BNP voters come in two flavours: scum and idiots

Share This

The one thing that has been worse than the BNP winning two seats in the European Parliament today has been the endless hand-wringing and excuses made on behalf of the electorate by mainstream politicians. Last night, the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour were queueing up to come up with excuses for why so many people voted BNP. It was a protest vote, they said, not a racist one. We need to listen more and learn to respond.

Bollocks. The time for a touchy-feely understanding of BNP voters is well and truly over. You could make this excuse in 2001 when the BNP vote first started to flare up in earnest (three months before 9/11 please note – remember Griffin’s ridiculous gag at the Oldham count?) but now is the time to – as Lewis Baston says (pace John Major) – “condemn a little more, understand a little less.”

If you wanted to make a protest vote on Thursday, it isn’t as if you didn’t have a wide choice. What seems to have emerged in recent years is that voters seem to have learned that voting BNP is the best way to get a reaction out of the mainstream parties. It is a form of dirty protest; the difference being that the voters are all supposedly over 18, not toddlers. And yet, like the most awful parents ever seen on Supernanny, the mainstream parties seem to fall for it every time.

Enough is enough. This has started to look like Weimar-era appeasement (note: Godwin’s law doesn’t apply when you are writing about actual neo-Nazis). Politicians have treated the electorate like children for years; we can hardly be surprised therefore that a small minority have now started acting like children. There isn’t a particular policy solution – we can hardly starve the North West and Yorkshire of resources to punish a mere 8% of voters – but we can change the language. We could start hearing mainstream political leaders openly criticise BNP voters rather than merely the party itself. Call them out; take them to task; challenge them. Make it clear that while they can ultimately vote for whoever they want in a democracy, we do not respect their decision.

Does all this sound patronising? Maybe, but then is it really more so than the self-flagelating alternative? No, not every BNP voter is a racist but at the very very best they are in deep denial about racism. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that a party which claims to not be racist yet bangs on about the indigenous white race and “racial foreigners” is simply engaging in doublespeak.

BNP literature is full of hate, spite, resentment and scapegoating. It offers simplistic, washing-powder-advert solutions to complex problems. You only vote for such things if you are already predisposed to lash out rather than really look for solutions. In that respect, I think the tone of the Hope Not Hate campaign is spot on; I just don’t see it reinforced by mainstream politicians (let alone the blundering antics of the far-left).

An extremely bad approach is the one adopted by Ian Dunt over on politics.co.uk. Apparently “there is a tiny fascist in all of us” – to the extent that nobody’s perfect, I suppose that may be true. But where does that get us? I didn’t vote BNP. Most people didn’t vote BNP. Why should we beat ourselves up about it? What will that achieve? Will our mutual hand-wringing suddenly make BNP voters see the error of their ways? I forget who came up with the idea of the “Oh Dear” factor in climate change policy – that being that the problem with talking about how dreadful climate change is that people feel disempowered and thus disengage from the whole debate. Why would we want to elevate something as eminently resolvable as the fact that minority of people vote for neo-Nazis to the same level?

I’ve helped organise several political events for schools over the years, and in particular question time debates in which a panel of MPs are asked questions by a horde of hormone-addled, smart-alec teenagers. In my experience such debates follow the following pattern: the politicians come on stage and mouth a load of platitudes about how important it is that young people get involved in politics; a series of kids ask clever-clever questions designed to “prove” that all politicians are self-serving liars; the baying mob scents blood and the politicos suddenly realise that they can’t get out of this by simply sticking to the script. At that point, something truly wonderful typically happens. At least one politician gets annoyed at their antagonists and starts to tell it like it is; explaining that the kids who are both pro-war and anti-war, both green and climate-change sceptic and both anti-racism and anti-immigration simply cannot have it both ways. Suddenly both baying mob and platitude-spouting politico connects in a way neither were expecting. The atmosphere changes completely. I’ve seen this happen on numerous occasions and the lesson for me is clear: you don’t connect with the disaffected by telling them what you think they want to hear. You can only connect by being authentic and frank with them – even disagreeing with them and challenging their prejudices.

Ultimately, there are just two types of BNP voter: scum and idiots. The scum we can comfortably leave to one side. The rest need to stop being told that their idiocy is some cunning act of tactical protest; they’ve started to believe it now. Idiocy is an eminently curable disorder, but the first step to stop being an idiot is to realise what you’re being. With that in mind, indulging BNP voters is an form of cruel and inhumane treatment.

63 thoughts on “BNP voters come in two flavours: scum and idiots

  1. Another great post – but I also think that a way to cope with the idiot element, who are clearly also angry and alienated, is to tackle the scummy tabloid press that they read – I mean, when did you last see the Sun write asylum seeker without bogus beside it. These papers germinate all sorts of thoroughly inaccurate ideas in the minds of already angry people and while we can’t stop a free press from printing this sort of shite, we can challenge them.

