Asian boys beaten by BNP candidate Bob Bailey

[MetalGear]

He is standing for Parliament. He was surrounded by more of his own than the three who approached. I do not know how he was provoked because I do not know what happened, I am simply saying that I do not think that people who are wanting to be elected for Parliament and who are out to promote that which he was are fit.

So your saying officials to stand for Parliament do not have the right to defend themselves from attack?
Also you might want to watch the video before posting about this topic.
Lastly, your making out it was a 5 against 3 fight. Again, it was only him fighting, and the rest where trying to break it up. Yes, the "thugs" where trying to break up the fight.

When they further finish this off with more aggression, that is kicking that man when he was down, I can see he is just a thug.

Kicking him when he was down is perfectly fine. He had to make sure when he put him down he stayed down so that he could get away safely. Its far from a criminal act or "thuggery".

You may like a good reason for a fight but that does not change my opinion. If people have no ability to control themselves, they should be locked up.

For defending themselves? Boy, i really dont know what PC dose you took this morning, but i can assure you that spitting at somebody is not self control and defending oneself from attack is a just and right response.

Now what was it. Two pages of A4 for the list of all the convictions of BNP candidates. If people have committed fraud over their expenses they are being prosecuted. You were comparing it to brown calling someone a bigot last time. I note your lack of interest in the safety of the British public. This man is clearly unable to control his emotions and needs help.

He needs help because he was infuriated when he got spat at? Because he defended himself? Oh boy, ive heard it now! :doh
As i said, Brown and Cameron are the real thugs. Where are the persecutors at Browns door? He took a couple of thousand for his brothers cleaner, did he not? I think you should take another look at your mainstream parties.

I am completely concerned for the protection of the British public hence feel it absolutely fine that they should defend themselves when attacked.

You no doubt wish all people chucking eggs or tomatoes at people ending up in intensive care,

I do not share your values, that is all.

Sorry?

Yes, it was an assault but people of integrity, particularly when they out number, the other deal with such things, particularly when they are being photographed, through the due process of the law, not through thuggery.

As i said, only one person was fighting, the rest of the "thug" BNP trying to break it up. Did you even watch the video?
Try and separate your hatred of the BNP from logical reasoning, because i honestly think you choose not to "share my values" or "see my point" because of who we are arguing about here.

I have not used this fact. The first time I have given any reference to the BNP is I think in this post. I have said that my criticism is because he is a would be MP.

Still no excuse to be allowed to be assaulted. It doesn't matter if you referred to there being BNP or not, you know they are. Clearly defending oneself from political violence is perfectly unacceptable for you and as a result i cannot say i share your values.

I never support physical violence. I do not support corporal punishment or the death penalty either. Now you are bringing in the NF as well as the BNP. Do you for some reason believe that their should be different treatment given to people from the BNP and the NF who want to get into Parliament. Do you not think that is a bit patronising - oh we know they do not know how to keep their fists to themselves, we'll just ignore them involved in physical violence.

Thats' not what i said at all. Im just wondering which of Labour or Conservatives you support - both parties whom support certain far left groups who have been known to use provocation and violence against the BNP and both of whom have failed to apologizie and repeatedly declined to address the issue. A bit hypocritical, dont you think?

Self Defence is only allowed to the extent necessary to protect oneself. In this case punching and kicking the man on the ground were not necessary for protecting himself.

Thats where your wrong.

 

[Gardener]

5 page thread devoted to spitting on the bnp.
I'm a 5'3" woman who hasn't hit anyone since 1987 (she sooo deserved it). But I would happily do time for knocking one of them out cold. Controversial? Maybe...

But would you serve time for knocking an Islamist thug cold?

Why focus on just one sort you perceive as racist when another is not only much more virulent in their hatred, but potentially much more dangerous to you personally?

 

[Blueangel]

But would you serve time for knocking an Islamist thug cold?

Why focus on just one sort you perceive as racist when another is not only much more virulent in their hatred, but potentially much more dangerous to you personally?

You'e talking theoretically whereas I'm being realistic.

