Nick Griffin of BNP: Let's Sink The Boats Of Immigrants

[Pariah87]

Support for the BNP is growing particularly in the working class because many feel Labour have completely f'd up. Support is also growing due to the large influx of Eastern European immigrants (who are here perfectly legally) who have encroached on the primary working class areas of employment, warehousing, distribution etc.

As a warehouse worker I can to a degree see why people are becomming so wayward, before the economy went belly up out of every 11 Agency workers who came through, 6 were Polish, 2 were Latvian, 1 was Lithuanian and 2 were British and at least in my town these sort of figures were the norm. There is much whispered support for the BNP but thankfully I don't believe that many will/have vote for them (As in, their support seems to go much further than the votes suggest)

You also have to remember that not all BNP supporters are ignorant racsist thugs, but merely see them as a means to an end for an issue which is scaring them in the current climate without looking at their policies as a whole. Nick Griffin and the top men of the BNP are the evil organ grinders whilst a public which has lost faith in the current system are their dancing monkeys.

Any rational person, even a rational patriotic person, can look at their policies, particularly regarding education and see NAZI in big neon letters. Of course they will just say we are trying to tarnish their reputation and that the people have spoken.

What annoys me most is that the people who are voting for them had fathers or grandfathers who fought and died to bring down their idealogical predecessors, my own included, wake up Britain!

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Hmm... Bombing immigrant boats... Don't see anything that could possibly go wrong with that idea. After all, every immigrant ever knows how to swim, right? And the undertow is really gentle over there, isn't it?

Maybe if BNP members were sitting in the boats with the immigrants I'd be more inclined to support this idea. Or maybe if it was just the BNP members in the boats. And we had cannonballs.

Just goes to show that it's not only America that has nutjobs in positions of authority. Guess the KKK has some overseas competition. Also, now I finally know how to do this HTML thing.

 

[Pariah87]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwfqBdA21SA&feature=related

Who comes across as the idiot in this radio show?

Damn, just watched both parts. You can't effectively combat something by acting childish and ignoring the person on the other side of the arguament. To beat people you have to be smarter than them and beat them at their own game. Bennet didn't help his cause at all there.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Is he serious?? Oh wait, he is.

He should be put on a boat and thrown out into the middle of the sea. Then we should sink the boat....

Oh, but it won't be murder, we'll throw him a raft!

 

[matnatz]

Immigration will be a problem, or maybe it already is if the horror stories told by my brother hold any weight. But this is now the way of going about it.

The BNP are trying to appeal to the working class, and lets not kid ourselves, some of the working class are being given a hard time because immigrants sometimes (often illigally) undercut them. But the BNP probably don't hae the best interests of these people in mind, Instead they have their own racist agenda.

Also, I think many people voted BNP just to spite labour.

 

[Helnurath]

Being a third generation immigrant myself, with each of my great-grandparents on both sides of the family being from a different county(El Salvador, The Dominican Republic, The Philipines, and Germany) this guy is insane.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Being a third generation immigrant myself, with each of my great-grandparents on both sides of the family being from a different county(El Salvador, The Dominican Republic, The Philipines, and Germany) this guy is insane.

I think after 3 generations in a specific country it's safe to say you're no longer an immigrant. In fact, I'd say after 2 you're in the clear.

 

[Mekado]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwfqBdA21SA&feature=related

Who comes across as the idiot in this radio show?

I gotta admit that the "i'm not talking to him, you'll have to repeat his questions" is very very childish and something a PR person shouldn't do... He didn't have much of a point except comparing the BNP to Nazi's (every far-right organisation has been labelled nazis at some point...) Compared to him, the BNP guy sounded much more credible, he might just be a spinster, but he's a good one.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Now just wait for him to pull a Howard!

After one such boat sinks expect this moron to be in front of the camera blaming the immigrants themselves for being in the water. Holding it up as evidence these people are not human enough to be considered... umm people? Expect specially selected pictures of children floating face down to be used, with similar Howard like themes of 'Immigrants throw their won children into the sea to drown' and other bullshit.

Sadly when you come from the most racist western country in the world, such bullshit being sprouted in the news is common....

