BNP membership leaked online.

[View From The Top]

And while ya'll are getting off by ridiculing the BNP and kissing the butt of NuLabour......Something far worse is going on under your very noses http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090386/Police-state-Britain-MPs-want-protection-arrest-Tory-telling-truths-Labour-didnt-want-know.html and doesn't even raise an eyebrow...the apathy is incredible

 

Only in Britain and one or two third world countries

 

As your record as a cross burning bigot is known to us all it shouldn't really come as a surprise that you check the Daily Mail website.

 

How are your plans to kill the socialist, Muslim, n i g g er president coming along you loon?

[Robsk II]

[EastleighSoulBoy]

And while ya'll are getting off by ridiculing the BNP and kissing the butt of NuLabour......Something far worse is going on under your very noses http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090386/Police-state-Britain-MPs-want-protection-arrest-Tory-telling-truths-Labour-didnt-want-know.html and doesn't even raise an eyebrow...the apathy is incredible

 

Only in Britain and one or two third world countries

 

You assume that because people of all political persuasions here are ridiculing the BNP we are all kissing the bottom (butt is so american) of New (Nu is so american) Labour (not Labor before you immerse yourself way too much). I think you'll find that's not the case.

 

Scorched your sheet lately while setting fire to a cross?

[costasaint]

And while ya'll are getting off by ridiculing the BNP and kissing the butt of NuLabour......Something far worse is going on under your very noses http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090386/Police-state-Britain-MPs-want-protection-arrest-Tory-telling-truths-Labour-didnt-want-know.html and doesn't even raise an eyebrow...the apathy is incredible

 

Only in Britain and one or two third world countries

You believe what you read in the Daily Mail ffs?

I find it strange that all the right wing papers go on and on about Britain becoming a police state,losing our freedom etc etc but they never said a word when the tories were doing the same things or worse in fact the Mail,Telegraph etc were always justifing it!

[Johnny Bognor]

You believe what you read in the Daily Mail ffs?

I find it strange that all the right wing papers go on and on about Britain becoming a police state,losing our freedom etc etc but they never said a word when the tories were doing the same things or worse in fact the Mail,Telegraph etc were always justifing it!

 

Not that I am rushing to the defence of St George, but our freedoms are being eroded - they are trying to extend detention above 28 days as the police need more time when interviewing terror suspects - well if they didn't run around arresting opposition MP's (who are hardly terrorists, let's face it), perhaps they would have more resource?

 

The fact that anti-terror legislation (which is supposed to 'protect' us) has been misused by the totalitarian Clown dictatorship, can you really believe them when the proposed ID cards are 'supposed' to be for our own 'protection'?

 

I am surprised that the liberals amoungst us, don't have a problem with this. What price social justice? A totalitarian Clownist communist state?

Edited 30 November, 2008 by Johnny Bognor

[Robsk II]

The mistake some make, though, BS, is to assume this has something to do with Labour. ****, the labour party has nothing to do with what labour was. I totally agree some civil freedoms etc have been eroded and taken away, sometimes by stealth, and it's awful. I would honestly ask people to consider though - do yout honestly think the Tories wouldn't have done the same? Even if they condemn it in part now, that's only because of the stupid reactionary politicking we have here now. I have every expectation they'd have gone further, to be honest.

[Johnny Bognor]

The mistake some make, though, BS, is to assume this has something to do with Labour. ****, the labour party has nothing to do with what labour was. I totally agree some civil freedoms etc have been eroded and taken away, sometimes by stealth, and it's awful. I would honestly ask people to consider though - do yout honestly think the Tories wouldn't have done the same? Even if they condemn it in part now, that's only because of the stupid reactionary politicking we have here now. I have every expectation they'd have gone further, to be honest.

 

It may not have anything to do with real Labour, but Clown is known within his own party as being a complete control freak and he isn't called the Clunking Fist for nothing. The fact that he has surrounded himself with weak cabinet ministers shows that he wants to and needs to be in control

[Robsk II]

My point is more that a lot of morons seem to associate all this with Labour and the left as a concept, and in reality, it would be erroneous to do so, IMO.

[Mole]

The mistake some make, though, BS, is to assume this has something to do with Labour. ****, the labour party has nothing to do with what labour was. I totally agree some civil freedoms etc have been eroded and taken away, sometimes by stealth, and it's awful. I would honestly ask people to consider though - do yout honestly think the Tories wouldn't have done the same? Even if they condemn it in part now, that's only because of the stupid reactionary politicking we have here now. I have every expectation they'd have gone further, to be honest.

 

The reason civil liberties are being eroded is because we are overun with foreigners who don't class Britain as their mother country. 50 years ago we were an island fortress, but today we have Pakistanis etc who would rather support al queda and see British soldiers killed. It's because of the "enemy within" that we can no longer be a free country.

[Ponty]

The reason civil liberties are being eroded is because we are overun with foreigners who don't class Britain as their mother country. 50 years ago we were an island fortress, but today we have Pakistanis etc who would rather support al queda and see British soldiers killed. It's because of the "enemy within" that we can no longer be a free country.

Imbecile.

[Robsk II]

Indeed. Stanley, do you genuinely not realise that those who sympathise with, much less actively participate with or support, al qaeda, in tis country, represent a tiny, tiny minority? There were Pakistani immigrants here 50 years ago also.

[costasaint]

The reason civil liberties are being eroded is because we are overun with foreigners who don't class Britain as their mother country. 50 years ago we were an island fortress, but today we have Pakistanis etc who would rather support al queda and see British soldiers killed. It's because of the "enemy within" that we can no longer be a free country.

The extremists probably represent about 0.001% of the Pakistani community.If there were thousands of them (like the Mail etc like to make out) there would be bombs going off every day!

As for civil liberties, the governments motto seems to be "WE are protecting your freedom by taking away your freedom".****s the lot of them!

[Thedelldays]

im still cant see what freedoms we have lost recently?

[Mole]

Imbecile.

 

Say what you like Poncey, but i'm right and if you disagree with me YOU ARE WRONG.

[Ponty]

Say what you like Poncey, but i'm right and if you disagree with me YOU ARE WRONG.

 

So you don't think our "Let's steam the a-rabs alongside the US of A, despite the entire reasoning behind it being a lie" attitude may have contributed a little to the way the rest of the Muslim world perceives us?

 

Probably not eh? I expect an illegal invasion of a 'non-white' culture is perfectly acceptable to an Imperialist like yourself. **** off back to the stone age.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

So you don't think our "Let's steam the a-rabs alongside the US of A, despite the entire reasoning behind it being a lie" attitude may have contributed a little to the way the rest of the Muslim world perceives us?

 

Probably not eh? I expect an illegal invasion of a 'non-white' culture is perfectly acceptable to an Imperialist like yourself. **** off back to the stone age.

 

In. One.

[Dicko]

Question for all those posters who despise the BNP

 

What is your opinion on asylum seekers?

 

Don't tell me........we should roll out the red carpet for these sponging wasters. I know many people who support mainstream political parties who think asylum seekers are cancer-ridden criminals who offer us nothing, but social problems

 

The point is, It's not just BNP supporters who have strong opinions on immigration, and having strong opinions on immigration doesn't make somebody a racist

[Wiltshire Saint]

Question for all those posters who despise the BNP

 

What is your opinion on asylum seekers?

 

Don't tell me........we should roll out the red carpet for these sponging wasters. I know many people who support mainstream political parties who think asylum seekers are cancer-ridden criminals who offer us nothing, but social problems

 

The point is, It's not just BNP supporters who have strong opinions on immigration, and having strong opinions on immigration doesn't make somebody a racist

 

I suggest you read up on the definition of asylum seeker. I also suggest you read up on the Geneva convention of 1951. I don't disbelieve for a minute that YOU know people who would describe asylum seekers as "cancer ridden criminals" because you strike me as an intolerant scumbag who would hang about with similar people. In fact, leaving the debate about whether you are racist to one side, I am sure that there is little disagreement about the fact that you are an idiot.

[hamster]

So you don't think our "Let's steam the a-rabs alongside the US of A, despite the entire reasoning behind it being a lie" attitude may have contributed a little to the way the rest of the Muslim world perceives us?