  2. Your penultimate paragraph is the most important one here.

    The electorate currently is behaving like those schoolkids.

    We should be the politician who gets annoyed and tells it like it is.

    Then something wonderful will happen. At least I hope so, all my political life that’s been what I’ve wanted to do.

    So, when are we going to start?

  3. I’d just get the main parties to run a poster campaign across the north west and Yorkshire showing the D Day veterans. The caption would be

    ‘Proud of yourselves? These guys fought against what the BNP believes’.

    It is intereting that in London where the GLA has had the benefit of the BNP’s representation, their vote was unexpectedly low.

  4. “There is a tiny fascist in all of us”…
    Too true, as this rant illustrates. The electorate don’t have to apologise for voting BNP, Westminster does for not dealing with the issue.

  5. Woody, you can call disapproving of people voting BNP as itself ‘fascist’ but it only makes you look silly.

    What issue would you have “Westminster” deal with? Scrap immigration? Start piling ethnic minorities on the Eurostar? Leave the EU? Ban all religious practices other than Christianity (and Wotanism)?

    The problem is, most people voted against all of that so to indulge this tiny minority would mean dismissing the views of the majority.

    Or perhaps you mean something more amorphous such as “Westminster” dealing with poverty and urban decline in the North. Well, no party is pro-poverty or anti economic development. The question is over the means. How does voting BNP in any way square that particular circle?

    The problem is, a vote for the BNP is such an inarticulate expression of disaffection it is almost impossible – and often fatally egregious – to respond. The only signal it sends is a big V-sign – not just to mainstream politicians but to most of the UK public.

  6. The consequences of failing to manage immigration intelligently must be obvious even to you. If not they soon will be.

  7. What, like a points system (we have one)? Or perhaps we should reduce immigration (it is currently going down)?

    We have far stricter immigration rules than we had 10, 20 years ago, and yet the BNP support just goes up and up. How tight do we have to make the rules before it has an impact?

    There is a clear economic case for allowing immigrants into the country, yet politicians will seldom make it. In short, we already are pandering to BNP voters in precisely the way you suggest.


  8. We have far stricter immigration rules than we had 10, 20 years ago, and yet the BNP support just goes up and up. How tight do we have to make the rules before it has an impact?

    10, 20 years ago, we were told that large-scale immigration was a matter of tidying up our post-imperial responsibilities and was ending. Yet we are continually hearing of inner city schools where performance is poor because most of the pupils are of recent immigrant background and don’t speak much English. This is part of what “school choice” is about – the white middle class making sure their kids don’t get into those schools. The white middle class aren’t called racist for this. The brunt of dealing with the issue falls on the white working class, who can get shunted aside because their needs aren’t so immediately obvious.

    Now too you will see council estates which 10, 20 years ago were mainly white and now aren’t. Those coming of age on those council states, born 10, 20 years ago are told they don’t stand a chance of allocation – there are others with more needs (and most of those are non-white). Which is true. We are told it is “racist” to think of keeping extended families together in the way that it used to be, when grandparents and aunties and the like were all around and part of social order. The expectation that when you came of age here you would get council housing like your parents – which was there a generation ago – has gone. House prices are far too high to buy. So, what do you do?

    If you were to say to white middle class people “Sorry, you can’t leave your house in your will to your children, it must go to others who have more needs” what would the reaction be?


    There is a clear economic case for allowing immigrants into the country, yet politicians will seldom make it. In short, we already are pandering to BNP voters in precisely the way you suggest.

    The benefits of immigration fall largely on the richer end of society – cheap workers who won’t complain, clever people from abroad doing jobs in the place of less clever people from here. If you’re an employer and you could take on someone from the upper quadrant of ability from abroad, or someone from the lower quadrant of ability from home, who would you take? Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it? So, who is our government for – is it for people here who aren’t too bright? Or is it solely to serve the employers because that is “wealth creation”?

    There are some awkward questions here which we don’t like to ask because we might get accused of being racist if we do. And asking them must be done carefully because, yes, it can cause racist sentiments to be whipped up.

    If they aren’t asked, the likes of the BNP will ask them. And give their own answers.

  9. The slack rules of the past created the problems we see today. There’s a case for allowing certain workers in but not more immigrants. Why should we? When you factor in the fuel crisis (we ain’t seen nothing yet) and the strain on resources expected from climate change, it has nothing to do with “pandering to BNP voters” but everything to do with common sense.
    How tight? Shut the door, at least until those who are here illegally are rounded up and re-assessed. In my view the door should stay shut except in very special cases. At the moment we have Albanian gangsters and sex criminals hiding out here (as of right!) – are you happy with that?

  10. Re: council housing and employment, we would have both of those in abundance if we hadn’t been pursuing right-wing economic “policies” for the last 30 years. So unless you want to blame immigrants for Thatcher, or for the fact that Blair and Brown have followed their failed ideology despite the credit crunch having discredited it, then that argument doesn’t stand up.

  11. Richard T :
    It is intereting that in London where the GLA has had the benefit of the BNP’s representation, their vote was unexpectedly low.

    Except that their highest vote share in any district in the country was Barking and Dagenham, where they’re the opposition on the local council, and where Barnbrook is their group leader?

    BNP have done best in those parts of the country where the constituency and the council are so ‘safe’ that the other parties have largely withdrawn.

    Whether they’ve polled mostly from former Labour voters, or from those within those areas that have no other parties to go to, is a question we can’t yet answer.

    It’s worth noting that in the NW and Yorkshire, the BNP total vote fell, it’s in the SE and London that their vote rose from last time. In areas they were doing well in (like Burnley, for example), their vote fell significantly, in large part because another party (in this case the Lib Dems) moved in and really fought hard in the areas they were strong in.

    If you just decide it’s a northern problem, at the next EU elections, you’ll likely see Griffin and his mate out up here, but see them take the last seat on the list down there instead.

  12. How tight? Shut the door, at least until those who are here illegally are rounded up and re-assessed. In my view the door should stay shut except in very special cases.

    You talk of special cases: The UK received 30,500 asylum applications last year. Is this too many? This was out of a total of 382,670 Asylum applications in Europe and the other main refugee receiving countries and a total of 31.7 million refugees world wide as of 2007 (the latest year reliable figures are available for).

    Given that we obviously already receive far too few refugees for our size, wealth and international commitments (i.e. Iraq etc.) Can you expand on how many extra refugees you think we should take as part of your “shut-door” policy.

    Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries 2008

    UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2007

  13. It would be amusingly simple for me to explain why anyone who votes Labour are ‘idiots’, seeing as they are destroying our free society and civil liberties, yet it is obvious to me that the way to address this is to publicise what they are doing and get the public onside.

    However, according to you, idiots vote for the BNP and should therefore be told that they are idiots because you arrogantly assume that they need ‘re-educating’. Why should I or anyone else care if you “respect” my decision about who to vote for? Voting for the BNP is as much a protest vote as voting for UKIP, the Greens or any other minor party – what gives you the right to declare which protest votes are acceptable and which aren’t?

    It is the attitude of people like you that ultimately leads to the moronic protests that we saw yesterday.

  14. On the contrary, the number of asylum claims received by the UK is out of all proportion to our size. What are we doing in Iraq and Aghanistan anyway generating even more refugees? Nope, I don’t believe we should continue absorbing other peoples’ troubles. And what “wealth” are you crediting us with? Last I heard we were up to our ears in debt.

    ‘Special cases’ means those whose know-how/exceptional skills would obviously benefit the UK.

  15. The UK’s population density is roughly 6 times that of the earth’s. We can easily absorb more refugees, to do anything else is intensely selfish.

    “Nope, I don’t believe we should continue absorbing other peoples’ troubles.” If you walked past a child in a lake and they were drowning would you help them? If other people were there would you fell any less compelled to act?

    Now imagine it’s not a child drowning but a child soldier in Uganda. It would cost the UK a fraction of our income to help them.

    Drowning Child

    Population density

  16. C’mon. Helping is one thing (if you truly believe that pouring aid into Africa will make the slightest difference) but absorbing child soldiers into the UK would go down like a lead balloon.

  17. I’m not so interested in helping child soldiers directly or giving aid to Africa.

    The point is, there are millions of refugees in the world and we are not pulling our weight. In fact we demonise and criminalise these very vulnerable people.

    What I am trying to say is that immigration isn’t just about what you want. We have a certain duty of care to those outside our borders. I am open to debate on whether it extends to development aid, fair trade, international peace keeping, transnational organisations.

    But, how can we justify an argument against helping these refugees? They are not people who are only going to suffer poverty; their lives are at immediate risk. The fact is that we can help them at little cost to ourselves, and that our inaction would contribute to their death.

    How many more refugees should we take? Regardless of your “shut-door” policy. Because we cannot justify only taking “those whose know-how/exceptional skills would obviously benefit the UK.”

  18. A bus conductor cannot allow would-be passengers to endlessly pile onto the bus. He has a responsibility to those already on board.

    What would those who gave their lives to preserve this sceptred isle say if we filled it to the brim with the world’s hard-luck cases?

  19. There are millions upon millions of people in the world living shitty lives. It is surely discriminatory that we should only offer refugee places to those of them able to find a way to get here, mostly through being young and fit and having the right contacts. Shouldn’t we just arrange for anyone who faces the sort of nastiness that justifies refugee status to have a ticket to get here?

    Well, if we did so, can we make sure the issues of dealing with such people fall proportionately on everyone? And not disproportionately on those already in this country who are poor? E.g. if it causes housing pressure, don’t just take it from the housing stock allocated to those who are in need because they can’t afford to buy, take it also from housing stock which would go to wealthier people. Make sure the refugee kids are properly distributed across all schools and not disproportionately to those schools which cater mainly for kids of people already here who are poor and lacking a good educational background.