 

[Helnurath]

Being a third generation immigrant myself, with each of my great-grandparents on both sides of the family being from a different county(El Salvador, The Dominican Republic, The Philipines, and Germany) this guy is insane.

I think after 3 generations in a specific country it's safe to say you're no longer an immigrant. In fact, I'd say after 2 you're in the clear.

You know whats funny? Only my great-grandfather from Germany came here illegally, using his cousin's last name. I also agree with you in that we shouldn't let all of them illegals in. If they dont want to work hard in their own country to try and get an education, thats their problem. My mother use to tell me stories about living in El Salvador as a child (she was born in the US), and how her and all of my aunts use to study under streetlamps in the middle of the nights to study for tests to get a formal degree.

 

[NeutralDrow]

This disrespectful behavior of what amounts to human locust creates a very much understandable distrust and, in some cases, outright hatred of the immigrant population. Because individuals are unable to determine if the immigrant is your valuable, honest legal type or your destructive illegal type, the individual tends to side with the least destructive assumption, which is to assume all immigrants are destructive illegals. They view it as it's better to lose a few legal ones that to continue to permit the illegals.

You mean it's better to get rid of the mostly non-destructive illegals along with a lot of legal immigrants to get rid of the criminal element. I can't sympathize with such a view in the least.

All illegals are destructive. I don't mean that they're all murders, I don't mean that they're all drug runners, I don't mean that they're all rapists. I mean that they're all criminals in the most basic sense of the word. When someone is a criminal, they are destructive to the judicial system in place. By not following the law of the land you are promoting anarchy. After all, if you don't want to follow one law for whatever reason, what's going to stop you from following the rest of them? If there is no substantial following of the law by the citizenry, in what sense is there a law?

I didn't say what they were doing wasn't illegal. I was saying they weren't destructive. Needless to say, we have different definitions of that term, and I disagree rather strongly with the "destructive to the judicial system" sentiment.

Then answer the question. If there is no substantial following of the law by the citizenry, in what sense is there a law?

There isn't. In such a case, that particular law is pointless, and much either be more rigidly enforced, dropped altogether, or simply ignored.

I also rather hate the slippery slope fallacy, which seems to be present in spirit. If one law is weakly enforced, it could bring the entire system crashing down, was it?

It's not a fallacy, it's drawing a line. At what point do you stop breaking the law and why? If you set the precedent that you wont follow a law because it's a hassle to you, what next law will you then break that becomes a hassle to you? Moreover, why should people be allowed to pick and choose what laws they will and will not follow? How is that not anarchy? Why should one law be enforced, but not another? Are all laws not equal? Are all laws not important? Who sets that standard that some laws should be enforced and not others? Who decides which laws are more important than others? Can the citizens make that distinction? Can people who are not citizens make the decision as to which laws they will and will not follow? When does this end?

That is precisely the fallacy, the assumption that a likely isolated incidence will lead to greater and greater flouting until society collapses. The same argument is used to show that smoking marijuana invariably leads to gruesome death, letting gay people get married leads to anarchy, not preventing one country from raising a Communist government will leave an entire region under the thumb of the Soviets, and creating an organization where diplomats from every country come together will inevitably wind up with that place controlling the Earth.

I don't normally take Locke's side over Hobbes', and I have some major disagreements with the Libertarians, but I will note that the law is in place for the benefit of the citizenry, not the other way around. I follow the law because it usually makes society run smoothly. But given that I was visiting internet porn sites before turning eighteen, perhaps it's surprising that I haven't turned to illegal drug use or theft?

Edit:

When you stop enforcing the law the people stop respecting the law. How can you say with a straight face that some laws can or should be disregarded and others should not?

Some laws deserve no respect. The name "Jim Crow" comes to mind.

I don't care if a person is coming into the country illegally from Africa, Mexico, Canada, or Britain. They are all criminals. Why? Because that's what illegal bloody well means! Follow the law until you can get it legally changed. Don't just not follow it because you don't agree with it!

I'm fairly certain they don't have much option to change laws...

They don't have much option, but if you sympathize to their cause you can.

And I quite do.

 

[Byrne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwfqBdA21SA&feature=related

Who comes across as the idiot in this radio show?

Damn, just watched both parts. You can't effectively combat something by acting childish and ignoring the person on the other side of the arguament. To beat people you have to be smarter than them and beat them at their own game. Bennet didn't help his cause at all there.

Not that UAF are credible either, it mainly consists of thuggish trots.

 

[Doomdiver]

It's quite depressing that they got so many votes in both Manchester and Burnley. Two cities that I am right in the middle of. However we shouldn't stop him saying such things, that would be limiting freedom, much like he is trying to do. We just need to educate people to dismiss them and try to stop all the "It's the imigrants fault!" ignorance.

As for imigration I completely support freedom of movement. I don't believe we should still live in a time where old men draw lines in the sand and say "You stay on that side and we'll stay on this side." In conclusion I couldn't disagree with the BNP more!

 

[Bat Vader]

To the Americans/Canadians: Imagine if the KKK got seats in Congress: That's what we have here.

Thank god the KKK have no political party.

 

[Tehpwnsauce]

This guy should be locked upshot.

Fixed.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

There isn't. In such a case, that particular law is pointless, and much either be more rigidly enforced, dropped altogether, or simply ignored.

The law should never be ignored. Enforce it or kick it out. I don't care which. Just give the people a chance to decide if they want the law. If they don't like it, get rid of it. Until that time, enforce it.

That is precisely the fallacy, the assumption that a likely isolated incidence will lead to greater and greater flouting until society collapses. The same argument is used to show that smoking marijuana invariably leads to gruesome death, letting gay people get married leads to anarchy, not preventing one country from raising a Communist government will leave an entire region under the thumb of the Soviets, and creating an organization where diplomats from every country come together will inevitably wind up with that place controlling the Earth.

I don't normally take Locke's side over Hobbes', and I have some major disagreements with the Libertarians, but I will note that the law is in place for the benefit of the citizenry, not the other way around. I follow the law because it usually makes society run smoothly. But given that I was visiting internet porn sites before turning eighteen, perhaps it's surprising that I haven't turned to illegal drug use or theft?

The United States of America must be a respecter of laws, not of men. To declare that one law should not be enforced is to deny the entire system. This is not about what happens to society, this is about president. This is about principle. If the people cannot rely upon their government to enforce the laws it demands of them, then there is no law. There is only anarchy. A system whereby some might be held accountable by the law but not others. How is this justice?

To me, this debate is more than just immigration. This is about a whole system where many, a few, or only one person is not held accountable like everyone else. How can you declare that one, few, or even many may be exempt from the law?

I'm not saying that by breaking the law of immigration you are therefor capable of committing murder. I'm saying that by not following the law you set a president for yourself. If you're not willing to commit to follow this law, should you commit to follow others? At what point do you have the right to say you will follow this law and not follow that law? Why do certain peoples get to decide which laws they will and will not follow? How is such a system not anarchy?

The problem is the idea that some people should be held to a certain standard and not others.

Some laws deserve no respect. The name "Jim Crow" comes to mind.

The law is the law and should be respected. While I agree that the Jim Crow law was an abomination, the proper, civil course of action is to respect it and try to get it over turned. The proper course is not to disregard it and go your own way. That is(and I know I'm sounding like a broken record at this point) anarchy.

And I quite do.

I sympathize as well, but I cannot accept people breaking the law. I don't want to be a cold hearted bastard that denies people the ability to have the freedoms I take for granted. I want to have a government of laws with no people being exempt from them. I want to have faith in the government that they will enforce the laws as they are written for the benefit of the citizenry. Unfortunately, when I see the appalling lack of concern on the subject of illegal immigration I lose faith in the system. When I see people accepted for a government job when they clearly should not be granted it(I'm lookin' at you Geitner), I lose faith in the system. When I see one law being upheld but not another I lose faith in the system.

 

[Willwillwritehiswill]

Oh the japes and shenanigans of britain's second most hilarious politician.

After Gordon Brown.

What worries me is that this hilarious bit of footage was put on youtube by bnp supporters.

 

[RobCoxxy]

Oh deary me, go win them votes you pillock. /facepalm

 

[historybuff]

"I don't think the EU is in the business of, uh, actually murdering people at sea."

Hahaha, she said what I was thinking.

How on earth did this guy get a seat anywhere? I'm surprised he can get on a bus without someone throwing him off.