October 24th, 2009

Into the pit

Posted in Other Stuff by 200

Hmmm….so who wound up & primed Jack Straw. What a shame he’s not so eloquent & vociferous on his parties recent history of justice cock-ups & mismanagements. I was intrigued by one of his comments when he said which bit of going too far did Hitler do, was it the gassing of the Jews (fair point) or the bombing of British cities. If you’re going to have a go at the BNP/Hitler use one of the very good reasons to do so. I wasn’t around at the time but I seem to recall the British & Americans bombing the hell out of innocent German people relentlessly & not a few Japanese & I suspect that many more were killed by the allies, Straw, you twat. History is written by the victors.

It also made me smile with Griffin said he hadn’t harmed a single Muslim while Straw & his cronies were responsible for the deaths of 800,000 in Iraq.

Overall though, it wasn’t a proper question time. It was a ‘have a go at Nick Griffin/BNP’ opportunity & I’m not surprised he’s making a complaint about his treatment. Not that I have any support for some of his views. The Labour party would have loved the programme, their knight-in-shining-armour carrying forth his single-minded attack on the BNP which should have taken the heat off them for a week. It’s obviously far less acceptable to have distasteful ethical morals in regards to race than it is in regards to theft, fraud & deception.

What a condescending cow that playwright & British Museum director was.

Baroness Warsi (don’t get me started on handing out favours to cronies with peerages). “There’s no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker, asylum seeker is a legal term.” Now, is she trying to be educationally superior on the symantics of words or is she displaying the kind of arrogance which seeks to shift blame for failing to deal with the many people who come to the UK with no legal right. Oh that’s right, the UK is happy to accept criminals & murderers. If you criticise immigration you are apparently de facto criticising all the folk who have a genuine need & right to apply to come here, let’s not mention all the others.

It’s such a shame that the likes of Straw & Peter Hain  can’t accept that the rise of the BNP is squarely on the shoulders of governments who have failed to address issues which lead people to think that the BNP & it’s policies are a way out of a situation governments have foisted upon them.

It was interesting that Warsi refused to answer the question about whether she agreed with homosexual partnerships when Dimbleby mentione d her previous comments about homosexuality undermining family values. She gave the typical politician’s answer that she agreed with their right to civil partnerships. Well since their ‘right’ is a legal term she can’t say otherwise really.  In her election attempt leaflets in 2005 she claimed that Labour’s lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals from 18 to 16 was “allowing schoolchildren to be propositioned for homosexual relationships.”  So it’s Ok to be ‘homophobic’ but not racist, now I’m getting it. Interesting that she was allowed to duck questions of homophibia while Griffin was repeatedly asked to ‘answer the question’. Ah, but that wasn’t the point of the programme, was it? In 2007 she is quoted as saying that people who voted for the BNP  “have some very legitimate views. People who say ‘we are concerned about crime and justice in our communities – we are concerned about immigration in our communities.” Perhaps she forgot that bit on Thursday.

You may not like Nick Griffin nor what he believes in but he is & should have the right to hold whatever views he wants. I think there are ways to demolish his beliefs in a sensible & grown up way. I don’t think the Question Time panel were a good example of the way to do that.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0

22 comments

  1. copper bottom says:

    Well, it was painful to watch people supposedly representing the side of ‘nice and normal’ being so clearly shown to be a bunch of self-serving, arse-covering prigs…

    lines of the ‘debate’ ?

    Griffin- ‘my father fought in World War two, whereas Jack Straws father was in prison for refusing to fight’.

    lol… STTTTRRRRRRRRIIIIKKKKEEEEEEE OOOOOOOONEEE….

    Dimbleby- ‘So, (to Warsi) do you support homosexual relationships?’

    Wasi- ‘errr… well I support their RIGHT to have them!’

    lol… STTTTRRRRRRRRIIIIKKKKEEEEEEE TTTTTWWWWWOOOO….

    Man from audience: ‘Mr Straw, why do you still allow so many immigrants in to our country when we have rising unemployment?’

