• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Flintoff's bizzare anti immigration rant

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, I'm similar (though wouldn't ever call myself a liberal, ha) in that I think that people should be allowed to be part of whatever organisations they want, but there is obviously logic to people not being allowed to join fascist organisations when they are in such roles.

My old man is a Prison Officer and, as you alluded to, he is obviously allowed to vote for them (he doesn't, btw!), just not join them.

I've no sympathy for those who lost their jobs over it as it is in their contracts. So even if you felt it shouldn't be in their contracts, they only have themselves to blame!
I've given up denying I'm a liberal - I don't think I am but seem to be in a minority of one on that point

I normally feel at home sat on the fence - though not usually in relation to matters sporting, and only in real life - I don't mind being opinionated sometimes on here :)
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
This is true, yeah. I remember reading the other day that Jacqui Smith has incorporated a points system for immigration very recently, which could be attributed partly to the press coverage the BNP is receiving.

Anyway, I'm having a look at the UKIP policies, and some of it just lies. There's no other word for it. £40 million a day to Europe? The gross contribution per year listed in the treasury report is £13.7 bn, not £14.6 bn which is the figure they've pulled out of their arses. 900 million pounds out is pretty poor maths.

But that's only a small error in context. In actual fact, they've used gross rather than net contribution. The net contribution for 2007 was £4.6bn, and that for 2008 is estimated to be £3.6bn. Still sound like a lot? The estimated cost to the government of paying interest on foreign debt is £28bn per year. If you're poor, it's not because we've all given your money to Europe.

I don't mind an anti-EU stance, not at all (completely agree with plenty of points made against it), but I really would prefer if they didn't deliberately massively mislead voters.

Source
Spot-on, Uppercut.

Misrepresentation about the EU is not the sole preserve of UKIP, mind you. What really drives the distate that most people have for the EU is the constant stream of myths, distortions and lies which the British press - either the dishonest and sensationalist bottom feeders of the tabloid press, or the Murdoch press, or the Torygraph, or worst of all the Daily F***ing Mail - spout about the EU.

The whole business about the Lisbon Treaty really takes the biscuit. How are we meant to have a serious debate about it when the news media is as biased, dishonest and influential as it is?
 

rivera213

U19 Vice-Captain
Your evidence for such a thing? Those behind that organisation have undertaken plenty of research into the matter and back-up what they say with cases of past happenings. You appear to simply be saying "they're exaggerating because I say they are and I want to try to avoid disruption to my cosy and safe world by pretending dangers don't exist".
Evidence for what- That the site is full of propaganda?

Are you serious? :blink:

Whether they've done their research or not, any leaflet/flyer/site which shows only 1 side of the story and no countering arguments/evidence is propaganda. Every single political flyer or leaflet you have ever read will be choc-full of propaganda. That site is no different.


Well I don't TBH. I'm a believer that freedom of speech must be earned by non-abuse of it. I'd be quite happy for certain POVs - which are identified by most decent humans as pure evil, simple as - to be outlawed. I'm only too happy to stop people propogating pure evil - be it white supremacist extremism, terrorist ideals, or whatever.
Freedom of speech is a birthright for every human being. Parties like the BNP only exist because some people agree with their views.

If you were to outlaw the BNP, they'd still have the same level of support but do you know what would happen instead of declaring it in a democratic voting manner?..... Violent riots aimed specifically at the areas of concentrated minorities.

You wont be able to stop support for racist parties, even if you ban them. Sorry, but this is the truth.


This alone is serious damage. Though if you can't be persuaded of the fact that the BNP needs, for the safety of this country, to be a nothing party, not a minority one, then there's little more I can say.
Again, you completely over-estimate the BNP. All minority parties are nothing parties. There is more chance of the Green party making inroads since they have policies which are based on genuine views, not ignorance and get support from the regular person.

How many regular people do you think vote for the BNP?


I don't think you should ever outlaw the BNP. It would be a dangerous precedent.
You shouldn't be allowed to outlaw any party if you agree with democracy.

I have every confidence the BNP will be nothing but a stain for as long as they are in existence.

Racism while still around isn't anywhere near the level it was in previous decades- even the 90's.


There are (alarming) parallels between the BNP and the Nazi Party, both in terms of the actual parties, as well as the world around them, but this recession is really nothing like early-1930s Germany, in terms of its severity.
Well, not really. The only similarity is that both are racist parties.

The climate in Germany was a hell of a lot worse than the UK is now and allowed for such ignorance to be spouted and believed by the regular person. The country is nowhere near as desperated and gullible of that of Germany ca 1930-.

The BNP spout crap of a similar ilk to the Nazis (and any other racist party), though the main difference is the general public don't believe them. The Nazi's had a lot of regular people (who even had Jewish friends for example) who believed what they were saying was true. That isn't happening here, or is likely to ever happen here simply because the general person is more aware nowadays in comparison to 70 years ago.

The economic climate will have little bearing on the support of the BNP anyway, since their main view isn't "get rid of foreigners because they bleed our economy dry". Even they can't twist facts of recession unless they come up with quotes such as "the fact non-white people aren't spending money is why we're in the recession". Even Forrest Gump wouldn't fall for that.

Also, 1 of the the main reasons the Nazi party actually came into power was the highly charismatic leader they had. He was everybit the galvaniser Churchill, MLK and Mandela were/are and was equally attentive to the social climate at the time. He knew precisely what to say to make people tick and was as manipulative as any great leader is.

If he said "the loss of World War I was down to all of those of 6'2" and taller", the public more than likely would've believed him. The fact it's complete BS didn't matter.

The BNP, however, have NIck Griffin......... Not the most endearing man of all time. :laugh:

Even at the height of the fear of terrorsim in this country and with the BNP spouting anti-Islamic ****e in ****hole pubs up and down the country- you didn't see millions of people starting riots in Islamic communities. They didn't get a massive increase in support. If anything, the general public were more sympatetic to the regular Muslims who were being stereotyped and victimised.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
This is true, yeah. I remember reading the other day that Jacqui Smith has incorporated a points system for immigration very recently, which could be attributed partly to the press coverage the BNP is receiving.

Anyway, I'm having a look at the UKIP policies, and some of it just lies. There's no other word for it. £40 million a day to Europe? The gross contribution per year listed in the treasury report is £13.7 bn, not £14.6 bn which is the figure they've pulled out of their arses. 900 million pounds out is pretty poor maths.

But that's only a small error in context. In actual fact, they've used gross rather than net contribution. The net contribution for 2007 was £4.6bn, and that for 2008 is estimated to be £3.6bn. Still sound like a lot? The estimated cost to the government of paying interest on foreign debt is £28bn per year. If you're poor, it's not because we've all given your money to Europe.

I don't mind an anti-EU stance, not at all (completely agree with plenty of points made against it), but I really would prefer if they didn't deliberately massively mislead voters.

Source
What are some of the anti-EU points? Coming from an outsiders PoV, I see it as a real positive. Perhaps I am looking at this from a very narrow viewpoint (e.g, the European Union Space agency, and their other achievements in science when pooling their collective resources). Plus, considering the history of the continent, a more unified Europe does sound quite good in theory. But my knowledge of its problem isn't extensive, besides the whole Turkey issue (which IMO should not happen).
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
You shouldn't be allowed to outlaw any party if you agree with democracy.
What if the party in quetion doesn not support democracy? Its like arguing that you should not lock up kidnappers because it infringes on their freedom of movement.:huh:
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Freedom of speech is a birthright for every human being. Parties like the BNP only exist because some people agree with their views.

If you were to outlaw the BNP, they'd still have the same level of support but do you know what would happen instead of declaring it in a democratic voting manner?..... Violent riots aimed specifically at the areas of concentrated minorities.

You wont be able to stop support for racist parties, even if you ban them. Sorry, but this is the truth.
I don't think it is, personally. At least not in the same way as (say) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.

Freedom of speech isn't a carte blanch to say or disseminate whatever one feels like anyway; hence the slander and libel laws. I've personally always thought that political parties who would seek to remove such prima facie human rights as the right of residence from a section of the population based on something as arbitrary as skin colour are hiding behind that sacred cow of "free speech" without any sense of fidelity to the democratic ideals within which the concept is enshrined.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Aye, fair point Brumby. I wouldn't argue free speech per se, but would still be hugely uncomfortable to see a political party outlawed. Where do you stand on that?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Aye, fair point Brumby. I wouldn't argue free speech per se, but would still be hugely uncomfortable to see a political party outlawed. Where do you stand on that?
I don't know, really. Instinctively I agree, but I think I could probably imagine a scenario where a party had views that were sufficiently extreme that I'd be happy to see then declared illegal, if only for devil's advocate purposes.
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
FWIW, the Nazi Party, and all parties claiming to be successors to the Nazi Party, are banned in Germany.
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
Well, not really. The only similarity is that both are racist parties.
Let's play a game. You tell me if the following paragraph describes the Nazi Party, or the British National Party:

An extremist, right-wing Nationalist party gaining in support and following in an economic downturn, with policies based around rights and jobs for native peoples and workers, and showing resistance and hatred towards people of a certain religious group whose population has risen in the country of the Party in recent years.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I don't know, really. Instinctively I agree, but I think I could probably imagine a scenario where a party had views that were sufficiently extreme that I'd be happy to see then declared illegal, if only for devil's advocate purposes.
Outlawing a party would be quite counterproductive. If they are very small, you prove them right, radicalize them, and allow them to flourish underground. If they are a large party, then there is a basic underlying view that is shared by enough of a population that it needs to be addressed as banning the party won't do anything.

Either way, I don't see banning them as a good idea. That is purely a pragmatic argument, I am quite a bleeding heart when it comes to the theoretical basis of free speech too - even if banning a party actually eliminated those views from the population, I still would feel massively uncomfortable doing so - and I probably wouldn't do it.
 
Last edited:

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I don't know, really. Instinctively I agree, but I think I could probably imagine a scenario where a party had views that were sufficiently extreme that I'd be happy to see then declared illegal, if only for devil's advocate purposes.
I suppose you could argue that there is a predecent of sorts, with certain Islamic extremist groups being outlawed. But as far as I know anyone and everyone can stand for election if they are over 18 (or is it 21 to stand??) and you're into murky territory if you start messing with that.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Outlawing a party would be quite counterproductive. If they are very small, you prove them right, radicalize them, and allow them to flourish underground. If they are a large party, then there is a basic underlying view that is shared by enough of a population that it needs to be addressed as banning the party won't do anything.

Either way, I don't see banning them as a good idea. That is purely a pragmatic argument, I am quite a bleeding heart when it comes to the theoretical basis of free speech too - even if banning a party actually eliminated those views from the population, I still would feel massively uncomfortable doing so - and I probably wouldn't do it.
As I said, I'm instinctively anti banning a political party, but as an intellectual exercise I can imagine one with views I'd support the banning of. A party might advocate lowering the age of consent to 5 and the compulsory euthanasia of anyone with a IQ below 75. Wouldn't lose any sleep if they were banned, tbh.

Moreover, I don't think your outcome necessarily follows from your premise. If a party has extreme views they're going to be a minority concern and, almost be definition, underground and radical anyway. Banning them might feed into the members' persecution complexes, but it might also starve them of the oxygen of publicity.
 

rivera213

U19 Vice-Captain
rivera, did you expect the BNP to get seats?
It was thought that they could cause an upset in Burnley so yes.

Though there's a difference between getting 1 seat and being a force. Burnely is a BNP hot-spot. ONly 1 of maybe 5 areas which will ever give BNP recognition.

You notice the other 2 seats went to Lib Dems, the far left party so it balances off.


What if the party in quetion doesn not support democracy? Its like arguing that you should not lock up kidnappers because it infringes on their freedom of movement.:huh:
Just because THEY don't support democracy, it doesn't mean that people of better judgement should go down to their level.

If you take the right of democracy away from people who don't support democracy, that makes you everybit as bad in that respect as they are.

And no, don't be moronic, leaving the BNP to continue as a party isn't anything like allowing kidnappers to walk free. The difference is kidnappers have commited a crime and the BNP aren't saying "go out and kill non-white people".


I don't think it is, personally. At least not in the same way as (say) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.

Freedom of speech isn't a carte blanch to say or disseminate whatever one feels like anyway; hence the slander and libel laws. I've personally always thought that political parties who would seek to remove such prima facie human rights as the right of residence from a section of the population based on something as arbitrary as skin colour are hiding behind that sacred cow of "free speech" without any sense of fidelity to the democratic ideals within which the concept is enshrined.
Then who gets the right to say who is or isn't allowed to share their views?

You? Me?

If it went to a democratic vote in the HoP to whether the BNP should or should not be allowed to continue as a party and the result was that they weren't aloowed then that's democracy.

Though that'd be dangerous since the outcome would be mass rioting which is far more detrimental than allowing some idiots to talk crap of which hardly anyone pays attention to anyway.

If your concience can handle loss of life due to outlawing the legal way of expression, whether or not you agree with what is being siad, then you have a big problem. I personaly would hate the BNP to be outlawed and people be severly injured or killed as a direct result. Make no mistake, that's what would happen if they were outlawed.


FWIW, the Nazi Party, and all parties claiming to be successors to the Nazi Party, are banned in Germany.
Yet racism still continues so what good has that done long term?

If banning the BNP stopped racism then I'd be the first on the petition to ban them, but I know far well it wouldn't do jack ****. If anything it's go more underground and be a much more dangerous faction.


Let's play a game. You tell me if the following paragraph describes the Nazi Party, or the British National Party:

An extremist, right-wing Nationalist party gaining in support and following in an economic downturn, with policies based around rights and jobs for native peoples and workers, and showing resistance and hatred towards people of a certain religious group whose population has risen in the country of the Party in recent years.
I didn't say there weren't similar in approach and principle, but the Nazi's got a LOT of support in elections. The BNP in contrast only receivened double figured percentage of the voting in 3 of the 110 or so consitituencies in the 2005 general election and Oldham which has been a BNP supported area was DOWN by almost half.

The most they can aim for in the next general election is double figured percentage in 5 of the areas. The Nazi's kept adding support which is why they were a force. The BNP's support gains are balanced off by losses so they don't really improve from 1 election to the next.

The BNP got 0.7% of the total voting in 2005, do you really think that is a party to be reckoned with considering the UKIP got 2.2% and the Green's 1%?
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
As I said, I'm instinctively anti banning a political party, but as an intellectual exercise I can imagine one with views I'd support the banning of. A party might advocate lowering the age of consent to 5 and the compulsory euthanasia of anyone with a IQ below 75. Wouldn't lose any sleep if they were banned, tbh.

Moreover, I don't think your outcome necessarily follows from your premise. If a party has extreme views they're going to be a minority concern and, almost be definition, underground and radical anyway. Banning them might feed into the members' persecution complexes, but it might also starve them of the oxygen of publicity.
First, I wouldn't concede that an extreme party would necessarily be a minority party. Without meaning to Godwin the discussion, look at the Nazi party. Regardless, even if they are a minority party, which most of them are, most parties find themselves needing to temper their extremist views to go mainstream (though obviously not always).

The question is though, that the supporters will still feel the same way regardless of whether you ban the party, so why not bring them into the fold and allow them to work within the system rather than resorting to illegal radical means (as many skinhead/nazi parties do become).

Democracy isn't the right for the majority to discriminate against the minority.
Precicely. A minority could include a radical party. I'm sure that if something like the Atheist party had existed in the 1950s, it would have been banned as communist.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
First, I wouldn't concede that an extreme party would necessarily be a minority party. Without meaning to Godwin the discussion, look at the Nazi party. Regardless, even if they are a minority party, which most of them are, most parties find themselves needing to temper their extremist views to go mainstream (though obviously not always).

The question is though, that the supporters will still feel the same way regardless of whether you ban the party, so why not bring them into the fold and allow them to work within the system rather than resorting to illegal radical means (as many skinhead/nazi parties do become).



Precicely. A minority could include a radical party. I'm sure that if something like the Atheist party had existed in the 1950s, it would have been banned as communist.
Perhaps the single greatest thing the Australian people ever did was to vote down the Communist Party Dissolution Bill at a referendum in the 1950s.
 

Top