Identify your local neighbourhood facist

[NJS 3989]

Eh? Nothing to do with what he says I've seen it with my own eyes. Take my mate who's in the OB, he assures me that the police (unofficially of course) HAVE to have a certain amount of feargals, it's widespread throughout society. In the north of England we are truly blanketed from what the rest of the country - spend two weeks of your life living in London, let alone 30 years like Danny B, and you will see.

 

If the police had an offical policy to recruit minorities I'd support it - its a way of building trust and their make-up does not reflect the community they police at present.

 

As Alex and I have argued the notion that people are being overlooked in all walks of life is complete nonsense

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3239]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Kevin Carr's Gloves

[Guest alex]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

A typical (non-)contribution from you there as well tbf. It's fucking easy to take the piss but not so easy to say something constructive.

[Guest Stevie]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

[LeazesMag 0]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

[Fop 1]

Surely it isn't a case of legality, as (I think) Fop is suggesting. In a similar way to members of the Police Force being unable to strike or join a trade union, they also undertake an agreement not to join the BNP when they become a police officer. I would imagine this is clearly defined by an Act of Parliament and hence, covered by UK law. The argument, therefore, surely falls with a philosophical / ethical debate as to whether that should be the case.

 

 

Is that the case though?

 

And if so what basis does it stand up? You could write a contract with someone agreeing not to speak Welsh (or whatever), but that wouldn't mean it would actually stand up to scrutiny.

 

 

There's also plenty of professions where there's nothing legally binding, but they would get shot of BNP members in much the same way people might once have got shot of someone because they are Muslim or mixed race or whatever.

 

 

It's a strange hypocrisy IMO, and one that has to be watched, as Harmen's ridiculous sexist employment bill clearly showed this summer.

I'm by no means a legal expert but it does seem to stand up. All I meant was I think challenging its legality is coming at it from the wrong standpoint, as it were. As in, you might think it's wrong, but I don't think it's 'illegal'.

 

Well maybe not criminally "illegal" (although I dunno with all the recent anti-discrimination legislation), but at least against civil and working practice law.

 

Although I'm slightly amazed they haven't managed to wangle anti-terror into it (I guess they don't need to).

 

It's a very good example of how far the rules can bet bent though, and although most maybe would agree with it in this case, it goes without saying that rules are being bent at least as far in other ways that maybe most wouldn't agree with, but get no publicity.

 

And mainly it weakens and undermines the whole position of British democracy and freedom. Insidious banning is the way of tyranny, even nice tyranny that you don't mind so much (so long as you don't end up disagreeing with it anyway).

Ah, not 'criminally illegal'.

What?

I was wondering how adhering to UK law was illegal I must say.

I really don't see this as having anything to do with insidious removals of human rights (or anti-terror either - wtf?). No one is forced to join the police. It's a rather complicated argument as to whether or not it's right to ban police from joining the BNP but it's one I broadly agree with. The only problem with it (or my main one anyway) is that is doesn't make the person in questions views any different. It just makes them secret.

 

Something can be against the law without it leading to a criminal issue (penal/civil etc.). I assume it's like that with the police (although whether they break other laws or indeed it should be deemed a hate crime or whatever is perhaps the issue).

 

The secret issue is just another downside of the hypocrisy, as it helps fester and spread things rather than bring them out into the open where they can be openly discussed and refuted.

[Fop 1]

If the police had an offical policy to recruit minorities I'd support it - its a way of building trust and their make-up does not reflect the community they police at present.

They do.

 

They don't use positive discrimination as such, but then they'd be putting themselves in a ridiculously tricky situation if they did, even without issues like this one (and it's illegal as far as I'm aware - barring Harmen's latest legislatory abortion), but they do use everything up to that point.

[The Fish 9086]

I enjoyed the last episode of Schama's series on America that concentrated on immigration. How the Chinese built the railroad and that.

I must try and watch that at some point. I like him and it's meant to be excellent. Actually knew about the bit you mention like and it's the reason you have films like 'Chinatown'

 

I heard about it from The Big Lebowski...

 

What the fuck are you talking about? The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

 

Walter, this isn't a guy who built the railroads here. This is a guy...

 

 

Anyway, it started up again this week, you've got 7 days to catch the first episode on Iplayer.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dygkw

 

 

 

I learnt in Enter the Dragon... I think.

[Guest alex]

Surely it isn't a case of legality, as (I think) Fop is suggesting. In a similar way to members of the Police Force being unable to strike or join a trade union, they also undertake an agreement not to join the BNP when they become a police officer. I would imagine this is clearly defined by an Act of Parliament and hence, covered by UK law. The argument, therefore, surely falls with a philosophical / ethical debate as to whether that should be the case.

 

 

Is that the case though?

 

And if so what basis does it stand up? You could write a contract with someone agreeing not to speak Welsh (or whatever), but that wouldn't mean it would actually stand up to scrutiny.

 

 

There's also plenty of professions where there's nothing legally binding, but they would get shot of BNP members in much the same way people might once have got shot of someone because they are Muslim or mixed race or whatever.

 

 

It's a strange hypocrisy IMO, and one that has to be watched, as Harmen's ridiculous sexist employment bill clearly showed this summer.

I'm by no means a legal expert but it does seem to stand up. All I meant was I think challenging its legality is coming at it from the wrong standpoint, as it were. As in, you might think it's wrong, but I don't think it's 'illegal'.

 

Well maybe not criminally "illegal" (although I dunno with all the recent anti-discrimination legislation), but at least against civil and working practice law.

 

Although I'm slightly amazed they haven't managed to wangle anti-terror into it (I guess they don't need to).

 

It's a very good example of how far the rules can bet bent though, and although most maybe would agree with it in this case, it goes without saying that rules are being bent at least as far in other ways that maybe most wouldn't agree with, but get no publicity.

 

And mainly it weakens and undermines the whole position of British democracy and freedom. Insidious banning is the way of tyranny, even nice tyranny that you don't mind so much (so long as you don't end up disagreeing with it anyway).

Ah, not 'criminally illegal'.

What?

I was wondering how adhering to UK law was illegal I must say.

I really don't see this as having anything to do with insidious removals of human rights (or anti-terror either - wtf?). No one is forced to join the police. It's a rather complicated argument as to whether or not it's right to ban police from joining the BNP but it's one I broadly agree with. The only problem with it (or my main one anyway) is that is doesn't make the person in questions views any different. It just makes them secret.

 

Something can be against the law without it leading to a criminal issue (penal/civil etc.). I assume it's like that with the police (although whether they break other laws or indeed it should be deemed a hate crime or whatever is perhaps the issue).

 

The secret issue is just another downside of the hypocrisy, as it helps fester and spread things rather than bring them out into the open where they can be openly discussed and refuted.

Is this the case with this issue then? Otherwise I don't see how this is illegal.

[Guest alex]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

Actually he is. Although he isn't Scottish.

[manc-mag 1]

Surely it isn't a case of legality, as (I think) Fop is suggesting. In a similar way to members of the Police Force being unable to strike or join a trade union, they also undertake an agreement not to join the BNP when they become a police officer. I would imagine this is clearly defined by an Act of Parliament and hence, covered by UK law. The argument, therefore, surely falls with a philosophical / ethical debate as to whether that should be the case.

 

 

Is that the case though?

 

And if so what basis does it stand up? You could write a contract with someone agreeing not to speak Welsh (or whatever), but that wouldn't mean it would actually stand up to scrutiny.

 

 

There's also plenty of professions where there's nothing legally binding, but they would get shot of BNP members in much the same way people might once have got shot of someone because they are Muslim or mixed race or whatever.

 

 

It's a strange hypocrisy IMO, and one that has to be watched, as Harmen's ridiculous sexist employment bill clearly showed this summer.

I'm by no means a legal expert but it does seem to stand up. All I meant was I think challenging its legality is coming at it from the wrong standpoint, as it were. As in, you might think it's wrong, but I don't think it's 'illegal'.

 

Well maybe not criminally "illegal" (although I dunno with all the recent anti-discrimination legislation), but at least against civil and working practice law.

 

Although I'm slightly amazed they haven't managed to wangle anti-terror into it (I guess they don't need to).

 

It's a very good example of how far the rules can bet bent though, and although most maybe would agree with it in this case, it goes without saying that rules are being bent at least as far in other ways that maybe most wouldn't agree with, but get no publicity.

 

And mainly it weakens and undermines the whole position of British democracy and freedom. Insidious banning is the way of tyranny, even nice tyranny that you don't mind so much (so long as you don't end up disagreeing with it anyway).

Ah, not 'criminally illegal'.

What?

I was wondering how adhering to UK law was illegal I must say.

I really don't see this as having anything to do with insidious removals of human rights (or anti-terror either - wtf?). No one is forced to join the police. It's a rather complicated argument as to whether or not it's right to ban police from joining the BNP but it's one I broadly agree with. The only problem with it (or my main one anyway) is that is doesn't make the person in questions views any different. It just makes them secret.

 

Something can be against the law without it leading to a criminal issue (penal/civil etc.). I assume it's like that with the police (although whether they break other laws or indeed it should be deemed a hate crime or whatever is perhaps the issue).

 

The secret issue is just another downside of the hypocrisy, as it helps fester and spread things rather than bring them out into the open where they can be openly discussed and refuted.

Is this the case with this issue then? Otherwise I don't see how this is illegal.

 

Can't see how this provision could be found to be unlawful. It's the sort of case that you'd get someone taking to Strasbourg, but I think any element of the dispute which crystalised on the conflict of human rights would be resolved in favour of the state as opposed to a BNP copper tbh.

[ewerk 26669]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

 

Oh aye, he was on here a while back telling us all about how Scotland would be better off with independence. Well that was before their banks went tits up and had to be bailed out by the British government.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3239]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

 

Oh aye, he was on here a while back telling us all about how Scotland would be better off with independence. Well that was before their banks went tits up and had to be bailed out by the British government.

 

Which they could have been done by any government scottish or british.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3239]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

My how witty and erudite you are.

[ewerk 26669]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

 

Oh aye, he was on here a while back telling us all about how Scotland would be better off with independence. Well that was before their banks went tits up and had to be bailed out by the British government.

 

Which they could have been done by any government scottish or british.

 

You would've been as fucked as Iceland.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3239]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

 

Oh aye, he was on here a while back telling us all about how Scotland would be better off with independence. Well that was before their banks went tits up and had to be bailed out by the British government.

 

Which they could have been done by any government scottish or british.

 

You would've been as fucked as Iceland.

 

Not according to most economists.

[LeazesMag 0]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

Actually he is. Although he isn't Scottish.

 

so what do people think of the SNP ?

[manc-mag 1]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

Actually he is. Although he isn't Scottish.

 

so what do people think of the SNP ?

 

Comical.

[LeazesMag 0]

Find the BNP members who are close to where you live

 

http://www.localgibson.com/bnp/index.php

Mr W. D. G. Curry

Mr Darren Curry

 

Both a couple of miles from me. The irony

 

nearest to me is nearly a mile away, and I don't know anybody on the list.

 

I've had a look but like Craig has said, I don't like this invasion of privacy, its wrong.

[Renton 17926]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

Actually he is. Although he isn't Scottish.

 

so what do people think of the SNP ?

 

Sounds a bit like BNP but with an 'S' at the start?

 

Is this going to have any relevance to this thread?

[LeazesMag 0]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

Actually he is. Although he isn't Scottish.

 

so what do people think of the SNP ?

 

Sounds a bit like BNP but with an 'S' at the start?

 

Is this going to have any relevance to this thread?

 

Depends on the replies ?

[Fop 1]

Surely it isn't a case of legality, as (I think) Fop is suggesting. In a similar way to members of the Police Force being unable to strike or join a trade union, they also undertake an agreement not to join the BNP when they become a police officer. I would imagine this is clearly defined by an Act of Parliament and hence, covered by UK law. The argument, therefore, surely falls with a philosophical / ethical debate as to whether that should be the case.

 

 

Is that the case though?

 

And if so what basis does it stand up? You could write a contract with someone agreeing not to speak Welsh (or whatever), but that wouldn't mean it would actually stand up to scrutiny.

 

 

There's also plenty of professions where there's nothing legally binding, but they would get shot of BNP members in much the same way people might once have got shot of someone because they are Muslim or mixed race or whatever.

 

 

It's a strange hypocrisy IMO, and one that has to be watched, as Harmen's ridiculous sexist employment bill clearly showed this summer.

