Well, Well, Well...

[Ahso!]

oscar;1290596 wrote: Tut Tut Tut old boy. Resorting to Insults shows an Inability to debate. I edited my former post. Perhaps you'd care to peruse the link I added from 'Migrationwatch'. It is not my opinion that states the report of Immigration vs GDP being flawed, It is well documented and I shall provide you with that evidence which no doubt will see you merely dismiss It as 'Propoganda' as and when It suits you. Unfortunately I am not willing to sit up all night going through files. Patience dear boy.

By the way... Any chance of you returning to the 9/11 thread posted In September that you told us all you would returm to with some kind of evidence for your claims?What is it, pot/kettle or is it kettle/pot?

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1290603 wrote: What is it, pot/kettle or is it kettle/pot? In that case, I really must point out that you are mistaking me for some-one who cares.

I thought you were leaving?

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1290551 wrote: You believe what you believe to be true because of your prejudice, not because of any factual basis. By all means produce evidence of what you claim and we can discuss it further. Bear in mind that the authors are rather better qualified to express legitimate findings than you are. No, not my prejudice as you do not have any Idea of what my prejudices are. May i suggest that you are some-what blinkered and believe the propoganda of the Labour Party.

Lords' report exposes Labour's lies on the 'benefits' of mass immigration | Mail Online

[spot]

oscar;1290612 wrote: No, not my prejudice as you do not have any Idea of what my prejudices are. May i suggest that you are some-what blinkered and believe the propoganda of the Labour Party.

Lords' report exposes Labour's lies on the 'benefits' of mass immigration | Mail Online


Oscar, the Mail article's from April 2008, the academic paper I quoted is from July 2009. Perhaps you didn't notice. If I might mix a metaphor, the blinkers are on the other foot.

Furthermore, the Mail has a grubby political agenda (as do you), the academic paper doesn't.

[Ahso!]

oscar;1290612 wrote: No, not my prejudice as you do not have any Idea of what my prejudices are. May i suggest that you are some-what blinkered and believe the propoganda of the Labour Party.

Lords' report exposes Labour's lies on the 'benefits' of mass immigration | Mail OnlineWrong! You make your prejudices known constantly in your posts, as do we all. It amazes me how people think they don't offer a portrait of themselves through communication, even, or especially on forums. The idea that people believe it is anonymous permits them to let it fly pretty freely I think, and thats the real us.

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1290655 wrote: Wrong! You make your prejudices known constantly in your posts, as do we all. It amazes me how people think they don't offer a portrait of themselves through communication, even, or especially on forums. The idea that people believe it is anonymous permits them to let it fly pretty freely I think, and thats the real us. Really... Wow..

I thought you were leaving?

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1290625 wrote: Oscar, the Mail article's from April 2008, the academic paper I quoted is from July 2009. Perhaps you didn't notice. If I might mix a metaphor, the blinkers are on the other foot.

Furthermore, the Mail has a grubby political agenda (as do you), the academic paper doesn't. Spot, It was 3 in the morning. I can be excused.

I will find something more up to date. However, I will return to the thread quicker than the 9/11 thread you pledged to return and prove your point back In September... We are still waiting !!

Regardless Spot, one year between your link and my report Is neither here nor there. We are not talking about a century, just one year. The stats do not change enough to spin the entire report on It's head In one year. Your grasping at Straws.

It Is not The Mail making It Up as they go along. They are merely reporting on the enquirey.

The Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs is one the most respected in Parliament, including, as it does, former ministers from across the political divide.

Two former Conservative Chancellors, Norman Lamont and Nigel Lawson, sit on the panel.

Joining them are former captains of industry and internationally respected economists.

Together they spent nine months considering one the most emotive issues facing Britain in the 21st century, taking evidence from the Bank of England, dozens of population experts and economists, the CBI, the British Medical Association, local councils, the TUC, the Audit Commission, the Government's Migration Impacts Forum and Home Office ministers.

Transcripts of the evidence ran to 514 pages.

Some of the most scathing observations - including those that there is little or no benefit to the economy from immigration - were made by Lord Layard, one of the world's foremost economists.

The Eton-educated Labour peer was founder-director of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics.

Equally critical was Liberal Democrat peer Lord Vallance, who spent his executive career with BT. He was president of the CBI from 2000 to 2002 and is a former member of the board at the Mobil Corporation.

The inquiry was led by Lord Wakeham, a former Tory leader of both the Commons and the Lords and a former Energy Secretary.

The committee has a rough split of Labour and Opposition figures. Labour members include Lord Moonie, an armed forces minister under Tony Blair.

The others are Lord Best, Lord Griffiths, Lord Kingsdown, Lord Macdonald, Lord MacGregor, Lord Oakeshott, Lord Paul, Lord Sheldon, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Turner.

The panel had an internationally respected special adviser to help compile its findings, Dr Martin Ruhs, of Oxford University's Centre on Immigration, Policy and Society.

The report was passed unanimously, with all 16 members backing its content. Insiders have described at as one of the most openly critical reports of Government policy written in recent times.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0fiAdtFnK

[Ahso!]

oscar;1290666 wrote: It was 3 in the morning. I can be excused. Excused for what, posting gibberish? Seriously, what is it you need to be excused for? i haven't noticed any difference in your posting in either style or quality at all.

