Member of Royal household and serving policeman named on BNP list - Telegraph.co.uk

News

RSS Feed
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Posts
9,730
Reaction score
130
<img src=http://news.google.co.uk/news?imgefp=WZau8Ls6UfwJ&imgurl=www.itv.com/img/157x104/BNP-members-named-on-leaked-list-a94d3de8-9615-4ebb-84fa-faf943a9a3bb.jpg width=80 height=53 alt="" border=1>
[SIZE=-2]ITV.com[/SIZE]

<img alt="" height="1" width="1">
Member of Royal household and serving policeman named on BNP list
[SIZE=-1]Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - 52 minutes ago[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The list also names 17 former police officers, including a chief inspector, and 16 servicemen, one of them a Royal Marines Commando. ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Radio DJ fired after BNP teachers, police and lawyers are exposed ... [SIZE=-1]Daily Mail[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Police act over BNP member list [SIZE=-1]Public Servant Online[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]BNP membership list leaked onto internet [SIZE=-1]Telegraph.co.uk[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]all 636 news articles[/SIZE]


More...
 

Geryon

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Posts
686
Reaction score
0
*text deleted**text deleted*ing hell, IT'S JUST A POLITICAL VIEW, they shouldn't be hounded down for it.
 

TM

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Posts
292
Reaction score
0
The stereotypical view would suggest that it should be expected for the BNP's members list to contain a fair few soldiers and police officers. Perhaps it has some validity for the former if the sometimes outrageous talk that can be seen on the Army Rumour Service is anything to go by.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,888
Reaction score
4,672
Isn't it shocking that people should have penalties in life for which party they choose to be linked to.

Is this a democracy or is it not,

These people have fears about what is going on this country, rightly or wrongly. Is that not who the vote is actually for, people who have fears?

Personally I don't mind them barring people in public office from being a member of a political party, but it should be a ban on all parties and not just one.

Believe me the biggest party in the plods, is the Masons and they are one hell of a dodgy bunch, real dodgy, they would make the BNP look like school children.
 

v3locity

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Posts
584
Reaction score
1
I agree with you GreyWing as when i was reading the article i thought it was outrageous people are being penalised for there political beliefs.

The Democracy we live in is a farce and has been for some time now!
 

Geryon

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Posts
686
Reaction score
0
Surely soldiers out of all people deserve the right to belong to what ever party they want, this isn't china ffs.


In a democracy you don't limit certain peoples rights because they have different political views.
 

Binary

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Posts
41
Reaction score
0
Wasn't it party activists not just party members?

...and we live in a partial autocracy, I believe, as although the voting process is democratic the actions for the country are decided by the governing body. No idea whether that changes the debate either.

These people should still be covered by the data protection act anyway. However people feel the need to know about other threats to their society (criminal records etc.) and a party which is commonly perceived, whether rightly or wrongly, 'tainted' either in the present or the past could be considered a threat to society. People who work in upholding or creating and developing the society as whole are of course under public scrutiny and their political affiliation is probably seen as being quite important.

Incidents such as these and the one of the names of the parents of Baby P evoke many different reactions in people, as do many political topics. The positive side to this is seeing that people actually give a *text deleted**text deleted* and we don't live in a country of 'Apathy Rules'.

That maybe slightly off the point and people can of course feel free to correct me if I’m wrong in my statement. I shall bow out of further discussion, as I think its over hyped by the media, I prefer to stay out of their controlling clutch, as it is i've re-written this about 5 times now.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,888
Reaction score
4,672
These people should still be covered by the data protection act anyway. However people feel the need to know about other threats to their society (criminal records etc.) and a party which is commonly perceived, whether rightly or wrongly, 'tainted' either in the present or the past could be considered a threat to society. People who work in upholding or creating and developing the society as whole are of course under public scrutiny and their political affiliation is probably seen as being quite important.

But who decides which group comes under this section, BNP will rightly state that they were always against the war in Iraq and that the real parties of violence are in power now, factually they may have a point on that one.

So rather than the other parties putting one party on a banning list, I'd rather see every party banned from having members as public sector workers. I am uneasy with one party being singled out, because tomorrow it will be 2 parties, then three and then before we know it we can only vote for certain parties which have not been banned, then the next step is we are living in 70's Russia.
 

Binary

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Posts
41
Reaction score
0
Ha ha, drawing me into the debate!

Well it depends on whether you personally think if said political party has any dubious moral or political grounds, whether they be about war or internal affairs.

If there was/is a party which alienated people which form and help shape a large part of modern day society then should it not be questioned as to the 'morality' of voting or supporting such a party? Especially as we're trying to 'liberate' other societies from their previous systems, for simple things, such as women’s rights or religious persecution. Voting for such a party but not supporting global action military or otherwise would therefore be hypocritical?

I guess I’m applying a certain amount of spin on the topic, but that’s as I really don't see what the or their problem is, if you haven't got anything to hide then who cares? It seems as though the data is incorrect and outdated as is more of a mailing list than a members or activist list, to which we could all obtain for different products or services if we are willing to part with some cash.

If people feel guilty/defensive then why? It’s maybe due to the reasons why others would persecute the people supporting that party, to which I am generally ignorant too anyway...
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,888
Reaction score
4,672
Ha ha, drawing me into the debate!


I guess I’m applying a certain amount of spin on the topic, but that’s as I really don't see what the or their problem is, if you haven't got anything to hide then who cares? It seems as though the data is incorrect and outdated as is more of a mailing list than a members or activist list, to which we could all obtain for different products or services if we are willing to part with some cash.

Nowt wrong with a debate my friend, love it as much as the next man.

Now this does beg an interesting question, what if I had applied for membership in your name? Would this be on your security file when applying for the MOD. If you worked for certain organisations your career now would have a black mark against your name for something someone else may have done as a joke, that could be hard to shake off. Maybe someone didn't like you at work and applied under your name to shame your character.

As for the rest, I feel that as long as a party can be voted in fairly, voted out fairly at the agreed period of time, then that is democracy.

Our government can't start talking to Sinn Fein IRA, after all they have done and yet not talk to the BNP (who have never picked up a weapon, as far as I know) Are they waiting for people like the BNP to start fighting or something?

Plus how on earth can the BNP have 1 million plus votes at an general election, and not have a voice. Same with the liberal democrats, they should have double the seats in Parliament if we didn't have this strange type of a voting system that favours the big 2 parties.

I don't agree with the BNP, but they are providing a voice for people to express their wishes without turning to violence, now that can't be a bad thing!
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,888
Reaction score
4,672
. I believe it could be a government plan this list being released (am i right saying it was someone from labour who published the list?) at an attempt to promote some sort of vigilante mission of roughing up "THE RACISTS" sort of thing. Seeing as the BNP are constantly perceived as a racist animal that everyone should hate and fear, which looking at some of the policies are not the case!

There are some who say it may have been the BNP themselves to show they have a broad ranmge of supporters and not all thugs, may have been the far right of the BNP who wish to ruin the BNP and go back to the old national front, could have been labour or the left who wish to prevent further members from joining. It could have been anyone I suppose.

The one big thing that Nick Griffin is constant on is that he isn't a white supremicist, he doesn't believe in whites being superior, he says thats he is simply believes in the rights of the host nation against foreigners, which is pretty funny when Brits get in trouble abroad, he always says lock them up for 20 years and they shouldn't get any special treatments for being British.

Like the women who was caught in Nigeria for promoting Christianity a few years ago, he was the first to say she shouldn't have done it and lock her up for 20 years, no sympathy from him. Someone elses country and you should play by their rules, fair enough I suppose.
 

Binary

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Posts
41
Reaction score
0
We should so be down the pub discussing this over a few pints;

Remember the media will always only provide you a snap shot of information, which can be edited or manipulated to favour whatever opinion they want you to hold. Even if you read all the papers you'll only get a hand full of facts, to which you can't base a solid arguement upon and might only act to confuse the situation. (The Metro is like a cancer to London if you ask me)

I understand and agree to many of the points mentioned yet similarly i feel it not my right to judge what is fair or not fair, as i have neither got all the facts or necessarily evaluated either side of the situation to form a decent opinion.

If a criminal offence has taken place then the law should rightfully act upon it, however if its just drive to get headlines or make news then i definately don't have time for it its just a distraction from other more interesting things.

I totally agree the voting system in this country sucks ass, but not as bad as Zimbabwe's.
 

Qwerty123

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
May 29, 2008
Posts
1,490
Reaction score
4
I think it's disgraceful.

The people on this list are normal people (for the most part) who are members of a legal political party. Their livelihoods and family could be in danger here because they are alligned to a party that our current government wants to illegaly eradicate. Not to mention everyone left of centre who will do what it takes to shoot down anyone with an interest in a national party.

It's so ironic that the BNP are the ones labelled fascist. I think parties such as "Unite against Facism" and "Ban the BNP" are the real fascists for trying to silence the BNP and not allow them a voice.

It seems you aren't allowed to disagree with what the "state thinks is best." (It can only get better with the introduction of compulsory ID cards and satellite monitoring of vehicle movements in the UK?!)

What I cant understand is that if the Police cant have BNP members how can BNP members expect to get equality of service from the Police, with this list being an example. Will it actually be investigated properly and impartially, will the CPS prosecute or just say it's not in the public interest?

I think this might show the hypocrisy of "equality."

It was very pathetic of Jaqui Smith to say that she didn't mind anyone knowing she was a member of the Labour party, and can't see why the BNP members have a problem with having their details known.
Well maybe it's because they might lose their jobs, or be intimidated and harassed?
I see on the news the death threats have already started and there's been a firebombing in Yorkshire, by people who tell us that the BNP are the party of hate:rolleyes:
 

New Threads

Top