I have not met any Islamist thugs.
I have, however, had more than a few personal dealings with the bnp over many years, so my response is based upon practical experience and hindsight.
In my last job, I was very personally and directly threatened by a bnp member who promised that I would regret it if I applied for a promotion he was applying for. In that role, I was superior to him, took great pleasure in reporting him to my superiors and was also given the great pleasure of publically reprimanding him. And that is just the more recent of a long, sordid list of their actions I have encountered.
The hindsight part is, if had threatened me outside of the work place, I would have royally whooped his backside into the middle of the next millennium. Damn!

 

[Gardener]

You'e talking theoretically whereas I'm being realistic.

I have not met any Islamist thugs.
I have, however, had more than a few personal dealings with the bnp over many years, so my response is based upon practical experience and hindsight.
In my last job, I was very personally and directly threatened by a bnp member who promised that I would regret it if I applied for a promotion he was applying for. In that role, I was superior to him, took great pleasure in reporting him to my superiors and was also given the great pleasure of publically reprimanding him. And that is just the more recent of a long, sordid list of their actions I have encountered.
The hindsight part is, if had threatened me outside of the work place, I would have royally whooped his backside into the middle of the next millennium. Damn!

Your original statement was hypothetical, but hey -- good dodge.


For a reference point, though, nearly a quarter of British Muslims support suicide bombing. 40% wish for the introduction of Sharia law. More than half believe 911 was a conspiracy and didn't involve Arabs. Over 60% want to criminalize speech critical of Islam.

As far as your "not meeting any Islamist thugs", I would say that several possibilities exist. You may have never met any Muslims. You may have met many muslims, but have not known their actual views on the world. I think the likelihood is greater, though, that you have met Muslims, are aware of their views, but exhibit the typical British double standards in evaluating them -- a b.n.p. member is automatically a thug, whereas an Islamist with views equally or more extreme is not .

I certainly do not notice too many British posters offering up the copout "well, that's just the B.N.P. culture, so we must respect that", anyway.

 

[Blueangel]

How is that a dodge?

In theory, confronted with a thug of whatever persuasion, I'm going to fight like the devil possessed. And that isn't a lame boast.
One thing that came as a revelation to me in later years is that, when someone really angers me or tries to physically intimidate me, I come out all guns blazing. I have an exceptionally long fuse, but when it's lit, there's a good 27yrs of everything that has peed me right off on the end of it. :lol:

It just so happens that my real life experience of such incidents has almost exclusively involved the bnp and their ilk.
I scared the hell out a local bnp member only 3 weeks ago today by chasing him down the street. In my defence, I was in the middle of a 12day stretch at work and had just got in from the most stressful day of that. He made 2 huge mistakes. He repeatedly hammered on my door whilst I was trying to get changed and he posted his filthy bile through my letter box.
To give him his due, he just took it but did look rather nervous.

 

[Gardener]

How is that a dodge?

In theory, confronted with a thug of whatever persuasion, I'm going to fight like the devil possessed. And that isn't a lame boast.
One thing that came as a revelation to me in later years is that, when someone really angers me or tries to physically intimidate me, I come out all guns blazing. I have an exceptionally long fuse, but when it's lit, there's a good 27yrs of everything that has peed me right off on the end of it. :lol:

It just so happens that my real life experience of such incidents has almost exclusively involved the bnp and their ilk.
I scared the hell out a local bnp member only 3 weeks ago today by chasing him down the street. In my defence, I was in the middle of a 12day stretch at work and had just got in from the most stressful day of that. He made 2 huge mistakes. He repeatedly hammered on my door whilst I was trying to get changed and he posted his filthy bile through my letter box.
To give him his due, he just took it but did look rather nervous.

Well, the bnp fellow certainly sounds aggressive, and my reaction would be anger as well.

I think where you and I differ is that I do not have a phobia against evaluating Islamists in the same manner as I would the B.N.P.

 

[Blueangel]

As far as your "not meeting any Islamist thugs", I would say that several possibilities exist. You may have never met any Muslims. You may have met many muslims, but have not known their actual views on the world. I think the likelihood is greater, though, that you have met Muslims, are aware of their views, but exhibit the typical British double standards in evaluating them -- a b.n.p. member is automatically a thug, whereas an Islamist with views equally or more extreme is not .

I certainly do not notice too many British posters offering up the copout "well, that's just the B.N.P. culture, so we must respect that", anyway.