 

Probably not eh? I expect an illegal invasion of a 'non-white' culture is perfectly acceptable to an Imperialist like yourself. **** off back to the stone age.

 

Ponty, et al.

 

The more I read posts such as Dicko's, the more I am convinced that they are on a wind-up. Either that or they are deeply insecure and have extremely low self-esteem, manifesting itself as a fear/hatred of strangers.

 

It is classic 'projection' in my opinion. Based on guilt, anxiety or even ignorance, it is a naive unconscious defence mechanism. We are dealing with seriously unhappy people here, in all seriousness I pity them.

 

At the risk of sounding patronising to them, there is hope for those suffering with it. It almost definitely a learnt behaviour, usually from parents or dominant members of peer groups as children. The biggest hurdle in curing someone of this self-destructive emotion, is their ego IMHO, and that sure is a tough one to help someone with.

[Thedelldays]

Ponty, et al.

 

The more I read posts such as Dicko's, the more I am convinced that they are on a wind-up. Either that or they are deeply insecure and have extremely low self-esteem, manifesting itself as a fear/hatred of strangers.

 

It is classic 'projection' in my opinion. Based on guilt, anxiety or even ignorance, it is a naive unconscious defence mechanism. We are dealing with seriously unhappy people here, in all seriousness I pity them.

 

At the risk of sounding patronising to them, there is hope for those suffering with it. It almost definitely a learnt behaviour, usually from parents or dominant members of peer groups as children. The biggest hurdle in curing someone of this self-destructive emotion, is their ego IMHO, and that sure is a tough one to help someone with.

 

 

to be fair..some like dicko has raised legitimate questions about a serious issue..

 

the points i highlighted are the very reason why the BNP are getting more and more popular..the more people like you sneer at others legitimate concerns the more they will (and in some cases do so quietly) turn to people like the BNP....

 

infact..posts like that are incredibly patronising and views like that are equally dangerous in people like the BNP gaining more and more popularity - WHICH IS FACT..

 

maybe, you should listen to what they say..debate it without pitying them or thinking they have an ego..

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Question for all those posters who despise the BNP

 

What is your opinion on asylum seekers?

 

Don't tell me........we should roll out the red carpet for these sponging wasters. I know many people who support mainstream political parties who think asylum seekers are cancer-ridden criminals who offer us nothing, but social problems

 

The point is, It's not just BNP supporters who have strong opinions on immigration, and having strong opinions on immigration doesn't make somebody a racist

 

Do we screen asylum seekers for cancer then? That's a new one on me!

[Robsk II]

Thing is delldays, it's very hard to debate about views that are simply retarded. Dickos above is a good example. There is a huge, marked, and entirely profound difference between asylum seekers and immigrants, legal or otherwise. Anyone who resents genuine asylum seekers is a heartless fool if they understand what that means, and I for one am actually proud - here's MY patriotism - that many recognise the UK as the kind of tolerant, liberal place that will protect those in need of it.

[Thedelldays]

Thing is delldays, it's very hard to debate about views that are simply retarded. Dickos above is a good example. There is a huge, marked, and entirely profound difference between asylum seekers and immigrants, legal or otherwise. Anyone who resents genuine asylum seekers is a heartless fool if they understand what that means, and I for one am actually proud - here's MY patriotism - that many recognise the UK as the kind of tolerant, liberal place that will protect those in need of it.

 

 

you cant help it....you say they are retarded but someone else will not...

 

with views like that you cannot complain at the BNPs growing numbers...you are helping their cause with sneering comments..

 

even you must be able to see that

[Dicko]

I apologise if my tone seems a bit stern at times

 

However, my questions regarding asylum seekers is a genuine one

 

I know a number of very liberal people who hate the BNP with a passion, but at the same time resent our taxes supporting asylum seekers

 

What is the difference?

They are all coming here looking for a better life

[Robsk II]

Legal immigrants are nationals from other countries coming here with permission, legitimately, paperwork etc all done.

 

Illegal immigrants are national from other countries coming here without permission, via illegal means, inhabiting the country unofficially and in a manner that is against the law.

