The racist Nutcracker...

It's funny how immigration seems to stir such an 'either-or' reaction, instead of sensible dialogue. Can anyone here tell me what other platforms the BNP have? (Seriously. I don't pay much attention to politics.)

That is hilarious. The best bit was the BNP leader from Dagenham expressing his views re mixed marriages (he did say they were his personal views, but hey). "I'm not opposed to mixed marriages but children [of these relationships] are washing out the identity of this country's indigenous people." *What* indigenous people? You have to go to deepest Cornwall to find those, don't you? I'd love to have a DNA trace done on that guy. I'm not opposed to controlled immigration as long as it is determined by our country's needs coupled with a compassion for those genuinely in need of sanctuary from oppression. As it stands, with our rapidly ageing population and declining birthrate, if we followed the BNP's advice we'd be left with a lot of old, destitute 'indigenous people,' and bugger all else. We *need* immigration. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

Ha! I'm sitting here warbling on my swivel-chair. Oh! **lowers his head and wipes the tears from his eyes** There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

AG http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/policies.htm They're also holocaust deniers and many of their members have dodgy pasts. nobody

They are absolutely barking. I was surprised to see Northern Ireland in there. They seem to want to set the clock back on that one... I think... I'm not sure - I don't know what they're on, quite frankly. Here's their endgame, however: In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles. Aww schucks - Eire could be an *equal* partner in a Federation, they'll be *so* chuffed. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

I agree Lou, the Northern Ireland stuff is a particular blinder compared to their other beliefs regarding religeous minorities. "I don't support people being sacked for having unpleasant political beliefs." Buhkharin - I'm being purely pedantic here, but surely it would ahve to do with their organisation and position. Thought I'd say it before others nit pick. I know what you mean really. nobody

My 'ethnic origin' is italian. I'd gladly accept a wodge of cash from them to voluntarily repatriate. Barking indeed. But the aims and obs laid out on that site, are scarily similar to the views expressed by many many older people. That's the danger isn't it?

I just took a look at the website link. They are Dagenham ( 2 stops past Barking ). I especially liked the shop, lots of Viking memorabilia for sale. Excuse me, but weren't they the original illegal immigrants?

"I don't support people being sacked for having unpleasant political beliefs." When I was at uni, one of the librarians was discovered to be a prominent member of the BNP in the South East - I can't remember his exact designation now, but he was a local party secretary or treasurer or something... not just an ordinary member. Information was uncovered to show that he was an ideological racist - he had made speeches espousing white superiority. But he was a librarian in a university library, dealing with students of all races on a daily basis. Many students started boycotting the library in protest, and - as you can guess - there was a lot of discomfort about it on campus. The Union tried to get him ejected, but without success. What about a situation like that?

Vikings? Don’t get me started about Vikings – with their flashy boats and crates of Sun-In. Economic opportunists – every one of them. But if there’s one bunch I hate more than the Vikings it’s those bloody Anglo we’re-so-posh-we’re-hyphenated Saxons. Foul mouthed Tossers. Arthur (King) ~ www.fabulousmother.com

King Arthur is reported to have been Romano-British. Hmmm. 'Romano'. Sounds foreign, dunnit?

I agree with Buhk 100%, as I said yesterday I was being pedantic. If the job isn't effected by that persons political beliefs then they should be allowed to continue. I was reading somewhere that the Student Union in a Sussex university had decided to ban the Daily Mail, how ridiculous is that. Whatever people think of the BNP it's not an illegal organisation. nobody

"Not to mention the fact that once you get past the news stories, the salacious middle-England scandal features and grotesquely right-wing opinion colunms are really good fun." Yes... providing you've got the knowledge and intelligence to be able to view them in that way. Unfortunately, as you say, it's an influential newspaper. Plenty of people take its opinions very seriously indeed. Regarding the BNP librarian, I agree with you, Bukh. The important point being that the person's views don't compromise their ability to do their job properly. At the time, I was undecided on the whole issue. I had friends in both camps, and their arguments were equally compelling. I must say, I tended to go along with the 'he shouldn't be in the job' camp - though I guess, in looking back, that was a largely emotional response. I'd still feel uncomfortable about it now - but providing, as you say, he's doing his job properly, that's all that matters. "I was reading somewhere that the Student Union in a Sussex university had decided to ban the Daily Mail, how ridiculous is that." And what about the universities - Exeter, Bristol and, I think, Cardiff - that have banned Christian Unions on the grounds of their exclusivity?

