[mr dragon]

I think the BNP just scored a massive own goal yesterday when Nick Griffin decided to compare the British military's top generals with Nazi war criminals- many hanged after the Nurnberg Trials. I saw Griffin on Newsnight last night where he claimed it was a black joke/irony (I wonder if he saw the irony in using the word 'black'). Either way, the BNP have been using iconic pictures of Spitfires in the Battle of Britain for their propaganda- which makes me, and most people, want to puke. Apparently the military are now seriously pissed off with them and speaking out. About time! I wonder how his Question Time appearance is going to go tomorrow on the BBC. His website's also been slagging of Bonnie Greer (liberal black playwright) and Baroness Warsi (Muslim Conservative politician- who's fairly right wing)- both who are going to appear tomorrow as well. I hope they fucking demolish him, along with the rest of the panel.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 883751.ece

[wakeyboy]

I think the BNP just scored a massive own goal yesterday when Nick Griffin decided to compare the British military's top generals with Nazi war criminals- many hanged after the Nurnberg Trials. I saw Griffin on Newsnight last night where he claimed it was a black joke/irony (I wonder if he saw the irony in using the word 'black'). Either way, the BNP have been using iconic pictures of Spitfires in the Battle of Britain for their propaganda- which makes me, and most people, want to puke. Apparently the military are now seriously pissed off with them and speaking out. About time! I wonder how his Question Time appearance is going to go tomorrow on the BBC. His website's also been slagging of Bonnie Greer (liberal black playwright) and Baroness Warsi (Muslim Conservative politician- who's fairly right wing)- both who are going to appear tomorrow as well. I hope they fucking demolish him, along with the rest of the panel.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 883751.ece

Slagging off Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer for what reason? The show hasn't even been recorded yet so how do the BNP know whether they like or dislike what the guests may or may not say in what is actaually the future???




Oh, I get it! They're racists!

[mr dragon]

They were even picking on Commonwealth army recruits like L/Cpl Johnson Beharry- a recipient of the Victoria Cross in 2005.

Lance Corporal Beharry, whose family comes from Grenada in the Caribbean, received his VC in 2005 after twice saving lives of comrades under intense enemy fire in Iraq. On the first occasion his Warrior armoured vehicle was hit by rocket propelled grenades during an ambush. He pulled other soliders clear of the burning wreckage despite a bullet going through his helmet. He went back to duty and a week later drove an armoured vehicle through fire, while seriously injured, saving the lives of others.

In its website the BNP declared that Lance Corporal Beharry was an “immigrant” who had benefited from “ positive discrimination by a PC mad government”. What he had done was nothing more than “routine” said the message , continuing "All he did was drive away very fast from a combat zone. . . to safety, as have hundreds and hundreds of other British soldiers."

Griffin branded 'despicable' for attacks on Army top brass

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 06257.html

This is actually all good. Because they're being attacked, and shown up, for being the scummy racist fuckers that they actually are. It's getting a lot of media attention. When all the very senior members of the British military are openly bashing them in the media, they're being attacked at the core of there so called beliefs- which is nationalism. You can't get much more 'national' or 'patriotic' than the military. Even the people generally anti-Iraq/Afghanistan war in this country care very much about our troops and armed services, and support them.

It's going to be very interesting tomorrow night on QT. I'll definitely be watching.

[wakeyboy]

Its going to be a public tarring and feathering. I hope.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

Ooooooooooooh - I wonder if our BBC News will cover it. They do cover a lot of political stories from the UK of they're interesting enough.

[mr dragon]

It'll be on Question Time tomorrow night, Jenn. Though I'm not sure if Beelzebub show QT regularly in the US- because it's about UK topical political issues. However it is probably one of the best political shows on UK television to get politicians actually answering questions from the public- and it goes live from around the UK in a different city each week. This is why there's a bit of a hoo haa with Griffin being on it. It's a major BBC flagship show- it gets a lot of attention.

Tell you what though. Even if it's not shown in the US- you can GUARANTEE people will be putting up segments on Youtube after tomorrow night.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

They don't show programs such as Question Time, but on the news they will report on political 'punch-ups'.

[wakeyboy]

Anti-fascist protesters have broken into BBC television centre and had to be removed by the police...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8321157.stm

They accuse the BBC of rolling out the red carpet for Nick Griffin and that his appearance on QT will encourage violence against ethnic minorities.
------

Im starting to get sick of the anti-fascist protesters (though no where near as sick of them as I am the BNP). They seem to relish having a barney with the BNP and any other racist group. They rarely manage to protest peacefully, and it nearly always descends into chaos when this lot show up.

These anti-fascists have ironically and regretably led me to agree with Nick Griffin!

He said:

"[anti-fascists are]...attacking the rights of millions of people to listen to what I've got to say and listen to me being called to account by other politicians," adding: "It really is a disgraceful thing."

- He is correct about being called to account by other politicians, and it is this that will be the undoing of the BNP. However, this latest stunt is another own goal for anti-fascists because it simply gives Griffin more notoriety and more publicity than he deserves.

[wakeyboy]

[mr dragon]

I take it you saw it tonight as well Wakey.

I was watching a bit of This Week afterwards and I thought Michael Portillo summed it up pretty nicely- Griffin got massacred! He was sweaty and shifty all the way through, and he looked nervous and shaky at some points. I loved the bit where the panel were reeling off factual quotes and existing video footage saying this stuff (which he cant disprove!) while trying to 'deny' he said those things. I mean how can he deny these things when he's spoke on and shared the same platform with bloody David Duke AND the Ku Klux Klan at anti-semitic or anti-black rallies. Poor old Bonnie Greer, I felt sorry for her having to sit next to him. I noticed she refused to look at him after half way through.

The other bit that cracked me up was his claim that 'indigenous' British people (what the Hell is an 'indigenous' British person?) are the same as the aborigines or native Americans! His logic is unbelievably nonsensical and not even remotely scientific, or historically correct. I thought he was made to look a complete fool, and the audience clearly thought the same. Though one interesting point was raised afterwards. This was a west London audience tonight. London's a very mixed culture and mostly fairly well integrated with much less of a problem with racial divide issues than some parts of the country- and west London is also quite an affluent area where people tend to be quite liberal and 'educated'. I wonder how well it played in some parts of the north. I can't see any way other than he was made to look a fool- but it was pointed out that some people may take his side because he was outnumbered and on the defensive from the so called suburban 'elites' in the south of England. What do you think Wakey?

[mr dragon]

I just checked Youtube. As I thought- loads of segments are all over Youtube already! I'll see if I can find some choice bits for you to watch tomorrow Jenn- if you want me too. I'll put them up.

This guy pretty much summed it up though.



Ps. Wakey. I just re read my last post. What I meant to say was more in terms of 'perception'. That wasn't me bringing down the north or being snobby, in case that came across in the wrong way!

[wakeyboy]

I did see it Ben.

I think Griffin tried his hardest to maintain his veneer of respectability and at times he succeeded and at others (most of the time in fact) he was unsuccesful. He was very well prepared for some issues because it would have been easy to anticipate some of the questions, however his biggest problem is his own mouth. He cant go back in time and change what he said and it seemed not only ridiculous, but pathetic to deny saying things that are recorded in print, radio and on frigging youtube!

Interestingly though, another great failure (other than griffins) was Jack Straw. What an incoherent bumbling ostrich! This is presicely why the BNP are doing so well, because of the failings of Labour and the poor white people who feel let down and abandoned by New Labour. If only Labour addressed the problems and admitted its mistakes then the BNP wouldnt have won the two seats in the EU parliament and Griffin wouldnt have been sat on that panel.

