Hat tip to Ryan Cullen for pointing out an interview by Nick Griffin in the Lincolnshire Echo.
Some selective points from this interview will suffice to illustrate why this man and his party should be opposed at all costs. VK is the journalist and NG is Nick Griffin
Transport
VK: Our problem in Lincoln is mostly car traffic, because we don't have big lorries travelling through the city. So, have you got any ideas for reducing rush hour congestion?
NG: On policies like that, once you get into the minute detail, there has to be a fair degree of consensus between the parties. You can have minor tweaking, such as allowing more flexi-time - which would at least help. But then you come back to the big, overall picture, which is where we become politically incorrect, and that's that the native population of these islands, the Scots, Irish and Welsh, is in slow decline.
Foreign footballers
VK: When you said about people in need, what about footballers? Lincoln is obviously quite a proud footballing city. There would be a huge number of Lincoln City fans, and Boston United fans, asked to vote for a BNP candidate in Lincoln City Council. But obviously foreign players are quite a big part of that. Would they be allowed over to work?
NG: BNP policy would go far further than that. We wouldn't allow any football team to have anyone who wasn't born, or hadn't been living for a period of time, in their own area. So Manchester United couldn't come here and steal really good players. We'd totally localise football. Big money has ruined football.
Mosques
VK: I did want to ask you about that. The local BNP group have called a meeting because a church in Lincoln is being converted into a mosque. Do you have a particular opinion on that? Why are the BNP involved?
NG: We have a particular opinion on it, for a number of reasons. Firstly, everywhere this is done in the country it acts as a magnet and a boost to further Islamification. Secondly. no-one locally ever wants these things. But they are bulldozed through by the local council and so on, but that's not local democracy. The wishes of local people should be paramount in decisions such as this.
VK: How do you know people living in Boultham Park Road don't want the mosque there? Instead of a derelict church building?
NG: Because we know from good experience, and the petitions we have had up and down the county. It’s an extremely hot issue. People simply do not want mosques in their area.
VK: Are you convinced that is all people?
NG: Yes, yes. The only person that wants a mosque is sometimes a vicar, whose church is totally empty - who thinks its just another version of God and it would do rather nicely if it became a mosque. No ordinary people want mosques in their own areas. Partly because it's just a symbol of something very strange and very foreign. Secondly, they have read enough of the tabloid newspapers to have an idea of what Islam is about, and to have grave concerns about it. And they see it as part of a creeping colonisation of their area. The natural reaction of a non-brainwashed population is to react against colonisation.
VK: You talk about brainwashing, but do you think the people who are opposed to Islam might only be thinking about extremists? Rather than realising that the majority of Muslims practice in a peaceful way?
Muslims don't understand Koran
NG: The majority of Muslims follow the Koran. They practice in a peaceful way until there is enough of them to get their way by force. And then they switch to using force. It's in the Koran. It's nothing extreme. It's simply what the Koran tells you to do. And what historically they do do.
VK: Just to be completely clear, you think all Muslims practice in a peaceful way until they are strong enough together to turn to extremism?
NG: The majority of Muslims don't really understand what's in the Koran. Traditionally it's in Arabic. None of them read Arabic. And most of them don't have any translation, they don't actually know what is in it. But once they do know what is in it, knowing perfectly well the theories in the Koran, which repeatedly tell Muslims that it's their job to Islamify the world. They do it by persuasion if they can, by force if they can't. But they don't start to use force until they get to ten per cent of the population. At which stage they are encouraged by Allah to use force to impose their views and their religion on their non-Muslim neighbours. It's just in the Koran. It's just the nature of the beast.
VK: So you think the conversion of a derelict church is imposing Islam on people who live in Lincoln? Even though we are talking about a corrugated iron, listed, building that can't be pulled down, but has fallen into disrepair? Which is now going to be used, once again, for worship. Which was its original purpose?
NG: No, it's original purpose was to be used for Christian worship, not to be used for the Islamification of another part of this country.
VK: If everybody who lives in that street goes to that meeting and says, yes, they are fully behind the conversion of that building - will you then change your mind?
NG: No, we will continue to oppose it, if we had councillors elected. We would continue to oppose it. But, obviously, if they turn out to be the only place in Britain where the natives actually welcome this thing, well, that would be odd. But we will respect their wishes and carry on trying to persuade them they are wrong.
Homosexuality
VK: Do you have a particular perspective on homosexuality? We have a thriving gay community in Lincoln.
NG: Our position on homosexuality is that it is something that happens, it's not the norm for society. We believe in a stronger Clause 28 so we will put homosexuality back in the closet. What people do in their own homes, and so on, is entirely their own affair. We've got no problem or interest in that. But it shouldn't be presented as normal. It shouldn't be taught to children in schools, particularly primary school children, which is the latest insanity. The homosexual community, well, they can either vote for us or not, but in the end, the present legal system in this country won't last for much longer. They will have a choice between our position of pushing them gently but firmly back in the closet or the fundamentalist Islamic position which is to stone them to death. In the end they will have a choice like that.
Perverse and repulsive
VK: I have a quote here. I don't know if it is rightly attributed to you. It was written in 1999 and I'm sure you have had it quoted back at you many times: 'TV footage of dozens of gay demonstrators flaunting their perversions in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many people find these creatures repulsive.' Is that rightly attributed?
NG: It's an accurate quote, yes.
VK: It's an accurate quote?
NG: Yes
VK: Do you still stand by those terms? The gay community would probably be unimpressed.
NG: Well, as I say, we respect their right to do whatever they want and they must also respect the fact that there are millions of ordinary people, particularly people with young kids and so on, who find what they do, when they do it in public, repulsive.
Civil partnerships
VK: What do you think about civil partnerships?
NG: I think they are entirely wrong. They undermine the value of marriage and marriage is the best way to bring up kids. One man, one woman, bringing up children. Married couples stay together longer because they have more commitment. Since that is good for society, things which are divided are bad for society, so civil partnerships are something we put in the politically correct litter bin with the rest of it.
