Bishop: don't vote for extremists on Thursday (From Oxford Mail)

Butt out pal.

Surely 'God' will choose who should be the winner at the polls ? (lets just hope he never claims expenses).

Religion and politics the two oldest cons in the world which should never be mixed.

I'm sorry, but a deluded belief in a 2000 year old Jewish zombie carpenter gives no-one the right to tell me how to vote. Would the clergy just please go back to their fairy stories and leave us rational people alone?

What right have the clergy to try and influence people in their democratic right to vote for any party. The church should keep out of politics and devote their time to addressing the many problems which exist in the church. What would be the reaction if politicians expounded on one religion being better than another!

What a laugh - perhaps the good Reverend would like us to vote for the Christian Peoples Alliance as they're standing for the Euro elections. But then they're rather extremist too - goes hand in hand with good old Christianity!
Butt out Mr Pritchard! I'll vote for whom I choose.

bagsie wrote:
What right have the clergy to try and influence people in their democratic right to vote for any party. The church should keep out of politics and devote their time to addressing the many problems which exist in the church. What would be the reaction if politicians expounded on one religion being better than another!

Clergy have every right to direct comments to their flock - the church is a voluntary society, just like the National Trust or Amnesty. It's nothing to get hot under the collar about.

If the Oxford Times chooses to report what the Bishop of Oxford says, but not the point of view of, say, the director of Oxfam, ... well, that's something to take up with the Editor.

philg wrote:

bagsie wrote: What right have the clergy to try and influence people in their democratic right to vote for any party. The church should keep out of politics and devote their time to addressing the many problems which exist in the church. What would be the reaction if politicians expounded on one religion being better than another!

Clergy have every right to direct comments to their flock - the church is a voluntary society, just like the National Trust or Amnesty. It's nothing to get hot under the collar about. If the Oxford Times chooses to report what the Bishop of Oxford says, but not the point of view of, say, the director of Oxfam, ... well, that's something to take up with the Editor.

Actually, the Church of England does not have the right to opine on party politics. Being the established state church in England, it has to remain apolitical, like the Queen. Imagine the furore if the CofE favoured the Tories over Labour for example.

Rowan Williams is on record for saying that Christian doctrine is 'offensive' to Muslims. Also that Islamic Sharia law should feature more prominently in British law, and that criticising immoral, thieving MP's was a 'threat to democracy' (rather than the biggest shake up of a corrupt political system that it really is)

John Sentamu has spoken a lot of sense about celebrating St George's day, removing the 'shame' of being English (in England), the failure of multi culturalism and the risk of using 'tolerance' as an excuse for beliefs that are fundamentally incompatible with our culture and way of life.

Either way, I doubt that the opinions of an appeaser of Islam and a Ugandan asylum seeker are going to sway the opinions of people who feel that voting BNP is the only way of getting their opinion across that they don't want an Islamic Caliphate in Britain, are opposed to the bogus asylum seeker scam and are fed up with being ignored by a corrupt, thieving, immoral and arrogant political class- the 'Pigging Politicians' as the BNP election broadcast phrased it.

A vote for the main three parties is a vote to maintain the status quo- and look how they're all squirming now the lid's been ripped off it and the reasons behind importing votes, buying people off with benefits and ignoring the opinions of the electorate all suddenly make sense.

As they say: 'follow the money...'

Good on yer Bish. Idiots in this country have been voting for an extremist party since 1997 and it's hard to think of more severe consequences (in peacetime) than national bankruptcy, the banning of just about everything that moves and enough new laws to stretch to the moon and back 10 times

DanOxford,
Your a well read and informed man, I'd like to vote for YOU.
As my views are very similar but not as refined I'd like to support YOU in getting a stronger voice here in Oxford and the UK.
What do you say?

Dear BNP thickos, he isn't trying to dissuade people who want a repeat of the Third Reich in our country. There is clearly no hope for those people, and luckily they make a lot of noise but actually don't number many at all. He is trying to stir the millions of people who might otherwise abstain into voting. It doesn't matter who for - it's all about percentages. No matter what your politics are, every vote for Labour/Tories/Lib Dems/UKIP counts against the retarded BNP, whose answer to our problems is to close down Chinese restaurants.