    Jack Straw- ‘err…’

    lol… STTTTRRRRRRRIIIIKKKKKEEEEEE TTTTTHHHHRRREEEEE…. AND YOU ARE OUT OF HERE!!!!!!!!!

    and…

    British museum director- ‘well you may be surprised to know that ALL European peoples (and all peoples) are actually descended from African – so you are ALL related to Black peoples and so not indigenous…’

    Jack Straw- ‘so right…’

    Griffin to Straw- ‘Ha, well I bet you would’nt have the nerve to go to New Zealand or America to meet a Red Indian or Native American – and tell them they are not indigenous!!!’

    lol…

    I laughed my pants off…

    what a bunch of fools… I may lay in bed on election day…

    October 24th, 2009 at 15:16

  2. 200 says:

    Spot on CB, spot on.

    October 24th, 2009 at 15:31

  3. Tom Gane says:

    I confess to watching BBC iplayer today having observed some blog posts and being a member of one of the groups detested by the BNP.

    Having fiddled with the computer,I managed to get it working and sat down to watch Griffin be slaughtered on TV, under the old chestnut, “better people think you a fool, than open your mouth and prove them right.”

    How wrong was I. Griffin had been set up. The stuttering fool Straw was an embarassment. Warsi, an arrogant commentator without substance while Hain and the American were crass and stupid.

    The studio audience were in on the joke, sorry ambush, and DD well primed and happy to give Griffin a hard time. Well the jokes on them, because a clearly nervous Griffin performed, much to my horror, far better than the idiots with him.

    Now for the kicker. A young, well dressed and articulate black man began to ask a question about immigration. To my surprise the question was directed at Straw and not Griffin. The substance of the question was ‘how has your mismanagement of the immigration policy allowed the BNP’ so much exposure, and an undercurrent of support.

    CB and 200, hit the nail right on the head.

    So, how many one way tickets to Israel then?

    October 24th, 2009 at 17:05

  4. copper bottom says:

    LOL… Israel?

