Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

BNP fury as ENTIRE membership list of 10,000


The Brain Overlord
 Share

Recommended Posts

 
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Bill Hill

    45

  • chemical-licker

    25

  • Mattshark

    29

  • corporatepunishment

    10

So have I and the case studies have some outright lies in their about racial murder and imply racism when that was clearly not the case.

It is manipulative rubbish designed to incite racism.

Yeah right, all of them?

What about the murder of Kriss Donald

Kriss Donald (2 July 1988 – 15 March 2004) was a Scottish fifteen-year-old who was kidnapped, beaten and murdered in Glasgow in 2004. Five men were later found guilty of racially-motivated violence; those convicted of murder were all sentenced to life imprisonment.

Yet not many people have heard of Kriss.

Why? Well, we all know..why. For those who like to deploy a rational critical objective view of the world-the reason is- considered common knowledge-

So obvious, I can hardly be bothered to explain it.

If white people or a white persons kill an Asian or Black person in a racially motivated attack- we don't hear the end of it. Same in the US.

Yet the other way round- or Asian vs Black crimes- quietly brushed under the carpet.

From wiki-

There have been accusations that the media and the British Government did not see the Kriss Donald case to be as important as the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence by whites in 1993 because the victim was white and his killers are not. The British state broadcaster, the BBC, has been criticized by some BBC viewers because the case featured on national news only three times and was later largely confined to regional Scottish bulletins. Although admitting that the BBC had "got it wrong", the organisation's Head of Newsgathering, Fran Unsworth, rejected the suggestion that Donald's race played a part in the lack of reportage, instead claiming it was a product of "Scottish blindness"

yeah right... :rolleyes: 'Scottish blindness'

OK, they have a point of not wanted to incite more racial hatred attacks... but as the late, great Lennon said..."Just gimme the truth"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah right, all of them?

What about the murder of Kriss Donald

Kriss Donald (2 July 1988 – 15 March 2004) was a Scottish fifteen-year-old who was kidnapped, beaten and murdered in Glasgow in 2004. Five men were later found guilty of racially-motivated violence; those convicted of murder were all sentenced to life imprisonment.

Yet not many people have heard of Kriss.

Why? Well, we all know..why. For those who like to deploy a rational critical objective view of the world-the reason is- considered common knowledge-

So obvious, I can hardly be bothered to explain it.

If white people or a white persons kill an Asian or Black person in a racially motivated attack- we don't hear the end of it. Same in the US.

Yet the other way round- or Asian vs Black crimes- quietly brushed under the carpet.

From wiki-

There have been accusations that the media and the British Government did not see the Kriss Donald case to be as important as the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence by whites in 1993 because the victim was white and his killers are not. The British state broadcaster, the BBC, has been criticized by some BBC viewers because the case featured on national news only three times and was later largely confined to regional Scottish bulletins. Although admitting that the BBC had "got it wrong", the organisation's Head of Newsgathering, Fran Unsworth, rejected the suggestion that Donald's race played a part in the lack of reportage, instead claiming it was a product of "Scottish blindness"

yeah right... :rolleyes: 'Scottish blindness'

OK, they have a point of not wanted to incite more racial hatred attacks... but as the late, great Lennon said..."Just gimme the truth"

On the way home from work, most nights I listen to bbc radio 4 news. In one week, there were two news reports that were almost identical in nature. The first was reported as a white man & his girlfriend had just parked there car, & as they were walking away from the vehicle were approach by two black guys one of whom produced a knife & stabbed the guy then ran off.

The second incident was the same but in reverse, i.e. a white guy was the offender. Both reports were described as motiveless as nothing was stolen & both perpertrators ran off.

The only decernable difference in the reporting of these two crimes, was the need for the reporter on the second incident to add the words...''police do not yet know if the attack was racially motivated''

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treat anti-white attacks equally, urges Oldham MP.

Racially motivated attacks against white people are not being treated seriously enough, the MP for a town hit by race riots claimed today.

Phil Woolas, the Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, has written to the commission for racial equality urging it to put its weight behind raising the profile of the issue.

He said a multi-cultural society could only be built if all sectors of the community felt their concerns were being taken seriously.

Source... Guardian :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only decernable difference in the reporting of these two crimes, was the need for the reporter on the second incident to add the words...''police do not yet know if the attack was racially motivated''

yeah.. another myth... which irritates me is the concept of 'Black on Black crime' in London

Er... right, as if the criminal gangs aren't racist or will not attack a white person if they get in their way.

"Stab him... oop sorry he's white.... better not- I'm may be prepared to kill someone in cold blood, but I'm not a racist" :wacko:

I've even heard the Police paper work doesn't actually exist for a white person to report a racially-motivated attack.

So once again, the Gov's figures would be unreliable..

Although I haven't verified this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah.... don't worry the case will be dropped, yet again... as each point is defendable..