The Bishop is expressing a huge sentiment of revulsion that is sweeping our country now the BNP seem to be in the news every day (usually because yet another institution in our country has expressed their hatred of them) and reminds me how proud I am to be British, because we are the only major nation in Europe that has consistently and thoroughly rejected violent, bullying, bloodthirsty fascists as politicians throughout the modern era. And we will do it again next week.

Love England Hate Racists

Leach Valley Yellow wrote:
Dear BNP thickos, he isn't trying to dissuade people who want a repeat of the Third Reich in our country. There is clearly no hope for those people, and luckily they make a lot of noise but actually don't number many at all. He is trying to stir the millions of people who might otherwise abstain into voting. It doesn't matter who for - it's all about percentages. No matter what your politics are, every vote for Labour/Tories/Lib Dems/UKIP counts against the retarded BNP, whose answer to our problems is to close down Chinese restaurants. The Bishop is expressing a huge sentiment of revulsion that is sweeping our country now the BNP seem to be in the news every day (usually because yet another institution in our country has expressed their hatred of them) and reminds me how proud I am to be British, because we are the only major nation in Europe that has consistently and thoroughly rejected violent, bullying, bloodthirsty fascists as politicians throughout the modern era. And we will do it again next week. Love England Hate Racists

You mention 4 parties that have all discredited MP /MEP's even UKIP I'm afraid. A vote for these 4 maintains the status quo and Rev Pritchard needs to be aware of that. Personally I can't stand the EU so I shall vote no to 2, yes to Democracy and having read their propoganda, they are very much against the BNP.
As for the local elections - why bother? Oxfordshire County Council is virtually run by the Government and the EU anyway.
I would also say that the BNP are not the only reacist party out there - take a look at the Christian Peoples Alliance. They're not exactly friendly to anyone who isn't a raving bible basher. Religous zealots (all religions too) are more dangerous than the BNP but I guess it's not trendy to knock religion??

Leach Valley:

I feel that you have fallen into several establishment traps on this issue. I will try t address them in order:

1) the BNP support can no longer be dismissed as ‘thickos’ as the leaked membership list clearly dispelled the myth that BNP members (let alone supporters or voters) are ‘knuckle dragging, tattooed skinheads’ (interesting how the PC Left have no problem with applying stereotypes based on physical appearance when it suits them to do so)

2) Hitler’s Third Reich was proposed to be a European superstate- the BNP is against the formation of a European superstate in the form of the centralised, unaccountable EU

3) I have looked carefully and can see no reference to the BNP having a policy of closing down Chinese restaurants, so you will be able to enjoy egg fried rice, noodles and prawn crackers for the forseeable future

4) Parties opposed to mass immigration, central rule from Brussels, Islamification and political corruption are gaining all across Europe. One has to ask whether Britain’s reluctance to adopt such a stance can go some way to explaining why Britain is the third most popular destination for migrants worldwide, why illegal immigrants risk their lives trying to get here from safe Countries including France, why we have a MILLION foreigners in the UK who have NO LEGAL RIGHT to be here, and why the USA considers the UK to be the greatest source of Islamist terrorism in Europe.

5) ‘Fascist’ governments suppress dissent and outlaw opposition- look into how Unite Against Facism (UAF) and Searchlight are run and funded- look up Gerry Gable in particular. These state backed organisations disrupt BNP meetings and appearances (as we saw when Nick Griffin was invited to the Oxford Union), adopt a ‘no platform’ policy where the refuse to engage the BNP on ISSUES (preferring to simply shout ‘racist!’ and ‘nazi!’ instead…) and openly support violence as a weapon against the (democratically legitimate) BNP. Labour- backing Trade Unions want to deprive teachers, nurses, civil servants and anyone else they can think of of a living for simply being BNP members- the clergy have already voted to ban BNP membership. Not very free, democratic or just is it?

6) NuLabour ALREADY operate a ‘voluntary repatriation scheme’ (an oft- quoted BNP policy) where they have paid asylum seekers £4000 of tax payers money to return home- some have reputedly then used this money to set up travel agencies to encourage MORE migrants to travel to the UK, pass Go, collect the four grand and come home!

