Banning The NF March: A Bit Hypocritical?

[Mr. Tristen]

But isn't "harm" subjective? I think socialism is harmful' date=' and I disagree with the methods used by the "Left" in order to achieve their aims. Does this mean that socialism should be banned? of course not, they have rights and should be allowed to persue their motive, even if I don't agree with it.

How many times does it need to be said that banning a march will just cause more problems than letting it go ahead? They banned various Republican and Loyalist terrorist groups in Northern Ireland..what happened? I don't think anyone can seriously say that banning Gerry Adams's voice from being broadcast in the UK did any good whatsoever.

Anyway, there wouldn't this outroar if the Communist party wanted to march down Union Street, so why the hypocrisy? Living in a communist state wouldn't be my ideal paradise, that's for sure.[/quote']

This is rapidly the conclusion I am coming to too, though I'm still not 100% decided where I lie on this one yet. You really have to wonder wether all the hype about how evil the BNP are is really the truth. Maybe as a PARTY their policies are.. dodgy but as individuals I think its another case. I just spoke to two friends of mine in Reading who are members, and believe me both are decent people. Neither would ever attack someone for being ethnic and so forth, they simple feel that politically allowing so many imigrants into the country is a policy which needs to be stopped, one that to be honest I agree with.

I would say I am in no way racist but I still feel that allowing endless waves of imigrants to pour into the country, a huge percentage of whom are very unqualified and will simply go on to live on council estates and leach from society (don't get me wrong, a good part of our native population is doing the same, but thats an issue for another day.) Many also refuse to really adapt to British life, something I feel is also important to do when you live long term in another society. So yeah, imigration needs to become highly restricted - preferably to those who can prove they can become productive members of society, not because I don't like coloured people but because I don't like wasters. The other thing I will point out is that many of you spend 99% of your time in Aberdeen, the city with by far the lowest ethnic minoritys in the UK. If you've seen the mess places like Reading have become maybe you would feel differently. Reading these days is basically a whole bunch of council estates where the gouverment has very cleverly placed groups who have been enemys for generations just down the street from each other. The place is practically a fuckin war zone.

Anyway back on topic, yeah, you won't catch me voting for any party that advocates the persecution of coloured people, but at the same time I find many other partys out there to be equally... wrong. The SNP for starters. For me the purpose in life is to continually strive to take mankind forward.. to evolve beyond what we are, and I cannot stand any individual/group that try and de-evolve society in anyway. All of these political partys however are allowed a voice (all be it they need money to have a real chance of being heard). The BNP have grown large enough now that they CAN have a voice and doesn't that tell you something? Mostly that wether you like it or not a countable percentage of the society you live in agrees with these people no matter how you feel about it and that theres no way to STOP them having a voice. Maybe the best thing to do is listen to what they have to say, think about it, decide yes or no about voting for them and hope to concensus of voting will follow your opinions.

Oh yeah, and for god sake don't try and get them banned, you'll disturb on hell of a big hornets nest there.,

[Michael MacLennan]

What about one which supported people who feel they've been a victim of positive discrimination.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY NEED YOUR HELP! GIVE GIVE GIVE!

[Guest tv tanned]

Hmmm but its rather tenuous to set up a charity to assist people whose victimisation is unclear.

For example - it is easy to say that there are people who have undoubtedly suffered as a result of child abuse, homelessness and alcoholism.

It is less easy to show that a person has (a) been a 'victim' of positive discrimination and (b) that positive discrimination has actually harmed them in a real way.

[Guest tv tanned]

but at the same time I find many other partys out there to be equally... wrong. The SNP for starters.

care to elaborate on this rather than simply making a statement as though it should be taken as read?

[Michael MacLennan]

Tristen and 'friends' wave the immigrants goodbye on their deathboats, while reassuring them that no, they really aren't racist, and no, there's nothing wrong with startingly stupid assumptions and using a 'Philosophy for Dummies' book to utilise subjectivity as a reason for allowing prejudice to flood our country. "Auf Wiedersen, as the master race say!"

[soundian]

Hmmm but its rather tenuous to set up a charity to assist people whose victimisation is unclear.

For example - it is easy to say that there are people who have undoubtedly suffered as a result of child abuse' date=' homelessness and alcoholism.

It is less easy to show that a person has (a) been a 'victim' of positive discrimination and (b) that positive discrimination has actually harmed them in a real way.[/quote']

It's not easy to prove means it's not as real?

[Guest tv tanned]

hey, I'm no fan of positive discrimination, I find it just as demeaning and disingenuous to those it supposedly helps.

That said however, I think it would be difficult to find people who really have been positively discriminated against over those who just think that they have.

[soundian]

hey' date=' I'm no fan of positive discrimination, I find it just as demeaning and disingenuous to those it supposedly helps.

That said however, I think it would be difficult to find people who really have been positively discriminated against over those who just think that they have.[/quote']

I agree, but the question was 'how would people feel if a charity was set up solely for white people' not 'would it be a complete waste of time'. I was just hypothesising on a potential reason for such a charity.

[Hardcore Mel]

I would say I am in no way racist but I still feel that allowing endless waves of imigrants to pour into the country' date=' a huge percentage of whom are very unqualified and will simply go on to live on council estates and leach from society (don't get me wrong, a good part of our native population is doing the same, but thats an issue for another day.)[/quote']

I can see how you'd be annoyed by people coming into the country and living off benefits but that's what the government make them do while processing applications, something which can take up to a year. I say we let in the people who want to work. I'm sure that's what most of them want anyway. Britain has such an aging population, with fewer people having children and more people leaving the country after university to work abroad where there are more economic benefits and better climates. There are countless numbers of qualified and experienced workers wishing to come into the country and we could use their skills, particularly in vocations where we're losing new recruits, such as electricians and plumbers. But we shouldn't restrict it to those with skills, because we also need manual labourers. Because more of Britain's population are choosing to go to university or college, these vocations need filled and there are plenty of people who would jump at the chance for any form of work, in exchange for political asylum. This is not to say that I'm suggesting that people seeking assylum should be automatically thrown into the shitty jobs that we don't want, regardless of their skills. I think we should allow anyone to take up any job they are able to do, instead of spending money on putting them up in shitty accomodation with a pathetically low sum of money to buy food while we process applications, money which could be better spent in other areas that need it.

Many also refuse to really adapt to British life, something I feel is also important to do when you live long term in another society.

Yeah but how many British people do you get emmigrating to the south of France or Spain and living in little ex-pat colonies with other Brits, doing British things and speaking loudly in broken English whenever they want to buy something or get something done. I don't think you should force people to push away their own culture in order to adapt to a different way of life.

[Rachie]

Well said.

[Hardcore Mel]

thank you.

[Moshulu Rob]

ON the immigration debate, look at whats happened so far with the introduction of all the new states to the EU. Despite the Suns claims that the 'country will be overrun by Poles' nothing of the sort has happened. The policy is that anyone from the new member states can enter the country and seek work with no recourse to public funds should they not find it. Why not apply this to all immigrants?

Yes you can enter the country, find a job, pay taxes and become a member of society, no you can't enter the country and live on benefits.

*Most* immigrants in this country want to work, but the government currently prevents them from doing so until their application is finalised, which takes up to two years at the taxpayers expense.

I also think that if you are unemployed through choice (ie not incapacitated from working, or possibly as a single parent of a small child) then you should be given three chances to take work that is offered, be it cleaning, sweeping up etc etc or have your benefits cut off. I think the current system does far too little for the really needy and far too much for the lazy.

[paranoid]

we could use their skills' date=' particularly in vocations where we're losing new recruits, such as electricians and plumbers[/quote']

That might work for a while, until you come across the situation where every imigrant attempting to enter our country claims to be trained in these areas. Another problem would be when these industries are overwhelmed by the vast number of people working in them. UK citizens will be out of work and there would be the usual mob-mentality related outrage about the "scandal" and "injustice" that has been done to "decent" British people.

[soundian]

I also think that if you are unemployed through choice (ie not incapacitated from working' date=' or possibly as a single parent of a small child) then you should be given three chances to take work that is offered, be it cleaning, sweeping up etc etc or have your benefits cut off. I think the current system does far too little for the really needy and far too much for the lazy.[/quote']

"Unemployed through choice", an interesting turn of phrase. Some people who are unemployed but perfectly capable of working are not unemployed through choice.

