Oh Dear: Is there any other country in Europe where this would cause outrage ?

[The Lone Gunman]

I don't think he has been very clear at all and the questions asked were relevant.

I would ask again, how does he expect these changes be effected?

To disagree with your viewpoint does not equate to being in favour of the status quo but that is what your mob always reduce it to (not forgetting the usual PC/Sandal-Wearers/Socialista pish.)

Which is it? Did he make a clear point or not? If he didn't then how can you disagree with it or categorise the opinion of "your mob"?

I think his original post is quite clear, but the question we are debating is M. Hodges statement about putting our own first.

The only relevant question was your original "what would you do about it". A question which he said he would have to think about. It is also one of those questions that is difficult to answer as many of us recognise all kinds of problems without being able to provide solutions.

I am still trying to get a consensus on whether we should be putting our own first.
Once we have that then maybe we can debate a solution.

[The Lone Gunman]

As an immigrant to these fair isles, I agree with the initial statement - British families should get priority over immigrants.

Where I disagree, however, is in relation to asylum seekers.

Like it or not, some people do need to escape their own countries for whatever reason (political torture, war, etc) and it is up to each and every other nation in the world to accept these asylum seekers. Ideally they would be placed onto council lists on an equal footing with other (British) families; who knows, perhaps they are initially. But it must also be remembered that council houses are allocated based on need, and more often than not these families arrive with nothing. It would be sick and perverse to accept a genuine asylum seeker and then throw him/her out onto the streets to fend for themselves when the likelihood is that they've come from a far fiercer regime than anything NL/BNP can throw at them.

You make a fair point on asylum seekers. I think all nations have a duty to assist the needy.
May I counter with a question?
If someone is so desperate to leave a threatening environment why do they spend so much time energy and money getting to the UK when in many cases there is a friendly regime next door, or at least a damn sight closer and easier to reach than the UK?
Personaly I would be happy to allow asylum seekers in, and even put them in luxury accomodation untill we find a place to settle them close to home. If GB is a home environment then let them stay as long as there is a threat and it is not of their own making.
Asylum seekers should never be granted permanent leave to remain.

[Sysman]

The British religion is Church Of England. Surely anyone not CofE should be non-british? Lets start by giving Jehovahs Witnesses a lower priority...

Ever heard of John Wesley?

[Rantor]

Which is it? Did he make a clear point or not? If he didn't then how can you disagree with it or categorise the opinion of "your mob"?

I think his original post is quite clear, but the question we are debating is M. Hodges statement about putting our own first.

The only relevant question was your original "what would you do about it". A question which he said he would have to think about. It is also one of those questions that is difficult to answer as many of us recognise all kinds of problems without being able to provide solutions.

I am still trying to get a consensus on whether we should be putting our own first.
Once we have that then maybe we can debate a solution.

OK, I think his argument was too swingeing and lacked specifics.

I am wary of entering into the debate regardign Hodges' statements on here as there are people actively trolling the BNP agenda that I believe to be far more harmful in the long term than a bunch of Polish guys (legally) moving to Britain.

For what its worth, British citizens should have priority over resources and the citizenship\language thing is not unreasonable (though not that common in other countries.)

All of this would of course be within the legal/treaty framework already in place that entitles citizens from other countries to rights here just as we have rights in other countries.

Off course, it ain't really about anything like this though - is it?

[The Lone Gunman]

Off course, it ain't really about anything like this though - is it?

Well, for the purposes of this debate, it is.
Some of us feel it goes further, but that is not a view I would push on anyone else. It is up to you to make the choice of doing nothing, accepting the status quo or making some sort of stand.

[Rantor]

Well, for the purposes of this debate, it is.
Some of us feel it goes further, but that is not a view I would push on anyone else. It is up to you to make the choice of doing nothing, accepting the status quo or making some sort of stand.

You see to me this is the problem -wtf does "making some sort of stand" mean?

Does it mean opting out the EU and all that lot packing? Does it mean kicking out all non-british citizens? Does it mean stripping people of their citizenship and sending them packing? What about those that don't share these viewpoints - are they out on their ear as well?

Alternatively, it could mean taking a multi-national approach to dealing with mass economic migration and co-ordinated asylum policies and maybe managing residency rights a bit more carefully in the future? I suspect that this is not really gonna satisfy the BNPers though.

I do think its a bit ironic two blokes in belgium arguing about UK immigration.

[The Lone Gunman]

You see to me this is the problem -wtf does "making some sort of stand" mean?

Does it mean opting out the EU and all that lot packing? Does it mean kicking out all non-british citizens? Does it mean stripping people of their citizenship and sending them packing? What about those that don't share these viewpoints - are they out on their ear as well?

Alternatively, it could mean taking a multi-national approach to dealing with mass economic migration and co-ordinated asylum policies and maybe managing residency rights a bit more carefully in the future? I suspect that this is not really gonna satisfy the BNPers though.

I do think its a bit ironic two blokes in belgium arguing about UK immigration.

The ironing is not lost on me.

Making some sort of stand can be as little as agreeing with Ms/Mrs/Miss Hodge on a bulletin board or as extreme as voting BNP.

It is my opinion that things have gone too far on all sorts of issues and the only way to do anything is to do something radical.
I am still debating the BNP route. Electing a couple may be enough to start something.
I do not believe that even if they came to power that they would be able to do half the things the scare mongers suggest, though NL are rapidly dismantling the safe guards that would stop them.

What I can not abide either on this forum or in the real world is all those people who are so full on about rights of democracy and free speach who then go on to refuse the BNP and others access to those rights.
Everybody goes into hysteria whenever the BNP or some radical non PC idea is raised sort of "oooohhhh its those Nazis coming back".

[GreenerGrass]

What I can not abide either on this forum or in the real world is all those people who are so full on about rights of democracy and free speach who then go on to refuse the BNP and others access to those rights.

Free speech, yes, what has happened over the last decade is the PC doctrine has gone far beyond fighting discrimination and into something quite sinister. Controlling and stifling intelligent discussion on any subject which is contrary to their opinions.
Its almost a programmed standard response from them that anyone who disagrees with the PC party line is "as bad as the BNP", thus using fear and shame as propaganda weapons. It assumes there are just two viewpoints, and if you agree with the opposing one you are automatically part of a group of people who you might actually detest.
A lot of propaganda is based on repetition, if you repeat something enough times, so they reason, people will start to question before opening their mouths, people will decide to only talk about things in private, and the logical next step on the PC agenda is to control peoples' thoughts.

The idea that the BNP will become as powerful as Hitler's Nazi party in 1930s Germany if they get a slot on Question Time is totally and utterly preposterous if you think about it. If anything they are likely to get torn apart by the audience and other speakers, and shown up as idiots.

What will happen eventually is watered down versions of some of their policies will be adopted by whatever party gains power in 3 years time, if not sooner.
Which makes the major politicians attacking them now a bit disingenuous.

The IT analogy would be Microsoft spotting some small software house with an innovative product, slagging them off publicly, and telling any users that if they buy their software, or even look at the box, it will corrupt Windows and they'll die of brain cancer.
Then a month later they buy the rights or swallow up the company, rebrand it and claim it was all their idea in the first place.

[meridian]

You make a fair point on asylum seekers. I think all nations have a duty to assist the needy.
May I counter with a question?
If someone is so desperate to leave a threatening environment why do they spend so much time energy and money getting to the UK when in many cases there is a friendly regime next door, or at least a damn sight closer and easier to reach than the UK?
Personaly I would be happy to allow asylum seekers in, and even put them in luxury accomodation untill we find a place to settle them close to home. If GB is a home environment then let them stay as long as there is a threat and it is not of their own making.
Asylum seekers should never be granted permanent leave to remain.

No, that's a good question. I always found it strange that Sangatte was open right next to the Eurotunnel depot, as if on purpose....
The asylum system is also wide open for abuse, where people who should really be classed as economic migrants are trying (and succeeding) in claiming asylum. The Australian system of holding seekers in what is effectively an open prison in the desert tends to reduce the number of claimants somewhat.
I still believe however that any party that promotes the removal or refusal outright of genuine asylum seekers is bordering on fascism. I'd rather live in a country that is perceived as a "soft touch" and has some sort of a heart than one which is downright hostile.
edit: within reason, of course. Don't want too many of those Jonny Foreigners here

[Old Greg]

The ironing is not lost on me.

Making some sort of stand can be as little as agreeing with Ms/Mrs/Miss Hodge on a bulletin board or as extreme as voting BNP.

It is my opinion that things have gone too far on all sorts of issues and the only way to do anything is to do something radical.
I am still debating the BNP route. Electing a couple may be enough to start something.
I do not believe that even if they came to power that they would be able to do half the things the scare mongers suggest, though NL are rapidly dismantling the safe guards that would stop them.

What I can not abide either on this forum or in the real world is all those people who are so full on about rights of democracy and free speach who then go on to refuse the BNP and others access to those rights.
Everybody goes into hysteria whenever the BNP or some radical non PC idea is raised sort of "oooohhhh its those Nazis coming back".

Well, I don't get too worked up by 'non-PC ideas' but I do get worked up by the BNP. There's a hint of why in your post. You talk about whether 'they would be able to do half the things...', not whether they would 'want to do half the things'. Their intention is half the point, although if you didn't mean quite that, fair enough - I don't watch every word I type on these posts. The other half is their ability to carry out their intentions.

So to look at their intentions first:

If the BNP are intending to break democracy and destroy civil liberties, they are hardly going to say so - they will appeal to people's fears and concerns about society, their families, their own situation etc. They have for a few years been trying to appear respectable, so why do I think they do have a hidden agenda? By looking at what several of their leading figures and election candidates have said / done over the years, and which they have not repudiated / apologiesd for subsequently. Most of my 'research' is done on wikipedia / Google (and I have hust pasted a couple of quotes in) as I don't have the time to write a fully researches and referenced paper on this:

Leader, Nick Griffin:

1st, the Holocaust denial - we've already been through this and you've dismissed it as anti-BNP propaganda but they are his own words, spoken in open court, so it's only propaganda if he didn't say it or it's been misinterpreted or taken out of context. To repeat:

''In 1998 Griffin was convicted for distributing material likely to incite racial hatred and given a nine month sentence suspended for two years.

'During his defence he attacked those who criticised him for denying the Holocaust. "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat... I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."'

The key bit: 'the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied propaganda profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria'. I know we've been through this, but what else is this but Holocaust denial. I'm not saying he should go to prison for Holocaust denial, but I am saying that a party led by a Holocaust denier is highly suspect.

Here are words written by him in 1995 in Rune magazine, which I believe show the contempt that he holds democracy in:

"the electors of Millwall did not back a post modernist rightist party but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate."

Here's an extract from a speech of his which people may read as suggesting there's an alternative agenda:

'We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. It's the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with. If we were to attack some other ethnic group — some people say we should attack the Jews ... But ... we've got to get to power. And if that was an issue we chose to bang on about when the press don't talk about it ... the public would just think we were barking mad. They'd just think oh, you're attacking Jews just because you want to attack Jews. You're attacking this group of powerful Zionists just because you want to take poor Manny Cohen the tailor and shove him in a gas chamber. That's what the public would think. It wouldn't get us anywhere other than stepping backwards. It would lock us in a little box; the public would think "extremist crank lunatics, nothing to do with me." And we wouldn't get power.'


John Tyndall (deceased), one of the founders of the National Socialist Movement (clue in the name there), former Chairman of NF and founder and former leader of BNP

No-hold-barred Nazi. One of my favourite comments of his:

'Mein Kampf is my bible'

There's a charming photo of him here on an admittedly anti-BNP website so people can take it as they will:

http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/uncovered/pg02.htm

BNP website said about him in his obituary 'Nevertheless, John Tyndall’s Nazi associations in his early life dogged him throughout his political career.' - that's the BNP's own words!

Tony Leocomber, key deputy to Griffinfrom 1999 until 2006.

In 1985 Lecomber was injured by a nailbomb that he was carrying to the offices of the Workers Revolutionary Party. Police found 10 grenades, seven petrol bombs and two detonators at his home. Sentenced to 3 years.

Joseph Owens, BNP council election candidate in Liverpool in April 2003.

Served eight months in jail for sending razor blades in the post to members of the city's Jewish community in 1982 (not his only jail sentence).

Ok, the list could go on, but that's probably enough. So, does it prove the BNP's ill intent? People can make up their own mind, or dismiss it as untrue, but these are the people who have made, stood in elections for and led the BNP. Still think it worth a vote, anyone?

That's the intent, now for the ability. As far as NL dismantling the safeguards - I agree, NL are tinkering with the safeguards of democracy and civil liberties and it's scary. But the BNP which (as I contend) intend to break apart democracy and civil liberties would sweep aside any safeguards. If they have the intent, they will find the means. Best way, exploit an emergency or create an emergency through a 'false flag' operation (creating the emergency and blaming an enemy). The most famous occurrence of this was the Reichstag fire of 1933 and within a month of this the Nazi party was ruling by decree.

Once in power, and with the support of enough of the public police and military, they can attempt a putsch if they have the will and intent.

Going back to one of your first points: 'things have gone too far on all sorts of issues and the only way to do anything is to do something radical.' This is what the BNP exploit, fear and despair. The political establishment in this country is so cr@p (and I am completely disillusioned by politics) that people end up thinking 'we must do something' or ' the system needs to be shaken up' or 'anything is better than this'. We need to make sure that we don't foolishly swallow the BNP's polished exterior and end up with something infinitely worse.