from some related public positions where they can directly influence the lives of others.”

    But let me guess, only those of opinions that you find ‘unacceptable’? I would imagine I find most of your views ‘unacceptable’, certainly I do so far, so on that basis you should be excluded from said positions.

    “Because real people can’t leave their core beliefs at home, I know I can’t.”

    Don’t judge others by your own moral weakness, lack of integrity and lack of professionalism.

    Most people can and do.

    Why on earth would it ever be acceptable for Muslims to teach Christians, orthodox Christians to teach gays, Marxists to teach in public schools, members of ethnic specific organisations such as Operation Black vote or attendees of the Black Teachers conference to teach whites, etc etc etc

  28. Don — on 24th May, 2010 at 11:26 pm  

    Yes it is.

    No. it isn’t. The very definition of censorship is that an opinion cannot be expressed, not that it cannot be disdained.


    But let me guess, only those of opinions that you find ‘unacceptable’?

    You guess wrong.

    Don’t judge others by your own moral weakness, lack of integrity and lack of professionalism.

    I won’t. I will apply much higher standards.

  29. damon — on 25th May, 2010 at 3:14 pm  

    Don, I agree with you up to a point when you say this: ”I’m very happy that some kinds of words, opinions and behaviours have come to be regarded as socially unacceptable”.
    …but it all depends what words opinions and behaviors you’re talking about.

    If someone is offended by football fans calling Gillingham FC ”pikeys” then I’d just say they are far too sensitive. It’s meant to be humorus not offensive.

    Who decides? Those Spiked people have written about this quite a lot and I can’t help but tending to go along with their position.

    Welcome to the humourless society, where no off-the-cuff remark, gag or utterance is beyond the sanction of the sanctimonious word-watchers.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2953/

    Also, I’m not a fan of the UAF/Hope not Hate way of working. The BNP are a potentially dangerous party and I am glad to see them kept down, but I think that that way of attacking them and constantly hounding them, while being successful, also leads to the overly censorious climate that the tabloid press have a field day with. And actually does stifle debate.

    (See Andy Burnham thread for a bit more on this)

  30. Ant — on 25th May, 2010 at 8:49 pm  

    “No. it isn’t. The very definition of censorship is that an opinion cannot be expressed, not that it cannot be disdained.”

    No it isn’t. Censorship is the suppression of speech and the techniques that traditionally accompany said suppression are the threat and actuality of serious consequences for expressing an opinion that is deemed by arbiters as ‘unacceptable’ and there is no denying that is the case in the UK and many other countries. As I said it is not only undemocratic it is anti-democratic.

    Persecution and discrimination on political grounds is just as abhorrent as any other form.

    “You guess wrong.”

    I think not, but go on then, what ‘words, opinions and behaviours’ is that you actually agree with but think should be somehow suppressed and the holders barred from some employments irregardless of whether or not they keep them to themselves?

    “I won’t. I will apply much higher standards.”

    Clearly you would have to, considering you don’t seem to have any.

  31. Don — on 25th May, 2010 at 9:21 pm  

    Damon,

    …but it all depends what words opinions and behaviors you’re talking about.

    Quite. That’s why I said It’s a question of where the line should be drawn, not if.

    Who decides?

    I do. I decide if someone’s words opinions and behaviors offend me to the extent that I would cross them off my christmas card list, exclude them from my soirées and even make some pretty cutting remarks. Just as you would decide in your own case.

    Who decides if an individual has disqualified themselves for a particular position? That would be on a case by case basis, but note that I was speaking specifically about positions which give the person in question a significant measure of power over the life-outcomes of people they openly despise. I take it you would agree with the example I gave above?

    I know nothing of Gillingham FC, I’m not big on football, but by extension I suppose some people would argue that throwing bananas at black players was meant to be humorous rather than offensive.

    I think the Spiked people you mention are doing little more than whining. The writer of the article you linked to gave no real examples of how this censorious, sanctimonious society has actually interfered with free speech. Say what you think and stand by it. If that means that you fall in the estimation of some people, so be it. Debate is not stifled by becoming heated and personal.

    And how does one go about being ‘overly censorious’ of the BNP?

  32. Don — on 25th May, 2010 at 11:01 pm  

    Ant,

    No, you’re still wrong. We are, as I take it, discussing the proposition that certain words opinions and behaviors have become socially unacceptable and that this constitutes a form of censorship.

    You haven’t made clear what exactly you mean by the threat and actuality of serious consequences for expressing an opinion. If it is so prevalent a few examples should not be hard to find.

    It is a fact that many words opinions and behaviors which would have passed unremarked thirty or a hundred and thirty years ago will now be challenged, but the only ‘arbiters’ are the people around you who have formed an opinion about what they find ‘acceptable’. You can still express your opinion, it might make you less popular that is not, really not, censorship.

    there is no denying that is the case in the UK

    Clearly, there is.

    go on then

    Actually quite a tricky one when I come to think about it, I meant in general. But, OK. I would certainly exclude myself from any post which involved an over-view and purse-strings control over MP’s expenses. I doubt I could resist the temptation to be a right bastard. But I still agree with my own opinion on the matter.

    Our original disagreement on this point was on my opinion that one could not leave one’s core beliefs at home, and your opinion that that marked me out as a moral degenerate. I don’t feel censored by that. I just don’t agree.

    My core beliefs, as it happens, are very socially acceptable. They’re lovely. They are a fucking nest of Labrador puppies. I take them to work with me and that is not a problem because they only piss on the floor if something upsets them.

    Are you saying that if at work you are required to make a decision which is directly against the principles you hold to be most true, that wouldn’t be a problem because you checked your conscience at the door?

    Clearly you would have to, considering you don’t seem to have any.

    Hey, I have lots of standards. I have standards I haven’t even used yet.

  33. damon — on 26th May, 2010 at 12:20 am  

    We disagree a bit Don, but so what? It’s pretty normal to have different views on things.

    For example, I agree with Rod Liddle on this one issue here about football fans using the the word ‘pikeys’ about Gillingham fans.

    I cannot recall ever watching Millwall play Gillingham without uttering the word “pikey”, or making a traveller-related slur. Except we don’t think of it is a traveller-related slur, just a Gillingham-related slur. I’m pretty sure that four or five years ago I joined in with a spirited rendition of “You can shove your lucky heather up your a***.” And long before that, the magnificently offensive “You can’t read, you can’t write, you wear gold and Nikes, you are all from Gillingham and you are f****** pikeys.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/rod_liddle/article7043692.ece

    And the reason I disagree with you on this Don is that I think that is so different to the bananas being chucked at black players example you gave.

    But I agree that everyone should be free to make their own standards and be vocal about them.

    And to me, it’s not about being overly censorious about the BNP. Screw them.
    But more about the reaction to them, like outside the BBC when Nick Griffin was going on Question Time, which viewing it on youtube, left me completely underwhelmed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpXfR5uPRbI

  34. Jai — on 26th May, 2010 at 11:37 am  

    More news:

    - Nick Griffin “tries to buy time with resignation ploy”.

    Source: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1632/Griffin-tries-to-buy-time-with-resignation-ploy

    Quote:

    Under pressure from a series of revelations by the British National Party’s former webmaster Simon Bennett and calls for new leadership by party activists and organisers stung by their disastrous election results, Nick Griffin has announced that he will step down as leader “by the end of 2013”.

