The British National Party

[Whaleboy]

Relativism isn't a pipe dream! I believe I was using a bong at the time

the BNP are idiots, but i'm not quite sure what you are getting at here?

I'm not fan of the BBC, or any other large media company. They are most successful when they tell people what they want to hear, look at Fox news for example. However, thats a double-edged sword, since most reasonable people are opposed to the BNP, it's natural to see that reflected in the BBC.

it is, but i wonder where the 'couple of dozen thousand' figure comes from? (we get a damn sight more than 24,000 immigrants and asylum applicants each year...)

I'll look at exact figures later but it's on that scale, IIRC between 24'000 and 50'000.

and on the pensions thing, how many more immigrants do you think the country, in particular london and the south east, can absorb?

I wouldn't imagine London can absorb terribly many more, nor the South East in general, unless they build a couple of new cities, like Milton Keynes . Needless to say, to get the economic benefits, one assumes reasonably well thought out distribution and not just dumping them at a place of entry.

and when you say re-think our housing policies, what are you getting at?

More houses, probably a couple of new cities, rebuilt brownfield areas, coincide with the failure of the farming industry to buy up farmland that isn't environmentally crucial and develop it, and sensible, quality apartment-style homes.

sorry for all the questions but i'm just trying to get a better idea of what you are saying

That's ok, my fault for not being clear

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, note that I said native Britons. You cannot compare the immigration of the past to now. Some studies have predicted that the 'native' British population will be a minority in Britain within the next hundred years, you have to see that this will not be acceptable to certain 'native' Britons including me.

Let's assume native to mean origins pre-World War II to avoid my previous attack. I fail to see why that is unacceptable. I can quite honestly say that if most of Britain in a century originates from the Indian subcontinent or Africa, I have no problem. We're all human. I see no intrinsic good in either culture, so if we get over the aesthetic change from pink to brown, there is little distinction.

Tell me would you have less of a problem if this current wave of immigration was coming from Germany, France, the USA, Canada, Scandinavia etc etc?

This will inevitably lead to violence.

It's only inevitable with attitudes like that of the BNP. I don't see that that has to necessarily be the case though perhaps unfortunate if it is. Stop shooting the breeze.

I do not ever want Britain to be in the position where there is a majority muslim population, I do not want their values to be forced onto me or my children. This is a western country and we should keep it that way.

Such is the nature of immigration that values would not be simply replaced, rather each would dilute the other and you'd end up with a hybrid. If you are so concerned that tolerance or high intellect be taught to your children, perhaps you should take them out of state-education in the future. Furthermore, I see no problem with Muslim values being taught to my children, since I don't think they are worse values. It is perhaps ironic that some white people look to Islam to solve the social ills the BNP wish to solve, though I dare say that Islam is more effective since it is a religion based upon peace and tolerance, despite what some may wish we think.

At the end of the day, you'll find terms like the West to be rather empty, since all are in such a state of flux.

[Derekrage]

Such is the nature of immigration that values would not be simply replaced, rather each would dilute the other and you'd end up with a hybrid. If you are so concerned that tolerance or high intellect be taught to your children, perhaps you should take them out of state-education in the future. Furthermore, I see no problem with Muslim values being taught to my children, since I don't think they are worse values. It is perhaps ironic that some white people look to Islam to solve the social ills the BNP wish to solve, though I dare say that Islam is more effective since it is a religion based upon peace and tolerance, despite what some may wish we think.

I disagree. The majority of the Muslim population in Britain considers themselves Muslim first and British second. The young muslims today in Britain are taught values and morals by their parents and muslim clerics. I am not willing to gamble that a majority muslim population will not institute some insane sharia(sp?) laws.

[C0ckney]

Relativism isn't a pipe dream! I believe I was using a bong at the time

well that's ok then

I'll look at exact figures later but it's on that scale, IIRC between 24'000 and 50'000.

well i could be wrong but the last time laz and i had a 'mass debate' on the subject, i've got a funny feeling the figures showed it's a fair bit higher than that. plus of course you have to take into account the fact that very few bogus asylum seekers (or indeed those whose 'special leave to remain' expires) actually leave the country.

