View Poll Results: Are you going to watch?

Voters
73. This poll is closed
  • Yes

    49 67.12%
  • No

    24 32.88%
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 81
General Chat Thread, Poll: BNP on Question Time in General; How is the BNP an ilegal organisation ?...
  1. #16
    Galway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,374
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 311 Times in 219 Posts
    Rep Power
    101
    How is the BNP an ilegal organisation ?

  2. #17

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,967
    Thank Post
    519
    Thanked 2,503 Times in 1,943 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by Galway View Post
    How is the BNP an ilegal organisation ?
    Because they do not allow coloured people into their membership. The BBC news link earlier covers the reasons, and who made such a judgement...

    Quote Originally Posted by bbc
    BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard.
    The UK's equalities watchdog had argued the BNP broke the Race Relations Act by restricting members to "indigenous Caucasian" people.
    The court heard Mr Griffin had agreed to use "all reasonable endeavours" to revise its constitution.

  3. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    1,381
    Thank Post
    181
    Thanked 211 Times in 171 Posts
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Galway View Post
    How is the BNP an ilegal organisation ?
    Reading back through the thread or any of the links posted in it would have explained that one...

  4. #19
    Midget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a Server Room cutting through a forest of Cat5e
    Posts
    1,298
    Thank Post
    5
    Thanked 59 Times in 49 Posts
    Rep Power
    40
    They do allow coloureds (is that even PC anymore?) in, they just don't want to I'd expect.

    Banning parties that you oppose is what is done by a dictatorship. I don't like what they say but I will demand their right to say it so that they can provide their own rope to hang themselves.

    also banning them will actually HELP them because they can say that the labour party (who most people want out) are against them because they are afraid etc etc. It would be a PR win for the BNP.

  5. #20

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,967
    Thank Post
    519
    Thanked 2,503 Times in 1,943 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by Midget View Post
    They do allow coloureds (is that even PC anymore?) in, they just don't want to I'd expect.
    "The case centred around a section in the BNP constitution which said membership was restricted to "indigenous British ethnic groups" including the "Anglo-Saxon folk community" and the "Celtic Scottish folk community"."

    Banning parties that you oppose is what is done by a dictatorship. I don't like what they say but I will demand their right to say it so that they can provide their own rope to hang themselves.

    also banning them will actually HELP them because they can say that the labour party (who most people want out) are against them because they are afraid etc etc. It would be a PR win for the BNP.
    Enforcing the law is not a dictatorship. If a party wishes to partake in elections, they must be a legal party with legal membership policies. This is UK law and EU law.

  6. #21
    mossj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    1,466
    Thank Post
    157
    Thanked 189 Times in 174 Posts
    Rep Power
    52
    Not going to watch, don't have TV License....

    Quote Originally Posted by SpuffMonkey View Post
    Jeremy Clarkson probably agrees with him...
    Do you not think he says a majority of his stuff for comedic effect.... It's the same as someone telling a sexist/racist joke, they don't believe the joke it's just for effect. JC is the only person with the koh ho nas to do it on TV.

  7. #22

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,765
    Thank Post
    862
    Thanked 908 Times in 753 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Also, when their views are blatantly racist, or bigoted, should they simply be allowed to go spouting them? What if they say something like 'my personal opinion is that gay people should not be allowed to live'. That isn't technically against the law - but those idiot people who follow such people would (and history shows us do) act on such comments...

    That is the concept of 'No Platform'.
    If you believe in the ideals of democracy and free speech then you must accept that rats like NG exist and as much right to air their personal opinions as you do - however distasteful those opinions may be.

    Under a democracy you have the right to hear his opinions and decide for yourself wether you personally agree with them. If you don't, as I don't, then don't vote for him.

    That is the concept of 'Freedom'.

  8. #23
    Galway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,374
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 311 Times in 219 Posts
    Rep Power
    101
    And if YOU listen to the interview, you will hear that as a political party they are exempt.

    I dont know much about the BNP, but inocent until proven guilty is I think still in use. They have been chalanged in court, with the threat of legal action, to have their rules changed.

    Now this does not make them ilegal (yet).

    Also, if you listen, it says they are going to use try an change this so that they dont have to defend themselves in court because the financial implications of losing could be very bad for the party.

    Now .... this does not make them ilegal does it?

  9. #24

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,967
    Thank Post
    519
    Thanked 2,503 Times in 1,943 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    841
    Well, considering their current rules fly directly in the face of the law as it stands - and they're changing them because of this, yes as they stand at this moment in time, they are an illegal organisation. Just because they've not got a judgement against them does not mean they are legal. If I stab someone, I've done something illegal whether a judge has said I have or not.

    And yes, the ideals of a democracy are good - but those ideals do not stretch to cover speech and behaviour which enters into bigotry, which seeks to break the human rights of others etc... With rights come responsibility. The right to freedom of speech is not without its limits. That is what laws cover.

  10. #25
    DrCheese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,034
    Thank Post
    97
    Thanked 161 Times in 110 Posts
    Rep Power
    60
    Enforcing the law is not a dictatorship. If a party wishes to partake in elections, they must be a legal party with legal membership policies. This is UK law and EU law.
    ...and they are changing their rules to make them legal, so that point is null

    You can not ban parties in a democracy and the day any party is banned is the day the UK is really just a dictatorship in all but name. You can not claim to support democracy and then find ways to ban parties that disagree with your viewpoint.
    I don't understand why people have the view that simply ignoring their views/banning them will just make them go away. It won't, if anything it just makes the problem worse as people feel ignored which breeds even more resentment.
    i.e If the main parties won't even discuss subjects like immigration out of fear of being labelled "racists" or "non pc", people will turn to the only party that they think will listen to them, even if they are ultra extreme.