VK: But if you take away civil partnerships, it doesn't mean gay people will get married? They won't suddenly stop being gay?
NG: No, but it's also a matter of tax and so on. The tax breaks should be for married, heterosexual couples - not for anybody else.
VK: But gay people still have to pay the same taxes as everybody else so why shouldn't they have the same benefit?
NG: Because they are not the ones rearing kids. They are not the ones helping to bring on the next generation. They are not the ones making the sacrifice for the next generation. For the next generation to be at it should rely, or be able to rely, on decent, stable family backgrounds. We have to discriminate in favour of the family and that means discriminating against people such homosexual couples who are ruining families.
Gay adoption
VK: But what do you think about homosexual adoption?
NG: It shouldn't be allowed.
VK: What about the 4,000 children who are waiting to be adopted in this country? Some of them will never be adopted.
NG: There's an enormous shortage of kids for adoption in this country, such that people are having to go to third world nurseries for kids.
VK; There is not a shortage of kids for adoption. NG: There is. VK: There are 4,000 children awaiting adoption. The British Association for Fostering and Adoption has been pleading for more people to adopt British children, because so many people think it is easier to adopt abroad. There is a shortage of people willing to adopt children. There will be some children who won't be adopted. Now, do you think it is better for them to be adopted by gay couples, or be left on the waiting list, which would be the case?
NG: They are better on the waiting list than being adopted by a gay couple.
At this point the tape ends. Nick Griffin then expresses his view that gay adoption is also wrong because incidences of paedophilia are more common among gay people. They are less likely to be prosecuted, he says, because of political correctness. The fact that paedophilia is more common among gay people is a scientific, not a criminal? Fact he says, but he honestly cannot remember where he heard it.
61 comments:
Thank for posting all that Tony. Absolutely fascinating and chilling.
He is a truly nasty person, at the front of a very nasty, dangerous group of people.
Thankfully, you give them enough rope and they tend to hang themselves.
You can see how they appeal both to the far left and dissafected old labour voters and the far right from that interview though.
Thanks for this - I've used some of the interview on my own blog too. I want as many people as possible in Sandwell to read this.
Very nasty indeed - I hope they do hang themselves.
Fascinating use of adjectives in the comments section. Anybody would think he was running around London killing all the black teenagers that have recently been murdered.
What dangerous people we must be, to actually care about our country, it's culture it's history and its disintegration, both morally and politically into the cesspit of europe.
This country is being inundated with immigrants in a deliberate policy by extreme leftists in New Labour and elsewhere (including you) to obliterate Britain and the British people in any recognisable form. We have elected politicians who far from having an affection for their own people and their ways, actively hate us and everything about us. The net result would seem to be an Islamic Britain in a generation - when those lads are elderly, it is quite possible on present demographic trends that thanks to the present generation of politicians Britain will have an Islamic government - i.e. government by a religion one of whose tenets is the active oppression of non- believers, and which is completely antipathetic to everything Britain has ever stood for.
It is in my view vicious in the extreme to vilify those who object to this policy which is no doubt well meant, but which is thoroughly evil in its effects: social dislocation and division, the cutting off of people from their history, their cultural roots, their alienation from themselves as white, English people in the homeland of their ancestors, and so on
I'm concerned about your emotional health Paul if you find that rather honest exchange "chilling"?
It will cool you down further to note that many people around the country agree with Mr Griffin on at least some of those issues.
I find his announcements fairly mainstream actually, nothing to frighten the horses at all, you really should widen your social scene, be more inclusive, you'll hear more of it.
Those who are concerned about the violent rise of Islam, (undercover Mosques Dispatches channel 4) the plight of indigenous farmers, the countryside and the exposure of young children to sexual practices not considered "the norm" by parents surely deserve a party to vote for too?
Or would you continue to deny us a voice in true Lib/Lab fashion?
Wear a coat Paul and wrap up warm, its going to get a lot more "chilly"
Tristan, if he's the nastiest you meet then you are luckier than many young people travelling in inner cities by day or night, at least Mr Griffin won't steal your trainers and phone. I'm a disaffected Tory incidentally.
David you could always direct your fan base to the party website for more of the same to supplement your blog and really get Sandwell informed and politically motivated?
I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that a rep for a party which prides itself on a reputation for balanced, considered thinking, posts only selected parts of an interview to which no link or source is provided. Of further concern is the fact that no criticisms (using the term loosely) of Mr Griffin and his statements actually take on the points made in any rational way. Are you simply assuming that your readers are all as 'goodthinkful' as the average Guardian reader or did you simply forget to actually address the points raised?
...Ah! There's the link. I retract the point about the link, but still want to know why no thoughtful and rational criticisms exist here.
Mr Smith - I suspect this could turn into a rather pointless discussion. I am glad that you think Guardian readers are "goodthinkful".
I did not forget to address the points raised by Mr Griffin in the article.
I simply sought to bring his views to the attention of a wider audience.
I would have thought that you would welcome this as a way of promoting the BNP's views.
Personally I did not feel the need to add any comment - his views speak for themselves
Funny enough i agree that his words speak for themselves, which was the gist of the post i made about your article.
Just as you may not feel any need to comment on the interview so as to let the words speak for themselves, I believe that the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples also needs no comment. And just like the words of Nick Griffin you quoted, i would be happy to make use of the UN deceleration below in our election literature. In fact, we are. I don't expect you to read all of the UN declaration, but if you just scan it at least, you will see that it entirely vindicates BNP policies which you and your party viscerally opposes ". . .at all costs"
Part I
Article 1
Indigenous peoples have the right to the full and effective enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.
Article 2
Indigenous individuals and peoples are free and equal to all other individuals and peoples in dignity and rights, and have the right to be free from any kind of adverse discrimination, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.
Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, as well as their legal systems, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.
Article 5
Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.