In answer, in my line of work, I have met very many Muslims. One of my closest friends is a Muslim girl who did go a long way down the route of extreme Islam but pulled herself back from the brink.
I find that in British culture, a lot of how extreme someone is in their Islamic views depends on how many generations they have been in this country. One of my college friends who is Muslim comes from a family who have lived here since the 1730's! That's a damned sight longer than my family have lived in this country yet I get a 'free pass' on most of the hate speech because I'm a blue-eyed blonde.

The main difference between extreme Islamists is that they are indoctrinated from a viewpoint of extreme belief, whereas bnp are indoctrinated from a standpoint of extreme ignorance.

So when you talk about the bigger threat being from extreme Islam, that's a given. My issue with the bnp is that they would have me on the next boat back to whereever they decide my family have come from. Looking at my family tree, I'd be intruigued to see where they would come up with for my repatriation. :mrgreen:

 

[Blueangel]

Well, the bnp fellow certainly sounds aggressive, and my reaction would be anger as well.

I think where you and I differ is that I do not have a phobia against evaluating Islamists in the same manner as I would the B.N.P.

I don't have a phobia.
They are two incredibly different mindsets and can only be viewed as such. All this proves to me is that you are not fully aware of the main principles on the bnp, one of which is that you have to prove your family have lived in England for 1,000 years to call yourself English. If there was a political party in America that held the same basic value, that would be 95% of the population totally knackered! :mrgreen:

 

[Gardener]

In answer, in my line of work, I have met very many Muslims. One of my closest friends is a Muslim girl who did go a long way down the route of extreme Islam but pulled herself back from the brink.
I find that in British culture, a lot of how extreme someone is in their Islamic views depends on how many generations they have been in this country. One of my college friends who is Muslim comes from a family who have lived here since the 1730's! That's a damned sight longer than my family have lived in this country yet I get a 'free pass' on most of the hate speech because I'm a blue-eyed blonde.

The main difference between extreme Islamists is that they are indoctrinated from a viewpoint of extreme belief, whereas bnp are indoctrinated from a standpoint of extreme ignorance.

So when you talk about the bigger threat being from extreme Islam, that's a given. My issue with the bnp is that they would have me on the next boat back to whereever they decide my family have come from. Looking at my family tree, I'd be intruigued to see where they would come up with for my repatriation. :mrgreen:

I'm not sure if I would say belief and ignorance are antonyms, but yes -- Islamists are motivated by belief. The "true believer" syndrome is well explored in philosophy and the fanaticism it spawns can take ugly turns. The b.n.p., on the other hand, represent a xenophobia that leads to exclusion. Both are built upon an outlook on the world that allows for no derivation, though, so they are philosophical cousins in that regard.

I was under the impression that British Muslims are becoming more radicalized with time rather than less, though. Seems to me that one of the very causes of such radicalization is the conflict between the culture in which they are immersed and the teachings of their religion. As more and more Muslims immigrate, and more are born, the result hasn't been the integration into British society so much as it has been the creation of an alternate society. The concentration of Muslims into various neighborhoods rather than dispersal throughout Britain only acts as a vehicle for radicalization due to the starkness with which it emphasizes the contrast between cultures.

 

[gunner]

For a reference point, though, nearly a quarter of British Muslims support suicide bombing. 40% wish for the introduction of Sharia law. More than half believe 911 was a conspiracy and didn't involve Arabs. Over 60% want to criminalize speech critical of Islam.

IIRC correctly the survey you are referring to was carried out by the Telegraph in 2006 and did highlight some cause for concern. But, to add a little balance,

-41% opposed the introduction of Sharia Law

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK - Telegraph

"Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law".

British Muslims want Islamic law and prayers at work | UK news | The Guardian

Also from the Telegraph link

-20% felt 'sympathy' with the 7/7 bombers, 75% 'did not' feel sympathy with the bombers

Paul

 

[Gardener]

I don't have a phobia.
They are two incredibly different mindsets and can only be viewed as such. All this proves to me is that you are not fully aware of the main principles on the bnp, one of which is that you have to prove your family have lived in England for 1,000 years to call yourself English. If there was a political party in America that held the same basic value, that would be 95% of the population totally knackered! :mrgreen:

If such a party comes to prominence here, do save me a nice little spot in Ulster if you can, o.k.?

