British National Party

[Seaflech]

seriously though i believe they are as entitled to their views as anyone and if their views conflict with the general population so be it.

 

Would you say the same about Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe etc etc etc?

 

I'm sure there are people in this country with the views of those and worse but my point is we still have enough freedom here(barely) to have controversial views.

 

Yes, but there is a huge difference between what an individual persons view is and that of a political party, who potentially (but with a very, very slim chance I really hope) could run the country. That is when it would get extremely bad.

[justlookin]

Cant even say black board in a school any more.

Some folk are so quick to propagate some of this type of whipping-up-disgust crap. It's almost like urban myths - say it enough and some folk start to believe it.

If only it was an urban myth, down in manchester a year and a half ago a teacher was suspended for saying black board! a kid supposedly found it racist and complained. teachers were subsequently told they were not to use the term black board(never found out if she was re-instated). I am not trying to propate any racial hatred.

 

As i said, i am not racist. I think it is great to have different races and religions, i think we can all learn and experience alot from them, aslong as they do not start to impose themselves on others.

 

I do not feel that we as a nation should have to pay for the actions of our ancestors. The current nation is not responsible for the slavery it has imposed in the past (sweat shops as slavery isn't the case). We shouldn't have to give way because of past actions.

 

 

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/trends_to_a_new_world.htm

 

http://blacklistednews.com?news_id=2382

 

"The middle class could become a revolutionary class taking the envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose and increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite"

 

-- United Kingdon Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre for Global Strategic Trends programme 2007 - 2036 --

 

I just beleive that the BNP is probably the only party that would not allow this type of thing happen to GB. Even though their plan is already in full swing(just look on the news -WAR FAMINE DEATH RECESSION!-).

[Medziotojas]

If only it was an urban myth, down in manchester a year and a half ago a teacher was suspended for saying black board! a kid supposedly found it racist and complained.

 

I quite frankly don't believe this and I can't find any reference to it on the Internet.

 

This would mean that the use of other compound nouns such as "blackbird" would need to be reviewed.

 

Nonsense!

[JAStewart]

1) If countries are smaller, then there would be a hell of allot less wars, 2) much more drive to better ourselves.

 

Bolding mine:

 

1) Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

Countries strive to make their lands BIGGER! Imperialism! Colonialism!

 

Having smaller countries won't create less wars, but more, as people want bigger countries so they can be more dominant.

 

2) It will, but that drive will be to expand the nation, not better ourselves personally.

 

Disaster.

[Fifi]

If only it was an urban myth, down in manchester a year and a half ago a teacher was suspended for saying black board! a kid supposedly found it racist and complained.

 

I quite frankly don't believe this and I can't find any reference to it on the Internet.

 

This would mean that the use of other compound nouns such as "blackbird" would need to be reviewed.

 

Nonsense!

I can't find any reference on the internet to this either. However, when you google 'blackboard' what you do see are numerous references to the Virtual Learning Environment called 'Blackboard', which seems to be used in lots of academic instutions, including Manchester uni! So the term is being used widely, perfectly happily!

[JAStewart]

In America, they call(ed) it a Chalkboard.

[groilick]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We aa hae tae recite "Baa Baa Moorit Yowe" at da schule noo-a-days

 

see http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article738220.ece

[JAStewart]

What's wrong with rainbow sheep? Its far more reflective of society. Traditions don't need to be blindly followed. Bah bah black sheep was lame at best anyway.

[Styumpie]

Bolding mine:

 

1) Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

Countries strive to make their lands BIGGER! Imperialism! Colonialism!

 

Having smaller countries won't create less wars, but more, as people want bigger countries so they can be more dominant.

 

2) It will, but that drive will be to expand the nation, not better ourselves personally.

 

Disaster.

 

Untrue!! you cant say what the people want, referendums are the only way to tell people are generally happy with what they have got, it is politicians who lack morals with the desire to expand their ego that strive to take over other countries, just look at what Tony Blair and Gordon brown have done to Iraq and Afghanistan, look at what Hitler tried to do in the 1930's. Had there been a referendum on Iraq, we would not have had any involvement in the war because most of us with a basic understanding could see through the government spin and lies and would have voted against it, but they blatantly denied a referendum to us!! same as Hitler did.

 

Smaller countries is the way forward, no doubt about it.

[JAStewart]

referendums are the only way to tell

 

Sure but it is highly impractical.

 

Lets look at Switzerland. Many decisions are put to a public referendum but what's the turnout rate? 29%. How is that reflective? I'll tell you what it is reflective of: the public's contentment with how they are represented, needing not a public poll on what to do. What's the point of electing a politician if that is the case?

 

Why are the public any more enlightened about the war than the politicians are? The public will almost always say no to war, despite war being inevitable product of human society. I always hear this argument: "Let the public decide on the EU Treaty by referendum", well, have YOU read The Treaty Of Lisbon? I highly doubt it, yet your opinion on the EU is still valid enough to shape Britain? I don't think so. And its not just the public; you can bet about 50% of politicians haven't touched the ToL. Not an elitist argument, just reality. You only know about the war what you've read - who's to say your sources are better than the Governments?

 

I think you're following a more Paris Commune form of belief.

[Styumpie]

So what you are saying is most people are in agreement with the war? I dont know of anyone who agrees with it other than a few politicians.

 

I am saying major events like for instance engaging in war on a country which is not at war with us should most certainly be decided by referendum.

 

Switzerland is a great place, they seem more advanced than us as a society, watch and learn from them I say, even a low turnout referendum is better than a tiny handful of MP's making critical decisions. 29% is more than representative of a nation. The option to vote is there, those who dont vote have no interest in the subject which is fine.

[JAStewart]

Switzerland is a great place, they seem more advanced than us as a society, watch and learn, even a low turnout referendum is better than a tiny handful of MP's making critical decisions.

 

Remember who votes for them. Us. The public. Even after the war Labour still won by a huge majority in the 2005 election - how do you explain this? Surely if the war was as big a disaster as you are making it out to be it would have been Labour out, Tory in, right?

 

So what you are saying is most people are in agreement with the war? I dont know of anyone who agrees with it other than a few politicians.

 

I am not, but one must be enlightened before making a decision, and I would say that certainly in the case of a war, so much misinformation floats about from either side that its pretty tough to make a rational choice without spending a seriously large amount of time with all the information, which the average citizen probably does not have time to do, whereas an MP does. As I've said, MP's are not saints when it comes to this, not that many will have read the ToL as I said, but then again, doesn't this reflect society itself?

[Styumpie]

I understand your point, I think the public should have more say in matters, had there been a referendum, things would have been so different now, so many innocent lives saved.

 

We elect these people in because there is simply no alternative, there is only two partys who have the ability to run the country, realisticly people have to choose between the two, and they do, so referendums are the only way to gauge public opinion, and thats what really matter in my opinion.

[JAStewart]

I understand what you mean. I think that the first step is ridding our system of the mischievous First Past The Post system and implement some sort of Proportional representation. However, as PR is representative and produces a more fair Westminster, it also helps small minority parties like the BNP get seats in there. Which brings us gloriously back on topic.

[Styumpie]

Totally agree