Part II
Article 6
Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and to full guarantees against genocide or any other act of violence, including the removal of indigenous children from their families and communities under any pretext.
In addition, they have the individual rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.
Article 7
Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:
1. Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
2. Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
3. Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
4. Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;
5. Any form of propaganda directed against them.
Article 8
Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right to maintain and develop their distinct identities and characteristics, including the right to identify themselves as indigenous and to be recognized as such.
Article 9
Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No disadvantage of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.
Article 10
Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.
Article 11
Indigenous peoples have the right to special protection and security in periods of armed conflict.
States shall observe international standards, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, for the protection of civilian populations in circumstances of emergency and armed conflict, and shall not:
1. Recruit indigenous individuals against their will into the armed forces and, in particular, for use against other indigenous peoples;
2. Recruit indigenous children into the armed forces under any circumstances;
3. Force indigenous individuals to abandon their lands, territories or means of subsistence, or relocate them in special centres for military purposes;
4. Force indigenous individuals to work for military purposes under any discriminatory conditions.
Part III
Article 12
Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artifacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature, as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.
Article 13
Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of human remains.
States shall take effective measures, in conjunction with the indigenous peoples concerned, to ensure that indigenous sacred places, including burial sites, be preserved, respected and protected.
Article 14
Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
States shall take effective measures, whenever any right of indigenous peoples may be threatened, to ensure this right is protected and also to ensure that they can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.
Part IV
Article 15
Indigenous children have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State. All indigenous peoples also have this right and the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.
Indigenous children living outside their communities have the right to be provided access to education in their own culture and language.
States shall take effective measures to provide appropriate resources for these purposes.
Article 16
Indigenous peoples have the right to have the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations appropriately reflected in all forms of education and public information.
States shall take effective measures, in consultation with the indigenous peoples concerned, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous peoples and all segments of society.
Article 17
Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages. They also have the right to equal access to all forms of non-indigenous media.
States shall take effective measures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity.
Article 18
Indigenous peoples have the right to enjoy fully all rights established under international labour law and national labour legislation.
Indigenous individuals have the right not to be subjected to any discriminatory conditions of labour, employment or salary.
Part V
Article 19
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate fully, if they so choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and destinies through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.
Article 20
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate fully, if they so choose, through procedures determined by them, in devising legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
States shall obtain the free and informed consent of the peoples concerned before adopting and implementing such measures.
Article 21
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities. Indigenous peoples who have been deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair compensation.
Article 22
Indigenous peoples have the right to special measures for the immediate, effective and continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions, including in the areas of employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.
Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and disabled persons.
Article 23
Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop all health, housing and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes through their own institutions.
Article 24
Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and health practices, including the right to the protection of vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals.
They also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all medical institutions, health services and medical care.
Part VI
Article 25
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual and material relationship with the lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.
Article 26
Indigenous peoples have the right to own, develop, control and use the lands and territories, including the total environment of the lands, air, waters, coastal seas, sea-ice, flora and fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. This includes the right to the full recognition of their laws, traditions and customs, land-tenure systems and institutions for the development and management of resources, and the right to effective measures by States to prevent any interference with, alienation of or encroachment upon these rights.
Article 27
Indigenous peoples have the right to the restitution of the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, occupied, used or damaged without their free and informed consent. Where this is not possible, they have the right to just and fair compensation. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status.
Article 28
Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation, restoration and protection of the total environment and the productive capacity of their lands, territories and resources, as well as to assistance for this purpose from States and through international cooperation. Military activities shall not take place in the lands and territories of indigenous peoples, unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned.
States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands and territories of indigenous peoples.
States shall also take effective measures to ensure, as needed, that programmes for monitoring, maintaining and restoring the health of indigenous peoples, as developed and implemented by the peoples affected by such materials, are duly implemented.
Article 29
Indigenous peoples are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership, control and protection of their cultural and intellectual property.
They have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs and visual and performing arts.
Article 30
Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands, territories and other resources, including the right to require that States obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands, territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. Pursuant to agreement with the indigenous peoples concerned, just and fair compensation shall be provided for any such activities and measures taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.
Part VII
Article 31
Indigenous peoples, as a specific form of exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, including culture, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, economic activities, land and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions.
Article 32
Indigenous peoples have the collective right to determine their own citizenship in accordance with their customs and traditions. Indigenous citizenship does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.
Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.
Article 33
Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive juridical customs, traditions, procedures and practices, in accordance with internationally recognized human rights standards.
Article 34
Indigenous peoples have the collective right to determine the responsibilities of individuals to their communities.
Article 35
Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with other peoples across borders.
States shall take effective measures to ensure the exercise and implementation of this right.
Article 36
Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors, according to their original spirit and intent, and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. Conflicts and disputes which cannot otherwise be settled should be submitted to competent international bodies agreed to by all parties concerned.
Part VIII
Article 37
States shall take effective and appropriate measures, in consultation with the indigenous peoples concerned, to give full effect to the provisions of this Declaration. The rights recognized herein shall be adopted and included in national legislation in such a manner that indigenous peoples can avail themselves of such rights in practice.
Article 38
Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to adequate financial and technical assistance, from States and through international cooperation, to pursue freely their political, economic, social, cultural and spiritual development and for the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Declaration.
Article 39
Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to and prompt decision through mutually acceptable and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States, as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such a decision shall take into consideration the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.
Article 40
The organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organizations shall contribute to the full realization of the provisions of this Declaration through the mobilization, inter alia, of financial cooperation and technical assistance. Ways and means of ensuring participation of indigenous peoples on issues affecting them shall be established.
Article 41
The United Nations shall take the necessary steps to ensure the implementation of this Declaration including the creation of a body at the highest level with special competence in this field and with the direct participation of indigenous peoples. All United Nations bodies shall promote respect for and full application of the provisions of this Declaration.
It has never been more important for Britain to have an "awkward squad" who dont resort to spin and soundbites. Mr Cameron is failing to "conserve" and making a joke out of Oppposition. The Lib Dems are fairly unchanged and in love with the world (and no worse for that) but the Hard Left and Unions are upping the ante and actively seeking the Muslim block vote.
Since many people feel that the rise of Islam in the West is possibly the biggest threat the Free world has faced in fifty years, we need a party to channel that resistance, enter the BNP. They may well be a protest vote, who knows, who cares, the point will be made and voting for a legitimatre political party to express ones views is surely preferabe to street riots?
(see Holland, Sweden, France and to a lesser extent Australia)
Tristan may be interested to note that many nasty people exist in politics, some send our troops to war based on lies, some persecute people for holding Christianity sacred, some back multinational corporations and sell them peerages for money and votes while starving out the British farmer. Others hate indigenous Brits so much they seek to take away their ancient freedoms through the weight of law. There are truly nasty people out there Tristan, not all like Mr Griffin who stated his views honestly, without caveat and with a refreshing lack of spin.
Mr Ferguson,
Thanks for responding, this is a very encouraging thing to see. I don't think this need turn into a 'pointless discussion', myself, as we are both (I hope) simply interested in discussing this to see what's good and useful in all this, though I must admit your gladness in my finding Guardian readers goodthinkful rather puzzling. Assuming, of course, that you're familiar with the term and its connotations.
"I did not forget to address the points raised by Mr Griffin in the article. I simply sought to bring his views to the attention of a wider audience."
Pardon me for mentioning, but you have not addressed the points raised. By means of selective copy/pasting you have indeed brought the views to a wider audience, and they do indeed speak for themselves, but your own views in this particular post are not quite so well elaborated. You begin by commenting that the points "illustrate why this man and his party should be opposed at all costs" but then fail rather utterly to say why or how this illustration take place. One might almost wonder if you are deliberately 'preaching to the choir'. However, if one were to give you the benefit of the doubt, then all that could be said is that you've forgotten to address the points and tell your readers why these points show that Griffin et al should be 'opposed at all costs'.
Additionally, that phrase in itself is rather chilling. All costs? Right down to the removal of a free and secret vote? I know that's not something you've said here, but it is, potentially, a 'cost'. Is it one you're willing to pay just to spite the BNP, I wonder?
"I would have thought that you would welcome this as a way of promoting the BNP's views."
I've no idea why you'd think that. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a BNP member, activist, or supporter. The fact that you think that quoting the opposition in a private blog constitutes promotion of the opposition is surely neither here nor there?
"Personally I did not feel the need to add any comment - his views speak for themselves"
Yes, but your own response, critique, and reasoned refuting is eerily silent. For a post so firm on opposing the BNP, you have a notable absence of alternative for people worried about similar issues, still less an explanation as to why they might not be issues.
Excellent point Mr Smith, there are no alternative polices on offer and nothing to choose between the manifestos of the Three main parties who've had the system sown up for decades.
Woolly comments on immigration, the environment and "inclusion" are failing to impress an increasingly disenfranchised electorate who see national identity and security slipping between our fingers. Instead of childish name calling they should be addressingin a mature manner what THEY would do about the things Griffin has mentioned.......or if they like things the way they are?
As each is entitled to his point of view this would help those waverers see what exactly they are voting for.
Mr Smith
Not sure about the term goodthinkful as I have not come across it before. It came across as an intended insult which I chose to interpret as meaning that Guardian readers are good thinking people. As a Guardian reader (surprise) I naturally prefer this interpretation.
When I said "I did not forget to address the points raised by Mr Griffin in the article. I simply sought to bring his views to the attention of a wider audience." that is what I meant i.e. I did not forget - it was deliberate. As a "goodthinkful" person I am happy to present these quotes and let people decide for themselves about the discriminatory views presented in this interview.
I would concede your point about all costs - perhaps that is too strong. I would not be prepared to remove the secret ballot.
I said "I would have thought that you would welcome this as a way of promoting the BNP's views."
You said "I've no idea why you'd think that. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a BNP member, activist, or supporter."
I assumed you had some link as one of your blogs has a team member described as British National Party member - maybe just a coincidence!
Mr Ferguson,
Well, so far not a pointless discussion at all. I hope you find this as encouraging as I do. I note, however, that you're not addressing any points made by others who don't automatically accept your opposition to the BNP without wanting to 'see the working' of the logic.
Regarding your reply:
"Not sure about the term goodthinkful as I have not come across it before. It came across as an intended insult which I chose to interpret as meaning that Guardian readers are good thinking people. As a Guardian reader (surprise) I naturally prefer this interpretation."
Glad it finds favour with you. However, before you go telling your friends and family that you're glad to be considered goodthinkful, may I recommend you read the classic Nineteen Eighty-Four to find the original meaning of the term?
"When I said "I did not forget to address the points raised by Mr Griffin in the article. I simply sought to bring his views to the attention of a wider audience." that is what I meant i.e. I did not forget - it was deliberate. As a "goodthinkful" person I am happy to present these quotes and let people decide for themselves about the discriminatory views presented in this interview."
You'll excuse, I hope, my refusal of this explanation. You say here that you're essentially presenting the quotes for the edification of your readers and the allowance of their free choice on the matter. However, you began the post with the statement that the quotes illustrate why Mr Griffin and his party should be opposed at (almost) all costs. One would expect that such a confrontational, almost religious, statement would have some backing to it.
"I would concede your point about all costs - perhaps that is too strong. I would not be prepared to remove the secret ballot."
And what about the free one? If you could, would you proscribe the BNP?
"I said "I would have thought that you would welcome this as a way of promoting the BNP's views."
You said "I've no idea why you'd think that. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a BNP member, activist, or supporter."
I assumed you had some link as one of your blogs has a team member described as British National Party member - maybe just a coincidence!"
