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

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to campaign and stand for public office but if that right is abused as a tool for promoting hate then it should be withdrawn.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