    here is a list of UN Security council resolutions relating to Israel…

    Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests recommendations for the Palestine Commission
    Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Recognizes “increasing violence and disorder in Palestine” and requests that representatives of “the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee” arrange, with the Security Council, “a truce between the Arab and Jewish Communities of Palestine…Calls upon Arab and Jewish armed groups in Palestine to cease acts of violence immediately.”
    Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests convocation of special session of the General Assembly
    Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948) As the United Kingdom is the Mandatory Power, “it is responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in Palestine.” The Resolutions also “Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine” to stop importing “armed bands and fighting personnel…whatever their origin;…weapons and war materials;…Refrain, pending the future government of Palestine…from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;…refrain from any action which will endager the safety of the Holy Places in Palestine.”
    Resolution 48: The Palestine Question (23 Apr 1948)
    Resolution 49: The Palestine Question (22 May 1948)
    Resolution 50: The Palestine Question (29 May 1948)
    Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
    Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
    Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
    Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
    Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
    Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
    Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
    Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
    Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec 1948)
    Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
    Resolution 73: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
    Resolution 89 (17 November 1950): regarding Armistice in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and “transfer of persons”.
    Resolution 92: The Palestine Question (8 May 1951)
    Resolution 93: The Palestine Question (18 May 1951)
    Resolution 95: The Palestine Question (1 Sep 1951)
    Resolution 100: The Palestine Question (27 Oct 1953)
    Resolution 101: The Palestine Question (24 Nov 1953)
    Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid.
    Resolution 107: The Palestine Question (30 Mar)
    Resolution 108: The Palestine Question (8 Sep)
    Resolution 111: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”.
    Resolution 113: The Palestine Question (4 Apr)
    Resolution 114: The Palestine Question (4 Jun)
    Resolution 127: ” … ‘recommends’ Israel suspends its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.
    Resolution 138: Question relating to the case of Adolf Eichmann, concerning Argentine complaint that Israel breached its sovereignty.
    Resolution 162: ” … ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”.
    Resolution 171: ” … determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”.
    Resolution 228: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”.
    Resolution 233 (June 6, 1967
    Resolution 234 (June 7, 1967
    Resolution 235 (June 9, 1967
    Resolution 236 (June 11, 1967
    Resolution 237: ” … ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”.
    Resolution 240 (October 25, 1967: concerning violations of the cease-fire
    Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel’s neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
    Resolution 248: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”.
    Resolution 250: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”.
    Resolution 251: ” … ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250″.
    Resolution 252: ” … ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”.
    Resolution 256: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”.
    Resolution 258
    Resolution 259: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”.
    Resolution 262: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”.
    Resolution 265: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on Salt, Jordan”.
    Resolution 267: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”.
    Resolution 270: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”.
    Resolution 271: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”.
    Resolution 279: ” … ‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”.
    Resolution 280: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”.
    Resolution 285: ” … ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”.
    Resolution 298: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”.
    Resolution 313: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”.
    Resolution 316: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”.
    Resolution 317: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”.
    Resolution 331
    Resolution 332: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”.
    Resolution 337: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”.
    Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): cease fire in Yom Kippur War
    Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
    Resolution 340
    Resolution 341
    Resolution 344
    Resolution 346
    Resolution 347: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”.
    Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
    Resolution 362
    Resolution 363
    Resolution 368
    Resolution 369
    Resolution 371
    Resolution 378
    Resolution 381
    Resolution 390
    Resolution 396
    Resolution 398
    Resolution 408
    Resolution 416
    Resolution 420
    Resolution 425 (1978): ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”. Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was completed as of 16 June 2000.
    Resolution 426
    Resolution 427: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon”.
    Resolution 429
    Resolution 434
    Resolution 438
    Resolution 441
    Resolution 444: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”.
    Resolution 446 (1979): ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
    Resolution 449
    Resolution 450: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.
    Resolution 452: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”.
    Resolution 456
    Resolution 459
    Resolution 465: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”.
    Resolution 467: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”.
    Resolution 468: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”.
    Resolution 469: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”.
    Resolution 470
    Resolution 471: ” … ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
    Resolution 474
    Resolution 476: ” … ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’”.
    Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’.
    Resolution 481
    Resolution 483
    Resolution 484: ” … ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors”.
    Resolution 485
    Resolution 487: ” … ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”.
    Resolution 488
    Resolution 493
    Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
    Resolution 498: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”.
    Resolution 501: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.
    Resolution 506
    Resolution 508:
    Resolution 509: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”.
    Resolution 511
    Resolution 515: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”.
    Resolution 516
    Resolution 517: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.
    Resolution 518: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”.
    Resolution 519
    Resolution 520: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.
    Resolution 523
    Resolution 524
    Resolution 529
    Resolution 531
    Resolution 536
    Resolution 538
    Resolution 543
    Resolution 549
    Resolution 551
    Resolution 555
    Resolution 557
    Resolution 561
    Resolution 563
    Resolution 573: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
    Resolution 575
    Resolution 576
    Resolution 583
    Resolution 584
    Resolution 586
    Resolution 587 ” … ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”.
    Resolution 590
    Resolution 592: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”.
    Resolution 594
    Resolution 596
    Resolution 599
    Resolution 603
    Resolution 605: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
    Resolution 607: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
    Resolution 608: ” … ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”.
    Resolution 609
    Resolution 611
    Resolution 613
    Resolution 617
    Resolution 624
    Resolution 630
    Resolution 633
    Resolution 636: ” … ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
    Resolution 639 (31 Jul 1989)
    Resolution 641 (30 Aug 1989): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
    Resolution 645 (29 Nov 1989)
    Resolution 648 (31 Jan 1990)
    Resolution 655 (31 May 1990)
    Resolution 659 (31 Jul 1990)
    Resolution 672 (12 Oct 1990): ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for “violence against Palestinians” at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
    Resolution 673 (24 Oct 1990): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
    Resolution 679 (30 Nov 1990)
    Resolution 681 (20 Dec 1990): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
    Resolution 684 (30 Jan 1991)
    Resolution 694 (24 May 1991): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
    Resolution 695 (30 May 1991)
    Resolution 701 (31 Jul 1991)
    Resolution 722 (29 Nov 1991)
    Resolution 726 (06 Jan 1992): ” … ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
    Resolution 734 (29 Jan 1992)
    Resolution 756 (29 May 1992)
    Resolution 768 (30 Jul 1992)
    Resolution 790 (25 Nov 1992)
    Resolution 799 (18 Dec 1992): “. . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
    Resolution 803 (28 Jan 1993)
    Resolution 830 (26 May 1993)
    Resolution 852 (28 Jul 1993)
    Resolution 887 (29 Nov 1993)
    Resolution 904 (18 Mar 1994)
    Resolution 1039 (29 Jan 1996)
    Resolution 1052 (18 Apr 1996)
    Resolution 1057 (30 May 1996)
    Resolution 1068 (30 Jul 1996)
    Resolution 1073 (28 Sep 1996)
    Resolution 1081 (27 Nov 1996)
    Resolution 1095 (28 Jan 1997)
    Resolution 1109 (28 May 1997)
    Resolution 1122 (29 Jul 1997)
    Resolution 1139 (21 Nov 1997)
    Resolution 1151 (30 Jan 1998)
    Resolution 1169 (27 May 1998)
    Resolution 1188 (30 Jul 1998)
    Resolution 1211 (25 Nov 1998)
    Resolution 1223 (28 Jan 1999)
    Resolution 1243 (27 May 1999)
    Resolution 1254 (30 Jul 1999)
    Resolution 1276 (24 Nov 1999)
    Resolution 1288 (31 Jan 2000)
    Resolution 1300 (31 May 2000)
    Resolution 1310 (27 Jul 2000)
    Resolution 1322 (07 Oct 2000)
    Resolution 1328 (27 Nov 2000)
    Resolution 1337 (30 Jan 2001)
    Resolution 1351 (30 May 2001)
    Resolution 1559 (2 September 2004) called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
    Resolution 1583 (28 January 2005) calls on Lebanon to assert full control over its border with Israel. It also states that “the Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for the purpose of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425.
    Resolution 1648 (21 December 2005) renewed the mandate of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 June 2006.
    Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006) called for the full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.
    Resolution 1860 (9 January 2009) called for the full cessation of war between Israel and Hamas.

