Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
For fuck sakes, what the shitting hell is the matter with people
is the staggering complacency of the Labour government. You shaft people on low-to-middle incomes and you get scapegoats, unfortunately, and here, those scapegoats are immigrants. It's media-fuelled, it's lazy, it's racist, it's horrible, but it's becoming a reality.
Labour can fuck off, but so can the BNP. Where the fuck is the REAL, PROPER, ANGRY, UNIONISED, STRIKING, LET'S-FUCK-THINGS-UP left when you need it?
Strike about the bureaucratisation of teaching, the loss of any powers to discipline the pupils, the ludicrous shift in the balance of power from teacher to parent, the constant pressure to which 'incompetent' teachers are subjected in the media - but don't strike over pay, which has increased massively in recent years as part of a recruitment drive. The NUT has plenty to complain about and a below-inflation pay rise because of Gordon Brown's mismanagement is the least of their worries.
teachers are well paid. None of my friends who teach have any complaints whatsoever about what they earn.
I'm guessing they have complaints about what they DO, though? Or have to do? Nowadays teachers have to work 12-14 hour days just to maintain a reasonable standard.
you can be guaranteed to be up shit creek when you start the new term. I was once told that it takes 2-3 hours to plan a decent 1 hour lesson.
It's unsympathetic attitudes like that that drive other people out of the profession. Yes, music teaching is slightly different.
is head of maths at a city academy: fairly tough, eh? he says the teachers who claim they can't get their job done in a 37 hour week are either a. thick, b. inefficient, or c. lazy.
teachers who think they have something to strike about are pathetic. maybe they should do a couple of shifts in a busy a&e if they think they have it hard.
"Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do".
OMGZ! BEIN' TEH RASIST!'.........
If you can't see the direct correlation between Livingstone inviting the likes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London on an official visit, angering large sections of the community and some of the rather less informed members of the electorate opting to vote BNP, you're part of the problem.
Address the issues, don't stifle the debate and then the BNP will be exposed for what they really are.
If you don't speak to people and try and communicate with them, then you can't solve the problem.
I don't think Ken did anything wrong, and i don't think that we should excuse voting for the BNP based on stupidity. No one has a excuse for stupidity.
It's the sound of the point flying over your head!
This is just the problem. Yes, you and I know what the BNP stand for and we know what their agenda is.
But, the bloody mindedness of the mainstream political classes is infuriating. The steadfast insistence on stifling debate and effectively accusing anyone who wishes to discuss issues of multi-culturalism/immigration of being a racist is fuelling support for them.
Gerry Adams in 1983 was another plum case.
Although in some senses Ken was trying to do what you're trying to do... make the debate public, make perceived 'problem figures' such as al-Qaradawi and (at the time) Gerry Adams part of the solution. The trouble is, as you acknowledge, that to most people he's just schmoozing dodgy geezers. And Ken is usually the first person to shout 'RACIST!' in any given debate.
back in the days when they were murdering Brits on the streets of London (and beyond) was sickening. Quite how anyone could vote for him after that is beyond me.
Like you, I'm willing to accept the possibility that he was trying to initiate some rather high risk conflict resolution, but perception is key.
he hates england and stuff yeah
but, the decision was at best massively insensitive and at worst the most contemptible type of cowardice from a despicable fifth columnist.
http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/3246213#r3246293 has no implication of boris being a racist, but you still managed to drag it up.
The part about 'racism' was in reference to the BNP!
Does anyone actually read posts before replying anymore?
i still maintain that, for all your visible sense of supiority, you're as bad as the "loony left" for jumping to stereotypes.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS:
not everyone who supporting Livingstone did so because they're massive pinks who are blind to his cronyism.
not everyone who dislikes Boris does so because they don't like his floppy hair and bumbling persona, nor is it because they consider him a dirty racist.
why has this election reduced everyone to gibbering idiots?
whilst I dislike Livingstone, I have never
for one moment thought that the many hudrends of thousands of people who vote for him can be categorised as one.
By way of contrast, repeatedly on DiS it has been asserted that those voting for Boris are 'toffs', 'idiots', 'students having a laugh' or 'people who think he's a bit of a LEDGGGGEEEEND and are blinded by celebrity'........
You let one of this lot in and elected Boris. Hope you're all pleased.
Only allowing Respect and the Greens to stand at the next election?
You might not like it (and nor do I), but this is democracy in action. It's also a wake-up call for the mainstream parties, people are reacting to perceived problems.
Politicians need to shoot the fox by addressing these matters rather than just accusing anyone who speaks out against the
consensus view of being a racist.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."
...never truer than today.
, turns and looks at his army of foxhounds, 'Soon my pretties, soon...ahahahahahahahaahaha!'
Openly hates foxes.
I hate them as well...skulking around looking sly.
WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE?
in which they get hunted down, and then taunted and ridiculed.
are tired of the views/ways of the Labour Party and Conservative Party. some people think that immigration has become a problem that neither of the two parties above will deal with.
i am not a member of the BNP, as whilst sharing some of their views i find others to be way outside of the spectrum of my beliefs, but comments such as "what the shitting hell is the matter with people" aren't worth shit.
people seem to have a reluctance to actually consider BNP's views, or correctly understand them, instead just dismissing them and blindly shouting "RACIST".
that way they can be destroyed.
At present they're fighting what amount to a guerilla action, skulking on the fringes, hiding in the shadows...and it's starting to yield results for them.
I'm not suggesting that we should kill them with kindness, but it's time to take them on. For too long the response from the mainstream has been 'OMGZ! RACISTS!' and that's all.
most of these new BNP voters are ertswhile Labour supporters, particularly in the North. You can be sure that Labour are doing all they can to shore up their dwindling support.
The BNP students were banned, but the likes of SWP and Free Palestine which were pretty flimsy shields for class war (at a university? Fuck off!), anti-Americanism and anti-semitism were allowed to set up stalls wherever they liked.
I think if they inflame racial tensions, leading to violence, thats a criminal offence. And class war doesn't lead to violence like race war does, so alotugh i do not believe in banning free speech, i also agree not to give the BNP a platform
their pamphlets included virulent anti-Americanism, anti-Western and anti-semitic material.
Racism is racism, one rule applies to all.
you support their views, and therefore are are a racist. So, i think racists are scum. If they want to repent or engage in RATIONAL debate, i will do so, but i will have the higher moral ground.
Yes, some of the BNP's support, the core, those who are lifelong BNP voters/activists, etc really are racist and nothing will ever change their views.
But, the majority are just angry, they feel marginalised and is that any wonder when they are faced with the sort of bloody mindedness that you have just displayed?
I would listen to them. I think their views are offensive though, so i will tell them to thier face and expect facts for them to back up thir views. I refuse to pander to ignorance and stupidity. People can always read a book.
Unless its Mein kampf of course.
No-one who has any knowledge of the BNP's past record when elected to office in London will be remotely bothered by this. Not least because occupying one seat on a council where everyone else is completely hostile to you doesn't mean much at all.
I suggest you think about what's really bothering you, and take a nice BM.
speaks for itself, i do think it's concerning that, in an election with a 25% increase in turnout on with it's predecessor, their support has actually grown.
that's the worrying part - they couldn't crack the 5% threashold in an election with a 40% turnout, but they could in a 50% turnout.
come to vote, unless your going to vote BNP, in which case fuck off...
Oh, and just above, is immigration really off-topic? The Sun, Daily Mail, Express and other right wing papers go on about it on a weekly basis. Its always in the news. The views of people who do not liek immagration/asylum seekers (becuase the right wingers make a point not to distinguish) are well represented. we laugh at their views and call them crap, because htey are, but they are NOT being silenced.
...and there lies the problem.
The trouble is that a majority of people in the country believe that immigration/asylum seekers are an issue.
Granted, they won't all consider it to be the problem that the Daily Mail purport it to be, but they will still have concerns about the situation at present.
When a minority (and I'm talking political rather than ethnic) ridicule the views of the majority, people are offended by the arrogance and start to look to the margins, in this instance the BNP.
I'm sorry, but they ARE being silenced.
The BBC/Guardian/Islington dinner party view is not representative of public opinion in the UK in any way, shape or form and yet that has been the dominant voice on this matter for years.
interested in where the BBC/Guardian/Islington dinner party view is the 'dominant voice'. All the current governments policies are geared towards the Daily Mail and Murdoch papers. The government current asylum policy is horrendous, based on what the best seeling right wing papers write. The daily mail and the sun are the two best selling papers. Are you seriously telling me that the government follows the guardian rather than the Mail and Sun? really?
All the facts and report seems ot say that immigration is good for the country. There are bad points as well, which the Mail and Sun overhype. I don't get where these people who feel they are being silenced get this idea from.
Finally, government shoudl base thier policies on facts. Not prejudice shaped by ignorance. Not a personal attack on anyone here.
I've been kinda expecting this to happen really. And I fully expect it to continue to happen if the two main parties remain more obsessed with fighting a battle over the middle classes and the central ground rather than representing demographics that used to make up their core (or at least a hefty part of their support). I imagine the people who've voted for the BNP are those that feel utterly unrepresented in this brave new democracy.
And of course there's the fact that immigration and Europe have seemingly become dirty words in modern politics. Both parties have favoured other policies (well, have sounded about it rather than presenting them as set-in-stone policies), like health or policing, over immigration; and the Tories won't touch Europe with a bargepole in fear of splitting their party and support, whilst New Labour seemingly say nothing on the subject and do their own thing regardless.
And it's not necessarily a case of the parties being too similar, I think the amount of baiting and bollocks on the board last night showed how divisive the parties are, but they've moved away from demographics that no longer feel represented.
It's a by-product of this image-driven, policy-light politics that has increasingly come to dominate contemporary politics. Those that are either militant enough or focused enough on one policy will be prepared to vote for smaller parties that don't really have a chance of getting into power as there seemingly isn't enough in the larger parties for them - whatever the accuracy of this view.
Anyway, at the moment it doesn't really mean much, as has already being pointed out above. They're shit in office and are going to be buried by opposition. But they have their foot in the door now...
Hope I got my point across, I'm far too tired.
come to vote, unless your going to vote BNP, in which case fuck off..."
Yes, ideological disenfranchisement and voter intimidation is clearly the way forward. Rofl
There's plenty of bigotted pricks around and some more that don't like to admit it.
I'm sure there's plenty that voted BNP when confronted with the privacy of a booth.
Scum bags none the less.
as much as i do not in any way support the BNP, suggesting that they should be 'banned' is just mega hypocritical. imagine if the BNP were in power, and they were banning left-wingers from mayoral elections/setting up stalls at university, or calling everyone ignorant pricks for supporting the left wing. Wouldn't that make some people on the margins angry? Wouldn't it make it seem like this party were the only ones left who could actually make a considerable difference.
It's ridiculous, and it is a curtail on free speech to suggest banning the BNP and its supporters.
There's a bit more to the BNP's policies than being 'a bunch of racists' (although it seems many of the core members are)
I think the people that are voting for them don't necessarily agree with everything they stand for, they just want something to change, they want the current government to realise that there are issues that aren't being dealt with, and that's why people vote BNP. Voting BNP may seem extreme, but when labour and conservative don't seem to be doing anything other than placidly getting on with things, then people begin to get frustrated.
What the government have to work on, rather than 'banning the racist cunts' and making them and the people who vote for them feel more angry and sidelined, is let people realise that what the BNP stand for won't change anything for the good.
So even if they are a bunch of racist, reactionary, emotionally-manipulative wankers (according to us), banning them won't solve anything, and just proves that "we" are no better than "them".
is not what i said. I said i would not want to give them a platform.
They can say what they want, but i can equally refuse to help them say it.
they are gonna do nothing with ONE whole seat...
voting BNP seems to be a protest against the major parties ignoring 'real working people'.
The BNP are using this disenchantment with mainstream politics to feed on peoples insecurities by creating scapegoats - foreigners, the other. "You're worrys are being ignored because these *different* people are being treated well".
It creates division where there often was none, or exacerbates little niggles into big social problems. Groups and parties like this are working towards turning their prejudices into self-fulfilling prophecies. I know thats what they've tried whenever they've turned up (usually from out of town) in places I've been living.
One of biggest problems however is that mainstream politics refuses to engage with them. I once saw Alan Duncan say that he believed that he could easily defeat any BNP candidate in a debate over ideas, which is fine - I'm pretty positive that this is exactly the case.
But he won't, because as far as the BNP is concerned the mainstream closes it's eyes, puts it's fingers in it's ears and starts singing 'lalalalalalalaa'.
By refusing to bring the BNP into the marketplace of ideas and debate the major political parties are helping to add weight to it's arguments. The BNP often say the mainstream parties are scared to face them because they are right and the big parties are afraid of admitting this, and there is no one out there really laying down the arguments which prove them wrong.
And there is a perception that there is no one out there who is really interested in what is happening in the lives and with the concerns of the 'working classes'.
If people want to help get rid of the likes of the BNP then the way to do it is to really engage with those who feel so left out and left behind by politics and to tackle their ideology of division head on with the full force of reasoned thought out political debate and ideas.
to 'ban' them.
which would only add to their 'you can't suppress the truth you' anti-(white)working class intellectual conspiracy arguments.
but in these parts the BNP are the only party out there offering an alternative to the poor/working classes. UKIP and the SWP don't get votes because they aren't out there (meaning here) putting up candidates and campaigning. They aren't speaking to the voters.
UKIP is probably seen as too tory/posh for the sort of disengaged former Labour voters the BNP picks up. Whenever I've encountered the SWP they really don't seem to be interested in anything 'real' people have to say, too up their own arses fighting a 1983 battle re-enactment.
UKIP are largely a middle class party. They're not going to attract support from disaffected working class whites in any volume whatsoever.
Metropolitan liberals continually refuse to face up to the issues that are driving BNP support in the first instance.
Sweeping categorisation of anyone who votes BNP as a racist whose opinions can be instantly discounted and dismissed is stupendous.
we're finally taking over.
you will all bow to us.
does this mean parts of Dagenham are going to look like the french open?
but if you are actually interested in this issue you should read Johann Hari in today's Independent. It's a very good article on why we should be genuinely worried about the BNP vote and what to do about reducing it.
There is a higher percentage of people who support the BNP's general outlook than actually vote for them because many people who support their views don't think the BNP will win a seat, and thus a vote for them is wasted.
The BNP's current thrust of its main policy is opposition to and a reversal of immigration. Their policy is no more anti-immigration than, say, the Daily Mail and many other parts of the British media.
Although some members of the BNP are deranged subhuman thug racists, the voters who vote for them do so because they agree with their anti-immigration policy.
It is a myth that BNP voters are all low-income working class people. The BNP gets its support from across class and income divides. By dishonestly claiming that BNP is exclusive to one class of people, the government and media is merely using the BNP to have a go at working class people on low income. It is part of the policy of equating low income with stupidity.
Debating the issues raised by the BNP is the right thing to do, not just to emasculate the BNP, but also to address the issues themselve in a wider political context.
I think more red-tops should come out and call the BNP Racist.
If you educated and politically sussed voting for the BNP, you have no excuse and are racist.
I wonder if any thug racists vote Labour or conservative at all?