 

Asylum seekers are nationals from other countries coming here seeking a place of safety, applying to stay officially, due to persecution in their own land and perhaps nations local to them. They may be at risk of death, violence,jail, prejudice etc, due to their beliefs, lifestyle, ethnicity, resistance to their nations government, etc. Many will have had very difficult situations previously; some will have already suffered, some will have lost their parents, families, etc.

 

How anyone can fail to see how fundamentally different these things are is beyond me.

 

Delldays, I can see that mindless vehemence and prejudice against the BNP is perhaps not very constructive, and simple serves to further polarise matters. But when I say retarded, what I mean is in cases where people don't even know what they are talking about. Some views ARE retarded, genuinely not worthy of being called valid, being based on nothing at all factual or real. In these cases, I think everyone else does have a right to ridiucle views, to be honest, particularly if they are negative towards a group. It's sort of a social reaction to that.

[Thedelldays]

Legal immigrants are nationals from other countries coming here with permission, legitimately, paperwork etc all done.

 

Illegal immigrants are national from other countries coming here without permission, via illegal means, inhabiting the country unofficially and in a manner that is against the law.

 

Asylum seekers are nationals from other countries coming here seeking a place of safety, applying to stay officially, due to persecution in their own land and perhaps nations local to them. They may be at risk of death, violence,jail, prejudice etc, due to their beliefs, lifestyle, ethnicity, resistance to their nations government, etc. Many will have had very difficult situations previously; some will have already suffered, some will have lost their parents, families, etc.

 

How anyone can fail to see how fundamentally different these things are is beyond me.

 

Delldays, I can see that mindless vehemence and prejudice against the BNP is perhaps not very constructive, and simple serves to further polarise matters. But when I say retarded, what I mean is in cases where people don't even know what they are talking about. Some views ARE retarded, genuinely not worthy of being called valid, being based on nothing at all factual or real. In these cases, I think everyone else does have a right to ridiucle views, to be honest, particularly if they are negative towards a group. It's sort of a social reaction to that.

 

 

you just cany help it can you....

 

 

thanks for the definitions...im sure we all knew the difference anyway..but thanks

[Robsk II]

Well apparently not. Delldays, if you actually read what I say properly, surely you can't disagree? There IS a difference between those classifications. Why bother to imply there isn't? I'm not being unreasonable. Far from it. Surely you must be intelligent enough to realise that some views, if not backed up or based on fact, are a whole lot less valid than others? How is that some kind of mind-fascism on my part? It's just bloody obvious fact.

 

"I think submarines are yellow fish."

 

That is not a valid viewpoint. It's an opinion I'm entitled to, but it totally lacks and substance, backing, consideration, information. As such, it would not be taken seriously by most people, and cetainly not in any sensible debate.

 

Are you going to bother to even take 1 second to try to see what I mean?

[Ponty]

I'm not sure everyone knew the differences TDD. Many of the posts above make me certain of that.

[Dicko]

Yes, if you wish to take the naive stance, there is a huge difference between immigrants and asylum seekers

 

However, look at the history books, the world constantly has wars and countries with huge domestic problems

 

We are a country, not a charity. If we took everyone in, we'd be overloaded.

Also, asylum seekers should take refuge in the first available safe country.

How do so many of these people end up here then?

 

They come to England because it's deemed to be the best option

Therefore, they are immigrants and us taxpayers have to support them

 

I am quite happy to voice my unhappiness at this, and i make no apologies to the wimps who think I'm simply a racist

[Robsk II]

There are some valid points there Dicko, thanks for bothering to be clearer.

 

There is of course a limit to the extent we can support people. This is irrefutable fact. Economically and physically.

 

Some immigrants and asylum seekers do of course choose here for bad reasons. Also irrefutable. But I personally believe some choose it because it is seen as a good place, and I think that's cool. Some also know there are other pre-existing ethnic communities here, being such a diverse place as we are, and good or not, I can understand that.

 

I would also argue that we certainly don't have to support all immigrants by any means. I think that's just a long way from the truth. Also, I would still argue that i resent natives who sponge of the state at least as much, and that it's a bigger problem - and often conducted more cynically.

[View From The Top]

What many fail to recognize or acknowledge is that many illegal immigrants claim asylum safe in the knowledge that the system is so long winded the chances are they will be here for at least a couple of years and then allowed to stay anyway.

