phinch1 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Yeah, sorry I didn't reply to you while I was at the pub with my mates. Next time I'll take my computer. I have a life you know.
And I didn't try to fix my analogy, you tried to poke a hole in it that wasn't there. To be honest at this point I would of assumed that as we used the "full house" metaphor for all of them it kind of goes without saying. You do it again with "I don't know why you keep bringing black people into it when it is aimed at any race that isn't British", the problem isn't there; you've missed the whole point of that that he's RECENTLY MARRIED into your family, in other words he is a member, but only a new one. That's exactly what Griffin wants to do, he wants to take people who are only second or third generation British and ask them to leave.
Don't like the race card? ok then, let's drop the black part. Obviously you don't want it because as you said it's pointed at "any race that isn't British" (which does not make it better by a long shot), we can replace the "black" part quite happily with "Man of non indigenous British origin".
And again, you seem to think that the fact that people have a choice justifies asking them to leave. It's not ok to base a policy on such a racist foundation. It's not ok to single out a group of people based on their lineage. It's not ok to ask people to leave because their family has
roots in another country when they consider themselves British.
The link can be found some way down first page (and also my rebuttal), it's the interview on Radio 4. The woman interviewing him asks him about statistics he uses at 3:30, which essentially comes down to all people who are non indigenous British. The plan to pay said people to leave comes at 4:30 and is a further development of the discussion on which people he defines. You can also find it on the BNP policy pages.
Essentially it is "These are the types of British people I don't consider British, people with non long British lineage", "I will offer these people somewhere in the region of £50,000 to leave"
|
So your saying I'm racist and I don't have a life because your getting annoyed at me now? No I don't mind the race card, I just don't know why you kept bringing black people into this when it applied to much more races, and since when did i say it was any better? I just pointed out your fasination for defending just black people and no other race. do you have a problem with other races?
I'm not agreeing that what Nick griffin said was right if thats why your getting your pants in a twist, but I will defend the BNP or any other party/person/man/woman when something they say is taken out of context and blown way out of proportion
You even said so yourself "He doesn't say "none white" at 4:30 when he is talking about the long term resettlement plan, that part comes just before. If you listen from 3:30 she picks him up on the statistics he uses and shows he means none-white British, so essentially people of foreign lineage".
So your thread has a misleading title, to bring attention and help spread hatred for the BNP (which im still not deffending, but i can see what your doing)
you also said
Black Briton = Offered free money for leaving.
White Briton = Not offered free money for leaving. Theres just another one of your black and white things,
where are the other races? again the obsession of mentioning how the bnp do not like black people but no other race :S i dont get it Do you agree with him doing it to other races?
Also when you said, "50k per year" when it was just straight up 50k
Tombi123 "300 years ago my family was French. I'd quite happily take £50,000 to go and live in the south of France. Maybe I should vote BNP afterall.."
samualrsmith "That's a brilliant policy in the middle of a recession, with a huge, and growing, Government deficit - pay our work force £50k per person to leave! Fantastic"
this guy has no idea what he is talking about! how much does he think it cost per year to home feed give benifits, look after on the NHS "year after year"
Khuurtra said
"So you contend that the phrase "Britain would be better off if it were only composed of ethnic Britons" is not racist?"
carl2291 said
Nope. But then again, he never said that... So yaknow.
Another stupid coment where its been taken out of context to suit blackening a name, and nicely pointed out by carl
highwaystar101 said:
So who's telling you? Bradford council or it's residents?
If it was the council you have the right to be outraged, if you are being told by the residents then they have no right to tell you that you can't. Even if it means you get beaten up, you are still allowed to celebrate St. Georges day, and if you do get beaten up then those who did it will be arrested for breaking the law.
|
carll2291
Well, the pubs weren't allowed to open on the day due to risk of "upsetting certain groups".
So i'm guessing it was the council.
Highwaystar
So? I'm an Aston Villa fan, when we play Birmingham City most pubs that attract football fans in Birmingham are closed to decrease the risk of violence, they are not telling us that we can't celebrate a victory.
It's a sensible pre-caution and it's the same deal with this case. No-one has said you can't celebrate. Is one pub closed? Then go to one that's open. You are given every right to celebrate St. Georges, the council have not said that you as an individual can't.
Heres what you said that really pissed me off, First you ask him who told him he cant celebrate and if its the coucil he has the right to be outraged, then you say he cant be outraged and defend the dessicion by comparing angry footballers to islam in bradford (which by the way i thought was quite rasict you telling carl to go somewhere else to go for a drink to celebrate, its the sort of attitude in the 50s when black people wernt aloud in certain bars and told to go somewhere else in case they offend the locals)
makingmusic476- another silly coment blow out of proportion
I'm a descendant of like 6-7 different nationalities. If I lived in Britain, would the BNP want me to leave because I'm only like an 8th British? And I'm a quarter Irish. Wonder how they'd feel about that!
so yeah im NOT defending what he said AT ALL if thats what you where thinking, I just hate things when they are blown out of proportion YES IT IS BAD WHAT HE SAID but don't twist his words to make it sound any worse than it was and get others involved "with misleading titles and quotes" (as seen above)
|
I'm not saying that you're a racist at all and at no point did I say you had no life. You are picking things out I never said. I said that I have a life, because I have a life doesn't mean that you don't have one. Don't put words in my mouth please.
Also, I'm not annoyed, it's called a heated debate. The likelihood is that I wont even care about what was said here in another thread, I wont hold it against you or anyone else who has taken up the counter position (for example I debated quite strongly with Kantor; however, Kantor is one of the members I respect the most on this site and I know for any other thread I will not hold our debate here against him). I just strongly believe that what Nick Griffin has said is beyond despicable and abhorrent, it goes against every moral fibre in my body, and as such I am willing to debate this quite strongly.
Conversely though, you have directly said you are pissed off. Please try and understand that I am not trying to piss you off, I am in a heated debate and on another topic I may agree with you whole heartedly. It's this subject that I get me heated, not you. And if I have annoyed you then I apologise sincerely and I hope you don't hold it against me in other threads.
Whatever I say is in the context of this thread and I try my best not to make it personal.
(However, please note, when I am accused of something personally I will likely react to that point personally in my rebuttal)
...
As for the race card thing, I also brought up people with German lineage for a good portion of this debate too, perhaps even more than black people. You don't mention that. The black person in the analogy is a hypothetical person, do you want me to say Hispanic person? Asian person? Northern European person? Person of unspecified non-British race? The terms are pretty much interchangeable and it would still just be as true.
I am not just defending black people, I am defending people of all races. Just because I can't provide all the examples doesn't mean I don't care about them. I don't have a problem with other races either, in fact I don't know where you got that from; your comment was just a reach of desperation, quite frankly to try and make me look bad. It didn't work.
Oh and when you said "where's the other races? Do you agree with him doing it to other races", what was that? Was it just a poorly constructed strawman? I think that it's extremely obvious that I don't want him doing it to other races. Actually, this brings it back to where you accused me of calling you racist, I don't know where I did that; but here you have pretty much directly implied that I am a racist, which I think is both insulting and pretty obvious that I'm not.
And repeatedly I have said that it is unfair to pick someone out due to their lineage. I think that is proof in itself that I do care about all races equally.
...
To be honest I haven't blown this thing out of proportion. I am, quite frankly, just arguing that what Nick Griffin wants to do is something I find extremely morally wrong. In fact I'm sure it must violate hate crime laws. I haven't twisted what he said, it is quite clear, it's on the BNP policy page and everything.
As for your problem with the mis-leading title, it was the title of the original article, I didn't write it. And you seem to think I believe he is picking on people who aren't white. OK the title of the article is flawed, however, my understanding isn't. Again, I used the example of the man with German lineage. He is white, and yet I still used the example that he would be removed from the country under Griffin's plans. And I have said repeatedly "people of non-British lineage" or sentences along those lines... Occasionally I have used direct examples, but all cases have been people of what Nick griffin defines as non-British lineage.
And as for the thread spreading hatred. The thread is not spreading hatred, it is exposing plans which are what I consider extremely morally wrong. In case you haven't noticed, all political parties are subject to public scrutiny. It's one of our basic rights as British people. If one of them does something that I find morally wrong, then I have every right to kick up a fuss and let people know. The BNP effectively want to try and remove British people with non-British lineage, this is something that I will protest against to my last breath. I will kick up a fuss and I have every right.
I don't deny their right to campaign, I don't deny their right to say what they want. But as long as I let them have their rights, I expect them in return to let me speak out against their policies when I feel it is appropriate. And to be honest, I think I have pretty much spoke out against every major political party in the UK at some point for policies I don't agree with, it is by no means just the BNP.
...
Oh and as for when I said £50,000 a year, did you mine that quote? Did you look through the thread looking for one thing I said wrong? In case you didn't read it, Slimebeast picked me up on that too. I said I mistyped to him, which is true, sometimes I type in auto pilot like everyone else. For what it's worth you might as well be picking out grammar mistakes. For every other instance I said "£50,000", not "per year", that was one mistake amongst dozens.
...
As for the debate with Carl. Again you imply that I am a racist, I think in the context of this thread has been made pretty clear that I am not a racist, I oppose racism quite viciously. Also, I didn't compare Islam (in fact did I even say Islam?) to football fans, I used two unrelated scenarios where a pub can be a incubator for violence and said how the appropriate action for dispelling the potential for violence is exactly the same.
No-one is telling Carl to not celebrate St. Georges day, it's just that if a potential for violence exists then it is wise to try and reduce that potential.
I recognise that whatever happens the potential for violence exists and I would like that potential to be reduced and if that means closing pubs in trouble spots then so be it, we should try and have a nice non-violent St. Georges day.
Carl has every right to celebrate St. Georges day, I am not telling him he can't, it's not my decision that the pubs in Bradford are shut, it's not my decision that some people want to spread violence against English people. I think it's very said that this is the case quite frankly.
But I am protesting the point Carl made about not being able to celebrate St. Georges day, which implied that he, as an individual, is not allowed to celebrate it. when I just find that statement wrong, he has every right to celebratel.
