Labours policy on crime - BNP policy on crime.

[Chicken Run]

Your so right my uncle who was a union man at the post office in the 70's i think he was called the red barron was a biggott, hated gays, blacks ect. The two extremes of politics are extremely bad news. However Big Dave will sort this out in a couple of years

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

A card carrying member of the NF ... with Black friends ... I take it that this must have been in the early eighties ..... They must have loved you.

Yep - wasn't quite sure of what I was doing, just that I thought I was doing the right thing. Mentioned before that I played rugby with a black guy who wanted to join the NF to get repatriated to Jamaica - despite being born in Horsham! Gary something or other, played rugby for Horsham - ran like Ben Johnson, ball handling skills of, well, Ben Johnson unfortunately. If you could put the ball in his hands, you were laughing. Never saw him actually catch a pass!

 

[Billy the Fish]

On the original question of which policy is better then it has to be the BNP, which is surprisingly sensible.
Funny how all the pseudo intellectuals and socialists come out and start screaming racist without answering the original question. Did any of you even bother to read the policy when you knew it was it was the BNP? If Oceanic had said it was by Labour you'd probably all be creaming your pants over it.
This is exactly the reason why there is never a sensible debate on immigration and asylum, because people like you play the race card if someone has a different opinion to yours. You all pretend to take the moral high ground and then start name calling instead of trying to prove your opinion.
A few of you have made yourselves look very silly on this thread.

 

[Chicken Run]

On the original question of which policy is better then it has to be the BNP, which is surprisingly sensible.
Funny how all the pseudo intellectuals and socialists come out and start screaming racist without answering the original question. Did any of you even bother to read the policy when you knew it was it was the BNP? If Oceanic had said it was by Labour you'd probably all be creaming your pants over it.
This is exactly the reason why there is never a sensible debate on immigration and asylum, because people like you play the race card if someone has a different opinion to yours. You all pretend to take the moral high ground and then start name calling instead of trying to prove your opinion.
A few of you have made yourselves look very silly on this thread.

 

[Simster]

On the original question of which policy is better then it has to be the BNP, which is surprisingly sensible.
Funny how all the pseudo intellectuals and socialists come out and start screaming racist without answering the original question. Did any of you even bother to read the policy when you knew it was it was the BNP? If Oceanic had said it was by Labour you'd probably all be creaming your pants over it.
This is exactly the reason why there is never a sensible debate on immigration and asylum, because people like you play the race card if someone has a different opinion to yours. You all pretend to take the moral high ground and then start name calling instead of trying to prove your opinion.
A few of you have made yourselves look very silly on this thread.

To be fair, it appears that it is YOU who has misread the thread. As somebody pointed out, have a look at the criminal records of the people who run the party and then ask whether you could really take the BNP policy on crime at all seriously. And I'm afraid you can't separate the policy from the people making the policy.

It would be like reading Mugabe's economic manifesto and saying "that sounds sensible, I'll vote for that".

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Yep - wasn't quite sure of what I was doing, just that I thought I was doing the right thing. Mentioned before that I played rugby with a black guy who wanted to join the NF to get repatriated to Jamaica - despite being born in Horsham! Gary something or other, played rugby for Horsham - ran like Ben Johnson, ball handling skills of, well, Ben Johnson unfortunately. If you could put the ball in his hands, you were laughing. Never saw him actually catch a pass!

Horsham always used to be a hot bed for the NF,

I once played against Kris Akabusi at Rugby, He was playing for some Pongy team in Cyprus, we were a combination of Matelots and Royal. He was a bit like your mate, didn't need handling skills, just run like the clappers. I was on the opposite wing, basically I started running about five minutes before he got the ball. Didn't realise who it was until he started laughing ... fast as f**k, nice bloke though. He only played 40 minutes, I suspect he wasn't meant to be playing ..

 

[Billy the Fish]

To be fair, it appears that it is YOU who has misread the thread. As somebody pointed out, have a look at the criminal records of the people who run the party and then ask whether you could really take the BNP policy on crime at all seriously. And I'm afraid you can't separate the policy from the people making the policy.

It would be like reading Mugabe's economic manifesto and saying "that sounds sensible, I'll vote for that".