[Moshulu Rob]

"Unemployed through choice"' date=' an interesting turn of phrase. Some people who are unemployed but perfectly capable of working are not unemployed through choice.[/quote']

Examples?

[Cloud]

ON the immigration debate' date=' look at whats happened so far with the introduction of all the new states to the EU. Despite the Suns claims that the 'country will be overrun by Poles' nothing of the sort has happened. The policy is that anyone from the new member states can enter the country and seek work with no recourse to public funds should they not find it. Why not apply this to all immigrants?[/quote']

Bloody good question, it seems silly that there's one law for EU citizens and another for non-EU citizens. As far as I know, EU citizens still have to apply for a work permit that can't be refused - so why we can't open our doors like that is beyond me. At the very least, I'd support free immigration for skilled immigrants - regardless of where they were from. I'm also of the opinion that any immigrant that comes here and subsequently gets hurt should be entitled to benefits - they've shown the will to work, so I have no problem with giving them benefits.

*Most* immigrants in this country want to work, but the government currently prevents them from doing so until their application is finalised, which takes up to two years at the taxpayers expense.

I wish I understood just why it takes so long - is this just another example of keeping paper pushers in jobs?

I also think that if you are unemployed through choice (ie not incapacitated from working, or possibly as a single parent of a small child) then you should be given three chances to take work that is offered, be it cleaning, sweeping up etc etc or have your benefits cut off.

I'll never understand the concept of "I can't find a job" - it's always seemed to me that if you really wanted a job doing a certain thing, then you could always offer to do a job for free in exchange for the training/experience. But yeah, I agree with a three strike concept - provided it's fair. I believe that with jobseekers allowance now, you can be forced to change your look/appearance or they can cut your benefits. I don't agree with that in the slightest.

[Guest tv tanned]

it's always seemed to me that if you really wanted a job doing a certain thing' date=' then you could always offer to do a job for free in exchange for the training/experience.[/quote']

Really?

Try it when you have a mortgage/rent to pay, children to feed and council tax and bills to pay.

[soundian]

Examples?

People who have recently become unemployed and have skills which shouldn't just be thrown away by them doing menial tasks.

[Guest tv tanned]

People who have recently become unemployed and have skills which shouldn't just be thrown away by them doing menial tasks.

most employers won't employ an unemployed medical student to clean toilets because they are considered to be 'over-qualified' and likely to bugger off.

[Cloud]

Really?

Try it when you have a mortgage/rent to pay' date=' children to feed and council tax and bills to pay.[/quote']

I'm sure if you're already on benefits and are in that awkward period where you're applying for everything in sight and getitng nowhere, it wouldn't hurt to do unpaid work.

[Guest tv tanned]

so your solution does nothing to ease the benefits problem at all then?

[Cloud]

Sitting at home doing fuck all is a problem for people on benefits, yeah..but if they're out there, applying for jobs and getting work experience, what's the big deal about paying them some benefits?

I'm sure (for instance) if I fancied working in a bar, I'd go out there and ask a few managers of bars if they would be willing to let me do unpaid work experience there seeing as I don't have any experience - it seems like the common sense attitude to take.

[paranoid]

People who have recently become unemployed and have skills which shouldn't just be thrown away by them doing menial tasks.

I'm of the opinion that there is not that many "essential" jobs. What I'm getting at is, society would survive without Web Designers (like me!) or Accountants. Fair enough if it was fire fighters, doctors etc but anything else isn't going to be too great a loss.

[soundian]

I'm of the opinion that there is not that many "essential" jobs. What I'm getting at is' date=' society would survive without Web Designers (like me!) or Accountants. Fair enough if it was fire fighters, doctors etc but anything else isn't going to be too great a loss.[/quote']

I'm sure it would cost the economy even more than the benefit system if all the people that were great with a brush did the accountancy work while the accountants swept up.

[Mr. Tristen]

Finding work can be tricky for mid-level work.

I am having that problem at the moment after university in that lower-paid jobs think I'm too qualified and higher-paid jobs think I'm qualified but inexperienced. A lot of graduates are having the same probelm as myself, and many that do get a job after leaving uni end up with a comparitevly low and/or unrelated job.