    …According to a statement on the BNP website, Griffin intends to concentrate on getting re-elected to the European Parliament in 2014. He then intends “to help the other European nationalist parties to achieve the level of sophistication which the BNP has been able to build up, because a victory for any one of these parties is a victory to all of us”.

    These “European nationalist parties” are likely to include some of Europe’s most hardline racist and fascist organisations. Griffin and his fellow BNP MEP Andrew Brons are members of the Alliance of European National Movements, a far-right group in the European Parliament formed in Budapest last October. Its other members are the three MEPs from Hungary’s fascist Jobbik party and the three French National Front MEPs.

    The group is also supported by Italy’s Fiamma Tricolore, the Belgian National Front and the Swedish National Democrats, none of which have MEPs.

    Griffin’s announcement shows that he remains more an internationalist fascist than a British nationalist, true to the politics he learned from his mentor, the convicted Italian terrorist Roberto Fiore. No doubt he has also become accustomed to the European Parliament’s generous salary and expenses regime.

  35. Jai — on 26th May, 2010 at 11:43 am  

    (continued)

    - BNP London leader Bob Bailey (recently involved in the caught-on-video violent incident in Barking) has resigned.

    Source: http://www.vote-no-to-bnp.org.uk/2010/05/bnp-london-leader-bob-bailey-resigns.html

    Quote:

    Bob “it’s all a conspiracy” Bailey has resigned as head of London BNP after losing his seat and getting arrested for assault. According to to a statement by London BNP, Bob stood down in order to:

    “concentrate on clearing his name following unfounded allegations of assault during the recent London Elections”

    Before claiming that:

    “Bob leaves London BNP in good shape”

    - BNP member David Clarke, who ran for council, has been sentenced to a a year’s community service for physically attacking two female campaigners from the Hope Not Hate organisation.

    Source: http://www.vote-no-to-bnp.org.uk/2010/05/bnp-man-sentenced-after-shoving-two-women-at-east-croydon-station.html

    Quote:

    David Clarke, who got 518 votes when he stood in Heathfield for this year’s local elections, was sentenced on four counts of assaulting anti-racism campaigners.

    Clarke, of Dunley Drive, New Addington, pushed and shoved Lorna Nelson-Homian, James Cox, Nigel Green and Silvia Beckett in two separate attacks last May outside East Croydon train station.

    …[Prosecuter] Mr Irving told the court that when Clarke spotted other Hope Not Hate campaigners two days later he screamed at them: “F****** scumbags, filth on our streets, taking all our jobs.”

  36. Ant — on 26th May, 2010 at 3:26 pm  

    Before we get to the bit where I am subjected to charges and insults, I feel I must point out that I am a libertarian, not BNP. And I also feel that it is a sad disgrace that I have to point that out.

    “You haven’t made clear what exactly you mean by the threat and actuality of serious consequences for expressing an opinion. If it is so prevalent a few examples should not be hard to find.”

    Of course they are not.

    I will give you three quick ones. All involve professionals that never had any complaints about their political conduct during their duties because their politics were unknown to all, until they either were either allegedly revealed or they choose to reveal them.

    The first one is Steve Bettley, a long serving g police officer sacked solely on the basis that his name appeared on a stolen list of what purported to be BNP members.

    “A spokesman for Merseyside Police Federation said: “We are disappointed with the finding and sanction of the misconduct panel and do not believe that there is any evidence presented to the panel which would indicate that he was knowingly a member of the BNP…

    “The panel have also heard character evidence, including evidence from officers from minority backgrounds, and have accepted that Pc Bettley has always acted professionally and has never demonstrated any racist behaviour.”

    Media

    A second example would be Robert Grierson, again a long serving barrister who decided to exercise his democratic right and stand for a legal party. He was forced to resign to in order to protect his chambers from any repercussions for his democratic decision. Up until that point, no one was aware of this professional’s political opinion because he had never brought them to work nor had he ever had any complaints whatsoever about his professional conduct.

    “St Philips chambers was not aware that Grierson was a member of the BNP…

    “The head of chambers said it would be much better if I resigned because the BNP is obviously a controversial issue with some people. So I took the view, out of consideration for other members of chambers and in order not to make their lives difficult, that I would resign.”

    Media

    A third example would be Wayne Brown, a professional footballer with Leicester City, after revealing that he exercised his democratic right to vote for a legal party in the general election he was suspended and “forced into making a grovelling apology” despite the fact that it was his colleagues who physically confronted him over his democratic choice.

    Media

  37. Ant — on 26th May, 2010 at 3:27 pm  

    “Clearly, there is.”

    Clearly there is not.

    “Actually quite a tricky one when I come to think about it, I meant in general…”

    Why should it be tricky when you made such a claim? The example you have given has nothing to do with political opinion either, it is a matter of ethics that most from all political spectrums would agree with.

    Why is it tricky to back up your claim? Can you actually do so?

    “but the only ‘arbiters’ are the people around you who have formed an opinion about what they find ‘acceptable’.”

    No it isn’t. It is government department such as the police and prison service for a start.

    Departments paid for by the people, over half a million of which voted BNP in the general election and nearly a million in the European, yet they feel able to deny fundamental rights to these people on the basis of a democratic choice yet expect them to pay taxes to fund discrimination against themselves.

    Anyone who brings their opinions to work and or allows them to interfere in a professional job should be dismissed and I gave several examples of other beliefs that could just as easily be construed to be a bar to fairly servicing the public.

    As with the examples above, no one has ever complained about the professional conduct of Adam Walker, a teacher who happens to be a BNP member (even though he is a well known BNP member) and the recently dismissed charges against him were a violation of the computer policy turned into a political witchhunt; after the charges were dismissed the main union that has been calling for people to banned for teaching purely because of their democratic choices renewed the call, but didn’t offer any help for a fellow teacher.

    “Are you saying that if at work you are required to make a decision which is directly against the principles you hold to be most true, that wouldn’t be a problem because you checked your conscience at the door?”

    We are talking about politics here. What possible decision could I be required to make that would be directly against any political principles?

  38. Jai — on 26th May, 2010 at 3:53 pm  

    I feel I must point out that I am a libertarian, not BNP.

    That type of unsolicited “clarification” has as much factual & moral credibility as someone repeatedly defending the allegedly “unfair” treatment of Anjem Choudary, Omar Bakri, and similar Islamist extremists, and then “pre-emptively” claiming that he’s “a libertarian, not Al-Muhajiroun”.

    A third example would be Wayne Brown, a professional footballer with Leicester City, after revealing that he exercised his democratic right to vote for a legal party in the general election he was suspended and “forced into making a grovelling apology” despite the fact that it was his colleagues who physically confronted him over his democratic choice.

    Not quite.

    Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1278734/Revealed-What-BNP-supporter-Wayne-Brown-said-enrage-Leicester-team-mates.html

    Quote:

    Contrary to reports last week, it was not merely Brown’s boast that he voted for the BNP at the General Election which enraged his team-mates, but the language and terms he used while doing so.

    Having returned to the dressing room after training, where a discussion was taking place between a group of players about the election results, Brown first told a stunned, racially mixed group of players that he had voted for the BNP.

