|
U-Know! Forum » It's really gonna kick off (well....maybe) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Toni Torino 2299 posts |
Oct 23, 2009, 15:48
|
||
True enough for the majority I guess, although "raghead" and similar terms still seem to be in popular usage...
|
|||
Jim Tones 5142 posts |
Oct 23, 2009, 16:00
|
||
|
Moon Cat wrote: Don't forget, a lot of military folk saw active service fighting against forces of fascism and they are right to be angered when the BNP hi-jacks their efforts to promote their cause. Absolutely! When my Dad and his mates used to meet up in more mobile times, they'd often talk about their times in service during WWII. Years ago, it used to be like the usual scene in 'Only Fools and Horse' i.e. 'Don't mention the War, he'll be going for hours..' etc., but being older now, it's quite fascinating as well as horrible, as to what all those young blokes went through, not least, to keep a force like Hitler and co. at bay. Another thing that struck me though, was when some of my aunties would speak about watching from a hill while Liverpool burned in the distance! They must have been crapping themselves.
|
|||
mojojojo 1940 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 01:35
|
||
|
Actually after I've cut and pasted this from the bloke who does Speakyou'rebranes I'll shut up. Tonight the BBC will host an episode of Question Time on which they have invited the ex-National Front, holocaust-denying, criminal, racist Nick Griffin to appear. You’ll have to forgive me if I’m not bang up to date with the fucking news but as I understand it Peter Hain tried to mount a legal challenge to this and has sadly failed. I’m very much behind the idea that, as a criminal “whites only” organisation, the BNP shouldn’t be accorded the same status as other political parties but what if, as seems likely, they change their rules to fit within the law? Much as I’d love to see every last brown-skinned person in this country join the BNP and destroy it from within, I doubt that will happen. We cannot oppose the BNP on legal grounds alone. I think the BBC is presenting two, equally facile, arguments here. Firstly, let’s get the free speech thing out the way. The issue is not free speech. Free speech is what I’m doing right now. It doesn’t entitle me to get on Question Time. In fact, the kind of language I use would be deemed too offensive. Unlike that revolting wanksock Nick fucking Griffin. By preventing Griffin from appearing on Question Time they would be making the same class of decision as when they decide not to invite Gok Wan on. It’s an editorial decision. The BBC trust are mostly fairly clear on this themselves, but when the point is pressed, Mark Thompson starts to talk about democracy, censorship and free speech. Free speech does not mean providing a platform, on Question Time, for anyone that would like one. The second problem is the idea that, just because the BNP exist and are a political party, they are somehow entitled to be listened to. This is all down to the BBC’s retarded idea of “balance”, only now it’s not funny. It’s moved from creating a comically stupid comments board to legitimising a bunch of far-right racists and, almost certainly, contributing to their future electoral success. As Wikipedia puts it: Because voters have to predict in advance who the top two candidates will be, this can cause significant perturbation to the system: * Substantial power is given to the media. Some voters will tend to believe the media’s assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election. Even voters who distrust the media will know that other voters do believe the media, and therefore those candidates who receive the most media attention will nonetheless be the most popular and thus most likely to be in one of the top two. [...] * If enough voters use this tactic, the first-past-the-post system becomes, effectively, runoff voting – a completely different system – where the first round is held in the court of public opinion. You may even be agreeing with everything here but think that the BNP should still be allowed to appear, in which case I’d ask you to have a think about where you would draw a line. Would you allow a platform to a party that wanted to bring back slavery? A party that wanted to take away the right of women to vote? A party that wanted to lower the age of consent to 14? What about 10? 5? 2? I’m hoping we’d all draw the line somewhere. My point is simply that we can’t pretend there’s some kind of universal accepted threshold, written on a stone tablet by an omniscient moral arbiter. We have to decide, as a society, what is and isn’t acceptable and draw the line at that point. Everyone I know would agree that all humans, regardless of nationality or skin colour, are equal. Yet the BBC, by allowing the BNP a platform on Question Time, have drawn that line in such a way as to make racism appear acceptable. It’s not a forced move, they’ve made a disgusting, cowardly choice. Fuck everyone involved. Text © Nelson, 2009. Image © Beau Bo d’Or, 2009.
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Edited Oct 24, 2009, 03:59
Oct 24, 2009, 03:35
|
||
|
Does anyone not think that the BNP have gained interest as a result of the 'cack handed conservative form of socialism', that has been new labour for the last so many years, doing sod all for those communities where fear, and in some places, neglect and impoverishment, has led to blame, misguided anger and racism as a result? Yeah I saw QT too and apart from the inevitable and obvious bigotry and racism on display (what did people expect?), I also felt a bit pissed off hearing Jack Straw, who's government have spent best part of their years in office focussed on and supporting pointless invasions and wars on terror (and leading to more terror) rather then addressing issues closer to home. Maybe that's why Griffin ended up on QT the other night.
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited Oct 24, 2009, 04:00
Oct 24, 2009, 03:59
|
||
|
I bookmarked SYB for a while. Then I got rid of it again. Got on my fucking tits it did. Anyway, I never watched question time. I went out for a meal with my missus instead.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 15:41
|
||
|
Also, just read this morning that apparently HRH Her Madge (Not Ms Ciccone, the other one) is apparently 'furious' that the BNP are using Winston Churchill as a reference in their campaigns. And the Arch Bish of Canterbury has also spoken out and rejected Nick Griffin's appropriations of Christianity and any affiliations with the Church he may try to sell to the public. Now, I am about as Royalist as Oliver Cromwell, and I would ask you not to read the above as an endorsement of the House of Windsor PLC, (or even Mr Churchill if you must). Plus I only go to Church for funerals, weddings and acts of Black Metal arson. I just think, like the general's thing earlier it must be a blow to Griffin and Co when the very 'icons' of 'Britishness' that they revere appear be keen to give them the thumbs down so publicly. Stuff the Queen and stuff the Church n all that. But, it is nice when they stuff the BNP!
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Oct 25, 2009, 16:03
Oct 25, 2009, 16:02
|
||
|
Moon Cat wrote: Stuff the Queen and stuff the Church n all that. But, it is nice when they stuff the BNP! Don't disagree. But if you ask me, the BNP have as much right to use the image of Churchill as anyone else. He didn't share their views on many issues (by the end of his life he'd become rather internationalist and pro-European, for instance) but he was an unrepentant racist who believed in the inherent superiority of white people. Mind you, rather magnanimously, he did accept that "some negroids" were capable of "finding civilization in their little black hearts". Sounds like the kind of thing Nick Griffin might say, eh? And despite our skin colour, what he had to say about the Irish was just as bigoted and patronising. Of course, Churchill was very much a product of his environment and wasn't expressing outrageous views for the time, but truly Great individuals rise above the prejudices of their culture. Churchill didn't. He'd have felt quite at home -- on the issue of race if nothing else -- with the modern BNP. Which is not to say that it's a bad thing that the military and the monarchy, or indeed anyone at all, rejects the attempts of the BNP to co-opt British culture and history. But if we are honest about it, the BNP represent a very clear historical trend within British politics and society. That there is the danger in them. If they were nothing more than a bunch of thuggish outsiders, after all, they'd find little sympathy for their views within the British working class.
|
|||
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 23:54
|
||
Is the counterpoint to Fox not the Washington Post, NY/LA Times, NBC etc?
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Oct 26, 2009, 01:24
|
||
|
duckbreath wrote: Is the counterpoint to Fox not the Washington Post, NY/LA Times, NBC etc? I think the Anti-Fox is CBS. I've been watching that station since the 60's. Something about Walter Chronkite and 60 minutes and numerous other Reporters and Journalists from that network has allways resonated with me. And still does. I fucking hated that Dan Rathers career came to an ignoble end over that story about GWB's military hijinks. Speaking of....Rush Limbaugh just the other Day 'Busted' himself doing the same thing over a FALSE representation of Obama's colledge thesis. The prick will still continue to make 35 MILLION dollars a year. Some things are just SO fucked.
|
|||
drewbhoy 2557 posts |
Edited Jan 08, 2010, 22:34
Oct 26, 2009, 15:41
|
||
|
dave clarkson wrote: Does anyone not think that the BNP have gained interest as a result of the 'cack handed conservative form of socialism', that has been new labour for the last so many years, doing sod all for those communities where fear, and in some places, neglect and impoverishment, has led to blame, misguided anger and racism as a result? Yeah I saw QT too and apart from the inevitable and obvious bigotry and racism on display (what did people expect?), I also felt a bit pissed off hearing Jack Straw, who's government have spent best part of their years in office focussed on and supporting pointless invasions and wars on terror (and leading to more terror) rather then addressing issues closer to home. Maybe that's why Griffin ended up on QT the other night. It appears that our George Galloway might agree, if he was to take one step back from his own posturing he'd be brilliant. Anyway this is what he says in todays Daily Record. (not a paper I'd normally read!!!) http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2009/10/billy-fury-burton-suits-and-ca.html
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