I don't support the B.N.P. in any way, but I do see the rise in their popularity as a direct result of the failure of the other political parties to come to grips with Islamism. The reason I use the term phobia, though, is that so many people in Britain who (imo rightfully) criticize the B.N.P. are absolutely loathe to say a word about political Islam. It is a sacred cow, as any criticism of the beliefs or practices of any Muslim, no matter how arch, is treated as an "ism". The same cannot be said for criticism of the b.n.p. despite the fact that the fact that both criticisms are directed at belief systems.

 

[Gardener]

IIRC correctly the survey you are referring to was carried out by the Telegraph in 2006 and did highlight some cause for concern. But, to add a little balance,

-41% opposed the introduction of Sharia Law

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK - Telegraph

"Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law".

British Muslims want Islamic law and prayers at work | UK news | The Guardian

Also from the Telegraph link

-20% felt 'sympathy' with the 7/7 bombers, 75% 'did not' feel sympathy with the bombers

Paul

Paul, it is quite obvious that if 20 % felt sympathy with the 7/7/ bombers that 80% did not. What should also be obvious to you is that the issue here is not with the 80% who do not feel such sympathy, but the 20% who do. Unfortunately, that seems completely lost on you.

Your response here is just all too typical of the apologist mindset which attempts to paint others as if THEY were the ones using the broad brush, where, in fact, you are the one doing so.

 

[Blueangel]

If such a party comes to prominence here, do save me a nice little spot in Ulster if you can, o.k.?

I don't support the B.N.P. in any way, but I do see the rise in their popularity as a direct result of the failure of the other political parties to come to grips with Islamism. The reason I use the term phobia, though, is that so many people in Britain who (imo rightfully) criticize the B.N.P. are absolutely loathe to say a word about political Islam. It is a sacred cow, as any criticism of the beliefs or practices of any Muslim, no matter how arch, is treated as an "ism". The same cannot be said for criticism of the b.n.p. despite the fact that the fact that both criticisms are directed at belief systems.

Right! I see the confusion now...

Extreme Islam in the U.K. is a relatively recent phenomena.
The bnp, under their various guises, predate this by a good few decades so they can't be viewed as being a response. They see it as 'proof' of what they were saying all along, but the problem is, they weren't saying it.

I've known of Nick Griffin for well over 20yrs. The context of this is that I happen to support a football team (No! It's not soccer!) that traditionally, has a large contingent of Jewish and Catholic supporters. Back in the years when I could afford to attend matches, there was always a hostile representation from the N.F., etc...who were violent and abusive towards my teams supporters. I was a 14yr old girl getting spat at and hit by grown 'men' because of the team I supported and their verbal abuse left me with no doubt whatsoever that they hated Jews. Just for the record, I'm agnostic, was raised Catholic but also have Anglican and Jewish ancestry.
I did learn to fight back but I also wanted to know why this was happening in the first place.

So I made a point of learning all I could about neo-Nazi groups throughout Europe and North America and who the main players and organisations were. Basically, who were the money men, the mouth pieces and the henchmen.

Nick Griffin was on my radar back in the early 1980's along with quite a few of his more prominent party members. But back in those days, they campaigned against Jews, Afro-Caribbeans, Asian Indians and Irish immigrants. The British neo-Nazi groups have always been bit part players compared to likes of the Grey Wolves, but they have been a blight on our landscape for a very long time. Hence, people of my age remember them as individuals for who they were in their previous incarnations and are not fooled by their newfound 'respectability'. They were football hooligans and are now racist thugs in suits spewing their venomous bile and fear around the country. Nothing more, nothing less.
A racist with a brain joins UKIP. A racist without a brain joins the bnp.

Point of fact...the bnp were invited to speak on rather a large number of mainstream political programmes in the run up to the elections, but refused every invitation.

Now do you see how extreme Islam is an entirely seperate issue and talking about them both together only serves to fudge the issue?

 

[Gardener]

Right! I see the confusion now...

Extreme Islam in the U.K. is a relatively recent phenomena.
The bnp, under their various guises, predate this by a good few decades so they can't be viewed as being a response. They see it as 'proof' of what they were saying all along, but the problem is, they weren't saying it.