I wouldn't imagine London can absorb terribly many more, nor the South East in general, unless they build a couple of new cities, like Milton Keynes . Needless to say, to get the economic benefits, one assumes reasonably well thought out distribution and not just dumping them at a place of entry.

i would think creating more places like milton keynes was something to be avoided at all costs

talking about distributing people is all well and good, but you also have to build the infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc. to support them. this is very expensive, not even taking into account the social problems large numbers of immigrants cause.

but at least you recognise that london and the south east can't take many more people

More houses, probably a couple of new cities, rebuilt brownfield areas, coincide with the failure of the farming industry to buy up farmland that isn't environmentally crucial and develop it, and sensible, quality apartment-style homes

let's be honest, any significant increase in the number of houses in this country (at least at the levels experts predict we will need) will mean significant development on 'greenfield' sites. this would be very unpopular and with good reason, there are huge envirnomental costs involved with developing such sites.

[Solly]

Congratulations, you've got a lot of time on your hands.

i) We get something like net immigration of 120k per year. Note that that is net. A much higher amoutn need integrating.

ii) Pensions should be an individual responsibility, not one for a state (unless the individual is incapable). I don't know what you are going on about with regards interest rates.

iii) A couple of new cities for immigrants huh? That'll be popular. Yet more no-go areas for whites.

iv) Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance as much as the BNP is a political party of them. Both have lunatic fringes, yet you wish to ascribe the BNP's to be a general characteristic, whereas I'd suppose you'd say terroristic Muslims are just exploiting their religion, or something, in order to defend it.

v) If you didn't spend all your time couped up on the net, you might get to meet a wider variety of people who aren't all "blue sky" theorists like yourself. There's a time and a place for ideology, but you are ignoring the real world. You have never met a working class person.

[Whaleboy]

I disagree. The majority of the Muslim population in Britain considers themselves Muslim first and British second. The young muslims today in Britain are taught values and morals by their parents and muslim clerics. I am not willing to gamble that a majority muslim population will not institute some insane sharia(sp?) laws.

You assume that the young Muslim population today would be in a position to do so. We are of course talking centuries here, and the reactionist (reacting to their own suffering) stance is one that cannot last for the number of generations concerned. You must consider that there is a dynamic sociological system at play and not merely "these people=bad" "these people=good".

And regarding how they are treated, to be perfectly honest, can you blame them? The sort of informal discrimination I have witnessed myself, either when I was at school or the dirty looks on the street after 9/11, I cannot blame them for retreating into an identity where they feel secure, rather than one whose inventors are persecuting them. It is a Catch-22 that fortunately will resolve itself with an increase in education, understanding, and a change in the law to allow asylum seekers the right to work.

[Derekrage]

Tell me would you have less of a problem if this current wave of immigration was coming from Germany, France, the USA, Canada, Scandinavia etc etc?

No I wouldn't have much of a problem with that because their beliefs are similar to British beliefs. They all have a European heritage.

[Derekrage]

And regarding how they are treated, to be perfectly honest, can you blame them? The sort of informal discrimination I have witnessed myself, either when I was at school or the dirty looks on the street after 9/11, I cannot blame them for retreating into an identity where they feel secure, rather than one whose inventors are persecuting them. It is a Catch-22 that fortunately will resolve itself with an increase in education, understanding, and a change in the law to allow asylum seekers the right to work.

Or we could deny anyone the right to asylum, deport all asylum seekers who have had their claims rejected. End the oxymoron of multi-culturism, have all British citizens take an oath of loyalty to the country (so as not to discriminate against Muslims) and start an education program that will emphasise British values. Bang into everyones head that they are British first.

[C0ckney]

....and a change in the law to allow asylum seekers the right to work.

this would be a good idea if it were not for the fact that the asylum system is broken. it needs real reform to discourage bogus claiments before anything like giving them the right to work can be brought in.

[Whaleboy]

well i could be wrong but the last time laz and i had a 'mass debate' on the subject, i've got a funny feeling the figures showed it's a fair bit higher than that. plus of course you have to take into account the fact that very few bogus asylum seekers (or indeed those whose 'special leave to remain' expires) actually leave the country.

Fair play (Bodds says 120k) but as long as it isn't upwards of 1m per year for more than a decade it's all good.

i would think creating more places like milton keynes was something to be avoided at all costs

. That skiing place more than justifies the existence of that city.

talking about distributing people is all well and good, but you also have to build the infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc. to support them. this is very expensive, not even taking into account the social problems large numbers of immigrants cause.

Goes without saying, but consider the long term economic benefits, the nature of the problems (solveable) and the benefits outweighing the disadvantages (talking about multiculturalism in general now) meaning that the negative effects are not enough to justify a ban on immigration.

let's be honest, any significant increase in the number of houses in this country (at least at the levels experts predict we will need) will mean significant development on 'greenfield' sites. this would be very unpopular and with good reason, there are huge envirnomental costs involved with developing such sites.