I'm by no means a legal expert but it does seem to stand up. All I meant was I think challenging its legality is coming at it from the wrong standpoint, as it were. As in, you might think it's wrong, but I don't think it's 'illegal'.

 

Well maybe not criminally "illegal" (although I dunno with all the recent anti-discrimination legislation), but at least against civil and working practice law.

 

Although I'm slightly amazed they haven't managed to wangle anti-terror into it (I guess they don't need to).

 

It's a very good example of how far the rules can bet bent though, and although most maybe would agree with it in this case, it goes without saying that rules are being bent at least as far in other ways that maybe most wouldn't agree with, but get no publicity.

 

And mainly it weakens and undermines the whole position of British democracy and freedom. Insidious banning is the way of tyranny, even nice tyranny that you don't mind so much (so long as you don't end up disagreeing with it anyway).

Ah, not 'criminally illegal'.

What?

I was wondering how adhering to UK law was illegal I must say.

I really don't see this as having anything to do with insidious removals of human rights (or anti-terror either - wtf?). No one is forced to join the police. It's a rather complicated argument as to whether or not it's right to ban police from joining the BNP but it's one I broadly agree with. The only problem with it (or my main one anyway) is that is doesn't make the person in questions views any different. It just makes them secret.

 

Something can be against the law without it leading to a criminal issue (penal/civil etc.). I assume it's like that with the police (although whether they break other laws or indeed it should be deemed a hate crime or whatever is perhaps the issue).

 

The secret issue is just another downside of the hypocrisy, as it helps fester and spread things rather than bring them out into the open where they can be openly discussed and refuted.

Is this the case with this issue then? Otherwise I don't see how this is illegal.

 

Can't see how this provision could be found to be unlawful. It's the sort of case that you'd get someone taking to Strasbourg, but I think any element of the dispute which crystalised on the conflict of human rights would be resolved in favour of the state as opposed to a BNP copper tbh.

 

So it's legal to discriminate against someone because of their beliefs? Either way it's murky and hypocritical and rather like the BNP prejudices it's supposedly against.

[Fop 1]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

 

Oh aye, he was on here a while back telling us all about how Scotland would be better off with independence. Well that was before their banks went tits up and had to be bailed out by the British government.

 

Which they could have been done by any government scottish or british.

 

I think even Salmond wouldn't go that far at the moment. He's been very, very specific in his criticism recently (and very, very quiet on other subjects).

[Renton 17926]

I think there are people like me who ARE NOT RACIST on this thread, who feel inhibited about what they can and can't say about race and immigration on here, because of the rules, PC, and constraints of free speech which have been opposed upon us over the last 12 years. I can't really add anything else to this apart from white people are second class citizens in their own country, we are, and it's because of the systems paranoia about appearing to be fair. Fucks me off, the whole country does. Life was much better 12-15 years ago.

 

A muslim can chant death to all British people, death to Britain and encourage terrorist attacks on our people, claim benefits and next to fuck all is done, THEY can march around London celebrating the attacks on September 11th, next to fuck all done. Yet a white wing group of 200 thugs are prevented from protesting at the attacks on the British people and against the views of a significant minority of muslim people, yet they are jailed???!?!?! Both are wrong but it's an example of why and how we have lost our own country to THESE people probably forever. I mean fucking hell walking round East London around Brick Lane, and all the fucking signs are in Punjabi, Churchill were turn in his grave, so would Enoch Powell (if he's deed). There's fuck all else I want to say.

 

What a load of bollocks. Exactly the same bollocks that I'd imagine you'd hear at a BNP meeting.

 

Victimised white middle-aged males my arse, it's pathetic.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3239]

How weird a thread full of people spouting complete shite and it seems to be Stevie and Danny B spouting most of it. That never happens.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt.

 

is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ?

 

Oh aye, he was on here a while back telling us all about how Scotland would be better off with independence. Well that was before their banks went tits up and had to be bailed out by the British government.

 

Which they could have been done by any government scottish or british.

 

I think even Salmond wouldn't go that far at the moment. He's been very, very specific in his criticism recently (and very, very quiet on other subjects).

 

Aye he has been too quiet. Too much reliance on activate our all conquering database and not on actual campaigning.