I've known of Nick Griffin for well over 20yrs. The context of this is that I happen to support a football team (No! It's not soccer!) that traditionally, has a large contingent of Jewish and Catholic supporters. Back in the years when I could afford to attend matches, there was always a hostile representation from the N.F., etc...who were violent and abusive towards my teams supporters. I was a 14yr old girl getting spat at and hit by grown 'men' because of the team I supported and their verbal abuse left me with no doubt whatsoever that they hated Jews. Just for the record, I'm agnostic, was raised Catholic but also have Anglican and Jewish ancestry.
I did learn to fight back but I also wanted to know why this was happening in the first place.

So I made a point of learning all I could about neo-Nazi groups throughout Europe and North America and who the main players and organizations were. Basically, who were the money men, the mouth pieces and the henchmen.

Nick Griffin was on my radar back in the early 1980's along with quite a few of his more prominent party members. But back in those days, they campaigned against Jews, Afro-Caribbeans, Asian Indians and Irish immigrants. The British neo-Nazi groups have always been bit part players compared to likes of the Grey Wolves, but they have been a blight on our landscape for a very long time. Hence, people of my age remember them as individuals for who they were in their previous incarnations and are not fooled by their newfound 'respectability'. They were football hooligans and are now racist thugs in suits spewing their venomous bile and fear around the country. Nothing more, nothing less.
A racist with a brain joins UKIP. A racist without a brain joins the bnp.

Point of fact...the bnp were invited to speak on rather a large number of mainstream political programmes in the run up to the elections, but refused every invitation.

Now do you see how extreme Islam is an entirely seperate issue and talking about them both together only serves to fudge the issue?

We have a hate group here in Oregon called "The Oregon Citizens Alliance". They do not act out physically, but they target gay people relentlessly, and have managed to sponsor a number of ballot measures over the years. The first of these was filled with very harsh language and was voted down. The next time around, the language was softened just a bit and was also voted down, but by a bit less. Each time they sponsored a new initiative, their presentation became more slick and professional, but their objective was the same. Thankfully, most folks here saw through the act -- same crazy people, same hateful agenda, but just the marketing was different. I imagine the BNP is much the same, and I certainly do not doubt your experiences with soccer hooligans.

That being said, I think Islamism and the BNP need to be discussed together -- certainly in this thread because that is the very nature of the subject matter, but also in the greater context because the rise in one is fueling the popularity of the other. If you don't want a fire to grow out of control, the best way to combat it is to limit its fuel source, and similarly, if British folks don't want the BNP to flourish, then they should stop feeding it so much fuel by the way of all their appeasement of Islamism. It's not that one PRODUCES the other so much as one utilizes the lack of proper reaction to the other in order to gain support. Stop treating those who do not wish to see the degradation of women as "Islamophobes". Stop refusing to teach about the Holocaust in schools because of "sensitivity". When some bleach blond Dutch wack jobs want to come talk, stop refusing to allow them while simultaneously allowing Imams free reign. Your politicians hobnob with some of the worst Islamist filth whorring for votes, and much of your national dialogue is geared around framing mechanisms that act to protect Islamists. Heck, just reading through several of your newspapers handling of this very incident, you would think Bob Baily just whomped on some little kid out of he blue. Good grief -- one of those fellows looked to be about 6 ' 3, and 250 pounds! Change your approach to Islamism and you will see the popularity of the B.N.P diminish. Continue on your present course, and it will grow.

I think Islamism and the rise of the British far right absolutely need to be discussed together. They are inexorably tied together.

 

[alexa]

I think Islamism and the rise of the British far right absolutely need to be discussed together. They are inexorably tied together.

This is where Blueangel is correct and you do not know about the BNP.

Prior to 9/11 the BNP's favourite hatred was Jews. As Blueangel has also said they are descended from the National Front again whose chief hatred was Jews but who took it out more on blacks (I didn't know about the Irish).

Prior to 9/11 they hated Israel.

9/11 was acted upon in an opportunistic manner by them.

You will not find most British people willing to discuss any issues concerning Muslims through the BNP because we know who the BNP are.

It is not an appropriate avenue to discuss such issues unless you only interest is to spread hate.