    No thanks…

    October 24th, 2009 at 17:17

  5. Pinkstone says:

    Saw a 20 second clip of Warsi in the middle of her self-congratulating “history” lesson and nearly threw my cornflakes across the newly hoovered lounge carpet.

    October 24th, 2009 at 17:18

  6. copper bottom says:

    Another thing is …

    If it were ‘discovered’, by any means, by the Police that I was a member of the BNP- I would almost certainly be sacked.

    I can join Sein Fein….

    what a country…

    October 24th, 2009 at 17:20

  7. Tom Gane says:

    I now know what it is I have to do. We shall get a clandestine boat, in the cover of darkness, to the Isle of Man. We will claim (bogus) political asylum, and live off the land building a shul for the members of 200 site.

    Come on guys, it’s cheaper than EL Al.

    October 24th, 2009 at 18:19

  8. copper bottom says:

    lol… now THAT is a plan…

    handy for the T.T. races too!

    October 24th, 2009 at 18:33

  9. Civ_In_The_City says:

    I said my piece about Nick Griffins appearance on Question Time in a previous posting, I`m pleased (and somewhat relieved) that my comments about Griffin being bullied and not having a fair go are shared by others.

    The joy of hearing Jack Straw demand a straight answer from Griffin and being frustrated when he doesn`t get one (couldn`t get a bloody word in edgeways). Where`s Jeremy Paxman when you need him eh?

    We have become so used to politicians bare-facedly ignoring demands for straight answers, giving a non-descript ‘response’ when a Yes or a No are required, that the simple reason for Nick Griffins appeal is that he has a view, however unpopular, and he`s willing to spell it out. No punches pulled.