Well, you know what the Americans say about assuming. BNP member is helping me with some HTML queries I had, by setting me up with a template on that blog which exists purely as an HTML testing playground so that I can learn a bit more about using blogspot. Again, I am not now, nor have I ever been... etc, etc.
Now, would you care to properly explain why Mr Griffin and his party should be opposed at (almost) all costs?
Mr smith wrote;
Glad it finds favour with you. However, before you go telling your friends and family that you're glad to be considered goodthinkful, may I recommend you read the classic Nineteen Eighty-Four to find the original meaning of the term?
That's a doubleplusgood idea Mr Smith, I must say. Tony, you can purchase it via the book column on the left of my blog, it really is a good read.
British National Party member said... That's a doubleplusgood idea Mr Smith, I must say. Tony, you can purchase it via the book column on the left of my blog, it really is a good read.
No thanks - I still do not recall the term although I read the book long ago
MrSmith said...
"You'll excuse, I hope, my refusal of this explanation."
Feel free - if you read a set of views and find them perfectly acceptable then that is your choice. If others read the same views and find them offensive and nasty then that is their choice
You said "And what about the free one?"
Yes elections should be free
You said "If you could, would you proscribe the BNP?"
No. I do not support them or their views but I would not ban them
You said "BNP member is helping me with some HTML queries I had, by setting me up with a template on that blog which exists purely as an HTML testing playground so that I can learn a bit more about using blogspot. Again, I am not now, nor have I ever been... etc, etc."
Well perhaps I might also have got that impression given how keen you appear to be on Mr Griffins views
Keen on Mr Griffin's views? Interesting comment. I wonder if you'd care to cite your source for any evidence you may have for that. To the best of my knowledge, I've only commented here that you've failed to give a sufficiently reasoned refutal of them. Hardly a ringing endorsement!
(Unless, that is, one becomes a sort of thought criminal for not automatically denouncing the BNP on hearing their name?)
Thats the impression I get. I fully accept that I may be wrong. Feel free to put me right and tell me whether or not you agree with Mt Griffins views.
However free I may feel to do so, I see no reason to. Not only because it doesn't apply at all to the question at hand, but also because letting the discussion go to that direction would only contribute to the atmosphere under which anybody who doesn't automatically curse the BNP is a heretic.
I refer you once again to the original question: How do the views quoted here illustrate why Griffin and co must be opposed at (almost) all costs?
Failing to denounce the BNP or anyone not toeing official multicult policies are heretics, beyond the pale. Its precisely why I stick up for them without necessarily agreeing with them (BNP) because I believe in freedom of speech. I dont care if I offend anyone, they can offend me right back, that's their right.
I draw the line at violence or terrorism, that should be hurled right back as well.
Griffin answers questions directly without an earpiece coaching him and does prevaricate with the phrase "now let me make it absolutely clear" before further ducking the issue. He isn't a geriatric opportunist like Ming, a liar like Blair or a hooray Henry like Cameron. For those small blessings alone I like him.
At least he has strong views whether they are popular or not. He doesn't have to please millionaire backers at home and abroad, or fear the loss of a union vote, the press hate him anyway for rocking the boat so he can be as straight as he likes.
No one has to vote for him?
Hmmm, I am confused.
The only way I can make sense of your preamble "why this man and his party should be opposed at all costs" is if I assume, by "this man and his party" you were referring either to the journalist and whatever party he supports, or else to yourself and the Lib-Dems.
Because I can find nothing in what Mr Griffin says that gives me cause to oppose either him or his party. In fact, he (Griffin) strikes me as holding pretty sensible, common-sense views, if anything.
Surely one's head needs to be jammed firmly up one's posterior in order for one not to view Islam as a dangerous threat to this nation, or else one needs to have just stepped off a boat or something. Who do you think caused 9/11 and 7/7, pray tell? Shape-shifting lizard men? Or, oh no, let me guess, the Jews. Of course.
No, Nick Griffin spoke nothing less than the plain and unadulterated truth when he described Islam as a wicked, vicious faith. And the jury agreed. Twice.
Helena,
I wonder, did you really mean Griffin "does prevaricate with the phrase "now let me make it absolutely clear" before further ducking the issue" or should that have been 'doesn't'?
Helena said
"Failing to denounce the BNP or anyone not toeing official multicult policies are heretics, beyond the pale. Its precisely why I stick up for them without necessarily agreeing with them (BNP) because I believe in freedom of speech."
Freedom of speech is fine, frredom to stand at free and fair elections is also fine (see previous posts) just don't expect me to like the views that he espouses
"No one has to vote for him?"
Absolutely and don't worry I won't
Tom Tyler said
"Hmmm, I am confused.
The only way I can make sense of your preamble "why this man and his party should be opposed at all costs" is if I assume, by "this man and his party" you were referring either to the journalist and whatever party he supports, or else to yourself and the Lib-Dems."
No it was Mr Griffin and his party
"Because I can find nothing in what Mr Griffin says that gives me cause to oppose either him or his party. In fact, he (Griffin) strikes me as holding pretty sensible, common-sense views, if anything."
Your choice - I do not agree
MrSmith said...
"Helena, I wonder, did you really mean Griffin "does prevaricate with the phrase "now let me make it absolutely clear" before further ducking the issue" or should that have been 'doesn't'?"
I assume you are correct although some of his answers were so bizarre that she could be right
...And still I wait for a response to my original question. In what way, shape, or form, do you think that these quotations illustrate why Griffin and his party 'must be opposed at (almost) all costs'?
mr smith..
tis obvious the man is quite unable to answer your request, without exposing his inadequate naivety on these questions and kneejerk smearing of those who would dare to oppose the bienpensant ideology.
Smith and Jones - I refer you to my first answer
""I did not forget to address the points raised by Mr Griffin in the article.
I simply sought to bring his views to the attention of a wider audience.""
this "first answer" represents an answer only in the very basic sense of that word, ie... that you actually uttered something/anything in response. More of an evasion than an answer.