7) The British ARE noted for their tolerance, but that is now being abused. Until 1983, migration was balanced with as many leaving as arriving. About half a million migrants were accepted PER DECADE until the mid 1990’s (when NuLabour came to power…) In 2007, net immigration (allowing for British people leaving) was 237,000, which is TWENTY FIVE TIMES higher than at any other time in our history. While a trickle of suitably keen, qualified, honest and hard working immigrants area good thing, the current flood of Third Worlders is not. It is my opinion that a lot of well intentioned people simply do not realise that the scale and nature of immigration is not as it was in the 1950s and 1970s.

The establishment are pulling all the stops out to smear the BNP and brand anyone who agrees with their aims and policies as ‘racist’ yet offers no evidence, will not engage the BNP in dialogue, and – more importantly- will not respond to the concerns of the electorate, 80% of whom are opposed to current levels of immigration.

To me, it makes no sense to say 80% of the British public are racists, warn against the BNP, and yet do NOTHING to reduce immigration, hold a referendum on the EU (as promised by NuLabour in their manifesto) and support British people, in Britain. NuLabour are happy to keep importing migrants who will vote for them, provide cheap labour for their business chums and enjoy all the benefits of power- none of which helps the average Briton.

NuLabour have also encouraged racism and discrimination- setting targets for the number of Black/ Minority Ethnic police officers, politicians etc- skin colour should have no bearing on job selection- it means good white candidates are left out, poor black candidates are pushed forward, and good black candidates viewed with suspicion that they had preferential treatment.

As a final point- take the position on the Ghurkas, immigration minister Phil Woollas said we can’t just let the good ones in to our Country- a bizarre statement as it’s our Country so why should we let Islamic extremists and other undesirables in just to be ‘fair’? While BNP chairman Nick Griffin said he would welcome the hard working, patriotic Ghurkas in but would make room for them in our already full Country by expelling the Muslims in the UK who openly support Al Qaeda and are anti- British.

Seems fair to me…

if we could vote on abolishing religion my cross would be for yes everytime..its a cop out for an easy life,get a propper job..

The head of Christianity for Oxfordshire has the right to express his views, especially when certain extreamist parties, especially the BNP have certain ideals that oppose Christianity.

Dan Oxford is quite clearly well read up on certain sunjects, but not all of them. hitler was not trying to create a European superstate, he was trying to create a 'perified' Nation of Arians within europe, I doubt if you put any real BNP voter on a lie detector and asked them if they judge people by the colour of their skin they would fail if they answered 'no'.
Whatever your views on New Labour or the Tories, they are the only viable option.

As for the expenses row, well maybe BNP Mp's would be the same if any constituency within the UK was stupid enough to vote one in, luckily they, so far at least, have not been.

"The head of Christianity for Oxfordshire...?" Such a post does not exist! The Bishop of Oxford represents the CofE which is one of many different Christian churches. As only 6% of the population attend any Christian church regularly, the number of Oxonians truly represented by the Bish is vanishingly small. Therefore he should stick to preaching to the converted and leave free-thinking people alone. Any vote for disestablishment of the CofE? - they are truly an anachronism.

I stand corrected. But the point still stands, saying he shouldn't speak up against an organisation that opposes his views is like saying Nick Griffin can't speak up against immigration, which he can, he also likes to deny fact, like, say The Holocaust? What a fine man the leader of the BNP is! How British to insult people like my Grandfather who flew for the Royal Air Force for bombing Nazi Germany, how British to claim the likes of Linford Christie and Daly Thompson should not be able to represent our country. God Bless him, thankfully I think he may come face to face with someone else on his judgement day.

Abingdon_born_Cowley wrote:
I stand corrected. But the point still stands, saying he shouldn't speak up against an organisation that opposes his views is like saying Nick Griffin can't speak up against immigration, which he can, he also likes to deny fact, like, say The Holocaust? What a fine man the leader of the BNP is! How British to insult people like my Grandfather who flew for the Royal Air Force for bombing Nazi Germany, how British to claim the likes of Linford Christie and Daly Thompson should not be able to represent our country. God Bless him, thankfully I think he may come face to face with someone else on his judgement day.