    What he is learning from the likes of Blair, Brown, Cameron and Straw is how to say one thing and then do something completely different. How Straw has the gall to criticise Griffin for saying whatever will make him agreeable and popular I can`t imagine.

    Does he not recall a certain Mr Alistair Campbell? The puppeteer with his hand up Blairs arse for ten years?

    To respond to any question first with a lie is second nature to the so-called political elite.

    And when all the main parties are fighting over a postage stamp sized bit of middle-ground, where else are people going to go to express their dissatisfaction with the sanitised, homogenised, sterilised, one-size-fits-all trash we are presented with?

    October 24th, 2009 at 19:10

  10. Blueknight says:

    …the British & Americans bombing the hell out of innocent German people relentlessly. The bombing of Dresden in Feb 1945 resulted in about 35,000 civilian deaths. Have no doubt that if the Nazis had won, Churchill and RAF High Command would have been sitting in the dock at Nuremberg. History is written by the victors.
    It was interesting that Warsi refused to answer the question about whether she agreed with homosexual partnerships. Griffin said that he and many other heterosexual people would find the sight of two grown men kissing in the street, ‘creepy’. (As my parents would.)He went on to say that he did not care what people got up to in their own homes, but he had an objection to homosexuality or any sex education being taught in primary school.

    I am sure that DD, the other panellists and the BBC approved handpicked audience felt a lot better after telling each other that they were not racist and that the BNP was vile and disgusting, but they should realise that even if they had managed to reduce Griffin to a quivering wreck, the BNP or something like it, will not go away while there is illegal immigration, a human rights act that does not give rights to the ordinary man, and a topsy turvey multiculturalism experiment that has made the white working man feel like a stranger in a strange land.

    October 25th, 2009 at 01:02

  11. Crime Analyst (Steve - Ex West Mids) says:

    Good post 200. Wonder how many of these points would strike a supportive chord among the tax paying public :-

    •Britain suffers from more than 27,000 crimes per day, or more than ten million crimes per year – the direct result of decades of softly-softly politically correct policing and a failed social engineering policy which has put the rights of yobs and criminals above that of victims.
    •According to the Office for National Statistics’ British Crime Survey of 2008, 22 percent of people in Britain will be the victim of some crime during the course of a single year.
    •Return to traditional standards of law enforcement, combined with social reform directed at addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour.
    •Free the police and courts from the politically correct straitjacket which is stopping them from doing their jobs properly;
    •End the liberal fixation with the “rights” of criminals and replace it with concern for the rights of victims – and the right of innocent people not to become victims;
    •Re-introduce corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals;
    •Restore capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute (such as with DNA or other compelling evidence).
    •Decades of social welfare dependence which is the primary cause of social delinquency, must be brought to an end.
    •Social reform is required. Work, not welfare, except to the neediest, should be the norm. Only in this way can the cycle of social deprivation, which is the primary cause of criminality, be broken.
    •Focus on policies that increase job opportunities for those in unemployment benefit for more than six months with compulsory work and training in return for decent payment.
    •The concrete monstrosities which blight our urban areas and which are the breeding ground for delinquency and crime should be torn down and replaced with decent housing which encourages the stable family unit.
    •Overcrowding in prisons could be alleviated by the deportation of the tens of thousands of foreign criminals to serve their sentences abroad in their home countries. This alone will free up to 70 percent of jail space in many prisons.
    •Prisons should be more austere and criminals should serve their full sentences.
    •Offenders will be made to understand that they are being punished and not rewarded with a state-subsidised holiday for their crimes.
    •Use of electronically tagged “chain gangs” to provide labour for projects such as coastal defences;
    •Put police back on the streets and remove their current political correctness shackles;
    •Allow victims of crime full freedom to defend themselves and their property;
    •Grant anonymity to those accused of crimes until they are convicted;
    •Police to concentrate on real criminals and serve the public, not the government’s political aspirations.
    •Crime must be tackled firstly by effective policing, and secondly by Government addressing the root social causes of crime.