[Snowfire]

Since this allowance of non whites to join the BNP was a rule of law rather than a change of heart, how many have taken up the offer ? I've read of one Sikh man. I'm guessing they arent queuing round the corner.

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1290672 wrote: Excused for what, posting gibberish? Seriously, what is it you need to be excused for? i haven't noticed any difference in your posting in either style or quality at all.
Gibberish eh? So Ahso, why don't you answer the question Gill and I put to you yesterday? In what way do your Illegals help your economy? I'm sure some-one with such insight Into geo-Politics will be able to answer your statement In the blink of an eye... Unless you were talking gibberish eh?

And while we are here... What excatly is your contribution to this thread on British Politics? For example.. Do you see this change of Party Constitution In the BNP a ruse In order to survive or do you believe the Party Chairman was out-voted? What efffect do you expect this change to have In the forth-coming Election? How many seats do you predict the BNP could possibly win given the change? How will this affect the UAF? What will be their tactics now? I'd be very Interested in your Insight into this party given your Intellect shown on this thread.



YouTube - Paul Hardcastle - Nineteen

BTW.... You really don't have to answer for Spot. :yh_rotfl

[Ahso!]

oscar;1290729 wrote: Gibberish eh? So Ahso, why don't you answer the question Gill and I put to you yesterday? In what way do your Illegals help your economy? I'm sure some-one with such insight Into geo-Politics will be able to answer your statement In the blink of an eye... Unless you were talking gibberish eh?

And while we are here... What excatly is your contribution to this thread on British Politics? For example.. Do you see this change of Party Constitution In the BNP a ruse In order to survive or do you believe the Party Chairman was out-voted? What efffect do you expect this change to have In the forth-coming Election? How many seats do you predict the BNP could possibly win given the change? How will this affect the UAF? What will be their tactics now? I'd be very Interested in your Insight into this party given your Intellect shown on this thread.



YouTube - Paul Hardcastle - Nineteen

BTW.... You really don't have to answer for Spot. :yh_rotfli didn't answer for anyone. And I did answer your question, you simply failed to understand it.

No reply to what it is you're asking to be excused from? You seemed to be asking Spot to excuse you for what you posted because it was early in the morning, but you haven't specified what about your posting needed to be excused, so naturally anyone reading the exchange would have to assume you meant you weren't making as much sense as you would have liked to. But I ask because I don't see that as anything unusual for you.

[Oscar Namechange]

Snowfire;1290727 wrote: Since this allowance of non whites to join the BNP was a rule of law rather than a change of heart, how many have taken up the offer ? I've read of one Sikh man. I'm guessing they arent queuing round the corner. A rule of law due to dirty dealings on behalf of the Labour Party and Harriden Harmen. If the BNP were Illegal in the first Instance when Griffin took the reins In 1982, I would agree with you. Past Governments have had over 25 years to out-law the BNP. Weather any-one likes It or not, they have always been a Bono-Fide Registered Political Party. You certainly can not have any Party holding 109 Elected Council seats and two Euro MP's should they be In any way Illegal. The change was brought about by a last ditch attempt by amending the Equality Bill to suit. It was an act of desperation when Brons and Griffin were returned as MEP's and the BNP were winning one too many Council seats, In the South as well as the North. The Idea being that Griffin would fight the amendment to the Equality Bill right up to the House Of Lords thus bankrupting the Party leaving them without the funds to fight the General Election. A knee-jerk reaction to Griffin stating he would stand a Parlimentary Candidate In every Constituancy. Looks like It back fired on the Labour Party. Given griffin's legal background, It was a foolhardy risk to take with him.

Of course there will not be a sudden rush of applications from ethnic Minorities to join the BNP. No-One has ever claimed that. However, In more ways than one this has backfired on the Government as the BNP will see more new mermberships and votors due to dropping the rascist tag.

Any member of an ethnic Minority wishing to join the BNP purely to disrupt from the Inside??? How can they do It? Again... Given Griffin's legal background, did any-one think he was so stupid that he didn't tie up the new Constitution tighter than a ducks arsse?

I have the full new Party Constitution. He's covered everything.

[Snowfire]

oscar;1290735 wrote: In more ways than one this has backfired on the Government as the BNP will see more new mermberships and votors due to dropping the rascist tag.




I dont think they have dropped the racist tag at all. Its still there they just hide it behind a veil of respectability. They are still riding on the coat tails of the racist NF. Its where they were born and they will never be able to rid themselves of that stain, especially from those of us that object most strongly with the principle ideal with every BNP member, that of seeking to restore the overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that existed prior to 1948 through legal means, including "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home" There you have the racist tag for all to see. Or is this no longer a desire ?

[Oscar Namechange]

Snowfire;1290748 wrote: I dont think they have dropped the racist tag at all. Its still there they just hide it behind a veil of respectability. They are still riding on the coat tails of the racist NF. Its where they were born and they will never be able to rid themselves of that stain, especially from those of us that object most strongly with the principle ideal with every BNP member, that of seeking to restore the overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that existed prior to 1948 through legal means, including "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home" There you have the racist tag for all to see. Or is this no longer a desire ?
It's perfectly natural for people to think that. I'm just saying this has all horribly backfired on the Government. What set out as a sure fire move to amend the Equality Bill to bankrupt the Party has now given Griffin another early Christmas present. Some folks who would not join or vote for fear of being tagged rascist, will now do so.