The clergy is free to say what they like, but them being given a public platform to vent their political views is objectionable. I would like a platform to object to an organisation which worships a being who is in favour of rape, murder and slavery. MANY apt examples in the Bible, e.g...."If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her".

To the CofE: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye".

Interesting that so much comes down to having a platform to air your views.

The BNP are subject to a 'no platform' policy and the National Union of Journalists have a policy of never reporting on them uncritically.

While Nigel '£2 million in EU expenses' Farage is regularly wheeled out in his pink shirt and blazer on Question Time etc in his official capacity as establishment- approved outlet for anti- mass immigration and anti- EU sentiment and anger, the BNP are given no such opportunity to state their policies or case.

The established political parties, the Church and the controlled media are fearful that the general public are in general agreement about key BNP policies and concerns, and yet they do not offer any alternative.

The BNP are opposed to foreign wars of no direct concern to the UK; against globalisation that results in lower wages and unemployment for Britons, loss of local and national cultural identity and foreign ownership of vital UK energy and other resources; against the law favouring criminals over their victims; against pouring UK taxpayer's money into wasteful schemes in corrupt Third world regimes (The Greens want to INCREASE our 'aid' to Countries, some of which have their own nuclear and even space programs!) and against the Political Correctness which Nulabour has created an entire industry out of, and which is now being legally used to discriminate against native British people, in their own Country. Harriet Harman seems to have made it her mission to enshrine in law active discrimination against white men.

Apartheid was wrong in South Africa, 'positive' discrimination and target setting by ethnicity or colour is wrong here.

One has to ask WHY the establishment are so anti- BNP.

Politicians want mass immigration to provide cheap labour for business chums and to vote them into power, where the can enjoy a life of privilege at OUR expense. With most 75%) of our laws emanating from Brussels, MPs then have more time for their second jobs, expense fiddling, home renovations and plasma TV watching.

The Church fears its declining influence in an increasingly well- educated, secular society, and has enjoyed a resurgence with East European Catholics and African Christians flooding into the UK. They dare not criticise Islam lest their own medieval, crooked beliefs come under scrutiny, and the publc again ask why one privileged group should enjoy such power, influence and wealth over the rest of us, in return for so little.

The Unions created and still back Labour, and while they have done little to safe guard British jobs against foreign undercutting, without Labour in power their influence is drastically reduced.

The BNP are stating their case DEMOCRATICALLY through the ballot box.

Their website (recently bought down by a massive Russian/ East European based criminal cyber attack- funded by whom one asks?) is the most visited political website in Europe according to Alexa figures.

Nick Griffin openly discusses his 15 year old conviction for holocaust denial, the BNP position on lesbian, gay and bisexual people, why he chose not to attend the Queen's garden party, how he would make room for the Ghurkas and all the other topics that regularly crop up about the BNP.

In contracst, I can see very little actual discussion or evidence offered in support of the oft- repeated cries that the BNP are 'nazis' or 'racists' or 'extremists'.

The internet is breaking down the barriers to freedom of speece and information that have hidden so much.

For example: you may wonder why this years Notting Hill Carnival has a curfew, given that the 'official' line was that last year was a wonderful, multicultural success story.

Look on YouTube and elsewhere and you will see that the riots and attacks on the police last year made headline news in the USA.

Unlike the Bishops, I'm not telling anyone who to vote for or offering any dire warnings: Just go and have a look behind the headlines and make up your own minds based on your own beliefs, conscience and interests.

And a last point- like those in favour of the EU, Christians are internationalists and see other Christians as their 'brothers' so are naturally opposed to Nationalists who see their countrymen as their natural family and allies.

2000 years of Christianity doesn't seem to have brought about international brotherhood and peace, whereas people continue to define themselves along national, regional and ethnic lines- just as many Africans did after the British pulled out and the artificail boundaries they had defined with no regard to tribal lands- a pattern repeated in the Balkans when military rule and dictatorship no longer forced disparate groups to live under one banner.

No Voting for extremist parties eh. Thank god that should put paid to the GREENS then

I can't believe the anti-BNP propaganda passing for "news" these days. I'm not even a BNP backer (at least yet, I'm still undecided), but as far as I can tell, the BNP and the EDP are the only two parties actually addressing the issues that are ruining this once great island nation of Britain, and England in particular.

