| 16 Jul 09, 8:03 PM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs  |
...With what? What men in all the world have shown such daring? | ||||||||
| 16 Jul 09, 8:14 PM Max_Bedroom 5 yrs |
Well, your argument for them being choosy over who might join them was: "They are not funded by taxation i.e. they are private." But now you appear to agree that they are indeed funded (at least, in part, with the money going to the most prominent members) by the taxpayer. Which sort of supports the view of Pink Glitter Bomb (oh, and me). So which is it? Or do you wish to have it both ways? The easy part of life is playing by the rules. The fucking hard bit is working out what the rules are. | ||||||||
| 16 Jul 09, 9:30 PM nortyboy UK, 4 yrs  |
Flakey everytime someone asks you to prove something you move onto the next thread. Masterstoy quoted Home Office stats and you moved on, i asked you to prove what you said about Parcel Force and later on your comments Re Lee Jasper, no response,Pinkglitterbomb is still awaiting a reply to your nonsense on housing. Essentially your link to reality and fact is casual to say the least! | ||||||||
| 16 Jul 09, 9:40 PM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
The BNP are not funded by taxation. Just because a member of the Green party happens to work as a nurse in an NHS hospital does not make the Green party a public body. The BNP are not an organ of government, they are not founded and run by the state, they are a private organisation. A handful of individual members of the BNP are paid salaries for the posts they have been elected to. Those salaries are not government funding of the BNP. For that money to reach the BNP coffers, the individuals being paid would have to then donate that money to the BNP in accordance with the rules and regulations that govern donations to political parties. If a Labour MP, paid his MP's salary, is a member of a riding club to which he pays a membership fee from the money he hears as an MP, it does not make the riding club a public institution. If a UKIP MEP happens to make a donation to a think tank with money he earns as an MEP, it does not change that fact that the think tank is a private body. What men in all the world have shown such daring? Edited 16 Jul 09, 9:42 PM by DaddysTouch | ||||||||
| 16 Jul 09, 9:42 PM nortyboy UK, 4 yrs |
BNP torturing people? Check out how many of them are convicted criiminals for violent offences . Not forgetting Griffin who as i am sure you know was convicted for inciting Racial hatred. Nice party you voted for.................... | ||||||||
| 17 Jul 09, 8:55 AM Max_Bedroom 5 yrs |
I don't agree with your application of logic. Trying to compare a nurse who works for the Green Party with an MEP who represents the BNP in the European Parliament doesn't make sense. It is not a like for like comparison. Anyway, are we supposed to assume that only state run bodies are not allowed to have racist policies with regard to membership? Also, we need to add into the equation the support staff that the MEPs will employ - and we know that they do not pay these salaries. So, we now have quite a few people being employed at the cost of the taxpayer. I am not sure why you keep talking about a mere "handful" anyway - if your logic is as sound as you think it is, then surely it doesn't matter if the figure is 1 or 100? Also, MEPs are supposed to represent their constituency and constituents. It is their job to do this, wouldn;t you agree? Do you really think a party that excludes people from membership because of the colour of the skin can be relied upon to then work effectively on the behalf of these same people? Surely this contradicts a basic tenent of being a representative of the people? You are trying to argue, I think, that to go after the BNP in this way is somehow anti-democratic. To me, it is incomprehensible that you, or anyone, would try and make excuses and apologise for them, when you bear facts like this in mind. I think you are more than a devil's advocate. The easy part of life is playing by the rules. The fucking hard bit is working out what the rules are. | ||||||||
| 17 Jul 09, 1:32 PM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
Why not? An NHS nurse is paid a salary by the government which is funded through taxation. The same is true of an MEP. The Green party is a political party. The same is true of the BNP. The Green party is not a public body just because one of its members is paid a salary by government. Equally, the BNP is not a public body just because one of its members is paid a salary by government. The only difference I can see is that the MEP is elected, which if anything strengthens the (my) case since the electorate chose him or her despite or indeed because of their party's internal policies, where as a nurse is not (at least in theory) chosen on the basis of political affiliations. The former is mandated by the people, given a green light. The latter is chosen on a technical basis by a bureaucrat.
Yes. All people should be equal before the law. But if certain people don't want to mix with certain other people or don't want to let them join their club or come to their house, that's their choice. The only people who should have any say over how the BNP is run are the people who own it i.e. the members. If they want to exclude blacks or people with brown hair or people who don't speak Latin or people who weren't born on the first of the month that's entirely their business. We all own the NHS, the army, customs and so on, since our taxes pay for them; it's proper that we have a say over how they are run and that we are all treated equally by them. We do not own the BNP, however, only BNP members own the BNP so only BNP members should have a say on its internal policies. The same goes for every other party.
They are receiving a salary just like the MEP, it's not party funding. And they don't have to employ staff who are members of the BNP in any case.
Er, I think I mentioned 'handful' once in all the posts I've made here? But no it doesn't matter whether it is one or one hundred. If every British MEP were a BNP member I'd say the same thing (minus the word handful of course). It wasn't relevant to the argument at all, it was just a matter of fact that there are a handful of BNP MEPs, it was just more precise than saying "some".
No, but then I didn't (and wouldn't) vote for the BNP. The people who did I'm sure would either disagree (white man knows best) or say these are people who should not be worked on the behalf of (they should fuck off). The job of of a politician (ostensibly) is to represent their constituents, but I would defy you to find a politician who represents every single one. A Communist MP would surely not represent the interests of the CEOs in their constituency. A Green MP would not represent the interests of the workers at a coal power station in their constituency. A Tory MP would not represent the interests of a trade unionist.
I'm not as bothered about its effect on democracy as I am about the way it infringes on people's private property and private associations. But yes I would call it undemocratic to ban political parties having whatever membership policies they choose.
I am doing neither. The BNP are what they are and you can judge them as you will. I'd probably agree with you. Pointing guns at people because you don't like how they run their club is quite another thing though. I did not say (and do not think) that the BNP are nice or good or should be voted for or "aren't such bad guys," or anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, I would specifically prohibit (constitutionally i.e. ban government from doing) most of the things the BNP would like to do in terms of government. I would not ban (and, if it is indeed banned already, would legalise) whatever membership policies they might choose to have, however. That's none of my business.
Aren't you the one arguing for more people to be able to join the BNP? o_0 The only person I'm advocating is me, though if you think I'm the devil I suppose that's fair enough! What men in all the world have shown such daring? |