 

The UN charter states that asylum should be sought in the 1st safe country reached and it's the fact that they travel 1000s of miles and then claim asylum here knowing full well that the system is more liberal.

 

This abuse of the system means that genuine asylum also feel the brunt of the public backlash against bogus asylum seekers.

 

Even the most liberal friends of mine accept that this abuse of the system is part of the issue when race and immigration is debated.

 

Immigrants (needed) - Yes

 

Illegal immigrants - Deported straight away

 

Asylum seekers - Safe haven

 

Bogus asylum seekers - Deported straight away.

 

Families of arranged marriages - Should be barred for at least 5 years.

 

Hardly draconian, easy to police and fair.

[Robsk II]

The thing is, I for one totally recognise that, and consider it unacceptable and callous. I just don't judge them all as a result. Also, it's very hard to know who is and is not genuinely seeking asylum. I'd rather have a few fakers than send anyone back to die, to be honest. Put simply, if I thought it would save a life, genuinely, I would give up half of my bedroom to a partition wall and an immigrant. Seriously. That's not being loony left, in my opinion. It's just being a half decent human being. I wonder how much we actually pay, pe person, per year, to support A) All immigrant benefits B) All domestic benefits C) the spongers in each class. I'll bet it isn't that much when it comes down to it, and actually, I'd also pay more tax willingly if I genuinely thought it would save some peoples lives for sure every year - as long as I could still live and be OK. It all fits in with other issues though, like other weird taxes, irresponsible profit margins from gas and food companies, etc. We'd be able to afford to give up more quite easily and still be comfortable if big companies didn't fleece us quite so much.

 

The fact that many 'should' seek asylum clsoer to home is also true, but on a human level, you can surely understand them wanting to come here. I don't blame them for that. Maybe they shouldn't do it, but I can't hate them for it.

Edited 1 December, 2008 by Robsk II

[Dicko]

What many fail to recognize or acknowledge is that many illegal immigrants claim asylum safe in the knowledge that the system is so long winded the chances are they will be here for at least a couple of years and then allowed to stay anyway.

 

The UN charter states that asylum should be sought in the 1st safe country reached and it's the fact that they travel 1000s of miles and then claim asylum here knowing full well that the system is more liberal.

 

This abuse of the system means that genuine asylum also feel the brunt of the public backlash against bogus asylum seekers.

 

Even the most liberal friends of mine accept that this abuse of the system is part of the issue when race and immigration is debated.

 

Exactly

 

As mentioned before, I have a number of liberal minded friends, whose blood reaches boiling point regarding asylum seekers.

The system is abused because we are far too soft

 

This is where the BNP have picked up many new supporters

I think normal, perfectly friendly people have been driven to the BNP's doorstep by the the unacceptable attitude of the mainstream parties.

[Robsk II]

Dicko, the thing that you and others entirely fail to see is that myself and many other 'liberals' also have absolutely no time at all for bogus asylum claims, illegal immigrants sponging, etc etc. All I'm saying is that I feel it's less of a real issue than most people realise. Just because I have a more liberal view, that doesn't actually mean I actually wish to give people a free ride, promote extremism, and so on. Those kind of views are just.. odd.

[Thedelldays]

Exactly

 

As mentioned before, I have a number of liberal minded friends, whose blood reaches boiling point regarding asylum seekers.

The system is abused because we are far too soft

 

This is where the BNP have picked up many new supporters

I think normal, perfectly friendly people have been driven to the BNP's doorstep by the the unacceptable attitude of the mainstream parties.

 

 

and what helps the BNPs cause is the failure of so many to recognise this and put these concerns down as egotistical, moronic, thick, retarded etc

[Robsk II]

I think "overblown" and "ill-informed" would be better adjectives. If you look at it, many people clearly don't know the facts. It's obviously the case. The concerns are ok, but the level to which some have them does suggest they don't actually know much about it other than what they've heard in over sensationalised reports etc.

[Mao Cap]

Everyone seems to have forgotten that the list actually exposed the BNP as a relatively pitiful political force.

 

I mean, a bit over 10K members in a country of 65 million people? That's f*ck all, I'd guess the total membership is hardly more than the tiny far left parties who are even more of an irrelevance.