IMO Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer OWNED that debate! How awful for the BNP that two succesful people from ethnic minorities trounced Griffin!

As for the audience, there seemed to be maybe two people (going by applause) that had any sympathy for Griffin's views. There were a lot of ethnic minorities in that audience which may reflect the make up of that part of London. I believe that had this been in "the north" then there may have been a few more sympathisers/supporters of the BNP in the audience. It does depend what part of the north you're talking about though because its regionally diverse. For example, some economically deprived areas may have a few more BNP supporters than an affluent area. An ethnically diverse area may affect things too. A predominantly white, economically deprived town or village in West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire may have a lot of BNP supporters, whereas an ethnically diverse area of say Leeds would not. Also, a predominatly white, but affluent and liberal area, eg Harrogate might not be very supportive of Nick Griffin. - But generally, I think it might have been a better gauge of public opinion and the BNP's election chances to have held the debate somewhere in the north.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

I just saw it too!!! Well, a few minutes anyway. BBC A News did show it as I thought they may and from the little we got, he is some piece of work. "Well I can't explain why I said all those things back then" !!

The other bit that cracked me up was his claim that 'indigenous' British people (what the Hell is an 'indigenous' British person?) are the same as the aborigines or native Americans! His logic is unbelievably nonsensical and not even remotely scientific, or historically correct.

We saw that bit as well.

They also showed the demonstrations and protests outside the BBC Studios.

An all white Britain? Good luck with that arschloch!

What I wouldn't give to watch the whole program.

OK - gotta go - see ya tomorrow.

[wakeyboy]

This is hilarious!

[mr dragon]

I thought that was a pretty good analysis you made last night Wakey. Sayeeda Warsi (did you also clock the size of her poppy!) and Bonnie Greer came across with the most credibility- I thought they were excellent, though I believe the entire panel were all pretty good at debunking his fallacious arguments. The only problem is Jack Straw, being a Labour minister, and the Lib Dems (Chris Huhne's party) have both supported the ongoing immigration situation for years- which was ironically a situation started by the Tories before Labour came to power. I'm very glad they bought that issue into the debate- it's what the debate should actually be about. I don't think you have to be a brain surgeon to work out that we need a more effective immigration policy in the UK, and that the BNP have capitalised on that issue (massively disingenuously).

I agree that it might have been better to hold the show in an area where there is more BNP support to 'even' things out a bit. I can see a slight problem in that it became a Nick Griffin vs almost the entire audience and the entire panel and the host showdown. It was a bit of a bear pit. Some people who support the BNP are going to use that situation as it being 'unfair' and not 'balanced'. Though personally I can't see how anyone of any moral integrity, honesty or rational thought can't see that he's a racist bigot trying to dress himself up in a veneer of 'respectability', 'moderation' and 'reason'. In that way, I think the show was very successful in showing him up- though I wish it had gone further. I'm also guessing that they put the show on at the BBC Television Centre (in Shepherds Bush- not far from where I live) because it was easier to control on that night with the protests etc.

What I wouldn't give to watch the whole program.

Your wish is my command! Here's the full show in 9 minute segments (I've added some comments):

QT Part 1



Griffin is lying here. Churchill was NEVER disowned by the political parties over 'immigration'. In fact Churchill originally crossed the floor to be a Liberal then later crossed back again to the Torys. He also lead a coalition cabinet made up of Labour MP's and promoted the Labour leader Clement Atlee to be his deputy during WW2. The truth is Churchill was one of the big proponents of immigration of Jews to Britain during the pogroms, fighting other politicians who were AGAINST immigration. There was also NO benefits system like we have today in Britain, and not much of a welfare state even when he came back into power the second time after the war. And before the war there was no welfare system in any way. Yet Griffin claims this in a 'quote'. It's absurd. Incidently- I read that Griffin's father was actually radio mechanic or something like that during WW2.

Part 2



Part 3



There's NO law in Britain that disallows Holocaust denial. And neither in many countries in Europe. Just because Austria and Germany (and there for good reasons) have those laws doesn't have anything to do with the EU or Britain. Also none of what he said about Islam is actually in the Koran. There is also NOTHING in judicial British law that's 'Islamic'. Most of the base of our laws stem from hundreds of years ago from people who were Christians at that time.

Part 4



Part 5



'The majority of 'British' people are people who've descended here from time immemorial!' Ha ha ha! Who is he trying to kid. Norman invasion of 1066 anyone? This is someone who's insecure in his own skin.

Part 6



'The teaching of homosexuality to primary school children'. What does that mean and where does that happen in the UK???

Part 7



How can the BBC be an 'ultra leftist organisation' according to Griffin when A/ They're giving Griffin a platform and B/ all the political and news programmes for UK politics on the BBC give equal time to BOTH the left and right mainstream parties in the UK and don't take sides between them...It's too bizarre. The BBC can be fairly liberal but it's not a ultra leftist organisation. But then again, if you're dialed to either the far left or far right then anything half a distance away from you and in the centre is, I suppose, an 'extreme'.

[mr dragon]

This is hilarious!

Someone had fun with their editing suite there.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

Oh my goodness - thank you Ben. I am cooking lunch right now, but I will watch it all a little later - and your video too John.

[wakeyboy]

Oh my goodness - thank you Ben. I am cooking lunch right now, but I will watch it all a little later - and your video too John.

Watch mine after the 'proper' segments.

[mr dragon]

I see Griffin's mentor Adolf is non too impressed:

[mr dragon]

Going back to what I mentioned earlier. Griffin gave a 'press' conference today- apparently the show was completely biased (well that is partially true- how sad for you Nick), because it was a London audience. According to Griffin 'London has become ethnically cleansed'- his words.

Bummer, I never noticed. Where do I go to un-cleanse my self 'ethnically'

Nob jocky....

[wakeyboy]

Nob jocky....

No Ben, he finds that "really creepy". Or maybe he just means in public.

[mr dragon]

I didn't actually mean that as a 'gay' insult- I just think it's a funny insult to use. Though, after reading what you wrote, it did remind me of an article in the Times today about Griffin's time as a member of the National Front, and his association with the NF's former deputy leader Martin Webster. Apparently, according to Griffin, Webster offered to have sex with him. And apparently, Webster, claimed Griffin had been his “bit on the side” for years. This may be hearsay or untrue, but it does lead me to a question I've often had regarding extremely homophobic far right people- are they in fact just emotionally 'repressed' homosexuals who don't know how to deal with it

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 887304.ece

[mr dragon]

Sorry I'm carrying on with this but I find it very entertaining and interesting. The whole thing's created a bit of a media shit storm. It'll die down in a few days.

According to Griffin 'London has become ethnically cleansed'- his words.

I read the whole of his comments today. After saying that the whole of London had been 'ethnically cleansed' he then went on to say that London isn't a 'British city anymore' and 'no longer part of Britain anymore'. He also refused to go back to London. This is just getting too funny.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... debut.html

Now, I hate to break it to Mr Griffin but the population of London (or more accurately Greater London- which is how London is generally known) is over seven and a half million people. That's about twelve and a half per cent of the population. If you take Metropolitan London (London and the commuter belt), it has a population of over fourteen million people- over twenty three per cent of the population (or about a quarter of the British population). London also has the highest GDP per capita than any other part of the country. And so does the London Metropolitan area with Greater London. Whether anyone likes it or not, it is the main engine of the British economy. It's not the smartest thing to do to slag off an entire area of the country that's so significant to the economy and by that token also holds an awful lot of power. So I'd be very glad if he did avoid London from now on. With the exception of one or two boroughs in the east end, his views hold very little traction here- even with the minority.

His statement on London being 'dominated by ethnic minorities' and there being 'no English left' are also very peculiar. This is the break down of Greater London (pop approx 7,500,000) by country of birth from 2006.

Country of Birth/ Population

United Kingdom 5,230,155
India 172,162
Republic of Ireland 157,285
Bangladesh 84,565
Jamaica 80,319
Nigeria 68,907
Pakistan 66,658
Kenya 66,311
Sri Lanka 49,932
Ghana 46,513
Cyprus 45,888
South Africa 45,506
United States 44,622
Australia 41,488
Germany 39,818
Turkey 39,128
Italy 38,694
France 38,130
Somalia 33,831
Uganda 32,082
New Zealand 27,494

Now a portion of the 5 million or so British born Londoners are from ethnic or mixed race backgrounds (though they're still ENGLISH!), but not in any way a majority. So where exactly is he getting his figures from?

[SilverMiniCooperS]

OK. I just finished watching the slaughter of Nick Griffin in its entirety!! If he wasn't such a bigoted arschloch, one could almost feel sorry for him ----just kidding! To say I am gobsmacked is the understatement of the year. Early in the programme one of them said that Churchill looking at Britain today must be rolling in his grave. I'm not in my grave, and I am rolling!

How old is the BNP? I don't remember them when I was still living there, but of course I was young then and didn't pay much attention to politics. There were the three main parties - Conservatives, Liberals and Labour. My father was a member of the Liberal Party for as long as I can remember. For those Americans here - The Liberal Party is not what it means here. They are the middle of the road party - at least, they were then and as far as I know, never have been in power.

Immigration is also a big issue here, particularly in the Southwest where four states border Mexico and illegal immigration is a huge problem. I was interested to hear in the Question Time debate that the UK also shares a problem we have with people obtaining temporary visa such as student visas and then disappearing into the population. I don't know the actual statistics but we have literally thousands - if not millions of such people living here. I believe at least a couple of the 911 terrorists were on student visas that may have expired. There are more than a few of us who believe all immigrants should come here like I did - the legal way, but it's a bit hard to close the barn door now.

What scares me about the BNP is their recent surge in popularity, not to mention their seats in the EU. It wasn't too long ago they were considered a minor nuisance.

Thanks Ben and John....that last video was in some ways funny, but then I'm not sure.....

[wakeyboy]

George Galloway has just read my email on his radio show.

It was about the rise of the BNP being the fault of the Labour party as they have abandoned the working poor.

[mr dragon]

I think I'd rather be water boarded than listen to George Galloway's radio show! I believe he's also part of the same problem. He gives lip service to 'ethnic minorities' in a very unbalanced way, then starts defending the Islamic Iranian regime and such in a very disingenuous fashion. He's the left wing equivalent of some the right wing talk radio you get in the US (at least that's my personal view). However, it's impossible not to blame the Labour party for part of this problem. I completely agree with you there John. The Yougov poll they did just after the debate suggested that 22 per cent of people might now 'consider' or 'will' be voting BNP. Certainly a bit scary. Although the figures are a bit misleading in the way they've been quoted by some of the press- reporting that 22 per cent will now be 'seriously considering' voting BNP. The actual figures are thus- 3 per cent said they would definitely be voting BNP, 4 per cent said they would definitely be seriously considering it, and 15 per cent said that it was 'possible'. I suspect the 'possibles' are mainly those disgruntled working class Labour voters who feel let down by their party, have been effected by the recession, and live in areas where there has been a major impact with immigration. To have made that poll more scientific they should also have done one right before the debate, then another right after. The Yougov pollsters gave quite an interesting verdict on the poll that said in actual fact the BNP have only jumped by 1 per cent in the actual voting pattern (from 2 to 3 per cent of voters), despite what's being suggested in the press.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2324

[mr dragon]

Jenn, in answer to what's happening here in the UK. Sorry, long post and thoughts.

You've got a situation where for the last twenty five years or so (it's not just Labour) where we've had a fair amount of immigration. Most of it's actually been good for the country- particularly economically. People get slightly confused about the issue of immigration over here- particularly at present. They hear the word 'immigration' in the context of what the BNP are using- which is essentially about race (particularly Muslim asian immigrants). However the issue of European immigration within the EU- which is mostly economic migration (a lot of it from central and eastern Europe) hasn't really got anything to do with that because they're all white and fairly homogeneous within our culture. They also don't all stay- some just come here to work and then go home. But people tend to conflate these two issues and bundle it all into one when using 'immigration' as a word in a fairly loose way. The 'open door' policy within the EU is just for economic migration within the EU states. Hence why we have a lot of Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians etc working in the UK. There's never been any problem with that in terms of 'mixing' cultures, and there certainly is no issue over economics because all of them work hard, pay taxes and often fill low paying jobs that some Brits don't want to do. Ealing has one of the largest groups of Poles living in London and they're terrific. However, what you also have is certain areas of the country that now have large asian populations in certain areas of cities and towns (note in the UK we use the term 'asian' to also cover Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans). For some places this has changed the 'ethnic' landscape of part of an area. For example- Luton in Hertfordshire, some areas of Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds, and other northern towns like Bradford or Burnley etc, and some areas of London- Tower Hamlets, Degenham etc. That's been going on for twenty years or so, and it's a different type of 'immigration' than what you have within the EU member states- where people don't need a visa to come here to work. The people that have come to the UK in that time, from those countries, have had to apply for official immigration status as foreign nationals. Then you also have asylum seeker applicants, some of whom are from the African continent. Some of the people from these communities who have been allowed to emigrate or immigrate (though by no means all) have tended to migrate to certain areas of these towns and cities (it's usually the old working or lower middle class areas- because of cheaper housing costs). That's what's changed the 'landscape' of some of these areas, and I suspect this is what some British 'white' people are now feeling strongly about- particularly in an economic downturn. However, most of these 'issues' where people say they are coming here to seek 'benefits' etc is mostly untrue. They come here to work and contribute to the country in the same way. You just hear of some stories were some don't- and that does happen. Then of course you have the contemporary issue with Islamic extremism and some of the cultural divides you can get with people who aren't in any way extremists (which is the vast majority) but just Islamic and have a slightly different culture in varying difference to ours that we can't always fully relate to depending on what form it's taken (some more extreme and some very much less so)- though much of it isn't really that different. Some of that is a problem- especially when you get a few people who think they can import 'honour killings' and such from tribal areas in say Pakistan or Afghanistan- which is TOTALLY unacceptable. The thing is- the differences do vary so much, so you can't simplify it. Most of these people are just very moderate in some of their religious cultural differences and integrate very well. Although the 'extremism' issue didn't exist within the Jewish community, during the 1920's 30's a similar thing happened where you had many Jews escaping from the pogroms in Europe and moving to the UK. They also had a tendency to set up their own communities within cities (particularly London) and there was a similar backlash back then- with 'white' English people complaining that the area they had lived in for years was suddenly awash with people who weren't as culturally similar and couldn't relate to- particularly ultra orthodox Hasidic Jews (of which there were many more than today).
The whole issue is a very complex subject and you can't simplify or generalise about it because so many of these people from those cultures who have come here recently or are now second or third generation immigrants today are just normal hard working decent people. Back in the fifties and sixties people were complaining about the significant amount black people from Commonwealth countries or the Indians that came here-which is where the Enoch Powell 'river's of blood' speech came from (though I don't think Powell would ever have associated himself with the BNP). Yet today they're all completely integrated with the British community and as British as you can get! But it does seem to be a 'pattern' whenever you have a large scale of immigration over a short period of time that there can be a backlash. This is now the third time in the last hundred years that it's happened- the Jews in the thirties, then the Caribbean blacks and Indians in the fifties and sixties, and now the Asian Pakistani and some Arab middle eastern Muslims in the nineties and noughties.