    He was met with a volley of protest. But rather than defusing the situation, the player, born in Barking where BNP leader Nick Griffin was wiped out in the election by Labour’s Margaret Hodge, and the party lost all its council seats, launched into an abuse attack on against ethnic minorities whom he claimed were ‘killing this country’.

    The reaction was furious and several players pointed out that, not only were Brown’s phrases and views unacceptable, but that he had Asian, black and mixed-race colleagues.

    Leicester boss Nigel Pearson suspended him for the play-off semi-finals, which the side lost to Cardiff City, and has made clear privately he no longer wishes Brown to be a part of his squad.

    *****************************************************************************************

    professional conduct of Adam Walker, a teacher who happens to be a BNP member (even though he is a well known BNP member) and the recently dismissed charges against him were a violation of the computer policy turned into a political witchhunt;

    Like Wayne Brown, Adam Walker isn’t quite the innocent victim or “free speech martyr” that certain individuals are attempting to make him out to be. Let’s look at what he actually wrote, especially the specific language he repeatedly uses to describe immigrants. It’s very revealing about the scale of psychopathic hatred he has towards them:

    Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7135553.ece

    Quote:

    A prominent member of the British National Party described immigrants as “savage animals” and “filth” while working as a technology teacher, a disciplinary panel was told yesterday.

    Adam Walker, who is the first teacher to appear before the General Teaching Council (GTC) accused of racial intolerance, used a school laptop to post comments on an online forum, in which he also claimed that parts of Britain were a “dumping ground” for the Third World.

    …Mr Walker, who has been a BNP candidate and is president of Solidarity, a trade union with strong links to the far-Right party, claimed in one posting that the BNP was popular because “they are the only party who are making a stand and are prepared to protect the rights of citizens against the savage animals New Labour and Bliar (sic) are filling our communities with”.

    In another posting on the same day, he wrote: “By following recent media coverage of illegal animals and how they are allowed to stay here despite committing heinous crimes, I am, to say the very least, disgusted.”

  39. Ant — on 26th May, 2010 at 4:49 pm  

    Jai, the reason I provided the clarification was exactly for people like you; you now choose to cast aspirations on me anyway. That is how it is. I couldn’t care less what you believe, but apparently you care what I believe, even if it is only a belief transferred by yourself.

    For expressing libertarian views I am often labelled with all sorts, ironically, almost always by so-called liberals so knock yourself out with out the insults and the conspiracy theories, it matters not to me.

    “Not quite.”

    Yes, quite. In fact exactly what was originally reported:

    “A number of his team-mates — principally winger Lloyd Dyer and veteran defender Chris Powell — were particularly upset and rounded upon the former Hull City man.

    Reports of a dressing-room punch-up appear wide of the mark but several of the Foxes’ squad were unhappy and told him so.”

    The second report makes the typically vague emotive claims (of the “sparks fears” variety) that Brown “launched into an abuse attack on against ethnic minorities” but fails to detail what these “attacks” he “launched” into were despite the screaming claim of the headline “Revealed: What BNP supporter Wayne Brown said to enrage his Leicester team-mates”

    In fact the only detail actually revealed alleges he said immigrants are “’killing this country” which is not racist and is certainly not an illegal viewpoint; it certainly doesn’t mention what had been said to him prior to or during this exchange.

    This is the only example of “the language and terms he used” when expressing his views and given the nature of tabloids, it is safe to presume the worst example.

    Therein lies the rub: The underlying theme is that it is not just unacceptable that he expressed his perfectly legal views and that he exercised his democratic right to vote for a legal party, but also that he didn’t use so-called “politically correct” terms when doing so.

    Conditioning is all about control and vocabulary. The so-called PC doctrine demands that people censor themselves, and if they don’t face consequences from other conditioned censors.

    “Like Wayne Brown, Adam Walker isn’t quite the innocent victim or “free speech martyr” that certain individuals are attempting to make him out to be. Let’s look at what he actually wrote…”

    Again you completely seem to have failed to understand what the debate between Don and I is actually about.

    It doesn’t matter what he said or wrote. He broke no laws and he has every right to express his opinion in a democracy whether or not you like it. What he done wrong was using a work computer but he wasn’t charged for that.

    He was not accused of bringing his views into conflict with his professional capacity, of applying his views in his job or even expressing them to any colleagues but for the very fact that he held a perfectly legal opinion others considered ‘unacceptable’ and the only reason this opinion was every discovered was because the school themselves worked hard to bring it to light.

    He was cleared of all charges by the way Jai and as such is innocent in any case.

    But while you are working hard to justify the political persecution of people, what about the other two cases I cited?

  40. Jai — on 26th May, 2010 at 7:20 pm  

    Jai, the reason I provided the clarification was exactly for people like you; you now choose to cast aspirations on me anyway. That is how it is. I couldn’t care less what you believe, but apparently you care what I believe, even if it is only a belief transferred by yourself.

    For expressing libertarian views I am often labelled with all sorts, ironically, almost always by so-called liberals so knock yourself out with out the insults and the conspiracy theories, it matters not to me.

    Quite a defensive and somewhat shrill reaction for someone who claims to “not care” what the other party thinks, but entertaining enough nevertheless.

    The second report makes the typically vague emotive claims (of the “sparks fears” variety) that Brown “launched into an abuse attack on against ethnic minorities” but fails to detail what these “attacks” he “launched” into were despite the screaming claim of the headline “Revealed: What BNP supporter Wayne Brown said to enrage his Leicester team-mates”

    In fact the only detail actually revealed alleges he said immigrants are “’killing this country” which is not racist and is certainly not an illegal viewpoint; it certainly doesn’t mention what had been said to him prior to or during this exchange.

    This is the only example of “the language and terms he used” when expressing his views and given the nature of tabloids, it is safe to presume the worst example.

    Therein lies the rub: The underlying theme is that it is not just unacceptable that he expressed his perfectly legal views and that he exercised his democratic right to vote for a legal party, but also that he didn’t use so-called “politically correct” terms when doing so.

    All of which negates the claim that it was purely his vote for a “legitimate democratic political party” which elicited the reaction. It was not.

    And whether or not you agree with the reaction from his team-mates or from the football team’s management, it is entirely the latter’s legal right to suspend players at their discretion and if necessary permanently remove them from their employment. Within the boundaries of the law, Brown’s team-mates also had the full legal right to express their own objections to Brown’s support of the BNP, and that they were under no legal obligations whatsoever to censor their objections or their views on the matter.

    The so-called PC doctrine demands that people censor themselves, and if they don’t face consequences from other conditioned censors.

    Applying mental filters when expressing (or not expressing) one’s views according to the propriety of the circumstances, along with acknowledging that with rights come responsibility, that correspondingly a fundamental part of civilised behaviour in civilised human society is to grasp that one’s actions have logical consequences and that very little in life is consequence-free when dealing with other people, is what effective and mature human behaviour is all about. It has very little to do with “political correctness” and absolutely everything to do with intelligence, integrity, empathy and basic common sense.

    Welcome to the real world — the world that well-adjusted adults live in, as opposed to those who want to duplicate the mentality of the school playground.

    Conditioning is all about control and vocabulary.

    Something the BNP are very well acquainted with. Such as their persistent (mis)use & abuse of the terms “genocide”, “alien”, “racial foreigner”, “indigenous”, “race replacement”, “autogenocide”, “aboriginal”, “miscegenation”, and so on and so forth. Not to mention completely falsified statistics, fabricated history, and fabricated scientific claims focusing on genetics which have been explicitly condemned & contradicted by the very scientists they attempt to misappropriate.

    But while you are working hard to justify the political persecution of people,

    Given the fact that the BNP is specifically persecuting non-white British citizens and has explicitly stated that they would strip multiple democratic legal rights from them if they ever achieved power, the fact that the party’s current chairman Nick Griffin has been caught on camera admitting to BNP supporters that he’s deliberately persecuting & scapegoating Muslims as a vehicle to achieve political power, the fact that Griffin has been caught on camera stating on record that if Hitler hadn’t been so “daft” the German Jews would have been exterminated, the fact that Griffin himself admitted on Newsnight that the BNP’s policies in their latest manifesto don’t actually solve the problems they’re claiming to identify, and the fact that the BNP actually has so little support amongst the majority white British population that they were effectively wiped out in the General Election and secured a pathetic 1.9% of the votes from the country’s electorate…..it’s certainly interesting to see you working so hard to defend such a party.

    what about the other two cases I cited?

    You misunderstand me. Beyond the one-off remarks in this specific comment, I’m not actually interested in engaging in a dialogue with you; my previous comment was purely for the benefit of the wider audience, in order to correct some of the false assertions in your own remarks to Don.

    I have no more interest in justifying the so-called “political persecution” of BNP supporters than I have any interest in justifying the so-called “political persecution” of Al-Muhajiroun supporters, regardless of what objections may be raised in both of these cases by people with a vested interest and a self-serving political objective to achieve. As long as their own actions remain within the boundaries of the law, other people have the full legal right to actively oppose members, supporters and defenders of both of these organisations, whether you like it or not.

  41. Don — on 26th May, 2010 at 9:25 pm  

    Ant,

    Before we get to the bit where I am subjected to charges and insults,…

    Why would you imagine that you would be subjected to charges and insults? A sad disgrace? You’re jumping the gun a little, aren’t you? It’s usual to wait until you are insulted before taking offence.

    But thanks for providing the examples. I hadn’t expected them to all involve the BNP, I thought we were discussing a wider principle, but never mind.

    On the matter of the police officer, I agree with the well-known police policy that membership of the BNP is not compatible with being a police officer. However, if the article you linked to is right, that he was not a member of the BNP and had no sympathy for their policies, then clearly he has been the victim of a gross injustice. He is being penalised for something he didn’t do. Of course that’s wrong. The principle remains valid, the execution questionable.

    If he had chosen to join the BNP then it was fine for the police to sack him. If he was stitched up, as the article strongly implies, then at the very least he needs to be re-instated and/or compensated. Is there an FB group I could join?

    On the footballer, I have no sympathy. Obviously we don’t know exactly what was said but if you piss off colleagues to the point where you just can’t work together the manager has to manage.

    As to the lawyer, it appears to have been a commercial decision. If you are associated in any way with the BNP a lot of people will choose not to give you their business. How is that undemocratic?

    I have to get on with stuff now, but I will adress your other points later. Probably without insult or charge.

  42. Ant — on 26th May, 2010 at 9:35 pm  

    “Quite a defensive and somewhat shrill reaction for someone who claims to “not care” what the other party thinks, but entertaining enough nevertheless.”

    Not at all; once again that is just the way you choose to interpret it: in another conspiracy theory type scenario and of course with the standard internet “I am laughing at you” device chucked in now too.

    “All of which negates the claim that it was purely his vote for a “legitimate democratic political party” which elicited the reaction. It was not.”

    Yes it was. You haven’t produced any evidence of what was said other then an allegation he said immigrants are “’killing this country” the actual report said:

    “Wayne Brown has been forced into making a grovelling apology to his Leicester City team-mates after admitting that he voted BNP in the general election.”

    Quite clear really.

    “it is entirely the latter’s legal right to suspend players at their discretion and if necessary permanently remove them from their employment”

    You really think employers in this country have the right to suspend people “at their discretion”? That there is no employment law or process? That they have the right to do so, as reported, on the basis of how someone voted in an election?

    “Within the boundaries of the law, Brown’s team-mates also had the full legal right to express their own objections to Brown’s support of the BNP…”

    That’s right, but the report clearly suggests that their confrontation was physical:

    “A number of his team-mates — principally winger Lloyd Dyer and veteran defender Chris Powell — were particularly upset and rounded upon the former Hull City man.

    Reports of a dressing-room punch-up appear wide of the mark but several of the Foxes’ squad were unhappy and told him so.”

    Which is neither legal, within any companies’ code of conduct nor acceptable yet they escaped all punishment and were indeed presented as the victims.

    “Welcome to the real world — the world that well-adjusted adults live in, as opposed to those who want to duplicate the mentality of the school playground.”

    In the real world people express opinions and crack jokes all the time that would be considered some sort of ‘ist’ or ‘ism’ and would no doubt offend some people and even more commonly, offend some people on others behalf. The commonly heard line these days is “you can’t say it in public though.”

    That is not freedom. That is the opposite.

    “Such as their persistent (mis)use & abuse of the terms “genocide”, “alien”, “racial foreigner”, “indigenous”, “race replacement”, “autogenocide”, “aboriginal”, “miscegenation”

    The term “genocide” is erroneous clearly but they often use the term “bloodless genocide” but there is no real issue with the other terms, even ones that sound offensive. I don’t see what your point is. That they use words you don’t like or may be wrong so they have no right to exist?

    In fact I fully agree that the British have a very strong claim to be indigenous or perhaps “aboriginal” to these isles as a genetic group within the international standard. It doesn’t mean anything politically to me, but certainly from what I have read science does indeed agree with that conclusion.

    But again, the words they use are not important; you don’t have to agree with them, but you should agree with their right to use them, provided no laws are broken.

    “Given the fact that the BNP is specifically persecuting non-white British citizens and has explicitly stated that they would strip multiple democratic legal rights from them if they ever achieved power…”

    Considering the BNP do not have any power exactly how are they persecuting anyone?

    And what democratic rights have they stated they would strip from people? I haven’t seen it.

    “…the fact that Griffin has been caught on camera stating on record that if Hitler hadn’t been so “daft” the German Jews would have been exterminated, the fact that Griffin…”

    I get it. You don’t like them. I don’t like them. So what? Who you are? Who am I? This is a democracy. They are a legal party nonetheless and have as much right to exist within the law and opine within the law as everyone else without political persecution.

    “it’s certainly interesting to see you working so hard to defend such a party.”

    Again with your deep misunderstanding or conspiracy theory.

    I am defending liberty and freedom. That is what this is. Just because you don’t like a party or an opinion means nothing. They still have every right to be who they are and who they want to be within the law whether you like it or not.

    “You misunderstand me. Beyond the one-off remarks in this specific comment, I’m not actually interested in engaging in a dialogue with you…”

    And yet you are and have been. Particularly to cast your conspiracy theories around about what I believe in and what motivates me and away from the fact that you quite clearly don’t believe in democracy, free speech or liberty.

    As long as it’s within the law, there is either political freedom for all without persecution or there is not political freedom at all.

    “my previous comment was purely for the benefit of the wider audience, in order to correct some of the false assertions in your own remarks to Don.”

    And I have proven that they were not false assertions, but in fact yours were.

    But can Don not now speak for himself?

    “I have no more interest in justifying the so-called “political persecution” of BNP supporters…”

    But that is exactly what you are attempting to do.

  43. Ant — on 26th May, 2010 at 10:22 pm  

    “Why would you imagine that you would be subjected to charges and insults? A sad disgrace? You’re jumping the gun a little, aren’t you? It’s usual to wait until you are insulted before taking offence.”

    Funnily enough no considering Jai has already started with it. I get it all the time; Libertarians seem to be the most insulted group in this country.

    “But thanks for providing the examples. I hadn’t expected them to all involve the BNP, I thought we were discussing a wider principle, but never mind.”

    Can you provide examples of any other group being persecuted for their views in such a fashion? Curiously, not even terrorist mouthpieces like Sinn Fein. In fact people like Ken Livingston felt it perfectly ‘acceptable’ to invite and meet members of a terrorist mouthpiece whilst in a position of authority during the height of their bombing campaign but acts outraged that the BNP were invited onto QT.

    Thought crime outweighs real crime, it would seem.

    “On the matter of the police officer, I agree with the well-known police policy that membership of the BNP is not compatible with being a police officer.”

    We have established that and also that you are not a democratic, a believer in freedom nor in a position to claim foul if the right ever gain power and decide your party or opinion is incompatible with being a police officer or whatever.

    And you are wrong too as this officer most likely was a member of the BNP, but being on a stolen list doesn’t prove it, was the point.

    The point was that his politics never interfered with his job and so therefore being a member of the BNP was entirely compatible with being a police officer as it was irrelevant.

    If you want to take as we did before then how can being a Muslim be compatible with being a police officer in regards to the religions views on women, homosexuality and atheism? How can being a homosexual be compatible with a job where it is a common duty to intimately search people of the same sex? How can being a revolutionary Marxist be compatible with upholding the law…. etc etc etc

    People are either professional, and it matters not; or they not and they are dismissed.

    “On the footballer, I have no sympathy. Obviously we don’t know exactly what was said but if you piss off colleagues to the point where you just can’t work together the manager has to manage.”

    Piss people off by voicing that you exercised your democratic right to vote for a legal political party and then be physically confronted for it; and then suspended and made to apologise. This you think is right.

    “As to the lawyer, it appears to have been a commercial decision. If you are associated in any way with the BNP a lot of people will choose not to give you their business. How is that undemocratic?”

    How do you know that? What evidence do you have for that? What is certain is that no government contracts will come your way and that extreme-left groups will scream and demonise the business until the person who exercised their democratic rights has been removed and thus served up as a warning to others.

    If you remember the whole point was you asked me “You haven’t made clear what exactly you mean by the threat and actuality of serious consequences for expressing an opinion” and here I have made it clear with the examples you asked for.

    It was fear that drove the chamber to ask him to resign. Fear of consequences. That was the point I made, that was the point I proved.

  44. Jai — on 27th May, 2010 at 10:35 am  

    But that is exactly what you are attempting to do.

    As long as the actions of their opponents are within the boundaries of the law, I have absolutely no problem with BNP members & supporters being targeted, in exactly the same way that I have absolutely no problem with Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut-Tahrir members & supporters being targeted.

    Opponents of these groups have the full legal right to oppose them, to voice their arguments against them, and to counteract their political objectives, whether you like it or not and irrespective of your undemocratic (indeed, antidemocratic) wish to censor the opponents concerned.

    Fear of consequences.

    Everything in life has consequences, especially matters which affect other people. Understanding that fundamental concept, and taking responsibility for one’s actions, is part of adult life in civilised human society — as opposed to children who may not fully grasp the concept of cause & effect. Or adults who are autistic or suffering from Asperger syndrome. Or the mentality of clinical sociopaths, for that matter.

    **************************************************************************************************

    Don,

    I’m sure you’re astute enough to be able to read between the lines and see what is being attempted here. It’s standard practice in certain quarters, complete with identical arguments, identical terminology, and identical tactics being deployed. Including the following disingenuous remarks:

    Considering the BNP do not have any power exactly how are they persecuting anyone?

    And what democratic rights have they stated they would strip from people? I haven’t seen it.

    For the reasons stated at the end of #40 I’m not personally going to engage in this debate any further, although it’s worth noting that the ongoing legal investigation into the BNP’s constitution and the party leadership’s desperate attempts to circumvent the injunction means that it may not necessarily be a “legal democratic party” for much longer.

    But thanks for providing the examples. I hadn’t expected them to all involve the BNP, I thought we were discussing a wider principle, but never mind.

    Indeed.

    Can you provide examples of any other group being persecuted for their views in such a fashion?

    Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut-Tahrir.

    We look forward to hearing the anti-censorship, free-speech-advocating, democratic-rights-promoting libertarian “Ant’s” arguments for the re-legalisation of Al-Muhajiroun and for the legal democratic rights of British citizens who are members of Al-Muhajiroun and HuT, including the rights of these organisations to become full-scale political parties in the United Kingdom.

  45. Ant — on 27th May, 2010 at 2:26 pm  

    Well Jai, all you have done is reacted in exactly the way I predicted: With insults, unfounded conspiracy theories and a few wild claims thrown in for good measure that you can’t seem to prove so you claim you don’t want debate instead. How see through. How pathetic.

    And of course as well as the conspiracy theories and the standard “I am laughing at you” device, you have now used the full pathetic standard internet ‘contempt for alternate opinions range’ by implying I am mentally ill for expressing my belief in liberty and democracy.

    You would have been at home in the Soviet Union.

    Libertarians are often attacked thus because no one on the extremities of either side wants to hear that liberty, within the confines of the law, is for all or none.

    That message is just as much as a threat to you as your opponents.

    The point of the debate between Don and I in which you intervened in to sully was that this country does indeed practice censorship and political persecution and that it is not only undemocratic but anti-democratic and I have more then proved my point.

    As I also said, people like you who are so enthusiastic to see such practices applied to your opponents will no doubt be amongst those who cry the loudest if the wheel ever turns the full circle and you and your opinions are deemed ‘unacceptable’ and subject to the same anti-democratic measures, perhaps even using the existing framework but just with the names changed.

    All you have proved here is that you are just as petty, hateful and intolerant as the people you claim to oppose and you aim to close down a political party and / or suppress its support by outdoing them in fascism and dismantling the principle of democracy.

    Shame on you.

    Don, you seem to have been unable to debate this issue, perhaps because there is not much to debate on your behalf. You are a self-confessed anti-democrat who would appear to prefer to allow insults and conspiracy theories by proxy rather then substantiate your views and claims.

    Why were you so surprised on a BNP thread that all of the examples given related to the BNP? And why do you think that is normal for someone like Jai to take as evidence as a ‘conspiracy’ and bizarrely use it to allude I am mentally ill?

    And for the record Jai’s appalling comprehension fails to understand the debate and the simple fact that neither Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut-Tahrir are or ever were political parties engaged in any democratic political process or elections and as such entirely irreverent to the debate Don and I were having.

    In fact Al-Muhajiroun is legally proscribed for glorifying terrorism and as such has exceeded its legal rights, and many Islamic countries have proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir as nothing more then a fifth column and terrorist front. The UK has not done so as yet thus showing a much higher tolerance then their co-religionists.

  46. Don — on 27th May, 2010 at 7:17 pm  

    you seem to have been unable to debate this issue…appear to prefer to allow insults and conspiracy theories by proxy…

    I just got back from work, I don’t spend my life on line. And it is a bit rich of you to complain about accusations and insults given your delineation of my character as void of morals, standards and integrity. Not that I object, knock yourself out. One of the few character flaws I don’t have is playing the martyr.

    But how do you get that I am a self-confessed anti-democrat? I have self-confessed nothing of the sort.

    Anyway, back to the issues. You say that the police officer was a witting member of the BNP after all and lied about it. Fine, in that case I withdraw my sympathy and it was quite right so sack him as he broke a very clear rule. The rule was put in place under our democratic system and I fully suppport it.

    On the teacher, he clearly did not leave his political views outside the school as he was actually supposed to be teaching when he was describing some ethnic groups (including one assumes a proportion of his students) as ‘animals’. Internet use in school is monitored. I’m actually surprised he could even access the site he was posting on as race hate sites are pretty strictly filtered, along with porn and gambling sites.

    The footballer? Voting BNP should not lose you a job in sport or entertainment or any other trivial employment, but if he announced his political affiliation in the dressing room as a way of taunting team-mates who belonged to the very groups the BNP targets then, yes, that would piss them off. They seem to say he did, you say he didn’t. Neither of us were there and we could go around this forever, but the fact is that a manager needs a reasonably harmonious team and he was dropped. That has very little to do with democracy.

    Why were you so surprised on a BNP thread that all of the examples given related to the BNP?

    Because the discussion you joined (and you were and are very welcome to do so) between Damon and myself was around the claim made in an article with which he agreed, but which I felt was little more than a ‘political correctness gone mad, you can’t say nothing these days’ variant.

    To move matters along it might help if I state my position on this in clear terms. I know that several regulars on this site disagree with this position but we have generally managed to discuss it civilly in the past.

    There are some occupations which put a person in a position where they have a measure of power of the lives and outcomes of others. Those who have oversight of such occupations have reasonably (and democratically) generally found it important to establish a specific ethos or value system to which employees are required to adhere. This usually involves equality, respect and inclusiveness.

    Membership of the BNP (or the NF, or Combat 18 or any other bunch of racist thugs) means that an individual has signed up to, and paid money to support, an ethos which is diametrically opposed to such organisational values.

    I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect someone who regards black people as animals, or sees ethnic minorities as a plague on society, to be able to hold both those positions at the same time. Cognitive dissonance and all that.

    You have several times asked what if the position were reversed. What if I belonged to an organisation which held as it’s core belief the idea that we are all entitled to equal treatment regardless of colour, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. and I applied for a job with an employer whose stated ethos was ‘darkies are scum and god hates fags’?

    I probably wouldn’t get the job. And if I lied to get it and was later discovered I would probably be sacked. The internal logic works. In a democratic society I would then be working to change that ethos, but doing so openly.

    Actually, I seem to remember an ethos not a million miles away from that back in the 70′s.

    Anyway, I have to make dinner now. Please don’t assume that because I am away from my keyboard for a while I am unable to debate you.

  47. Ant — on 27th May, 2010 at 10:09 pm  

    “…when he was describing some ethnic groups (including one assumes a proportion of his students) as ‘animals’.”

    If you had read the case instead of making assumptions you would know he was cleared, and primarily because no ethnic groups were described as anything. Immigrants comprise all races.

    “I’m actually surprised he could even access the site he was posting on as race hate sites”

    Orwellian nonsense. Hate sites. Hate speech. Nonsense. What he posted was legal.

    Have you ever actually visited the site yourself?

    “but if he announced his political affiliation in the dressing room as a way of taunting team-mates who belonged to the very groups the BNP targets then, yes, that would piss them off. They seem to say he did, you say he didn’t.”

    Nothing of the sort has been said. The report actually said it was a debate. And when he revealed he voted BNP he was ‘rounded upon’ which heavily implies physical confrontation. But why is other people’s intolerance acceptable but his alleged intolerance is ‘unacceptable’?

    “That has very little to do with democracy.”

    That’s right. Nothing at all to do democracy. Not when you can’t even express who you voted for without being ‘rounded upon’ suspended and forced to apologise for it.

    “There are some occupations which put a person in a position where they have a measure of power of the lives and outcomes of others… Membership of the BNP (or the NF, or Combat 18 or any other bunch of racist thugs) means that an individual has signed up to, and paid money to support, an ethos which is diametrically opposed to such organisational values.”

    But as discussed, it is OK for a fully paid up revolutionary Marxist to be a police officer because they couldn’t possibly apply their political outlook on duty? They couldn’t possibly treat perceived ‘class enemies’ any differently or view the law in general as superfluous?

    Or for an Orthodox Christian to be a police officer despite their views on homosexuality?

    Or a devout Muslim despite their views on homosexuality, women and atheism?

    Or indeed any other group other then the BNP? Every other group can leave their outlooks and opinions the moment they put on a uniform but not the BNP? That is your argument?

    “I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect someone who regards black people as animals, or sees ethnic minorities as a plague on society, to be able to hold both those positions at the same time. Cognitive dissonance and all that.”

    So being a member of the BNP requires that the membership regard “black people as animals?”

    All BNP members are racist rather then nationalist? And how does that equate with people like former police inspector of 38 years service and BNP candidate for Dagenham Michael Barnbrook who has mixed race grandchildren?

    “And if I lied to get it and was later discovered I would probably be sacked.”

    Lied about what exactly? What legal political opinions you hold in private? What legal freedom of association you choose to exercise? What business is that of the state in a democracy?

  48. douglas clark — on 27th May, 2010 at 11:10 pm  

    Ant,

    You are some sick individual.

    __________________________

    It seems to me that you are just an apologist for the BNP.

    Correct me if I am wrong.

  49. Jai — on 28th May, 2010 at 10:45 am  

    You would have been at home in the Soviet Union.

    Unlikely, considering I’m an advocate of global free market capitalism. A concept, of course, which the BNP is forcefully opposed to.

    As for the rest of the rant in #45: So a hysterical apologist for the BNP is accusing people who exercise their legal democratic right and freedom of speech to oppose fascists via completely legal methods of…..being “fascists” for opposing them. I’m not going to lose any sleep over that.

  50. Jai — on 28th May, 2010 at 10:48 am  

    Meanwhile, back in the real world…..

    - More revelations from the BNP’s ex-webmaster Simon Bennett.

    Source: http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2010/05/ex-bnp-webmaster-confirms-jim-dowson.html

    Quote:

    The British National Party learned the hard way that exploiting and cheating its own supporters has unpleasant consequences, when two days before polling day its webmaster removed the BNP website from the internet.

    …He also claimed that Arthur Kemp and Jim Dowson, two close aides to Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, had threatened violence against him and his family.

    …Bennett had been in dispute with Dowson, the convicted criminal who in effect owns the BNP, for a year, but matters came to a head when Griffin insisted, against Bennett’s advice, on adding an image of a jar of Marmite to a version of the BNP’s television election broadcast pre-released on the party website.

