BBC exposes BNP

[Gibsie]

This is the bit where we note how you've not actually watched the program in question, The Viceroy. Not that I could blame you since the whole show was just a rehash reminding us what we all know already.

The BBC did not assert that the members of the BNP should not be able to say whatever they like. Instead they showed the BNP members saying whatever they chose to say, and then they asked legal experts if what was discussed was legal or not. Inciting an audience to become violent against others, even if you're saying, "Pakis will rape your children" rather than, "Go beat up Pakis", is illegal in Britain, and personally I believe that our right to not have people getting others to beat us up outweights that aspect of freedom of speech.

As for Nick Griffith "having the balls to say it", the entire point of the show was to illustrate what he and his colleagues DON'T have the balls to say in public, and are tricking some decent members of the public into voting for.

[Jamski]

BNp Hitjer innit?

they are evli bastards

I waould have threma llr kiled ansd sent to NOAsy!

.ja

[MRT144]

BNP - it just scapegoats other people

[Solly]

I think there are three kinds of people who "support" the BNP.

i) the truly racist (this program focussed on these - why? fair and balanced?)

ii) right-wingers who have been forced to vote for another right-wing party as a result of the centrist ineptitude of the Conservatives; these people don't like the way there seems to be a slight/moderate bias against Western/white people amongst authorities (for example, you can advertise legally a job solely for an ethnic minority, positive discrimination, ignorance of Islamic hate speech).

iii) Those who vote for the BNP as a result of their local policies and choose to ignore the wider issues around the party

I think you also have to realise that a lot of (probably all!) the BNP voters are completely disenfranchised with the political elites. They are not represented at all in Westminster, feel like they have no say, and hence resort to the more extreme solution.

Just a few random thoughts.

[MikeH]

Actually, the reason the film got made was (if you read the article, watched the program) because someone joined the BNP because of immigration concerns and then became shocked by what actually went on within the party up to the highest level. ie. including the leader who could well be up on charges of inciting racial hatred after the evidence in the report.

[Solly]

"including the leader who could well be up on charges of inciting racial hatred after the evidence in the report."

He won't be. Do you want an avatar bet?

[child of Thor]

I watched some of it, but didnt really need/want to see it all. It was kinda obvious what the result would be.
The same thing with that series on the police a few months back. Racism has always been here - but its not only a white vs other race issue.

And all sides are wrong when trying to exclusively blame the other; until that is fully taken on board we will continue to go nowhere on the issue.

We should strive to better ourselves as human beings, even when it seems like the hard choice, or we're not going to make it - we'll simply destroy ourselves through hatred/greed/ignorance etc

[Solly]

Originally posted by child of Thor
I watched some of it, but didnt really need/want to see it all. It was kinda obvious what the result would be.

I agree. They could do similar on any political party and find "activists" and "members" saying some things with which the party does not agree.

[child of Thor]

True, like for example the incident with that Conseritive lady and her remarks(joke) about the cockle workers(Its a poor example i know).

The point being we are all entitled to our views - its what our ancestors have fought for over the millenium, and we should be able to express them, even if they may be distressing to some. I wouldn't want to live my life any other way.

Still acts of criminality(as defined in legal laws of the country) that may lead from such views should be treated for what they are - crimes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Should someone be prosecuted for saying "Go and kill white people"? - i just dont think they should, its a slippery slope once you go down that path(which we already have in the UK).

Should someone be prosecuted for then going and killing the mentioned 'white person' - of course they should.

When we start to get the State to decide what we can and cannot say - we're one step closer to an Orwelian future.

And i dont buy the arguement that times have changed(and laws need to as well) - many of my great grandparents generation probably thought slavery was a good thing(so things haven't got worse).

For me this is mostly about freedom of speech - i'm not interested in the politics of it, and when someone expresses a view to me - or makes a racist remark, I decide at the time wether i agree or disagree, wether to walk away or take part in the conversation, wether to get offended and punch someone on the nose(and if i'm caught and charged fair enough ).

Freedom even if unpleasent.

Censorship even if with good intentions - it will be used against us.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
I agree. They could do similar on any political party and find "activists" and "members" saying some things with which the party does not agree.

But could they find councillors and important sections of the pary who will admit to wanting to murder entire sections of society? Has Iain ever told you his greatest fantasy is to machine gun Labour supporters?

[MikeH]

What the **** is an avatar bet?

[RGBVideo]

The one who loses has to keep an avatar which the winner decides for few weeks or so.

[MikeH]

How childish...

So I could make PA have an avatar that said Bum Me or something?

[Evil Knevil]

This one might be more fun.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by MikeH
How childish...

So I could make PA have an avatar that said Bum Me or something?

You'd have to tread carefully - or his lawyers could have you on charges "of inciting bummers hatred" or some such