Vote No To The BNP

Watching the Campaign Show on BBC News this evening the British National Party (BNP) Leader Nick Griffin showed two things, a. that a BNP Government would open the door to all forms of discrimination and b. he doesn’t have a clue really about how British Society works.

Under A BNP Government anyone and everyone could choose to discriminate in absolutely anyway they like, so here are a few ways your employer, your pub landlord or anyone could discriminate:

1. An employer could sack you because you are: Black, White, Asian, Gay, Female, Male etc etc.

2. A pub landlord who doesn’t like Blacks, Asians, Australians etc could just ban all of them

3. An employer could choose not to employ anyone they like, just because

4. If you are disabled forget having access to services, because under the BNP any business could discriminate against disabled people and NOT offer disabled access, parking etc, just because they feel like it.

The list would be endless as according to the BNP leader the BNP would get rid of all discrimination laws, so now let me show you just how Nick Griffin doesn’t have a clue about his own party policy.

The BNP repatriation policy isn’t open to all people, it is available to non-whites, so therefore the BNP are discriminating against white people, yet they claim there would be no discrimination in Britain under the BNP, so I think the BNP Leader has displayed yet another big fail this evening.

He also said that Australians could continue to come to the country for “extended holidays” and take jobs whilst they are here, so the BNP actually doesn’t have a closed Britain policy on immigration, because Australians are white they are ok. But if a black person came on a backpacking holiday I have no doubt they wouldn’t have the same ability to come for a holiday.

If we look at the overstay figures from the ONS it is Australians who come on extended holidays that overstay their visas more than any other group of “holiday makers”. Nick Griffin once again made it 100% clear that the BNP immigration policy is clearly targeted at non-white people, and that should people vote BNP on May 6th they are clearly voting for a country that will allow anyone and everyone to openly discriminate knowing there is nothing that can stop them.

So under the BNP would I then be able to refuse to have a black postman deliver my post? (not that I would) but surely this ability to discriminate extends to who I want knocking my door? so the Post office would have to then send a white postman to deliver my mail, thus costing more money, if enough people decided to do that the cost of postage would go up to cover all that extra cost.

This is also a nice opener to segregation, how long would it be before we saw whites only pubs etc. Electing the BNP would clearly send our country back 100 years, if you want to risk your vote based on Nick Griffins own words then frankly you need to take a serious look at yourself.

Then we can look at the BNP policy on housing, they claim that they will change the system so that people who have lived in an area longer, have family connections, are white will be at the top of the housing list, yet from what Nick Griffin said tonight he would be making illegal policy undre his own Government rules of having NO discrimination policies what so ever.

See just how Nick Griffin really doesn’t have a clue, he seemed to be clearly making up policy on the hoof, without understanding the impact those new policies would have on his own party policies as detailed in the BNP manifesto.

The only thing Nick Griffin proved this evening is that the BNP don’t have the first clue on how to run a country, he doesn’t even understand his own party policy. But the single biggest thing Nick Griffin proved tonight is that the no platform angle taken by many people is the wrong way to go.

He wasn’t even put under any serious pressure on the Campaign Show yet he broke and proved he didn’t understand his own policy, made up new policy on the hoof and by doing so blew his own party policy right out of the water.

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

Another installment from the new guest poster Gregg Smith (USob), this time taking a closer look the the British National Party (BNP) Foreign Policy

This is going to be a doozy.

► Introduction from the BNP Website

British foreign policy must be driven by one guiding principle alone – to serve British interests above all else. This iron principle will be strictly enforced by a British National Party government.

In reality, this means that Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interests — and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics.

Britain has no right to dictate the internal politics or social configuration of any other nation. We would also expect all other nations to grant this same right to Britain.

We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. In this regard, a BNP government will:

►Is It Viable?
Most Foreign Policy is determined by our national Interest. And Yes it is Viable, Look at China.

►Policy #1.
- Reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be;

►Is It Viable?
Yea, good one. Let’s get Statistical
-According to the UK Census there are currently 1,591,000 Muslims living in the UK

(Current Estimates say around 2.5Million but for simplicity let’s use the last census numbers as they are the most accurate and reliable)

-1,536,015 Live in England and Wales
-This makes 3% of the Population of Both countries
-42,557 Live in Scotland
-This makes 0.84 of the Total Population
-Muslims make up 2.7 of the total population of the UK.

Ok so you want to send 2.7-3% of the population back to the Middle East, ignoring the fact some could be 3rd Generation immigrants (Mass Immigration in the modern sense began around the turn of the 20th Century) and have no connection be it Family or cultural to the country they will go back to. Also how the hell would the countries cope with such a sudden influx of half a million people in the area, Even a Rich country like Dubai would struggle to meet the cost of rehousing and finding jobs and feeding and seeing as the BNP would cut Foreign aid completely they ain’t getting a penny from us.

Also let’s look at the effect on the Country. Loosing 3% of the population would mean a massive gap in employment that would be a nightmare to fill. Also a loss of revenue from Taxes (Coupled with the massive spending I made in the defence post) would cripple the economy of the country. Also What about the Asian immigrants? or those from Central\Latin America? Or Africa?

Basically their main Policy is Muslim bashing. And not a very good one at that.

►Policy #1a.
- Maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the ‘international community’, or any other country.

►Is It Viable?

When was our foreign policy Dictated to by the US or anyone else? Also Seeing as Nick would turn us into a Pariah State with his Nuclear Project, you wouldn’t need to worry about this one, as we’d be the 51st State in a week.

America Bashing. Popular in 2003 when I assume this was decided on.

►Policy #2.
- Resolutely oppose the single European currency;

►Is It Viable?
Yes. Hence the other main parties also oppose it.

►Policy #2a.
- Support the overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the Pound and our traditional weights and measures.

Repeating the Euro promise but using a more “Democratic” phrase. Also Traditional weights and measures?
Yea good because we haven’t used them in what, 40 years, and I refuse to walk a League into Durham city Centre. Again Harking back to the Age of Empire.

►THE REST
At the same time, a BNP government will strive for the best possible relationship with our European neighbours. The nations of Europe should be free to trade and cooperate whenever it is mutually beneficial without being forced into a straightjacket of political and economic unification — which is neither desirable, ultimately practically unfeasible and which is guaranteed to create conflict rather than avoid it.

Accordingly, a BNP government will withdraw from the European Union.

In place of the EU, a BNP government will aim towards greater national self-sufficiency, and work to restore Britain’s family and trading ties with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and to trade with the rest of the world as it suits us.

Following our withdrawal from the EU, the BNP government will use the £43 million per day net contribution Britain at present makes to the European Union to fund many far more useful projects at home.

In addition, a BNP government will reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid.

Only once poverty and deprivation amongst British people has been eliminated, can any thought be given to foreign aid — and even then, a BNP government will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, in terms of which those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The billions of pounds saved every year by this policy will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain.

►Oh god!
“In place of the EU, a BNP government will aim towards greater national self-sufficiency, and work to restore Britain’s family and trading ties with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and to trade with the rest of the world as it suits us.”.

I wish I was joking, I really do, but this is their policy. They are seeking to achieve autarky on an island with very little remaining natural resources, and to only trade with countries that we rather slowed the trade with because of small matters such as, oh, you know, the fact that they only make up a tiny share of world production of goods, and the ever-so-slight geographical discrepancy.

They also decide it would be a good idea to treat the rest of the world as if their entire purpose was to form some mystical, ethereal Walmart where they were the only customer. Oh, and to top it all off, they threw in some racism (this isn’t even a revival of the old imperial preference system; this is one with all the darkie-heavy countries such as South Afrika taken out.).

They do not even have the good sense to keep it cordial with the nations that they are going to be RELIANT upon if they ever want to achieve autarky through capital investment and the like, too. They demand an immediate withdrawal from NATO and the expulsion of all foreign troops. Now, whether this is a good thing is debatable; yet, what is true is that, for a government that isn’t causing an outright revolution and throwing off the chains of capitalist oppression, you’re not going to be able to sever ties with every other fucking country in the West. I do not wish to dwell on this, though; although unrealistic, it is nothing compared to their greater defence policy.”

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

A new guest poster to the Vote-No-To-BNP.org.uk website Gregg Smith (USoB) starts his series of articles with an analysis of the British National Party (BNP) Defence Policy, an interesting read.

Ok so we all know the BNP Policies on Immigration and their opinions of Minorities, But what about the other policies the BNP have. Are they Viable?, What’s wrong with them? I’m going to begin with Defence.

*All policies come from the BNP website. I’m not making these up

*Defence*

►Policy #1.
- Strengthen our conventional forces;

Ok a good one considering the situation we’re in at the minute with minimal turnaround between Tours and a shortage in troops. Currently the UK has a military of ~240,000 (Not including Reserves that number 195,000) of which:

39,000 are in the Royal Navy
112,000 are in the Army
43,000 are in the RAF

The Number has increased from 189,000 in 2006.

The BNP don’t really expand on this policy (Shock Horror) So let’s assume Strengthening means increasing manpower. That means paying for more personnel their training, food, uniform, accommodation and equipment. Now the Economy section of the BNP makes no real mention of budgets for individual departments but going off their other defence policies they will be saving some money by pulling out of operations however this still won’t cover the cost for multiplying the military.

Also at this time for the Royal Navy alone the waiting lists for Ratings (Non commissioned) go from 9 months to 30 months.

►Is It Viable?
Well yes and No.

Assuming you funnelled the money into the military (Although looking at their other policies It’s hard to see where the money will come from) you can put infrastructure in place to get more people through the system. But to be frank. The money required will be insanely high. At most I think this is just a way to claw back some superpower status.

►Policy#2
-Retain a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent and produce all our weaponry in Britain;

It’s hard to see what they mean by Independent, there was reports in the papers over attempts by France to share the Deterrent but even an infant can see that wouldn’t work. At the Minute the Deterrent is ran by the Royal Navy and the Trident system, and has a pretty effective fail-safe should Brown lose the plot and want to Nuke the Sun Headquarters.
It could be argued that by independent they mean “home made”

Firstly A British made nuke, We can’t even make a bridge without it wobbling and you want US to make a WMD. It also goes against pretty much all the Nuclear treaties, will cost an astronomically high amount and put simply. We don’t have the know how. Also let’s not forget the many NATO bases that have the Early warning system WE will need.

As for British Made weapons, clearly just an extension of the “British Jobs” BS. The Challenger 2 MBT is British, as is the AS90 Self Propelled gun. Our ships are made in Britain. The BNP haven’t quite grasped the Idea of equipping soldiers. It’s not about where it’s from but it’s about getting the Best, our Missiles are all American because they’re tried and tested and work. Our Fighter comes from a European consortium because it would be cheaper than getting a home grown plane Designed and built and guess what? It’s the best.
Our New vehicles are Italian but again because they fit the criteria the MOD were looking for and again worked out cheaper than getting BAE to design, build and test it.

►Is It Viable?
Well Yes, but why bother when there is better kit out there.

►Policy #3\#4
-Refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peacekeeping’ missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake;
-Only commit British forces when British national interests are at stake;

A sound Idea considering the Situation in Afghanistan and what happened in Iraq. However this seems to be another “We hate brown people” message. Peacekeeping is what stops ‘Peacekeeping’ becoming ‘having to go over there and kick arse’. It’s there for a reason, and I really shouldn’t have to explain why stopping peacekeeping is bad.

But I will say
The reason the British Military is so good is because the training has come from 60 odd years of having to do ‘peacekeeping’ it’s what stops us turning into the US Military – ‘good for a fight, piss poor for anything else’
As for ‘British Interests’ any event will inevitably harm British interests, be it an oil company in Nigeria or an engineering firm in Bosnia.

►Is It Viable?
Yes. But keeping our head in the sand means it’s easier for something to bite you in the arse.

►Policy #5
Preserve and restore our historic County Regiments;

The county regiments were an easy way to raise troops, you get them from a specific area and you don’t have to waste time getting them to know each other, it’s also a hanger on from when we had Scotland breathing down our necks and the French. The County regiments were amalgamated into more flexible units.

►Is It Viable?
Yes, but to be honest it’s just a policy to hark back to the days of ‘Queen Victoria and Michael Caine shooting a few ****’ before breakfast. A pointless idea that will cost a lot increase paperwork for the sake of tradition

►Policy #6
Bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO, since political developments make both commitments obsolete;

NATO was formed after WW2 to protect Europe from the Soviet Threat, It’s also why there’s a sizeable presence in Germany. It could be argued that since Soviet Russia is no more and there’s no imminent threat to Germany there’s no reason to be there. However at the minute there is no place in the UK to house them. Also NATO was engaged in the Balklands and is in Afganistan now.

►Is It Viable?
Yes.

As a result of Policy #7 there will be plenty of space to stick the Germany forces back in the UK, although I think becoming a pariah state for going it alone with our Nukes means we won’t bring them back, more like Dunkirk II: Electric Boogalloo.

As for NATO, It can be said that pulling out would work as there’s no Soviets. However let’s not forget it’s more than a big organisation it’s an actual military alliance. When New York was still on Fire NATO sat and said “Yes it’s a deceleration of war, we’re all in it so let’s go” Hence you have all these other countries in Afghanistan. NATO whether they like it or not is relevant.

►Policy#7
Close all foreign military bases on British soil;

Nice wording from our Nick. In reality they’re not Foreign bases, they’re ours but we let them out to the US so they have somewhere closer to all the action. Although as I said with Policy 6, they’ll be abandoned once we go all Dr. Strangelove on the world. Currently the ‘Bases’ include RAF Mildenhall and RAF Menwith Hill (Vitally Important Intelligence facility (Joint UK-US) In reality the number of bases is minuscule and are in the process of being scaled back.

►Is It Viable?

Given the BNP’s other Foreign/Defence policies It would be a case of the US Pulling out to avoid the cataclysmic s*itstorm that would head our way. Also seeing as the BNP are against the US/UK alliance. The US will simply redeploy what’s here to other bases in Europe. A minor inconvenience at most.

►Policy#8
- Restore national service for our young with the option of civil or military service.

Straight out of the Daily Mail this one. It’s clearly tied in with policy #1 in strengthening our forces. However the Idea is shouted down by the top soldiers. Many argue (Mostly those who have done it or those who are too old to avoid the draft) that it will help straighten out the youth of today. Many other countries have a conscription style system in place and in some it does work.

►Is It Viable?

Yes. However again it will be a victim of Costing an arm and a leg. However in the event of a major war who would you rather have on side; A group of motivated volunteers -or- A group of people who don’t want to be there.

►And there we have it.

The BNP clearly have no Idea what they’re talking about on yet another Issue of national importance. The BNP will essentially turn us Into a rogue state with a massive Army but with shoddy gear and a lot of Pissed off people.
The Economy would never be able to take the strain of these policies let alone ALL the policies.

I wouldn’t trust these guys to run a toy army, let alone An armed army that are fighting Al Qaeda (Which Apparently Andrew Brons thinks doesn’t exist) Give them a nuke.. Brilliant get ready to be invaded by the US.

No wonder they focus on Immigrants.

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

Scratch the surface and you start to see what the real British National Party (BNP) is really like, with 12 Councillors in Barking and Dagenham and according to the BNP a real chance of winning enough seats to control the council on May 6th it’s important to know exactly what the BNP would do in Barking and Dagenham, thanks to Hope Not Hate details are now available on what some of the BNP plans for the area are:

HOUSING
The BNP plans to take a new homes site identified by the council and use it instead to park 1,000 caravans as local authority housing.

At just £1,000 each, these old caravans led local campaigners to dub this a “Steptoe & Son solution” to social housing. The site would be a potential eyesore with no facilities, nowhere for kids to play and no substitute for real homes for some of the most vulnerable.

Under BNP policy, social housing – and caravans – would go to “UK citizens only”, leaving vulnerable people to sleep on the streets.

CARE
Social work professionals say the best place for children in care is with foster families, but the BNP differs.

It wants to take the several hundred children in care in Barking and put them into boarding school. While some children do still live in care homes in Britain, there are rarely more than eight per home.

The BNP’s proposals would mean a return to Victorian-style “workfare”, their alternative to welfare.