    According to a longer statement by Bennett, this “very deliberate copyright infringement” was a stunt by Griffin and Dowson to provoke a reaction from Unilever, which owns the Marmite brand, and so “create publicity and a fund raising opportunity”. In the event, Bennett claimed, website traffic, donations and membership applications barely increased at all.

    After Unilever responded by launching proceedings over copyright infringement, Griffin and Dowson realised they had underestimated the severity of the legal and financial consequences and came up with pathetic excuses, such as a claim that a “joker” had amended the film. When Unilever’s lawyers refused to believe them, Bennett says he was expected “to go to court and lie through my teeth in order to bail them out of a ridiculous hole they had dug themselves into”.

    Griffin and Dowson had misjudged Bennett. Unlike they themselves and their more sycophantic supporters, Bennett “was not prepared to spend five years in prison for perjury just to protect the financial interests of fools” and told Unilever’s lawyers the truth.

    - Signatures on the nomination forms of a defeated BNP candidate in the General Election have been found to be forged.

    Source: http://www.vote-no-to-bnp.org.uk/2010/05/bnp-man%e2%80%99s-poll-form-had-forgeries.html

    Quote:

    South Wales Police received a number of complaints from members of the public concerned that their details had been used on Richard Barnes’ nomination form.

    Mr Barnes stood for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney in the recent election, but received only 1,173 votes.

    …Police investigated the claims and as a result a 30-year-old man was arrested and later cautioned for tampering with ballot nomination papers after he was found to be responsible for forging signatures.

    …The Echo contacted the BNP but received no response.

    Merthyr Tydfil Council was unable to help the Echo contact Richard Barnes, but did say: “Fraudulently signing election nomination papers is a criminal offence.

    “Therefore, when Merthyr council was officially made aware that there was a potential issue with one of the candidates’ nomination papers the week after the election, the matter was referred directly to South Wales Police for investigation.

  51. Ant — on 28th May, 2010 at 5:16 pm  

    Douglas

    I think you are quite clearly the sick one here, friend.

    You pitch into a debate with nothing other then a nasty gratuitous insult which in itself is just plain malicious and you quite obviously either haven’t read the comments or don’t comprehend them as you ask to be corrected if you are wrong.

    You are wrong. Very wrong. I have made my position clear; in fact I made my position clear before Jai’s typical response to libertarians of insults, conspiracy theories, “I am laughing at you” and “you are mentally ill” devices, and now finally lies.

    If you disagree with my libertarian stance then why not actually say which part and why rather then just appear with an unfounded insult and nothing else.

    Jai

    After you quickly exhausted the standard internet devices described above to silence, smear or discredit people disagreed with, libertarians in this case, you now move on to the lies.

    Not one of my comments has been ‘hysterical’ and not one of my comments has demanded any suppression of protest or opposition, in fact the complete opposite:
    Freedom for all, within the law, without persecution.

    This is a desperate and rather revealing lie on your behalf, repeated not for the first time.

    As with the rest of the claims that you have failed to substantiate, you will also fail to substantiate this one with some actual evidence too (there is none) and will no doubt instead continue with your ‘I wont debate’ line and probably more accusations of mental illness and a couple more lies.

    As I said, libertarians are often attacked thus because no one on the extremities of either side wants to hear that liberty, within the confines of the law, is for all or none.

    That message is just as much as a threat to you as your opponents.

    You are everything you claim to oppose and you are at home using the very devices you cry foul over in your opponents.

    There many ways to describe this type of attitude and behavior.

  52. Ant — on 28th May, 2010 at 5:22 pm  

    Don, the first half of my response to you disappeared so here it is again, taking it up the comment@ 27th May, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    “And it is a bit rich of you to complain about accusations and insults given your delineation of my character as void of morals, standards and integrity”

    The very definition of someone who cannot leave their opinions behind in a professional capacity and would allow their own personal prejudices to intervene at work, as you described yourself.

    An observation, not an insult.

    I certainly didn’t allude that you were mentally ill because of your opinion or that you were part of some sinister conspiracy.

    “But how do you get that I am a self-confessed anti-democrat? I have self-confessed nothing of the sort.”

    Of course you have. You think it is perfectly acceptable for legal democratic parties to face official discrimination, in fact you welcome it.

    “You say that the police officer was a witting member of the BNP after all and lied about it.”

    No I didn’t; I said probably. And that there was no real evidence for it. You know, evidence supposedly being the crucial element.

    “Fine, in that case I withdraw my sympathy and it was quite right so sack him as he broke a very clear rule.”

    They didn’t prove it and used a stolen list as evidence, contrary to the data protection act.

    The point is that no one would have known he was a member of the BNP because it didn’t affect his job in way, shape or form whatsoever, as testified to by not only the lack of complaints but the support of fellow officers from an ethnic background.

    Which proves that the restrictions are invalid and just pretty insidious anti-democratic plain old political persecution.

    “The rule was put in place under our democratic system and I fully suppport it.”

    And you say that with a straight face?! A democratic system designed to take away democratic rights?!

    No one knew this officer may have been a BNP member because it didn’t affect his job.

    He was punished not for anything he had done, but what he thinks. A thought crime.

    “On the teacher, he clearly did not leave his political views outside the school as he was actually supposed to be teaching”

    No he wasn’t; he was on a break, ‘during school time’ just meant during the day and as such he wasn’t charged with in relation to that.

    And he did leave his political views outside the school; it was posted on an internet forum and no one knew it was him or where the comment came from. The school themselves worked hard to reveal it.

    No one knew what he had posted until the school revealed it. He faced no charges or even accusations for his conduct in the classroom or with his colleagues after six years of working at that school.

    The only charge he should have faced was misuse of school property.

  53. Don — on 28th May, 2010 at 7:54 pm  

    Ant,

    The very definition of someone who cannot leave their opinions behind in a professional capacity…

    I take the opposite view. If one of my core beliefs was that all individuals should be treated with equal respect regardless of their background and I found myself in a workplace where the culture, if not a formally stated policy, was the reverse of that I think I would be ethically bound to make my position clear. If I kept quiet about it and expressed my true feelings only as an anonymous commenter on the internet I would be a moral coward.

    As it happens, that is one of my core beliefs and fortunately I work in a place where that is mirrored in both the formal and informal ethos. In the dystopia you hypothesise, where the reverse values are dominant, you are correct: I would be screwed. Which is yet another reason to do what little I can to stop that happening.

    You think it is perfectly acceptable for legal democratic parties to face official discrimination, in fact you welcome it.

    True. The BNP is a legal party. As for democratic, I would say that was moot. I don’t think it undemocratic for a democracy to decide that certain positions which entail power over others should require that the holders should not have, as a core belief, a dedicated and stated antipathy to some of those people.

    Getting back to the police officer, he must have been aware of the rule that you can’t join the BNP and remain in the police force. You might disagree with that rule (clearly you do, and that does not make you mentally ill or void of morality) but it is a disciplined force and you don’t get to disregard the rules. The inquiry concluded that he had disregarded the rules, you seem to agree that he (probably) had. I’m afraid I don’t have access to the details of the evidence presented to that enquiry and if it was inadequate evidence then that should be taken seriously as a possible injustice.

