There is no real proof because it doesn't exist, unfortunately the population only have the media to go by and a bunch of white guys beating a Asian to death is more news worthy than the reverse, plus there is the automatic assumption that if an Asian lad is killed it was by a white guy (Linky), now the source isn't exactly the most reliable in the world, but it is the way of the world as the same guy has a bunch of BNP propaganda shite like
this which is very much a case of take with a pinch of salt.
I've seen racism go in all directions from every colour of skin, but I've also seen punishment come down harder when it was white on coloured than the other way round, it is minority protection syndrome, but it is still racism no matter what the race of the instigator, much like positive discrimination is still discrimination.
Sam there are numerous cases of racism in my area every year. Last year a white kid at my school was jumped by a gang of mexicans for no reason (they didn't even rob him). If a group of white kids beat the shit of a lone, defenseless mexican, it would have been a hate crime and would be all over the tv, newspaper, etc. Peter's beating only got a mention in the school PTA newsletter.
As for the death penalty, it costs the taxpayer more to kill someone than to keep them in prison for life. For instance in California it costs $5,000 to sterilize the room after an execution, not to mention the cost of all the appeals and bull. I would be all for the death penalty if it didn't cost so much. Whatever happened to the guillotine?
No of course not, at least not in this case, but innocent people have been kidnapped by our current government and tortured. So while I don't agree with your views on supporting the BNP just to prove a point to the other parties, I also doubt Labour and Conservatives will do much less to destroy our human rights and take away our civil liberties. I'm not saying only white people are able to be racist either, just in that specific case it was clear that the stabbing was not racially motivated, it was out of pure anger and desperation.
On the subject of capital punishment, I don't agree with it at all, because it's murder. It's a cold calculated public murder, they sell tickets in some cases. The throw them in a cell for 25 years method does not work, it's proven not to work, capital punishment doesn't work either, the only thing that actually reduces crime is rehab. You need to show them respect, treat them like humans, educate them, and let them work off their debt to society rather than rot away in a cage.
The United Kingdom has been trying rehab for cons for years, giving them games rooms, free degrees, single bed cells, pretty much a 5 star hotel. The result? Crime rates have gone up and people do not feel as safe now as they did just 10 years ago. I know a gent with a criminal record that reads like a novel, purely because he likes the living conditions inside as "they are better than the shit hole council house I get."
The facts collected by the endless middle managers instituted under the current regime actually state the opposite.
This is sad but true, the lowest walks of civilian life do have poorer conditions than the less secure gaols. Now what's wrong here is it the prisons or the living conditions of the poor?
Most of us are happy to live in our comfortable homes and send aid money to Africa and cast judgements, but there is another world out there right on our doorstep we fail to see because they are "undesireables".
Most of us live better than royalty did just a century ago, with slightly less land admittedly, but it's not true for everyone.
Instead of national service, I think everyone should spend a few years with not enough food on the table living in a dellapidated bed sit trying to make ends meet with no prospects. I've done it, I got myself out of it, but the experience of going hungry has left an indellieable mark on me - and I swore to myself i'd never go hungry again, i've built a life and i'm now living in considerable comfort by comparison. Not everyone is as lucky as me, or has the tenacity to fight back when years of poverty have beaten you down.
Should we treat our cons as sub-humans and degrade them? Or should we instead stamp out poverty?
EDIT: As an aside, the other day I was in a virtual-online-bar come chat room thing and I saw a poster of Bob Marley's face in a cut out sillouette of Africa. I asked the manager about it, she said "Bob Marley was a legend", I agreed but commented that Bob Marley was Jamaican. I believe miss-understanding, even with the right intentions, is the root cause of all this discontent.
how do we stamp out poverty? If we tell people to work harder or for longer, we are heartless and cruel. If we give them money for free, it doesn't help because why would you work when you receive free money? The goal of stamping out poverty has to begin and end with the poor deciding on their own to make more of themselves. Charity is something different than welfare mind you.I don't see whats wrong with building a few houses or community centers here and there.
"stamping out poverty" does indeed sound romantic, though. I think I'll put that on a few posters and...job done!
You see my point though, his poor living conditions on the outside are what drives him to crime. Rehab doesn't go far enough in this country, they don't just need to give them nicer beds and a playstation, they need to teach them how to make their lives better and only hold extreme cases in cells. They should give your friend the skills to get out of that council house and better themselfs.
I would prefer to see the Isle of Wight turned into one big rehab clinic for criminals, they can be sent there to be rehabilitated, and go onto the mainland at weekends to visit their family and work in the community. They would have houses to look after, and jobs to do. In a way if you had a system like that you rely on them wanting to stay there, that way you can treat them better without the fear of them running away. Of course while they stay there they have to do certain jobs and they are educated, eventually they will have time to think about their actions and change their lives. If people don't respond to that, or they are considered too much of a risk, they would be sent to a more conventional prison until they were at a stage where they could be sent to the more relaxed system.
None of that will work while everyones living conditions are so poor, people would just commit crime to get a better lifestyle. So you need to build more parks and sports facilities, you need to improve the enviroment people live in and give bored kids something constructive and fun to do so they don't commit crime. I would support legalisation of some drugs, so that they can be controlled and regulated. I would support the same being done for prostitution, which should lead to a reduction in many crimes not least the sex trafficing problems.
All of that would be funded by a 10% reduction in spending on the military, and scrapping Trident. In this day and age we don't need an army able to invade and capture an entire country, and we certainly don't need the ability to destroy the planet with 3 submarines, with another one on standby just incase we need to finish off the moon.
Sorry for the slightly long post, the short answer...yes I am a liberal.
I've watched the council try and do up some of the council houses, a lot of money was poured into the ones I can see out of my bedroom window, it took the inhabitance less than 1 year to ruin them. Which is a shame because they were some pretty damn nice houses with nice gardens, now it just looks like a scrap yard.
But that does sound like a good idea really, if a bit Miss World.
The military has been receiving a 10% budget cut every year since the end of the Falklands, because of that reason so many young lads are coming home sans body parts. The budget cuts were supposed to stop in a time of conflict, but Labour never got that memo.
I'm not a fan of further cuts to the army. I am just opposed to the army ever getting used. It's job is to defend foreign aggression and defend our allies in a world which is in a constant state of conflict and turmoil. It is not to go off causing more conflict and turmoil.
I've also got no issue with the nuclear deterrent, I sincerely hope they never get used, but having enough nuclear power to destroy the entire planet is imperative whilst unstable regions in the world are arming themselves with nuclear weapons. Additionally i've no problem with the post-nuclear weapons either.
I cant offer solutions for 'stamping out poverty'. I know that I didnt even experience the worst of it, and i'm wise enough to know that there will always be an underclass in any heirarchical society and i've no general problem with heirarchical societies. I just think that more people should get at least a taste for what poverty is before they cast judgements on it.
Yeh the difference is I would have a liberal government in charge of the budget cuts rather than one intent on wasting money like Labour. Everytime Labour quote the amount of money they invest in things like the NHS, I keep thinking "but what changes are you going to make". I feel like standing outside number 10 throwing bags of money at the front door for a few weeks, when they ask what I'm doing I will tell them I'm using their methods to fix our broken government.
All we need is common sense, spend a few billion pounds on a fighter bomber that will hardly ever get used? Or spend that money on better equipment for our troops, a higher wage, and more help when they get home.
Much as I agree with your sentiment I don't agree with the leak being a good thing.
Specifically because:
a) It's a legal political party. In this country we have freedom of political association and despite what peoples views may be on the parties ideology, there should always be one law for all in that if members of other parties are allowed to keep their political views private then so should this parties members.
b) Are all BNP party members racist? I would suggest that they aren't. Why? well because the BNP has quite radically altered it's public image over the last couple of decades and especially with the recent issues of the terrorist bombings and huge increases in immigration in to this country, (no I'm not implying the two things are linked), there is a genuine and sincerely felt belief amongst a lot of people in this country that our borders are too open. In fact until very recently it was a fact that it was far easier to gain entry to this country than any other european state, let alone other western states such as the USA or Australia. For this reason there are probably a considerable amount of people on that list that just genuinely don't know about the BNPs violent past, (they're too young), and just see the party as offering a political solution to what they see as a political problem.
To anyone that says, "you've got to be stupid to not know what the BNP really stand for" I'll say two things:
1). Probably 90% of this countries population don't truely understand the political ideology of even the main parties let alone the fringe parties such as the BNP.
2) I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's no law against being stupid and it's not the individuals fault if they are ignorant. Especially if they are ignorant of their ignorance. It's the job of those that aren't ignorant to teach them the errors of their beliefs.
Lastly, and I wan't to make it clear that this last point is a point of law, not my personal opinion, (which may or may not agree with it :razz.
We live in a Democracy. Being racist is not illegal. If the majority of the population should choose to hold Xenophobic/Racist views that is their perogative and should they decide to vote a Xenophobic/Racist political party in to government that is also their perogatives. That is the meaning of Democracy !!!
We should never make the mistake of equating being Racist/Xenophobic with agreeing with being violent against other races/foreigners. There is a world of difference between the two. In much the same way as we should never equate being muslim with agreeing with blowing up innocent people.
Before anyone says the two things are different, they are not. They are exactly the same issue of extremity of belief.
Whilst true, being racist also makes the subject opposed to my own views, which are views that - due to my own low levels of tolerance - would see me in conflict with that person, prefferably intellectually (although i'm not above resorting to violence).
I strongly suggest you delete this post. Even with the names and part of the post code removed, there is still probably enough information for an individual to be identified by a local person from that area. This forum is a public place remember and should anyone be victimised in one of those streets they could have a fair chance at taking both yourself and the owners of this board to court over it.
Even if they wouldn't have a case I would still delete it just to be safe.
Can't argue much with that, gezmoor. A few points, however.. definitively, the BNP's vision of Britain is not a democracy. The effective result of their policies would leave Britain as an apartheid state during the process of repatriation, which is fundamentally contrary to both international law and also British law. The impetus against the BNP is not against the BNP political party but against stupidity, ignorance, false rhetoric (clearly still alive and kicking) and the dismantling of the system of democracy that we have fought to achieve for the last 400 years.
Which is exactly why holding beliefs should never be criminalised. Criminalising beliefs and/or organisations and political parties only drives people underground, where they can gain influence and membership in the margins in secret. It also allows them to play the victim card against state oppression etc and that will always find support amongst people and can be used as a lever in to more extreme views.
The best place for these parties/belief systems is out in the open where informed debate can take place and people can see them for what they are, (which is just plain wrong), and so support ulitmately disapears.
A lovely sentiment, I'm sure. Unfortunately it fails to accomodate the rather critical fact that not everyone is interested in improving themselves. Some people just aren't capable, others are just too thick.
If they want to be treated like humans, violent criminals should have acted like humans in the first place. But if they acted like animals, then they should be treated as such.
(Obviously there's a big disparity in the harshness of punishment that is deserving of minor or non-violent crimes compared to violent assault, robbery, murder, etc)
Wow this is better its only took 18 odd pages but it seems we can have a proper discussion on the matter with out silly flaming and name calling. Theres some great points being made from all sides
What a lot of people dont realise is that there is a gulf of difference in the quality of life between 1 prison to the next, in a less secure prison you get excercise and as a friend of mine put it, "more consoles than I can afford back home". This is not the case in all gaols, and the gaol you end up in is fairly reflective of what you've been tried for.
Make no mistake prison isnt easy, nobody likes going inside least of all those who've been there before. Whilst i've seen the defence mechanism of "it's not that bad inside" i've yet to see somebody go out and deliberately commit a crime and be caught, i've seen them evade capture, and i've seen them quote stuff like "atleast I get a PS3" when they're resigned to going inside.
It's a big deal, even if your time is only a week, to go down. And it's a lifetime mark on your record that you can never truly escape from and limits your employment prospects.
Dont be fooled into thinking doing time is easy just because some prisons offer a relative level of comfort that is better than prisons where in the middle ages, it isnt.
I have, strangely enough. A lad I knew when I was growing up used to deliberately land himself in jail over Christmas. It was better than dying, which was a strong possibility when the alternative was spending the winter months on the street.
tbh, the whole social responsibility/sociological welfare issue is a huge debate that probably won't fit into this thread very well so I'm loathed to go that route.. but I would suggest that a society where petty crime and prison is a more viable path than life in society says more about the deficiencies of the society than it does about the AA hostelry rating of its prisons.
True, but acting out your racist opinion is illegal. It's silly if a political party would hold racist views, but would never turn them into policy because it's against the law.
It depends. Is it democratic if parliament decides to abolish democracy (hint: March 23, 1933)? Is it democratic if the Hutu majority decides to murder the Tutsi minority? I believe democracy is more than just the dictate of the majority.
You mean they should be slaughtered, skinned, grilled and eaten?
Thats what I was trying to get across. Also falling into that category is mureders getting a longer sentence if they killed a gay person. Whether gay, muslim, christian, white, black or brown we are all humans so all murders should be treated equally by enforcing a death sentence where there is irrefutable proof that the accused did commit the crime, and fundamentally for life to mean life not 14 (or fewer) years
.
