BNP Members list leaked on the internet

[AtW]

The Police force does seem to be well represented. I might do some stats analysis

Well, maybe you analyse the list and report numbers before jumping to conclusions? Don't include former policemen though, if its not active duty its not active duty.

[Mich the Tester]

I see what you mean but I'd prefer to wait for evidence that his membership was having an undesirable effect, rather than sack him because it might.

I mean, isn't that like me firing a homosexual man because I'm worried he might start to feel up other team members?

I know a (small) number of gay people and they manage to keep their sexual preferences out of the workplace. Perhaps someone who tends towards certain views on race can do that too?

I think it’s a different question altogether. Everywhere that people work together there are people who fancy each other, whether they’re straight or gay. There’s a business analyst on a project I’m working on who’s perhaps the horniest woman I’ve seen since Sharon Stone did that short skirt thing in Basic Instinct. Yes, given a chance, and without being married, I’d like to…(best not to say, really). I also know that one of my female colleagues quite admires me. But I just get on with working with them professionally, and that’s no different for gay people. It’s a silly prejudice to assume that a gay man is going to try and hump all his colleagues or bugger his team mates in the changing rooms. It’s a different matter when someone joins a party which is so clearly racist, rooted in the national front, represents no other ideology than racism, and has to work with colleagues of all sorts of backgrounds. He’s chosen freely to join a party he knows is racist. He hasn’t done that because he’s a care bear, but because he’s most probably a racist himself.

[Churchill]

Dude, I was trying to draw a comparison with something Mich the Tester was saying with something that everyone would immediately agree was an outrageous comment. Looks like I got the outrageous part right.

Re: is it illegal to be gay... well that's exactly my point, no it isn't. As far as I know being a racist isn't illegal either, so it wouldn't be right to sack someone JUST for being on the BNP list. Which Mich was advocating.

Sort of thread-within-a-thread here, please feel free to read back half-a-dozen posts and catch up with this particular sub-discussion.

However, it once was!

[Platypus]

I think it’s a different question altogether. Everywhere that people work together there are people who fancy each other, whether they’re straight or gay. There’s a business analyst on a project I’m working on who’s perhaps the horniest woman I’ve seen since Sharon Stone did that short skirt thing in Basic Instinct. Yes, given a chance, and without being married, I’d like to…(best not to say, really). I also know that one of my female colleagues quite admires me. But I just get on with working with them professionally, and that’s no different for gay people. It’s a silly prejudice to assume that a gay man is going to try and hump all his colleagues or bugger his team mates in the changing rooms. It’s a different matter when someone joins a party which is so clearly racist, rooted in the national front, represents no other ideology than racism, and has to work with colleagues of all sorts of backgrounds. He’s chosen freely to join a party he knows is racist. He hasn’t done that because he’s a care bear, but because he’s most probably a racist himself.

Ok that's well put. You're winning me over

[AtW]

most of these guys were recruited from prisoner of war camps, not occupied civilians.

Large scale occupation usually means that lots of POWs taken, assuming the army was defending of course.

UK only had expeditionary force that was evacuated so only new POWs were shot down RAF pilots and maybe chaps in Africa but Rommel did not have any SS units and probably would not want them anyway - I doubt Hitler would have authorised any BRitish SS units unless whole country was taken over and peace was signed (as he wanted to do), but British were seeminly as stubborn as on this board so as a mark of appreciation for stubborness back then when it mattered I forgive you for todays

[Platypus]

However, it once was!

Quite right^H^H^H^H^H wrong too!

(Just kidding, Xen)

[tay]

However, it is interesting to hear the unwavering pro-democracy, pro-free speech views here. Like sas says, would people still be so happy if they got in and suspended the democratic process?

Is that an intentionally stupid question?

Your view is the one closest aligned to suspension of the democratic process.

[AtW]

I also know that one of my female colleagues quite admires me.

Sounds like you are Bob Bastard

[sasguru]

Is that an intentionally stupid question?

Your view is the one closest aligned to suspension of the democratic process.

Why not just answer the simple question? At what point, if any, do we suspend the democratic process temporarily (in order to protect it long term) e.g. when a non-democratic party is on the verge of being legally elected?
It's happened in the past and will happen again.
I know its a complicated question for your simple IQ - try not to choke answering it.

[EternalOptimist]

Large scale occupation usually means that lots of POWs taken, assuming the army was defending of course.

UK only had expeditionary force that was evacuated so only new POWs were shot down RAF pilots and maybe chaps in Africa but Rommel did not have any SS units and probably would not want them anyway - I doubt Hitler would have authorised any BRitish SS units unless whole country was taken over and peace was signed (as he wanted to do), but British were seeminly as stubborn as on this board so as a mark of appreciation for stubborness back then when it mattered I forgive you for todays

you are totally wrong, but I retire from discussing it in this thread. Take it up elsewhere if you wish, or check up on Kaminski. RONA or 29 SS pzg brigade.


ps, I was agreeing with your main point, about freedom