The farming industry in the UK is mostly superfluous, and is very damaging to the environment. You take a great deal of that land, develop say the third that is least biologically significant (migration patterns etc) and you have a significant increase in housing that will still result in a net benefit to the environment.

ii) Pensions should be an individual responsibility, not one for a state (unless the individual is incapable). I don't know what you are going on about with regards interest rates.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0028644921/qid=1081878905/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1_xs_stripbooks_i1_xgl14/103-0346676-1562256?v=glance&s=books

iii) A couple of new cities for immigrants huh? That'll be popular. Yet more no-go areas for whites.

In case you haven't been reading, the causes of no-go areas (a generally northern, povery-stricken phenomenon) are specific and easily addressed, namely by measures such as those that I am proposing.

iv) Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance as much as the BNP is a political party of them. Both have lunatic fringes, yet you wish to ascribe the BNP's to be a general characteristic, whereas I'd suppose you'd say terroristic Muslims are just exploiting their religion, or something, in order to defend it.

It is a religion of peace that a tiny minority are twisting and abusing. Looking at the history and policies of the BNP, I am somewhat more skeptical about the same being said of them.

v) If you didn't spend all your time couped up on the net, you might get to meet a wider variety of people who aren't all "blue sky" theorists like yourself. There's a time and a place for ideology, but you are ignoring the real world. You have never met a working class person.

You're turning into Fez, and for the record, you are wildly wrong. I just have hayfever, an injured ankle and 2 weeks ahead of schedule on my novel .

No I wouldn't have much of a problem with that because their beliefs are similar to British beliefs. They all have a European heritage.

European heritage have mesopotamian heritages, as do Asian, all three have African heritages. Furthermore, I see no differences between Asian and European culture beyond superficial aspects, and that goes for religion too. Your argument seems rather empty, premise wise that is.

[Whaleboy]

Or we could deny anyone the right to asylum, deport all asylum seekers who have had their claims rejected. End the oxymoron of multi-culturism, have all British citizens take an oath of loyalty to the country (so as not to discriminate against Muslims) and start an education program that will emphasise British values. Bang into everyones head that they are British first.

God how Orwellian . Read Plato's Republic.

this would be a good idea if it were not for the fact that the asylum system is broken. it needs real reform to discourage bogus claiments before anything like giving them the right to work can be brought in.

I concur entirely

[Derekrage]

It is not Orwellian at all, it is only an oath of loyalty hardly extreme. The oath should contain promises never to fight British or allied forces as this apparently is no longer a given.

[C0ckney]

Fair play (Bodds says 120k) but as long as it isn't upwards of 1m per year for more than a decade it's all good.

i would disagree strongly, but i think this is something we may have to put down to 'fundamental ideological differences'

Goes without saying, but consider the long term economic benefits, the nature of the problems (solveable) and the benefits outweighing the disadvantages (talking about multiculturalism in general now) meaning that the negative effects are not enough to justify a ban on immigration.

just to clarify a couple of things. i don't advocate a ban on immigration, i just think it needs to be much better managed than it is at present, i do think we need immigrants, just not as many as we get currently. i also don't think that 'multi-culturalism' is generally a good thing. 'if you come to england, be english' pretty sums up my views on the subject

you might think it's worth the costs to take in every tom, dick and harry who wants to come here but i certainly don't.

The farming industry in the UK is mostly superfluous, and is very damaging to the environment. You take a great deal of that land, develop say the third that is least biologically significant (migration patterns etc) and you have a significant increase in housing that will still result in a net benefit to the environment.

i'm sorry but i'm going to have to call BS here. building more houses, shops, roads etc. is going to benefit the environment

the farmers i know aren't doing it for a laugh. they farm the land and look after the countryside, they maintain the hedgerows for example which contain an enormous amount of plant and animal life. they do make money as well, those that don't go out of business, they support the local economies of much of our country too. to describe farming as 'superfluous' makes you sound very ignorant i'm afraid

[Whoha]

The thing to ask about immigration is: are you assimilating them into your culture? If the answer is no, then you need to shut it down, because just about everywhere where there are 2 different cultures there is fighting.

[Az]

No, Whoha, didn't you hear? What really happens is everyone dances naked around a campfire.

I think that my position on your problems guys is similar to C0ckney, somewhat.