Not at all, and you've proved my point. I never said that I'd vote BNP, just that on reading that text that it seemed sensible and is probably mirrors what most normal people think about the role of the police. People just seem to be blinded by the fact that it's from the BNP.
With regards to taking them seriously, the fact that the major parties don't take them seriously is why they continue to gain more support in the northern towns where there is a real problem with racial integration. By labeling them as 'mindless thugs' and trying to brush the issue of race under the carpet, you are just playing into their hands and allowing them to recruit more and more people to their way of thinking.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

To be fair, it appears that it is YOU who has misread the thread. As somebody pointed out, have a look at the criminal records of the people who run the party and then ask whether you could really take the BNP policy on crime at all seriously. And I'm afraid you can't separate the policy from the people making the policy.

It would be like reading Mugabe's economic manifesto and saying "that sounds sensible, I'll vote for that".

True. So how do we square the following then:

Blair - In July 2000, his 16-year old son Euan was arrested being 'drunk and incapable' after being found face down and vomiting in a busy central London square. Blair's son then compounded the crime by giving a false name and an old address to police. He also claimed to be 18, the legal age to buy alcohol. To no great surprise, the boy was not charged.

Straw - In August 1999, Straw accused the majority of travellers of being criminals. This is somewhat ironic as in July 2000, Straw allowed his driver to commit a criminal offence by exceeding the speed limit (which was not pursued) when on Party (not Government) business. He has been unequivocal in his belief in the need for 'zero tolerance' towards speeding motorists and supported a senior police officer's call in 1999 for the prosecution of drivers exceeding the limit by a mere 1mph, and yet Straw's car is alleged to have been travelling at over 100mph.

Straw - Furthermore, his teenage son was arrested in December 1997 after selling 1.92 grams of cannabis resin to a journalist. Despite Straw saying drug trafficking is a serious crime that must be eradicated, his son only received a police caution.

Mandelson - In 1998, Peter Mandelson, the architect of New Labour and the person responsible for its landslide election victory, was forced to resign after it emerged that he had borrowed 373,000 pounds from Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, to buy a house in exclusive Notting Hill Gate and he had failed to disclose this fact (which is required) to the Building Society from whom he also obtained a loan for the property.
Robinson quit his post within hours of Mandelson (after apologising to the Commons for not properly declaring numerous business interests), making this the first time that two ministers had resigned on the same day since 1982. Naturally most people will find it strange that Trade and Industry Secretary Mandelson took this loan when the DTI was currently investigating alleged irregularities in Robinson's business dealings. On being asked whether he had given false information to the Building Society, he could only say that he 'could not guarantee' he had not done this.
Within ten months, Mandelson was back in the cabinet as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But this was short-lived. Mandelson once again had to resign in January 2001 due to a further act of alleged deception when it was claimed that he had misled people in respect of his involvement with the obtaining of a British passport for an Indian businessman who had donated one million pounds towards the Millennium Dome (at the time of the donation, Mandelson, as the cabinet office minister, was in charge of the Dome project). Rarely mentioned is the fact that with this second resignation, Mandelson was entitled to a second ministerial pay-off of over twelve thousand pounds.
Mandelson then attempted to 'unresign' by saying that he had been forced to leave. At this point, 10 Downing Street declared that Mandelson was 'unfocused' and 'detached', suggesting that he had a problem with his state of mind.

Vaz - New Labour's Europe minister Keith Vaz was also involved in the passport fiasco and claimed that as he was a central figure in the Anglo-Indian community, it was not surprising that he had become involved in helping them. Indeed, but one naturally wonders whether the fact that the businessmen were millionaires and donating to the New Labour Party's Millennium Dome had anything to do with this. Did Mr Vaz become involved in passport applications of poor Indians who were non-political and would not be making large donations? I doubt it. Shortly after this, further information came to light, e.g., Vaz used government offices to settle an insurance dispute between a businessman and his insurance company. The Observer of 4 February 2001, also described how:
'Keith Vaz accepted a job with a company owned by an Iraqi-born tycoon who is wanted for questioning over a massive European corruption scandal. Vaz, who is facing calls for his resignation over his business relationships, accepted a directorship of the company owned by Nadhmi Auchi, a British multi-millionaire facing inquiries over his role in an oil deal allegedly involving £40m of kickbacks'...
As other New Labour politicians, Vaz appears to have a collection of expensive properties, i.e., while owning one in Stanmore, worth about 600,000 pounds, he was seeking a buy a London property worth 900,000 pounds in February 2001, and he also owns two further properties in Leicester.
On 13 March 2001, The Guardian, reported:
The Foreign Office minister, Keith Vaz, was yesterday criticised by the Commons standards committee for failing to cooperate fully with an inquiry which largely cleared him of not disclosing his business dealings to parliament. The Leicester East MP was found to have broken the MPs' code of conduct by not declaring a small financial interest with a City lawyer when he recommended him for a political honour. No action will be taken against him for this.
Mr Vaz also broke Commons rules by failing to disclose a Leicester property in the MPs' register. But the committee decided to allow Mr Vaz to register it without incurring any penalty or criticism. Elizabeth Filkin, the parliamentary commissioner for standards and the Commons standards and privileges committee, rejected nine complaints that Mr Vaz failed to disclose cash donations of thousands of pounds to his office and charities which he supported. Eight other complaints could not be properly investigated by Ms Filkin after witnesses and Mr Vaz refused to cooperate or answer any other questions by the commissioner about them.

Others...

July 1998, there was the 'cash for access' fiasco in which Labour lobbyist Derek Draper claimed he could get access to 'the 17 people' who run the country. The following month there were claims that Labour Party donors were being rewarded with peerages. Then the Alan Meale affair, in which the environment minister was accused of helping a friend in a planning deal and the claim that Blair unfairly appointed his close friend Lord Falconer to a number of influential government committees. And in February 1999 Blair attempted to influence the Welsh leadership contest after Ron Davies quit following a rather 'mysterious' incident on London's Clapham Common. On 12 March 2001 Reuters reported that Blair was by then facing accusations that his government was riddled with the 'sleaze' - something he had promised to banish from politics. It gives the example of leaked documents which alleged the Prime Minister's office asked civil servants to fast-track a planning decision for a billionaire Syrian arms broker, indicative of 'Labour's apparent infatuation with rich businessmen'.
The report comments on how this situation has existed from the very beginning, citing the example of how in 1997, Blair had scrapped plans to ban all tobacco advertising after Ecclestone, whose Formula One racing business relies heavily on tobacco sponsorship, gave Labour one million pounds.
In the 1980s Michael Meacher rightly criticized people who had more than one home and yet the M.P, who earns a salary of over 80,000 pounds a year, owns at least eight homes (he refuses to say exactly how many - it is believed that he owns as many as twelve). Three are worth over half a million pounds and the rest are rented out and provide a rental income of 100,00 pounds a year (three are owned by property companies of which his wife is a director).
This news was updated on 20 February 2001 when The Guardian reported: 'Michael Meacher was last night embroiled in a new dispute over his ownership of up to 12 homes after he invoked a secrecy clause in the 'open government' code to avoid answering a parliamentary question on the issue.
This of course was shortly after Lord Irvine decided to use (or confuse) his office to stage a fund-raising event for 'New Labour'; indeed money does now appear to be the sole interest of the New Labour Party.
The New Labour Party has been the recipient of very large amounts of money from businesses and wealthy individuals on numerous occasions; apart from the serious questions which arise from such instances, this no doubt explains why New Labour is so anxious to please the wealthy even if it is at the cost and well-being of the poor. As The Guardian of 7 February 2001, rightly commented:
'But there is a more serious issue in Labour's increasing flirtation with the rich. It goes beyond even party fundraising and the odd donation to the dome. The fact that millionaires have the best snacks adds to the glamour of being a New Labour politician, but it conceals something much more important, namely that Britain is being handed over to big business...
What matters is that, in New Labour's scale of values, an achiever is a person successfully driven to attain wealth and power above all else; and such people are clearly suited to running everything. It's two steps from friendship to partnership to privatisation'.


Yep, we can trust this lot....

 

[Dave the OAP]

Whereas facism has always been a ROARING success.

Mussolini made the trains run on time

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Well said Hampshire... and people still go on about 'Tory Sleaze'.

 

[Dandyman]

True. So how do we square the following then:

...Yep, we can trust this lot....

Fair comment, except I do not think anyone on this thread has been acting as a cheerleader for neo-Labour. ( I cast a protest vote for the tree huggers at the last General Election).

 

[chip]

Re: Re: Labours policy on crime - BNP policy on crime.

Until you've learnt Social Policy at degree level, i suggest you shut the f*** up.

BNP people should all be shot

The same could obviously be said of you. I admire your naive self confidence that should you manage to pass your exams you would be of any use in Africa. I'm sure that being able to achieve 33% in the following questions will be really useful in famine relief or do you just want to run the place?

Example year 1 Social Problems & Social Policy Exam questions

1. ‘The problem about social problems is that they are, in very
important ways, matters of social definition’ (John Clarke, 2001).
Discuss, illustrating your answer with examples drawn from the
examples of social problems studied in this course.

2. What are the causes of domestic violence? Can social policy
ameliorate them?

3. In what sense did domestic violence emerge as a ‘social problem’
in the 1970s and why?

4. Why is the alleged 'crisis in masculinity' cause for social concern?
Discuss in relation to youth crime.

5. Do official criminal statistics accurately measure 'the problem of
crime'?

6. ‘The way asylum seekers have been identified as a social problem
by British politicians is inappropriate.’ Discuss.

7. Assess the degree to which the British media are responsible for
negative attitudes of the population towards asylum seekers.

8. What is ‘homelessness’?

9. ‘Homelessness is caused by a shortage of housing’. Discuss.

 

[Chicken Run]

Fair comment, except I do not think anyone on this thread has been acting as a cheerleader for neo-Labour. ( I cast a protest vote for the tree huggers at the last General Election).

"Yup - silly little girl here

My degree is going to get me the job i want - aid working in Africa - so i would hardly call it worthless.

I dont think you'll find that all Labour supporters agree to Iraq, yet still i'm not going to vote for someone else in the next election.

By the way - your last sentence is grammatically incorrect - who's being silly now."

haha i think the above proves that the cheerleader has been cheerleading

 

[Gritt23]

f*** off BNP you racist C.U.N.T.S

BNP are indeed motivated by many racist beliefs, but have I missed something or did those points on law and order largely make a lot of sense.

Put those measures under a different party's manifesto, and that would get votes wouldn't it?

 

[looney]

My my what a silly little thread, not to sure who to vote for as the poll makes no f***ing sense.

no onder LI appears to understand it.

 

[London Irish]

Your so right my uncle who was a union man at the post office in the 70's i think he was called the red barron was a biggott, hated gays, blacks ect. The two extremes of politics are extremely bad news. However Big Dave will sort this out in a couple of years

Yep, typical of the mischievous horseshit you put on this website. The trades union movement have been in the leadership of every significant anti-racist campaign of the last 50 years, way before it became a populist cause.

Yes, there were some notorious examples like the dockers who fell under the influence of Enoch Powell - but that is exactly why the racists like Powell and his facist offspring like the BNP must be condemned at every opportunity so that weak-minded people don't get swayed into looking for easy answers.

 

[Simster]

BNP are indeed motivated by many racist beliefs, but have I missed something or did those points on law and order largely make a lot of sense.

Put those measures under a different party's manifesto, and that would get votes wouldn't it?

Yes you're right. But that is because other parties who stand for such values won't be headed by people with criminal records as long as your arm. If a new breed of "tough on crime" Tories were being headed by the likes of Jeffrey Archer, people would want nothing to do with them, and rightly so. The proof is there: certain Tory MPs have in the past stood on a family values ticket before being caught shagging around (usually having to pay for it, obviously). People eventually got tired of this hypocrisy in the same way people are tired of some of Labour's hypocrisy - as HampshireSeagulls has pointed out.

 

[Simster]

Yes, there were some notorious examples like the dockers who fell under the influence of Enoch Powell - but that is exactly why the racists like Powell and his facist offspring like the BNP must be condemned at every opportunity so that weak-minded people don't get swayed into looking for easy answers.

I don't agree, Steve. I don't think any group of people can ever condemn others (however abhorrant) until they have some proper answers themselves, simply because people would rather have the wrong answer than no answer at all.

 

[Chicken Run]

Yep, typical of the mischievous horseshit you put on this website. The trades union movement have been in the leadership of every significant anti-racist campaign of the last 50 years, way before it became a populist cause.

Yes, there were some notorious examples like the dockers who fell under the influence of Enoch Powell - but that is exactly why the racists like Powell and his facist offspring like the BNP must be condemned at every opportunity so that weak-minded people don't get swayed into looking for easy answers.

Stop salivating you dinosaur, I dont post horseshit I post opinion, chill out, I know my uncle you dont and of course you dont post horseshit do you

 

[Simster]

My my what a silly little thread, not to sure who to vote for as the poll makes no f***ing sense.

no onder LI appears to understand it.

Several pages into the thread and I'm still defending my own interpretation of the question from BillyTheFish.

There can be little argument that it was a loaded question, so you are right in saying it is a stupid one!