    I am being a little sarcastic here. But I am trying to raise some important questions in order to get at the mindset of people who vote BNP. Just saying “they’re nasty racists/fascists” will salve our conscience, but won’t solve the underlying problem. Which is that poor people in this country feel they have been abandoned by all politicians. Mostly this leads to sullen apathy, but when a bright shiny person comes along who seems to speak their language and have a plausible explanation for their plight?

    We aren’t that bright shiny person. We may have a better explanation and solution to their plight than the BNP’s, but we don’t speak their language and we don’t come across as if we terribly care that much about them.

  20. “What would those who gave their lives to preserve this sceptred isle say if we filled it to the brim with the world’s hard-luck cases?”

    Oh, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think we need to fill it to the brim! But how many more refugees can you think we can take.

    Japan’s population density is around 230 people per square mile higher than our own, and still enjoy a very high standard of living.

    In roughly 90,000 square miles of Britain we could fit another 20,700,000 million people before we reach those sort of levels (not that for a second I think we should, that would be more than I would personally like).

    So again, how many more refugees can we take?

    UK and Japan’s population density

    “There are millions upon millions of people in the world living shitty lives. It is surely discriminatory that we should only offer refugee places to those of them able to find a way to get here”

    True, but you have to pick your battles.

    “Well, if we did so, can we make sure the issues of dealing with such people fall proportionately on everyone? And not disproportionately on those already in this country who are poor?”

    That has more to do with the success of Capital over Labour in the last 3 decades that immigration per se.

    “We aren’t that bright shiny person. We may have a better explanation and solution to their plight than the BNP’s, but we don’t speak their language and we don’t come across as if we terribly care that much about them.”

    That’s true too, but it’s never going to be easy because racists offer simple appealing answers. The real world is far more complicated, and I think its a good thing (long term) that the Left do not want to compromise facts for expediency.

  21. Please don’t hold up Japan as any kind of shining example. Who wants to live at their jam-packed density?

    Some pundits say we need to REDUCE our population by at least 10 million if we are to have any acceptable standard of living in the future. Why? With soaring energy prices scientists reckon the time will soon come when this island cannot afford to support it’s present (and expanding, even if no more immigration) population. And where do you think we’re going to get enough water and food to support your 20 million extra people?

  22. Again, I don’t want 20 million people, but we can physically handle it without collapsing. I was setting an upper limit for discussion.

    It may be optimum to reduce our population by 10 million, however, it is not the only way for us to

    Food is a no-brainer, trade. I don’t really want us to be an agrarian autarkic nation. I’d be much happier if we made stuff and exported it and imported food.

    Water is more difficult. But it is entirely possible for us to increase desalination, to increase efficiency, and reduce waste to meet out future needs.

    In 2007 Thames Water, my supplier was losing 695 million litres of water a day. We can definitely solve that problem.

    So we can feed, water and shelter refugees. How many more can we take before our discomfort outweighs their loss of life?

  23. “Food is a no-brainer, trade.”

    Sorry, but I think you’re forgetting the energy crisis that’s looming. We’ll be using locally grown food.

    There’s a huge cost to everything you suggest at a time when we’re likely to be getting poorer anyway. Crowding brings all kinds of (social) problems and we’re already overcrowded. I simply don’t share your vision of a packed-like-sardines Britain, thank you.

    It’s a hard thing to say, but if strife in other countries continues people are just going to have to stay and fight for their future or find less crowded corners of the world to retreat to. Mugabe for example should have come to a sticky end long before now.

  24. We’ll be partially using locally grown food. But the fact will remain that we will still be importing a tremendous amount of food.

    If there is an energy crisis then it makes more sense to grow food where it is easy to grow and ship it here than to pump domestic crops full of artificial fertilisers in heated green houses.

    Overcrowding will bring social problems, many of them are well documented, some are perhaps harder to understand. However, this is not a reason for helping to inflict death and torture on people just because they happen to be born abroad.

    You say… “It’s a hard thing to say” but it isn’t. It is said daily, it is enforced as we deport people to be murdered.

    Britain should not be the first port of call, however, wealthy and large countries like Canada and the US already take in more refugees than us. Poor and large countries like Chad, Egypt, India and South Africa already do more than us. Small and poor states like Nepal and Lebanon do more than us. How many more refugees can we take?

  25. Ah … there’s nothing like a good bit of stereotyping and political prejudice to really progress things!

    I’d agree with your “scum or idiot” conclusion if you were to apply it to NuLabour rather than the BNP.

    I suspect you’ll find that the vast majority of the 15% who voted Liebour last week did so out of pure, unthinking, idiotic, tribal “I’ve always voted labour and so did m’ father & m’ father’s father”. Most people will have made a very concious decision to vote BNP. To join the BNP or to publicly declare support invites vilification, scorn, abuse, potential job-loss, social exclusion … . I admire their conviction and political courage in the light of such open prejudice and hostility.