 

[alexa]

So your saying officials to stand for Parliament do not have the right to defend themselves from attack?
Also you might want to watch the video before posting about this topic.
Lastly, your making out it was a 5 against 3 fight. Again, it was only him fighting, and the rest where trying to break it up. Yes, the "thugs" where trying to break up the fight.

1. I have never said a person does not have the right to defend themselves from attack.

2. I watched the video at least 3 times.

3. I have never said anything about it being 5 against 3.

4. I have only been speaking about the man punching and kicking a man when down. I have not made reference to what other people did as I did not see them.

Kicking him when he was down is perfectly fine. He had to make sure when he put him down he stayed down so that he could get away safely. Its far from a criminal act or "thuggery".

Right, clearly you believe in activity which is criminal. That is such crap. Rationalising thugery.

For defending themselves? Boy, i really dont know what PC dose you took this morning, but i can assure you that spitting at somebody is not self control and defending oneself from attack is a just and right response.

I have never said the spitting was all right. I have simply said that it did not require a response of being punched and then kicked about the body as the person lay on the ground. You have made clear this is the sort of action you support and I have made clear that I do not.

He needs help because he was infuriated when he got spat at? Because he defended himself? Oh boy, ive heard it now! :doh

He is sick. He needs to be convicted and possibly given psychological help. Now it might have been possibly to say it was just a reaction if he had just punched him, but the fact that he then went on to deliver serval kicks to the man lying on the ground shows that this man has done this kind of activity before. He is a thug and was caught on camera. That you applaud such activity concerns your own conscience.

As i said, only one person was fighting, the rest of the "thug" BNP trying to break it up. Did you even watch the video?

and the only person I have been talking about is the thug who was beating up the guy. I have said, now three times, that once the man was being kicked on the ground it was impossible for me to make out what was happening. That is why I watched the video several times.

At the beginning the other BNP's made a half hearted gesture to stop him getting started but I certainly was unable to see what was going on after the man was getting the hell kicked out of him on the ground.

Still no excuse to be allowed to be assaulted. It doesn't matter if you referred to there being BNP or not, you know they are. Clearly defending oneself from political violence is perfectly unacceptable for you and as a result i cannot say i share your values.

This is physical violence. You are becoming ridiculous.

Thats where your wrong.

No, I am afraid you are wrong. By law in self defence you can only use the amount of force needed for self protection. You are talking about vigilante revenge. The law does not allow that. You had better learn.

 

[gunner]

This is where Blueangel is correct and you do not know about the BNP.

Prior to 9/11 the BNP's favourite hatred was Jews. As Blueangel has also said they are descended from the National Front again whose chief hatred was Jews but who took it out more on blacks (I didn't know about the Irish).
.

You probably do Alexa. Its simply the affiliation with loyalist groups in NI. Its no different than certain football clubs having a catholic following supporting PIRA.

Paul

 

[gunner]

Paul, it is quite obvious that if 20 % felt sympathy with the 7/7/ bombers that 80% did not. What should also be obvious to you is that the issue here is not with the 80% who do not feel such sympathy, but the 20% who do. Unfortunately, that seems completely lost on you.

Your response here is just all too typical of the apologist mindset which attempts to paint others as if THEY were the ones using the broad brush, where, in fact, you are the one doing so.

What have i offered that can be deemed 'broad brush'?

I have simply included, the stats, you left out from your links:doh

Remember theres always 'two' sides.

Paul

 

[alexa]

You probably do Alexa. Its simply the affiliation with loyalist groups in NI. Its no different than certain football clubs having a catholic following supporting PIRA.

Paul

What I am meaning is like Blueangel I was aware of the NF in the 80's and of their work in stirring up hate against Blacks in particular. I also knew they hated Jews but I didn't actually know that they were also targeting the Irish.

It makes sense on many levels. Yes, a way to exploit differences already there within football and also why club's like Celtic for instance hate them so much and will do what they can to help those suffering this kind of thing. (ask Joe Castro about that )

Now this is going back and illustrating how we always had people who could find someone to have a go against. My own Irish Mum suffered quite a bit when she first arrived in Scotland.

 

[Gardener]

This is where Blueangel is correct and you do not know about the BNP.