[Robsk II]

Nope, I had pointd this out earlier.

[Mao Cap]

Just checking

[Dicko]

Everyone seems to have forgotten that the list actually exposed the BNP as a relatively pitiful political force.

 

I mean, a bit over 10K members in a country of 65 million people? That's f*ck all, I'd guess the total membership is hardly more than the tiny far left parties who are even more of an irrelevance.

 

Liberal Democrats currently have 68k, and this figure has been dropping

Labour has 200k, and this figure has been dropping

10k BNP members is quite a statement, and this figure has been rising

[Robsk II]

Equally, though, the number non members who support the parties are probably hgher proportionately for the main parties, surely? Even if its proportionate, that still pretty much eclipses the BNP. I'd suggest that as the BNP is a fairly extreme / emotive sort of party, you might have a higher number of its genuine supporters join? This is all conjecture of course, but I'd imagine that's the case.

[Dicko]

Equally, though, the number non members who support the parties are probably hgher proportionately for the main parties, surely? Even if its proportionate, that still pretty much eclipses the BNP. I'd suggest that as the BNP is a fairly extreme / emotive sort of party, you might have a higher number of its genuine supporters join? This is all conjecture of course, but I'd imagine that's the case.

 

I don't dispute that at all

 

However, if the BNP received a sizeable donation which made it financially viable to contest many more seats nationally at the next general election, I think people would be stunned and shocked at the votes they would receive

[Robsk II]

Quite possibly. I guess they'd win a few seats, because in this political system, they're likely to have a lot of support in some areas, but only very minor in others.

[TopGun]

Quite possibly. I guess they'd win a few seats, because in this political system, they're likely to have a lot of support in some areas, but only very minor in others.

 

They haven't won any yet and, let's face it, you don't need to be bankrolled to get the BNP vote out in places like Burnley.

 

So I'm not sure they do have enough concentrated support anywhere.

[Robsk II]

Not enough to be considered a political heavyweight, certainly!

[costasaint]

Actually there are many other countries in Europe with a higher % of immigrants than the UK - Spain being one of them.**** rags like the Daily Mail would have you believe that every immigrant in the world wants to come to the UK - it's total ********!

[Robsk II]

Yes.

[Saint George]

There are some valid points there Dicko, thanks for bothering to be clearer.

 

There is of course a limit to the extent we can support people. This is irrefutable fact. Economically and physically.

 

Some immigrants and asylum seekers do of course choose here for bad reasons. Also irrefutable. But I personally believe some choose it because it is seen as a good place, and I think that's cool. Some also know there are other pre-existing ethnic communities here, being such a diverse place as we are, and good or not, I can understand that.

 

I would also argue that we certainly don't have to support all immigrants by any means. I think that's just a long way from the truth. Also, I would still argue that i resent natives who sponge of the state at least as much, and that it's a bigger problem - and often conducted more cynically.

 

The fact is, the vast majority of asylum seekers arriving in the UK are moving on from their "first country of safe asylum" and are no longer relevant to the Geneva Convention....It's more a case they know there are people like 'you' in the UK who will give them a far better deal at the tax payers expense, than they'll ever get in their first 'safe country of arrival'

 

The more dodgy one's amongst them also know they'll be able to commit crime with impunity, as British liberal tolerance no longer recognizes 'punishment' as a consequence

[costasaint]

Really? Then why is it that Britain has the highest % of people in prison in Europe? Doing a stretch in Brixton or Wormwood Scrubs is not what I'd call impunity!

[Saint George]

Actually there are many other countries in Europe with a higher % of immigrants than the UK - Spain being one of them.**** rags like the Daily Mail would have you believe that every immigrant in the world wants to come to the UK - it's total ********!

 

Yup agreed ....but not all imigrants are equal.....Other countries tend to attract a ballance of highly qualified imigrants who's skill's are sought after, together with some low paid workers to help with their economy.....Where as the UK tends to attract anyone who finds the social welfare system or the soft touch on crime appealing

 

Most highly skilled people are leaving, not arriving.....That why, despite record imigration numbers year after year, the overall population has remained more or less the same.