I disagree about the coat tails of the NF. 30 years for a Party is a long time In Politics. Griffinj may have had his roots in the NF but If you go to the 'Stormfront' Forum you will find that most If not all the grass root members of the NF and the BNP were either expelled by the Party or went off to join splinter groups such as the EDL or Combat 18 when Griffin made It clear he would tone down the party to enter Mainstream Politics. Most members of the BNP these days are not the neo-Nazi skinheads from the terraces of Millwall back In the 70's but everyday folk who want a radical change to Government and see a new BNP.

[Snowfire]

Well as you well know, not all racists are Nazi stormtroopers but often they like to be surrounded by them, protected by them. The Combat 18 members and the skinheads from the terraces of Millwall will never be far away, especially if the BNP gain a little more presence in the corridors of power. They will never be able to shake that dandruff from their shoulders

Forgive me if I dont visit Stormfront. Its an unpleasant and depressing place and one I would like to see vapourise forever

[Oscar Namechange]

Snowfire;1290754 wrote: Well as you well know, not all racists are Nazi stormtroopers but often they like to be surrounded by them, protected by them. The Combat 18 members and the skinheads from the terraces of Millwall will never be far away, especially if the BNP gain a little more presence in the corridors of power. They will never be able to shake that dandruff from their shoulders

Forgive me if I dont visit Stormfront. Its an unpleasant and depressing place and one I would like to see vapourise forever


Of course, It's natural that the BNP will never shake off the NF movement as It's grass roots. However, many coming Into the Party these days are too young to remember the 70's and do truely see Griffin as the man of change.

There was a time I would have agreed with you re: Griffin and Co's henchmen that surround him. However, now knowing a heck of a lot more about what they go through on a day to day basis, I myself would surround myself with henchmen If I were In their position. they are constantly threatened and goaded on a day to day basis and no-one can be sure If any of those threats are for real. It would be Interersting to see exactly what would happen If Griffin were to leave them at home next time he's at a well publicised meeting. All MP's have security. You will find that these days, Griffins security are ex-police Officers and not the football terrace mentality of the 70's.. It's just how the media wish to portray them. For example, there was a real threat of violence against Griffin from UAF protesters outside Westminster when he was elected. No-one knows what would have happened If he was not surrounded by security. Every day, key BNP figures are goaded Into confrontation so the tabloids can get one rascist comment or an outburst of aggression. No other Politician goes through what they do on a daily basis and then the public wonders why they need security!!!

I agree about Stormfront. I go there to read and learn, that's all. I rarely post.

[fuzzywuzzy]

what's biometric ID?

[spot]

fuzzywuzzy;1290782 wrote: what's biometric ID?


Proof of identity based on your body. Fingerprints, for example, and DNA sampling, and how far your eyes are from each other.

The BNP constitution's still going to say that the decision of the Leader is still binding in all matters. It's totalitarian.

[Saint_]

spot;1290407 wrote: Not at all flopster. They've now abandoned all institutional aspects of racism and I'm delighted.


Can a party with that background ever truly throw off such heavy garments? Lots of racist NeoNazi groups in America have said that they are doing the same thing... but I don't believe them.

Their policy is now, as best I understand it, to reduce the number of people resident in the United Kingdom without a legal right to be here to zero which is a laudable objective - do any US parties have such a policy? Sadly I suspect not.


No, and like you, I'd be all for that. If you want to be a citizen, be one, but don't sneak in.

[spot]

Saint_;1290831 wrote: No, and like you, I'd be all for that. If you want to be a citizen, be one, but don't sneak in.


I'm rather more distressed by the Federal Government's inaction on an amnesty and automatic citizenship for everyone currently resident, given the extent to which the US economy depends on their presence. By all means make the borders impenetrable, though even that seems an unlikely eventuality. What the country can't continue to do is to retain the benefit while holding the perpetual threat of expulsion over these people. Jump one way or the other, but jump.

[gmc]

It will be interesting to see if the catholic church gets an exemption from the equality bill so they can continue to discriminate against homosexuals-or indeed come to that protestants. You can't get a job in a catholic school unless you are a practising catholic. In a state funded institution that is a disgrace.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1291108 wrote: It will be interesting to see if the catholic church gets an exemption from the equality bill so they can continue to discriminate against homosexuals-or indeed come to that protestants. You can't get a job in a catholic school unless you are a practising catholic. In a state funded institution that is a disgrace.
That's an excellent point. Hmmm Think I'll raise that at the next meeting. Ta very much !!

[fuzzywuzzy]

spot;1290809 wrote: Proof of identity based on your body. Fingerprints, for example, and DNA sampling, and how far your eyes are from each other.

The BNP constitution's still going to say that the decision of the Leader is still binding in all matters. It's totalitarian.


What the german national party did in the thirties? Holy crap!!!! :-3 Adn you already use it ..It's in practice?