TEEN MUMS
The BNP plans to build an institution in Barking & Dagenham for all mothers under 21 to live in, with single mothers and babies taken into care.

Failure to comply with the homes rules could result in the mother being sent to prison and the baby being taken into to care.

COMMUNITIES
The Corporate Grants Programme, which would affect 27 organisations including Victim Support, Relate and the Volunteer Bureau, all of which provide vital community services, would be halved by the BNP.

Bob Bailey, leader of the council’s BNP group, calls the arrival of people from ethnic minorities into Barking and Dagenham “genocidal”.

He says the BNP would cut the “PC madness” of translation services, where one of the key groups of people to be affected would be blind people who require translation to and from Braille.

POVERTY
Bob Bailey claims that “only by voting for the BNP and electing a BNP council will the elderly and poor have a real champion in this chamber”.

Yet nationally the party supports the Tories in raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1million and it wants to cut “personal taxes”.

SCHOOLS
One of the areas the BNP has earmarked for cuts is the Building Schools for the Future programme.

This would delay much-needed work on all the borough’s secondary schools. National policy is to scrap GCSEs for O levels and to cut the Talented and Gifted Young People programme.

EDUCATION
In its 2009 county council election manifesto the BNP says mixing white and non-white children is “destroying perfectly good local secondary schools”.

It adds that schools are “riddled with tension between pupils from an Islamic background and everyone else”. This is despite the fact that schools in Barking and Dagenham recently received their best ever performance rating as most improved in Outer London.

BNP deputy chairman Simon Darby has called integrated schools “political paedophilia”.

The BNP would prefer to segregate children in an apartheid system, so that children from other ethnic backgrounds are taught separately – leading to a divided community, destroying children’s friendships, and setting up ethnic tension in the future.

The party also wants all children with special needs to be taken out of the mainstream and put into special schools.

COUNCIL TAX
The BNP plans to cut council tax to “among the lowest of any London borough” in five years, yet its proposals cost almost £1million above existing spending. Its savings would be £18.6million, while its proposals cost £19.5million.

Leader of the BNP group, Bob Bailey, says Labour relies on council tax for “loony left PC projects”. But in the wake of a global recession tax cuts could severely impact on the poorest in society.

LOCAL EVENTS
The BNP would get rid of the popular Dagenham Town Show, slashing the events budget and ending opportunities for local families to have a free weekend out every July.

SPORT
In Barking and Dagenham, the BNP voted against congratulating British athletes on their success at the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

It does not consider athletes such as Amir Khan and Kelly Holmes to be British, and previously held a policy of supporting Denmark – and not England – in a World Cup as the only all-white team.

The party also opposed grants to local sports clubs including Barking Rugby Club and Dagenham and Redbridge Football Club, who between them coach hundreds of local children every weekend.

Instead they suggested spending £50,000 on fixing up the town hall so they could webcast meetings.

KNIFE CRIME
The party likes to talk up knife crime in Barking and Dagenham.

In September 2008, Richard Barnbrook, a BNP member of the London Assembly, broadcast a video blog about two murders in Barking that never actually happened.

He was censured for his deliberate scare tactic. Yet when the council launched a campaign to ask the Government for stronger powers to deal with shops that sell knives to children, the BNP opposed it.

ENVIRONMENT
The bnp claims to be the “only truly environmental party unlike the fake ‘Greens’ who are merely a front for the far left of the Labour regime”.

Yet the party would end the building of wind turbines in Barking and Dagenham – London’s first wind farm – and opposes “climate change dogma”.

Should the BNP become the biggest party in Barking and Dagenham there would frankly be nothing to stop them running out some or all of their ‘Alternative Polices’, this would be a test bed council for the BNP which if elected in other councils would surely extend across any council the BNP control, is this really the way you see Britain?

Are these really the sort of policies that will solve the real issues in Barking and Dagenham, a caravan site full of 1,000 second hand caravans for ‘Social Housing’, Institutions for single mums under 21, a 50% cut in community grants programmes affecting charities across the borough, is this what the people of Barking and Dagenham really want from their council?

These rather draconian policies are just a taster of what a BNP Government would be like, and their really is only one way to stop the BNP having any chance to implement any of these polices.

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP