BNP on Question Time

[crackerjack]

like when the govt goes to 'Muslim community leaders' (as if "British Muslims" are some monolithic bloc) and listens to often politically quite extreme dubious scrotes speaking up for groups of people they have no right to do so for, thus feeding into stereotypes of anti-Muslim bigotry among the wider population, so then when a small group of extremists marches shouting about the need to impose sharia law, the Daily Express (as it did about four days ago) can lead with a clearly provocative and patently inaccurate front page headline MUSLIMS DEMAND SHARIA as if we're talking about every Briton of, say, Pakistani heritage demanding sharia law in the UK.

That's a bit of a leap. If there's one Muslim group I'm pretty sure the govt hasn't talked to or sought to legitimise in any way, it's the Al Muhaj/Islam 4 Uk mob. Whatever 'legitimacy' they have is entirely the fault of the media, from Channel 4 and Newsnight right down to the tabloids, which has invited them into the studio and splashed them on the front page simply cos they're reliably entertaining (ie inclined to say and demand utter utter shite).

 

[crackerjack]

Fucking hell, there's a side of Smithfield I never knew.

Smithfield was pretty notorious for reserving jobs as family heirlooms. I think this persisted well into the 80s.

 

[scottdisco]

fair play there Crackerjack, i apologise on that score, that was a complete lack of causality.

in fairness, i was more thinking of this sort of thing when i meant to finger the govt (though Blears made that quite good speech AFAIK seeking to change ways of doing business in this area, after this article was written)

of course the likes of your Express, on the other hand, don't do nuance anyway, so the govt talking to some folk is for them probably as if they had talked to this Islam 4 UK mob. and i get the impression EDL members like a bit of Express over their cornflakes..

 

[mms]

That's a bit of a leap. If there's one Muslim group I'm pretty sure the govt hasn't talked to or sought to legitimise in any way, it's the Al Muhaj/Islam 4 Uk mob. Whatever 'legitimacy' they have is entirely the fault of the media, from Channel 4 and Newsnight right down to the tabloids, which has invited them into the studio and splashed them on the front page simply cos they're reliably entertaining (ie inclined to say and demand utter utter shite).

perfect fall guys who represent no one but themselves, and a useful polar extreme to the bnp themselves..
its just outrage baiting stuff.

 

[scottdisco]

perfect fall guys who represent no one but themselves, and a useful polar extreme to the bnp themselves..
its just outrage baiting stuff.

well yes deffo, kind of my point (that i made very, very badly!)

 

[crackerjack]

perfect fall guys who represent no one but themselves, and a useful polar extreme to the bnp themselves..
its just outrage baiting stuff.

absolutely, which is why it's so irresponsible for people like newsnight to give choudhry air time as muslim reps - they wouldn't dream of doing same with bnp.

but it's guaranteed car crash tv, so wtf

 

[bassnation]

absolutely, which is why it's so irresponsible for people like newsnight to give choudhry air time as muslim reps - they wouldn't dream of doing same with bnp.

but it's guaranteed car crash tv, so wtf

i don't agree with him being on it, but i'm not going to able to stop myself watching it, probably cringing a lot and / or shouting in vain at the tv.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I don't think this country is more racist than in the past, but it is now more acceptable to express racist views in serious discourse- the whole "PC gone mad", "Britain is full", "all Muslims are terrorists" rhetoric has legitimised a certain sort of language which has racist undertones (or overtones) if you look for them.

But is racist to point out that Britain (and England, even more so) is an exceptionally crowded country already with a desperate shortage of social housing and that most of our population growth is due to immigration? Is the only officially non-racist position to take that of supporting immigration for ever and ever, regardless of its effects on the demand for land, housing, resources and services?

 

[grizzleb]

But is racist to point out that Britain (and England, even more so) is an exceptionally crowded country already with a desperate shortage of social housing and that most of our population growth is due to immigration? Is the only officially non-racist position to take that of supporting immigration for ever and ever, regardless of its effects on the demand for land, housing, resources and services?