    Thatcher (shudder) realised this about the National front in the 80's and said...

    ""...we do not talk about it [immigration] perhaps as much as we should. In my view, that is one thing that is driving some people to the National Front. They do not agree with the objectives of the National Front, but they say that at least they are talking about some of the problems...If we do not want people to go to extremes...we must show that we are prepared to deal with it."
    That speech alone resulted in a dramatic loss of support for the NF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...t_and_downfall

    Bring them to the public stage and then totally take apart any of the arguments they have. Challenge them, make them look as stupid as they really are. That's the way to get rid of the BNP, not pretending they don't exist.

    and for the record, I'm not a BNP supporter in any shape or form but I'm strong believer in democracy, even if I don't agree with the choices made.
    Last edited by DrCheese; 22nd October 2009 at 01:05 PM.

  11. #26

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,967
    Thank Post
    519
    Thanked 2,503 Times in 1,943 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    841
    I'm sorry but until they have changed their policies, and aren't just saying they will, they are still breaking the law.

    Do you think people have an unrestricted right to freedom of speech then? ie. they can say whatever they want whenever they want? Or do you think that with the right to freedom of speech comes with responsibility and control - ie. you can't do things like say 'BOMB!' in a theatre etc...?

    Sure, the BNP can talk about whatever they want, whenever they want - so long as it is within the confines of the law, which was set in place via democratically elected governments. If they operate outside of those laws, which, if the current case and the previous cases involving NG have shown they do constantly, then they should not be allowed to partake in publicly funded debates etc... They can pay for airtime themselves.

  12. #27

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,765
    Thank Post
    862
    Thanked 908 Times in 753 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Do you think people have an unrestricted right to freedom of speech then? ie. they can say whatever they want whenever they want? Or do you think that with the right to freedom of speech comes with responsibility and control - ie. you can't do things like say 'BOMB!' in a theatre etc...?
    I think you maybe confusing what the freedom of speech is. And yes I currently believe I have an unrestricted freedom of speech in this country. Any restrictions imposed by law would by definition take away the freedom of speech.

    The freedom of speech is not about being able to say 'BOMB' in a theatre - or worse still on an aeroplane. It is about being able to voice an opinion on any subject with fear of reprisal from the state. If I want to stand on the street corner and say "I believe all gays should be hanged" I have the right to do that. (BTW - I don't believe all gays should be hanged, just following the examples previously raised).

    I can't stand on the street corner and say "lets hang the gay guy, comon whose with me" as that's incitment to riot. And if I shout "BOMB" pretty much anywhere I can expect some intense questioning from the police and my be prosecuted for wasting police time, again nothing to do with freedom of speech.

    If I genuinly believed I do not have true freedom of speech in this country then I'd be looking at emmigrating to a country where I feel safe I have that freedom.

    The problem with any freedom's is they apply universally to all. If I have the freedom of speech, then so does Nick Griffin. The beuty is I also have the freedom of choice and I choose not to listen to his retoric.

  13. 3 Thanks to tmcd35:

    bossman (23rd October 2009), maniac (22nd October 2009), Simcfc73 (22nd October 2009)

  14. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    410
    Thank Post
    73
    Thanked 75 Times in 58 Posts
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Except for the little issue whereby they are currently an 'illegal organisation'... ie. they are breaking the law via their membership policies. Illegal entities should not be allowed to partake in a show paid for by taxpayers. They should be prosecuted!
    That'll be the Labour party then - entering illegal wars, MPs (WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN ON QUESTION TIME) evading the inland revenue, being implicated in rendition and torture! etc etc.

    Sauce for the goose

    mb

  15. #29
    Midget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a Server Room cutting through a forest of Cat5e
    Posts
    1,298
    Thank Post
    5
    Thanked 59 Times in 49 Posts
    Rep Power
    40
    The responses I've seen so far (not just here) strike of typical socialist rhetoric. "You have the right to say what you want as long as I agree with it."

    The conservatives and LibDems have both welcomed the BNP onto QT so that they can show themselves to be completely useless.

  16. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    410
    Thank Post
    73
    Thanked 75 Times in 58 Posts
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    If I stab someone, I've done something illegal whether a judge has said I have or not.
    You are using exactly the same argument that (some) people use to justify torture!

    "If Mr X was the only person who knows the code to stop a bomb going off on a plane, surely that justifies torturing him to get an answer."

    ...except that at the time you do not know for sure the he really planted the bomb or knows the code (or cannot be sure in the eyes of the law that you stabbed someone) until after the event (or trial).

    I expect that you also support 90 days detention without trail as well

    mb

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Poll School Site Poll
    By gibbo_ap in forum Web Development
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 3rd September 2009, 02:51 PM
  2. Straw Poll: How close is the BECTA Technical Competencies framework Poll
    By russdev in forum General EduGeek News/Announcements
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 29th July 2009, 10:39 PM
  3. Really Dumb Question Time
    By richard in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 4th August 2006, 12:47 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •