Race to be London's mayor is too close to call

That's the headline on the Guardian website right now.

Who'd have thought that the Race to be London's mayor would be too close to call?

Not me, that's who.

biggyonacid wrote: That's the headline on the Guardian website right now.

Who'd have thought that the Race to be London's mayor would be too close to call?

Not me, that's who.

LOL.. fancy the Guardian saying that. Bet the editor wanted to go to bed, seeing as they havent started counting yet.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

biggyonacid wrote: That's the headline on the Guardian website right now.

Who'd have thought that the Race to be London's mayor would be too close to call?

Not me, that's who.

LOL.. fancy the Guardian saying that. Bet the editor wanted to go to bed, seeing as they havent started counting yet.

How about The Times then? Hardly a socialist paper... :p

Nick King wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

biggyonacid wrote: That's the headline on the Guardian website right now.

Who'd have thought that the Race to be London's mayor would be too close to call?

Not me, that's who.

LOL.. fancy the Guardian saying that. Bet the editor wanted to go to bed, seeing as they havent started counting yet.

How about The Times then? Hardly a socialist paper... :p

Well the local govt results are coming in now.. so news based on that is fine. London mayoral election not announced til tomorrow night, so speculation either way is a bit premature. The get out words and phrases are 'knife-edge' and 'close to call'. Basically, we dont f'in know, it's a free election, but we have to report it.

London? Fuck Off.

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: London? Fuck Off.

Power drinking with G: not a sport for beginners.

I trust the ‘Eadphone Disco went down well?

Pot calling the kettle black, perchance?

Nice one G. Man of a thosand legendary hissy fits!

Chris Nash wrote: Boris win = London's fcuked.

That indirectly affects the rest of the country though...

However, glad I'm leaving London soon in that case!

Please tell me yer moving to Stoke, you skinny southern cunt?

And if Boris gets in, it confirms every prejudice I've ever had about London wankers. You did it to yerselves, shitheads!!

Its BORIS!

Well, probably. He's winning first preference votes and might not need second preferences.

T'other day, I was in class, and I casually mentioned the various bits and bobs I'd done on turnout at elections and what not. This morning, I was asked, on the cuff, to give a little talk about the importance and effect of Turnout on elections to a load of sixth formers. And all they kept asking was about yesterdays election...

Oh fook no,not BORIS THE BUFFOON!

wrote: Oh fook no,not BORIS THE BUFFOON!

Yup, looks like Londoners have voted him in - a prized upper class pratt...

Glad I don't live there...

Boris wins

FFS I am going to have to move...London will be the laughing stock of the world with that muppet in charge

:( :( :(

Nick King wrote:

wrote: Oh fook no,not BORIS THE BUFFOON!

Yup, looks like Londoners have voted him in - a prized upper class pratt...

Glad I don't live there...

My borough did the most damage apparently. You guys really don't understand how much we hate Ken. Its difficult to gauge whats going on from Hertfordshire either; Greater London is changing too fast.

I was trying to explain to biggy last night, that the free bus pass to 16 yo's has had a huge effect on the suburbs. Currently we get busloads of kids coming down from places like Lewisham, New Cross and Peckham late at night, basically to mug people. My local crime rate has shot up as a result.

Recently a friend of mine, off duty policemen, was set upon by 15 hoodies, after walking out of my local to catch a bus. Absolutely beat the shit out of him.

Its amazing how such a simple decision can affect things.

The other 'irk' of ours is of course the congestion charge, which is initially a good idea, but doesnt appear on paper than to be much more than a money generating exercise. 35% of penalties issued are to unregistered and untraceable cars, and this has figure has not been reduced throughout the term of the scheme. If the money generated was ploughed into taking these cars and drivers off the streets, we would have much less of a congestion problem.

Hopefully Boris will be far less of a Robin Hood character, although he'll probably turn out to be a muppet.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Nick King wrote:

wrote: Oh fook no,not BORIS THE BUFFOON!

Yup, looks like Londoners have voted him in - a prized upper class pratt...

Glad I don't live there...

My borough did the most damage apparently. You guys really don't understand how much we hate Ken. Its difficult to gauge whats going on from Hertfordshire either; Greater London is changing too fast.

I was trying to explain to biggy last night, that the free bus pass to 16 yo's has had a huge effect on the suburbs. Currently we get busloads of kids coming down from places like Lewisham, New Cross and Peckham late at night, basically to mug people. My local crime rate has shot up as a result.

Recently a friend of mine, off duty policemen, was set upon by 15 hoodies, after walking out of my local to catch a bus. Absolutely beat the shit out of him.

Its amazing how such a simple decision can affect things.

The other 'irk' of ours is of course the congestion charge, which is initially a good idea, but doesnt appear on paper than to be much more than a money generating exercise. 35% of penalties issued are to unregistered and untraceable cars, and this has figure has not been reduced throughout the term of the scheme. If the money generated was ploughed into taking these cars and drivers off the streets, we would have much less of a congestion problem.

Hopefully Boris will be far less of a Robin Hood character, although he'll probably turn out to be a muppet.

Deary me, time will tell - if you thought Ken was bad, you're in for a BIG shock...

Nick King wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Nick King wrote:

wrote: Oh fook no,not BORIS THE BUFFOON!

Yup, looks like Londoners have voted him in - a prized upper class pratt...

Glad I don't live there...

My borough did the most damage apparently. You guys really don't understand how much we hate Ken. Its difficult to gauge whats going on from Hertfordshire either; Greater London is changing too fast.

I was trying to explain to biggy last night, that the free bus pass to 16 yo's has had a huge effect on the suburbs. Currently we get busloads of kids coming down from places like Lewisham, New Cross and Peckham late at night, basically to mug people. My local crime rate has shot up as a result.

Recently a friend of mine, off duty policemen, was set upon by 15 hoodies, after walking out of my local to catch a bus. Absolutely beat the shit out of him.

Its amazing how such a simple decision can affect things.

The other 'irk' of ours is of course the congestion charge, which is initially a good idea, but doesnt appear on paper than to be much more than a money generating exercise. 35% of penalties issued are to unregistered and untraceable cars, and this has figure has not been reduced throughout the term of the scheme. If the money generated was ploughed into taking these cars and drivers off the streets, we would have much less of a congestion problem.

