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

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!