  26. I’m the last person to defend people’s decision to vote Labour but at least they aren’t voting for a party whose leaders laud genocide and some of the most oppressive regimes ever seen in the country.

    I don’t deny that BNP voters made conscious decisions to do so. I’m just saying they made their decision either because they are scum or because they are deeply foolish.

  27. Left Outside, I am glad you have at least tried to answer my points.

    I am sorry that most of my fellow Liberal Democrats are too cowardly to face up to these things and give an honest answer, one way or the other.

    What I am putting is, in effect, the points that WILL be made to you by people – in your councillor’s surgery, or while canvassing – if you are working in a mainly white working class urban ward by people who are thinking of voting BNP. The points may not be put quite as I have done so, but that is what they mean. They are not all racists and some may be persuaded by the argument to consider the deep racism that is at the heart of the BNP. Others, however, may conclude the BNP may not be nice, but the political establishment (in which they include us) isn’t willing to discuss these points or even see their point of view, so they’ll vote BNP as a protest to try and make them do so.

  28. And the way to Get the White working class on side is to call them scum and foolsih and Idiots, the White working class Vote BNP because the BNP is the only party that actaully cares for them.
    Why should Indigenous Brits vote for your parties, just look at your comments, it is clear that you hate and despise British people, our culture heritage and traditions.
    Are there any other cultures that you hate as much as you do the British.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ0Z5i0M4-0

  29. Most comments on here used more grey matter than this bigoted pile I read earlier!

    ok, people talk growing our own food.. We have 60 million arable acres. In 2001 we had 60 million people on the books in the census. Go figure. We nearly starved to submission in WW2 with 43 millions.

    Our NHS debt is 1/7 of the money we chuck away to foreign causes each year! I could never forgive that idiot Brown giving India £825M in (Foreign aid) then next week they launched a rocket to the moon.

    We give the EU twice as much as we get back.

    The EU fishery policies are a complete sham. The one that worked was BEFORE Heath gave our fisheries away. For what?

    The whole of the third world wants to come here precisely because its run by Brits: Our education, intelligence, ability to team-work and attitudes make us what we are.

    Do not ever say incomers make this nation richer. That is sick beyond the pale. Ever thought of seeking psychiatric attention? We are in the red! Redder than Arthur Scargills hair. We have now totally sold out all our national assets to abroad. They have their fingers around our throats.

    Now our oil and gas is dwindling. Manufacturing has been decimated, Lost trust in our financial institutions and the whole world is laughing at our media and Government from such childish hatred of the BNP.. Which is too obvious to outsiders. They take us as some sort of goose stepping banana republic now.

    Guess what? I voted BNP. My iq is circa 143. I’m an aerospace engineer with letters after my name. Many of my colleagues also voted BNP for various reasons. I was honestly shocked when I found out there are active members there too! My father voted BNP. He was a lifelong ‘tory and his point of view was to “kick the three into line”. He was the area manager of a huge multinational business that is so big it literally cuts a city from the sea. Still a very clever man!

    Without ‘my’ company, Britain would be billions a year worse off and I’m sick to death of you “oh we should give money away” parasites.

    Stick that in your pipes and smoke it. Who’s a cretin?

  30. I’m not alone in regarding Britain as a ‘club’ (and why not?). New members should be allowed in only if we (a) like them and (b) need them. OK, applications to immigrate will be considered from supplicants… and I do mean SUPPLICANTS, as used to be the case before the weak-in-the-head wreckers took over. They should not be allowed to march in here as of right, stuff the EU and its loony rules.

    “If there is an energy crisis then it makes more sense to grow food where it is easy to grow and ship it here than to pump domestic crops full of artificial fertilisers in heated green houses… Overcrowding will bring social problems… However, this is not a reason for helping to inflict death and torture on people just because they happen to be born abroad,” says Left Outside. With all sorts of crises looming it makes even better sense to ensure the population is not too big to be fed from mostly local sources and kept warm in an affordable way. And who exactly is inflicting death and torture?

    James Graham says Labour leaders don’t laud genocide and oppressive regimes. No? Broon and Blair are both self-declared Zionists and very cosy with lawless and racist Israel, which has held Palestinians under brutal military occupation for 61 years. And what was Israel doing to the Gazans a few months ago (and still doing)?

  31. The race riots in Luton and the racism from South Belfast are all the work of the “scum and idiot” BNP are they? These areas are where the BNP have negligible presence.

    Be careful. One day the public will not take kindly to those who wish to impose a lifestyle they do not want, whilst being slandered.

    Contraire to the opine of you the deluded. The BNP’s only enemy is the Government.

    Multiculturalism is a great idea and needs preserving… Its what borders are for.

  32. I’m not alone in regarding Britain as a ‘club’ (and why not?). New members should be allowed in only if we (a) like them and (b) need them. OK, applications to immigrate will be considered from supplicants… and I do mean SUPPLICANTS, as used to be the case before the weak-in-the-head wreckers took over. They should not be allowed to march in here as of right, stuff the EU and its loony rules.