Many other posters have commented on this, and I'll reaffirm it: Well-educated British young adults are emigrating away from these shores in waves, and we're never coming back. Over half of my schoolmates have left Britain already and many of the rest of us will soon be following.

Why? We see little future for our careers or our families here in the United Kingdom, and it's only the British National Party and the English Democrats who are talking about the base reasons. We're going just about anywhere else but Britain-- to traditionally popular places like Spain, Cyprus, France, Greece and Holland/Belgium, yes, but also to other spots like Germany in particular if we've learnt a bit of German (and especially if we like to start businesses, to work in science or engineering fields), Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, even South America (Uruguay, Chile, Panama) and Asia (China, Dubai, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand). The one change is that few are going to Australia or Canada anymore, which are in the same mess as the UK, but everywhere else is popular.

Why? It's not merely that mass immigration and crowding are turning Britain into a 3rd-World zone and rubbishing our national identity-- but also our broken-down cities, terrible public transportation, graffiti and litter everywhere, drunks and yobs roaming the streets, shallow culture, awful cities, poor schools and infrastructure, you name it. The UK and England in particular, no longer seem a part of the modern family of advanced nations, while British and English culture have been submerged under a particularly ugly form of Frankfurt School, Gramscian cultural Marxism.

What we often refer to as "PC" political correctness is something altogether far more pernicious-- the "Long March Through the Institutions" advocated by the Cultural Marxist Antonio Gramsci in the 1920's and then further advanced by the Frankfurt School, with the deliberate aim of undermining our societies. Australia and the USA are both afflicted with this, but Canada and Great Britain especially so.

As other posters have starkly been noting-- Antonio Gramsci has not only defeated Britain, Antonio Gramsci has destroyed Britain. And, considering the break-up of the British Isles which is likely imminent within the next decade, in practice Gramsci has destroyed England, defeated England in every possible facet, with particular ferocity.

Not only Nu-Labour but the entire Liberal-Labour-Conse
rvative and UKIP band of corrupt officials have helped implement Gramsci's plan to ruin the UK, either by direct effort or acquiescence, to import voters and net themselves cheap votes, favours and a pliable, enervated mass electorate.

The Gramscians infiltrated our universities first, setting what have become our "PC cultural norms," then took the media, the government, businesses, even the police.

In doing so, particularly since the 1960's-- when the USA and Australia's disastrous Vietnam War enabled the rise of the Gramscian New Left and their takeover of the universities-- they have worked in overdrive to dismantle British institutions and virtually everything that has made Britain strong and distinctive. Massive immigration has been one tool for this, but so has the breakdown of our schools, our public institutions and of course our cities.

ESPECIALLY our cities. Go to virtually any major city on the Continent-- to Reims, Antwerp, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Barcelona, or to Asian metropolises like Shanghai, Sapporo or Osaka, or even to South American cities like Santiago, Buenos Aires, even Panama City increasingly-- and you'll find cities and their inhabitants full of civic pride. Very unlike Britain, where our cities become more miserable every day.

This has been precisely the plan of the Gramscian Cultural Marxists for Britain since the 1920's. Now, they're in the halls of power, having taken control of the 3 major parties and the UKIP, and only the BNP and the EDP are standing up to them.

Furthermore, the Expenses Scandal, also, exposes how much the major parties care little for the public good and most for feathering their own nests. The Tories if anything have been even worse than Nu-Labour, but Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and United Kingdom Independence Party alike, all have ripped off the public.

It shows a thorough lack of accountability to the people. This has been a problem for England since the Norman Conquest in 1066, since William the Conqueror and the Norman nobles (and their descendants), those Scandinavians and Flemish with a veneer of French culture, for the most part felt little in the way of ethnic kinship, let alone solidarity, with the Anglo-Saxon and the British people at large. They often felt contempt for us, moreover.

This has long been a problem for Britain, but this division between the governing and the governed has become thoroughly toxic in the wake of Antonio Gramsci and the Gramscian Long March Through the Institutions. Cultural Marxism has been far more dangerous to Britain and Canada (and even to the United States of America and Australia) than economic Marxism or political Marxism could have been, since Gramscian Cultural Marxism undermines basic social cohesion. It declares categorically that even indigenous White inhabitants in a country are evil and deserving of shame and opprobrium, that even basic social essentials like work, a man's and father's responsibility, national pride have to be attacked.

This is dangerous to the very cohesion of the British nation, and of the English nation when Scotland and Wales probably go their own way soon. Again, only the BNP and the English Democrats have been addressing this.

You know I think once someone gets to the point where they are going to vote BNP there is little you can do.

I actually think Nick Griffin should have been able to speak at the Oxford Unuion and I believe he should have a platform to express his views, such as question time, but I think this becuase it would give him a public platform to express his racist views.

Those BNP fans posting here may not believe this, but there are many in your party that believe the Nazi's had the right idea, and sadly that is why I can't bare to look at the BNP logo abusing my flag!

An DanOxford, he openly discussed his 15 year old holocaust denial, that makes it ok does it. Get a grip! And comparing Britain to Apartied South Africa, you insulting individual!
How you can think about supporting them is beyond me, but it is your choice.

Oh and Chavster, the Bible was written by man, like man it is flawed.

If you are not "indigenous Caucasian", you cannot join the BNP. Therefore the BNP are racist. End of argument.

To quote from the official constitution of the BNP:

"2) The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous
Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic
Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The
Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic
Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The
Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The
Anglo-Saxon-Indigeno
us European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic
groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.

3) Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2"

Abingdon_born_Cowley wrote:
You know I think once someone gets to the point where they are going to vote BNP there is little you can do. I actually think Nick Griffin should have been able to speak at the Oxford Unuion and I believe he should have a platform to express his views, such as question time, but I think this becuase it would give him a public platform to express his racist views. Those BNP fans posting here may not believe this, but there are many in your party that believe the Nazi's had the right idea, and sadly that is why I can't bare to look at the BNP logo abusing my flag! An DanOxford, he openly discussed his 15 year old holocaust denial, that makes it ok does it. Get a grip! And comparing Britain to Apartied South Africa, you insulting individual! How you can think about supporting them is beyond me, but it is your choice. Oh and Chavster, the Bible was written by man, like man it is flawed.

The BNP DOES NOT support holocaust denial, and has at least one JEWISH candidate.

Nick Griifin has renounced those views as 'immature politics' AND YET this is dragged out as if it were still contemporary. This can only amount to misleading voters, as claiming that the Labour party still believed in unilateral nuclear disarmament and nationalising all the industries would be.

Take a look at how many Labour MPs, members, Trade Union officials were or still are members of the Communist party.

Let's not forget that Communist governments killed 150 MILLION of their own people, banned religion, sent people to the gulag and created obtrusive, surveillance societies based on lies, deception and informants.

The Left conveniently ignore that Communism was as barbaric as Nazism, but killed more people and lasted far longer.

Unite Against Facism and Searchlight are communist front organisations run by a man with convictions for breaking and entering:

'As a youth, (Gerry) Gable was a member of the Young Communist League and the Communist Party of Great Britain, and worked as a runner on the Communist Party's Daily Worker newspaper, leaving after a year to become a Communist Party trade union organizer.

He stood unsuccessfully for the Communist Party on May 10, 1962 at Northfield Ward, Stamford Hill, North London.

In 1962, after 10 years' membership, he left the Communist Party to "concentrate on anti-fascist work and because the party had begun to adopt an anti-Israel line". Gable's son has served in the Israeli army.

In November 1963, Gable was arrested and held at Hornsey police station following an attempt to enter the Mayfair flat of David Irving. On January 14, 1964, he admitted entry into the flat by artifice with intent to steal private papers. He was subsequently convicted and fined £28. At his trial, counsel for the defence told the court, "they hoped to find material they could take to Special Branch".'


I think it is you who needs to 'get a grip' on the FACTS and stop treating 15 year old stories as if they were still relevant. It goes rto show how little the establishment actually have to attck the BNP with if they have to go back so far, or just to simply make lies up or attach labels such as 'racist!' or 'Nazi!' with no attempt to provide ANY supporting evidence.

As for being 'insulting', I find it 'insulting' that a capable white man should be turned down for a job because the PC powers that be decree that people should be picked for jobs by their colour, not ability. Thta's called DISCRIMINATION and it's wrong- so you tell me why it was wrong for blacks to be discriminated against in their native land, but it's ok for whites to be discriminated against in theirs?

Fotuntely (for now) the law agrees with me:

A police force has admitted breaking the law with a secret policy of 'deselecting' more than 100 potential recruits for no other reason than being white men.
Humiliated Gloucestershire Police said it had been trying to 'advance diversity' when it rejected the 108 men in favour of women and ethnic minority candidates.

But Chief Constable Dr Timothy Brain's force confessed it had acted unlawfully by dashing the men's dreams because of their sex and skin colour.
It agreed to pay one of the snubbed men, 30-year-old Matt Powell, £2,500 in damages.
The tribunal said the force had been 'at the very least disingenuous and at worst misleading'. It could spark a barrage of further claims, each of which would be settled from police funds drained from local taxpayers.

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
406385/Police-force-
admits-discriminatin
g-white-recruits.htm
l

Nulabour are desperately trying to force the Orwellian 'Equalities Act' through to legalise discrimination against white men in particular- a policy (like many others Nulabour have pushed through) that Robert Mugabe would be proud of.

chavster wrote:
If you are not "indigenous Caucasian", you cannot join the BNP. Therefore the BNP are racist. End of argument. To quote from the official constitution of the BNP: "2) The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigeno us European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them. 3) Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2"

So by your rationale, the following organisations based on religious, racial or ethnic lines to promote their members' interests are 'racist?'

National Black Police Association

Muslim Council Of Great Britain

Metropolitain Black Police Association

and on and on- there are COUNTLESS (often publically funded) bodies and quangos set up along racial and thnic lines.

Obvioulsy it's ok to promote the rights of people according to their colour so long as they aren't white.

Who are the 'racists'?

DanOxford wrote:

chavster wrote: If you are not "indigenous Caucasian", you cannot join the BNP. Therefore the BNP are racist. End of argument. To quote from the official constitution of the BNP: "2) The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigeno us European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them. 3) Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2"

So by your rationale, the following organisations based on religious, racial or ethnic lines to promote their members' interests are 'racist?' National Black Police Association Muslim Council Of Great Britain Metropolitain Black Police Association and on and on- there are COUNTLESS (often publically funded) bodies and quangos set up along racial and thnic lines. Obvioulsy it's ok to promote the rights of people according to their colour so long as they aren't white. Who are the 'racists'?

I must be simple, but I don't understand your argument here. Are you trying to say that the BNP are not racist because other organisations are racist? That is equivalent to saying that strawberries can't be red because raspberries and cherries are red. The BNP are still racist and I have yet to hear any cogent argument against this.

chavster wrote:

DanOxford wrote:

chavster wrote: If you are not "indigenous Caucasian", you cannot join the BNP. Therefore the BNP are racist. End of argument. To quote from the official constitution of the BNP: "2) The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigeno us European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them. 3) Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2"

So by your rationale, the following organisations based on religious, racial or ethnic lines to promote their members' interests are 'racist?' National Black Police Association Muslim Council Of Great Britain Metropolitain Black Police Association and on and on- there are COUNTLESS (often publically funded) bodies and quangos set up along racial and thnic lines. Obvioulsy it's ok to promote the rights of people according to their colour so long as they aren't white. Who are the 'racists'?

I must be simple, but I don't understand your argument here. Are you trying to say that the BNP are not racist because other organisations are racist? That is equivalent to saying that strawberries can't be red because raspberries and cherries are red. The BNP are still racist and I have yet to hear any cogent argument against this.

My point is that an organisation can legitimately exist to protect or further the interests of its members while excluding others from membership without being 'racist'.

A group of residents banding together to protect their interests (e.g car parking, neighbourhood watch etc and confining their memebership to only those people who fit the criteria of living in that street do not infer that residents of other streets are in any way 'inferior', but to admit those residents of other streets would then weaken their position and the group would no longer be acting in the best interests of the original group.

For example, the current very high levels of immigration benefit big businesses (keep wages down), landlords (keep renst up) and MPs (immigrants will vote to keep the part in power that allows them to work in the UK, bring their families in, use public services and recieve benefits to which they have paid little if anything towards)and of course to the immigrants themselves, who earn more than they would at home and can send money back to their families or return home and buy a house or business.

However, this situation has been PROVEN to have a negative impact on local wages- particularly at the lower end, adds very little (62p per head) to the national GDP, forces house prices up (as more homes are bought up to rent out to transient migrants), places pressure on local services and fragments communities.

The ONS predicts that white people will be a minority, in England, by 2080.

The very same people who seem to get up in arms about the Chinese forcibly colonising Tibet, or the Israelis building on the West Bank don't seem to think that the English have a right to be a majority, in England, with English culture prevailing. In fact, evils such as 'positive' discrimination actually put white English people behind in the queue, in England.

I wouldn't want to be treated like a second class citizen for being a white male so I don't live in Zimbabwe, where I believe black Africans should actually have more right to live than white colonialists.

As a white, English person, in England, descended from white, English people who fought for the Country and who paid taxes all their lives, I feel that I have more right to be English, in England, than a new arrival. I feel that it's only politeness to integrate into a country and culure, and not just settle there because it suits you to make more money there.

I would not expect to go to China (for example), import an English wife, have children with 100% English descendancy, not bother to learn Chinese, immerse myself in English culture through satellite TV and then call myself more (or equal) Chinese than the native residents.

You may regard this as 'racist'- that's entirely up to you.

I think cattrell is very wide indeed - certianly out into words what alot of us are thinking. Its people like this that should be part of running this country, a country i used to be proud to be part of. I hate seeing it be ruined and the ypb culture is rife, as a small example yesterday i took a short cut thorugh a local park - only to run into teenage yobs who were chucking cans and bottles at swans and ducks, their teenage girlfrields (all looked about 14) were heavily pregant, they were shouting and swearing and smoking rubbing their tummies in the sunshine. This is our world now and it scares me.

Early results showing good sense is prevailing among the people of Oxfordshire!

Lets hope it continues as more details come through!

at least the extremests lost a few seats (The Loony Green Party)

I wonder if Dan is an acronym for Democratic Active Nationalist? Just a thought. Although it's not unreasonable for an individual to comment so frequently, and at such length, I'm sometimes tempted to think Dan might be a committee or party branch.

Nothing wrong there, of course, for I personally find myself in agreement with much he says; and most of his of his remarks are models of clarity and succinctness. So let's hope he won't regard what I write as a pointless quibble.

His remark (better perhaps it had begun with 'If') about Apartheid seemed, to me, an over-generous concession to the Marxists in liberal clothing. And I'm not altogether certain that Blacks, or Whites, should necessarily rule carte blanch anywhere in southern Africa. But I would point out that the badly planned, inconsistently applied, system of S. African Apartheid was predicated on 400 years of southern African history and politics - most markedly of S. Africa itself.

Some of the reasons are well known: Boer farmers v British Imperial expansion; the downward aggressive thrust of Zulu and other Bantu peoples (S. Africa was sparsely populated when white people first settled there, with huge empty areas); the difficulties of running a multi-racial state; constant pressures from various outside interests wishing to gain control of SA; and high Black birth rate. All were significant.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of White S. Africans was to imagine Blacks would be forever content to remain carriers of water and hewers of wood. Their discontent turned their spokesmen and women into tools of subversive Soviet propaganda, which was frequently supported by the aforementioned Marxists in liberal clothing.

The lesson is that a people should do its own drudge work, and not become over-dependent on the labour of other races and cultures. Even many Boers forgot this, eventually succumbing to luxurious lifestyles; some found the pressures and blandishments of American and European business and politics irresistible. They ceased to read their Bibles, and forgot to service their guns.

Large numbers of sub-Saharan immigrants in Europe (an increasing phenomenon) could present a serious problem. Some authorities argue that educational and cultural contrasts between Africans and Europeans may be difficult to
surmount. This was an empirical (though crudely racist) claim made by earlier white settlers in S. Africa, though without advantage of twentieth century research; a problem that still requires further scientific research and definition, but without political interference.

But neither race nor culture are excuses for withholding dignity and human rights. The Tower of Babel misunderstood came to haunt S. Africa.

Cause of my delayed comments: events dear friends, events.