If you're gonna hold up the BNP as the nasty party.. then lets hear why YOU personally hold that opinion, based on what NG said to the interviewer.
The line youre taking, is that BNP is self-evidently awful.. that all you have to do is put them on display, and everyone will see the problem. Well im looking for it & i dont see it, and i'd like you to point out where im going wrong.
Lets face it.. you dont have any quality reply, so you havta resort to the slithery-snake nonnsense.
Mr Ferguson,
Regrettably Mr Jones appears to have hit the nail on the head. You have no answers, no refutations or logic to offer. Or, rather, if you have, you're steadfastly refusing to offer them. Referring enquiries to your first answer is a real non-answer, given that your first answer was:
"I did not forget to address the points raised by Mr Griffin in the article.
I simply sought to bring his views to the attention of a wider audience."
The question having been how these quotes are supposed to illustrate that the BNP are self-evidently awful, not if that was your opinion.
...And they say Lib Dems lack substance! Imagine!
Helena:
You write very well, and have a good objective style.
As a neutral observer, I find the arguments you raise are the most persuasive and honest.
Will be bearing them all in mind at the coming May elections.
Wow, long disucussion, I admit I haven't read all of it. Its a sign of the times that someone can regard the comments of Nick Griffin about homosexuality and Islam as 'chilling' and 'nasty'. His position is one which the vast majority of the British people would have agreed with as recently as before WW2. And this society was better off at the time, as far as moral matters are concerned. Since then murders are up, rapes are up, paedophilia has exploded, the teenage pregnancy phenomenon has appeared, drug addiction is rife, muggings of pensioners is an everyday occurence, STD's are prevalent, and casual sex is viewed as normal. I could go on, but the bottom line is that this society is worse off on virtually every single social and moral indicator. Mobile phones, playstations, and an economy that grows by 3% a year are poor material substitutes for a society that is rotting and decaying spiritually and morally. I will gladly vote for this man as he speaks the truth, and that is coming from someone who does not have an ounce of British blood. I am 100% Serb, and I support the fight of the native Britons.
Kudos to Tony for at least replying to the points and allowing them to be posted, unlike some Lib-lab-con bloggers who censor anyone whose opinion differs, or when someone mentions the BNP!
Mr Smith, you are right, it was a typo! I was balancing a toddler and a cat simultaneously while trying to retain a pretence of modesty as both used my blouse to climb on.
I was really commenting on the fact that Griffin (whatever his faults may be) always answers questions directly.
I could take a shotgun to the box everytime I hear Paxman ask a direct but awkward question only to be met with a thoughtful frown and the words "now let me make it absolutely clear".......clarity never comes of course, just more carefully crafted recycled rubbish.
Thank you Inquisitor for your kind comments.
Like you I'm an interested observer at the moment and not normally to be found on Lib Dem blogs or sites.
I've done New labour and the Conservatives in the past and have come to the conclusion they are the same party with different ties for the men.
I think UKIP is vaguely sinster, a sort of Government/Conservative sponsored blotting pad to dilute the Right Wing vote and get hysterical over Europe.
I've only started looking at BNP since the rest appeared to gang up on them.
My own priority is Fair Trade for British Farmers, the BNP seem to be the only ones remotely interested that we are losing hill farmers and dairy farmers at a rate of knots. This is a huge environmental issue right in our back yard but isn't as sexy as percieved racism by some white folks objecting to their kids being taught Urdhu.
Racism is the new sexism and hurling the allegation at opponents has shut up dissenters for decades.
The tide appears to be turning.
I am not going to get drawn into a long debate about this. I have my views and some other posters have their views. Clearly both sides see this innterview as supporting their views. One example of why I find this mans views so repulsive is this quote from the article
"VK: What do you think about civil partnerships?
NG: I think they are entirely wrong."
Well I disagree. If two men or two women want to live together and be recognised as partners then in this day and age I believe they should have the same rights as everyone else. Others may disagree - that is their right.
Nikola said...
"Its a sign of the times that someone can regard the comments of Nick Griffin about homosexuality and Islam as 'chilling' and 'nasty'. His position is one which the vast majority of the British people would have agreed with as recently as before WW2."
1939 was over 60 years ago
"I will gladly vote for this man as he speaks the truth, and that is coming from someone who does not have an ounce of British blood. I am 100% Serb, and I support the fight of the native Britons."
Well I guess if you are successful it may sadly (for you) prove to be a case of turkeys voting for an early christmas.
Tony Ferguson wrote;
"VK: What do you think about civil partnerships?
NG: I think they are entirely wrong."
Well I disagree. If two men or two women want to live together and be recognised as partners then in this day and age I believe they should have the same rights as everyone else. Others may disagree - that is their right.
Now, i bolded the part that is newspeak (the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year). You do not believe they should have the same rights as everyone else, you believe homosexuals should have at least the same rights as a husband and wife.
This may at first glance seem a trifling distinction, but it is not. Your paragraph as initially written seems one of simple balance, one of fairness. As if, right now, it is only homosexuals who are solely singled out to be treated differently than married men and women, and you merely wish to correct this unfair oversight.
But that is not the case. There are people who have sex with animals, children, plastic dolls, their own brother or sister - their own mother and/or father.
The gay rights push you support is about taking putting your penis in the sh*t of other men from the den of inequity where bestiality, paedophilia and incest lay, and thrusting it atop the podium of marriage. It is about taking a set of people who are proven to have a high level of desire for young boys, and giving them the right to foster children. but not even that! it is about shutting down Christian adoption and fostering agencies who stand by their principles and say no to these homosexuals. It is about giving homosexuals more than an equal footing in law with the good men and women who have provided the stock of this great country, its about giving them a victimhoods charter and all the children of other people they want.
No. The BNP says No. Homosexuality will not be taught in schools. Homosexuals will not get married, whatever they call it. If they wish to carry on in their own bedroom then so be it, but we will not sanctify the spreading of sh*t and disease like sweeties in the schoolyard.
God, I love Oldspeak.
To back up one of my my parallels in the last comment, look what i just happened across from National geographic news;
The act of mating with a species other than your own may not be as ill advised or peculiar as it seems.
Recent research indicates that hybridization is not only widespread in nature but it might also spawn many more new species than previously thought. . .
. . This evolutionary process, while known to be common in plants, has long been considered extremely rare among animals. Animals are generally thought to evolve the opposite way, when a single species gradually splits into two over many generations. But some scientists now believe that the behavior that has been called animals' sexual blunders could be an important force in their evolution. "Given the fact there have been several reported cases of hybrid speciation in animals, I think it's possible that's just the tip of the iceberg," said biologist James Mallet of University College London in the United Kingdom.
In a review of the field appearing in the current issue of the journal Nature, the scientist notes that, on average, 10 percent of animal species and 25 percent of plant species are now known to hybridize."In the past people have often viewed hybridization as a mistake," Mallet said. "But this is probably not an unnatural phenomenon." And, he said, "sex with another species may be very occasionally quite a good idea."
So there it is. How can you now not allow a loving couple consisting of a dog and a man the same rights as everyone else? After all, it now seems to be perfectly natural - even healthy - behaviour according to the scientists.
1939 was over 60 years ago
60 years is not all that long ago in the great scheme of things. Would you regard the society that existed then as ‘chilling’ and nasty’? You ignore that pre-WW2 Britain was better off on virtually every single social and moral indicator. Secondly there is a major tendency for people in this day and age to excuse themselves and their contemporaries by using phrases such as ‘in this day and age’ and thereby implying that morality has somehow evolved. Nothing could be further from the truth. That something has become legal, socially acceptable, or prevalent in the media does not make it innately right or normal. That sort of morality is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to excuse or validate ones own actions, instead of facing up to reality. Or if paedophilia were to become legal given that children ‘consented’ would that also be lumped together with the superior morality of ‘this day and age’ which trumps all moral norms before it? I think its quite evident that ethical behaviour cannot be judged on the simplistic and illogical basis that everything in the past is inferior to everything in the present.
Well I guess if you are successful it may sadly (for you) prove to be a case of turkeys voting for an early christmas.
Well since non-British Europeans are allowed to join the party, it doesn’t follow that they would be unwelcome in a Britain run by the BNP. I fully understand though that this is a small island and native Britons cannot accommodate unlimited amounts of other Europeans. Given that my family has been here legally for 3 generations, I think there are millions of bogus asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, migrant workers and non-Europeans that need to be dealt with first. But since I would like to bring up my family in Serbia anyway, it wouldn’t bother me even if I had to leave one day, and if the BNP wants to give me financial incentives then who am I to say no! To be honest with you though, I don’t really look at it on a personal basis at all. A BNP government is better for my people, and it’s a defeat for the global imperialists that bombed us, and an example to the rest of Europe that suicidal multi-cultural governments can be defeated, and the globalist agenda halted.
The ball appears to be in your court again, Mr Ferguson. You may not want a debate on this, but unless you acquit yourself well, you'll only be proving our fears that you've nothing more than emotive reactionary propaganda to offer against Mr Griffin, as opposed to the real rationalism that we expect from 'proper' parties.
I wouldn't expect Tony to attempt to aquit himself, his mind is made up re the BNP (or closed)
However unlike some Right On anti "racists" he is at least allowing contradictory views to be aired. I dont have anything against homosexuals (my beloved brother is one) but I've no more interest in what they do in bed than I have about heterosexuals. Under this Lib/Lab climate we've been turned into a nation of voyeurs whether we like it or not. I've no objection to gay couples living together or having the legal right to each others property on death, this doesn't mean we should sanction a travesty of "marriage".
As I understand it the BNP have similar views and merely want the mechanics and celebration of gay sex kept out of schools "dont ask/dont tell"
What sort of person obsesses about the sex ives of others anyway or sees fit to drag it before Parliament.
The Liberals are so determined to be "non Judgemental" they simply have no concept of right and wrong (I dont mean homosexuality) when it comes to crime and punishment.
They are fixated on the causes of crime and fair treatment of the criminal completely forgetting that a civilised society has to feel safe when it hands over the reins to government. There is an unspoken deal that if we dont string rapists and muderers from lamp posts that government will protect us by dealing with violent offenders. Liberals do not have a good track record here, neither does the Left who quite likes violent criminals (mirror image?)and todays Conservatives are only interested if keeping people in prison is good for the planet and businesses which supply hoodies to inner city street gangs.
The BNP are still pushing all the right buttons for floating voters as they are more than a one trick party, though the anti immigration/anti Islam stance is getting most attention.
They have an excellent articles on their site about dealing with peak oil crisis, the environment and saving the British countryside and farmer from Prescott's love affair with concrete and boxy housing for the proles.
MrSmith said...
"The ball appears to be in your court again, Mr Ferguson. You may not want a debate on this, but unless you acquit yourself well, you'll only be proving our fears that you've nothing more than emotive reactionary propaganda to offer against Mr Griffin, as opposed to the real rationalism that we expect from 'proper' parties."
Quite right I do not want a pointless debate - Guess what? we disagree - I do not share a lot of the views posted on this thread let alone some of the insinuation. I believe that people who are homosexual, bisexual, lesbian, transgendered etc have the same rights as the rest of us
British National Party member said...
"But that is not the case. There are people who have sex with animals, children, plastic dolls, their own brother or sister - their own mother and/or father."
I don't see the connection with what I was talking about at all. I would not defend any of these other than the plastic dolls one
"Quite right I do not want a pointless debate - Guess what? we disagree - I do not share a lot of the views posted on this thread let alone some of the insinuation. I believe that people who are homosexual, bisexual, lesbian, transgendered etc have the same rights as the rest of us."