    Can’t speak for the rest of their manifesto and the race card will always be their achilles heel. However, the above lift from the BNP policy on Crime & Justice seems to make a lot of sense and echoes a popular groundswell of opinion.

    October 25th, 2009 at 13:02

  12. Gutsy Kid says:

    The very fact that the BNP support the death penalty and corporal punishment and making prisons more “austere”, plus the whole being racist angle (Griffin may be “updating” his views for the media, but I doubt very much that he does not hold racist views. Just look at this whole indigenous peoples business) just puts them into that category of very silly men I wouldn’t vote for. Saying Jack Straw and his buddies on the panel are worse men and women than Griffin is a view I won’t subscribe to.

    Hell even the Tories want to put more people in prison.

    October 25th, 2009 at 14:44

  13. 200 says:

    GK,

    trying to get an idea of your moral compass… two situations

    someone thinks ethnic minorities have no place in England
    someone does defraud someone else of £50,000 cash

    One is a crime one is not. One worse than the other, if so which, both equally wrong/abhorrent or can’t compare?

    October 25th, 2009 at 15:39

  14. Hogday says:

    They should have questioned Griffin on the less frantic issues so he could then be seen for the other things he is, eg; a politically empty vessel. major opportunity missed. BBC, Straw, et al, ends up with self inflicted bullet hole in it’s left foot.

    October 25th, 2009 at 17:05

  15. Crime Analyst (Steve - Ex West Mids) says:

    Hogday. Totally agree, Whatever we might think of him (can’t say I would ever warm to his slimy evasive character), the program, panel and audience, spoiled an opportunity for informed debate.

    Pity we couldn’t have seen structured questions about their policies to test him properly in the public eye. Allowing the opportunity to descend into personal attacks and racial arguments only served to strengthen his support from his existing followers.

    I would like to have seen DD ask him exactly how he would turn these policies into reality. Perhaps then the public might have had a better measure of him as a potential politician (or more likely empty vessel). If his verbal argument for policy is weak, his public support would diminish.

    Strange that in amongst all the racist bile and venom, there are actually some common sense, sound policies that will likely be the babies thrown out with his dirty bathwater.

    October 25th, 2009 at 17:19

  16. Gutsy Kid says:

    200,

    Thinking and doing are two very different things. Someone “thinking” about defrauding £50,000 is obviously not as bad as actually doing it. I have no problem with people wanting less immigration because of the economy or because of the population increase.

    But the BNP want immigration to stop because they do not like immigrants. You may criticise the use of old quotes in trying to make them seem racist and abhorrent, but Griffin had no answer for “changing” his views. My problem with the BNP is that people are voting for them as a protest vote. UKIP and the Tories both have clear cut policies on cutting/limiting immigration.

    Their few good policies are mixed with policies such as every citizen having to maintain a firearm in their home, executing people because of their sexual orientation, and returning the British population to it’s “indigenous” roots, whatever the hell that means.

    But by any means, this summer I had a lot of free time, and essentially read through every one of your blog posts in the space of two months (I really had a lot of free time). Good job on the blog so far, and hope you continue it for a long while more.

    October 25th, 2009 at 18:01

  17. Gutsy Kid says:

    I’m sure I posted a message then :S quite a big one as well.

    October 25th, 2009 at 18:30

  18. copper bottom says:

    “indigenous” roots, whatever the hell that means.

    i suppose white, northern european people that settled in the UK 15-17000 years ago.

    for some reason we are not indigenous? but native American peoples are? Inuit peoples are?

    Noting that the main difference between people recognised as ‘indigenous’ are not white…

    Isn’t that racist?

    October 25th, 2009 at 19:41

  19. Gutsy Kid says:

    coppor bottom, the difference between Native Americans and Inuit people are that they were a single group of people who remained isolated (and some still do) from outside intervention. To suggest that anybody in the UK currently can claim they come almost exclusively from the original Cro-Magnon’s who 27,000 or the Upper European groups who later became the Celts who populated the British Isles is a stretch at best.