    True, I can understand that analogy and I think it’s a fairly reasonable one.

    However, no Club can keep people out if doing so would contribute to their death. For example, if someone approached a private members snooker hall (to which even entry is barred to non-members) chased by people wielding machetes, or guns, or baseball bats and they were refused entry they would be culpable in his murder, or beating. Not solely responsible but a contributor to this. Any Club can become full but there has to be a serious threat to the well being of members before it would be right to turn that person back.

    Those chasing this person have not given up and are hanging around outside the club. In fact they do so for many years. In this time whether or not this person has become an official member of the Club, they will become a de facto member of the club. Once they have been here a certain amount of time, laid down roots in the club, they can fairly be described as possessing a right to be a member regardless of their original circumstances.

    This is the situation which Britain is in with respect to the millions of refugees in the world. It is a situation the right are unable to confront without labelling refugees frauds, pimps, prostitutes or “bogus” Asylum Seekers. These are people we have a duty to help and no amount of alleged damage to national identity or loyalty to a Club can vitiate the responsibility we have to refugees.

    “The race riots in Luton and the racism from South Belfast are all the work of the “scum and idiot” BNP are they? These areas are where the BNP have negligible presence.”

    You don’t have to vote BNP to be scum or an idiot… I’m not sure what your point is. How does attacking people only for their race not make you scum?

    “Most people will have made a very concious decision to vote BNP. To join the BNP or to publicly declare support invites vilification, scorn, abuse, potential job-loss, social exclusion… I admire their conviction and political courage in the light of such open prejudice and hostility.”

    That’s funny because I admire those that punch babies. Sure, you get frowned upon, people don’t like it. They say “but the babies haven’t done anything” but they don’t understand.

    They can face exclusion from social groups, loss of their job, loss of thier friends and family. But they are doing what they believe in, good luck to them.

  33. We owe nobody a thing! Are you telling me they are so stupid they need the White British to save their asses?

    YOU RACIST! Haha, dontchya love propaganda.

    You should know your law.. One can only seek asylum by stopping at THE FIRST AVAILABLE SAFE COUNTRY! Anything else is taking the piss.

    Tell me, what has the NUJ come up with on their proposed tactical methods on telling lies about the BNP?

  34. I’m tempted to not argue with you because you obviously don’t understand a single point I made. But in your eyes that would make you some sort of Martyr so I am reluctantly going to engage with you…

    So first of all, no you are wrong. You do owe them. Unfortunately you are in a position to decide who lives and who dies. So you owe them a just consideration of their situation, you owe them a fair hearing because they are human beings. You cannot stick your fingers in your ears, mumble “I’m not listening” and pretend that they don’t need help.

    Once you have given them the hearing which they deserve, you must then come up with a reason for turning them away, should you wish to. When you can’t come up with a reason, because doing so would lead them to die you let them in.

    The rest of your post really is nonsense. I could explain how Asylum Seekers as a label was “created” in the 1980s as a convenient Legal construct. One which allowed rich countries in the Northern Hemisphere to say “Refugees? They’re too far away, you deal with them! Nothing to do with us…”

    What has distance got to do with how much assistance we offer those in danger of murder for nothing other than their beliefs, skin colour, religion or politics?

    I don’t know why you are calling those fleeing persecution “stupid,” especially since your CAPITAL happy style appears a little idiotic to me.

    I feel sorry that Woody has you on his side, at least he was attempting a serious argument. Albeit one I have serious issue with.

    Anyway, here’s a nice graph from the Economist showing us all how we shape up with respect to taking in Refugees.

  35. LO, your “nice graph” from the Economist is pretty nonsensical. For example, there are some 5 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons, most of them in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and camps in Gaza, which helps explain the inflated refugee figures for these countries.

    These refugees are largely the result of Britain’s unprincipled meddling in the region and betrayal of the indigenous people and the international community’s failure to implement UN resolutions and enforce international law against Israel, whose racist policies block the Palestinians’ right of return. In the case of the Palestinians – and now the Iraqis – Britain could be said to have a direct and moral responsibility to receive refugees, but it’s a case of the British people having to pick up the tab for the stupidity and duplicity of their successive governments.

  36. What murder? They do not look very dead when they come over here?

    How about singing this after me: “6.7 Billions to go…” Man is the destroyer. Man is the sickness on this planet. There are no checks and balances. Apart from ourselves. There would be no “murder” as you put it if people were the prime resource for our survival.

    We owe them … Nothing. Those that do, should pay and its not me. Supply a proper argument or waste your time ranting about my poor English.

  37. What murder? They do not look very dead when they come over here?

    Umm, well yeah. You don’t get to see the dead people (unless you watch the news). They were never lucky enough to become refugees.

    But they do exist, I am talking about Sudan, Congo, Environmental Refugees, and many more.

    We owe them… Nothing. Those that do, should pay and its not me. Supply a proper argument or waste your time ranting about my poor English.

    I know who’s ranting, its not me. Anyway, I think I did a fairly good reply as to why we have a responsibility to these people above, here. But I am happy to spell it out more clearly.

    You may be correct that you have not contributed to their suffering directly [1]. However, it does not follow that you do not owe them anything.

    I agree that we have a diminishing degree of responsibility to those within our family, community, nation, and world respectively. If someone is in need of help in my community then they are more deserving of my help than someone who happens to be British who I have never met, and even more than someone who is Columbian who I have never met and lives on the other side of the world.

    But, just because there are those we have a closer bond to than others it does not mean that we owe some people nothing. If we can save someone’s life (as we can) at relatively little cost (immigrants contribute economically; and in my opinion culturally too) then even if our tie to them is very weak we should still help.

    [1](Unfortunately you more than likely are connected to these refugees; you enjoy the products of China made using Oil extracted in Sudan, you probably drive a car built with minerals extracted from the Congo, (if you’re British or American) your Government invaded Iraq and Afghanistan – your life and theirs do connect).

    For example, there are some 5 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons, most of them in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and camps in Gaza, which helps explain the inflated refugee figures for these countries.

    I don’t understand. Because people are Palestinian they don’t count?

    but it’s a case of the British people having to pick up the tab for the stupidity and duplicity of their successive governments.

    I see what you mean. But, this is a democracy, we accepted all the election results as valid and therefore New Labour are (unfortunately) our Government. It means picking up a very large tab.

    Btw, HAPPY WORLD REFUGEE DAY!

  38. As you know, the seeds of the Palestinian refugee problem were sown by that loony Balfour and compounded by the League of Nations and the UN, and indeed the whole international community’s failure to implement UN resolutions, especially the AIPAC-ruled US. If common decency, common sense and a proper regard for international law had been maintained the problem needn’t have happened at all. US-UK criminal meddling also resulted in the Iraqi refugee problem.

  39. Idiots & Immigrants contributed to the UK’s demise.

    We were saved from our financial predicaments of bad Governance back in the late 70’s when oil and gas came on tap. We have imported zillions of cheap labour slaves just as you wanted. Now we are TWO TRILLION GBP in debt. So wheres the profit then?

    They breed faster than we can save them. We are a tiny, miniscule island that is heavily overpopulated on the edge of Europe. Their very numbers alone will soon end all the worlds energy reserves, most likely within your lifetime. This country can only possibly create one quarter of its food at this moment. Excluding growing our own fuel. Guess What will it be like within 50 years time if nothing serious is done with no cheap transport and fertilisers.

    So whats the point? Sort our own issues first. Keep them out. Have this Government resolve OUR hideous population size until we can be self sufficient and carbon neutral. Then let nature handle those who do not handle themselves.

    Remember, this Earth is only so big. Too small for a bunch of tossers to wreck Gods almighty plan.

  40. Ah, Andy, you are such a funny loony!

    One thing though: by island standards, Britain is relatively large. It’s no continent but compared with “tiny, miniscule” islands such as Mann and even Wight, it is huge.

  41. Call me a loony and you are a bigot

    Let me repeat:
    This country has 1691 people per square mile and 60 million arable acres to feed 60 million people according to the 2001 census. We are the third most densely populated land in the world. Malta comes first. Look at the problems they are having!

    A conglomerate of businesses (Tescos, asdas, banks) put the pop. here at 77M.!!!!!

    So tell me, how many can YOU feed/cloth/house? How many more cars on the road? How many more houses? Ever tried to count the number of countries with “at risk” people? Then add all the numbers. Sure its physically possible to stand everyone side by side to fill up an area the size of the Isle of Wight. But as your puerile comment on islands does not imply. Its a stupid thing to even consider.

    You brainwashed lotus eaters are all the same. You call people names if you have no argument.
    And no proper job.

  42. “We are the third most densely populated land in the world. Malta comes first. Look at the problems they are having!”

    Demonstratively false.

    1) We are 52nd or 51st in the World. The top quartile, but nothing terrifying.

    2) However, that does include some small Islands, dependencies, city states etc. which could be argued are unfair to include (although, I’m sure the people living there would think otherwise). So if we take them out we end up with, in descending order of population Density: the Palestinian territories, Taiwan, South Korea, Netherlands, Lebanon, India, Rwanda, Belgium, Haiti, Japan, Israel, Sri Lanka, Philippines, El Salvador, Burundi and Vietnam all ahead of the UK.

    3)If you want to refer to England only (for no particular reason that I can work out, I don’t judge all the US on New York, or all of Germany by Saxony) then England has a population of 51 million and a land mass of 50,000 square miles. This gives a population density of a little over 1,000 a square mile. Excluding islands, city states, and dependencies, this still places us behind the Palestinian territories, Taiwan and South Korea. So England is forth, not third.