[fuzzywuzzy]

gmc;1291108 wrote: It will be interesting to see if the catholic church gets an exemption from the equality bill so they can continue to discriminate against homosexuals-or indeed come to that protestants. You can't get a job in a catholic school unless you are a practising catholic. In a state funded institution that is a disgrace.


You can here. You just can't teach religion. (shrugs) I'm good with that .

[spot]

fuzzywuzzy;1291264 wrote: What the german national party did in the thirties? Holy crap!!!! :-3 Adn you already use it ..It's in practice?


No, it's been a proposal in various countries for some time now but people are resisting its introduction for some reason.

The UK DNA Police Database, for example, is filling up with people they charge regardless of whether the arrested person is subsequently found guilty in a court or not. The Americans have a Federal deadline for National Biometric ID cards in the form of Driving Licences without which people will be refused access to all Federal facilities and, for example, internal flights from airports.

The intention in all these countries is that the police will be able to know who a person is without having to merely believe what they claim, either when they're in custody or when a detector in a city street flags up that they've just walked past it (which, at the moment, would be a CCTV camera).

[Clodhopper]

What the german national party did in the thirties? Holy crap!!!!


Yes. For the same reason. A lot of people are in favour of it because they don't know the hell to which it leads when you have an evil racist lying s.o.b. like Griffin pushing the agenda.

Despite what oscar says, the real agenda of the BNP can be picked up pdq on Stormfront - a David Duke website. (David Duke was the head of the Ku Klux Klan for many years, was responsible for changing their image, and now co-ordinates the efforts of the extreme racist right globally).

Neil Griffin attended several meetings with David Duke in the 1980s (I think it was) and by an amazing coincidence, the BNP have done exactly the same as the KKK in changing their image. Anyone who believes the agenda is not the same as it always was is deluding themselves. The BNP just kicks out those who are stupid enough to open their gobs and get caught.

Just a reminder of what the BNP really are. This is from 2004:

YouTube - BNP Exposed - The Secret Agent BBC part 1 of 7

[Oscar Namechange]

Clodhopper;1291443 wrote: Yes. For the same reason. A lot of people are in favour of it because they don't know the hell to which it leads when you have an evil racist lying s.o.b. like Griffin pushing the agenda.

Despite what oscar says, the real agenda of the BNP can be picked up pdq on Stormfront - a David Duke website. (David Duke was the head of the Ku Klux Klan for many years, was responsible for changing their image, and now co-ordinates the efforts of the extreme racist right globally).

Neil Griffin attended several meetings with David Duke in the 1980s (I think it was) and by an amazing coincidence, the BNP have done exactly the same as the KKK in changing their image. Anyone who believes the agenda is not the same as it always was is deluding themselves. The BNP just kicks out those who are stupid enough to open their gobs and get caught.

Just a reminder of what the BNP really are. This is from 2004:

YouTube - BNP Exposed - The Secret Agent BBC part 1 of 7
Dear Dear Dear... Still believing those gutter press tabloid hacks again???

“In 2000 Mr Griffin travelled to a conference in America where he was photographed with Mr Duke who was at the time leader of the Ku Klux Klan.”

That statement is, of course, a blatant lie. Dr. David Duke was not in the Ku Klux Klan in the year 2000, and has not been a member of any Klan organization for over 30 years! There is no mention of the fact that David Duke has always condemned violence, and that he went on to being elected twice to public office in the United States, including winning office as a member of the House of Representatives in Louisiana. There is no mention that in the year 2000 he served as the elected chairman of the Republican Party in the largest Republican district in Louisiana, and that Duke received significant votes in a number of Republican primaries for President of the United States.

An honest article by The Telegraph would read that Nick Griffin was a speaker at a meeting in 2000 along with former Representative, David Duke, who was then an elected leader of the Republican Party. The truth doesn’t sound nearly as threatening, does it?

[Clodhopper]

So the BBC are gutter press tabloid hacks, now?

Mostly people think of the Sun, the Mail and their ilk when they refer to the gutter press. I'm sure Griffin will clamp down on the BBC if he gets power. Shutting up people who make statements that don't suit the fuhrer is the usual first response of totalitarians in that situation. It's what Hitler did in Germany, and dictators ever since take over the media first chance they get.

I don't think you watched the clip I linked. If you did, is it that you don't want to see what you are part of; or do you approve of it?

[Oscar Namechange]

Clodhopper;1291459 wrote: So the BBC are gutter press tabloid hacks, now?

Mostly people think of the Sun, the Mail and their ilk when they refer to the gutter press. I'm sure Griffin will clamp down on the BBC if he gets power. Shutting up people who make statements that don't suit the fuhrer is the usual first response of totalitarians in that situation. It's what Hitler did in Germany, and dictators ever since take over the media first chance they get.

I don't think you watched the clip I linked. If you did, is it that you don't want to see what you are part of; or do you approve of it? I have given you the reasons why the Duke/Griffin Issue Is a lie. What I wrote about Duke is the truth as I'm sure any of our US members will confirm. How can you take any video on the net seriousley? Griffin is one of the most heavilly edited people on You Tube. What part of my former post do you not Understand? There Is plenty on the net telling the truth about David Duke and his so called association with Griffin. If you don't want to take my word for It... Then google. You will find sites for and against Griffin and Duke but the truth Of him not being In the KKK for many years before he met Griffin, Is fact.

[Clodhopper]

Indeed, he retired as KKK leader after he'd shifted their image. As I have said before. Nowadays he is co-ordinating far right racist activism globally. He hosts websites and conferences on the subject. Stormfront is one of his.

I'd ask how long I have to keep posting stuff about it before you'll actually see the truth, but it's pointless, because it's more important to you to win.

You haven't watched the clip I linked. Don't want to see the truth of what you're involved in.

[Oscar Namechange]

Clodhopper;1291471 wrote: Indeed, he retired as KKK leader after he'd shifted their image. As I have said before. Nowadays he is co-ordinating far right racist activism globally. He hosts websites and conferences on the subject. Stormfront is one of his.

I'd ask how long I have to keep posting stuff about it before you'll actually see the truth, but it's pointless, because it's more important to you to win.

You haven't watched the clip I linked. Don't want to see the truth of what you're involved in.
I wasn't going to answer this post because I've been here so many times with you before, however, this Is a thread about the BNP and your not diverting some-one's else's thread this time, so I will.

As with any thread about the BNP you post on, all you can do Is scour You Tube for dated, tired old clips of Griffin believing that you are opening my or any-one elses eyes to the Axis of evil that Is Griffin. I'm surprised you haven't found the clip yet where It's alleged he Is experimenting with an Arian race :rolleyes:

You are wasting your time scouring for these clips for me.

Every rescue dog I have ever taken on, I have taken the time to research the breed to see what their traits are. When I looked Into the BNP, I spent nearly a year researching them. I have seen every clip of Griffin, read his history and a lot more along with Simon Parry, the Deputy Chairman. Only, I believe your problem Is, you can not give anyone the credit of being Intelligent enough to do any research. And... this Is coming from the guy who had never heard of the UAF until I wrote about the Organisation on this forum a few months ago. The main funder of the UAF Is what may be our next Prime Minister, not some obscure MP from a tiny Constituancy, yet you knew nothing of them. So, please excuse me when I do not take you seriously.

When-ever you post on the BNP, all you can do Is spout bile that you think Impresses. You offer nothing In the way of debate, Infact, you can not debate. Your posts are the same old tired clips of Griffin from 25 years ago and It's becoming tedious as you never have anything new to say.

What Is the huge revelation about Griffin and Duke? Griffin shared a stage with him at a conference??? Wow, F**k me for fourpence.. How utterly shocking !!!

Is It any more shocking than Gordon Brown dealing with Gaddafi? George Galloway dealing with Sadam Hussain? Our Government dealing with terrorists such as Gerry Adams?... Or Lib Dem MP's ripping off the tax payer by defrauding their expenses and lying about It? Get your own house In order First.

As for Stormfront... Duke does not contribute to the forum. If you bother to actually read and learn on there, you will see that although their are many US members who support Duke, there are equally as many against him. Only recently, the Times picked up on a negative thread asking for Griffin's resignation on Stormfront, so it is hardely the White Supremisist forum you want poeple to believe.

I have said It before to you, Instead of using FG to bring up tired old clips of Griffin, and you are so against the BNP, why don't you be man enough to do some-thing about It? Join the UAF ( Now you know what It Is) and take to the streets with them. I doubt you will. Your all talk.

gmc, Snowfire, bruv etc etc are against the BNP but I don't have to write posts such as this In reply to them. That's because they are adults. We may not agree on each other politics but you may notice that our posts between each other tend to be of the debate style rather than the direct Insults that you resort to. You say your a Lib Dem activist? You need to learn pretty quickly that you need to respect other party members opinions. you may not agree with them but you will get no-where In Politics If you can not be civil.

I often have to share the stage with Lib dems, Tories and Labour at PACT meetings In my Community, that's what you have to do.

Infact, Just before Christmas, my Beat manager Police Officer told me that out of an estimated figure of 36,000 people on his patch, he could count the people who go the extra mile for their community on one hand and my husband and I were two of them. I took that as a massive compliment and that's what It comes down to. I don't care what you think of Griffin and I don't care what you think of me. It's the people I care about who's opinion matters to me.

[fuzzywuzzy]

I just thought you guys might want a heads up ...Pauline Hanson is about to be one of you . She's given up on Australia because it's not the same anymore . ..I've warned you ...look her up.......................After this revelation I think you really really really really really really really really need to . please do . I beg you !!!!

[fuzzywuzzy]

here's some help

One Nation (Australia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Queensland are the geographical rednecks of our country .(yep we do things topsy turvey here)

[Oscar Namechange]

fuzzywuzzy;1291547 wrote: here's some help

One Nation (Australia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Thanks for that Fuzz. I am aware of her but I don't know about her background too much. I'm pushed for time now but will read your link more In detail later tonight.

[spot]

fuzzywuzzy;1291546 wrote: I just thought you guys might want a heads up ...Pauline Hanson is about to be one of you . She's given up on Australia because it's not the same anymore . ..I've warned you ...look her up.......................After this revelation I think you really really really really really really really really need to . please do . I beg you !!!!


Good lord is that the Australian politician we're about to get - I knew we were getting one but I'd not realized (for which read opened the news articles) which one. I congratulate you, fuzzy, Australia will be a nicer place without her. She'll fit in well here.

The BNP still has this problem that the Leader's voice is paramount in all Final Decisions which is why I described it as Totalitarian but then, so was Thatcher's until she met the identical political end that Julius Caesar did. I'm far more worried by the baleful ignorance and slanted tendencies of the gutter press than I am by what's turned into a new pressure group alongside the Conservative Party. Assuming that what they now claim is true - that anyone of any race can now get membership and attend and cast votes at BNP meetings - I'm delighted to welcome the BNP to the mainstream. The more Conservatives who vote for them in the upcoming General Election the better.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1291607 wrote: - I'm delighted to welcome the BNP to the mainstream. The more Conservatives who vote for them in the upcoming General Election the better.
Giving Labour the Majority.

[Issie]

I rarely dip my toe in here these days, but I’ll tread carefully with the battle armour on.:yh_rotfl

Glodhopper said:

Neil Griffin attended several meetings with David Duke in the 1980s.
Clodhopper, for someone who despises the BNP so much and professes to know so much about them, maybe it would be a good idea to get the name right…

Nicholas John "Nick" Griffin, if you don't mind.

So the BBC are gutter press tabloid hacks, now?
It's a biased publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people, and today the BBC is dominated by trendy left-leaning liberals infiltrated by “Common Purpose” tentacles, who will do absolutely anything to promote multiculturalism, even if that means omitting the truth or distorting the truth.

The BBC feed the sheeple population what they need to know and god forbid the BBC ever be biased in favour of truth, that would be way too right wing…so, yes they are as bad as the gutter press and you are mis-guided if you believe everything they tell you, and I really hope that Nick Griffin will clamp down on the BBC if he is ever elected.

Totalitarians? You really haven’t got a clue have you.? This government have eroded your liberties drip by drip and you have been so obsessed with the BNP that you have failed to notice that you’re already living in a near totalitarian state.

If you bothered to read the BNP policies, they wreak of old labour and socialism.

Oscar said

I have seen every clip of Griffin, read his history and a lot more along with Simon Parry, the Deputy Chairman.
Was that a typing error there .? The deputy chairman of the BNP is called Simon Darby.

the Times picked up on a negative thread asking for Griffin's resignation on Stormfront, so it is hardely the White Supremisist forum you want poeple to believe.
That’s quite correct, I sometimes visit the Stormfront website and I read that particular thread, and it seems to me that the BNP members don’t get an easy ride on that forum, despite what Clodhopper would like you to believe.



As far as Pauline Hanson is concerned, bejaysus, she’ll be on the first Quantas flight back to OZ when she sees Londistan or Bradistan….. she is in for a culture shock ….I hope she made enough money selling fish n chips to afford property in the Cotswolds, the Highlands of Scotland or some upper crust suburb in Surrey.

[Bruv]

spot;1291607 wrote:

I'm delighted to welcome the BNP to the mainstream. The more Conservatives who vote for them in the upcoming General Election the better.


I don't believe they are mainstream, and why should they take votes from the Conservatives alone ?

[Oscar Namechange]

Issie;1291627 wrote: I rarely dip my toe in here these days, but I’ll tread carefully with the battle armour on.:yh_rotfl



Clodhopper, for someone who despises the BNP so much and professes to know so much about them, maybe it would be a good idea to get the name right…

Nicholas John "Nick" Griffin, if you don't mind.

It's a biased publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people, and today the BBC is dominated by trendy left-leaning liberals infiltrated by “Common Purpose” tentacles, who will do absolutely anything to promote multiculturalism, even if that means omitting the truth or distorting the truth.

The BBC feed the sheeple population what they need to know and god forbid the BBC ever be biased in favour of truth, that would be way too right wing…so, yes they are as bad as the gutter press and you are mis-guided if you believe everything they tell you, and I really hope that Nick Griffin will clamp down on the BBC if he is ever elected.

Totalitarians? You really haven’t got a clue have you.? This government have eroded your liberties drip by drip and you have been so obsessed with the BNP that you have failed to notice that you’re already living in a near totalitarian state.

If you bothered to read the BNP policies, they wreak of old labour and socialism.

Was that a typing error there .? The deputy chairman of the BNP is called Simon Darby.

That’s quite correct, I sometimes visit the Stormfront website and I read that particular thread, and it seems to me that the BNP members don’t get an easy ride on that forum, despite what Clodhopper would like you to believe.



As far as Pauline Hanson is concerned, bejaysus, she’ll be on the first Quantas flight back to OZ when she sees Londistan or Bradistan….. she is in for a culture shock ….I hope she made enough money selling fish n chips to afford property in the Cotswolds, the Highlands of Scotland or some upper crust suburb in Surrey. Fantastic post.:guitarist:guitarist

Yep, Simon Derby, I've met him as well. How embarressing. :wah: I'll put It down to a typo... either that or I've caught Clodhopper disease.

[spot]

Bruv;1291628 wrote: I don't believe they are mainstream, and why should they take votes from the Conservatives alone ?


I did qualify it with the proviso that it's really true from now on that "anyone of any race can now get membership and attend and cast votes at BNP meetings". I have my doubts.

Totalitarian, in my book, means "following the Leader" as opposed to reaching an agreed decision. The leader might be an individual, it might be a Committee, the wider the franchise for the decision-makers the less totalitarian a society becomes. If anyone has a better definition I'd be delighted to use it instead.

The BNP might take the occasional vote from parties other than the Conservatives but not, I suggest, many.

[Oscar Namechange]

Issie;1291627 wrote: I



As far as Pauline Hanson is concerned, bejaysus, she’ll be on the first Quantas flight back to OZ when she sees Londistan or Bradistan….. she is in for a culture shock ….I hope she made enough money selling fish n chips to afford property in the Cotswolds, the Highlands of Scotland or some upper crust suburb in Surrey.
I would be delighted to give her a tour of Inner Bristol such as 'Easton, St George or Fishponds area. :wah:

[Issie]

Spot said:

The BNP still has this problem that the Leader's voice is paramount
That is not true and had the members not agreed to a constitutional change and the membership voted No, then the Chairman Nick Griffin would be honour bound to resign.

The changes to their constitution, which was forced upon them by the quango Equalities Commission was agreed at the emergency general meeting by a democratic vote within the party.

To stop any further delay or allowing the Labour financed quango organisation financially crippling the party with further court cases by picking holes in the document and not agreeing with any aspect of the document, Nick Griffin was given (by vote) the right to change any aspect of the document to meet the criteria that the EC required, and thus stopping any further expenses in legal costs which was bleeding the party, and that money will be spent on their election campaigns.

As this fascist/racist government have forced the change and have stopped membership until March which is severely restricting finances to the party, but at the same time continue to finance other groups with selective membership, one would hope that these groups will now either be forced to change or be closed down..?

And before you ask Spot, you accused me of being a member of the BNP when I first joined this forum and for some reason thought that you had the authority to interrogate me.

No, I’m still the white retired nurse who lives in a Labour stronghold, but I agree with many of the BNP policies, and I dare say after voting for Labour for 44 years and old enough to remember the damage that the Conservatives did to this country 25 years ago, I know for certain that neither will get my vote, and today I will seriously consider giving the BNP my vote.

Are they mainstream.?

Well tell me of any legitimate political party apart from the BNP which has been able to overcome the incredible obstacles of state sponsored social demonisation, political ostracism, church condemnation and a well organised and richly funded campaign of anti-nationalist propaganda, intimidation, sabotage, and harassment by the left.?

The fact that they are still here is a testament to the strength, validity, and resonance of their message.

Remember that democracy is by the people and for the people, if you don’t like the BNP, what is so hard about just not voting for them.?

I really can’t be having my my blood pressure raised these days by ignorant, ill informed media indoctrinated sheeple’s.

[Oscar Namechange]

Issie;1291726 wrote: That is not true and had the members not agreed to a constitutional change and the membership voted No, then the Chairman Nick Griffin would be honour bound to resign.

The changes to their constitution, which was forced upon them by the quango Equalities Commission was agreed at the emergency general meeting by a democratic vote within the party.

To stop any further delay or allowing the Labour financed quango organisation financially crippling the party with further court cases by picking holes in the document and not agreeing with any aspect of the document, Nick Griffin was given (by vote) the right to change any aspect of the document to meet the criteria that the EC required, and thus stopping any further expenses in legal costs which was bleeding the party, and that money will be spent on their election campaigns.

As this fascist/racist government have forced the change and have stopped membership until March which is severely restricting finances to the party, but at the same time continue to finance other groups with selective membership, one would hope that these groups will now either be forced to change or be closed down..?

And before you ask Spot, you accused me of being a member of the BNP when I first joined this forum and for some reason thought that you had the authority to interrogate me.

No, I’m still the white retired nurse who lives in a Labour stronghold, but I agree with many of the BNP policies, and I dare say after voting for Labour for 44 years and old enough to remember the damage that the Conservatives did to this country 25 years ago, I know for certain that neither will get my vote, and today I will seriously consider giving the BNP my vote.

Are they mainstream.?

Well tell me of any legitimate political party apart from the BNP which has been able to overcome the incredible obstacles of state sponsored social demonisation, political ostracism, church condemnation and a well organised and richly funded campaign of anti-nationalist propaganda, intimidation, sabotage, and harassment by the left.?

The fact that they are still here is a testament to the strength, validity, and resonance of their message.

Remember that democracy is by the people and for the people, if you don’t like the BNP, what is so hard about just not voting for them.?

I really can’t be having my my blood pressure raised these days by ignorant, ill informed media indoctrinated sheeple’s.


:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap

I'd like to just add to that the egotiscal stance that non-supporters of the BNP take with those who do. As you can read by Clodhoppers former post, there is an air of self Imposed authority that leads them to a Narcissistic nature where-by they believe they are more educated than the BNP voter. What they fail to realise Is that most of Today's BNP supporters are not the NF Skinheads from the football terraces of over 30 years ago. Today's BNP voters do their research and see the reality of the corruption In Opposition Mainstream Parties.

They are then subjected to all manner of Ill Imformed nonsence such as the Duke/Griffin association. It Is the very people who profess to loathing the BNP whilst claiming they are experts on the Party, that actually do no research at all and would rather believe the 'Rupert Murdoch' Machine of The Times and scour You Tube for doctored clips of Nick Griffin from up to 30 years ago.

People who do stand for election for the BNP do not do It lightly. Due to the Ill Imformed bigots who assume all BNP members are raving fascist, rascist, neo-Nazi's, a great deal of courage Is needed to get up and say 'Yes, I support the BNP', due to the victemisation of which you spoke of In your post.

You are absolutely correct re: Nick griffin resigning had the vote gone against him. And take It from me Clodhopper... He would have done It with dignity.

[Ahso!]

Issie;1291627 wrote:

It's a biased publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people, and today the BBC is dominated by trendy left-leaning liberals infiltrated by “Common Purpose” tentacles, who will do absolutely anything to promote multiculturalism, even if that means omitting the truth or distorting the truth.I thought i would ask a couple of questions about this portion of your post, Issie, because these characterizations are eerily similar to what we Americans hear from the right about our publicly funded television station, PBS.

I've been looking all over the internet for some verification of what you claim here regarding the staff make up of the BBC and have been pretty unsuccessful. Would you mind including some citations regarding what you've written here?

But I have a few additional questions too;

1) what do you consider too young for fair journalism?

2) What is wrong with multiculturalism?

3) what is wrong with being born gay, and why should that exclude employment in the BBC?

That will do for now.

Nice to meet you, Issie!

[spot]

Issie;1291726 wrote: That is not true and had the members not agreed to a constitutional change and the membership voted No, then the Chairman Nick Griffin would be honour bound to resign.I don't see that in the Constitution. What I do see in the constitution is that the Leader's voice is paramount. Section 3, if you'd like to check. "Once elected, the National Chairman shall have full executive power over all the affairs of the party" etc.

[Issie]

Originally Posted by Issie

That is not true and had the members not agreed to a constitutional change and the membership voted No, then the Chairman Nick Griffin would be honour bound to resign.
Section 6

If a two-thirds majority of those voting should vote against the National Chairman, then he is bound to accept that decision or to resign from the leadership.

[Oscar Namechange]

Issie;1291761 wrote: Section 6

If a two-thirds majority of those voting should vote against the National Chairman, then he is bound to accept that decision or to resign from the leadership. Yes... i have that also.

The British National Party was formed from a merger of like-minded patriotic organisations and founded on April 7th 1982 at a press conference in London.

Following the first ever election for the National Chairmanship in 1999, which saw a change of leadership, it was resolved to make the first major changes to the Party’s Constitution since its formation.

At a General Members’ Meeting held on March 11th 2000 in Milton Keynes, those present voted unanimously for a series of amendments to Sections 1, 4 and 12; to introduce a new Section 5, and to add the new Section 5 and the old Section 12 (now 13) to Sections 1 and 4 which cannot be changed without a two-third majority of members voting at a General Members’ Meeting. Another amendment to Section 4 was carried overwhelmingly.

The changes were necessary so s to take into account changes in global politics and to be able to comply with the political and legal necessity for internal financial transparency.

At an EGM on Sunday 17th August 2008, other changes were incorporated to further democratise the Party, widen the representation of the Advisory Council and define the Voting Membership. These changes were confirmed at a subsequent EGM held on 15th November 2008. In August 2009 an amendment was made to take account of the new category of Life Member.

[spot]

Issie;1291761 wrote: Section 6

If a two-thirds majority of those voting should vote against the National Chairman, then he is bound to accept that decision or to resign from the leadership.


That's slightly disingenuous to quote so selectively.

The Constitution's at The British National Party — Blog

The vote you refer to can happen if and only if the Leader himself or his Advisory Council first call a General Members’ Meeting "by a two-thirds majority of Advisory Council members voting in a properly convened meeting with a quorum of two-thirds" to put the question at issue. Only then, if "a two-thirds majority of those voting should vote against the National Chairman, then he is bound to accept that decision or to resign from the leadership". No other General Members’ Meeting has the authority to force the Leader's resignation. It's a rather different position to the one you started with.

[Issie]

Spot said :

The vote you refer to can happen if and only if the Leader himself or his Advisory Council first call a General Members’ Meeting
They called an Emergency General Meeting to change the constitution, NG didn't have the paramount power as you suggest to go ahead without a democratic vote, and if the vote had gone against NG, he would have had to accept the vote or retire, which is what I said.

[spot]

Issie;1291786 wrote: They called an Emergency General Meeting to change the constitution, NG didn't have the paramount power as you suggest to go ahead without a democratic vote, and if the vote had gone against NG, he would have had to accept the vote or retire, which is what I said.


And where do you get that from?

When I say "The BNP constitution's still going to say that the decision of the Leader is still binding in all matters. It's totalitarian", I'm thinking in particular of the following stuff. My observation seems a reasonable one.Once elected, the National Chairman shall have full executive power over all the affairs of the party. This will include:-(a) Power of appointment to all other executive offices in the party, with the exception of the party auditor [...] all such appointments, direct and indirect, are made upon the authority of the elected National Chairman and may be over-ruled by him.

(b) Power to determine, and where necessary change, all organisational structures within the party and to determine all rules and procedures whereby such structures are governed.

(c) Power to determine all routine executive, administrative, policy and tactical decisions made by the party.