View previous topic | View next topic

Holocaust denial(?)

Page 11 of 13
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Davini994
443027.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:14 am Reply with quote

Quote:
And so any situation that pits a group of ANL against a rally of BNP is more likely to end in tears than a free and frank exchange of ideas.

'tis a good point, but for me it isn't sufficient. Even if theres a load of people behind barriers separated by the rozzers, then at least young ones who turn up to these things will see that there is quite a strongly held opposing view. And that's possible to achieve without violence occuring, if you let the police control things like I said up thread.

No, we can't outlaw thoughts, but making extremists think about it outside of that mob mentality is often all that's required. If the mob mentality isn't challenged then it can become a meme that spreads, as has happened in the past.

Quote:
somewhere in the region of a third of all school-age kids in this country are from minority backgrounds. To me, this simple fact will be far more effective [than blah blah blah]

Of course! So lets do both.

Quote:
As I say, the balance of public opinion is very heavily weighted to our side, and with such an overwhelming majority to play with, I think we just have to be careful that we don't abuse that position.


...or get overconfident.

From what you've said it looks to me like you've rejected one extreme view and taken the opposite as a reaction reaction. Which happens quite a lot but is rarely right.

This is a laugh: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BUNUuqlG1a0

And there's 276 on the list from Leeds, none at all from my area. Maybe 5 households within a 20 minute walk though. A bit daft that they live in such a Pakistani area...

I've suggested to my Sikh mate, who sent me the list, to write to members to ask for travel costs back home (to Newcastle).

 
Neotenic
443042.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:41 am Reply with quote

Quote:
I've suggested to my Sikh mate, who sent me the list, to write to members to ask for travel costs back home (to Newcastle).


Just out of curiousity, how would we feel if BNP members were circulating lists containing the details of Sikh households, along with humourous suggestions of things to send to them?

 
Fifi
443074.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:21 pm Reply with quote

I've just tried to find it on youtube but cannot but in some kid/teen/eduction show (I don't really remember) Hardeep Singh Kohli interviewed a guy from the youth BNP about the whole voluntary repatriation thing. Hardeep goes along with the guy for so long, about how it would be great to be able to be at home with his family and how London is expensive and all that. He would love to be able to move back to Scotland. The guy from the BNP didn't quite know what to say. It was great. Wish I could find it!

EDIT: I think I did a better job of explaining the clip here if you ignore the very embarrassing number of typos and complete disregard for capital letters!

 
Davini994
443075.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:27 pm Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
Just out of curiousity, how would we feel if BNP members were circulating lists containing the details of Sikh households, along with humourous suggestions of things to send to them?

Can you spot the difference?

 
bobwilson
443286.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:58 pm Reply with quote

So much to say (like a couple of other posters on this forum):

First, on the matter of whether police officers are permitted to join the BNP:

suze wrote:
"A member of a police force shall not take any active part in politics"

Whether that would preclude mere membership of a political party I'm not sure, but it would certainly preclude any kind of campaigning or canvasing. There's nothing specifically mentioned about the BNP, and indeed I'm not sure that it would be legal to ban police from membership of the BNP


But according to this (and many other similar):

Quote:
Officers are banned from joining or promoting the BNP because it would damage race relations, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers.

 
bobwilson
443289.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:23 pm Reply with quote

Davini wrote:
Please feel free to debate anything I have actually said.


Davini wrote:
I reply that whether you choose to believe it or not, they are still an organisation whose sole purpose is racism. No one votes for the BNP for their transport or environmental policies.


Well, here's something I disagree with that you've actually said. If you look at the BNP website then you'll find that they have policies on many issues - they are most emphatically not a single-issue campaign. And actually, some people do vote for the BNP (at least at local levels) for their policies on transport issues and similar.

You only have to look at djgordy's post:

djgordy wrote:
bobwilson wrote:

the BNP has a coherent platform which addresses a wide range of issues.


