The Great Debate – Should the BNP be allowed on Question Time?
October 5th, 2009 | Author: Greg Brown
Chris Westgarth – Government Undergraduate at LSE: Yes! Free speech for all.
As a Yorkshireman I hung my head in shame when on the 4th of June we elected a BNP candidate to the European Parliament. He and Nick Griffin were both sent to Brussels as representatives of the United Kingdom. Consequently, and in accordance with previous policy, the BBC invited them to take part in an episode of Question Time.
Unsurprisingly, many have moved quickly to condemn the decision, arguing that a far-right party will use a mainstream platform to propagate its racist views. That the BBC is supposed to be an independent and unbiased broadcaster is somewhat besides the point of course as it has always taken position on issues (most recently by refusing to play the Medical Aid for Palestine appeal advert) and not to do so would be nigh on impossible. The real reason that it is paramount that the BNP is allowed to take the stage is that it will force the British people to look at themselves.
You don’t stop racism by silencing it but by seeking out and resolving its causes. To censor the BNP is to ignore that they have been, rightly or wrongly, voted into these positions of power.
For a long time now the abandonment of those in the poorest sections of British society has led many to vote for increasingly radical alternatives. People tend to look around themselves for answers to their problems, and in the inner cities or declining industrial towns where property prices have plummeted it is, sadly, immigrants who bear the brunt of this dissatisfaction. Pockets of poverty breed tension, with or without immigration, and the BNP has been quick to play upon this to give voters an easy answer to their troubles. Their rise hasn’t been overnight, they have seen their vote share steadily creep up despite their rejection by middle England. Further, to pick out the BNP is to give credit to the policies of other ‘acceptable’ parties like UKIP or even the Conservative Party who famously ran with the slogan ‘It’s not racist to oppose immigration’. Statements like this are of course just as dangerous as outlandish BNP ones as they imply a negative general attitude to immigration and thereby to immigrants themselves. The Daily Mail reader sits comfortable in the knowledge he is not racist, just a realist.
The British public needs to sit up and accept that it has abandoned a significant part of its population to such an extent that they have turned toward a bunch of hooligans to solve their problems. The only way to deal with this is to listen to their arguments and take them apart piece by piece. We can pretend people don’t have these views but if you don’t listen to the voice of the dissatisfied and alienated you will find it on a brick through your window or, more likely, attacking a scared refugee on a council estate in Glasgow.
Camilla Royle – Geograpy Postgraduate at UCL: They shall not pass! No room for fascism in UK.
The BNP is not like other political parties. It is a fascist organisation founded by former members of the National Front. BNP member David Copeland carried out nail bombings in Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho in 1999, killing three people. This racist tradition continues today – the BNP only recently released an amended constitution stating that they are “wholly opposed to any form of racial integration”. They don’t believe in freedom of speech: Griffin has said that they want to defend their ideas with “well directed boots and fists”- people who speak out against them have already been physically attacked.
The BBC has no obligation to allow Griffin a platform. It has a responsibility towards the license payers, including those who are black, Asian, gay, disabled or Jewish. These people have the right not to be told that they are unwelcome in Britain.
Many argue that the BNP will lose the debate on Question Time. This may be true but Griffin is not stupid, he is attempting to build a party in the image of Le Pen’s Front National in France. This party gained votes because they understood that their ideas only needed to be seen as legitimate topics for debate to give their supporters confidence and help build a layer of hardcore followers. They will attempt to play down their fascist origins and will say that they represent the views of ordinary British people. If they lose the arguments they can always lie and claim that the opposing side were wrong. If Griffin can say that the Holocaust didn’t happen he is obviously no stranger to lying.
A better way of exposing what the BNP really stand for would be to build a movement that raises awareness and gives people the confidence to argue that fascist ideas are not welcome. This could involve anything from protests and public meetings to gigs and cultural events. I value freedom of expression but I also understand that these freedoms weren’t just handed to us on a plate. The right to vote, to organise in a trade union, or to have a partner of the same sex were all fought for by mass movements. If we value these freedoms we should defend them from people like the BNP.
Which side do you agree with? Please vote in our poll, found on the London-Student.net homepage.
39 Responses to “The Great Debate – Should the BNP be allowed on Question Time?”
Leave a Reply
Are the EDL just misunderstood?
- No, they're dangerous and have to be stopped. (72%)
- Yes. The media have just blown their true motivations out of proportion. (28%)
Loading ...
So just because I am a BNP activist you would call me a racist fascist, a man along with my brothers returning from the war, personally helped build my city of Sheffield’s homes roads hospitals and schools from the blitz.
It has nothing to do with you returning from war, helping to build your city’s homes, roads, hospitals and schools that makes you either racist of fascist. It is your support for a party with a well-documented history of both racist and fascist policies and traditions that makes you that.
But I ask you, what about your black, Asian and non-British fellow workers, without whom the UK would never have had the manpower to recover from the Second World War – do they not matter because they don’t fit your idea of a national profile? That is the crux of what you are saying.
You say:-
The British public needs to sit up and accept that it has abandoned a significant part of its population to such an extent that they have turned toward a bunch of hooligans to solve their problems.
Hooligans, all 943,598 of them and counting.
What about ‘call me Dave, and hug a hoodie and the UAF who condone street violence.
But it’s OK when you do it, isn’t it.
Rayatcov:
I believe Chris was referring to the BNP as hooligans – not the ~950,000 people who voted for them in May. A fundamental difference, I’m sure you’ll agree.
The whole idea of trying to censor a legally elected politician from simply speaking smacks of a country gone mad. The liblabcon media spew out lies designed to discredit people all the time. Do some reasearch yourself, like I did and you may see the wood for the trees.
It’s always interesting to see people like Camilla Royle regurgitate the same “fascist” spiel time and again.
The reality of course is that the BNP are further away from fascism than the current New Labour government.
In fact if one examines their policies one sees that they are in fact not fascist at all.
Fascist parties believe in strength through outward aggression. The BNP is dedicated to a position of armed neutrality.
Fascist parties believe in a single party state, censoring all opposition, as New Labour does with the EHRC prosecution and groups like the ironically named UAF. They also purchase votes by creating public sector non-jobs that make people’s careers reliant on New Labour being in power, and are creating a future voter-base via the mass importation of potential future voters. The BNP has in their party constitution a written dedication to parliamentary democracy.
About the only thing the BNP have in common with fascists is authoritarian nationalism, the same as most other countries’ governments who care about their indiginous population.
I’ve never seen the BNP talking about doing the following either:
National DNA databases, etc, which MPs are of course exempt from.
The creation of a surveillance state.
Indoctrination of the masses. (No, a return to how things were before Multicultural/internationalist indoctrination is not the same as the manufactured cultural changes that new labour has overseen in the last 12 years)
These are things that New Labour are either intend to do, or have done.
The BNPs policies of economic protectionism and subsidising the lowest paying jobs as an incentive to get people to fill the vacancies that other, rather more racist individuals deign only worthy of being filled by immigrants, are hardly fascist economic policies either.
To call them racist and see New Labour as legitimate smacks of either complete hypocrisy, or total ignorance.
New Labour, at the same time as persecuting the BNP for their electoral success, are using tax money to subsidise a number of ethnic minority advocacy organisations whose purpose is to increase disproportionately the power and influence of ethnic minorities under the pretense of campaigning for equality that has existed since long before they came to power.
This is also the same party that is more than happy to risk the economic genocide of the indiginous people of this country through their policy of mass immigration, which not only removes money from our economy as economic migrants send what they earn or claim as benefits to their homelands, but also drives down our Gross Domestic Product per capita, making every person in this country gradually poorer and poorer, and therefore less able to afford children, which in turn drives down our population.
Worst of all is the implication that having been a former member of the National Front, that John Tyndall must still espouse all of their ideals. The reality being that he left the NF precisely because of a clash of ideologies, which totally invalidates the implication of similarity.
I don’t pretend the BNP are saints, or even that a lot of their members are necessarily particularly good people, but I do my research and hear them out before passing judgement on people.
The reason they should be allowed on Question Time is precisely that, people must be allowed to make an informed choice, whatever they choose, otherwise we don’t have a working democracy.
The BNP are not far-right. They are left if you look at their policies. Did you even bother to research before spewing your knee-jerk opinion? It is disgusting how Greg couldn’t even write a short introductory paragraph without forcing his opinion on everyone before they’ve even read through the two sides presented with leading questions and negative descriptions.
Not only that, the two people you have to argue the “two sides”, as the reader is presumably meant to take this, are both against the party in question! At least a third commentator from the party would have balanced this mess of an article out.
Yet more lies and propaganda from shoddy wannabe journalists. People like this is why the country is failing, newspapers are more akin to the Beano than a source of neutral and factual reports and the media in general can no longer be trusted.
How about a council estate in London, Chris? Cheers for the unexpected swipe. It wasn’t Scotland that voted the BNP in. The BNP were voted into the London Assembly and metropolitan borough council. The European seats weren’t from Scotland’s votes either. So why the assumption that the Scots were baying hounds on a chain, waiting to be released and attack immigrants when the BNP’s support is elsewhere – clearly stronger in London?
@ ‘Tut tut’:
Not many right-thinking people will disagree that the BNP are a racist party. If nothing else, the BNP constitutionally forbids membership of non-white (or rather ‘non-indigenous’) membership. This is racially selective, and therefore discriminatory, ie. racist. We could argue about their policies being racist, but that’s somewhat irrelevant when you first of all take their membership criteria into account.
Very few people dispute that they are of the far-right, either. You are uncommon in your decrying of that description – and I can only assume because you are protective of the “far-right” designation, and don’t want it to be tainted with even the BNP’s name. But economic policies are not the only policies which designate whether a Party is “left” or “right”-wing. Indeed, for all that Thatcher did, very few talk about her as a “far-right” figure. You are mislead.
I am under no obligation to remain unquestioningly impartial on my introductory paragraph. You will find that editors and writers of other, even non-amateur, newspapers are similarly not obliged to tell you what the BNP want people to think of their party as. Having said that, as I have already pointed out, I was not wrong to assert that the BNP are a racist and far-right party, so I do not consider that I prejudiced the debate.
I find it especially rich that you can tell me I marred the article with my own opinions, without even knowing what my opinions are.
And with regards to getting a BNP representative to speak on the matter, such a thing would be ironic and would bypass the debate that is at hand. The issue we are talking about here is whether the BNP should be allowed free publicity – something we would have been providing before the question had been answered by allowing a BNP rep. to debate here.
Glad to see you come out in force for a low-key debate in a regional amateur newspaper with your knickers in a ready-made twist, though. I wonder how many of you here are even students.
Who cares about the BNP? Sure, their policies are often offensive and yes, they do now have an MEP (a representative at an institution that nobody cares about anyway) but they’re still just a minor fringe party that hardly anyone voted for… The BNP actually gets far more exposure as the result of leftists’ attacks on them in the media than they would ever get because of their policies. If you people who opposed them really want them to go away, just ignore them. Do we see anyone debating about Marxist parties going on Question Time? No, because nobody really cares about them and as such they are ignored. Let the BNP go on question time, because actually nobody gives a toss about them (or Question Time for that matter)… If a bunch of old eastenders and unemployed coalminers in Yorkshire want to vote for some irrelevant party, let them. Who cares? Our lovely ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system means that they will never get power anywhere that matters anyways… The European Parliament? London Assembly? Local Councils in Yorkshire? These are all organisations whose memberships have less impact on most people’s lives than the employees of your local corner shop… So let them savour their silly little victories and go on some irrelevant television programme that nobody under the age of 50 watches anyhow…
Those who would trade the freedom of speech so as not to offend anyone might as well be shot anyway, in my book.
It’s all well and good saying ‘stop their freedom of speech because they would, and they’re awful’, whilst handily ignoring the fact that you’re now no better than them.
The idea that you would censor a legal, voted-in political party disgusts me, no matter who they are.
To even suggest banning them and silencing them is frankly appalling. What kind of hate-filled, anti-democratic person would demand that a duly elected representative was kept out? Party members that have had votes from hundreds of thousands of people?
By banning them, you are stealing the vote from all those people. You are therefore no better than Stalin or any other monster or dictator. [REMOVED BY ADMIN] as she would steal the freedom to vote and freedom of speech from hundreds of thousands. Disgusting. And people wonder why they would vote for a party not afraid to speak its mind when others are ready to crush the people’s rights because they hate the idea of dissenting opinions springing forth from freedom of speech.
This is the cancer in politics and society today. Camilla Royle, you should be ashamed of yourself. Clearly you fantasise about a Big Brother world where thoughtcrime is crushed and all must obey and believe at your Party’s whim.
@ 9. ‘Greg Brown’
-”Not many right-thinking people will disagree that the BNP are a racist party.”
Thats more an indication that those right-thinking people never thought to question that notion, rather than the notion itself being correct.
The membership policy is no more racist than that of the Black Police Officers Association, which forbids full membership to whites.
Would you say that the strip-club Spearmint Rhino is sexist because the proprieters don’t feel that men are the best candidates to tittilate their primarily heterosexual male clients?
I’d like to think you wouldn’t. Likewise the BNP membership criteria is based on their assessment that people who are not ethnically British are unsuitable to represent the interests of those who are, in much the same way the NBPO doesn’t feel that whites are suitable to hold office in an institution that caters exclusively to the interests of non-whites.
We overwhelmingly tolerate ethnic minority only advocacy groups who are, by the standard you used there, easily as “racist” as the BNP. The lack of criticism they receive implies acceptance of their “racism”, while this is often used as a criticism of the BNP.
Either they are all racist, and our acceptance of some of them makes criticism of all groups on that basis irrelevant, or none of them are.
-”economic policies are not the only policies which designate whether a Party is “left” or “right”-wing.”
Which makes the one-dimensional scale of left-right completely irrelevant.
When the far-right have more in common with the left than the right or the centre right we cannot derive any useful information from such a scale.
To call the BNP “far-right” is meaningless and misleading.
I’m so bored of this debate. Thank God students in their ivory towers are a bubble unto themselves and have minimal influence on the rest of society.
Just because you’ve found a ‘radical’ theory, group or way of life, don’t impose it on the rest of society who are trying to get on with their lives.
We live in a liberal democracy. We won’t allow fascists (like the BNP) or communists (like the pro-ban brigade) to change that.
If you’re that confident about your Marxist ideas, then you have every capability of discrediting Nick Griffin through debate. If you’re that insecure that you want to ban your historical opposition, then you should reconsider your values.
It is absolutely staggering that a number of you are so for freedom to debate that you would level such personal attacks at the participants of this debate in particular.
I will not tolerate any such remarks on this article. Persistent offenders will find themselves banned from commenting.
Freedom of speech – it’s not like anyone’s died for it or anything, eh? Heaven forfend a cross word is spoken over it.
It sums up today’s Britain well: “Freedom of speech? Not worth getting upset about”
I can’t imagine how badly we would have fared if this generation had to go through the trials of previous generations.
wow, some fairly passionate responses…
Firstly to address the point on scotland – i am in no way implying that it is the heartland of british racism. My small anecdote was designed to illustrate that violence towards immigrants generally occurs in areas of poverty- be that glasgow or bradford or london. But in response to your point, please don’t imagine that any part of the country is less racist either. This is a problem we all suffer from and it is far to easy to say “actually it’s those northern bastards” or “that london scum” that votes for the bnp. You’re living in dream world to assume their support isn’t prevelent throughout the uk. Look it up.
As for the idea that none of it matters thanks to our lovely fptp electoral system i am just astounded. In a liberal democracy we have a duty to listen to the view of the minority. If you’re same principal was to be applied in northern ireland, catholics would be nailed to crosses. You do not have the moral superiority to decide what is right and wrong just because more agreed with you than don’t
my point was not that the bnp’s voice had to be heard but that by ignoring it or trying to censure it you will only make it stronger (see vlaams belang of belgium). Pretending people don’t harbour these views is easy, dealing with them isn’t.
Oh and finally for whoever thought the point that the bnp not being far right was important i would firstly ask you to get your head out of thatchers arse and then work out what actually matters in this discussion. Namely that right or left, racism is a plague upon society. Grow up.
Ha, people are being texted to vote against the BNP being allowed on.
Some ‘debate’ this turned out to be.
Had the BNP, on their website, held a poll saying ‘should immigrants be allowed to come here’, and the argument for it was much more heavily weighted than the opposition for it, I’m sure the people here at london-student.new would be up in arms.
Grow up, kids.
I would like to see them on the program and hear their views.It will give people a closer look at their ways and how they act.The BNP are not welcome as a racist party but a fair view and take on them is needed.
I only hear the one sided view from the public and it would be a fresh take on politics.Like someone said “keep your enemy closer”,and we should keep an eye on the sleeping dog.
if the wind changes and the people get behind this party,well it will be a sorry sight indeed.
Freedom of speech is most important and they,I’m afraid should be allowed to speak.
@ David:
I’m sorry but I know nothing of your allegations that we’re trying to fix this poll. Your accusations are, as far as I’m concerned, unfounded. If we felt so strongly enough for this debate to be faked we would doctor the final statistics before they went in the paper, but that kind of defeats the point of me running this debate at all, doesn’t it?
I think the BBC is in a really awkward position here. Whichever decision they had taken, they would have faced strong criticism.
Clearly, the BNP have won electoral support recently, as demonstrated in the EU parliament election. They are also a racist organisation espousing racist viewpoints, that seems hard to disprove in any rational way. But, if electoral support is the test that a party must pass to be placed on programmes such as Question Time (and it seems a reasonable test), the BBC would be making a political decision to not include the BNP on the panel. It’s very important the BBC remains impartial.
On the other hand, just as impartiality is a key value in public service broadcasting, the BBC also has a duty to prevent the propagation of illegal statements, including those inciting racial hatred. Racism should not be allowed on screen. Given the BNP’s viewpoints (which are clearly expressed, for instance in its membership criteria), it would not be unreasonable for the BBC to suspect that a BNP representative may make a statement on air that would break the BBC’s duty to prevent racist views getting air time. For this reason, it would be reasonable for the BBC to make it very clear to the BNP panel member – before recording – that any such views should not be stated and that if they are they will be cut from the broadcast version. Should the BNP use their panel membership to incite racial hatred or make other statements that are counter to what are acceptable in the public sphere, the BBC would have a very good case for excluding them from future programming on this grounds.
Even by trying to have this debate, you’re giving them legitimacy as a party, legitimacy to their views, and the OK to go on programmes such as Question Time as a genuine, legitimate political party.
If the left had of just left the BNP and the EDL and other such groups alone, they wouldn’t have achieved half as much news coverage as they did, their views wouldn’t have reached most “normal” people and they’d still be languishing in political purgatory. It’s the left who are giving these groups a ladder to climb on and a platform on which they can peddle their views.
I hope you all feel warm and fuzzy inside when you realise that this is truth and you’re all to blame for the far rights slight rise over the last 18 months and the inevitable MPs they will undoubtedly get in the future.
Let them appear, they have the right, and all of you man the fu*k up and learn to reap what you sow.
Greg, you say you weren’t trying to fix the poll, but yet the way the poll is worded contradicts that. You can’t honestly say that the poll is worded in a neutral fashion.
It should have just said “Yes” and “No”. Leading questions and answers are a well-known dishonest method of skewing a poll. This is probably why the honesty of the poll is coming into question (as well as the aforementioned alerts going around the social networking sites telling people to come here just to vote no). I’m presuming this was done unintentionally when writing it up, but I’m hoping by now you can see how bad it looks.
Look at the flip side. Imagine a poll saying:
“Should immigrants be allowed in?
Yes – I want to pay more taxes and suffer higher crime rates
No – I want to protect my children’s future”
Get it now? You have “Yes” and “No” as answers and let people pick their own opinion. The “venom” thing stepped over the mark. Less sensationalism and more neutrality, please. Otherwise you are heading into gutter press territory and playing into the hands of those you dislike.
@ Fred the shed:
I really think you’re reading too much into a fundamentally meaningless internet poll.
As it happens I would have thought “freedom of speech for all” is more a convincing slogan than the “venom” one. And it would seem the current results disagree with you that the wording leans in favour of the “no” vote – or if it does, then it is having next to no real effect.
Either way – those taglines are purely to make it a bit more interesting than “yes” and “no” and are intended as a reflection of the viewpoints espoused by those who wrote for the respective sides in the debate. This isn’t a referendum, my friend. I think you all need to calm down.
Aha – I have just noticed there is quite a level of disparity between the two taglines on the poll. I was under the impression (as you’ll read from my earlier post) that the “yes” was still followed by “Freedom of speech for all”, but we had trouble with getting the polls appear so I guess when someone recreated it the answers weren’t transferred exactly.
I still hold that it’s not worth getting so het up over as to slate us for tredding on “gutter press territory”, but I’ve adjusted the answers accordingly. I can assure you that this was an honest mistake – if we wanted to fix the polls I’m sure there are better ways of doing it than this!
The BNP is the back bone of the goverment. They will say and do what the tories and labur are too pussy to say.
Why do you hate free speech?
Yes, it’s undemocratic to deny free speech
I’m not a student from London, but would still like to comment on your blog post:
One sentence particularly annoys me, with regards to the views of those who think the BNP shouldn’t be given airtime: “The BBC has no obligation to allow Griffin a platform.” – This is false.
As a public service broadcaster, the BBC has a legal obligation to offer all political parties an equal chance to promote their views. Rightly or wrongly, this means giving the BNP airtime.
The BBC are simply reflecting the fact that the BNP got one million votes at the European elections. They have a duty to reflect society as it is and act impartially. Polls show that the vast majority of the public back them on this. Labour Ministers have tried to bully the BBC and lent encouragement to the “blockade” planned by their street proxies outside. The BBC are right to stand firm for their independence.
Of course he should be able to appear, it is a democracy after all and he is an elected represetative of the UK.
To stop alternative views no matter how abhorrent they are to people is in itself an act of fascism! Bear in mind the definition of fascism
Fascism = A political regime, usually totalitarian, repression of criticism or opposition.
NOTE the last line!
There have been precedents before of far left wing candidates appearing on question time, I mean even Jack Straw , a regular panellist, was a fully paid up member of the Communist Party before he joined Labour and communist party controlled states have been responsible for far more deaths and repression than far right states in this century. Stalin at best estimate killed 26 million people, Mau Tse Tung approx 70 million compared to Hitler’s 15 million.
Not that I support or would ever choose to live in a country where Nick Griffin and his followers held power in the same way I would not want to live in a communist state, a fundamentalist rlegious state (or any demonination be it christian, jewish, muslim, etc)
But I am quite happy for any representatives of any of those mentioned above once they have become legitimately elected appearing on question time as they will no doubt alienate any decent level minded intelligent person by their performance!
And if they dont, well there’s the old adage of ‘the people get the government they deserve!’
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions in this ‘Free Country’ and even they are racist, sexist, homophobic etc I would fully support their right to hold those views as long as they dont act unlawfully whilst holding them!
The same way that as an avowed aetheist I think that all religions are ludicrous and fanciful and have no base in comon sense or science yet have no issue with people believing and following them!
I am sure the average sensibly minded british citizens will ensure they always remain at best a minority fringe party much as the far left, greens, and other minor parties have always been in the UK but if they dont then quite frankly its because we have let it happen ourself by not voting against them and deserve it!
The BNP are simply another political party, out for themselves. Although they were able to capitalise on the expenses scandal, there’s questions to be asked about Nick Griffin’s own financial probity. Added to which, for a party so opposed to Irish republicanism, it’s strange that they should sell a CD containing well known rebel songs – it’s clear they’re just after the money. But where does it go? Why are the BNP’s accounts never filed on time? Forget about the racism and that, the BNP leadership – like the Tory and Labour parties – only want to feather their own nest.
TO EDWARD, AS A BNP SUPPORTER, THE PARTY IS CURRENTLY REVEIWING ITS ACCOUNTS ,WHICH WILL BE HANDLED BY A INDEPENDANT ACCOUNTANCY, FIRM, AS WILL NG OWN ACCOUNTS, AS MEMBERSHIP MONEY ,AS ALL FUNDS, THEY WILL BEEN SUBJECT TO REVEIW EVER 3 MONTHS, AND WLL USE TRIPLE BOOK KEEPING, HOPFULLY THE PARTY WILL ALSO INTRODUCE, TOUGH, INTERNAL LAWS , IN REGARD TO ,THE PROBLEM OF PIGS WITH THERE NOSES IN THE TROUGH,UNLIKE THE OTHER PARTYS WE WILL BE SUJECT TO OPEN SCOTLAND YARD FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS.
SINCE THE POLICE ARE BARBED FROM BEING BNP MEMBERS , HIS IS OUR WAY OF RUBBING THERE NOSES IN THE SHIT
TO EDWARD, AS A BNP SUPPORTER, THE PARTY IS CURRENTLY REVEIWING ITS ACCOUNTS ,WHICH WILL BE HANDLED BY A INDEPENDANT ACCOUNTANCY, FIRM, AS WILL NG OWN ACCOUNTS, AS MEMBERSHIP MONEY ,AS ALL FUNDS, THEY WILL BEEN SUBJECT TO REVEIW EVER 3 MONTHS, AND WLL USE TRIPLE BOOK KEEPING, HOPFULLY THE PARTY WILL ALSO INTRODUCE, TOUGH, INTERNAL LAWS , IN REGARD TO ,THE PROBLEM OF PIGS WITH THERE NOSES IN THE TROUGH,UNLIKE THE OTHER PARTYS WE WILL BE SUJECT TO OPEN SCOTLAND YARD FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS.
AS FAR AS MEMBER SHIP IS CON SERNED WE WILL ALLOW OUR MEMBERS DETAILS TO BE MADE PUBLIC/THIS IS THE BEST WAY OF SHITTING ON UAF, M15, MERDOC MEDIA,AND OTHER ENEMYS,
LETS SEE IF THE CONSER, LABOUR, LIB,AND THERE ALLIES THE UAF, WILL DO SIMILAR/ I DOUT, IT THEY DONT HAVE THE BLOODY BALLS.
SINCE THE POLICE ARE BARBED FROM BEING BNP MEMBERS , HIS IS OUR WAY OF RUBBING THERE NOSES IN THE SHIT
Hello, just wanted you to know I have added your site to my Google bookmarks because of your good blog layout. But seriously, I think your site has one of the easiest theme I
Ban or not ban the BNP is a very interesting question. Everyone is allowed to have their opinion and express it. Then we know where we stand and it’s up to us to vote for them or not. Now the BNP are allowing non white members. Is that a marketing gimmick?!!!
Great points…I would note that as someone who really doesn’t write on blogs much (in fact, this may be my first post), I don’t think the term “lurker” is very becoming to a non-posting reader. It’s not your fault at all, but perhaps the blogosphere could come up with a better, non-creepy name for the 90% of us that enjoy reading the posts.
I can’t rsad your blog in Opera 8.5, Ijustfikgtured I might tell you about it.
viideo sites
I can’traed http://www.london-sutdent.net in Opera 1.7, just thnought Imight tslll you aobut it.
video sites