"Not to mention the fact that once you get past the news stories, the salacious middle-England scandal features and grotesquely right-wing opinion colunms are really good fun." We must read it in the same way Buhk, but as Al pointed out they are influential. But saying that, one would hope that the level of inteligence of a student would enable them to see it as farcical. It is however good to see both sides of an arguement in order to make up ones own mind regarding the media slant on issues. Not sure if the Mail provides that though, a little too bigoted, but that might just be me. Agree with about the Exeter stuff Al, I think that may have been what the article was about now I think of it. nobody

Yeah... I think the unis' beef was that the CUs had 'acceptance of Christ as the Lord' as a pre-condition of membership, which was viewed as unfair for non-Christians or waverers who wanted to join out of curiosity, or to find out more before making a commitment. In other words, a bit like an animal rights group forbidding membership to anyone who isn't a vegetarian. I can see points on both sides, and personally think that the imposition of strict membership preconditions in this circumstance is counter-productive. But I still think - on balance - that an outright ban is wrong.

It is indeed Al. I mainly wanted to retract an earlier staement, "But saying that, one would hope that the level of inteligence of a student would enable them to see it as farcical." It's the level of inteligence bit, of course one would hope it would be so, but I did a degree a couple of years ago so know full well that while one would hope it was so it's certainly not the case,(myself excluded ha ha). Luckily the majority of them seemed like lefties but maybe that was just uni culture. I apologise and through first hand experience I should have known better. Hell thinking about it, maybe they should ban the Daily Mail, (joke by the way). nobody

No, I think you're right! (ha ha)

""I was reading somewhere that the Student Union in a Sussex university had decided to ban the Daily Mail, how ridiculous is that." The Student Union is supposed to be representative of the student body. If it 'bans' the Daily Mail, it isn't preventing the students from reading it - it is refusing to *sell* it. The students can go anywhere else for their fill of racehate - it's not like there are security squads making sure it doesn't get onto campus - but their Union is no longer making money from distributing it. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Similar arguments come up when Unions 'ban' coke products and Nestle. You get a bunch of useless, whingeing arsehats dashing round campus putting up posters saying, 'Save our chocolate!' and using the argument that each individual should be able to choose what they want to buy and it's not the Union's place to choose what it wants to sell. "But saying that, one would hope that the level of inteligence of a student would enable them to see it as farcical." If some students can't understand that there are issues more important than whether or not they have to go off campus to buy KitKats, then I doubt they're astute enough to pick apart the arguments in Daily Mail headlines. I've got to wonder how people would react if we were talking about Jihadists instead of BNP members. They're pretty much the same thing on different sides after all. We *know* now that elements of the BNP are into making bombs, but they can apparently still get away with claiming they're a legitimate political party.

"The Student Union is supposed to be representative of the student body. If it 'bans' the Daily Mail, it isn't preventing the students from reading it - it is refusing to *sell* it." I think that was the problem Jack in the article I read, the Union was acting on the thoughts of a couple of people rather than the thoughts of the students as a whole. I did retract the statement on the inteligence of students, they're not as bright as they like to think they are. Many like to talk the talk of the liberal but when out in the real world they change their minds pretty fast. Not all of course. "We *know* now that elements of the BNP are into making bombs, but they can apparently still get away with claiming they're a legitimate political party." Dunno if you follow current affairs, one word 'TRIDENT'. If every political party that was into making bombs was illegitimate who'd run the country? That's not as pedantic as it may seem. Seeing as you *know* about these elements I'm assuming you *know* who's teaching them the skills, and you would also *know* who backed these people in the past. nobody

"The ban is motivated by the business practices not the product itself." There is a distinction, but I'm not sure that it's relevant. That the owners and writers at the Mail choose to sell their product by lying, stirring people up and playing on their fears could well be seen as an aspect of 'business practice'. Do they have to operate in this way in order to do *their* job? "I think that was the problem Jack in the article I read, the Union was acting on the thoughts of a couple of people rather than the thoughts of the students as a whole." The idea, as with governments, is that students elect people they trust to make the best decisions on their behalf. You can't run an administration via voting on every matter. That said, I know there was voting on the Nestle and Coke bans when my student union considered these, and people *still* claimed that this is the few imposing their will on the many, on the shakey basis that not enough students turned out to vote. "Dunno if you follow current affairs, one word 'TRIDENT'. If every political party that was into making bombs was illegitimate who'd run the country." Well, I think there's a clear distinction between the ruling party having a hand in our country's defensive/offensive weaponry, and members of a non-ruling party amassing weapons in their own houses to use domestically. "Seeing as you *know* about these elements I'm assuming you *know* who's teaching them the skills, and you would also *know* who backed these people in the past." Try these: http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=8&ArticleID=180... http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2006/10/shhh-police-score-anti-terror-rai... http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/10/bbc-on-unreported-fascist-bomb-fa... Plenty of University students are bright. Plenty aren't.