@ the litigious AC
So you don't think you're a bigot? Good. You certainly came across as one though. Wikipedia gives the definition as, "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own." OK, it's not from the Oxford Dictionary, but it's a pretty good definition nonetheless.
Let's look again at your original post:
"Frankly I feel that holding Nazi views or being a member of a neo nazi group should equal lifetime hard labour or if the labour camps are full......hanging or a bullet....whats ever cheaper"
That, my son, is exactly the approach taken by totalitarian regimes across the globe. The Nazis hounded the communists. So did the Falangists during the Spanish Civil War. Zanu PF in Zimbabwe did (and do) the same thing to the MDC. The Burmese junta isn't exactly tolerant of their political opposition. During the Cold War, political opposition in Eastern Europe would earn you a spell in chokey for a trivial offence. In Pinochet's Chile, you would simply disappear. I didn't notice Saddam Hussein facing political opposition when he ruled Iraq. Neither did the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Or the Taliban in Afghanistan. And so on.
"I loathe Nazis and I also loathe so called "communists" same idea just wrapped up in different words"
I agree with you there. The difference is that I don't feel they should be put up against the wall and shot just for holding different views than I do.
"Frankly I think the BNP etc should be banned"
And driven underground. Which would make it much more difficult to monitor them.
"and any past or present members should be rounded up and dealt with as above"
And make some instant martyrs.
Let's say Comrade Brown did decide to outlaw the BNP. Nick Griffin and all the leadership are shipped off to Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic after a show trial. How happy you would be.
And then - whenever there's a race crime involving minorities attacking whites, whenever the Daily Mail fulminates against immigration and EU bureaucracy and whenever the White House says shit and Downing Street starts straining there would be an increasing level of sympathy for the poor sods slung into exile for standing up for Britain. The cold hard facts don't come into it; that's how it would appear.
"as well as the "socialist hardcore" parties (SSP, socialist labour, Respect etc)"
Another group of people with different views who need some re-education, eh citizen?
"Why should I pay 90% tax solely because I work hard and spent time studying??"
If you don't want a socialist government, vote for another candidate come election time. If you're not prepared to vote at all, don't complain. An MP will always be elected, even if they only get one vote. That's how the system works, for better or worse.
"They arent banned though as they make the govt look better and a "saner" option"
If that's the case, why is the BNP attracting increasing levels of support?
"Though at this rate I wont earn enough to pay tax given the amount of jobs being sent overseas or reserved for "ethnic groups" or "young single mothers" or "religious minorities" rather than anyone qualified to do the job properly"
Jeez. Is your real name Alf Garnett, by any chance?
"Though makes sense given the amount of hand wringers who worry and fret about being "fair" to everyone and end up only being fair to those who dont deserve fairness"
In spite of the half-arsed "targeted" legislation introduced over the last ten years, we are all supposed to be equal before the law. That explains why anti-terror laws can be (and are) abused by over-zealous police officers and local authorities, BTW.
Your attitude - "abu hamza and his ilk, nick griffin and his crew of nazis in suits, traitors to Britain like George Galloway" - is a perfect illustration of why that principle needs to be upheld. Ahborrent views or not, they need to be protected from the sort of lynch-mob mentality displayed by your post. If Abu Hamza, the BNP or George Galloway break the law, they should be dealt with appropriately.
Whether the law is weak in some areas is another matter. But either way, that doesn't condone anyone appointing themselves judge, jury and executioner.
"This country has lost its mind well and truly, feral children running wild everywhere (If you dont have them in your area, must be nice living in a gated community safe from "reality")"
No they're not, and no, I don't live in a gated community. I live and work in a big city.
Yes, there are gangs of youths around, but they're no more common than they were in the late 70s and early 80s when I was a teenager. The main difference I've noticed is the generations don't seem to communicate as much as they used to; and when they do, it's often in a confrontational manner. You don't gain respect by shouting at people, be they youths or mature adults.
From your second post:
"I am NOT a bigot (And I take offence at that comment, said in public I think I'd be considering a slander and defamation of character lawsuit)"
Well, you could have fooled me. Although on reflection, perhaps "incoherent confusion" (aka "Unfocused Rage" on Speak Your Branes) might be a better definition perhaps? All I can see is that you're wanting to suppress certain groups using the violent methods you profess to despise because said groups endorse them; and if that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.
And threatening to sue is both pathetic and cowardly, particularly as you haven't got the balls to give your name.