A Dark Day For United Kingdom Politics
- Thread starter SciFiBoy!
- Start date
right so the BNP leader has had to abbandon a talk cause he's been pelted with Eggs
been happening alot in preston today, known BNP activists homes being egged.
I'm sorry but i have to say this, if you can't be arsed getting out and voting, what gives anyone the right to complain about this? Sure if you've voted, go nuts for all i care, but they recon 80% of the people doing this haven't even voted at all. They're as pathetic as the people they're attacking
been happening alot in preston today, known BNP activists homes being egged.
I'm sorry but i have to say this, if you can't be arsed getting out and voting, what gives anyone the right to complain about this? Sure if you've voted, go nuts for all i care, but they recon 80% of the people doing this haven't even voted at all. They're as pathetic as the people they're attacking
It's no wonder so many people didn't vote. People are disillusioned with the 3 main parties after the expenses argument. They've all been revealed as the same 3 headed dragon.
As a rational thinking person, it seems insane to vote for BNP or UKIP as a protest vote because especially with the former, it basically justifies violence & hatred towards other races, even if they were born and raised here. Such a dangerous vote and this gives the BNP that little bit of confidence and swagger that they need to keep growing and infesting our system.
The best form of protest is to not vote at all but that means EVERYBODY. However, now those who didn't vote probably gave the BNP the foot in the doorway that they needed. Maybe over time this will all blow over, once people trust the main parties a bit more.
Whatever the case, this is something we have to keep a close eye on. I worry for my son growing up in this country and the future he has here.
As a rational thinking person, it seems insane to vote for BNP or UKIP as a protest vote because especially with the former, it basically justifies violence & hatred towards other races, even if they were born and raised here. Such a dangerous vote and this gives the BNP that little bit of confidence and swagger that they need to keep growing and infesting our system.
The best form of protest is to not vote at all but that means EVERYBODY. However, now those who didn't vote probably gave the BNP the foot in the doorway that they needed. Maybe over time this will all blow over, once people trust the main parties a bit more.
Whatever the case, this is something we have to keep a close eye on. I worry for my son growing up in this country and the future he has here.
ayase
State Alchemist
Well I think it's bloody marvelous, because it proves that the vast majority of Britons will never accept fascism. There's going to be someone there fighting them at every turn, and so there should be. You might as well say the Battle of Cable Street wasn't justified either... People with views like the BNP should be stopped, and it's heartening to see that in Britain at least, they will be.Ryo Chan said:
Even if some of the protestors didn't vote, they're still doing a hell of a lot more for the good of this country than most people are - The people who's only contribution is to tick a box every few years and think any involvement they have with government or politics ends there. You can't just sit back and accept things - You have to fight all the way for what you believe in.
True, but didn't the problem arise BECAUSE people didnt do something as simple as tick a box? I agree that the protesters are in right to do what they need to do, but it's also a good chance most of them could of, but didnt, prevent it from happening in the 1st place.ayase said:
I believe what Ryo is trying to explain is that this SHOULDNT have been an issue if everyone did what they suppose to do (but in their rights didn't have to). These protests may become something of value in the future, but at present, we still have 2 BNP seats, which in protester's minds shouldn't be there. You cant do any more than you can until it's sorted out by the government themselves, i.e. ejecting the seats.
ayase said:
uh huh, beat fascism by using violence.....
by that logic, doesn't that make the IRA heroes for trying to fight off the occupying force?
i'm all for stopping Fascism, but not by turning into violent mobs who can't get their word accross without assaulting fellow human beings
ayase
State Alchemist
If we want to get really technical here, then it depends where the protestors are from. If they're all from Yorkshire and the North West then yeah, they could have done something to change to outcome - if not, they couldn't. It's similar to what you were saying earlier about us not having a say in other countries politics - If you don't live in a voting district how can you affect the outcome of that district's election? Perhaps the best way forward would be to elect our MEP's by proportional representation of the entire country. That would probably have stopped the BNP, but would also mean taking power away from localised areas. There's a conundrum for ya Chaz.Chaz said:
Well I think there's a pretty big difference between throwing eggs at specific individuals and blowing up innocent civilians. If egg throwing counted as a violent act then we'd be living in a serious police state.Ryo Chan said:
And when targeted at the people who deserve it then yes, I think violence is justifiable. Just as I believe many revolutions were.
ayase said:
if throwing custard is an arrestable offence, i'm pretty sure eggs are too.
i'm not on about how they did it, i'm on about what they're doing to get there. And it's not just simple egg throwing too, they still have family's and children too.
Is forcing these people to live in fear inside there houses, that are getting bombarded everyday or attacked when they go out shopping also acceptable for fighting Facism just because they're married to a "racist"?
Bloody politics... :lol: I think I'll leave this arguement here. It's always going to be a to-and-frow battle, of which I've taken more notice on politics in here than usual anyways.ayase said:If we want to get really technical here, then it depends where the protestors are from. If they're all from Yorkshire and the North West then yeah, they could have done something to change to outcome - if not, they couldn't. It's similar to what you were saying earlier about us not having a say in other countries politics - If you don't live in a voting district how can you affect the outcome of that district's election? Perhaps the best way forward would be to elect our MEP's by proportional representation of the entire country. That would probably have stopped the BNP, but would also mean taking power away from localised areas. There's a conundrum for ya Chaz.Chaz said:
ayase
State Alchemist
Though it feels wrong saying it, I have to say yes. A member of the BNP isn't a "racist" in quotation marks, but a Racist with a capital R. They have subscribed to the belief that non-caucasian people and even white people who are not of British descent (which is laughable anyway as even the whites in Britain are of mixed descent - Celts, Romans, Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Normans, etc...) are inferior, cannot be members of their party, should not be allowed to mix with, marry or have children with white British people and should not be entitled to live in the UK.Ryo Chan said:
Though they may not be the Nazis, given the power they would surely make life so difficult for people of other races and backgrounds they would be forced out of the country. Their beliefs are so ungrounded and abhorrent that they must be fought against, and if that means making people think twice before becoming the partner of a fascist, then all the better. It might serve to make sure the hatred doesn't propagate any further. This may seem hypocritical given my dislike of the concept of "rule through fear" but when you're dealing with people who's beliefs have no foundation in reality (I'd say the same of those who want to impose religious laws) and as such can't be reasoned with, then I don't see any alternative.
If your trying to say anyone who marrys and has children with a BNP member have to be BNP members and racist, i think you may wanna look up a show called "living with the BNP" from sky, you'll be a bit surprised.
But anyway go ahead, chuck eggs at them, insult them, make there lives hell
and when it ends up playing into there own hands next election as there spin doctors "prove" foreigners are out to ruin England, just remember this thread
Anyway i'm done arguing in this thread, specially if it's going to end up as a "they have no right to exist because of their beliefs" fight.
Incidently, i'm taking this from the point of understanding Ayase that you think anyone married to a BNP member is Racist, as that's how i'm understanding it, if that's not what you ment, then just ignore my first paragrath
But anyway go ahead, chuck eggs at them, insult them, make there lives hell
and when it ends up playing into there own hands next election as there spin doctors "prove" foreigners are out to ruin England, just remember this thread
Anyway i'm done arguing in this thread, specially if it's going to end up as a "they have no right to exist because of their beliefs" fight.
Incidently, i'm taking this from the point of understanding Ayase that you think anyone married to a BNP member is Racist, as that's how i'm understanding it, if that's not what you ment, then just ignore my first paragrath
ayase
State Alchemist
Whether they themselves are racist or not they are condoning that behaviour by being involved with someone who is. I don't know how some people's minds work but I for one would never become involved with someone who's beliefs I find abhorrent, and if I was and found out about it later she would be out the door on her arse. Being in a relationship with someone implies mutal respect, and I could never respect someone who held those kind of beliefs.Ryo Chan said:
The BNP will never gain power precisely because there would be line after line of people ready to oppose them. And I don't imagine for a moment that the security services or army would ever stand for such a party gaining power after we spent six years and millions of lives fighting Nazism. We're more likely to have a military coup than a BNP government. (Interestingly, that's the plot of a story I wrote
)I don't think they have no right to exist, but as always I don't think they have the right to impose their values on others (same as the religious extremists again). Essentially all the BNP is about is imposing their values on the country and affecting people's lives - kicking them out of the country and denying them rights because they are "foriegners".
ayase
State Alchemist
I do find that surprising if true as I've known a couple of soldiers / ex soldiers and also have the odd one in my family. I've know them as a general rule to be very no-nonsense, (and authorotarian of course) but certainly not willing to put up with any kind of racist or fascist language, moreso than the average person I would say. There are a lot of ethnic minorites serving too, I wonder how they feel if they notice their comrades sporting Nazi tattoos? I really would have thought there would be some kind of regulations against it. Makes me think it can't be all that prevalent an attitude amongst our armed forces.Yuvie said:
I was pretty shocked the first time I saw it but I've got used to it now. As for regulations, I'm not so sure. I've seen plenty of swastikas tattooed on these guys (not the majority or anything) and I guess they could argue that this symbol has had many meanings over time and that it's not so much a nazi symbol as a buddhist symbol. As for ethnic minorities in the army, I've seen and heard several different views about them from british soldiers.