    On the teacher,

    No he wasn’t; he was on a break, ‘during school time’ just meant during the day

    Yes, but at school and apparently at least eight hours of it. A teacher generally gets a fifteen minute tea-break once a day. Other non-contact time is required to be spent on planning, preparation and admin.

    The school themselves worked hard to reveal it.

    Why? If there was no cause for concern, if he had not allowed his views to be apparent and if no-one knew about his posts, why would the school work hard to reveal it? And it would not be hard work. Every key-stroke is monitored.

    Immigrants comprise all races. That is disingenuous and borderline dishonest. Was he thinking of French bankers, American lawyers or Australian bar-staff as ‘animals’ and ‘savages’? That argument did, in the event, win the day. But it is very clear that in reality he was expressing a loathing for particular sub-categories of immigrants.

    On your claim that some fundamental religious groups should logically fall into the same category as the BNP, I would call that a reasonable point. If one of your core beliefs is that homosexuals are the root cause of floods and volcanoes and that they should be burned at the stake, hanged from a crane or beaten to death on a school playing field before being consigned to hell then, yes, there are some jobs you are not qualified for. If you strongly believe that any woman who does not cover modestly to your satisfaction is a slag who deserves everything she gets you should not be working in a rape crisis centre or indeed as a police officer or teacher and I do not accept that you could leave that belief at the door.

  54. ~AF — on 28th May, 2010 at 8:29 pm  

    Agree with you there, Don.

  55. Ant — on 28th May, 2010 at 10:29 pm  

    Don (1)

    “I take the opposite view. If one of my core beliefs was that all individuals should be treated with equal respect regardless of their background and I found myself in a workplace where the culture…”

    And you go on to make accusations of people being disingenuous!

    In this scenario you describe here you would be duty bound under any companies’ code of conduct to report it and would most likely be legally obliged too.

    This is completely different from what you claimed before. You stated that you couldn’t leave your political beliefs at home and that they would interfere with your professionalism, and as a result that you are unable to be professional, no one else could be; I quote:

    “I am strongly of the opinion that certain views, strongly and sincerely held, do indeed exclude a person from some related public positions where they can directly influence the lives of others. Because real people can’t leave their core beliefs at home, I know I can’t.”

    Nothing to do with the new scenario you present above whatsoever.

    “True. The BNP is a legal party. As for democratic, I would say that was moot.”

    In what way?

    “I don’t think it undemocratic for a democracy to decide that certain positions which entail power over others should require that the holders should not have, as a core belief, a dedicated and stated antipathy to some of those people.”

    You don’t think it is undemocratic for a democracy to demand that people cannot hold certain private opinions? That is what you are saying. No political opinions should interfere with work, and as the examples I have given a few times now show, BNP members are far from the only group that could hold opinions and viewpoints that could interfere with professional conduct, but you nonetheless persist in claiming that it is only BNP members that cannot leave their opinions out of professional life?

    That position is absurd.

    “Getting back to the police officer, he must have been aware of the rule that you can’t join the BNP and remain in the police force”

    Actually, he joined before the anti-democratic rule was put into place.

    “You might disagree with that rule (clearly you do, and that does not make you mentally ill or void of morality) but it is a disciplined force and you don’t get to disregard the rules”

    Just a decade ago there was a rule that homosexuals couldn’t serve in the Armed Forces and a relatively short time before that, the Police. Many did serve irregardless, are you saying that they were totally wrong to do so?

  56. Ant — on 28th May, 2010 at 10:31 pm  

    Don (2)

    “The inquiry concluded that he had disregarded the rules, you seem to agree that he (probably) had.”

    The inquiry had no proof that he had, just a stolen list used contrary to the data protection act.

    What they did have was proof that no matter what private opinions he may have held, it did not affect his professionalism on iota.

    “Yes, but at school and apparently at least eight hours of it”

    In total. No one go,

    “Why?”

    Because he was a member of the BNP and the head teacher was intolerant of members of political parties he doesn’t like and so ordered the IT department to audit just this one teacher without any actual reason. That was what the inquest heard.

    “why would the school work hard to reveal it?”

    In order to sack a person that they disagreed with politically, even though he never brought his politics into the classroom or staffroom.

    “And it would not be hard work. Every key-stroke is monitored.”

    Every key stroke is not monitored. That is absurd, technically ignorant and illegal.

    Proxy servers, routers, and firewalls log connections for a period of time but that’s it. The EU ruled some time back that government employees are entitled to a ‘private life’ at work in relation to a case where emails had been read without consent and the ruling was that it was unlawful and that government employees were entitled to conduct reasonable transactions online that did not impact work performance, such as banking etc which means that installing keyloggers (the only way every key stroke could possibly be monitered) is illegal as it would record sensitive information and would be impractical anyway, given that it is spyware and would be detected by the companies AV.

    Again, if you had read the case instead of making absurd and frankly ignorant assumptions you would know that there was prolonged period of surveillance conducted by the schools IT department who had to go the lengths of liaising with the ISP to confirm IP addresses; a lot of work to expose privately held opinions expressed via the internet by way of pseudonym and then linking them to the school themselves.

    “Immigrants comprise all races.That is disingenuous and borderline dishonest.”

    It is completely true and it is absolutely bizarre that you would dispute it as a fact.

    “Was he thinking of French bankers, American lawyers or Australian bar-staff as ‘animals’ and ’savages’? That argument did, in the event, win the day. But it is very clear that in reality he was expressing a loathing for particular sub-categories of immigrants.”

    So you now claim to know what he was thinking too? Based upon what evidence? Especially considering he was cleared and is innocent. He said what he said and no more.

    Anything else is pure imagination on your behalf based upon nothing other then prejudice.

    “On your claim that some fundamental religious groups should logically fall into the same category as the BNP, I would call that a reasonable point… “

    Of course it is, it is common sense and obvious to all but the extremist. But nonetheless only the BNP are barred which clearly demonstrates that the BNP are not only being discriminated against, but also unfairly and without any valid foundation.

    If other groups can be suspected of holding opinions that could comprise their professionalism, and quite clearly they can be, but not only are they not barred from service but they have even have their own group specific associations within the service then it iron clad proof that the ban against the BNP is purely motivated out of a political dislike for them, and not based upon any fair, wide-ranging and one-rule-for-all basis.

    And that is my issue.

    Many here think its great because it targets people and a party they don’t like but that is irrelevant in a democracy; they would not find it quite so amusing if it was them, their beliefs and their party targeted.

    It’s a slippery road and one that leads me again to say that, within the law, there is liberty for all or none.

    Why is it that we keep hearing that equality and tolerance are the reasons that people from a certain party are not treated equally or tolerated?

    Can you not see how surreal and absurd that is?

    “…I do not accept that you could leave that belief at the door.”

    There we disagree.

    I believe people can and do leave their beliefs at the door. It’s called professionalism.

  57. Jai — on 30th May, 2010 at 7:01 pm  

    Don,

    “Ant” is actually the self-confessed BNP member “I Am English” (aka “IAE”) using yet another of his online aliases. He was particularly prolific on the ‘BNP and the Killer Question’ thread.

    Rumbold banned him from this blog several weeks before the election, and yet he persists. He hasn’t managed to hide his real identity on this particular thread anywhere near as well as he thinks he has.

    This charade has gone on for long enough, and I am therefore closing this thread.

    Don, thank you for your contributions; your efforts have been outstanding.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.