Prior to 9/11 the BNP's favourite hatred was Jews. As Blueangel has also said they are descended from the National Front again whose chief hatred was Jews but who took it out more on blacks (I didn't know about the Irish).

Prior to 9/11 they hated Israel.

9/11 was acted upon in an opportunistic manner by them.

You will not find most British people willing to discuss any issues concerning Muslims through the BNP because we know who the BNP are.

It is not an appropriate avenue to discuss such issues unless you only interest is to spread hate.

You don't seem to understand much of anything at all from what I've been able to discern. It doesn't matter what groups the B.N.P have hated in the past, since that is irrelevant to the present day situation. Like any opportunist, they are simply capitalizing on the situation by exploiting the fact that illiberal British leftists protect Islamists from criticism like they do.

 

[alexa]

You don't seem to understand much of anything at all from what I've been able to discern. It doesn't matter what groups the B.N.P have hated in the past, since that is irrelevant to the present day situation. Like any opportunist, they are simply capitalizing on the situation by exploiting the fact that illiberal British leftists protect Islamists from criticism like they do.

Right, it doesn't matter that the BNP are a white supremacist vote. It doesn't matter that on a recent tv program I saw newer members were denying the holocaust. It doesn't matter that they want voluntarily at first then forced 'repatriation' of all immigrants since 48. Right people who join the BNP are just concerned about Islamists. hmmmmmn.

 

[gunner]

You don't seem to understand much of anything at all from what I've been able to discern. It doesn't matter what groups the B.N.P have hated in the past, since that is irrelevant to the present day situation. Like any opportunist, they are simply capitalizing on the situation by exploiting the fact that illiberal British leftists protect Islamists from criticism like they do.

I dont agree. You fail to acknowledge, or understand, British pluralism. Our society will go to great lengths in the pursuit of accommodating diverse cultures and religions. It may seem alien to the ignorant and ill-informed, thats not to suggest its without conflict and problems.
Far from neglecting the problems between the host community and minorities we are at pains, as a nation, to understand and acknowledge contentious issues. That's what you fail to understand.

Paul

 

[gunner]

Paul, it is quite obvious that if 20 % felt sympathy with the 7/7/ bombers that 80% did not. What should also be obvious to you is that the issue here is not with the 80% who do not feel such sympathy, but the 20% who do. Unfortunately, that seems completely lost on you.
QUOTE]

I recall sometime back you calling my 'math' into question. The link stated 75% did not empathise with the 7/7 bombers, NOT 80%. It did not offer the opinions of the missing 5% but i would opine they were indifferent. Please be more careful on your analysis of quantitative data...

Paul

 

[gunner]

That being said, I think Islamism and the BNP need to be discussed together -- certainly in this thread because that is the very nature of the subject matter, but also in the greater context because the rise in one is fueling the popularity of the other. If you don't want a fire to grow out of control, the best way to combat it is to limit its fuel source, and similarly, if British folks don't want the BNP to flourish, then they should stop feeding it so much fuel by the way of all their appeasement of Islamism.

Their you go again offering a 'one' dimensional viewpoint. You are totally neglecting the fact that the West has troops fighting, rightly or wrongly, in Muslim country's. So, i suggest you look up 'appeasement' and illuminate the part that even intimates how a country can go to war [against extremist Muslims] and appease at the same time.
Lets suggest a hypothetical scenario YOU emigrate to another country-America gets invaded- what slant would your opinions take?...I,ll hazard a guess you would come out in support of America everytime. Are the 'minority' of Muslims just doing the same?

Paul

 

[Gardener]

I dont agree. You fail to acknowledge, or understand, British pluralism. Our society will go to great lengths in the pursuit of accommodating diverse cultures and religions.

So that's why you support Islamism. Good to hear.

It may seem alien to the ignorant and ill-informed, thats not to suggest its without conflict and problems.

There is really nothing more more or ill informed than offering blind support to those whose attitudes you know nothing about.

Far from neglecting the problems between the host community and minorities we are at pains, as a nation, to understand and acknowledge contentious issues. That's what you fail to understand.

Paul

Yet Britain is one of the terrorist breeding grounds of the world, having the most radicalized Islamic population in Western Europe.

Speaking of failure :roll: