Jack Straw and his big wooden shit-stirring spoon

January 8th, 2011 § 4 comments § permalink

Jack Straw is a fucking knobber, isn’t he?

Two blokes have been convicted of abusing girls. The girls are white and the men are from Pakistani origin so Jack Straw feels the need to shout about Pakistani men abusing ‘our’ girls

Pakistanis, let’s be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders’ wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders.

But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men… who target vulnerable young white girls.

There is also a specific problem of psychos targeting prostitutes, husbands targeting wives, big kids targeting little kids, female school teachers targeting boy pupils. It’s just some people within one demographic going for people within another just because they are seen as weak or vulnerable.

We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way.

Look at that quote. It seems reasonable enough, but let’s do a classic word swap and see…

We need to get the White British community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of White British men thinking it is OK to target prostitutes in this way.

Sounds a bit stupid now, doesn’t it? Why should it be so, though? From the news I hear, the people that go on prostitute killing sprees are overwhelmingly white British. We don’t get anyone asking why or what are we, as a ‘community’, are gonna do about it?

Straw carries on…

These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they’re fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically,

So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care… who they think are easy meat.

Because they’re vulnerable they ply them with gifts, they give them drugs, and then of course they’re trapped.

Let’s break that quote down.
Young men ‘fizzing and popping with testosterone’ need to find an outlet. Girls of their own background are off limits. Being married into a similar culture, the idea that the girls are pure and sweet and don’t like getting drunk and stoned and having sex is laughable. The sweet innocent girls are, just like in the ‘western society’ a veneer for parents and elders.

Let’s take it at face value that Pakistani girls are off limits to these young men, why don’t these guys just date other girls? What’s wrong with that? The elders don’t have to know. There’s the old ‘just with her for the fuck’ reason to tell his mates.

Jack Straws comments make this case sound like these guys were just going for white girls because they felt they couldn’t pick up girls of their own culture or background. If that was the case they would’ve been picking up and shagging girls of a more appropriate age, not girls as young as twelve. They would probably have picked on any other subset of vulnerable girls as well, but being a predominately white country, vulnerable white girls are the most abundant.

These guys, in whatever culture, whatever society, are nasty bastards. As the judge of the case and the chief exec of Barnardos say, the race of the victims and abusers are coincidental.

The only reason Jack Straw is getting his big wooden racial shit stirring spoon out is because it’s brown people doing stuff to ‘our’ girls.

(Posted using my phone so, please, excuse the spelling)

On the BNP and their constitutional changes to come

October 15th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Fat Nick caved in

BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard.

The UK’s equalities watchdog had argued the BNP broke the Race Relations Act by restricting members to “indigenous Caucasian” people.

The court heard Mr Griffin had agreed to use “all reasonable endeavours” to revise its constitution.

BNP members will be asked to agree to the changes at a meeting in November.

Either the begging letters didn’t raise enough or Fat Nick thought it would be better spent in the upcoming general election.

Will the disgruntled party faithful accept these changes? Who knows, but according to the current BNP consitution (pdf) says…

1) Consideration will regularly be given to changes in this Constitution for the purpose of improving the functional efficiency of the party. Final authority to determine such changes, however, will rest with the elected National Chairman – saving those Sections protected by Section 13, Sub-section4.

So, the Chairman can change most of the constitution as he sees fit. What does Section 13, sub-section 4 say?

Any changes in Sections 1, 4, 5 or 13 of this constitution must be approved by a two thirds majority vote of members attending a General Members’ Meeting.

Follow the number. Follow the numbers.

Section 1 is Political Objectives

Section 4 is Elections to the Party Leadership

Section 5 is Advisory Council

Section 13 is General Members’ Meetings

All the above sections need a two third majority vote of the membership.

Section 2: Membership, doesn’t. Fat Nick, being the Chairman, has the authority to change that section of the constitution all by himself.

So where does that leave the BNP?

Fat Nick has no choice but to change the constitution because the law requires it to be changed and the Chairman has the authority to change it. The party faithful has no say in it. Either the constitution changes or the BNP stop being a legally* legitimate political party.

*Whatever, they will remain a morally illegitimate party.

All this though, will not change the party at all. Consider this, from a report of a public BNP meeting in Cleveleys (via)…

One member offers me a drink as he says: “We’re not intimidating are we? We get a lot of bad press but we’re not thugs.”
But I don’t like what I hear next as around six people put their hands up to request an application form to become a BNP member. One convert shouts: “I’ll have an application form, but not a coloured one!”
It was greeted with laughter by most in the audience, and was a deeply unpleasant reminder of where I was.

While inside the building the recruitment drive was in full flow, it was a different story outside as four people got turned away. All were either black or Asian. There were no members of the ethnic minorities inside.
As I left a security guard told me: “After a while it was getting full up so we decided it had to be members only.”
Strange that, as I was given a seat all to myself and I’m not a member. And I swear there was plenty of space.

Brucie: It’s only a nickname…

October 8th, 2009 § 5 comments § permalink

Brucie has weighed in to defend Anton Du Beke about his ‘paki’ comment saying…

But host Forsyth says that in the past the “slip up” would have been treated in a more light-hearted way.

He told TalkSport: “You go back 25, 30, 40 years and there has always been a bit of humour about the whole thing.”

What the fuck is funny about using the word ‘paki’? Has there always been a bit of humour about using a racially derogative, demeaning term for, not just Pakistanis but pretty much the whole of south Asia*?

(*I’m on about in proper conversation, not within the context of a joke)

There may have been 40-odd years ago there may have been some mirth in the term for Mssrs Smith, Jones & Brown, but I doubt very much it would’ve been the same for Mssrs Singh, Kahn & Patel. Or are they the ones that need to lighten up?

Bruce goes on to equate a term used by the Americans for the British, ‘Limeys’, with it…

He added: “Americans used to call us ‘limeys’ which doesn’t sound very nice, but we used to laugh about it. Everybody has a nickname.”

‘Limeys’ is a nickname that arose because of what the British sailors used to do – eat lots of limes. It may not have been meant in an endearing way, but it hardly had the racially demeaning connatations of one nations oppression of another.

Maybe Brucie, the old git*, should shut the fuck.

*Oh, is that a bit ageist? Well, If any old people out there are offended, let me know and I’ll draft an apology along the lines of Du Bekes’.


Brucie now says

To be absolutely clear, the use of racially offensive language is never either funny or acceptable.

Make your bloody mind up. That is the complete opposite to what you said earlier.

I’m not racist but…

September 14th, 2009 § 3 comments § permalink

why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when it “often cannot supply organic milk and free-range chicken for their regular customers!”?

… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing “and not actually cater for men”

… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “there enough stalls on the market for affordable asian clothing?” What about school uniforms?

… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “I find it offensive these get-ups being sold in a British supermarket, if it’s in their shops fine I can tolerate that! They should be intergrating with our ways and donning our dresscode! but oh what’s the use come 2020 we’ll all be wearing this attire anyway ,eating halal meat, kneeling to the east and obeying sharia law!”

… “I am waiting for the day they change their logo to an islamic one. …and slowly but surely they made their plans”

… “I have no objection to ethnic fashion, except on those streets of some of our major cities that have gone completely to the other extreme, stocking little with any appeal to the indigenous population.”

… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “our Asian residents should be adopting western clothing as the norm whilst living in the UK.”


… “I rather think this is another placating excercise. Is it to make sure we all get used to seeing so many traditionally dressed immigrants on the streets that we forget who we are?”

… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “there are enough asian clothes shops in the asian no go ghettos”

… “Slowly slowly catshee monkey the take over in in your shops now ??.” [wtf that’s supposed to mean?]

… Asda are “Pandering to minorities with an eye to the future…….”

I’m not racist, but the Daily Mail is read by them.

Wales and the BNP

September 9th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

The BNP are pleased with themsleves.

Some councillor has siad some stuff about the BNP being contrary to everything a Welsh National hero, Orwain Glyndwr, and since then T-Shirts with Orwain and a slogan on them, printed by the BNP, have increased.

I’ve never heard of this Orwain Glyndor chap, but John Walker, the BNP National Deputy press officer to give him his full title, is quite convinced that Orain and the Nationalists are peas in a pod…

Orwain stood for the right of Wales to be Welsh, which is exactly what the BNP’s [sic] policy is

That’s not quite correct though, John. Is it? There’s a little more to it than that.

The BNP support the right for the home nations to be Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish as long as they adopt the BNPs’ version of their national identity.

The BNP do not support a Welshmans right to be any religion except Christian. Apparently, Christianity is the indigenous religion of these Isles. Why else would they make a big deal of how many mosques there are in Wales.

38 apparently. Handily, the BNP post lists them all. Why would they do that, I wonder? What does it matter where these mosques are. Why would the BNP list, for it’s readers, the addresses, including postcodes, of every mosque in Wales, when BNP members are probably the least likely to go visiting?

I hope no ones going to try to persuade some Welsh people to be more Welsh.

Bullshit baffles brains…

August 18th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

… as the saying goes. It doesn’t apply here though.

The question over at the BNP site is “Who are the minorities?”. And guess who are the minorities…

Over and over again, British people — and Europeans generally — are told that they must “accommodate the minorities” in their countries. Yet the worldwide reality is that European-origin people are the true global minority, and, using the liberal logic which demands special rights for minorities, it is Europeans who should receive the special perks.

Yes. The poor old white man is the true minority. The white man might not be a minority in their own country so the BNP are making the battle global. Suddenly, the Nationalists are worried about other countries. If the white man clubs together, then and only then, and even then only in absolute numbers does he become an endangered species.

[There are several reports mentioned in the BNPs’ pamphlet of shit and it’s late so if someone else wants to look into how good/reliable they are, go for it..]

Consider the following: The world’s population is forecast to hit 7 billion in 2011, the vast majority of its growth coming in ‘developing’ and, in many cases, the poorest nations, according to the latest World Population Data Sheet issued by the Population Reference Bureau in America.

Some 97 percent of global growth over the next 40 years will happen in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, said the report

And there is a lot of talk of birthrates, quoting various population increases in various countries and suchlike, all of which may be accurate, but just as likely not. But then there’s also stuff like…

A United Nations population survey in 2007 predicted the 21st century disappearance of western man.

By 2050, a fourth of all the people of Eastern Europe will have vanished. Ukraine will lose one-third of its population. Russia, 150 million at the breakup of the Soviet Union, 142 million today, will be down to 108 million.

Ah, ‘Western Man’. That’s what the racists are worried about, aren’t they? So, in the next 91 years, there will be no true white man, eh? Why are they quoting Eastern Europeans in the decline of western man? Aren’t they one of the groups of people coming over here, taking ‘our’ jobs and taking ‘our’ benefits whilst shagging ‘our’ women?
Here’s the first solid bit of bullshit numbering. Either the BNP are adding their own numbers or the report they got it from was written by an uninformed twat because didn’t the Soviet Union break up twenty years ago? Any recent self-respecting, legitimate report wouldn’t count anything to do with the Soviet Union. The USSR is history already. Oh, and where do all these people in the Ukraine get lost? In the sodding permafrost?

The UN statistics, however, show the populations of Northern, Western and Southern Europe stabilising or falling only slightly.

That’s just not good enough, is it? Come on. It’s your duty to your race to fuck more!

It is time, therefore, that liberals stopped talking about ‘minorities’ as if European people were somehow the dominating majority. European-origin people across the world are the true minority, and as such deserve extra special treatment in their home nations.

Ok. Taking their figures, the dodgy groupings and double accounting, at face value, so what? Aren’t they supposedly ‘Nationalists’? Isn’t the clue in the name? What do these Nationalists care about other countries? Don’t they have an isolationist twang to their policies? All of a sudden, the go-it-aloners are worried about other nations ‘indigenous people’.

[added during a read through: When liberals (and that could be anyone when the BNP say it) talk about minorities, they talk about the minority ethnic groupings of that country. In South Africa the minority is the white bloke. In European countries, European descended people are the majority. FFS.]

I just spotted too, ‘European-origin people’ don’t just deserve an equal crack at the whip, not even special treatment, but extra special treatment. What do they want? A fucking house given to them? They want immigrants that come here to work (until they can send them packing), but want extra special treatment themselves. Sounds like aparthied would be just up their street.

Here come the big guns of the arguement: The United Nations stuff…

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007, states very clearly that:

Oh, go on. Lets see what you make of this. I’m going to quote everything they do and then deal with it in one go at the end…

“Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Article 6
Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.
Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.
Article 33
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.”

Indigenous people do have all those rights. They are meant, primarily, where a land has been occupied, colonised or conquered. A good example of this are the Aboriginal people of Austrialia. Foreign people came and conquered the land and for fuck knows how long denied them full rights, equal rights in their own land.
I challenge anyone to give me an example of where one of the UN articles quoted above are being violated with regard to the ‘indigenous’ population of Great Britian.

Those UN articles apply to individual countries, territories, irrespective of what is happening in other countries. The Republic of Ireland could have a majority population of Easter Islanders and it wouldn’t matter to the rights of anybody in the UK at all.

I would imagine ‘Western Man’ is already a minority. Think about it. There’s a fuck load of people spread over this earth and western Europe and North America is a small part of it. If the fascist nationalists are having to club together with unnatural bedfellows to become the put-upon victims, the rest of their arguments disappear like sand through their fingers

BNP’s Hate-Fest

August 13th, 2009 § 6 comments § permalink

The BNP’s Red White and Blue Festival takes place this weekend, with several thousand expected to both attend and protest at it. The planned protest, called by UAF, has received a degree of hostility from the press and police to date. The police are getting in some pre-emptive strikes, with echoes of the G20 operation,  preparing the country for a brave defence of the Red White and Blue festival against those violent anti-fascist thugs. Not them again, the collective country asks, they are always up to no good – there’s bound to be some trouble if they are involved. Alongside them, the BNP are on the charm offensive, trying to convince us all that this is effectively a village fete, and all they want is to be left alone to enjoy themselves. After all, aren’t they a legitimate political party?

The general arguments that are made against the UAF protests can be broadly grouped into the following themes.

Firstly, we have the argument about free speech. The BNP are a) entitled to free speech, and b) aren’t the anti fascists being fascist for denying this free speech? Following on from this, the UAF are then shown to be ‘just as bad as the BNP’.

Secondly, there is the presentation of the festival as some sort of casual, lawful celebration, with attendees going for no other reason than to have fun, which they should be lawfully allowed to do without harassment. The quote from Simon Darby, deputy leader of the BNP, on the Guardian web site says it all: ‘”It’s not in our interests to cause trouble. We’re up there with our wives, girlfriends and children. We just want to have a good time, but these protesters want to latch trouble on to us.” Clearly, we are led to believe that this is just a family event, with fun and games in the sun. The police are treating this at face value, with the local spokesperson saying of their operation “The people attending Red, White and Blue have a right to do so in peace and safety but we also realise that people have the right to protest in a lawful and peaceful way.”.

Thirdly, we have the view that the protesters are also violent, and that this amounts to some sort of contradiction – you can’t resort to violence and call yourselves anti-fascist. The methods of the UAF are questioned and compared to the BNP’s thugs. There are other ways of trying to stop the BNP, which must be done without confrontation.

Lastly, some argue that we should all just ignore it. The election results clearly show that the BNP’s vote has not increased in absolute terms, but that the rest of the country has become disillusioned with politics, and with no alternatives to the 3 mainstream parties simply didn’t vote. The BNP will never get in, as the vast majority of the country do not support them. By making a fuss of their festival, we are giving them publicity and national coverage.

This is not an exhaustive list, but a brief survey of the ideas emanating from the mainstream media. What is striking is that in almost all the coverage, the fundamental issue of the racist and fascist roots of the BNP is never discussed. We have somehow moved on from this argument – the terms of debate have changed. Whether this is a sign of the gaining legitimacy of the BNP, or merely lazy sensationalist reporting, the fact of the matter is that  UAF finds itself in the unusual position of having to defend themselves for organising a protest against a party that the majority of people would probably accept are racist, and in general oppose.

So how do we address the 4 themes outlined above?  Extremist parties such as the BNP have often used the free speech argument to gain a platform for their ideas, though free speech is the last thing that would be on their minds if they ever got into power. Did Hitler stand up for the principles of free speech when he was in power? Are we to make the mistakes of the past and allow the racists to use free speech and democracy with the aim of destroying it?

We also have to ask ourselves what we even think free speech is. Is it being able to say whatever we want? How do the people that are the victims of the racial hatred that is spread by the BNP feel about free speech?  As with many things that we label as ‘free’ we generally consider within the framework of not causing harm to anyone else. Freedom to do whatever you want does not include things like attacking or murdering other people, and in the same vein, freedom to say what you want has limits too, such as inciting violence against people based on the colour of their skin or ethnicity. If this is too fascist for you, then clearly you have lost faith in the ability of society to set some basic rules for itself.  I would be interested to see if anyone was prepared to defend a festival celebrating pedophilia on the grounds of ‘free speech’, so why do we consider it in a racist context?

The BNP’s characterisation of this event as a peaceful festival has been given an astronomical amount of spin. As noted in previous posts, there is mountains of evidence, including their own manifesto, that the BNP is a racist party, with it’s philosophy based on white supremacist theories,  links to many violent far right groups, participation of many of it’s leading members in earlier racist organisations and struggles, and the previous convictions that some members, such as their leader, have had for racial crimes. Amongst the tombola stalls and coconut shys will be speeches and talks pushing the white is right message, and the aims of hounding out of the country of all those who are non white.  This festival is not about peace and tolerance, it is about hatred and violence. The police know all this too, which makes it even more astounding that they are preparing to defend it.

How do we deal with the violence question? There is undoubtedly a violent element within the UAF, but this is limited to a minority. Without dismissing this, the contrast is with the BNP, whose entire immigration policy is based on violence, something that the vast majority of the BNP membership buys into, and is one of the central unifying themes within the party itself. Arguing that the UAF are as fascist as the BNP is comparing a coalition who are trying to stop the BNP spreading their doctrine of hate with a party whose logical conclusion is the holocaust! This is not just misguided, it is wrong.

The argument as to whether to use violence or not is a fair enough question. Most people there will not use violence.  Force, maybe, but violence, no. We are not going there to beat them up, we are just going there to stop the festival happening. The press will of course get their usual shock pictures, but as with the G20 protest, there will be one day of tutting at the protesters, before the truth seeps out over the following weeks. Those that claim that using violence against the BNP is wrong of course reserve the right to support violence elsewhere – the general populations of Iraq and Afghanistan are far more deserving of our violence than the BNP! I don’t have an unequivocal view on the violence question, but the threat posed by the BNP, the vile messages that they are trying to spread means that the possibility of violence from a minority is no reason to stop the protest.

So should we just ignore it all? Not at all. The recent election victory has lead to an increase in racial attacks and racist demonstrations, as the BNP and it’s thugs gain confidence. We  have the historical example of the rise of Hitler, and the deaths of millions. ‘It will never happen here’, they say. Well, I bet they never thought anything like that would happen in Germany either. But it did, and it was not a sudden event, it was a process that took place over a number of years, with Hitler building a party and using the democratic machinery of the state to spread his doctrine. We need to learn from the past, and instead of sitting back and ignoring it, make sure that history does not repeat itself.

We need to fight the BNP every step of the way. Nothing is set in stone, we make our own history, and we need to collectively make sure that our history is one that is not dominated by the the racist, fascist BNP.

Dale, the police and the BNP

August 12th, 2009 § 3 comments § permalink

Iain ‘Fail’ Dale fails to understand the problem…

Are we really saying that a BNP supporter is incapable of doing his job as a police officer? If an officer displays any degree of racial discrimination during the course of carrying out his duties, then I would be the first to say that disciplinary action should be taken, but a blanket ban is wrong, and in itself discriminatory. Should we also fire any police officer who supports any political party, or just those ones we don’t happen to approve of?

Is it wrong to discriminate against people that discriminate? Do Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats want the removal of people from the country depending on their colour?

The BNP Constitution, Section 1, sub-section 2, part b

The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigrationand to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.

That statement in the BNPs’ constitution isn’t just about declaring their dislike for a certain section of society, it is a declaration to ethnically cleanse anyone that the BNP decides do not belong.

Membership of the BNP isn’t like the church where there are differing opinions on particular areas of thought. For example. Some members of the Church of England don’t give a monkeys’ about homosexuality and some think it’s abhorrent.
Every member of the BNP has read (or should’ve done) and agrees with it. Every member of the BNP thinks that non-white European people shouldn’t be here, have no right to be here, is taking something away from the white people.

What do you think ‘negotiation’ and ‘consent’ mean? BNP member have been arrested for ‘negotiating’ with non-white citizens.
At the moment the BNP are not able to get rid of people by legal changes, but if they did, what do you think that would involve? Forced deportations, removing civil liberties, there will be probably be organisations that are deniable to help ‘persuade’ people to leave.

The BNP aren’t fucking about.

Having said that, and much more could be said, if someone believes that much that someone, who’s family have lived in this country, 3 generations or so born here, no connections to anywhere else, works, pays taxes etc, does not belong just because of the colour of that persons skin, why would they help them? Any occasion that requires someone to call the police is a bad situation. A bad situation could help someone decide to leave. The BNP member is committed to getting non-white people to leave.

There are several arguements that go with this, mostly ‘whatabouteries’. The two most common appear in The Fail Dales post and comments. These are religion and the National Black Police Association.

Well, the religion one, as explained earlier using what could be said is a parallel situation, does not have a definative, stated viewpoint, policy, or objective with regards to homosexuality. Some strands of religion accept it, some don’t. Some are still deciding. It may be the case that religion and being a police officer are incompatible, but that is a different discussion. The two things, religion and being a copper, and BNP membership and being a police officer, are separate issues. One does not dictate the result of the other.

With NBPA, it states on the front page of their website…

Membership of the NBPA is open to all in policing on application.

There is no bar to membership based on colour.

The NBPA is also not trying to deny anybody anything. They are not calling for the removal of white police officers or the denial of employment rights from a certain section of the force.

The BNP want to solve the problem of ‘British workers for British people’, racial discrimination, and social housing problems by removing sections of British citizenry. Not just recent immigrants or asylum seekers but also people that know nothing else. People that don’t just feel British but are British.

Ooh, I nearly forgot. Another arguement is that the BNP is a legal political party so why not? Well, the BNP is a racist organisation pushing racist idea and policies. This means that the question shouldn’t be ‘should police officers be allowed to join the BNP’ but ‘should the BNP be legal’?

One of Dales’ commentors has hit the nail on the head

The truth is that supporting the BNP is itself a racist act: it makes a person guilty of contributing to a climate of racism and prejudice in this country, which is harmful to racial and ethnic minorities. That is true whether or not the person considers him/herself to be a racist. We ought to be upfront about this fact, and more willing to openly condemn supporters of the BNP. Saying that supporting the BNP is a mere ‘protest’ gives the party, and its supporters, a veneer of legitimacy that they just doesn’t deserve. If someone supports the BNP, in any capacity, they are complicit in racism. They have contributed to making life that little bit harder for racial and ethnic groups in Britain, and that is something of which they should be ashamed.

BNP bollocks

April 23rd, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

The Guardian

The British National Party chairman, Nick Griffin, spoke today of a “bloodless genocide” as he defended a party leaflet which says that black Britons and Asian Britons “do not exist”.

The BNP leader was referring to the party’s Language And Concepts Discipline Manual, which says the term used should be “racial foreigners”.

In a BBC interview Griffin said to call such people British was a sort of “bloodless genocide” because it denied indigenous people their own identity.

First of all, it doesn’t need to be said, but I’m gonna say it anyway. Nick Griffin is a cunt.

Collectively, foreign residents of other races should be referred to as ‘racial foreigners’, a non-pejorative term … the key in such matters is above all to maintain necessary distinctions while avoiding provocation and insult.”

Why? Why not just call foreigners ‘foreigners’? Until they have a British passport, and then they can be called British. They’re people just like everybody else in this country, unless of course you’re a rascist cunt that thinks that people with a different coloured skin to yourself are below you, worth less than yourself. Ooh dare I say, untermenschen?

Griffin said to call such people British was a sort of “bloodless genocide” because it denied indigenous people their own identity.

I’m British. Being British is second to me be English. In fact I am so fucking English I have a name that goes back to Saxon times, Does that make me indiginous enough to say that I don’t need these fucking thick bigoted spunk-bubbles telling me how, or against what my identity is formed? My identity has nothing to do with who the fuck snuck over a border on the underside of a lorry or waltzed through terminal fucking three of Heathrow airport.
If there is a ‘bloodless genocide’ it is being unsuccessfully fought by these small-minded half-fuck-wits against anyone that isn’t up to their standard of British.

You can’t say that especially large numbers of people can come from the rest of the world and assume an English identity without denying the English their own identity…

For fucks sake. Just listen to yourself for a minute Mr Cunty. Do you know what your talking about or not? As far as I’m aware ‘especially large numbers’ of people aren’t coming over here and assuming an English identity. From your little mumblings earlier you were saying they were assuming British identities. The two are different. One is a sub-nation of the other. The people coming here tend not to describe themselves by prepending one of the British nations to themselves. How many English Indians are there? How many Welsh Pakistanis are there? I don’t know of any and I’m married into an Indian family. You’ll probably find most people don’t include the colour of they’re skin in their identity either.

…and I would say that’s wrong

That’s because you’re a cunt.

“We don’t subscribe to the politically correct fiction that just because they happen to be born in Britain, a Pakistani is a Briton. They’re not. They remain of Pakistani stock,” he added.

After reading these fuckers, don’t you just want to thoroughly clean your eyeballs…with a chainsaw?
So all these people that are decsendants of the Vikings, the Normans, the Romans, they’re not British either, eh?

our ultimate goal is the orderly, lawful, humane and voluntary repatriation of the resident foreigners of the UK.

So all these people born here but from ancestors that are from foreign climbs are not British, but are foreigners too, there’s not gonna be many people left is there?

And then what? He’ll only complain that there’s no-one to clean the shitter.

Upper class twit puts foot in it

February 3rd, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink


Carol Thatcher faces being banned from the BBC after she referred to a tennis player as a “golliwog”.

Thatcher, the daughter of former prime minister Lady Thatcher, made the remark in a private conversation in the green room of The One Show after the broadcast of the BBC1 programme on Thursday night.

Stupid cow.

Didn’t stop the BBC getting her on the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday to do the papers though, did it?

/insert favourite digs at Carols mother here/

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with racism at Sim-O.