BNP Counsillor resigns over fight

[Whaleboy]

But they do Work!! I just said. And at the same time claim benefits. You see em, a guy in a ferrari pull up outside the doll office to collecting his cash, then he drives back to the house he gets FREE cos he's 'out of work'.

You think thats a situation unique to immigrants?! . We only notice it with them because they look different!

If theyre in work, they shouldn't get benefits. That goes with anything. It doesnt need a change in asylum policy, it needs more efficiency in social services. If theyre tax dodging, they should be treated no different to other tax dodgers.

If the proportion of criminals in immigrants is higher, we should address the situation here, not use it as an excuse to make draconian rules of entry to satisfy the insecurities of pseudo-racist, simple minded cretins!

[Solly]

Don't you guys think we have enough people in this country as it is?

[Whaleboy]

No, Britains can feasibly support just over 100 million people before population-related problems occur. Probably a lot more than that if we reorganise the way we live etc.

Like I said, economically, we need asylum seekers, as the WWII generation dies, the 60's generation takes their place, the situation will become even more severe without more workers.

If the argument against asylum falls to population then the BNP is truly in intellectual dire straights. Not that it is a party that is dependent on intellectual muscle though .

[Solly]

"No, Britains can feasibly support just over 100 million people before population-related problems occur"

What problems?

Why are you so sure 100 million is the magic number?

[Whaleboy]

What problems?

Too many people, pollution, severe transportation problems, social, police, education, health etc services not being able to cope if they cant increase in size accordingly, the balance of supply and demand being screwed up so imports become more important.

Admittedly, transport is a problem now, but not one that can't be dealt with relatively easily as soon as we throw Prescott into the North Sea.

Why are you so sure 100 million is the magic number?

Well look at feasible construction/housing future projects, expansion of towns, in the very very long term (we are talking centuries here to get up to that figure) more people moving to high rise permanent accomodation (I'm not talking about delapadated '50s "ode to shoebox" buildings).

A conservative estimate would be 90-100 million people, realistically probably more, bit of a squeeze, and if we disregard the environment and countryside, the belt can be further loosensed.

Either way, even if the figure was far lower, say 65-70 million, asylum would not make much of a dent in that. Compare the influx per hour to the number of people being born in the same time!

[Solly]

Too many people, pollution, severe transportation problems, social, police, education, health etc services not being able to cope if they cant increase in size accordingly, the balance of supply and demand being screwed up so imports become more important.

Thanks.

[Whaleboy]

Bodds: Fundamentally, the major problem is one of pollution, secondly, the changes required in the way we live. The above figure is based on the two above not changing drastically in the next 150-200 or so years. The amount of building required to cope with 100 million people is huge but as it will happen at a gradual pace, it won't be painful.

Nonetheless, in my lifetime, I'd be suprised if the population gets beyond 80 million, asylum or otherwise.

[Odin]

Europe MUST have immigration or else it's population will shrink because the birthrate is less than 2 per woman. Natives wont work for the low paying jobs either.

BTW, why isn't the US's birthrate dropping? It is still around 2.3 I think. I think people should have no more than 2 kids, we need to reduce the world's population, it is going Malthusian.

[David Floyd]

Economically speaking. Reminds me of the Bristol meeting.

As to the BNP, I can't see how it's any worse than the Lib Dems or Tories or Labour or anyone else in British politics - they are all morally horrendous in my opinion.

[Whaleboy]

David Floyd: I'm not talking about morality, I don't see the BNP as particularly immoral in my opinion, although obviously I dont like their race-relation policies, nor the sheer number of members (and thus influence) that are overtly racist. The sheen of poltical correctness causes it be covert at worse, but that will change if (heaven forbid) they get into any position of power.

I dislike the BNP because the policies are complete and utter bull. That is something all the main parties bar the Lib Dems for the most part, are guilty of, but to a much greater extent with the BNP.

[David Floyd]

I dislike the BNP because the policies are complete and utter bull. That is something all the main parties bar the Lib Dems for the most part, are guilty of, but to a much greater extent with the BNP.

I'd say the Lib Dems and Labour are at least as bad as the BNP in terms of their policies. I mean, come on - NHS? It doesn't even work!

[Whaleboy]

I'd say the Lib Dems and Labour are at least as bad as the BNP in terms of their policies. I mean, come on - NHS? It doesn't even work!

Now I'm not a person to set about willingly defending the NHS, but be fair. They are working incredibly well and efficiently considering how badly underfunded, understaffed and underbedded they are. All that requires is a large injection of cash. It does not require the BNP.

FYI, the lib dems have a more proactive policy over the NHS than Labour. That means more money .

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd




As to the BNP, I can't see how it's any worse than the Lib Dems or Tories or Labour or anyone else in British politics

Show me a convicted nailbomber on the national executives of any other party and I might agree. Otherwise I'll just take that as further proof that you've been driven mad by the inflexibility of your own logic.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Their main strengths are actually having an immigration policy, and also being truly against crime rather than for the criminal.

Tell me another party in Britain that is the above.

The only drawback is that if they actually practised what they preach, they'd have to execute two of their most senior members, and imprison several others.

[Ramo]

Yes, being a fascist thug that wants to throw out immigrants is just as bad as supporting the NHS.