1. Get rid of the blacks.
2. Get rid of the Asians.
3. Get rid of the Poles.

I'd say that's fairly wide ranging.


to see how much misinformation is propagated.

If we replaced BNP with (for example) Jews and changed the policies to (for example) 1. Take over the money supply; 2. Infiltrate the Government; 3. Control the media - would that be an acceptable post?

Davini wrote:
It's possible to disagree with someone's (especially your) viewpoint without it being because they are ignoring the evidence.


referring to:

Primrose wrote:
You might disagree with those policies (including the headline grabbing one of repatriating non-white people voluntarily or otherwise) but ignoring them and saying (as you appear to be doing) that you're putting your fingers in your ear and shouting "la la la I'm not listening to anything you say because you're a racist" is a very dangerous path to tread.


("Primrose" being a reference to myself and usually used when a poster wants to belittle me in my experience)

But you are ignoring the evidence Davini. The evidence (as distinct from the knee-jerk reaction that the BNP is racist and that anything they say is therefore suspect) is that the BNP is not a single platform organisation. That's despite your assertion "they are still an organisation whose sole purpose is racism."

 
suze
443291.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:25 pm Reply with quote

bob, let me turn the tables on you. (I'm referring to post 443286, btw.)

I've seen that claim made in the last few days as well. From what I discovered in the Police Regulations, it's not clear to me whether a police officer is allowed to be a member of, say, the Labour Party or not. (It's clear he can't be a very active member, but it's not clear to me whether he's allowed just to pay his fees and carry the card.)

If he isn't, then no special reason would be needed to exclude police officers from the BNP.

If he is, then I'd have expected the BNP to challenge that policy, since it denies being a racist organization.

Can you find any definitive source for the existence of that ban, and if it exists, why the BNP hasn't challenged it through the courts? (Especially given that police officers are allowed to belong to the Loyal Orange Institution, which is openly sectarian and hence can't do much for community relations either.)

 
bobwilson
443299.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:43 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Can you find any definitive source for the existence of that ban, and if it exists, why the BNP hasn't challenged it through the courts?


The short answer is no (I was kind of hoping you'd do that bit of delving given the rather difficult debate I'm involved in with Neo, dj and Davini).

But the quote I posted was from the Telegraph and claims to be direct from the ACPO. There are numerous other "responsible" sources that claim the same thing - and I haven't seen any action from ACPO stating that they've been misquoted.

My understanding (perhaps Fudgie could help out here) is that a woolly policy that is unclear can be clarified by statements made by authoritative sources. Since the ACPO is quoted as saying that:

Quote:
Officers are banned from joining or promoting the BNP because it would damage race relations
and this has not been challenged then I guess that means that it's true. It may not be explicit in Police Regulations but my understanding is that regulations (like contract terms) can be modified by later actions which imply a change/clarification. I could be wrong of course.

As for why the BNP wouldn't have challenged any ban - I can think of a host of practical reasons. Firstly, cost. Secondly, that the possible benefit would be of minor significance to them (let's not forget they are a minority party and having an extra ten members on the books isn't going to be that important).

 
suze
443311.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:56 pm Reply with quote

That's a fair argument bob.

It's only fair that I delegate the delving once in a while though! If you don't get there first, it's on my "things to delve" list, although the "Eskimos" thread has been top for the last few days, and the Saudi Arabia question is certainly next.

What I will say is that if it should prove that police officers are indeed banned from membership of the BNP, then so they should banned from membership of the Loyal Orange Institution (and indeed a number of other sectarian organizations in Northern Ireland). (And the freemasons, imo, but Hell will freeze over first.)

 
bobwilson
443323.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:28 pm Reply with quote

Well, I've been following the Eskimo thread (not posting since I haven't got anything constructive to add). And I'd much prefer that your next port of call is that Saudi question which I do consider rather important.

But as for the "Loyal Orange Institution" - I can sort of guess what this is probably about - but only in the way that I can sort of guess what the BNP is about. Is the LOI the same as the "Independent Loyal Orange Institution" or is that some breakaway faction? (I only ask because the ILOI has it's own website - always a good place to start).

From Wikipedia I find this quote

Quote:
The Twelfth of July is a not a statutory public holiday in Northern Ireland, but is granted as a holiday each year by the Secretary of State by proclamation. All other public holidays in the UK are by Royal Proclamation.


Which is quite interesting (or at least has the potential to be so).

Quote:
What I will say is that if it should prove that police officers are indeed banned from membership of the BNP, then so they should banned from membership of the Loyal Orange Institution


Not necessarily. But we'll see.

 
Davini994
443342.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:16 pm Reply with quote

Primrose wrote:
But you are ignoring the evidence Davini. The evidence (as distinct from the knee-jerk reaction that the BNP is racist and that anything they say is therefore suspect) is that the BNP is not a single platform organisation. That's despite your assertion "they are still an organisation whose sole purpose is racism."

Gosh, you've written it in bold, it must be true.

This is ground we've covered before. I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I'm ignoring the evidence, and it doesn't mean it's a knee jerk reaction.

I understand that the BNP are trying to present a face that isn't racist, I'm just not buying it. The evidence, to me, as opposed to you (you claim) suggests it's horse shit.

Even Neo thinks that the BNP's policies that don't relate to race are a joke. The reason for that is that they are nothing more than a quickly thought out cover so that racists (and devil's advocates such as yourself) can claim that the BNP aren't a single issue party (IMO).

The idea that people vote for the BNP for reasons not related to racism, as you've claimed, is laughable IMO.

And I see you've tried again with the "if you don't agree with me you are racist" line of argument, this time with knobs on as you've pointed it jew-wards. But this tactic is still not going to work on anyone over the age of four I'm afraid. And that, as you can see, is absolutely true as I've made it bold.

 
bobwilson
443348.  Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:58 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Gosh, you've written it in bold, it must be true.


No - I've highlighted it in bold to emphasise it.

Quote:
I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I'm ignoring the evidence, and it doesn't mean it's a knee jerk reaction.


True - disagreeing with me does not mean you are ignoring the evidence nor that you are engaged in knee-jerk reactions. But stating that
Quote:
they are still an organisation whose sole purpose is racism
is ignoring the evidence. You may choose not to give much credence to this evidence (and no doubt you will give reasons for disputing the evidence) but the statement that their
Quote:
sole purpose is racism
does ignore the evidence.

Quote:
I understand that the BNP are trying to present a face that isn't racist, I'm just not buying it.


Fine - and a sentiment which I can fully understand. And if I were a racist party in a society which frowned upon racism I would take steps to pretend that I wasn't racist. Equally, if I were a party that wasn't racist but that could be tarred with that brush I'd expect to be so tarred.

Quote:
Even Neo thinks that the BNP's policies that don't relate to race are a joke.


I have to ask - is that true Neo? I can't see anything you've written that supports that assertion. I know of at least one BNP politico who's main thrust has concerned the introduction of safe cycle lanes.

I've read Neo's posts (and the way that he's made it clear that he doesn't agree with the racial policies of the BNP). I've chosen a slightly different course.

Quote:
The idea that people vote for the BNP for reasons not related to racism, as you've claimed, is laughable IMO.


That's an extraordinary statement. Presumably then, people who vote for a Labour councillor always support the Labour party? I prefer to give some credit to the intelligence of the electorate who vote according to the issues which the person they are voting for is likely to be able to influence.

Quote:
And I see you've tried again with the "if you don't agree with me you are racist" line of argument, this time with knobs on as you've pointed it jew-wards.


No - you've misunderstood. The point I was making was that stating that the BNP is a single issue group (the single issue being their most high profile issue paraphrased above) is incorrect. It's as incorrect as stating that Jews control the money markets; or that there is a communist conspiracy to take over the world.

To summarise - bold is used to highlight something which I consider important - not to state that it's true. Disagreeing with me doesn't mean you are ignoring the evidence - ignoring the stated views of a political party in favour of your perception of the views of a political party means you are ignoring the evidence.

Your not believing the statements of the BNP does not constitute evidence that the BNP is lying.

I note Neo's posts of "I'm not a racist but I agree with some of the stuff that's being written in my name" (apologies Neo and I hope I've not got this totally wrong). I won't take the same line however. You are free to infer whatever set of beliefs you consider I may have.

 
barbados
443372.  Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:39 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:


Quote:
And I see you've tried again with the "if you don't agree with me you are racist" line of argument, this time with knobs on as you've pointed it jew-wards.


No - you've misunderstood. The point I was making was that stating that the BNP is a single issue group (the single issue being their most high profile issue paraphrased above) is incorrect. It's as incorrect as stating that Jews control the money markets; or that there is a communist conspiracy to take over the world.



I personally chose to give the remark that prompted that response the respect it deserved, and ignored it. Surely you've been here long enough to realise that is the best course of action bob.

By responding to it you set up a reaction that wasn't necessary other than to fan another's ego, allowing him to stand back and admire his handy work at causing another argument.

 
djgordy
443386.  Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:55 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:


djgordy wrote:
bobwilson wrote:

the BNP has a coherent platform which addresses a wide range of issues.


1. Get rid of the blacks.
2. Get rid of the Asians.
3. Get rid of the Poles.

I'd say that's fairly wide ranging.


to see how much misinformation is propagated.

If we replaced BNP with (for example) Jews and changed the policies to (for example) 1. Take over the money supply; 2. Infiltrate the Government; 3. Control the media - would that be an acceptable post?


No, but the difference is that those actually are the policies of the BNP.

 
suze
443429.  Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:56 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
But as for the "Loyal Orange Institution" - I can sort of guess what this is probably about - but only in the way that I can sort of guess what the BNP is about. Is the LOI the same as the "Independent Loyal Orange Institution" or is that some breakaway faction? (I only ask because the ILOI has it's own website


The ILOI is a breakaway movement. It was founded in 1903 by a group of dissident Orangemen who were unhappy at the main body's explicit links with the Ulster Unionist Party. For a time in its early existence it was socialist, although that didn't last long and its political thinking is essentially unionist, much as the ILOI claims to be non-political. Although Ian Paisley is not a member of the ILOI, he often addresses its parades and his sympathies are more with it than with the official body.

Just as the freemasons don't, the Orange Institution doesn't go out of its way to make public precisely how it works, and the rulebook certainly isn't freely available. But the essential feature is that Roman Catholics are utterly excluded from membership - and although it didn't do it in the end, it threatened to expel David Trimble from its membership when he had an audience with the Pope.

It used to be that the Orange Institution was formally associated with the (Official) Ulster Unionist Party - that link was ended in 2005, which I think has something to do with the fact that the OUP is by now a less significant political force than Ian Paisley's DUP.

But note comments like these: "We hope to maintain good relations with the main unionist parties and to encourage a greater sense of unity among our elected politicians"; "Under the rules of the Ulster Unionist Council from 1905, the Orange Order is entitled to representation on the Council and on the Executive Committee of the Party".

To me, that is a greater involvement in politics than is compatible with the Police Regulations as they apply to England and Scotland. In the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, I can sort of understand why the rules have apparently been more lenient, but I can't say that it is as it should be.

(I'm aware that under this argument, a police officer would be excluded from membership of Conservative Clubs, since they are formally connected to the Conservative Party in a way that Labour clubs are not to the Labour Party. If we uphold the notion that police officers should be permitted no involvement in politics, then that exclusion is appropriate.)

bobwilson wrote:
(On the matter of 12 July) Which is quite interesting (or at least has the potential to be so).


Yes it is, and I can't immediately discover why it is so. It's probably not of any significance in practice, since it's inconceivable that in any given year the SofS will decide not to proclaim the day as a holiday, but interesting all the same.

Mind you, the statute which declares given days to be holidays doesn't so declare Christmas Day either!

 

Page 11 of 13
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group