I'm just being simplistically and objectively analytical here but I think the problem that seems to have been created is that the Government has let this area of immigration happen too fast in recent years (whilst also not being very clear or reassuring about the figures), alongside this idea of 'multi-culturalism' where you have some communities in Britain sub divided within communities so that some areas of cities and towns become their own culture from some of the immigration, and slightly divorced from what was or is the existing or surrounding culture. I do actually believe in multi-culturalism, I like it that Britain can be so culturally diverse- particularly in London. But my idea of multi-culturalism is that there are multi-cultures that are both integrated and spread into British society. Not 'multi cultures' where you can sometimes have one immigrant culture all living in one area and in certain ways not fully integrating into the overall existing society, with another culture living in another area beside etc. That's actually not what's fully happened in Britain with this area of immigration, but it has happened in some areas. My guess is that because some of those areas that were once mostly 'white' working or lower class areas where you have a bunch of traditional Labour working class voters feeling they've been totally let down by their own party- particularly with a recession- loosing jobs etc, and all the shit that's being going on with expenses in Parliament (for a traditional working class Labour voter that's about as bad as it can get) along side seeing their area change over the years from immigration, results in many of them feeling like they have no where else to go politically (they're not going to go to the Conservatives) other than to the party that's saying they're going to draw up the bridge and not let anyone else into the country. The BNP also 'play' on the 'patriotic' side of 'traditional' Britain with their advertising- so it sort of makes those people feel some kind of 'connection' with their emotional view of the the country again. It's wholly disingenuous, and if you do any research into what the BNP are actually about it's obvious that they're just simply motivated by racism, and they also have no serious economic policies (other than an insane idea over protectionism) or any other workable policies over anything else. I hate to say this, but in any population about five to ten per cent of the people aren't that bright, or even if they are, not particularly interested in any kind of reasonable analysis when it comes to politics- and just switch to their base emotions without even thinking about it. That's why you now have three per cent saying they now will vote BNP, and another four per cent saying they will probably vote BNP in the Yougov poll taken last week. The other fifteen per cent are people who are probably protesting against Labour because of general political dissolution- and basically all the mainstream political parties currently (because of the expenses scandals) in polls. Most of them probably wont vote BNP in reality (at least I fucking hope so!). I'll consider leaving the country if that happens!

This is a brief description of what the BNP are Jenn. They're the 'product' of what was originally the British Union of Fascists (back in the thirties- that was Oswald Mosley and the Black Shirts) that over time became the National Front in the 1970's (Griffin was a member of the National Front). When all of that wasn't working (they were just a very tiny bunch of very fringe far right nutters) some people from the National Front formed the BNP in the nineties with the idea that they would 'tone down' the 'language' and 'stance' to make them appear more 'moderate' and become a 'political' party. No one took any notice of them but they did have some success- in the last election they won 0.7 per cent of the vote nationally. They then won 2 seats in the European Parliament earlier this year (though that's still tiny and fairly meaningless). So the big question is- what will happen in the General Election. No one knows. If they win one seat in Parliament that's really bad- but still nothing to worry about. One seat in Parliament just means you're a spectator- George Galloway has a seat in Parliament and no one gives a shit. It doesn't make any difference to the actual political process because it's just one vote against all the main parties- it has no impact. But it's disturbing because of who they actually are. Griffin may try to 'moderate' some of his parties views, but as many of us know- this is only a trojan horse to what they really are about deep down. Even with no political power whatsoever- like the majority of people I do not want to see anyone from the BNP sitting in Parliament.

However there is an interesting political precedent to this situation- with a rise in 'far rightism' but then a mainstream Government on the political right coming to power. Even though the NF (National Front) were never on the political scene, there was a very notable rise in NF activity and membership during the seventies (when we were going through other economic problems). Yet when a party on the 'right' came back in to power (Thatcher and the Tories), the NF just seemed to die out and more or less completely disappear - they became even more obscure than they already were. More recently people were suddenly shocked when Jean Marie Le Pen's French 'National Front'- Front National (who are very similar in certain ways to the BNP) gained political traction in France- he actually came second in the French Presidential election in 2002! But since then you've had a moderate centre right party and then a very centre right party (and Presidents) in France (Chirac and now Sarkozy), and the French 'National Front' have seemed to have lost all political traction and have no seats in the French Parliament anymore. So I'm objectively speculating if the same thing will happen here if a Tory Government is voted in- that it will effectively kill the BNP. There has been a rise of popularity in more far right parties in some of Europe recently- Geert Wilders has gained popularity in the Netherlands. I wonder if this is all a reactive political cycle we're going through.

[ruexperienced]

George Galloway has just read my email on his radio show.

George Galloway is an anti-semite of the highest order.

What on earth are you listening....errrr.....wait....WRITING to this man for ?



S.

[mr dragon]

I'm not going to get into your thing with Wakey here, Sean. But you should know that while Galloway is a giant socialist leftie fuckhead, who also happens to be anti-Israel policy in Gaza in terms of his political stance, Nick Griffin and the BNP are a very different beast altogether. If you're talking about actual true, out and out anti-semitism, Griffin is your man. He's a Holocaust denier who's shared platforms with David Irving in the past, was once a member of the National Front, and had connections with fringe fascist Hitler worshiping groups in the UK- like Combat 18, years ago. I can't stand George Galloway personally, and maybe he is a bit anti-semitic deep down- he's never really been clear on that issue racially, so I can't comment. But Nick Griffin is FAR worse on that subject- and he has been clear about it in the past. He is actually an anti-semite of the highest order.

[ruexperienced]

What scares me about the BNP is their recent surge in popularity, not to mention their seats in the EU. It wasn't too long ago they were considered a minor nuisance.

Spot on with that worry, Ben.

I'm not sure how accurate this latest poll is but that's a pretty HUGE percentage if true.

One in Five Britons Consider Voting BNP, Telegraph Poll Says

Spoiler:

By Alex Morales

Oct. 24 (Bloomberg) -- One in five Britons would consider voting for the whites-only British National Party, a YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph said, two days after BNP leader Nick Griffin appeared in a British Broadcasting Corp. debate.

About 22 percent of voters would “seriously consider” voting for the party in a future local, national or European election, the Telegraph said, citing the poll. The BNP, which bars all except “indigenous Caucasian” people from membership, gained its first two European Parliament seats in June.

Griffin used his appearance on the BBC’s Question Time to tell a record audience for the show of more than 8 million people that the nation should “shut the door” on immigrants, Islam is incompatible with British culture, and war-time leader Winston Churchill would have belonged to his party.

The BBC’s decision to allow a member of the BNP to be a panelist on the show for the first time prompted violent protests outside the company’s west London headquarters and sparked criticism from members of the three main parties.

William Hill Plc, the U.K.’s second-biggest bookmaker, said today it slashed the odds of the BNP winning one or more seats at the next general election to 7-2 from 10-1 after taking a run of bets following the Question Time show.

The debating panel included Justice Secretary Jack Straw of the ruling Labour Party, Sayeeda Warsi, a Muslim and the opposition Conservative Party’s spokeswoman on community cohesion, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne and Chicago-born black playwright Bonnie Greer.