    We come from such a large stock of different DNA because of immigration (other ethnicities were present in the British Isles as early as 2000 odd years ago) that claiming that Joe White-English on the street has more claim to live here than people who come from Pictish lines of family, or from the second and third generation of Asians and Afro-Caribbeans in this country who immigrated from countries we colonised is silly.

    The BNP have stated they want to return the UK to as close to the indigenous peoples of the UK…that mean anybody with washed-out Germanic blood in Europe can freely move here?

    October 25th, 2009 at 21:15

  20. copper bottom says:

    coppor bottom, the difference between Native Americans and Inuit people are that they were a single group of people who remained isolated (and some still do) from outside intervention

    err… no they didn’t… we all came from Africa… we have pale skin because we are a mutation- to be able to absorb sunlight to make vitamin K.

    the Native Americans (my distant ancestors) came to America across the land bridge – same as the Inuit. The fact they remained isolated is somewhat irrelevant to the argument what is the ‘white-mans’ ethnic group…

    White people are the natives of the UK. Simple…

    It depends how far you go back.

    What upsets a lot of people- is not seeing the word English on diversity forms… Irish is there- why not English?

    October 25th, 2009 at 22:11

  21. Willing and Eager says:

    Clearly the historic population of all the British Isles has been predominantly white. Equally clearly, the white population has comprised people from several groups, pre-celtic, celtic, roman, anglo-saxon, norman and so on. Given that these groups are made up of different people from different areas, it does as you say CB, depend entirely on how far back you go, as to who you decide is “native”.
    There have also been immigrations from non-white groups. Whilst the volume of immigration has increased recently, people of all colours and creeds have been living in Britain for centuries. If you set your cut-off point to before any one person’s arrival, you can say that they are not “native” but considering how arbitrarily that time can be set someone is bound to disagree with you.
    As such, I don’t see there’s much value in trying to set some people as native, and some as immigrant, particularly from a political point of view. I don’t consider being born in a particular location should give you any more rights than someone who moves into a location, provided both people are prepared to contribute to society. If you’re not prepared to contribute, it shouldn’t matter one iota whether you can trace a direct line of descent to Richard the Lionheart (Norman, not English incidentally) or whether you just got the ferry across from a refugee camp in Calais.

    Anyway I’m rambling- yes the majority of the historic population of Britain were White, but does “indigenous” in the context of Britain (or anywhere) really mean anything?

    Oh also – I suspect English isn’t on diversity forms as the internationally recognised nation is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Sure, there were separate crowns, but it’s technically all one nation now. I guess there just isn’t much value for the information gatherers in differentiating between White English and White Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish.

    October 26th, 2009 at 10:44

  22. Civ_In_The_City says:

    Seeing as the case for English as ‘white’ and English as ‘multi-ethnic’ can be argued back and forth with good evidence on both sides ad infinitum let`s try another angle.

    A pro-European government who peddle the P.C. view that there are no such things as ‘facts’ only ‘opinions’ and ‘points of view’, systematically attacks and dismantles any facets of English-ness that they judge to be associated with the old colonial empire, or which has any connection with the class systems. They stop us flying our flags, they stop us celebrating our festivals, they force us to celebrate the festivals of other cultures, nationalities and religions. They undermine the Christian institute of marriage by making it financially beneficial to remain single or to have babies out of wedlock. They enshrine in law the rights of ethnic minorities and illegal visitors above those of non ethnic minorities and legal visitors.

    If they convince us we have nothing of our own, and what we do have isn`t worth defending or protecting then they`ll have an easier time hammering in the final nail and annointing High Lord Tony of Blair into the most powerful unelected seat outside the White House.

    What did that Labour MP say was one of the reasons for opening the immigration floodgates?

    I`m all right Jack (Straw).

    October 26th, 2009 at 19:19

Leave a comment