    4)If you want to use LONDON, then you still lose . With a population density of 12,331 per square mile it places around 600 people per square mile behind South Korea.

    5) If you want to use your fictitious figure of 77 million over a land mass of 94,526 square miles you would still only have 815 people per square mile. Behind the Palestinian territories, Taiwan, South Korea, Netherlands, Lebanon, India, Rwanda, Belgium, Haiti, Japan and Israel.

    Where did you get your figures by the way? Especially the one from Tesco et al.

    “Ever tried to count the number of countries with “at risk” people? Then add all the numbers.”

    About half the world’s population are living on less than $4 a day, and there are around 30 million refugees in the world at any time.

    These are overwhelming figures, but no one is arguing that the UK should shoulder that burden alone. The whole of the developed world should help.

    We have about 7% of the world’s wealth and about 1% of it’s people, about 0.5% of it’s refugees. I would like to see us take on a larger share of the burden, in proportion to the wealth which we have. Because of our relative size and popualtion, you are correct; we can probably do more than the Netherlands, but less than the US. However, we can definitely do more than we are doing now.

    You brainwashed lotus eaters are all the same. You call people names if you have no argument.
    And no proper job.

    What a bizarre way to end…

  43. “We can definitely do more than we are doing now”…
    Even if that were true, why should we? Why should you condemn the rest of us to a crowded, stressful life?

    BTW where did you get the idea that we have 7% of the world’s wealth? All that wealth, if it exists, doesn’t reside here in the UK under the control of us citizens.

    It’s time would-be refugees stayed home and generated their own wealth, working together like all nation-builders throughout the ages.

  44. It’s time would-be refugees stayed home…”

    They are being persecuted and hounded out of their homes, they cannot “stay at home.” That is what a refugee is. Migrants you may have a point, but not refugees, they are defined precisely as people who cannot do what you ask. 30 million of them.

    …working together like all nation-builders throughout the ages.

    Not exactly what happened was it? You seem to have missed out all the rape and pillage which went on too. The fortunes exported from Latin America, Africa and Asia to the capitalist centres of the world. Check out Open Veins of Latin America, a really approachable read on imperialism and development.

    BTW where did you get the idea that we have 7% of the world’s wealth?

    Here. And Sorry, it’s more like 6%. Still, it’s a lot. And yes, you are correct GDP and wealth do not sync well, and no, that money is not in the pocket of average UK citizens.

    But, that is a different story altogether. There’s the erosion of Labour rights since the early 1980s, there’s the changing global division of Labour which has been happening since time immemorial, there’s a worryingly powerful oligarchy which has captured the ruling parties in the UK and US (look at the bank bailouts and soft handouts to “special” firms). However, anti-immigrant posturing is not going to foster the solidarity which is necessary to fight those things and get wealth back to the people who deserve it.

    Even if that were true, why should we?

    In the case of refugees, to save lives. For migrants, (the slightly less strong case) to make someone elses life better at little or no cost to ourselves. See here and here and there is also our historic responsibility towards those we have wronged, imperialism’s impact didn’t vanish in the 1960s.

    Why should you condemn the rest of us to a crowded, stressful life?

    It wouldn’t. See here.

    Moreover, immigrants don’t make you life worse.

    Poll after poll has shown that the more people associate with immigrants the more accepting they are, as they realise that there’s nothing wrong with them or their presence.

    This country is built on immigration, up until 1905 we had open border (not in the Ian Dale/Daily Mail sense, but actually open) not one single border control or check. No barriers and we were the most powerful nation on earth. The late 19th Century was the era of great migrations, and Britain was a huge part of it and benefited greatly.

    I’m off to Glastonbury now, but I will be back to this on Monday, I’m quite enjoying it.

  45. Wherever the European has settled, wealth was created. Those who will not create their own heaven want a bit of someone elses. Whenever I see a “refugee”. I have never come across one who looks or lives up to their status.

    Its a scam.

    Early this year in Wigan they had to pull down a block of flats because some Kosovan “refugees” oh so grateful… Tried to plumb across the gas meter and blew up the block of flats. Nearly killing themselves and injuring others.

    Crime is double off “refugees”. So is the mental health scam. (More money & drugs). My ex g/f is testament to their games on that score. Rapes, gun and knife crimes. Drug importers. Especially heroin from Afghanistan via Pakistan.

    Northern Ireland. The latest affair was nothing to do with racism. It was pure retaliation at the imported Romanian crime wave.

    As far as I am concerned, if you travel across the globe instead of the first safe place then cry asylum. You are a scammer.

    Many are out and out racists. They will not marry outside of their religion or family ties.

    Why don’t you devote all your money to the future concerns of our poor and old pensioners? The EU is about to scupper pensions and this Gubmint cannot keep up paying state pensions with our TWO TRILLION GBP debt. Wealth indeed. HA!

    Now this bunch of tossers (apparently) want to GIVE 220,000 passports for free. I have to pay £70+

    Thats racism too. Against me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *