Reply to: This BNP list is worrying

[PerlOfWisdom]

If they do ever get in, Gordon's ID card scheme will be a boon.

[Purple Dalek]

Racial Equality: You have to read the BNP website to get their take on that. Spin, of course, but so what? Our own Gov. has spun so much and so often that they have legitimized piss-taking weasel word usage.

And therein lays a good point: the government lie so much and so freely, that when a government minister jumps up and says the BNP is a racist party, people just don't believe them any longer, and the more that MPs jump up and down about it, the more that people believe the crap spouted by the BNP.

[Bob Dalek]

What you have written isn't totally correct.

The Police and public bodies like the prison service are covered by The Race Relations Act 2000 Amendment. This means that if you are in such a service you can't belong to a group or organisation that doesn't promote or believe in racial equality.

The discrimination laws do allow organisations and companies to have exemptions when they advertise jobs i.e. needing a male model to advertise underwear for men, needing to be of the same religion to lead religious services but where principles are involved they don't get an automatic exemption. So in the Christian case as long as the employee/volunteer agreed with the Christian principles then they can work for the organisation. They don't have to be Christian. I know a teacher who worked in a Jewish school and they are definitely not Jewish.

Racial Equality: You have to read the BNP website to get their take on that. Spin, of course, but so what? Our own Gov. has spun so much and so often that they have legitimized piss-taking weasel word usage.

[minestrone]

I would rather have the right to democratic elections than have the right to fire bomb cars.

[SueEllen]

I think it can be legal. It is certainly possible to apply for exemption from things like being an equal-opportunities employer... e.g a Christian organisation can get special dispensation in order to insist all employees support their principles.


Whether the police does this, who knows. It doesn't seem the same thing though to me.

What you have written isn't totally correct.

The Police and public bodies like the prison service are covered by The Race Relations Act 2000 Amendment. This means that if you are in such a service you can't belong to a group or organisation that doesn't promote or believe in racial equality.

The discrimination laws do allow organisations and companies to have exemptions when they advertise jobs i.e. needing a male model to advertise underwear for men, needing to be of the same religion to lead religious services but where principles are involved they don't get an automatic exemption. So in the Christian case as long as the employee/volunteer agreed with the Christian principles then they can work for the organisation. They don't have to be Christian. I know a teacher who worked in a Jewish school and they are definitely not Jewish.

[Addanc]

WHS

plus I would like to stop thick people from voting. starting with those who "read" the sun.

Can we include Guardian reads please?

[EternalOptimist]

I hate all of the 'thought crimes' . I say pan people for what they do, not what you think they think.

[xoggoth]

Watching question time last night, loved the usual trotting out of stuff about a "violent racist group". Racist is quite true (in the proper sense of the word as opposed to the usual misuse) but if you look at the realities of numerous incidents it is the left and so called anti racist groups that start almost all of the violence. The threats and a possible arson attack in connection with this list are entirely typical.

If it wasn't for the inverted racism against whites that masquerades as anti -racism the BNP would not have the support they do.

[shoes]

People are idiots.

There are those who can't see beyond the mob rule type mentally and want a collection of people to hate, paedos were flavour of the month for a bit, immigrants had their time too, now its BNP members. Any kind of presentation of a more sophisticated argument just cannot be absorbed, they're thick, and want to hate someone. Goodies versus baddies, init.

There are those who support what they have decided is the BNPs perspective and like hating 'dem pakk1s init'. Another group who just want a group to hate.

Then there are those that can consider the more sophisticated thoughts surrounding the right to hold an unpopular opinion, whether that opinion translates into actions affecting others, and if it doesn't aren't we on the verge of policing peoples thoughts, etc etc. These people are dumb for even bothering to try and reason with any of the others.

People eh, who'd 'ave 'em.

[BrilloPad]

Ok it was a remark made more in jest than anything else so I take your point.

However if you look at the geographic areas of where they have the greatest number of supporters I think these are in some of the lower income earning areas? The leap from lower income to standard of education is then easier to make I think.

WHS

plus I would like to stop thick people from voting. starting with those who "read" the sun.

[d000hg]

I'm not sure that sacking someone because they are a member of a political party is legal. It may be a breach of the Human Rights Act. It needs a test case to clarify.

I think it can be legal. It is certainly possible to apply for exemption from things like being an equal-opportunities employer... e.g a Christian organisation can get special dispensation in order to insist all employees support their principles.


Whether the police does this, who knows. It doesn't seem the same thing though to me.

[oracleslave]

I think you'll find that the list represents all sections of the uk social demographic.

If everything in the UK was hunky-dory, there'd be no voice for the BNP and no one would join 'em. I would much prefer it that way myself.

BBC Website Article on 1 in 4 people consider voting BNP

In the 2005 national elections, the BNP's share of the total vote was 0.74%.

Not a lot on its own, but that represents 192,850 votes.

To put that in to context, in the 2001 elections, they only garnered 47,129 votes.

So :

2001 : 47,129
2005 : 192,850
2009 : 350,000 ?

Something is attracting these members, and you cannot put it down to lack of intelligence in all cases.



Good point. Sometimes the truth is not very palatable...

Ok it was a remark made more in jest than anything else so I take your point.

However if you look at the geographic areas of where they have the greatest number of supporters I think these are in some of the lower income earning areas? The leap from lower income to standard of education is then easier to make I think.

[Doggy Styles]

Good, we've got past the knee-jerk reactions to my question quicker than I thought.

[deano]

I'm not sure that sacking someone because they are a member of a political party is legal. It may be a breach of the Human Rights Act. It needs a test case to clarify.

I'm not a BNP member, nor do I vote for them, but given their rise in popularity in certain parts of the country, I think the question is why is the BNP so popular in these areas?

What has happened in these areas, that a lot of the people who live there feel the need to support the BNP?

The BNP's supporters are not simply going to go away because they are being vilified - if anything that will simply make them even more entrenched in their views. So why do they hold the views they do?

Answering that question will then allow us to find a way of fixing things so they no longer feel they need to hold the views they do. Then there will be no need for a party like the BNP.

[Board Game Geek]

i fink tis a reslt of a por edjukasin innit?

I think you'll find that the list represents all sections of the uk social demographic.

If everything in the UK was hunky-dory, there'd be no voice for the BNP and no one would join 'em. I would much prefer it that way myself.

BBC Website Article on 1 in 4 people consider voting BNP

In the 2005 national elections, the BNP's share of the total vote was 0.74%.

Not a lot on its own, but that represents 192,850 votes.

To put that in to context, in the 2001 elections, they only garnered 47,129 votes.

So :

2001 : 47,129
2005 : 192,850
2009 : 350,000 ?

Something is attracting these members, and you cannot put it down to lack of intelligence in all cases.

What about finding out why increasing numbers of people think like that?

Good point. Sometimes the truth is not very palatable...