It's quite depressing the way people are sometimes. I've always lived by the motto 'Live and let live' so I find it hard to understand why people have such hateful views just because they deem someone a foreigner.
It's quite depressing the way people are sometimes. I've always lived by the motto 'Live and let live' so I find it hard to understand why people have such hateful views just because they deem someone a foreigner.
Yuvie said:
amen
imo we dont even need much of an army, were a small island and were not an empire or a superpower any more, i say we downsize the army to a small defensive one, i think the irish have that, and make sure what troops we do have are superbly equipped and trained, no more of this imperialistic bs.
ayase said:
My girlfriend doesn't agree with everything I belive in, and nor do I belive in everything she does. I'm considered right-wing by most, doesn't mean we don't respect each others beliefs. I'm 100% against foreign aid, and her parents are in charge on a Timbuktu charity appeal. I'm dead against it, thing is though, I love her, so I don't care. She doesn't mention things she knows will cause an argument, nor do I. It works easily this way. Just cause you don't agree, doesnt mean a relationship can't work.
(Though I confess, we agree on about 90% of things :lol:
Only trvial things like music do we disagree :lol
ayase
State Alchemist
I accept that people in relationships are going to have differences of opinion - Hell, any two people you pick at random will have differences of opinion. If I can understand someone's reasoning behind their arguments, if their arguments are built on some kind of foundation of proof then I can accept their POV as valid, but harbouring hatred towards others simply because of their race or nationality... there is no reason for that. There is nothing to support their beliefs. I can understand your objections to foriegn aid for example, I'm familiar with the arguments against it - But if someone was to tell me they "Hate *insert racial/ethnic slur*" then they would prove to me that they aren't capable of rational thought, and thus aren't worth my time.Spyro said:
Since this is now becoming the new Politics thread...SundayMorningCall said:
I think the best thing to do about war is for the United Nations to develop the largest army in the world and nuclear weapons. They could recruit from all countries and pay the soldiers more to tempt them in. Then once they are the ultimate power in the world, every country would have to go through them before any kind of military action. Abolish the security council and have all member states vote on sanctions and military action against certain countries with majority rule. Any countries that disagreed would have no choice but to comply. At the moment the main problem is that the US (thinks it) is the strongest army in the world. We'd soon see about that if they ever went up against China or North Korea, but the fact that they (along with us, their little tag along) can act without any accountability to the rest of the world is ridicuolus. If China had said "Invade Iraq and we declare war on you" then they wouldn't have done it. And that's the role I think would be best played by a supranational organisation such as the UN. Then eventually countries become irrelevant as the corrupt and violent regimes are removed, and the UN goes on to become the World Government.
There, the World's problems solved.
ayase said:I accept that people in relationships are going to have differences of opinion - Hell, any two people you pick at random will have differences of opinion. If I can understand someone's reasoning behind their arguments, if their arguments are built on some kind of foundation of proof then I can accept their POV as valid, but harbouring hatred towards others simply because of their race or nationality... there is no reason for that. There is nothing to support their beliefs. I can understand your objections to foriegn aid for example, I'm familiar with the arguments against it - But if someone was to tell me they "Hate *insert racial/ethnic slur*" then they would prove to me that they aren't capable of rational thought, and thus aren't worth my time.Spyro said:
Since this is now becoming the new Politics thread...SundayMorningCall said:
I think the best thing to do about war is for the United Nations to develop the largest army in the world and nuclear weapons. They could recruit from all countries and pay the soldiers more to tempt them in. Then once they are the ultimate power in the world, every country would have to go through them before any kind of military action. Abolish the security council and have all member states vote on sanctions and military action against certain countries with majority rule. Any countries that disagreed would have no choice but to comply. At the moment the main problem is that the US (thinks it) is the strongest army in the world. We'd soon see about that if they ever went up against China or North Korea, but the fact that they (along with us, their little tag along) can act without any accountability to the rest of the world is ridicuolus. If China had said "Invade Iraq and we declare war on you" then they wouldn't have done it. And that's the role I think would be best played by a supranational organisation such as the UN. Then eventually countries become irrelevant as the corrupt and violent regimes are removed, and the UN goes on to become the World Government.
There, the World's problems solved.
that sounds plausable, i definetly agree that the UN security council is a load of bollocks, i mean as is, any nation on it can veto any UN actions they like, makes a mockery of the thing.
Otaku-san
Chuunibyou
ayase said:
Yeah i think Luxomburg came up with that idea, it's called NATO
SundayMorning said:
your forgeting are somewhat inportant "commonwelth"
anyhow people still thinking are politics is at a bad point,not supporting facists, but i tell ya when a malitary coup is coming. then i give ya the order to **** yourselves