I'd say yes. I think we should just build more houses, the average immigrant generally work more than the average UK native. Our birth rate is going down too apart from the 'breeding classes', let them in I say. And crowded, is it really? I don't see that it is that crowded.

 

[run_time]

Also with an ageing population, UK is going to sorely need a regular inflow of immigrants to maintain something close to our current standard of living...

 

[crackerjack]

You're both making arguments for immigration, but are you seriously suggesting it's racist to argue against it?

 

[grizzleb]

You're both making arguments for immigration, but are you seriously suggesting it's racist to argue against it?

Nah, not really. I just can't see any proper argument for it, and I'm slightly suspicious of that 'PC Britain' stuff.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Given complete freedom of movement, people will enter the country until that point at which any comparative advantages to living here have been lost - logically speaking, sooner or later, conditions will inevitably get worse.

 

[crackerjack]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6881553.ece

 

[crackerjack]

Nah, not really. I just can't see any proper argument for it, and I'm slightly suspicious of that 'PC Britain' stuff.

well one argument against it is that we're entering a period of mass unemployment. either we provide jobs for people who live here, or we face the consequences in terms of crime, welfare dependency etc etc

 

[grizzleb]

Yeah, I think a serious debate we should have is how to get long term unemeployed people back into jobs. What would be a worthwhile tactic thus?

I'm loathe to admit it but Michael Portillo's suggestion of no benefits claiments under a certain age could be reasonable. Also some incentive sceme for employers to employ those who have been long term unemployed over others, and what about (I know it sounds mental but in the long run...) giving these dole-hound fucks some sort of cash bonus thingy if they say, complete a year of employment when they haven't been working for so long.

500 for every year of unemployment? haha.

But it's a serious problem that if isn't tackled will pose problems in the future.

 

[craner]

If Jack Straw can't skewer this fuck then Labour really do deserve to leave power. I mean, what could be easier?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'd say yes. I think we should just build more houses

Easier said than done! Where are we to build all these houses? True, there are some unused urban 'brownfield' sites, but these will only get us so far. Then there's the remaining parts of the country that aren't already under concrete and asphalt, and most of that is used for intensive agriculture. And housing is only one aspect of it: there's also schools, hospitals, social services of all kinds and a transport system that can barely cope as it is.

the average immigrant generally work more than the average UK native.

Also with an ageing population, UK is going to sorely need a regular inflow of immigrants to maintain something close to our current standard of living...

The population of the country already outnumbers jobs by a couple of million. And maybe we should be looking at why employers prefer to hire immigrants while there are whole families of indigenous Brits living on state benefits generation after generation. Whatever the problem is, a simple shortage of people aged 16-65 (or even 66) is not it.

Our birth rate is going down too apart from the 'breeding classes', let them in I say. And crowded, is it really? I don't see that it is that crowded.

WTF? I take it you haven't caught the Central Line or the number 25 bus lately - let along had to wait for an operation...

(edit: OK, obviously not everyone in Britain lives in London, but it's surely not the only place where housing and other resources are the objects of stiff competition.)

 

[mistersloane]

giving these dole-hound fucks

that's a lovely phrase, isn't it?

 

[muser]

The population of the country already outnumbers jobs by a couple of million. And maybe we should be looking at why employers prefer to hire immigrants while there are whole families of indigenous Brits living on state benefits generation after generation. Whatever the problem is, a simple shortage of people aged 16-65 (or even 66) is not it.

do you mean excluding people who are incapable or to old to work? sounds like a pretty random approximation you pulled out there. The amount of people at state pension or over in 2005 was around 11 million not including people with disabilities.

Don't get this whole 'indigenous' thing either, I have nothing against having controls on immigration but to say you are indigenous to any one country is a bit short sighted. Unless you believe all white British ancestors just popped out of the ground 2.5 million years ago, made a union jack and then stayed put.