My dear Mr Ferguson, all this does is tell us that you consider all debate to be entirely pointless. Of course we disagree! That's the foundation point of all debate. It's also the point of any and all debate and actual thought that opinions may be changed, attacked and defended by logic and reason. Merely saying that you hold opinion A and I do not and expecting that to be taken, without incident or opposition, as the last word in an argument, is ridiculous and bordering on the obtuse. I expected better from someone trying to defend a position of a mainline party which wants us to believe it stands for reasonableness. Especially, I expected better than knee-jerk reactionism and a complete lack of rationality.
"I don't see the connection with what I was talking about at all. I would not defend any of these [bestiality, paedophilia, incest, etc] other than the plastic dolls one"
Again, you're leaving all reason out of the equasion. If you will admit one sexual deviance, why not the others? This is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know.
MrSmith said...
"My dear Mr Ferguson, all this does is tell us that you consider all debate to be entirely pointless."
No it does not - I never said such a thing. Some of the posters believe that all foreigners should be removed from the country, some believe that homosexuals are not equal. I have a different belief system
MrSmith said...
"Again, you're leaving all reason out of the equasion. If you will admit one sexual deviance, why not the others? This is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know"
Well the problem with this again is your belief system - you think that homosexuals are deviant. I do not. I think these are normal people who deserve to be treated with the same respect and decency as you or I
Utterly commendable I think they should have the right not to be harassed or persecuted because of their orientation and have the right to leave property to a life partner as though they were a spouse.
They do not however have the right to force us by intimidation or law that is a valid alternative lifestyle for consumption in a Primary school.
You seem to be jumping on the anti immigrant anti gay bandwagon as though any posters here have suggested herding people off to gas chambers.
No one has said anything remotely like that merely suggesting that militant homosexuals and Militant Islam are both deeply undesireable to many people who just happen to be white Christian parents, the most reviled and ignored group out there.
There are no demonstrators for us, we dont riot, burn effigies and threaten "jihad is on its way" or dress up as something out of the Rocky Horror show to get attention so may be safely ignored by Lib/Lab/Con and taxed to the hilt.
The emergence of a party who is listening is hardly surprising.
Politics abhors a vacuum and the three main parties created that vaccuum that the BNP may fill.
Helena said...
"They do not however have the right to force us by intimidation or law that is a valid alternative lifestyle for consumption in a Primary school."
I don't know where the primary school bit comes from. I agree that no one should be able to force you to live that lifestyle or even to believe that it is a valid lifestyle. However, I do believe that it is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle.
I am not jumping on any bandwagon I just have different beliefs to some of the posters although I was not aware that anyone had suggested gas chambers although some of the comments were pretty offensive to me and doubtless many others
I have nothing against white Christian parents at all and I certainly do not revile them
"I have nothing against white Christian parents at all and I certainly do not revile them"
By denying any validity in what they say and believe, you as good as revile them. Inasmuch as by saying that there's no point in discussion between people of differing views you say that debate is pointless.
MrSmith said...
"By denying any validity in what they say and believe, you as good as revile them. Inasmuch as by saying that there's no point in discussion between people of differing views you say that debate is pointless."
I am sorry but I do not agree, they are entitled to hold their opinions and just because I disagree with some of their opinions does not mean I revile them. Debate is not pointless full stop - Some debates can be pointless (in my opinion). Some of the views expressed by posters on this thread are clearly very strongly held - I believe that some of them are racist and homophobic and I do not agree with them but that does not mean I want to spend all day debating their views - everyone reading this can see what they are and draw their own conclusions one way or another
"Debate is not pointless full stop"
I think that has to go second on my list of silly statements, right after 'There is no absolute truth, full stop'
You're most entertaining, Mr Ferguson, anybody ever tell you that?
MrSmith said...
"Debate is not pointless full stop"
"I think that has to go second on my list of silly statements, right after 'There is no absolute truth, full stop'
You're most entertaining, Mr Ferguson, anybody ever tell you that?"
You were the one who said that I was saying that debate was pointless. I was saying that I was not saying that debate was pointless full stop i.e. always pointless. I was saying that debate is not always pointless.
If that entertains you so be it - one might draw certain conclusions from that
Tony, you have stood for MP 3 times, and i think you are smart enough to see the inference in the part of the post you quoted of mine, how it all tied in.
British National Party member said...
"Tony, you have stood for MP 3 times, and i think you are smart enough to see the inference in the part of the post you quoted of mine, how it all tied in. "
I can see perfectly well what you are trying to infer - I just do not see the connection because to me there is no connection. The fact that someone is gay does not to me mean in any way that they might want to have sex with children or plastic dolls etc
You have missed out several points above, points which you are quite capable of realising. What's the point in repeating myself?
You see it but you see no political fruit from acknowledging it, so you don't.
Voter apathy has a cause you know, as does our rising vote. Perhaps i will come back here on may the fourth and we can have a proper debate.
I draw your attention Tony to one of three books bound for primary school titled King and King, the other celebrates vomit, a cat called Trotsky and a variety of multicultural alternative lifestyle characters, enough to dizzy the mind of ist graders. They are being promoted as we speak.
Apologies for the gas chamber remark....no you didn't mention them but I was actually engaged in a bit of verbal fencing with a large person of indeterminate gender on a cute little Leftie site I wont promote here.
He/She of the flourishing moustache DID mention gas chambers as soon as I mentioned it might be nice to have free elections.
Ah Tony, there are indeed strange hysterical people out there, and they all think they are right.
What a long thread! I imagine tony thought he'd be speaking to the converted and assumed everyone would jump on the anti BNP bandwagon. How times have changed in a few short years.
A little off topic but why do Harley riders hardly never nod? Its almost as if they consider themselves Superior in some way. I ride an old BRITISH triumph, and a fireblade for fun and track days, Ill nod to anyone.
I can't say I have noticed a problem with Harley Riders and i nod to other bikers all the time - some nod back and some don't. My wife is a recent convert to riding her own machine and nods all the time and loves it when others nod back to her.
Post a Comment