Hopefully Boris will be far less of a Robin Hood character, although he'll probably turn out to be a muppet.

Deary me, time will tell - if you thought Ken was bad, you're in for a BIG shock...

I think we know its a gamble.

LOL. I just saw a news report. His grandfather was Turkish.

Surely the primary objective of the congestion charge is to reduce congestion and it has, no?

And as I was trying to say to you the other night, the idea that free bus passes are responsible for an increase in crime in a particular area seems bizarre.

In any case, judging such a wide-ranging scheme because of the behaviour of a few yobs seems unfair.

I don't know enough about it to argue the detail, but surely not all teenagers in London that ride buses for free are beating your mate up?

That's the problem with being Ken Livingstone, the blame for any problems anywhere in London seems to be placed with him.

I think you'll regret choosing a comedian over a proper politician.

It's only funny until someone gets hurt

biggyonacid wrote: Surely the primary objective of the congestion charge is to reduce congestion and it has, no?

No. Its steadily worsened over the last ten years since I've been driving into town. Not noticed any blips at all. Still took me 105 minutes to go the eight miles into town this morning. Ken had some figures i think saying it had reduced traffic by 17% on its introduction, but then, he pays people lots of taxpayers money to produce these figures.

Burt Reynolds wrote: I think we know its a gamble.

LOL. I just saw a news report. His grandfather was Turkish.

A gamble?

Boris quotes:

The wannabe mayor on race, sex and politics

On homosexuality

"Gay marriage can only ever be a ludicrous parody of the real thing." · Daily Telegraph, 2005

"If gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog." · From his book, Friends, Voters, Countrymen, 2001

"We don't want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage, and that is why I am more than happy to support Section 28." · Daily Telegraph, 2000

"The clerics gave us [journalists] a wigging for being so mean to the Church of England ... Why did we draw attention to tricky subjects like homosexuality, aka the Pulpit Poofs issue?" · The Spectator, 2000

"I'm not bisexual so far ... not that I would condemn myself if I later discovered I were." · Daily Telegraph, 2008

On Africa

"No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird." · In 2002, on Tony Blair's visit to the Democratic of Republic of Congo, Daily Telegraph

"Right, let's go and look at some more piccaninnies." · Reported remark, while visiting Uganda, to Swedish Unicef workers and their black driver, the Observer, 2003

On the Commonwealth

"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies." · Daily Telegraph, 2002

On failing to recognise his Filipina housekeeper

"When our housekeeper appeared on stage in her hot pink strapless number [as a finalist of the Mrs Philippines 2005 contest in London], I failed at first to recognise her, surrounded as she was by 10 other Filipina mums, each shimmering in every shade from fuchsia to Germolene ... Was that Luz, the No 6, the one with the cleavage? Or was she No 5, with the smile? Surely she wasn't No 11, the one with the legs. No: wait - that was her, with her hair up. No 8! 'We want eight,' we screamed, and waved at good old Luz, a woman who has been exposed to the full horror of the Johnson family washing and yet contrived to look little short of $1m. · The Spectator, 2005

On his prospects

"My chances of being PM are about as good as the chances of finding Elvis on Mars, or my being reincarnated as an olive." · The Independent, 2004

George Bush and Iraq

"He liberated Iraq. It is good enough for me." · Daily Telegraph, 2004

"The Americans were perfectly happy to go ahead and whack Saddam merely on the grounds that he was a bad guy, and that Iraq and the world would be better off without him; and so indeed was I." · Daily Telegraph, 2003

On Islam

"The most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." · The Spectator, 2005

On race

"I'm down with the ethnics. You can't out-ethnic me, Nihal ... My children are a quarter Indian, so put that in your pipe and smoke it." · To Nihal Arthanayake, BBC Asian Network, 2008

On cannabis

"It was jolly nice. But apparently it is very different these days. Much stronger. I've become very illiberal about it. I don't want my kids to take drugs." · GQ, 2007

On sex

"I've slept with far fewer than 1,000." · On whether he has slept with fewer than 30 women, like Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, Daily Telegraph, 2008

"An inverted pyramid of piffle." · The Mail on Sunday, 2004, on allegations that he had an affair with Petronella Wyatt, later confirmed.

On obesity

"Nothing but their own fat fault."

On transport

"I don't believe [using a mobile phone at the wheel] is necessarily any more dangerous than the many other risky things that people do with their free hands while driving - nose-picking, reading the paper, studying the A-Z, beating the children, and so on." · Daily Telegraph, 2002

"The whole county of Hampshire was lying back and opening her well-bred legs to be ravished by the Italian stallion." · GQ, while in a Ferrari

On Liverpool

"A society that has become hooked on grief and likes to wallow in a sense of vicarious victimhood." · A Spectator editorial, 2004 (Johnson didn't write the editorial, but he approved it)

On his arts role

"Look, the point is ... er, what is the point? It is a tough job but somebody has got to do it." · On being appointed Tory Arts spokesman, 2004

On stag hunting

"I remember the guts streaming, and the stag turds spilling out on to the grass from within the ventral cavity ... This hunting is best for the deer." · From his book Lend Me Your Ears

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Its steadily worsened over the last ten years since I've been driving into town.

My ecxperiences of Central London, although limited, have been quite different.

Anyway, it's got nothing to do with me. It just irritates me.

biggyonacid wrote:

And as I was trying to say to you the other night, the idea that free bus passes are responsible for an increase in crime in a particular area seems bizarre.

In any case, judging such a wide-ranging scheme because of the behaviour of a few yobs seems unfair.

I don't know enough about it to argue the detail, but surely not all teenagers in London that ride buses for free are beating your mate up?

Before 5, they are normally getting to and from school. At midnight though they are most definitely not. The beauty of free travel is you can go somewhere new, and not be recognised on the street.

I've just suggested to a lass, that we go for a meal in the town centre of Bromley in Kent, over the weekend. She asked me when the last time I'd been there. Apparently its a war zone of youthful exuberance and blue flashing lights on a Saturday night these days.

Ooh a lady?

A real one, or just your mate Dave in a skirt again?

Burt Reynolds wrote:

I've just suggested to a lass, that we go for a meal in the town centre of Bromley in Kent, over the weekend. She asked me when the last time I'd been there. Apparently its a war zone of youthful exuberance and blue flashing lights on a Saturday night these days.

I have to admit I am not that familiar with war zones, but when I was out in Bromley a few Saturday nights ago it didn't feel like I imagine Baghdad to be on the weekend.

biggyonacid wrote: Ooh a lady?

A real one, or just your mate Dave in a skirt again?

PAH!

And he's had a shave as well.

Shhhh...

OI!.. fix the thread Delilah.

And whaddya mean you were in my town?

my my my.

Burt Reynolds wrote: OI!.. fix the thread Delilah.

And whaddya mean you were in my town?

my my my.

it's all gone a bit wierd, don't know what I did there. Too many mojitos, perhaps

Don't worry, no plans for a return visit to the badlands of Bromley any time soon. Wrong side of London for me, anyway, don't normally stray east of Clapham

Chris Nash wrote: Boris Johnson is London Mayor figurehead.

Tory Central Office wouldn't allow him to run London. MI5 wouldn't allow him to run London.

We now have a Tory puppet as Mayor.

So a puppet, not a muppet? Or can he be both?

Of course he won't be 'running' London, but he will have licence to say stupid things (see above), embarrass the hell out of us and make us have to apologise for him whenever we travel out of the Greater London area. And probably within it too. Someone somewhere will have started producing the obligatory 'Don't blame me, I voted for Ken' badges already...

I'd move back to Wales if I could but they've all voted Tory down there as well!!!

Oh please,

so Boris might say (more than) a few stupid things. Anymore than Ken? And does it really matter?

Ultimately, Boris has been elected by the majority of people of those who bothered to go out and vote. Therefore, he deserves a chance.

If I was still a Londoner I'd vote Ken at the end of the day- Boris can be funny, but God knows what kind of shit he could cause if he gets real power.

Uncle Liam wrote: Oh please,

so Boris might say (more than) a few stupid things. Anymore than Ken? And does it really matter?

Ultimately, Boris has been elected by the majority of people of those who bothered to go out and vote. Therefore, he deserves a chance.

In the end that is what its all about. I think personally, voting Ken out is a revolt of the taxpayers in London. Especially if you look at the boroughs that voted against him. The ones that voted for him, as per usual, were the ones of high employment/council housing and he got the Muslim vote en masse, as expected.

DigitalWaters wrote: If I was still a Londoner I'd vote Ken at the end of the day- Boris can be funny, but God knows what kind of shit he could cause if he gets real power.

You know, I'm surprised that the whole of the National Press hasnt just stopped so they could get this in.

Where's your anti BNP rant anyway? They scored 2.84% of the vote in the mayoral election. And the huuuuuge (and non existent) gains they made across the country.

Uncle Liam wrote:

DigitalWaters wrote: If I was still a Londoner I'd vote Ken at the end of the day- Boris can be funny, but God knows what kind of shit he could cause if he gets real power.

You know, I'm surprised that the whole of the National Press hasnt just stopped so they could get this in.

Where's your anti BNP rant anyway? They scored 2.84% of the vote in the mayoral election. And the huuuuuge (and non existent) gains they made across the country.

I could pull an anti-BNP rant off the shelf for you if you really want one?

Who do you vote for in the locals?

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: Oh please,

so Boris might say (more than) a few stupid things. Anymore than Ken? And does it really matter?

Ultimately, Boris has been elected by the majority of people of those who bothered to go out and vote. Therefore, he deserves a chance.

In the end that is what its all about. I think personally, voting Ken out is a revolt of the taxpayers in London. Especially if you look at the boroughs that voted against him. The ones that voted for him, as per usual, were the ones of high employment/council housing and he got the Muslim vote en masse, as expected.

Bloris has been elected because

1- He's not Labour

And thats it. Its a protest partly at the congestion charge and partly at National government.

I should also point out that Boria recieved more votes (quite a few more actually) than Ken did in either of his election victories. The votes have bene counted, and a winner has been decalred. Suck to live in a free speaking and democratic society, I guess.

Uncle Liam wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: Oh please,

so Boris might say (more than) a few stupid things. Anymore than Ken? And does it really matter?

Ultimately, Boris has been elected by the majority of people of those who bothered to go out and vote. Therefore, he deserves a chance.

In the end that is what its all about. I think personally, voting Ken out is a revolt of the taxpayers in London. Especially if you look at the boroughs that voted against him. The ones that voted for him, as per usual, were the ones of high employment/council housing and he got the Muslim vote en masse, as expected.

Bloris has been elected because

1- He's not Labour

And thats it. Its a protest partly at the congestion charge and partly at National government.

I should also point out that Boria recieved more votes (quite a few more actually) than Ken did in either of his election victories. The votes have bene counted, and a winner has been decalred. Suck to live in a free speaking and democratic society, I guess.

Who the hell are Bloris and Boria? Two of Boris' Eton cronies? :)

As Catatonia once sang 'Fools get votes in our democracy'

DigitalWaters wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote:

DigitalWaters wrote: If I was still a Londoner I'd vote Ken at the end of the day- Boris can be funny, but God knows what kind of shit he could cause if he gets real power.

You know, I'm surprised that the whole of the National Press hasnt just stopped so they could get this in.

Where's your anti BNP rant anyway? They scored 2.84% of the vote in the mayoral election. And the huuuuuge (and non existent) gains they made across the country.

I could pull an anti-BNP rant off the shelf for you if you really want one?

Who do you vote for in the locals?

Dont. Complete waste of time. We didnt have them yesterday anyway.

You can rant about the BNP if you want. I suppose a sick and twisted side of me would be mildly interested to see how a drop of 0.16% in vote share to less than 3% and with one London Assembly seat demonstrates the rising tide of racism across England.

There you go Londoners, you thought Boris was bad, now you've got a BNP member in the assembly. bet you're all shit scared now.

Chris Nash wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

In the end that is what its all about. I think personally, voting Ken out is a revolt of the taxpayers in London. Especially if you look at the boroughs that voted against him. The ones that voted for him, as per usual, were the ones of high employment/council housing and he got the Muslim vote en masse, as expected.

Merton, where I live, has average employment, some council housing and an average Muslim population. The bastards voted for Bo Jo...

So the theory doesn't quite work.

Seems spot on to me, although i would have Merton down as a more marginal area, knowing the place. I haven't seen the figures.

The rise of racism debate we had was about the stuff in the '90's not the 00's.

Anyway, it's really sad news if there is a BNP member of the London Assembly. Maybe some Londoner's need reminding about The Blitz and it's roots.

DigitalWaters wrote: The rise of racism debate we had was about the stuff in the '90's not the 00's.

Anyway, it's really sad news if there is a BNP member of the London Assembly. Maybe some Londoner's need reminding about The Blitz and it's roots.

Well, if its really sad news, maybe the approximately 50% of people who didnt vote probably should've done. Low turnout lets in extreme parties.

The great thing about a hybrid system is you get a direct constituency link as well as an element of proportionality. So the people of London have obviously seen something in the BNP...

Oh yeah, they havent, because of the media blanket on them.... Failing to have a proper and wide ranging debate on anything always leads to frustration, and frustration leads to protest voting, and looks whats happened!

Uncle Liam wrote: Oh yeah, they havent, because of the media blanket on them.... Failing to have a proper and wide ranging debate on anything always leads to frustration, and frustration leads to protest voting, and looks whats happened!

Eh?

I watched a party political broadcast by them on BBC1 the other week...

Uncle Liam wrote:

DigitalWaters wrote: The rise of racism debate we had was about the stuff in the '90's not the 00's.

Anyway, it's really sad news if there is a BNP member of the London Assembly. Maybe some Londoner's need reminding about The Blitz and it's roots.

Well, if its really sad news, maybe the approximately 50% of people who didnt vote probably should've done. Low turnout lets in extreme parties.

The great thing about a hybrid system is you get a direct constituency link as well as an element of proportionality. So the people of London have obviously seen something in the BNP...

Oh yeah, they havent, because of the media blanket on them.... Failing to have a proper and wide ranging debate on anything always leads to frustration, and frustration leads to protest voting, and looks whats happened!

So are you happy that the BNP got in?

Nick King wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: Oh yeah, they havent, because of the media blanket on them.... Failing to have a proper and wide ranging debate on anything always leads to frustration, and frustration leads to protest voting, and looks whats happened!

Eh?

I watched a party political broadcast by them on BBC1 the other week...

Thats only because they are legally bound to show them.

They havent been invited to any of the debates, on BBC TV or Radio, or on Sky.

DigitalWaters wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote:

DigitalWaters wrote: The rise of racism debate we had was about the stuff in the '90's not the 00's.

Anyway, it's really sad news if there is a BNP member of the London Assembly. Maybe some Londoner's need reminding about The Blitz and it's roots.

Well, if its really sad news, maybe the approximately 50% of people who didnt vote probably should've done. Low turnout lets in extreme parties.

The great thing about a hybrid system is you get a direct constituency link as well as an element of proportionality. So the people of London have obviously seen something in the BNP...

Oh yeah, they havent, because of the media blanket on them.... Failing to have a proper and wide ranging debate on anything always leads to frustration, and frustration leads to protest voting, and looks whats happened!

So are you happy that the BNP got in?

I'm happy in the sense that it shows that the democratic will of the people is being enforced through the use of a superior electoral system than the one used for the Westminster Elections.

As for the party in question, I'm indifferent. I still dont know The London Assembly does, i know its a "toothless tiger" so I strongly doubt that that its going to make the slightest bit of different to anyone.

Uncle Liam wrote: As for the party in question, I'm indifferent.

You're "indifferent" about the BNP?

Fcuks sake, Liam...

Just like a certain PM was indifferent to the invasion of Poland?

Nick King wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: As for the party in question, I'm indifferent.

You're "indifferent" about the BNP?

Fcuks sake, Liam...

Of course I am. Its not like they're going to achieve anything while in a London Assembly seat. The other parties wont talk to them, and they dont have enough of them to cause any onstruction to any leglislation that will be passed through the assembly.

And anyway, its the democratic will of the people of London. Who am I, or indeed anyone, to criticise?

It's only one now, but one can become 2,3,4,5, etc...

How many before they do have a substantial powerbase?

I don't believe Liam, having such strong political views, is indifferent.

Be indifferent and uncritical now and very sorry in years to come.

Uncle Liam wrote:

Nick King wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: As for the party in question, I'm indifferent.

You're "indifferent" about the BNP?

Fcuks sake, Liam...

Of course I am. Its not like they're going to achieve anything while in a London Assembly seat. The other parties wont talk to them, and they dont have enough of them to cause any onstruction to any leglislation that will be passed through the assembly.

And anyway, its the democratic will of the people of London. Who am I, or indeed anyone, to criticise?

They now have 37 councillors around the country...

I'm trying to find the total amount of people who voted for them, it was a scary figure...

Oh yeah, they are now joint 2nd (with 9 councillors) in Stoke...

Nick King wrote: Oh yeah, they are now joint 2nd (with 9 councillors) in Stoke...

FFS!

Britain is so proud of it's WW2 sacrifice and it's Battle of Britain (rightly so) and then it's all flushed down the swanny a few decades later!

The BNP has to be point blank opposed.

You are either for or against them, there is no middle ground; people either want a racist party or they don't.

when i lived in poplar borough in the mid-'90s, we had a few BNP members as councillors.

so this isn't that surprising, really.

Uncle Liam wrote:

Of course I am. Its not like they're going to achieve anything while in a London Assembly seat. The other parties wont talk to them, and they dont have enough of them to cause any onstruction to any leglislation that will be passed through the assembly.

And anyway, its the democratic will of the people of London. Who am I, or indeed anyone, to criticise?

That's shit, Liam.

Even if this Assembly is toothless, allowing parties that promote hate to be a part of it legitimises and promotes acceptance of their name and their rhetoric. That's why their doing it: to gain a platform on which to campaign for higher office.

As for your second point, it's exactly the sort of sixth form wankery that you really should consider growing out of at some point. If the democratic will of people is to elect representatives who intend to suppress the democratic will of others, then it should be criticised. These people should be denied a voice because it is their intention to deny the rights of others. How clear does it need to be.

Turning a blind eye or asserting the rights of parties of hate is just the same as saying that a burglar has a right to enter your house or that a teenager has a right to ride a bus to Bert's house and beat up his friend.

We all have rights, but if we abuse them they should be taken from us.

Everyone has the right to campaign and stand for public office but if that right is abused as a tool for promoting hate then it should be withdrawn.

biggyonacid wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote:

Of course I am. Its not like they're going to achieve anything while in a London Assembly seat. The other parties wont talk to them, and they dont have enough of them to cause any onstruction to any leglislation that will be passed through the assembly.

And anyway, its the democratic will of the people of London. Who am I, or indeed anyone, to criticise?

That's shit, Liam.

Even if this Assembly is toothless, allowing parties that promote hate to be a part of it legitimises and promotes acceptance of their name and their rhetoric. That's why their doing it: to gain a platform on which to campaign for higher office.

As for your second point, it's exactly the sort of sixth form wankery that you really should consider growing out of at some point. If the democratic will of people is to elect representatives who intend to suppress the democratic will of others, then it should be criticised. These people should be denied a voice because it is their intention to deny the rights of others. How clear does it need to be.

Turning a blind eye or asserting the rights of parties of hate is just the same as saying that a burglar has a right to enter your house or that a teenager has a right to ride a bus to Bert's house and beat up his friend.

We all have rights, but if we abuse them they should be taken from us.

Everyone has the right to campaign and stand for public office but if that right is abused as a tool for promoting hate then it should be withdrawn.

If parties are to be banned for promoting hate, then the two largest parties in Northern Ireland (adn several of the smaller ones) would have been banned decades ago. There is a very good chance that somewhere, there is a small organisation which wants to abolish democracy and establish a theocracy. Do we ban them? What about The Communist Party? if they came to power they'd probably seize your business on a purge of hatred on the business owning? Do we ban them? What about UKIP, Veritas, English Democrats etc, and they've very bizarre views on Europe? Do we ban them? They all promote hate of one form or another...

It is not illegal to be racist. It is illegal to physically assault someone. It is also illegal to commit burglary. So there is the big difference in that comparison. What about those protests two years ago in protest at those danish cartoons? With all the signs saying Jihad was coming and demanding an end to free speech? Is that the same as Burglary and assault and be looked at in the same light?

Nick King wrote: Oh yeah, they are now joint 2nd (with 9 councillors) in Stoke...

Natch.

The BNP exist for a reason. They ain't nice and they ain't pretty, but people vote for them for a reason. And that reason is they're poor and pissed off and need someone to blame - the BNP point the finger at ethnic minorities, and they're an easy target 'cos it's a lot harder to point your finger at successive Governments or decades of socio-economic neglect etc.

I agree with Liam in that they have a right to exist. They're scum, for sure, but until you get rid of the anger & frustration which causes people to vote for them you'll never be rid of the BNP.

Glorious multicultural London has voted Boris in, FFS!!!!!

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote:

Nick King wrote: Oh yeah, they are now joint 2nd (with 9 councillors) in Stoke...

Natch.

The BNP exist for a reason. They ain't nice and they ain't pretty, but people vote for them for a reason. And that reason is they're poor and pissed off and need someone to blame - the BNP point the finger at ethnic minorities, and they're an easy target 'cos it's a lot harder to point your finger at successive Governments or decades of socio-economic neglect etc.

I agree with Liam in that they have a right to exist. They're scum, for sure, but until you get rid of the anger & frustration which causes people to vote for them you'll never be rid of the BNP.

Glorious multicultural London has voted Boris in, FFS!!!!!

Couldn't they just vote for somebody non-offensive, such as Green Party, or Monster Raving Looney, rather than an ultra right-wing party who stated policy is:

"the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question. "

Oh, and 70,000 people voted for them in London alone...

Actually, re-reading the above, where the fcuk would they get all the money to compensate/relocate from???

Idiots!

Nick King wrote: Actually, re-reading the above, where the fcuk would they get all the money to compensate/relocate from???

Idiots!

I think you'll find that the trains never make it to the tunnel and mysteriously the cheques are never cashed.

It's all been thought out before you know.

Doctor? wrote:

Nick King wrote: Actually, re-reading the above, where the fcuk would they get all the money to compensate/relocate from???

Idiots!

I think you'll find that the trains never make it to the tunnel and mysteriously the cheques are never cashed.

It's all been thought out before you know.

You might well be right...

Uncle Liam wrote:

biggyonacid wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote:

Of course I am. Its not like they're going to achieve anything while in a London Assembly seat. The other parties wont talk to them, and they dont have enough of them to cause any onstruction to any leglislation that will be passed through the assembly.

And anyway, its the democratic will of the people of London. Who am I, or indeed anyone, to criticise?

That's shit, Liam.

Even if this Assembly is toothless, allowing parties that promote hate to be a part of it legitimises and promotes acceptance of their name and their rhetoric. That's why their doing it: to gain a platform on which to campaign for higher office.

As for your second point, it's exactly the sort of sixth form wankery that you really should consider growing out of at some point. If the democratic will of people is to elect representatives who intend to suppress the democratic will of others, then it should be criticised. These people should be denied a voice because it is their intention to deny the rights of others. How clear does it need to be.

Turning a blind eye or asserting the rights of parties of hate is just the same as saying that a burglar has a right to enter your house or that a teenager has a right to ride a bus to Bert's house and beat up his friend.

We all have rights, but if we abuse them they should be taken from us.

Everyone has the right to campaign and stand for public office but if that right is abused as a tool for promoting hate then it should be withdrawn.

If parties are to be banned for promoting hate, then the two largest parties in Northern Ireland (adn several of the smaller ones) would have been banned decades ago. There is a very good chance that somewhere, there is a small organisation which wants to abolish democracy and establish a theocracy. Do we ban them? What about The Communist Party? if they came to power they'd probably seize your business on a purge of hatred on the business owning? Do we ban them? What about UKIP, Veritas, English Democrats etc, and they've very bizarre views on Europe? Do we ban them? They all promote hate of one form or another...

It is not illegal to be racist. It is illegal to physically assault someone. It is also illegal to commit burglary. So there is the big difference in that comparison. What about those protests two years ago in protest at those danish cartoons? With all the signs saying Jihad was coming and demanding an end to free speech? Is that the same as Burglary and assault and be looked at in the same light?

Fuck off, Liam.

I hate you.

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote:

The BNP exist for a reason. They ain't nice and they ain't pretty, but people vote for them for a reason. And that reason is they're poor and pissed off and need someone to blame - the BNP point the finger at ethnic minorities, and they're an easy target 'cos it's a lot harder to point your finger at successive Governments or decades of socio-economic neglect etc.

I agree with Liam in that they have a right to exist. They're scum, for sure, but until you get rid of the anger & frustration which causes people to vote for them you'll never be rid of the BNP.

oh good. i was hoping someone would say this a lot better than i could.

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote:

They're scum, for sure, but until you get rid of the anger & frustration which causes people to vote for them you'll never be rid of the BNP.

So if we kick all the foreigners out, the BNP will fuck off too?

Right, I'll organise a march

Biggyonacid wrote:

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote:

They're scum, for sure, but until you get rid of the anger & frustration which causes people to vote for them you'll never be rid of the BNP.

So if we kick all the foreigners out, the BNP will fuck off too?

Right, I'll organise a march

Gimme a break, Col. You know exactly what I'm saying. Don't be a gayer, OK?

DigitalWaters wrote:

Nick King wrote: Oh yeah, they are now joint 2nd (with 9 councillors) in Stoke...

FFS!

Britain is so proud of it's WW2 sacrifice and it's Battle of Britain (rightly so) and then it's all flushed down the swanny a few decades later!

The BNP has to be point blank opposed.

You are either for or against them, there is no middle ground; people either want a racist party or they don't.

"Britain is so proud of it WW2 Sacrifice and its flushed down the swanny a few years later? Dont make me laugh. There was me thinking WW2 was about defending individual liberty. yet here you are wanting to limit it because you dont agree with it.

Here's one for you Craig, And try and think about the consequences, and well as the logistics of it all: Should the BNP be banned?

If you cant answer that, try this one, how should the BNP be "point blank" opposed?

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote:

Don't be a gayer, OK?

You WISH.

Joking apart, that's an interesting point of view. About allowing the BNP, not me being a gayer.

Perhaps I'm the sixth form wanky wank na na na naa naa git.

Liam's still a twat though

Uncle Liam wrote:

...how should the BNP be "point blank" opposed?

Grossly.

(see what I did there?)

El Jarvo wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: In the end that is what its all about. I think personally, voting Ken out is a revolt of the taxpayers in London. Especially if you look at the boroughs that voted against him. The ones that voted for him, as per usual, were the ones of high employment/council housing and he got the Muslim vote en masse, as expected.

Eh? Most of the Muslims I work with voted for Boris cos they are all, basically, rather right-wing!

Really, Bert, they won't bite, try and talk to a few.

Well I'm sure the Muslims you work with are pretty unrepresentative of the Muslim community in East London as a whole. The vast majority of the 1.2m Muslims in East London voted for Ken. They always have. I've been having the same conversation all week with my Muslim customers as they are 50% of my core business.

It's obviously a bit different in the city, compared to the thousands and thousands that work in the relatively menial trades such as curry houses and shops in London.

El Jarvo wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: In the end that is what its all about. I think personally, voting Ken out is a revolt of the taxpayers in London. Especially if you look at the boroughs that voted against him. The ones that voted for him, as per usual, were the ones of high employment/council housing and he got the Muslim vote en masse, as expected.

Eh? Most of the Muslims I work with voted for Boris cos they are all, basically, rather right-wing!

Really, Bert, they won't bite, try and talk to a few.

yep my asian electric man (is also my plummer,painter,and all fucking sorts) is an ace bloke and he dont bite and he turns up when he says he would

oh bugger, I didnt know what this second preference vote was all about, and I chose.............Boris oh, well I have seen him in real life, a real shorty if you ever seen him, rides a cycle, just like that Cameron fella. I guess Brown would have to get on his bike soon, quite literally by the looks of the polls

El Jarvo wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Well I'm sure the Muslims you work with are pretty unrepresentative of the Muslim community in East London as a whole. The vast majority of the 1.2m Muslims in East London voted for Ken. They always have. I've been having the same conversation all week with my Muslim customers as they are 50% of my core business.

It's obviously a bit different in the city, compared to the thousands and thousands that work in the relatively menial trades such as curry houses and shops in London.

I really doubt there's 1.2m Muslims in East London, Bert! There's maybe that many in the entire area of London and they certainly ain't exclusively all living in th East End.

Either way, I still don't see how a 'belief' makes you vote for Ken 'en masse'. But then, I ain't the one making the sweeping generalisation.

OK... I'll concede its not as much as 1.2m.. Just spoke to a Muslim friend of mine and he says its probably just under a million. He also says that Ken was mentioned in his prayer meeting at the central mosque in Poplar, Tower Hamlets and told me to look at this website, which is a very popular one. Also if you look at the actual results distribution on this website, you will see that for City and East, (which includes the aforementioned area) you will see that Ken more than doubled Boris's votes. My friend was jokingly angry that us 'Sarfff Londoners' overturned this.

Uncle Liam wrote:

Here's one for you Craig, And try and think about the consequences, and well as the logistics of it all: Should the BNP be banned?

If you cant answer that, try this one, how should the BNP be "point blank" opposed?

Yes, the BNP should be banned.Why? Because they aim to limit individual liberties, which, as you say is what WW2 was all about.

Now, here's one for you: Ever heard of cause and effect?

And here's another one: Why do you defend the BNP so much?

And here's another one: Are you going to teach kids that the BNP is a good thing as part of your citizenship lessons?

And here's another one: What will you say to the black mother or father who comes along to ask you what the hell you are playing at?

Uncle Liam wrote:

It is not illegal to be racist.

WRONG.

It is illegal to incite racist hatred: I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you; but this is what the BNP do.

DigitalWaters wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote:

It is not illegal to be racist.

WRONG.

It is illegal to incite racist hatred: I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you; but this is what the BNP do.

Well, we'll start with this.

I said it was not illegal to be racist. I didnt mention anything about inciting racial hatred.

As far as I can remember, Big Ron Atkinson didnt get prosecuted for calling Marcel Desailly a "nigger".

DigitalWaters wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote:

Here's one for you Craig, And try and think about the consequences, and well as the logistics of it all: Should the BNP be banned?

If you cant answer that, try this one, how should the BNP be "point blank" opposed?

Yes, the BNP should be banned.Why? Because they aim to limit individual liberties, which, as you say is what WW2 was all about.

Now, here's one for you: Ever heard of cause and effect?

And here's another one: Why do you defend the BNP so much?

And here's another one: Are you going to teach kids that the BNP is a good thing as part of your citizenship lessons?

And here's another one: What will you say to the black mother or father who comes along to ask you what the hell you are playing at?

Such anger. There hasnt been so much passion on this board since the Brazilian Postman thread years ago.

Ok, so you want the BNP banned? Fair enough. Just one small problem with that. You want the BNP banned because they seek to limit individual liberties. Right, but in order to do this you want to... limit individual liberties. Simply put, that makes you a hypocrite.

Have I heard of cause and effect? Yep. I covered it very briefly when in 2nd year at Uni. Aristotle I believe. We called it causality. But whats that got to do with the price of petrol?

As for defending the BNP. I wasnt aware I had! Please feel free to go and find anything I've said that defends them. But dont fall into the trap of getting confused between "Defend the BNP" and "Defending the BNP's right to exist".

Am I going to teach the ids that the BNP is a good thing? Well, I'm not entirely sure thats on the curriculum, and one wouldnt like to get involved of going down the road of "this is right" and "this is wrong". What I will be doing is presenting both sides of the argument (and indeed any argument) and encouraging them, and helping them develop the skills, to make up their own mind.

If the "black mother or father" comes in and asks what I'm playing at, well, the chances are I'll say to them "I am teaching your child what is prescribed in the curriculum, not only to develop their subkject knowledge, but also their analytical and critical skills" which is ironically the same answr as i'd give to the ultra Catholic mother who gets upset because her daughter is being taught abortion...

Uncle Liam wrote:

DigitalWaters wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote:

It is not illegal to be racist.

WRONG.

It is illegal to incite racist hatred: I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you; but this is what the BNP do.

Well, we'll start with this.

I said it was not illegal to be racist. I didnt mention anything about inciting racial hatred.

As far as I can remember, Big Ron Atkinson didnt get prosecuted for calling Marcel Desailly a "nigger".

Ha. Can't believe you bothered responding Liam. I think as has been stated, it's about free speech, and the right to have it. If we removed it, where would we be?

At the moment, the mass immigration into London is a popular topic of conversation. Surely, anyone voicing their concerns wouldn't be classed as racist.

As for BNP, I've always thought let them have a voice, let democracy do its job. Fortunately it still is, and the BNP are getting nowhere as per usual.

The number of BNP councillors is rising; they are getting somewhere.

DigitalWaters wrote: The number of BNP councillors is rising; they are getting somewhere.

Bollocks they just go up and down depending on economic hardship, and the 'blame it on the immigrants taking all our jobs' mentality.

Now go crawl under a rock. I'm getting sick to f'in death of you turning every thread into some race related argument. Twat.

I didn't start this debate. Liam invited it.

Nob.

DigitalWaters wrote: I didn't start this debate. Liam invited it.

Nob.

New Zealands gain is our gain too.

:moon:

banshee wrote:

El Jarvo wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: In the end that is what its all about. I think personally, voting Ken out is a revolt of the taxpayers in London. Especially if you look at the boroughs that voted against him. The ones that voted for him, as per usual, were the ones of high employment/council housing and he got the Muslim vote en masse, as expected.

Eh? Most of the Muslims I work with voted for Boris cos they are all, basically, rather right-wing!

Really, Bert, they won't bite, try and talk to a few.

yep my asian electric man (is also my plummer,painter,and all fucking sorts) is an ace bloke and he dont bite and he turns up when he says he would

Ey up, can you give me his number Bansh? I need someone rather more reliable than the knobs I am currently getting prices off......Do you think he'd travel o'er big hill?

Burt Reynolds wrote: As for BNP, I've always thought let them have a voice, let democracy do its job. Fortunately it still is, and the BNP are getting nowhere as per usual.

HA! Burt said democracy works!

Just wanted to point that out

So when is Craig going to address me exposing him as a hypocrite?

EdelBrock wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: As for BNP, I've always thought let them have a voice, let democracy do its job. Fortunately it still is, and the BNP are getting nowhere as per usual.

HA! Burt said democracy works!

Just wanted to point that out

no i said let it work. If it works too well for the BNP, then we can always review it.

Uncle Liam wrote: Ok, so you want the BNP banned? Fair enough. Just one small problem with that. You want the BNP banned because they seek to limit individual liberties. Right, but in order to do this you want to... limit individual liberties. Simply put, that makes you a hypocrite.

So when is Craig going to address me exposing him as a hypocrite?

It's not being a hypocrite, it's having a view on the world that is more complex than that held by a single celled organism. You can have all the liberties you want until you start impinging on other peoples.

i.e. You kill someone, you got to jail.

DigitalWaters wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: Ok, so you want the BNP banned? Fair enough. Just one small problem with that. You want the BNP banned because they seek to limit individual liberties. Right, but in order to do this you want to... limit individual liberties. Simply put, that makes you a hypocrite.

So when is Craig going to address me exposing him as a hypocrite?

It's not being a hypocrite, it's having a view on the world that is more complex than that held by a single celled organism. You can have all the liberties you want until you start impinging on other peoples.

i.e. You kill someone, you got to jail.

You just cannot grasp it can you?

So we've established you want to protect civil liberties by limiting civil liberties (try and stay with me on this). So you've started, where do you stop? Just at the BNP? Do you ban the Respect Party? their leader (George Gal,loway, in case you didnt know) said some pretty disparaging things about Oona King in the 2005 Election campaign, and a number of their supporters have public order offences? So Do you want them banned as well? Or even better, The Labour Party, are they violating Civil Liberties by not having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? Or all their policies on detention without trial? I'd say thats a far bigger impingement on Civil Liberties than anything the BNP have ever done. What about the many policies of the Tory party with regards to homosexuals? I really could go on and on and on... But you tell me, where do you stop?

Your main argument (if indeed its worthy of being called an argument, which considering its so pathetic, I'm tenuous as to whether it is) seems to be something along the lines of "The BNP are racist, and thats a criminal offence and that impinges on Civil liberties, so should be banned." As I've established, being racist isnt a criminal offence, whereas murder is.

Why dont you just come out and say it Craig? You're a reactionist zealot who only believes in freedom of soceity when you agree it.

hyp·o·crite

–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

I think this sums up your views on Civil Liberties quite well.

Uncle Liam wrote:

DigitalWaters wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: Ok, so you want the BNP banned? Fair enough. Just one small problem with that. You want the BNP banned because they seek to limit individual liberties. Right, but in order to do this you want to... limit individual liberties. Simply put, that makes you a hypocrite.

So when is Craig going to address me exposing him as a hypocrite?

It's not being a hypocrite, it's having a view on the world that is more complex than that held by a single celled organism. You can have all the liberties you want until you start impinging on other peoples.

i.e. You kill someone, you got to jail.

You just cannot grasp it can you?

So we've established you want to protect civil liberties by limiting civil liberties (try and stay with me on this). So you've started, where do you stop? Just at the BNP? Do you ban the Respect Party? their leader (George Gal,loway, in case you didnt know) said some pretty disparaging things about Oona King in the 2005 Election campaign, and a number of their supporters have public order offences? So Do you want them banned as well? Or even better, The Labour Party, are they violating Civil Liberties by not having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? Or all their policies on detention without trial? I'd say thats a far bigger impingement on Civil Liberties than anything the BNP have ever done. What about the many policies of the Tory party with regards to homosexuals? I really could go on and on and on... But you tell me, where do you stop?

Your main argument (if indeed its worthy of being called an argument, which considering its so pathetic, I'm tenuous as to whether it is) seems to be something along the lines of "The BNP are racist, and thats a criminal offence and that impinges on Civil liberties, so should be banned." As I've established, being racist isnt a criminal offence, whereas murder is.

Why dont you just come out and say it Craig? You're a reactionist zealot who only believes in freedom of soceity when you agree it.

The BNP's entire ethos, aims and perspectives are racist. Other parties have nasty policies here and there, but their overall ethos, aims and perspectives aren't.

You are quite a strange young man.

blink·ered

1. narrow-minded and subjective; unwilling to understand another viewpoint.
2. having blinkers on; fitted with blinkers.

I think this sums up your views on my views quite well.

:p

So in order to help me become less blinkered, and understand your viewpoint, what exactly is your criterion for banning political parties?

*Sigh*

If a political party has, as it's primary aim, the oppression of a whole demographic section of society, it should be banned.

DigitalWaters wrote: *Sigh*

If a political party has, as it's primary aim, the oppression of a whole demographic section of society, it should be banned.

Ok. Why?

And why does that take precedence over a party which wants to detain people without charge?

And how do you enforce it? The BNP could easily say that their primary aim is pull Britain out of the Eu, remove troops from Iraq, replace "God Save The Queen" "Ernie The Fastest milkman In the West"... anything...

Gotta think these things through Craig...

DigitalWaters wrote: *Sigh*

If a political party has, as it's primary aim, the oppression of a whole demographic section of society, it should be banned.

But isn't that socialism, in a nutshell?

Uncle Liam wrote:

DigitalWaters wrote: *Sigh*

If a political party has, as it's primary aim, the oppression of a whole demographic section of society, it should be banned.

Ok. Why?

And why does that take precedence over a party which wants to detain people without charge?

And how do you enforce it? The BNP could easily say that their primary aim is pull Britain out of the Eu, remove troops from Iraq, replace "God Save The Queen" "Ernie The Fastest milkman In the West"... anything...

Gotta think these things through Craig...

I'm not sure if you're serious or extracting the urine with these questions...

Why do you ban them is obvious.

Yes they can state their primary aim is to plant daisies in everyone's window box, but it's their actions more than their words that reveal their primary aim.

How do you police it? You use the same tools that law enforcement uses for all laws.

I understand that people cannot be stopped from thinking or organising themselves, the question is should government allow total carte blanche or should they draw some lines in the sand here and there saying sorry you've gone too far now matey?

You admitted that parties with dangerous illegal bents or national security bents should be banned, so those are some lines in the sand.

You've also said that to be a racist is not against the law. Well, no, to have racist thoughts isn't, but thoughts sometimes lead to the formation of social groups. Those social groups carry out actions, actions that are often illegal. That is why the BNP should be banned. They encourage illegal activity.

Look, the price of living in anything like a free society, is letting wankstains like the BNP have a voice. If you ban them, you are little better than they are. Better instead to allow them to make penises of themselves and afford them every oportunity to do so.

And remind them, at every possible turn, that their Great^1000 Granny, was a $SUITABLY_BNP_SOUNDING_RACIAL_SLUR

DigitalWaters wrote: *Sigh*

If a political party has, as it's primary aim, the oppression of a whole demographic section of society, it should be banned.

So, again, how do you police it? Do you go around arressting people for being members of a political party? Sounds like a Communist dictatoship to me. You havent given one statement which is remotely compatatible with the civil liberties you allegedly want to protect, never mind workable in a legal format.

And how do you define "primary aim" UKIP has some pretty dodgy (and Veritas certainly has) policies towards immigrants but their primary aim is British withdrawal from the European Union. Are they exempt then?

You also need to state how the BNP, as a party, is engaged in illegal activity. And please dont say they campaign for illegal activity, every party under the sun campaigns for some form of illegal activity, so that wopuld mean banning all political parties.

I'd never thought I'd say it, but Stevie boy there has hit the nail on the head.

Would you two get a room?

Uncle Liam wrote: ???quote]

Try scrolling up and reading my responses.

Jarvo - that clown face scares me. Goodnight

Burt Reynolds wrote:

DigitalWaters wrote: *Sigh*

If a political party has, as it's primary aim, the oppression of a whole demographic section of society, it should be banned.

But isn't that socialism, in a nutshell?

I've never heard that description.

MEATBALLS!