BNP man will face no charges

IndependentObserver · 15-04-2007, 12:16 PM

Signing someone's nomination papers for an election does not mean that the signatory need be in any way supportive of the party. There have been instances of candidates obtaining fewer votes than they need signatories in order to stand in the first place. The process of obtaining signatures is no more than gaining the permission of electors to have the right to stand. If police rules ban this activity for serving officers for any party, and particularly for one party but not others, then this is blatantly discriminatory, and I question if it can be legal. I think this is a deeply disturbing development which undermines the independence of the police force. Are the police there to enforce the law without prejudice or bias, or are they a tool of the establishment to coerce conformity and silence dissidence?

22ANDUK · 15-04-2007, 01:29 PM

Here's another thought.

What's going to start happening when, as the BNP start gaining more and more seats in Councils and Assemblies (and they will), they start sitting on bodies like Police Authorities and other Committees?

Their influence will grow and their democratic credibility to grow to, opening up further developments to this issue.

IndependentObserver · 15-04-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 22ANDUK

What's going to start happening when, as the BNP start gaining more and more seats in Councils and Assemblies (and they will), they start sitting on bodies like Police Authorities and other Committees?

When that happens, the goalposts will be moved. An example of this occurred in Stoke - initially one BNP councillor was elected, and a year later (I think) two more joined (an election and a defection). When the total reached three, this qualified the party to sit on various committees and entitled them to other benefits of some nature. So the other parties together with the mayor got together to raise the number of councillors required for these benefits.

arden forester · 16-04-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

When that happens, the goalposts will be moved.

So that more "own goals" can be scored by the Big 3 Parties! :shock: Why are they so stupid?

Mikeuk · 16-04-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Quote:

MKPDavies concludes that he's either a pig or a cheat, the fact that he's racist doesn't come into it because that's taken for granted. Interesting statement to make about someone he's never met. I suppose it's kind of ironic that he's putting forward a stereotype against someone he alleges discriminates against someone because of stereotypes that person holds. Then again I've had this discussion with him before and how it does UKIP no good but he still continues.

That's not what I concluded ar all.

I asked the question.

Cheating racist (IE the candidate, all BNP are racists as you have to be to join that rabble with a clear concious).

Or

Racist Pig (IE the officer did nominate a BNP candidate, thus will be a racist)

One or the other. Of course if the police officer didn't nominate the pond scum, then he is exonorated. If he did then the pond scum is exonarated of cheating, but is still pond scum never the less.

There are former BNP supporters who have changed their mind and now support UKIP. Christina comes to mind.

Is it really necessary to use that sort of language?

22ANDUK · 16-04-2007, 11:37 AM

Let's face it, deep down 'we all love the BNP'.

I don't mean we support, condone or tolerate their actions, and I include the Big 3, UKIP, the press (local and national), the public, even 'Anti-Fascist groups' etc in the above statement.

BNP threads on this forum and others forums attract more viewings and posts than those other parties and issues, articles, campaigns, news, trials all create sales and interest. People love talking about them and who they are, purely because they make politics interesting.

It says so much about the staid, grey, predictable world of modern British politics doesn't it really?

arden forester · 16-04-2007, 12:28 PM

From what I gather, bods from the Big 3 are reading the BNP website and helping make it the most read political website in the UK! :shock:

arden forester · 16-04-2007, 04:24 PM

And if the police were being consistent, then they WOULD put the National Front before the BNP! From the NF's FAQs! :shock:

Quote:

Q. WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THE NON-WHITES THAT WERE BORN IN BRITAIN?
A. All coloured people would be covered by our policy of phased humane repatriation. This means that over a period of ten to fifteen years these people would go back to the lands which they, or their parents/grandparents came from. There will be no exceptions.

SO! :shock: That doesn't sit very well with being a policeman, surely? Why is the NF not a banned organisation for a policeman? Is it because the police think that the smaller racist parties are no problem? They are not being consistent and ARE entering the democratic process by being discriminatory on THEIR terms!
http://www.natfront.com/

Westcountryman · 16-04-2007, 04:26 PM

I believe the rule is 'BNP or similiar organisations'.

arden forester · 16-04-2007, 04:56 PM

Cumbria police say it "specifically" applies to the BNP. It does proscribe memership of similar organisations, but does not mention them. What exactly "contradicts a general duty to promote to promote race equality"? Does each Chief Constable/Police Authority sit in judgement over whether a political party other than the BNP is falling foul of their views?

I certainly don't think New Labour has been capable of promoting good race relations. I think some Tories are racist in their remarks. Etc, etc.

If a political party says something on immigration, and the Police Chiefs don't like it, will policemen who are members be asked to leave? It is all wrong. Either the police can be members of political parties or not!

16-04-2007, 12:28 PM	#17 (permalink)
arden forester Uber Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Solihull, in The Forest of Arden, Warwickshire! Posts: 2,699 Party: None	From what I gather, bods from the Big 3 are reading the BNP website and helping make it the most read political website in the UK! :shock: __________________ www.ardenforester.blogspot.com www.westminster-whispers.blogspot.com

16-04-2007, 04:26 PM	#19 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,922 Party: None	I believe the rule is 'BNP or similiar organisations'. __________________ Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

16-04-2007, 04:56 PM	#20 (permalink)
arden forester Uber Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Solihull, in The Forest of Arden, Warwickshire! Posts: 2,699 Party: None	Cumbria police say it "specifically" applies to the BNP. It does proscribe memership of similar organisations, but does not mention them. What exactly "contradicts a general duty to promote to promote race equality"? Does each Chief Constable/Police Authority sit in judgement over whether a political party other than the BNP is falling foul of their views? I certainly don't think New Labour has been capable of promoting good race relations. I think some Tories are racist in their remarks. Etc, etc. If a political party says something on immigration, and the Police Chiefs don't like it, will policemen who are members be asked to leave? It is all wrong. Either the police can be members of political parties or not! __________________ www.ardenforester.blogspot.com www.westminster-whispers.blogspot.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

15-04-2007, 12:16 PM	#11 (permalink)
IndependentObserver Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 54	Signing someone's nomination papers for an election does not mean that the signatory need be in any way supportive of the party. There have been instances of candidates obtaining fewer votes than they need signatories in order to stand in the first place. The process of obtaining signatures is no more than gaining the permission of electors to have the right to stand. If police rules ban this activity for serving officers for any party, and particularly for one party but not others, then this is blatantly discriminatory, and I question if it can be legal. I think this is a deeply disturbing development which undermines the independence of the police force. Are the police there to enforce the law without prejudice or bias, or are they a tool of the establishment to coerce conformity and silence dissidence?

15-04-2007, 01:29 PM	#12 (permalink)
22ANDUK Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,438	Here's another thought. What's going to start happening when, as the BNP start gaining more and more seats in Councils and Assemblies (and they will), they start sitting on bodies like Police Authorities and other Committees? Their influence will grow and their democratic credibility to grow to, opening up further developments to this issue.

16-04-2007, 11:37 AM	#16 (permalink)
22ANDUK Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,438	Let's face it, deep down 'we all love the BNP'. I don't mean we support, condone or tolerate their actions, and I include the Big 3, UKIP, the press (local and national), the public, even 'Anti-Fascist groups' etc in the above statement. BNP threads on this forum and others forums attract more viewings and posts than those other parties and issues, articles, campaigns, news, trials all create sales and interest. People love talking about them and who they are, purely because they make politics interesting. It says so much about the staid, grey, predictable world of modern British politics doesn't it really?