Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2009 17:59:56 GMT
But if they wern't allowed on, then we haven't got a democracy then. I'm undecided on whether they were right or wrong to allow him on the show. I'm just glad that he was embarrassed and was shown up as the racist, extremist, biggot that he really is. Definatly, this is why i voted yes on this poll, as if the BNP didnt go on question time, it wouldnt be a democracy. And it wouldnt be a country of free speech (not that it exists anyway). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2009 20:52:11 GMT
I think a public service broadcaster should not censor information, and trust the public to decide for themselves who they support and believe. The BBC (and other mainstream media) selecting what views should be represented would lose it its credibility, and general trust in this country would disintegrate.
On the one hand I think Nick Griffin and the BNP were exposed of their true colours. Any rational voters should hopefully have seen through their guise and never vote for them. On the other hand I think there was far too much song-and-dance about whether Nick Griffin should have been allowed on. The whole debate only raised their profile and I don't like how this episode was almost exclusively about the BNP. In a way the BNP has successfully hijacked the media. And indeed people sympathising towards the BNP is a real risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by mre81 on Oct 24, 2009 0:06:45 GMT
Agreed. Thankfully his appearance showed him to be a ridiculous man with some absurd and quite frankly farcical ideas. Unsuprisingly he seemed very nervous and was unable to explain and express himself in a coherent manner. I would like to think that a large number of persons who have voted for him in the past are now seriously questioning their reasoning. His thoughts about idigenous peoples nearly made me laugh out loud. If we followed this policy to its ultimate aim, we'd only have a few hundred people left in this country, and he would almost certainly not be one of them. This sounds suspiciously like the Aryan policy of the Nazi's and has subsequently exposed himself and his party for exactly they are. I know I wouldn't be one of the 100 left as I've four countries in my blood but if you met me, you wouldn't think so. I mean take a look at my surname ;D Me too. Again, if you met me, you'd think me very English, but go back a few generations and it's a real melting pot. From my researches (as an amateur historian) I would say that most inhabitants of this nation are the same. Rather negates the raison d'etre of the BNP methinks....  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2009 20:31:09 GMT
I play devils advocate here! Does standing up for the rights of the people to whom the country belongs make you a racist. Did he not indicate that the issue was immigrants intergating into and taking on the culture of thier new home was the qualification to be British not the colour of your skin. Multiculturalism is anarchy. I am a black Englishman and i am appaled at how the values and standards we once set are being diluted in the name of political correctness. This is our house and we can make house rules, if the rules are not to your taste dont live here. nuf said!!
|
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Oct 27, 2009 12:58:19 GMT
I play devils advocate here! Does standing up for the rights of the people to whom the country belongs make you a racist. Did he not indicate that the issue was immigrants intergating into and taking on the culture of thier new home was the qualification to be British not the colour of your skin. Multiculturalism is anarchy. I am a black Englishman and i am appaled at how the values and standards we once set are being diluted in the name of political correctness. This is our house and we can make house rules, if the rules are not to your taste dont live here. nuf said!!  And when their constitution says things like the following, why would you stick up for them in any way? Is 1948 not the year that a certain boat named the SS Windrush docked in the UK? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2009 21:46:33 GMT
IMO The elected members of any party should be allowed on any media, including the television, radio, newspapers etc. in a country that purports to encourage freedom of speech. IMO the key to this is that they have elected members.
My political views here are not important but I have never been and never will be a racist.
|
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Nov 21, 2009 17:45:18 GMT
IMO The elected members of any party should be allowed on any media, including the television, radio, newspapers etc. in a country that purports to encourage freedom of speech. IMO the key to this is that they have elected members. My political views here are not important but I have never been and never will be a racist. The term freedom of speech should not be taken literally, it's still illegal to say defamatory things, slander and incite racial hatred. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2009 17:49:34 GMT
IMO The elected members of any party should be allowed on any media, including the television, radio, newspapers etc. in a country that purports to encourage freedom of speech. IMO the key to this is that they have elected members. My political views here are not important but I have never been and never will be a racist. The term freedom of speech should not be taken literally, it's still illegal to say defamatory things, slander and incite racial hatred. Thats why I think its ridiculous that people say we have 'freedom of speech'. It doesnt exist! (well, it does for some people). I think its a good thing we dont fully have freedom of speech, as it means people cant be racist etc and get away with it |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2009 21:32:21 GMT
IMO The elected members of any party should be allowed on any media, including the television, radio, newspapers etc. in a country that purports to encourage freedom of speech. IMO the key to this is that they have elected members. My political views here are not important but I have never been and never will be a racist. The term freedom of speech should not be taken literally, it's still illegal to say defamatory things, slander and incite racial hatred. PLEASE READ WHAT I WROTE |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2009 22:03:44 GMT
IMO The elected members of any party should be allowed on any media, including the television, radio, newspapers etc. in a country that purports to encourage freedom of speech. IMO the key to this is that they have elected members. My political views here are not important but I have never been and never will be a racist. The term freedom of speech should not be taken literally, it's still illegal to say defamatory things, slander and incite racial hatred. Sorry, but I disagree. Freedom of speech must conform with common decency of course, but what the indigenous population are beginng to feel is they are not even allow to THINK about certain aspects of the so called multi racial state that is seemingly being forced upon us.. No one asked me if I approved of, or wanted to subscribe to, a multi racial state. Now we are all expected to buy into it, without a murmur, and IF someone DOES comment, they are branded as racist. It seems that the immigrant has all the advantages of 'freedom of speech' heaped at his door, whereas the indigenous anglo saxon is criticised and told there are limitations to his 'freedom of speech'. Yes, the BNP, and the NF before them, are a bunch of thugs, in suits, but until a couple of weeks ago the three major parties were so sh!te scared of offending the imigrant minority in this country, people felt that they had no way of articulating their genuinely held beliefs. As a finale consider this. There are many support organisations such as the 'Black Women's this or that', or the 'Muslim Defence league of blah blah blah'. Imagine if someone wanted to start and register an organisation of White Male so and so's. There would be uproar. I reserve the right to THINK what I like. I reserve the right to express my THOUGHTS to other like minded persons. I do not CARE if they are unpopular with modern PC thoughts, because I simply don't subscribe to them. Anyone who comes to these shores is welcome, BUT do not expect me to change MY way of life in case it offends THEIR sensitivities. If they do not like it here, they do NOT have to come. Simples! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2009 22:36:25 GMT
I seem to agree with everyone on here!
I still cannot understand why there are organisations just for certain races or religions, like the Black Police Association. Alright, this would have been ok to have these type of organisations in the 60s, 70s etc, when people of other races and religions were treated like second-class citizens. But, now every one has equal rights in the eyes of the law, so there is really NO need for them whatsoever. Like Bighat says, what if there was organisations just for white people, people would think they were racists!
I must say, I think it is great to have a multi-cultural society, but races and religions need to be integrated more so they are not alienate others, meaning more votes for the BNP!
This may sound bad, but I sometimes cant help thinking that being a white male will someday be the worst place to be. The government need to do something, like make sure immigrants of other cultures are integrated into society more, and make sure everyone actually has equal rights.
Because of the government messing things up, more people are voting BNP, not neccesarily because they are racist, but because they are scared of what the future holds, and want to protest against the current government.
No matter how p*ssed off I will get, I will not vote BNP. I think they might be worse then they are making out.
|
|
And when their constitution says things like the following, why would you stick up for them in any way? Is 1948 not the year that a certain boat named the SS Windrush docked in the UK?