‘Lynch Mob’

Griffin yesterday called for an investigation into the debate, saying he faced a “lynch mob.”

The panel, the show’s host David Dimbleby and the studio audience asked Griffin questions about his views on race, the Holocaust, homosexuality and his appearance on a platform with David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

Griffin said the Holocaust “was -- is -- used to avoid serious discussion; that Duke was “non-violent,” and that many people find it “creepy” to see gay men kissing.

Among voters polled by YouGov, 4 percent said they would “definitely” consider voting for the BNP, 3 percent said they would “probably consider it, and 15 percent said they were “possible” voters for the party, the Telegraph said. Two thirds of voters said they wouldn’t consider voting for the party “under any circumstances,” the paper said.

Overall voter support for the BNP rose to 3 percent from 2 percent last month, the Telegraph said. Some 74 percent of people polled said the BBC was right to invite Griffin onto the show, up from 63 percent when the question was asked last week.

YouGov polled 1,314 voters across Britain on Oct. 22-23 after Question Time aired. The data was weighted to conform with the U.K.’s demographic profile, the paper said, without giving a margin of error.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.net.[/quote]

Mind you, if you dig a bit into that article, those surveyed responded only that they would "consider" voting for the man.

Disturbing enough, yes.

But "considering" is a long way from "will actually vote for" the BNP.

The actual BNP polling is on a substantial uptick of 1/3, but only to an estimated 3 % (up from 2%) of the total electorate in this poll.

That's not going to change the face of England or Europe anytime soon (just 2 MEP's out of 736 in the Euro Parliament, ZERO in the UK LMAO).

As far as Griffin goes, he's just another pissant Holocaust denier without a clue.

I'm just a LITTLE more worried about the Holocaust-Denier-In-Chief in Tehran these days, to be honest...

[mr dragon]

What scares me about the BNP is their recent surge in popularity, not to mention their seats in the EU. It wasn't too long ago they were considered a minor nuisance.

Spot on with that worry, Ben.

You're actually quoting Jenn there Bro! But no worries. Your analysis over the stats is pretty much in line with what I wrote. I agree Sean. I don't think it's anything to worry about when people are suddenly quoting '22 per cent figures' as they have done this week. I don't think (at least I genuinely hope!) that isn't actually accurate. There seems little in the way to back up anything like that statistically in actual long term polling data. This is a party that suddenly had a surge to 0.7 per cent in the 2005 election (though people also forget that years ago the NF and other far right groups were getting similar figures) and now seems to get 2-4 per cent in polling data before the next election (when they've already been getting the similar poll results in the last year- before the EU elections and the QT thing on Thurs). A lot of people in this country are very pissed of with all the mainstream political parties- particularly with Labour. They can make their feelings known in polling results- as always. I don't blame them for being pissed off- I'm fucking pissed off! But it still scares me somewhat that- that amount of people are prepared to actually go this far and say they might even vote for the BNP, in a poll. I've never seen that before. A lot of those people just haven't read up on the history of that party- and are just taking certain issues on face value. Griffin may have come over 'as a bit of a national pride filled buffoon who was hounded by the intellectual political elite' on QT last week, but that doesn't change what he was in the past, what his parties actual current policies are- an all 'white party', or what he has said about how he wants to use 'measured and moderate language' as a Trojan horse to gain his parties traction in British politics. The BNP actually scare me a little- because of the way they've manipulated what they are, into how they present themselves today. I've never felt that before in British politics or society- and some people are buying it right now (more than just a fringe). But we'll see. One thing that gives me warm comfort is that not only are their actual policies insane- seriously how are you going to tell a Premiership League football club they can't buy a player from another country, or that you can't allow a business to employ someone from abroad in this world we now live in? It'll destroy the British economy. And that's just the beginning- their other political policies are mental and don't even warrant too much analysis (they're that BAD!). But the one thing I also know is this- most of their very 'true blue' core supporters, and many hard right party members, are just anarchist fascist weirdo's that were once in the NF. As soon as Griffin starts having to behave like a 'real politician' in the mainstream (if he ever does- and as he is starting to have to do), most of those people will splinter off in reaction to that (because that's not what they really want), and the party will probably fall apart.

[wakeyboy]

George Galloway has just read my email on his radio show.

George Galloway is an anti-semite of the highest order.

What on earth are you listening....errrr.....wait....WRITING to this man for ?



S.

I completely disagree.

George Galloway is an opponent of the state of Israel. Particularly how it treats the Palestinians and the rights (or lack of) of arab-Israelis.

As for Judaism itself, he has no problem with it. He OPPOSES anyone with anti-semitic views and condemns the BNP and particular muslim groups if they deny the Holocaust. He considers the holocaust the greatest crime in history, supports the teaching of it in schools and labels anyone like the BNP as "vile racist filth".

The anti-semite of the highest order, in Britain, is Nick Griffin.


George Galloway is NOT an anti-semite nor a racist of any kind. He is however a socialist and a left-winger (of a high order - but perhaps not the highest - maybe that goes to Arthur Scargill??).

When it comes to the welfare state, the rights of workers, the NHS etc I agree almost completely with him. I agree wit him to some extent over Israel's actions but I part company with him on things like the Iranian election and the war in Afghanistan. I also can't believe he tried to defend Robert Mugabe once but we cant agree with everyone on everything. There isnt a single politician out there that's bang on the money every time.

Nick Griffin is NEVER on the money though, Thats the point at hand and something all of us should be concerned about.

[mr dragon]

I had a quick look at some UK demographic statistics out of curiosity the other day. It's interesting, the proportion of 'white' (caucasian) people in England is about 88 per cent of the population. With mixed race, black, Chinese, Asian and others making up the other twelve per cent. That's not exactly a country being over run, or with a sudden minority of so called 'indigenous' English people (as Griffin 'terms' us 'white' Brits)...So I don't exactly know where a lot of the BNP's language and data is coming from, and why some people are buying it. London's not that different either which surprised me- with about 70 per cent of the capital being 'white'. Yet Griffin claims London's been over taken by other ethnic groups and the 'whites' are a minority?

[mr dragon]

I read this the other day on Gavin Hewitt's BBC blog. It interested me and backs up what many of us think about this.

The BNP and the white working class

Gavin Hewitt | 09:46 UK time, Thursday, 22 October 2009

The attention that British National Party leader Nick Griffin is currently receiving stems from the European elections. The BNP got nearly a million votes and ended up with two seats in the European parliament. He and Andrew Brons became MEPs. They have not, as yet, made any impact in Brussels, but perhaps that is not surprising as their aim is for Britain to withdraw from the EU.

Some people were surprised by the numbers who voted for a party which is regularly denounced as racist. There was a similar reaction in 2006 when the BNP won a clutch of council seats in Barking and Dagenham. I did a report on their campaign for the BBC's Ten O'Clock News. Initially I thought it would be difficult to find people who would openly admit on camera that they intended to vote for the far-right party. It was easier than I imagined.

At Dagenham Working Men's Club I found potential BNP voters, and some were willing to talk openly. Among then was a brick-layer, a trainee nurse and an electrician. I got them to look straight into the camera. They gave their names, their occupations and said they intended to vote for BNP. All were either former Labour voters or came from Labour-voting families. None of them knew much about the BNP beyond the fact that it was anti-immigration. They knew nothing about the history or the background of the party's leaders or activists.

The mood in the club was one of sullen resentment. The neighbourhood around them was changing rapidly. Their known world had gone. I remember that one of them had got hold of the Labour manifesto from 1997. There was only a brief reference to immigration but the man read out the words "every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception". They felt betrayed and voiceless. In their view Labour had not been straight and no-one had asked them whether they wanted a sharp rise in immigration.

Certainly in that club the bond between the white working class and Labour had been broken. They seemed isolated, adrift and in that mood voted for the BNP. They did not particularly like the party. Theirs was a protest vote, a cry to be heard.

Later the Labour MP for Dagenham Jon Cruddas criticised my report. He felt the publicity could benefit the BNP. In fact it had been one of his Labour colleagues, Margaret Hodge, who had drawn our attention to the area when she warned that the shortage of housing for white working class people was driving people into the arms of the BNP. In the event the BNP did well and now have 12 councillors in the area.

It was easy to show the BNP for what they really were. Their election literature did that.

Many of the people I met knew that the BNP was regarded as a racist party but it did not deter them from voting for the party. They did not care because they felt ignored and sidelined. I also recall a comment from a colleague. He said the white working class was probably the only section of society that could be openly abused. They could be called "trash" or "chavs"' and no one objected. What I took away from Barking and Dagenham was the need for the mainstream parties to re-connect to white working families.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/

As a London Borough, Dagenham and Barking doesn't have a significantly higher proportion of non white communities (it's about 20 per cent), like say Tower Hamlets (which has about fifty per cent non white communities- it's very high), but both areas in London that have those communities also have areas that are very low affluent and also working class. Some areas of Tower Hamlets has the highest poverty rates in the UK (which is 'interesting' because Canary Wharf and London Docklands are also in the same area). The BNP have a seat on the London Assembly and have gained constituency seats in Dagenham and Barking in the last few years, and I know they're targeting Tower Hamlets (which is interesting because George Galloway is currently the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow- which is half of the constituency of Tower Hamlets). Both these London Boroughs have always been very strong Labour areas in local council elections. I think it's pretty clear that many of these people that have empathy for the BNP are working class people who were once died in the wool Labour voters, but now feel completely disenfranchised by their party.

However, what's interesting is that we all keep calling the BNP a 'far right' party- which on several very specific levels they certainly are- like supporting corporal punishment, being anti immigration, repatriation of so called non 'indigenous' 'British' people out of the UK, and all the of the rest the shit they've been saying. But that description doesn't marry with the fact that some of these ex Labour, died in the wool, left wing voters are migrating to the BNP. Yet if you look at the BNP's manifesto a lot of what they also stand for is bulk standard far left socialist twaddle. They're for economic protectionism, for economic nationalism- ie British ownership of its own industries, resources and the subordination of the power of the City to the power of the government, and also for worker co-operatives. They're anti-globalisation, anti-laissez-faire capitalism and economic liberalism, and for more economic distributionist policies by government. It's a whole bizarre concoction of far left and far right thinking. Which kind of leads me to the same thought I've always had about the far left and far right of the political spectrum- they're basically the same bloody thing. Loony!

[wakeyboy]

They're national socialists (NAZIS).

"Far-right" refers to their racist, homophobic, xenophobic and sexist views.

The BNP is basically socialism for white people only. - Something that some white working class people may find attractive.

Labour should never have taken its base for granted. If they start improving the lives and opportunities of working class people (of whatever ethnic background), and stop serving the interests of big business - thats how Labour could defeat the BNP. Ditch the "new labour" and get back to their core values.

[mr dragon]

They're national socialists (NAZIS).

I certainly agree with you there John. This is the thing about the 'far left' and the 'far right'- once you get to those very extreme ends of the political spectrum, they more or less merge and become the same thing. They come full circle. There's nowhere else for them to go.

Labour should never have taken its base for granted. If they start improving the lives and opportunities of working class people (of whatever ethnic background), and stop serving the interests of big business - thats how Labour could defeat the BNP. Ditch the "new labour" and get back to their core values.

It is true that Labour seems to have abandoned part of their core base voters more recently- which is a significant part the lower income working class (though that's not all of their core voters- the rich 'chattering classes', many of whom are left liberal, and what some of us call 'champaign socialists', are also core Labour voters (basically a lot of Guardian readers and people who work in the left media).

However, the problem with what you suggest Wakey is that Labour 'core values' prior to 'New Labour', for the last thirty years or so, were not inclusive of much of the vast middle class voters in this country who can be middle of the road politically- but also swing both ways. These are the people you need to convince to win an election. The only way for Labour to do that in the nineties was to show that they had good economic policies- that were also pro business. Yes, I know the economy is now in a mess- but much of that has to do with people not understanding the way the recent financial system was being run worldwide (post about 2003). Before 1997 no one trusted Labour with the economy because of what happened in the 1970's- where all they did was pander to trade unionists, only have empathy for working class people, and had fairly socialistic policies. It was a disaster. The British economy was in a complete mess back then, as well. For any Government to succeed in this country they need to gain the middle ground territory- which is the middle class. Hate them or love them, this is what both Thatcher and Blair understood. Middle class people generally aren't core voters, they just want to know that the economy is good and the country is working- which means a Government being pro business and keeping taxation reasonably low, but also being good on core infrastructure services and social quality of life (ok Thatcher failed in that last issue!). But that's why New Labour came to power. They accepted the economic priorities, and pro business issues, and embraced it- as well as saying they will improve infrastructure services (like health or the transport network). If they went back to their 'core values', at least from 1970- to about 1993, a large section of the middle class professional working people of the country aren't going to vote for them. All they will be doing is pandering to their working class 'core' in order to 'improve the lives of lower income people'. Which inevitably is going to mean more taxation for the middle classes from their wages - which in turn effects the economy, and ultimately means less jobs and less spending power for individuals to boost the economy. Any successful government has to embrace pro business policies but also be responsible with the services they provide. However they also have to find a balancing act between their core voters on either the left or right- who are often partisan in one way or another and are more narrow focused on a specific ideology, between the rest of us in the middle who aren't either rich or poor but just actually want the country to have a good economy, be productive and also be a nice place to live in.

[ruexperienced]

I completely disagree.

George Galloway is an opponent of the state of Israel. Particularly how it treats the Palestinians and the rights (or lack of) of arab-Israelis.

As for Judaism itself, he has no problem with it. He OPPOSES anyone with anti-semitic views and condemns the BNP and particular muslim groups if they deny the Holocaust.

Honestly wakey, it's time to GROW UP and accept the fact that you have some serious denial issues going on here.

Galloway OPENLY SUPPORTS Hezbollah and Hamas, two organizations dedicated to not only the destruction of Israel, but the slaughter of Jews everywhere.

He does not believe these groups are "terrorist organizations" and so is an apologist (much like you apparently) for the worst kind of human behavior.

George Galloway is NOT an anti-semite nor a racist of any kind.

BULLSHIT.

ANYONE who supports Hamas or Hezbollah is a both a bigot and an anti-semite, because both these groups are constantly denying the holocaust and teaching their children to hate/kill/maim/slaughter Jews from the the cradle to the grave.

Please also spare us the tired, disingenuous and completely discredited leftist canard claiming he is just against the "State Of Israel" and not just a hateful, bigoted man who has sucked up to some of the worst butchers and dictators the world over, from Castro to Chavez, from Saddam Hussein to Robert Mugabe, Yasser Arafat to Ismail Haniya of Hamas.

See a trend here ?

I'm guessing you don't, but that doesn't make the rest of us blind to the obvious.

S.

[wakeyboy]

Ben, have you heard about that minority group that have axed the public Christmas tree in Leeds?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 331312.stm




Ironically the tree has been brought down because of the English Defence League! The council thought that the large tree could be hazardous to the health of protesters if it all kicks off (like it always does) this Saturday.

I think its quite funny that those 'people' are probably protesting againts the delusion that ethnic minorities are stopping the public celebration of Christmas etc etc

[Caer Ibormeith]

Ironically the tree has been brought down because of the English Defence League! The council thought that the large tree could be hazardous to the health of protesters if it all kicks off (like it always does) this Saturday.

I think its quite funny that those 'people' are probably protesting againts the delusion that ethnic minorities are stopping the public celebration of Christmas etc etc

The hoops we all have to jump through to be PC are just ridiculous. The majority of people I know actually like Christmas trees, whether they're Christian or not. Just seeing a tree lit up in the middle of a dark, cold winter makes people smile. And, a dear friend loves the lights and traditional carols, even though he is Jewish. He's not at all offended by the sights and sounds of the holiday. I would be just as happy to share a seder with him.

It reminds me of the controversy over the Boston tree a few years ago. Some self-appointed group decided that it would be offensive to call it a Christmas tree. The only people who ended being hurt were the folks of Nova Scotia, who always gift us with a tree every year.

[wakeyboy]

Ironically the tree has been brought down because of the English Defence League! The council thought that the large tree could be hazardous to the health of protesters if it all kicks off (like it always does) this Saturday.

I think its quite funny that those 'people' are probably protesting againts the delusion that ethnic minorities are stopping the public celebration of Christmas etc etc

The hoops we all have to jump through to be PC are just ridiculous. The majority of people I know actually like Christmas trees, whether they're Christian or not. Just seeing a tree lit up in the middle of a dark, cold winter makes people smile. And, a dear friend loves the traditional carols, even though he is Jewish. He's not at all offended by the sights and sounds of the holiday. I would be just as happy to share a seder with him.

It reminds me of the controversy over the Boston tree a few years ago. Some self-appointed group decided that it would be offensive to call it a Christmas tree. The only people who ended being hurt were the folks of Nova Scotia, who always gift us with a tree every year.

Yeah, no ethnic minority has a problem with public Christmas celebrations. However, maybe two? local authorities renamed the celebration or put up some additional celebratory symbols from other cultures. Its usually white PC council fools that "ban christmas" - and thats a bit strong. I dont think anywhere has BANNED christmas.

That doesn't stop the BNP and the English Defence League getting their knickers in a twist though. I just thought the irony was funny that these deluded people are scared of some imaginary persecution of 'indigenous brits' (including the alleged banning of christmas in certain places) yet it is THEY who have brought about the felling of a public Christmas tree!

[Caer Ibormeith]

Ironically the tree has been brought down because of the English Defence League! The council thought that the large tree could be hazardous to the health of protesters if it all kicks off (like it always does) this Saturday.

I think its quite funny that those 'people' are probably protesting againts the delusion that ethnic minorities are stopping the public celebration of Christmas etc etc

The hoops we all have to jump through to be PC are just ridiculous. The majority of people I know actually like Christmas trees, whether they're Christian or not. Just seeing a tree lit up in the middle of a dark, cold winter makes people smile. And, a dear friend loves the traditional carols, even though he is Jewish. He's not at all offended by the sights and sounds of the holiday. I would be just as happy to share a seder with him.

It reminds me of the controversy over the Boston tree a few years ago. Some self-appointed group decided that it would be offensive to call it a Christmas tree. The only people who ended being hurt were the folks of Nova Scotia, who always gift us with a tree every year.

Yeah, no ethnic minority has a problem with public Christmas celebrations. However, maybe two? local authorities renamed the celebration or put up some additional celebratory symbols from other cultures. Its usually white PC council fools that "ban christmas" - and thats a bit strong. I dont think anywhere has BANNED christmas.

That doesn't stop the BNP and the English Defence League getting their knickers in a twist though. I just thought the irony was funny that these deluded people are scared of some imaginary persecution of 'indigenous brits' (including the alleged banning of christmas in certain places) yet it is THEY who have brought about the felling of a public Christmas tree!

I feel like taking both the PC police and the BNP and sticking them on an island (uninhabited of course) somewhere and let them have at it. Maybe no one would be left standing and the rest of us could go on our merry (sane) way.

[mr dragon]

I feel like taking both the PC police and the BNP and sticking them on an island (uninhabited of course) somewhere and let them have at it. Maybe no one would be left standing and the rest of us could go on our merry (sane) way.

I hear ya Sister! I bloody well wish we could get rid of both of 'em. I'd also gladly chuck the minority far right extremist British Muslim groups who sometimes go marching in London calling for 'death to the west and Britain' and all that horrendous bullshit- particularly the few who sometimes go to our troop's homecoming celebrations with extremely abusive and hateful placards calling them murderers and worse, onto the same frigging island. I'd also chuck in some of the Anti Globalisation protesters (though only the violent ones), some of the Unite Against Fascism protesters (again only the violent ones) and the actual fascist EDF (nearly all of 'em!) and perhaps one or two other groups as well. Let them bang off about their stupid shit with each other, away from the rest of us- and maybe we can also turn it into a reality tv show where we get to watch them having it out on the island, like the bleedin' arse-clowns many of them are

Wakey's right about the EDF, and the PC Christmas thing. I keep reading about how 'apparently' some council or another has 'banned' Christmas (it's usually in the Daily 'Hate' Mail), but I've never actually seen it happen. I don't doubt that you have one or two very 'leftie' local councils in the UK were you get some idiot who wants to turn it into a 'festival' for PC reasons, but it's a very small minority and I'm not even sure if they ever manage to do it. As for the EDF (The English Defence League- for our American friends who may not know who they are) I think it's pretty obvious they've been acting as an allied, but also splinter group, of the BNP by deliberately trying to stir up violence in certain northern UK cities. It's very disturbing to say the least Wakey. I do know the police have been keeping a very sharp eye on them- and also trying to stay ahead of whatever they may plan to do. Fortunately they don't seem to be attempting anything down here in the South currently, but you never know. They are absolute scum.

[mr dragon]

George Galloway is NOT an anti-semite nor a racist of any kind.

BULLSHIT.

ANYONE who supports Hamas or Hezbollah is a both a bigot and an anti-semite, because both these groups are constantly denying the holocaust and teaching their children to hate/kill/maim/slaughter Jews from the the cradle to the grave.

Please also spare us the tired, disingenuous and completely discredited leftist canard claiming he is just against the "State Of Israel" and not just a hateful, bigoted man who has sucked up to some of the worst butchers and dictators the world over, from Castro to Chavez, from Saddam Hussein to Robert Mugabe, Yasser Arafat to Ismail Haniya of Hamas.

Sean, I'm not going to get directly into this thing between you and Wakey here, but I want to show a couple of things about this issue (see the vids below). I've also been trying to not get 'hard' on people I sometimes disagree with politically recently on here- though I do share your utter disgust over George Galloway. However, Wakey is entitled to his view and I don't think he actually agrees, or perhaps maybe sees (I don't know- because you can't assume things about people on here all the time) with some of the things Galloway has done- in fact a lot of people actually don't always see Galloway for what he can be. They sometimes just see the one side- because that's the side he 'presents' in the west. But you also can't put words in Wakey's mouth when he hasn't said those things and perhaps doesn't believe in them. Maybe Wakey is a bit 'naive' about the way Galloway 'acts' in two different ways when he's over here in the west- but then 'acts' differently when he goes to the middle east. But, to be honest, I think a lot of people are. But I'm not going to make that judgement because I think Wakey also 'gets' the fact that Galloway can also be full of hot air- for whatever audience he's talking too. Galloway's a very typical extreme political blowhard who uses his 'street fighting personality' and rhetoric for his own gains- it's his cause célèbre in any given situation to be the 'so called' spokesman for the 'underdog'- which is his 'motif' politically. Hence why I'm not so sure that Galloway's actually an anti-semitic purely because he's so utterly opposed to Israel- yet has been so awfully vocal and supportive for Hamas. However, whether he is actually an anti-semite is in question because of many of his actions- and I think people have a fundamental right to call Galloway out on that issue. I think he is a thoroughly disgusting (and thoroughly disingenuous) individual- and I was very glad when the Canadian Government decided to ban him from entry recently for giving money to a terrorist organisation- Hamas, for so called humanitarian issues, when he could just have given the money to ANY one of the official non political Palestinian aid organisations with NO connections to terrorism. I thought nice one- well done Canada! I share your personal anger over Mr Galloway. I also had to question how he did this when Hamas is fully recognised as a terrorist organisation in the UK.

However, George Galloway on the Holocaust (on LBC):



That's all good. But then you have all this. Typical Galloway 'highlights' most of it very well edited- though the London bombings bit is wrong, Galloway was clear about his denunciation of that. But, then he supports Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah and openly supports Hamas (!)- Leaves me fucking speechless. Some of this is from his regular slot on Iranian Press TV- which is an awful pro Iranian Government News Channel. But also, Sean- note the BBC segments :



And then you have this again on LBC. This was horrendous by Galloway, and I say that when I also don't agree with the American caller on many things- but this is about as stupidly anti-American as you can get and also significantly factually wrong by Galloway. It was an extremely abusive response to a person from another country who happened to be polite and well mannered:



George Galloway is a pretty nasty piece of work, however much he 'claims' he's looking out for the 'rights' of 'oppressed' people. But he's also playing a game somewhere to gain popularity with a certain sector people. It's hard to work out what he actually stands for, because he's in one way utterly awful and reprehensible, but in another very contradictory.

[wakeyboy]

Wakey's right about the EDF, and the PC Christmas thing. I keep reading about how 'apparently' some council or another has 'banned' Christmas (it's usually in the Daily 'Hate' Mail), but I've never actually seen it happen. I don't doubt that you have one or two very 'leftie' local councils in the UK were you get some idiot who wants to turn it into a 'festival' for PC reasons, but it's a very small minority and I'm not even sure if they ever manage to do it. As for the EDF (The English Defence League- for our American friends who may not know who they are) I think it's pretty obvious they've been acting as an allied, but also splinter group, of the BNP by deliberately trying to stir up violence in certain northern UK cities. It's very disturbing to say the least Wakey. I do know the police have been keeping a very sharp eye on them- and also trying to stay ahead of whatever they may plan to do. Fortunately they don't seem to be attempting anything down here in the South currently, but you never know. They are absolute scum.

You're right, it has mainly been in northern cities but there has been some activity in Birmingham and and in the south.

In August the EDL, Casuals United (an affiliated group), and two other groups were banned for three months from marching in Luton under the Public Order Act 1986

On 13 September 2009, the EDL attended an annual multi-faith, pro-Palestinian rally held in London organised by the Islamic Human Rights Commission. There were several brief confrontations as EDL activists chanted "We hate Muslims" and "Muslim bombers off our streets".

There was also a planned protest outside Harrow central mosque which was cancelled but mobs of young men from all around the country turned up anyway and caused a disturbance shouting at anyone none-white in the vacinity.


Apparently there are sister groups in Scotland and Wales. The Scottish Defence League and the Welsh Defence league.

On 18 October 2009, Nazi salutes were made during the first demonstration by the Welsh Defence League in Swansea. - So a credible protest group then? Nazi thugs the lot of 'em.

[mr dragon]

Do you know what? I'm a plonker. I just suddenly noticed I called them the 'EDF' twice in my last post. Dragon must be going senile...

I've only just recently heard of 'Casuals United'. It seems there's been a growth in these groups recently. It's a weird name as well- are they referring to a naff fashion style from the eighties of the said wearers of that style of whom were called 'casuals'??? They weren't political- they were just a bunch of people who had no taste in clothes and went around wearing pink or yellow Pringle sweaters and tank tops....

There seems to have been a backlash in some areas that these 'people' are using. I'm sure you remember this Wakey- not long a go there was a big homecoming parade for the Royal Anglian Regiment (who were in Iraq) where very large crowds of locals in Luton turned up in order to support the soldiers and welcome them home. There was a big clash between some the hundreds of local Lutoners and about 20 Muslim hard core 'extremists' who'd turned up on the sidelines with thoroughly abusive and hate filled placards. If the police hadn't been there it could have turned extremely nasty- part of the crowd almost wanted to lynch them. I don't actually blame the crowd for being angry, and stuff like this is a serious problem- but what should be noted is that particular hard right Muslim group also sent out about two thousand leaflets in the local Luton Muslim community before hand to 'try' to get them to turn up, yet only twenty Muslims turned up to do this 'protest'- basically just the core of that group. It seems that people on both sides are using these issues to rake up and inflame tensions so that they spread.

This was the incident:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8084671.stm

[wakeyboy]

200-300 EDL supporters turned up at city square in Leeds today, and 300-400 Anti-fascist protesters turned up (though at a different but near-by location- Victoria Gardens-).

There have been a few public order arrests but nothing too serious, yet. Anyone travelling into Leeds via train were searched by police before being allowed out of the station.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 335419.stm

[mr dragon]

They're all looking for a ruck, methinks.

Wakey, did you watch the Luton vid I put up in my last post? I noticed so many of the 'white' English shouting back were either chavs, or borderline chavs. I know it's a harsh way to describe it but I think a lot of the demographic who are doing this are people from that kind of social group.

[wakeyboy]

They're all looking for a ruck, methinks.

Wakey, did you watch the Luton vid I put up in my last post? I noticed so many of the 'white' English shouting back were either chavs, or borderline chavs. I know it's a harsh way to describe it but I think a lot of the demographic who are doing this are people from that kind of social group.

I think its about ignorance. That includes those muslim extremists in that video.

[mr dragon]

Aye, very true indeed John.

I think what I was trying to allude to, is that in the case of the BNP, and all these other groups binding themselves to the so called Nationalist 'cause', seem to get a fair proportion of their catchment demographic from the working class on lower incomes (who were once Labour voters). A segment of that same demographic are also chavs. It sounds like a nasty and judgemental thing to say (and it's a generalisation), but I think it's also a truth.

[wakeyboy]

Aye, very true indeed John.

I think what I was trying to allude to, is that in the case of the BNP, and all these other groups binding themselves to the so called Nationalist 'cause', seem to get a fair proportion of their catchment demographic from the working class on lower incomes (who were once Labour voters). A segment of that same demographic are also chavs. It sounds like a nasty and judgemental thing to say (and it's a generalisation), but I think it's also a truth.

The gap between rich and poor widened under New Labour which is disgraceful for a party claiming to represent the working class.

Labour should have done more to improve the lives and opportunities of the poor. The expenses scandal also hit hard because many poor people expect that of the Tories (fairly on unfairly), but not Labour.

The recession. Labour are blamed for that for being in government, but also people are less tollerant of the 'fat cats' when the poor are struggling to survive. Whenever a recession hits people look for scapegoats when resources and opportunity becomes scarce. So ignorant people turn on "ethnic minorities".

Labour have also failed to get a grip on immigration which just gives far-right parties more ammunition.

Also, the "anyone but the three main parties" factor as a result of many scandals drives voters toward the fringes.