Technically, under the law- Flying the National Flag or English Flag can be seen as being racist..

Try it and see how the local council respond .... :lol:<_<

I apologise if this is a little off topic, but this I really don't get. I live in Leeds... I did a pub crawl in the town centre the other day (not my idea, I assure you - enforced socialisation) and out of the five pubs we went into, one had a union jack on display and two had St. George's Crosses. In my home town, there is a whole building painted as a giant St. George's Cross. I see these symbols everywhere... I'm intrigued to know where the idea that displaying them is 'not allowed' because it's 'racist' came from.

I think that's one of the main problems in this debate... from both sides, the facts are so clouded by the media, urban legends and 'friend of a friend' stories which tell us the government is banning Christmas and that it's racist to be British, and conversely that all non-Brits laugh in the face of our nationalism and want to replace Santa Claus with 6 foot, red and white clad effigies of Osama bin Laden... or something like that.

What I'd love to see is a balanced debate on the issue, which neither claims that immigration is eroding our culture nor accuses anyone who suggests it should be limited of rampant racism. I'd love to see a world where we could go where we wished, and where everyone was free to make a home where they wanted free from persecution and poverty. But I also recognise that England is not infinite, and that people will always resent change. I just think it's a shame that immigration is so rarely sensibly discussed without descending into an utterly polarised argument, and I think it is this inability to form rational debate which leads to the frustration which in turn leads people to turn to groups like the BNP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologise if this is a little off topic, but this I really don't get. I live in Leeds... I did a pub crawl in the town centre the other day (not my idea, I assure you - enforced socialisation) and out of the five pubs we went into, one had a union jack on display and two had St. George's Crosses. In my home town, there is a whole building painted as a giant St. George's Cross. I see these symbols everywhere... I'm intrigued to know where the idea that displaying them is 'not allowed' because it's 'racist' came from.

Why can flying the flag be seen as being racist? It's how you interpret the law.

If I may borrow from the UM rules, this line; which if you change post to distribute is more or less the Law in the UK. Well, how I remember it anyhow- god knows what state-it's in now.

3a. Racism or hatred: Do not post racist or hate-driven material or views which express hatred towards or discriminate against any specific race, religion, country, gender, individual or group.

I'll use the St George/English as example.

The English Flag is associated with the English, who are predominately white therefore it discriminates against ethnic minorities who might not have been born in England.

Also the St. George's Cross – the symbol on England's flag – could offend Muslims who might associate it with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.

The local council is duty bound to promote.... a blah blah ah you get the pic.

I think that's one of the main problems in this debate... from both sides, the facts are so clouded by the media, urban legends and 'friend of a friend' stories which tell us the government is banning Christmas and that it's racist to be British, and conversely that all non-Brits laugh in the face of our nationalism and want to replace Santa Claus with 6 foot, red and white clad effigies of Osama bin Laden... or something like that.

Well, there's only so long you can blame the media or media deliberate misinformation.

Naturally, personal experience is the best, and that's the problem- immigration disproportionately affects certain areas.

People still need unbiased information from somewhere.

The mainstream press has to adhere to some standards or get sued etc.

If people think the dailymail is the daily hate... and the dailymail is against the BNP...

Where does this mean the person, aligns politically? The far-left or the Ultra far-left

But these positions change. When I think back to some of the left wing views I had, when I was younger-shudders...

I might mention them one time for a laugh.

Btw that doesn't mean I'm right-wing now.

I like to see myself as an observer who occasionally plays devil advocate when bored, to see the counterpoint etc.

I can't be bothered...sorry where was I?

What I'd love to see is a balanced debate on the issue, which neither claims that immigration is eroding our culture nor accuses anyone who suggests it should be limited of rampant racism. I'd love to see a world where we could go where we wished, and where everyone was free to make a home where they wanted free from persecution and poverty. But I also recognise that England is not infinite, and that people will always resent change. I just think it's a shame that immigration is so rarely sensibly discussed without descending into an utterly polarised argument, and I think it is this inability to form rational debate which leads to the frustration which in turn leads people to turn to groups like the BNP.

I agree with the sentiment- but the battle is to remain in the centre- the balance or to be objective. Is it worth it? when you're accused of being racist anyway.I have to say that the concept of racism is currently over-stressed and is used to silence legitimate discussion.

I think you'll agree, here in the UK we're only just coming through that period- so you'll forgive me for thinking, the extremists are already in control.

Personally, I think- we've already crossed over the 'balancing point' years ago and Britain is still continuing to have a steady influx of immigrants..

Whatever you and I might think won't affect anything. The question is-will assimilation and mutual respect win over? or will people adhere to their tribes-

And as space and resources begin to decline- perhaps, maybe, ultimately lead to a prolonged civil war.

I mean, ask yourself has the human race ever let you down yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.