Bottle - Genie = Foot + Mouth shurely?
The first public sector employees are waking up to the fallout from the leaking of the BNP membership list yesterday. Although the list was removed from its original blog home it has reappeared at several mirror sites, on bittorrent and on Wikileaks. Wikileaks uses encryption to protect its sources and is widely distributed …
It might not really matter.
If an organisation is receiving enough negative publicity they'll find a clause about "bringing the organisation into disrepute" or "outside activities interferring with the business" in their employment contract.
It also means that anyone arrested by the policewoman concerned who isn't white will immediately claim that her actions were racially motivated and the police would always be on the defensive.
regardless of the "evidence illegally obtained" argument, anyone could make up a list of names and addresses, claim it is known members of the BNP/KKK/Scientology/Whatever other racist/terrorist/religious group. even if it is from a "legitimate" source, who is to say someone hasn't added someone else's details out of spite?
Surely, getting round this is easy.
You just have to drag PC Plod into the office and ask him "are you a member of the BNP?". He can't really deny it can he? And so when he says "yes", you've nailed him and can justify kicking him out. You're not relying on any "poison tree" information; he just admitted it.
Just to show even-handedness, you probably have to ask everyone else in the office too, but so what?
These people may be card carrying members of the BNP. This should be immaterial.
If any of these people have been displaying behaviour motivated by racial prejudice (or whatever), then that is wrong, and they should be dealt with accordingly.
However it is immoral to penalise somebody for merely supporting a cause (albeit an unpopular one), when they've been doing their job to the required standard, and if they haven't then the blame rests with the employer for not being rid of them a long time ago.
In the Netherlands political beliefs are protected by the same laws that protect against as racial, or sexual descrimination. We have no such law in the UK.
What's so illegal? Looking at a blog?
The only possibly illegal aspect would be how the poster got the list, if s/he was unauthorised to do so.
Using the published list would be legally obtained second-hand illegaly obtained evidence (if it was illegaly obained in the first place).
they are nationalist. There is a very important distinction there.
A person cannot control their race, but to a degree they can control which nation they are loyal to.
Nation and race are not one in the same thing. It is made more complicated because of family, but for those who are not racist they could get sperm from a bank of random sperm, and all mothers could be surrogate.
So you end up in a nation at birth, without mother or father, that state controls your life up to say the age of 4, at which point you choose the nation you want to belong to, and off you go there.
They are many races in different national parties around the globe, and to be honest most political parties claim nationalism. I don't why, it is like claiming you are for the people who vote you in.
The BNP is more central than the US democrats, we only have a few extreme parties, that is Labour and the monster raving looney party, for the main. The BNP is mainly about community, and heritage of the culture, they are probably pro keep the castles, pro keep the beer, pro keep the imperial weights and measures, and not for Europe.
Racism at any level is wrong, but if nationalism be wrong, I don't want to pay tax, and I declare independence immediately.
Highly unpleasant though the BNP is, it's a legal party. Banning serving police officers from belonging to a legal political party seems a very dubious move. Replace "BNP" with "Sinn Fein" in that situation, would it still be accepted without complaint everywhere? Either ban the police from belonging to any political party, or ban the BNP outright. Anything else must surely be dodgy ground?
...but it's still political discrimination to sack someone for membership. So long as he has a good service record, it's bang out of order to give him the boot.
Frankly, I think the way the BNP is demonised in the media and by serious politicians is shameful. They're not the kind of people I'd want to associate with, but they do have a small number of councillors now - which means quite a lot of votes. Treating the BNP as a second-class party means treating BNP votes as second-class votes, and that is not a good road to go down...
Why don't we try to address the reasons for the BNP's growing popularity, instead of cracking down on the BNP itself?
I mean it's just a list of people with views different to your own. And I don't mean slightly different-in-a-way-you'll-accept-and-call-it-diversity, but views you actually find offensive. It doesn't really matter, so long as they conduct themselves properly.
For example, if the Merseyside Policeman was a Constable Savage-esque character at work then he should have been taken to task about it already. If he's not, and is generally a good copper then what's the problem?
Same with teachers- which would you prefer, a creationist who'll scare your kids with tales of damnation and fire into believing that an overblown fairy created the universe in 7 days, or someone who your kids might overhear using the "N" word?
If you let this happen, the time will come when they come for you because you have different views to the Ruling Party.
I'm not a member of the BNP- never have been, never will be. However, I'm actually scared at how much hate and anger is spewed forth at someone who you're mad at for spewing hate and anger.
I wonder if El Reg will post this comment?
They knowingly deceived their employer, boot them all. This is no different to lying about qualifications or a disability that would exclude you from a job.
Also...if they truly believed the BNP's views were not only the way to go but RIGHT, why would they be afraid of being identified? (other than the few that will lose their job, I can understand their concerns) I'm willing to bet that such a list of labour party members being released would not be so controversial
As a white person with a black partner and father to a mixed race child, I despise the BNP and everything they stand for. However, I am very uncomfortable with the notion that a person can be dismissed for being a member of a political party. I could just about understand a blanket ban on all political activism in certain professions. Naming specific parties though, no matter how unpleasant they may be, is starting down a slippery slope. Who decides which parties are OK to support?
So some members of the BNP are going to lose their job because of their opinion, and everybody finds this normal. Hmmm. Who's next? Communist? Free-Masons? Scientologists?
It is ironic, though, that people claiming to act out of virtuous anti-facism are giving a punishment of Berufsverbot -- the prohibition of engaging in certain professions that Nazi Germany used to inflict on Jews.
BNP is a legal political organisation. The Home Office and the police should not restrict membership of any legal organisation. I do not agree with the views of the BNP, however they are entitled to hold those views and everyone, ESPECIALLY THE HOME SECRETARY should defend peoples right to hold their own political views.
This is not China.
Even though you may not like the BNP they are a legitimate LEGAL political party. Therefore There should be no legal recourse that says a member cannot do this/that job, whatever that job is.
We used to have something called guaranteed free speech
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion in our 'free democratic'TM society. We are heading for a dictatorship where personal opinions become criminal, where innocent activities become terrorist acts and everybody is guilty of something and can therefore be treated like a criminal at the whim of the police or government.
Does no-one else think this leak is a little fishy happening now as the BNP have been gaining support for a few years now, thanks mostly to politically correct government policies and as such have managed to steal a few seats away from the main parties. With a general election looming the government wants to grab every seat they can and losing a few to the BNP could mean the difference between winning and losing. What a great time to have a 'leak' and try and get a public backlash against an opposing party.
To quote Voltaire I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
For the record, I do not vote nor support the BNP, but I am speaking out against the continual erosion of our rights that had to be fought for, not given. Many people died for the freedoms we have today and we are rolling over on our backs to surrender them.
I am no supporter of the BNP, but it isn't an illegal organisation. As such I can't see how anybody could be sacked or otherwise disciplined at work for being a member, unless of course they signed a contract that specifically states BNP membership is allowed. I can see a few cases for discrimination or unfair dismissal arising out of this.
As soon as you start barring people from employment for membership of one legal political party then the same rules must be applied to members of all political parties.
Rather than trying to outlaw the party by stealth the powers that be need to either (a) have the courage of their convictions and ban the party or (b) shut up about it. There can be no grey areas either the BNP is a legitimate political party or it's an illegal organisation.
Personally I don't like them, but I think keeping them legal is better so you can keep an eye on them. Banning them could well lead to their infiltrating other political parties. Although it sometimes seems they've already done that.
'Loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing.'
'smelling of foreign food'
'Urinating in a public convenience'
'Coughing without due care and attention.'
'Looking at me in a funny way'
'Walking on the cracks in the pavement,'
'Walking in a loud shirt in a built-up area during the hours of darkness,'
'Walking around with an offensive wife.'
'Possession of curly black hair and thick lips."'
The BNP does actually make some sensible points, stuff that most of the UK would agree with if they actually read their policies and manifesto's. Unfortunately the BNP has been villanised to such a degree that anyone who supports them is automatically tagged a racist.
This country disgusts me - we are the only country who are so bothered about offending other people / religions that we are willing to sell our own beliefs, traditions and pride down the river just to stop us from looking the bad guys.
I am English -But I am not proud of being English for the very reasons stated above. This country and this government have stolen christmas from me - I am a Christian - not a strict one - but I still believe that Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ - why therefore in this countries 2nd Largest City can you not find one single "Merry Christmas" on the christmas decorations? Its disgusting! Yet when it was time for Eid celebrations the city took it upon itself to brightly decorate the streets / shopping malls with decorations and decrees of "Eid Mubarak".
I mean who is honestly offended by this? Certainly none of my Asian / Black / Chinese friends so why is it an issue? Heaven forbid someone might actually take offence at our culture - therefore (obviously) the only course of action is to ban our culture.
It makes me sick!
And by the way - no I am not a BNP supporter - Conservative all the way!
My first response was "Good, name and shame the fascists in our midst" - but on sober reflection, now I'm not so sure.
First off - I have no love for the BNP. My grandmother's Goan, my mother born in Calcutta, and I have a black sister. The BNP are an odious political entity - evolved (in the loosest possible sense) from the primordial ooze of Mosley's Blackshirts, thence the National Front/Combat 18 and others who value their 'white heritage'. All the BNP do is hide their repugnant, racist philosophy behind the mealy weasel-words of the spin doctor.
It's also worth noting that the term 'BNP Member' is absolutely synonymous with the term 'Moron'. These are people (again, I use this term in the loosest possible sense) who believe in a white Britain - as if a fifth-generation descendant of an immigrant is somehow responsible for the fact they're too stupid to hold down a job. They must be wracked with shame at the thought that if you trace human lineage back far enough, we're all from Africa.
So what we have is repellent inDUHviduals paying others to propound their abhorrent 'policies', and 'Activists' wandering around, dropping leaflets off when they can keep their knuckles from scraping on the ground and desperately hoping for a fight with someone who challenges them (I know, this happened to me in Sussex). So why not name and shame them?
Because as disgusting, discredited and sordid as they are, we should still have principles.
Full article at http://dungeekin.blogspot.com, comments welcome.
Paris because even she's not stupid enough to join the BNP
Agree or not with the policies of te BNP (I don't) how can someone be sacked for being a member of a political party that is allowed to stand in public elections? It is not a banned organisation so being a member is not illegal and should be of no consequence.
I'm vegetarian (OK, this is El Reg - contain your laughter). If I become a policeman, I might be less than lenient when investigating cases of animal cruelty etc. If I join the Vegetarian Society, I could still join the police but perhaps they would keep me off cases involving cruelty to animals ( I have no idea).
I guess it's a lot harder to accept a BNP member who hates coloured people, Jews, homosexuals etc. "minorities" are not contained, it's nearly impossible to assign duties where contact can be completely avoided. I can fully understand the restrictions on membership but would also expect there to be restrictions in all public employment (e.g. hospitals, social workers etc.).
Worse still is the case of a policeman who is racist/homophobic but hasn't bothered to register with the BNP.
Where is the relevance to the article ? This case is becoming about the leaking of the data and if it can be used whereas it should be raising concerns that there are members in all walks of life who have joined the BNP. As a society, we need to understand what has caused them to resort to such measures - is there genuine hatred because of the pigment in someone's skin or the fact they don't believe in Christ?
Out of interest, can our US readers tell us if membership of the Ku Klux Clan means you cannot join the US Police or other government jobs ? What would happen if a Klan membership list was leaked - would people get fired from Government jobs?
A number of professions (Social Workers, Teachers, Medical, Police Officers) have a very strong view that an appropriate set of values are a core competency. Included in those are generally some about the equal value of all recipients of the profession's services.
If a member of one of those professions is also a current, active member of a political party is antithetical to those values, it's reasonable to conclude that they have values that are incompatible with their membership of those professions.
So the leader went on national news and pretty much confirmed the authenticity of the list?
That's an own goal of pretty staggering proportions; we always suspected that the BNP were The Thick Party - it's nice to see it confirmed.
Another reason why All You Fascists [Are] Bound to Lose
(Paris: Positively MENSA-material by comparison)
Oh for fuck's sake.
Policemen and teachers need to be able to deal with people of all backgrounds and nationalities equally. Membership in the BNP is quite blatantly stating that you are incapable of doing that.
And to all the BNP shitbags climbing out of the woodwork with your thinly-veilled "I find them detestable, but..." tripe, I suggest ten seconds of doing some bloody research. You Nazi bastards.
nah, i'm no racist, i dont really like anyone, just don't agree with this particular violation of people's privacy
and @Re: it's ridiculous
didn't realise he'd confirmed it, but as for a random list not getting any publicity, i'm pretty sure if I were to mail something in to the daily mirror or some other shitty tabloid on a BNP letterhead, a fiver says it would get a mention
Provided their employment contract properly lays out what political activities they are and are not allowed to engage in, and they are required to state they meet this obligation on joining.
When the jackboot-club membership comes to light, their employment contract becomes void and its cardbox box time.
Then they are free to go and practice their "free speech" wherever they see fit.
Christmas hasn't been stolen from you. Christians have hijacked various other winter and pagen festivals, stuck son-of-your-sky-fairy on the front cover,and sold it as "Christmas".
You are welcome to have a festival in honour of your Miracle Man at this time of year if you wish, but please don't pretend (or believe) that Christmas was the original festival in winter.
It's hard to feel "proud to be human" too, when we continue to screw ourselves thanks to various groups arguing whose sky-fairy is the best.
Paris...she might be rubbish, but at least she exists.
An interesting argument. However, just because someone belongs to a political party, or is at least on their membership list, doesn't mean they agree with ALL or even MOST of that party's actions or tactics. The might only agree with one or two lines in the party manifesto. Hell, I know a few people who, out of curiosity, have joined every political party in order to see what kind of material the members get. I for one can think of several valid reasons for a poilce officer to join a legal but otherwise reprehensible political party, none of which involve that officer agreeing with them.
So although your argument is perhaps one of the more cogent, it still doesn't hold water. Either the UK is a free nation where political expression is legal, or it's nothing more than a Orwellian "New World" full of double speak when it comes to actual freedom.
"Ooo, we're just misunderstood, the BNP don't intimidate people and aren't really racist, they're all nice and cuddly and mainstream. White people are the persecuted minority!"
Speaking as someone who's seen that lovely, friendly, warm-and-fuzzy Nazi site 'Redwatch', it kinda screws up the right-wing arguments about intimidation.
And they're complaining about not being allowed to do certain jobs? If these knobbers ever got any form of real power, they'd be making sure that people weren't even allowed to be in this country because of their melanin levels, much less working!
Morons one and all.
So the list is out - I don't think we should publicise it, but if an employer (especially one which is obliged to treat everyone as equals regardless of skin tone) gets hold of it and sacks you, I've got no sympathy. You joined the Nazi Party, you live with the consequences.
They may be a bunch of bigoted idiots, but that's their prerogative. It's what happens if you live in a free society.
They have every right to expect that their personal details (address, phone number, child's name etc.) be kept private, especially when that data is subject to a court injunction.
If we say it's okay becuase they're a "special case", who's going to be the next "special case"?
Actually, police officers are not able to be members of any political party, be they Labour, Tory, BNP, UKIP, MRLP. I think there are similar guidelines for the civil service.
Employees of the state (be they teachers, doctors, police) are required to provide support and assistance to people regardless of their nationality or ethnic background.
The BNP openly state that they wish to send immigrants back to their home of ethnic origin, and that white British workers are prioritised in employment. To me, espousing views that people of differing ethnic origins are not entitled to remain in this country, and have a lesser entitlement to employment is fundamentally incompatible with holding any kind of public sector work where you have to interact with such people on a daily basis.
Don't ban the BNP as a party - let them say what they have to say - I'm a strong believer that if you give them enough rope, they will hang themselves; but you cannot dispute that the BNP openly demands a hierarchy of entitlement in the UK according to ethnic background, and that is fundamentally racist and incompatible with public service.
This leak could all just be a trick, some form of elaborate double or even triple cross....be very, very careful who you taunt.
As we all know, soon the BNP will sweep to power on the back of some magnificent local party elections. Once they do it will be only a mtter of time before they start constructing some sort of camp system.....to......err.....concentrate people in before....sending them to the east.....perhaps...(im thinking norfolk here) in order that they might find some form of ...err......solution......that might be considered final....to some form of problem they may envisage. But not in a Nazi way you understand...
One Herr Griffen is ensconsed in the Wolfs Lair...i mean 10 downing street, he will send his army of computer experts (perhaps someone from 'the list' who has clerical experience...) to trawl through the internet looking for all opposition. Using extensive computer seismology...or google..they will soon find where you live!!!!!!
Do YOU want to go to 'the east' ?? Better watch your what you say then!
All hail Peter Griffin! no wait...thats a fictional fat idiot.....
"how can you fire someone for their political affiliations?" etc, etc
Any chance of the commentards asking this question actaully reading the article - or perhaps thinking about it for a minute?
Many 'front-line' jobs - esp. police officers - are commited by oath to fairly protect/represent the public regardless of their race/skin colour/politics/etc. These principles are enshined in English law. You know, laws that a policeman might reasonably be expected to uphold.
The BNP's stated doctrine and goals are exactly the opposite. It's a whites-only organization and it preaches and practices hatred and ethnic division in communities which it pretends to represent.
This has nothing to do with 'thought police' or the politics of the current government.
The decision to exclude members of the BNP from such jobs is a legal one based on the incompatability between their stated beliefs the legal obligations that their chosen career places them under.
It isn't really that difficult to understand when you think it through...
As far as I know the police cannot be publically affiliated with any political party. They are allowed to vote but cannot be a member, give donations etc.
This seems completely sensible to me or am I getting it wrong. Just because the Government is slowly eroding the separation between them and the judiciary shouldn’t mean that the impartiality of our judicial system and its enforcers should go the same way.
As for politicians, well bugger them all anyway.
Erm, no, sorry, Christians simply bolted their festivals onto the old solar/lunar calendars. Take easter for instance, named after the Saxon goddess Eostre, and basically a celebration of the vernal equinox, and Christmas, you dildo, is smack bang on the autumnal equinox and as a festival had existed for rather a long time before your vaunted god botherers came along and tried to enslave the EuroPagans .
I'm sick of hearing idiots whine on about loosing the true meaning of Christmas, in fact, we're just beginning to get the true meaning of our winter festivals (it's dark, I'm hungry, Let's fuck!) back millennia after they were hijacked by rapacious wanktards who think there's a big beardy bloke living in the sky with a load of naked blokes with wings.
Fucking back to basic tories, not a clue about history among them.
That none of the people who complain about this incident have the jacobs to use anything but an AC eh?
if i hear "I'm English and proud" or "they're selling off our Christian heritage" or "THEY can celebrate THEIR festivals" and so on and so on ad nauseum, i'll barf on the speaker! Read what you said again and you'll see the difference. Hindus and Moslems and so on celebrate Eid ect quietly, on their own. They do no impose it on you. You advocate imposition, my brave, brave AC friends. There's the difference, accomdating compromise and imposition are two different things. Would you make a jew work in a non-kosher butchers? No you would not. Same thing Ok now the PC brigade have done 'the cause' no good at all but, the cause is still there to be realised and, as we get closer to that ideal, more knuckle-dragging morons will object about losing this, that and the other. Why do we have to be [attach label] at all? Surely "Human" is good enough for anybody?
"What's next? Not allowed to vote Tory?"
Yes! You'd better believe that's the whole intention. Once the mechanism is in place to ban one political party because they have items in their manifesto that the rulers of the day don't like, it *will* be used to ban others.
Your rights are systematically disappearing, one at a time, too slowly for anyone to notice; and if anyone does notice, they'll be dealt with as a terrorist (or a racist or a paedophile or ..... some other sort of undesirable).
While I am confident that this leak was engineered by fascists in and/or around the odious BNP to further their ends, it is surely not just the police and armed forces where membership of such an organisation should be deemed inappropriate.
I cannot help but wonder if working for a NHS trust is a more or less appropriate job for a BNP member, working on "Policy to support the use of Therapeutic Management of Aggression and Violence" as a "Therapeutic Management of Aggression and Violence in Mental Health Care Training Co-ordinator"
"Related Trust Policies: Violence and Aggression Policy" - I could almost laugh, considering.
Labour and liberals as well.
There are plenty of countries which function perfectly while disallowing their police and armed forced to be members in _ANY_ party.
And IMO that is probably right and proper.Wanna show partisan inclinations? Fine, go do it, but not in the armed forced or police. So if BNP is a reason for a person to be fired from the police or army so should be the membership in any other party.
"As far as I know the police cannot be PUBLICLY affiliated with any political party"
Isn't that exactly the point? If they want to be affiliated with a party in private, as long as it doesn't influence the way they do their job, why shouldn't they be? OK, in practice, if you're a racist in private, you're probably a racist in public, but that isn't necessarily true in 100% of cases.
I don't understand why people are struggling with the idea that being a BNP member is not acceptable in certain professions.
Fact: the BNP are widely seen as racist (accuracy, or any redeeming features is not the point here). Take a simple case - a copper who is a member. The instant he nicks someone of a different ethnicity from his own, he should be out of a job, because he can't win:
1) You nicked me because you're a racist (irrespective of actual truth)
2) The choice to expose yourself to accusation 1 shows a level of judgement that rules you out of a post of responsibility
Personally, I would extend this sort of thing properly to many services that ought to be fully neutral, including teaching, civil and medical services - whilst your right to say and believe what you want is covered perfectly by Voltaire, there should be no question that membership of any group should rule you out if there is any doubt that it will affect your job. It's not crushing free speech, it's making sure that people with bad judgement are not in positions of responsibility.
Exactly what have the freemasons got to do with this ? They are not a political party, I think they are banned from the police because membership is "secret" and they do favours for each other.
Do they hate anyone - Jews, Homosexuals, coloured people ? OK, what they do is secret but as long as they don't hate or harm anyone... (aside from their members who leak information - allegedly).
What should we be worried about next - Scientology?
Anon 'cause I'm really scared Scientology members have the means to track me down and sue me for just mentioning them...
First, I believe that the BNP is an inherently racist organisation. I wish it didn't exist and I think that the people that join it are a serious danger. Of course that does not mean that I necessarily believe it should be banned; that's a much more complicated issue and, I think, one that is irrelevant to the discussion. But I did want to add my voice.
It seems clear to me, as Martin Burns points out, that the member of the police should not keep their job as a simple matter of breach of his or her contract of employment. If the employee wants to claim that the term is not lawful then the correct venue is an employment tribunal. In the meantime the correct behaviour by the police is to terminate the employment.
To argue that living in a state with freedom of speech means that all employees should be able to say whatever they want and not suffer any employment consequences is clearly ridiculous. Living in a free state means that I can go on TV and say I prefer Pepsi to Coke if I want. But by the absolute argument that free country = freedom of speech = not being able to lose your job because of your views, I would have a legal recourse if I were subsequently fired as the advertising spokesperson for Coke.
Similarly, according to the law I can go and do whatever I want with my weekdays. But if I suddenly stop going to work I can expect to lose my job; when you enter into a contract you agree to do something that is not otherwise to your advantage so that in response someone else will be bound to do something that is not otherwise to their advantage. I spend my days at work, the employer gives me some of their money. Contracts, including employment contracts, are about bargaining away freedoms for rewards.
So in that case, the argument is the much more specific: is it right that being a member of a political party is considered incompatible with being a member of the police? I think the answer is yes for two reasons:
(1) the poltiical parties campaign on how they would alter the law; being a member of a political party is therefore to admit that you do not hold all laws in equal regard;
(2) political parties including but not limited to the BNP are sufficiently controversial that being known to be a member of it is likely to negatively affect a person's standing in society and members of the police should strive for the most positive public standing possible. An across-the-board ban is the most workable way to avoid this sort of problem.
ban ALL political parties. They never live up to the manifesto promises anyway, so what's the point of them? Personally, I'd like to see individual politicians sponsored like F1 drivers - they'd look ridiculous covered in logos, but at least we'd know EXACTLY where their sympathies lay.
I am more pasty pink coloured myself. Wonder if there is a pasty pink party supporting my skin colour :)
SNP is Scottish Nationalist they are gaining ground and they are for Scottish people, it doesn't matter the race it just matters the nationality and that you are pro Scotland above other countries. And I am sure there was some guy in the French national party that wasn't white.
I think people play this race card, because they cannot see the distinction between race and nationality, which is actually kinda racist. It boils down to culture, which is also distinct from race.
Race is just about who your parents were and there parents were, who cares, life is not about the past it is about the present. Most of the races are mixed now in people, it would be ridiculous to make a distinction based on race.
It is about loyalty to a nation, sure if there was a world government perhaps nations wouldn't be needed, but currently all of our set up is nationalist. We have a national military, we have a national currency, we have a national bank, and we vote as a nation for a national government.
And I don't think being national automatically means you hate other nations, it is just the emphasis is on the nation you can vote in.
Well I have found the join page, and skin colour is not mentioned, but there is this:
"Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent."
that is close to the knuckle, instead they should make it open to all British citizens that would be nice. Perhaps add loyal to British culture and society.
But, I suppose if you are born in the UK you are of British descent, if you are loyal to the ideas and ways of the British Isle then you are British, who cares what the skin colour or race is. I would actually remove the European bit, we don't want those continental types meddling in British politics :)
"and Christmas, you dildo, is smack bang on the autumnal equinox " -@The Other Steve
Actually the autumnal equinox is the 22 September (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinox) granted it's close to the winter solstice (21 December) which may well have confused you...
My point being get your facts right before calling someone a dildo....you dildo!
As for all this...who gives a shit if some list dick heads with extreme views gets put on 'tinterweb surely it's better to know who they are than not!?
Banning the BNP won't change what people believe, it would just lead to underground even more extreme groups.
I know very little about them, and would certainly never have anything to do with them or any other political party for that matter.
I do know that fundamentally, they are probably the only party to truly recognise there are problems within society in the UK. Their solutions are likely to be totally unacceptable however at least they help bring the issues to the fore.
If someone signs a contract stating that they are not / will not be a member of a political party or group, legal or not, and are found to be a member of that party then they should be subject to disciplinary action. After all, they agreed when they signed the contract for that job.
However, what really bothers me about this is the difference in the way people approach this leak to some others. Names and addresses of one group of people leaked = massive scandal, huge privacy issues, oh-my-god-how-could-this-happen. Names and addresses of another group of people leaked = serves them right for having opinions I don't agree with. Doesn't sound right somehow. Even the BBC were taking this line on Radio 4 this morning. People's home addresses, phone numbers, information about their CHILDREN for god's sake, is all being made available online for any nutcase to get hold of, and this is supposed to be OK because it's people who joined a particular LEGAL political party?
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Which is not a direct quote from Voltaire, merely a paraphrase.
There are two contradictory arguments are work:-
1) Groups/beliefs that "we" disapprove of should be starved of the oxygen of publicity
2) Groups/beliefs that "we" disapprove of should be allowed to allowed to exist, but their beliefs should be the subject of discussion and criticism. Even ridicule.
I don't believe in special pleadings for certain religious beliefs. But I do believe in respect.
oh, grow up, you contemptible tool.
I've voted Lib Dem every election since I was able to vote, have no time whatsoever for the BNP, and yet still fundamentally disagree with both the publication of the list, and the banning of individuals from certain jobs based upon legitimate political affiliation.
Much like some other commenters here, I can see past the inverse Daily Mail tub-thumpery and recognise a potential problem with all of this. The fact that you are clearly too thick to do the same does not make me a Nazi. Or anyone else, for that matter.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights says:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 11 says:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
So there is nothing to stop someone being a member of the BNP or espousing their views *provided* they are not members of the armed forces, Police or Civil Servants and provided that they do not infringe on the rights of others.
If, however, we start declaring which parties or expressions of opinion are "politically correct" simply because we don't like them (and not because they provably risk harm to others) then we are on a very slippery slope...
... hmm, hang on, this Government has already put us on that slope, hasn't it...?
BNP Constitution wrote:The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic
character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial
integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed
to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by
legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the
British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948
BNP Constitution (Membership) wrote:The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political,
Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous
Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as
closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the
European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined
within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal
ambit of a defined ‘racial group’ this being ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ and defined ‘ethnic
groups’ emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of
Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) 1 ALL ER 1062, HL
Question on the police application form:
"Are you or have you been a member of the BNP or similar organisation whose constitution, aims,
objectives or pronouncements may contradict the duty to promote race equality?
> Exactly what have the freemasons got to do with this ? They are not a political party, I think they are banned from the police because membership is "secret" and they do favours for each other.
So the freemasons love each other, therefore they are Good, and that is different from people who hate, who must be Bad?
Confucius says man who fears Scientologists more than freemasons should not hunt giant octopus with bare hands.
Evidently Grauniadistas would not know that the way to hunt giant octopus is to first create a diversion and distraction, then creep up from behind in a haze of smoke (and mirrors). Only a Grauniadista could be so impressed by political correctness to think that what people say could be more morally (and legally) reprehensible than what they do, and give the benefit of the doubt to a secret organization which stenuously resists saying what it truly, madly, deeply believes in. Perhaps you would have a particular problem genuflecting to Xenu, but history suggests subjugated peoples on the whole choose a different ideology and religion to genocide and tribal extinction.
My answer: social justice has to begin somewhere. I would vote for a political party which proscribes secret organizations as a starting point. Not for one which thinks social justice is in the expressions, financial or metaphorical, of the public teat; or one which practises exclusivity in the name of inclusivity.
Bravo to the person who said:
To quote Voltaire I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
like most others i do not affiliate with the NBP, or agree with most of their views.
but i also don't affiliate with any politicals either. they are all seriously bad.. stinking rotten.
this is all extremely suspicious..
gvt: oh, here's a handy way we can rid ourselves of these rivals.. hehehehe..
gvt: yeah, we also need get those public riff-raff used to the idea of us removing any vestige of freedom of speech.. or we're doomed.
OK folks, before the mudslinging begins, I am a W.A.S.P. who thinks that the BNP are the scum of the earth who hide their true racist beliefs behind the guise of Nationalism, but others have done that before and will no doubt do the same in future. What gets me about some of the comments in this and the previous thread about this leak is that the posters are quite happy for this information to be stolen and leaked but will have been shocked and appalled when this happened to organisations they approve of. As has been said previously the BNP is a legal political party and is entitled to the same protection under law as any other party. How many condemming the BNP here have quoted Paster Martin Neimoller in the past but choose to forget his words now.
With regard to the police officers on the list, they have broken their terms of employment by joining a political party, not by joining BNP in particular, and should be punished appropriately.
As for the teachers that are members, if they have not broken their employment terms and have not brought their politics into the classroom, who cares what their politics are. The leader of the National Union of Teachers was interview on the Channel 4 news and stopped short of demanding that these people be sacked, this is also the union that condemmed parents and farmers who wanted a right of reply against the Vegetarian movement that was showing fabricated and factually incorrect videos to 5 year olds to promote their politically correct vegetarian views. If it's not wrong for teachers to brainwash children into becoming vegetarians why is it wrong for a teacher to keep his right wing political views secret, remember ............. first they came for????
So what does this mean for members of other nationalist parties such as SNP, Plaid Cymru etc.
and why stop at parties what about organisations that campaign on issues trying to affect government policy?
The trouble with free speech is it's a slippery slope and the biggest pitfall is the 'but they deserve it'
so if data is stolen from a prison system is it alright if only the prisoners info is leaked or is it worse if it's the guards info? what if it's both?
Why are members of a LEGAL POLITICAL PARTY denied the right to work in the police force / armed services / fire brigade etc etc.
I have no love for the BNP...but if we can do this then why doesn't Labour simply victimise Conservative party members in order to win the next election.
Do we still live in a democracy?
"The Home Office supported this statement: "As the Association of Chief Police Officers has made clear, it is not permitted for any member of the Police Service to be a member of or promote the British National Party. We fully support that position.""
Why does the ACPO (a private Limited company) get the authority to decide who may serve in the police force?
It seems clear to me, with more & more laws designed to force people to obey, whilst ignoring the posibility of innocent law abiding citizens, that we no longer live in a democracy.
Proud to British?
Ashamed & embarrassed more like.
Congrats to those banging on about the BNP as if they were the Nazi party. Go read the Manifesto. Yes they have their own share of idiots and morons, now show me a political party that doesn't.
When I read the manifesto a year or so ago it said nothing about a 'white Britain' or kicking out all the non whites. To be honest a lot of what it say in there (with a few points I disagree on) makes sense.
As for firing anyone for belonging to a Legal political party with serving Councillors around the UK, surely that's a little beyond isn't it?
I think you should probably be fired from the police for being a member of the BNP as that seems to indicate you probably got someone else to fill in the forms which is cheating. However if we live in a free democratic society (choke cough splutter) then you should be allowed to be a member of any LEGAL organisation so long as you do the job your paid for then fine. Its obvious this special constable (gedit?) wasnt noticed as a brown shirt before so whats the problem? Having been outed by some tossers illegall activity - something I find more frightening than misuided beleifs- then they may have to be moved out of harms way.
Its the tossers that stole and released this information that would demand ID cards so you cant join LEGAL organisations that we should really be scared of.
Funny how neither Cameron, nor whoever is in charge of the Liberal Democrats (sic) these days, has risen to support either privacy rights or speech rights.
Political leadership in the UK these days amounts to defending political correctness (not to the death - you have to believe in something to go that far), and turning everyone into a criminal. PC has royally screwed democracy.
They'd ban religion, independent thought and opposition parties in an instant if they could get away with it. And one day, someone will. Just watch Equilibrium for a vision of how they'd like society to run. Jacqui Smith probably envies Mugabe.
The recent BNP publicity will only result in increased support by moderates who are utterly, utterly sick of MPs refusal to represent, and contempt for, the people who put them in power. Democracy - what democracy?
Yeah it's a legal politcal party run by a head banging Nazi, full of head banging Nazis. Anyone who claims that if they ever came to power they would preserve parliamentary democracy is either a) lying or b) a moron.
A number of it's members or supporters may believe this but it clearly isn't the case.
People are protecting their rears...
Imagine.....a person of a non-white background was arrested and imprisoned. One of their friends/relations downloads this list and, lo and behold, the arresting officer or judge is on the list. They appeal on racial grounds and - Boom! - they are free. They could be guilty but they now have perfect grounds for a successful appeal. Now there may have been miscarriages of justice also but now there will be no distinguishing. A racist arrested/sentenced them, end of story.
Also, lets be honest here, the BNP are an embarressing blight on Britian, they don't fit in with the modern, caring & sharing image of equality most people want to show the world. Their most vocal opponents may well share their views but would not give them voice because of this. Others, like me, sit here and smile because as the famous person of an ethnicity the BNP certainly don't approve of (although they many of them claim to be followers of his) "evil always contains the seeds of it's own distruction" and so they seem to have done.
Question though, all those brave ACs who support these folk, are they on the list, hence their choice to AC? What do you, oh brave ACs, think of darker hued folk in England?
You ask - "Why are members of a LEGAL POLITICAL PARTY denied the right to work in the police force / armed services / fire brigade etc etc" (?)
The answer is simple - the public must be confident that those services are fulfilling their duty to provide an equal and fair service to all. If they employ staff who hold extremist positions (of any kind) this is damaged. Followers of right-wing racial 'politics' hold deeply prejudicial views towards minorities which are incompatible with public service (see for example http://preview.tinyurl.com/5dplud).
It's just the same as when commies were barred from sensitive science & military projects in the 60's & 70's, or when paedo's are barred from working in nursery schools today.
One of the email addresses on the list is Totenkopf_88@...
Go and google/wikipedia Totenkopf and then come back with the same "they are really nice, really" arguments.
Go and google some of the sayings of Chairman Griffin as well.
Paris - blonde and blue eyed, but not stupid enough to go near these morons.
Taking your post slightly backwards, I think we agree that whoever stole and, if different, whoever released the information is contemptible and that ID cards are a menace.
But I think we're coming at it from different angles. The police forces are free to insert this sort of clause in their employment contracts just as you and I are free not to take jobs with the police. If the police have put a blanket ban on all parties then it's probably about maintaining the force's standing in society rather than about anything ideological - to do with preventing the force as a whole appearing to prefer any one party and potentially becoming a political issue in itself, especially in the run up to elections. I'm not persuaded that it is necessarily an attempt to rule that memebrs of the police force may not hold political beliefs.
If they don't make the ban then at some point there's going to be a problem, if they do then they need to enforce it.
With my strong anti-BNP feelings I'm only able to see the wider debate in terms of whether it is better to call them a legitimate party and thereby be able to prove openly that they are an odorous stench or whether the potential BNP supporters are the sort to be mindlessly swayed by demonstrations of power, Nazi Germany style, so to give that sort of party any sort of national legitimacy is to lose. There is an extent to which laws must seek to curb other freedoms in order to protect the majority from the minority, e.g. with the definition of most crimes, so it's not really about whether this is the sort of thing the state should be willing to do as it is whether it is correct to do it here. I think the presumption has to be that it is wrong to intervene, but given the risks, the standard of proof for arguing the other way probably has to be less than beyond reasonable doubt.
Currently lacking an overview of the BNP's platform, I don't claim myself qualified to come to a conclusion and more than that I accept that I have both latent and apparent biases that mean I'd be unlikely to be fair in an appraisal. Though it should probably be viewed as an adversarial thing anyway. But my key point is that I don't see that living in a free society is incompatible with there being at least some restrictions in free speech.
And I know I'm way off-topic.
> @Exactly what have the freemasons got to do with this ? They are not a political party, I think they are banned from the police because membership is "secret" and they do favours for each other.
Heh. You *really* think there are no freemasons in the police? None at all? especially amongst the chief constables etc.? Yeh, right. Mind you, you also probably believe the Freemasons are a 'new world order' bunch getting ready to take over the world (after 2000 years of planning and preperation no less!) - Some research into Freemasonry might do you some good, rather than the usual repetition of ill-informed nonsense that people spout about them. (Caveat: I am not a Freemason, and once believed they were an 'evil secret society' until I did the same reasearch for myself - G'wan, take a look, you may be suprised! They have a public bookshop and information desk at their London HQ.)
> @Those who have commented about police not being allowed to be members of political parties.
Actually, it *is only* the BNP (and NF - which isn't really a party) that police officers are not permitted to be members of. This arises due to UK & European laws that were established immediately after WW2 and which have never been challenged in a court. These laws were designed to prevent the spread of 'international fascism' which may lead to another war. It has interesting parallels with the McCarthy era in America where they fought the spread of 'international communism' - I'm sure there are many political commentators who could provide further information on this, especially regarding the theory that all politics slowly evolve towards the 'middle of the road'.
> @article 11 of the EU convention on Human Rights.
Erm.. Is it me, or does that suggest that anyone involved in the administration of the nation can be prevented, legally, from being a member of a political party? Now, that sounds awfully like the laws that Hitler used to remove all opposition to his rule!
> @Nationalism defined as 'My country above all others'.
This is almost as bad as 'my sky-fairy above all others'! Nationalism, or Patriotism as they call it in *certain* nations, Can be as terrifying as religious fundamentalism. Consider the battlecry of the Minuteman(?) carefully - "My country, right or wrong" - Thats truly insane! Anyone who puts their nation, race, religion or politics 'above' all others needs to re-evaluate their stance and consider whether they are being both reasonable and rational about their stance. If we are unable to allow for the views of others then that, surely, defines us as 'fascist'?
> @Freedom of speech comments.
I am a firm believer in the rights of people to speak as they find, even when those views may offend me (I am often offended by *any* religious sophistry, for example), and I will defend the right that they have to speak their minds. But, those rights end where mine begin (or where the rights of others begin). For example, I think that Abu-Hamza had a right, as a British citizen/subject, to stand up in public and criticise our nation and its morality, but did not have the right to incite violence against it as that would contravene the intended victims rights. If the BNP want to shout about their policies, let them, we can choose to point and laugh if we want to. Same goes for the far left. And for religion. And for national pride. What *shouldn't* happen is that one of those groups (your employer, the goverment, your High Priest) gets to choose WHICH of those opinions you are allowed to accept and which you must reject. The choice MUST remain that of the individual.
> @Racism comments.
There's a South Park episode that I like to quote when people start rattling on with racist views (like "I'm not racist but...." or "We need a policy of positive discrimination to ensure fairness".) wherein the South Park flag has to be redesigned and the children draw from South Park history to create the new flag. Unfortunately, they choose the hanging of a black person by a group of white people as their 'historical incident'. When they present the flag bearing this picture there is utter outrage around the town, much to the childrens confusion. Their questions regarding why this is an 'unacceptable image' is met with embarrasment, half explanations and general anger. Ultimately, the children have racism explained to them and reply with "Oh! we though it was just four dudes hanging another dude" - they simply hadn't *seen* the difference between the people, but now they had been taught the distinction... As long as we continue to debate racism, we continue to teach it. As long as continue to 'celebrate diversity' we perpetuate the myth of differences. Time to put it aside, surely, and be simply the human race?
Originally, I was going to post this anonymously as some of my words may offend - But no, I happen to *believe* in what I have to say, and I am not afraid of criticism, unlike many who may oppose me or those who hide behind the label of Anonymous as they know their views are unpalatable.
My thanks to you for reading.
[Alien, because some of my thinking may be....]
At the recent London mayoral elections, i made a point of reading all of the various parties manifestos, and while i ultimately didn't vote for the BNP and disagree with some of their policies, a few of their policies still made sense.
Now at the London elections, the BNP managed to get over 5% of the vote and thus got a seat on the assembly, and yet the other parties plan to cut the BNP member out and basically ignore him...
You may not agree with his policies, but clearly 5% of Londoners do and this 5% of the population does not deserve to have their views simply ignored.
There are many cases where political correctness is simply insane, and where the government is bending over backwards to help new immigrants at the expense of people who have lived here long enough to have paid taxes.
The UK has had christmas decorations displayed for years, and yet now they are being curbed for fear they may offend people from other religions? Now how ridiculous is this, those people knew full well that christmas is celebrated in the UK before they came here, and the vast majority are perfectly happy to accept that.
And then consider how much money the government spends translating public literature into a multitude of different languages... Now surely anyone planning to migrate to the UK knows that it's an English speaking country, and that it might actually be a good idea to learn English?
If you want to live in another country, then you should learn the language and accept the culture, you don't have to embrace the culture but you should accept it is and not interfere with it. If you don't like the culture, and would rather live in a country which practices your own culture then why not just stay put? If the country you left is so bad that you wanted to leave it, then why try to change the UK to be the same? And if your country collapsed to the extent you no longer want to live there, what if the same thing happens to the UK, where will you go then? The UK is different from the country you migrated from, that's why you came here, don't try to destroy that.
I'm willing to bet that a majority of people who voted for the BNP don't believe in their more extreme policies, but when it comes to other things like just how ridiculous political correctness is, and not wanting to sacrifice our culture the BNP is seemingly the only party willing to do anything about it. So rather than ignoring the BNP, the other parties should be asking themselves why an increasing number of people are voting for them. A few relatively moderate policy changes would take away 90% of their voters and reduce the BNP to a small handful of extremists.
And when it comes to disallowing BNP members from joining the police, that's simply a form of discrimination, just like you accuse the BNP of. Disallow police from joining *any* political party, or allow them to join any they want. Besides, it's perfectly possible for a police office to hold any view they want, even a view far more extreme than that of the BNP and you'd have no way of knowing.
Comedy highlights include:
"will not be renewing 07 (objects to being told he shouldn't wear a bomber jacket)"
"member describes himself as a witch: potential embarrassment if active"
"Activist large barn available for use" (what do they want a large barn for?)
"Window cleaner. Former pig farmer. Pagan prison chaplain. Hobbies: growing mistletoe, rune making (wood)" .
Personally I find all extremists unacceptable, including but not exclusively the BNP, Trots, the Liberals, the BBC and the Socialist Workers Party. All of their views are incompatible with what I see as traditional British tolerance and therefore if one is unacceptable, all are unacceptable.
We really are a long way down the road to 'thought police'. Either ban them all or accept their right to exist. If they are carrying out illegal activities then charge them. George Orwell got it right.
I'm surprised so many people have trouble accepting the idea that it's simply impossible to do a job well if your personal morals do not comply with that of your employer.
BNP Constitution states that they want to reverse the trend of imigration and send all non-white people back home. That does not sit easily with the Police forces racial harmony policy.
If you can not perform your job properly because of your political and/or religous beliefs then you should expect to be sacked.
Apart from a bit of childish enjoyment at the BNP headless chicken act, I'm not comfortable with this 'name and shame' business at all, even though I'm as near the opposite side of the political spectrum as possible.
As plenty of others have pointed out, the BNP are a legal political party and provided they stay within the law, they should be allowed to make their point without fear of violence or intimidation. It's not really possible to say we have freedom of speech unless their right to express their views ranks equal to everyone else.
If the mainstream parties would engage intelligently with the issues the BNP raise, there would be far fewer people using them as a protest vote. Spouting the CBI line and hoping it'll all go away isn't going to help.
>>Why don't we try to address the reasons for the BNP's growing popularity, instead of cracking down on the BNP itself?<<
Has got to be the more important question.
As already said, if they should be banned, then do that. Otherwise, nobody should be penalised in their job for supporting them. That is thoughtcrime, completely totalitarian in its concept. Just the brand of totalinarianism is different.
"Merseyside Police said: "We are very clear - membership of the British National Party is totally incompatible with the duties and values of the police service and Merseyside Police. We will not accept a police officer or police staff being a member of BNP."
Its amazing how the desire to protect can breed hypocrisy and fascism. This is a typical reaction of everybody who has not actually read up on the BNP. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not a member, and I don't plan to vote for them, but I have read enough to understand that the majority held view is presently unfounded.
It may have been valid several years ago, but unless the BNP are up to something sinister (and lets be honest, it would be very hypocratic to suggest they are without any evidence) there is nothing to suggest that a BNP member should be deprived of the priveleges the rest of us enjoy.
The statement above from the Police is nothing but pure fascism and discrimination, and proves that the Police are just one part of a corrupt system that doesn't want to see all views represented.
Aside from which, I was kinda under the impression that most companies believe that what a person gets up to in there own time is none of the company's concern. Are the police above this status quo?
The BNP inherently racist - not nationalist. They don't support the rights of non-white English people, except the right to expelled from the country.
In contrast the SNP and Plywd Cymrhu are nationalist without any hint of racism, they support all the people of Scots and Welsh regardless of ethnicity.
The police as an institution are racist - according to their own reports - and racist police attitudes has led to several miscarriages of justice. To avoid that the police have adopted a zero-tolerance approach to any racist employee. This is because the police have to act in a non-racist manner, which is impossible when staffed with racist employees.
To avoid events like this all political parties should be made to publish their membership lists online, the equivalent of being a 'registered' Democrat or Republican in the States.
Paster Martin Neimoller is famous for a verse confessing his own inaction when fascists came to power and started ethnically cleansing Europe. No one is slaughtering the BNP, just keeping them away from jobs where they can abuse others. Neimoller wasn't just inactive, he was an active supporter of Hitler until Hitler messed with his protestant Church. So if anyone does feel like quoting Neimoller, read up on him first, because it is not clear that you understand the meaning of the verse simply by quoting it. Neimoller later said he was getting more progressive as he aged and if he lived to be 100 then he would be an anarchist - and so probably someone who would release the BNP list.
> Actually, police officers are not able to be members of any political party, be they Labour, Tory, BNP, UKIP, MRLP.
Oh yes, they are... Schedule 1 (relating to Regulation 6) of the Police Regulations 2003 states:
"1. A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere; and in particular a member of a police force shall not take any active part in politics."
That doesn't stop them joining a political party. However, the Police (Amendment) Regulations 2004 replaced this in its entirety with:
"1. — (1) A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere.
(2) A member of a police force shall in particular–
(a) not take any active part in politics;
(b) not belong to any organisation specified or described in a determination of the Secretary of State."
So, at the Home Secretary's whim, any political party can become proscribed for police officers, and yes, the Conservative Party is next on the list... :-)
> It seems clear to me, as Martin Burns points out, that the member of the police should not keep their job as a simple matter of breach of his or her contract of employment. If the employee wants to claim that the term is not lawful then the correct venue is an employment tribunal. In the meantime the correct behaviour by the police is to terminate the employment.
Martin, police officers are Crown servants, they have no contract of employment. That's why they're fed up being sh*t on by the Home Office and are looking for increased industrial rights.
How far back do we go to get to a true British identity?
The first Britons were immigrants. They had a Neanderthal level of intelligence. They died out about 30,000 when they were out-foxed by smarter, lighter, African migrants.
The second Britons were also immigrants. They were so primitive they couldn't even make a decent stone arrow. (I've tried, it's damned hard). They left again when it got too cold to hunt woolly rhino.
The third Britons were pretty good at stone arrows, and other stone tools. They even learnt to farm and domesticate animals. At this point, history becomes a bit hazy, but the next lot we know about came from Italy. Then came the Angles, Saxons, vikings (Danes), Normans (who also were Danish via France, which was British half the time). Then things settled down a bit, and economic and social migration became the norm. Of course, the ruling class still had it's mix-ups, Half the time Britain was a French colony, and half the time the other way round. Not that it made much difference to the peasants. When we got a bit short of 'native' royalty, we ended up importing it from Scotland, France, Germany.
When the Empire got a bit shaky, we invited a lot of the previous slaves or colonials to come and do the hard work, and they did, and mostly worked very hard at it. A lot of these are now very well established in the family trees of our aristocracy if you look carefully.
Britons are mongrels. We should be proud of it.
To those mentioning that the existing list has been verified by Nick Griffen - that, presumably would be the original leaked list. I've already received two copies of an excel spreadsheet by email today - purporting to be that list. How is it provable by the recipients of these lists that they haven't been adulterated in any way?
We all know how scrupulous email users are at checking their facts.
I always find it interesting the way that extremists to right are vilified as unacceptable, but persons and groups to the left are perfectly acceptable in this country. The reverse appears to be the case in the US of course, but I have never understood why.
As for the SNP, I don't think that they have much in common with the BNP, but if they do, what does that mean? The SNP are 'allowed' to be the most powerful party in Scotland, but no-one is going to be allowed to be a member?
The BNP inherently racist - not nationalist. They don't support the rights of non-white English people, except the right to expelled from the country. In contrast the SNP and Plywd Cymrhu are nationalist without any hint of racism, they support all the people of Scots and Welsh regardless of ethnicity.
The police as an institution are racist - according to their own reports - and racist police attitudes has led to several miscarriages of justice. To avoid that the police have adopted a zero-tolerance approach to any racist employee. This is because the police have to act in a non-racist manner, which is impossible when staffed with racist employees.
To avoid events like this all political parties should be made to publish their membership lists online, the equivalent of being a 'registered' Democrat or Republican in the States.
Paster Martin Neimoller is famous for a verse confessing his own inaction when fascists came to power and started ethnically cleansing Europe. Noone is slaughtering the BNP, just keeping them away from jobs where they can abuse others. Neimoller wasn't just inactive, he was an active supporter of Hitler until Hitler messed with his protestant Church. So if anyone does feel like quoting Neimoller , read up on him first, because it is not clear that anyone understands the meaning of the verse simply by quoting it. Neimoller later said he was getting more progressive as he aged and if he lived to be 100 then he would be an anarchist - and so probably someone who would release the list.
Jesus H.C. I would normally consider "El Reg" demographics amongst the higher level of commentards. You defy belief on both sides of the fence.
Are you racist? ... Screw you. There's no need for that. Live and let live.
Are you apologist?.... Screw you. No one should come to the UK and rape it for benefits.
If you're born here, you belong here - regardless of colour and creed. Just don't f*ck about and complain if you don't like the well established local laws and customs (applies to ye olde bloode lines, too...).
(Heck, perhaps I could move to Iran and proclaim they should renounce Sharia law because it doesn't fit in with my perceptions...)
If you're not born here, welcome. Come on in, but bring something to the party. No one likes the gobby tosser that brings no weed but smoke's everyone elses, and then complains it's "not as good as the stuff they normally get....".
If you think somewhere else is better, f*ck off and go live there. (I did: loving China, BTW. Won't be coming home to the UK any time soon....) You'll find something else to complain about, I'm sure.
Screw the politics, cut to the rationale...
Show me the UK political party that's against spending UK money on immigrants that can't (or won't) support themselves.
Oh, the choice is really limited....
That's no excuse for racism. So, who covers all bases?
Wait, perhaps there are bigger issues than this. Let's look to see which party doesn't line their own pockets....
Mine's the one with "Let's vote if get our own pay rise" badge on the lapel.
If someone wants to be a member of some party or group ( so long as the group is not declared illegal) and membership of that party does not impact on the person's ability to do their job then they should be allowed to be a member.
There has to be a clear dividing line between work and personal time.
An employer pays someone to do a job during the working hours, in my view an employer has no right to dictate to someone what they can and can't do outside that time, particularly so when the employer is not paying them during that time.
As has become apparant by reading a newspaper today, people join parties for a variety of reasons, it doesn't make them racist. And even if they were racist, I don't think it's fair for people to lose their job for being a racist, unless that has a negative impact ( and shown to have a negative impact) on their work.
What's about to happen now is, people who have been in jobs for many years, being doing those jobs effectively are about to be fired purely because they're a member of a political party which is disliked by many. That's wrong. It's a free country (or so it's claimed).
Whether or not somebody should be expelled from the police for being a member of *any* political party is debatable - personally I think the police should be politically neutral so the simplest fix is to disallow police officers from being active members of *any* political orgranisation. Of course, if it is enforced for one party it has to be for all parties - like labour or conservatives - or else it becomes just another tool to enforce the policies of the powerful. I would hope any inquirey would cover all parties.
The same should go for any other public body - including military, judges and magistrates.
What I haven't heard is any outrage about the leaking of so much personal information - and the fact that the police aren't even going to investigate it. Surely data protection laws must have broken by the leak. I find it hard to beleive that if any other political(ly correct) organisation (eg. SNP, LIB DEMs, Labour) had their member's details leaked that it would be taken so lightly. This implies actual (anti-BNP) political motivations at work within the police force - the very thing other officers may lose their jobs for the possibility of.
The BNP are a legal political party and their member's rights to privacy should be enforced by law like any others - like it or not.
Chings Help Ma Bob. I has detectivated the stolen Crimbo case. The prime suspect is a big proto-political organisation, got a lot of out of town marketplaces, complete wif parking places, and millions of card-carrying members. Not me. Any club that would have me I wouldn't want to join to paraphrase Marx. Groucho that is.
T**esco (name deliberately obfusticated to protect the rights of the Guilty Barstards) done it. And they have held it hostage since October. You can see their neferious scheming confusing the poor BNP-laden Plods searching for the kidnap victim, Mr, Mrs or Ms White Christmas, by replicating potential hiding places all over their aisles. Worse. They got the other Families to join in the diversification tactics by doing the same.
So that fella what thinks Christmas is an Autumnal event is not wrong really......
Paris, cos she only comes in the Spring time.
Whether you agree with the BNP or not is irrelevant. This could be hardcore Communists (Both Stalin and Mao killed more than Hitler), Black Panthers, Al Qaeda supporters or anyone else of an extreme view.
You can wrap up any excuse you like. Hitler banned Communists, Jews and others from prominent positions (and eventually, existence) on the basis of the greater good. Did it make it right?
The governments of the past and present in the UK enforcing similar bans on state services only lead one to consider that, at the end of the day, state control is getting tighter, our freedom of thought and expression restrained.
Also, with this 'incompatible beliefs' nonsense, they assume that anyone who is a BNP member is not a professional able to distinguish between their job and their personal belief. I beleive Sainsburys employ Jews and Muslims. Should they be banned because Sainsbury's sell bacon?
Any ban or restriction based on belief, be it political or religious, is the antithesis of what this country, or any other truly democratic state is about. How even handed, or pro-equality, is a person who screams BAN because someone says something they don't like? Anyone thinking any ban on the BNP is a hypocrite!
It seems to me that the rabid anit-Christmas writers here are, mentally, on a par with the their equally tolerant mates in the BNP and similar parties. The crude language betrays lonely desparation.
I await eagerly the demolition of Moslem festivals and beliefs, Hinduism etc by these same dull, little people. Accept it, for rather a long time now, probably longer than your oh so English families have been in UK, Christmas and Easter have been used as Christian festivals in Europe (including Britain) and, like it or not, believe in it or not, much of the very good side of our culture derives from those beliefs, including the modern tolerance and openness that turns most of us away from extremists of any hue.
And of course, remember, "First they came for the Jews ....". If you are so confident in how right you are and how wrong they are, where is the problem? As someone else said, unless they are organising illegal activities a la IRA, give them some rope and put your efforts into supporting what you believe to be right, in a rather more educated and civilised manner than the BNP whose intolerance and speech some seem so keen to ape (oh dear, is that ape-ist?).
Heaven forefend, some of you sound like that Jackie woman.
The BNP alone were banned five years ago from police employment. Complaining about that now seems opportunist or just plain ignorant.
I don't like police officers but I would prefer a non-racist officer beating me up for opposing the Iraq invasion rather than a fascist. I have met fascists and they tend to want to kill people like me.
I am happy to bet that none of these listed BNP members will be murdered - and I am also happy to testify that British fascists are happy to murder strangers who they oppose for purely racial reasons.
I wouldn't expect the regulars on the Reg to have experienced British fascism or British anti-fascism. I have, and you have to go with the anti-fascists, it is only humane.
To be fair and just we obviously shouldn't discriminate against people on the basis of their political beliefs when employing them. Nor should we discriminate on the basis of their race. But what if their political beliefs incorporate an element of racism, albeit a perfectly legal one?
Oops! Inconsistency! Political correctness has encountered an error and will now close. Your data may be lost. OK or Abort?
If it's any help in making the best of this bad situation, I'd say you should allow your employees to hold (legal) racist views but forbid them from exercising them in the course of their employment (which it would presumably be illegal for them to do anyway). Clearly not ideal and tricky to police (even if you ARE the police), but probably not a million miles from where we actually are.
There are political beliefs, and there are political beliefs. Banning someone from joining the police on account of their position on NHS top-ups would be wrong - and for those having a little wank, 'Orwellian', even. But banning people who belong to racist political parties from frontline, social jobs is entirely justified. The slippery slope argument doesn't impress me at all.
Oh and on a completely separate point: I went to court recently to defend a speeding ticket. In the waiting room was a recent copy of Freemason's Monthly. With pictures of officialdom in it. Should I send it to wikileaks?
' I am happy to bet that none of these listed BNP members will be murdered - and I am also happy to testify that British fascists are happy to murder strangers who they oppose for purely racial reasons.'
Testify? You mean you have actually witnessed a BNP member murder someone because of their race? If not you can't testify - that would be Perjury.
As for your bet, I'll take it. How much you willing to stake? Seems like you don't actually understand people at all, even given the vile hatred spouted by a lot of comments here, including your own. The first attack happened today, a firebomb at a BNP members home in West Yorkshire. Does that surprise you, or do you really think that unless you are a BNP member you are a soft cuddly tree-hugger looking for a peaceful solution to anything. Of course, the BNP have all the Nazi violent thugs so they are BAAAAAD right?
BTW The SNP ARE racist, especially that Alex Salmond who has an irrational hatred of all things English and the English themselves. But that can't be racism if it's directed at white people right?
OK point one; the leak was wrong and puts people in danger
2) The BNP are racist no matter how their supporters may bleat otherwise, methinks they do complain too much?
3) Racists have no place in a modern and forward looking multinational society. Let's face it, the BNP will never be more than a minority and, harp and rant on but will never stop the change in society. Anyway, none of them know any 'nonindigenous' folk, they just read about them in the Mail and Sun.
4) All extremists are bad. I'm sure if someone working in a laboratory or cosmetics company was found to be an ALF member, they'd be sacked and would you skinheads rally to their cause, would yeh ekkers!
5) I know a few Socialist Workers and to be honest, they're good folks, a bit extreme of opinion for myself (and their aims are about as realisable as the BNP's, as are their chances of gaining government) but they're pretty harmless, intellectuals usually are, they just go to demos and think a lot, and do those petitions in city centres...you know how it is....but they single out nor hate any particular group, rather an idea or state of mind (vis greed and autocracy), I'm not for them though. As I said, the Communists were left wing and no-one liked them now did they?
No extremists will ever win though, they never do because they tend to alienate and scare the majority so will always smother themselves
> I don't understand why people are struggling with the idea that being a BNP member is not acceptable in certain professions.
My only problem is that the guy is obviously OK at this job - he wasn't sacked before the list being public for being a racist arse.
So we are essentially sacking people only because they have a label attached to them. And for the folks saying "but you are not allowed to be a member of a polotical party" - sure. If the list was a list of Labour memebers, I'm sure he'd have got fired. Bollocks.
What will the end result of this be? A lot of ex- , or would be, BNP members working in public service. FAIL - you still have exactly the same problem!
You can't ban ANY political ideology - it just fuels the fire. The USA tried to blow the shit out of a load of (as it happens) Muslims because, with dubious evidence, a few of them were possibly third-cousins of a possible terrorist. That is now used as an excuse by the fanatics to blow the crap out of lots of innocent people world wide.
BNP is similar - a bunch of rather fanatical guys who will now use this as a propaganda tool against the estabilishment. Probably quite sucesfully too.
If you want to fix the problem of racism in the country you need to get involved much earlier in the education system, and actually teach kids what is right and wrong. But that isn't PC anymore... Fix the root cause - weak moral compass in schools, not the symptom.
I don't live in the U.K. anymore, but when I did, I voted BNP in the last election. Now before everyone starts yelling racist or fascist or whatever else, just zip ya stupid, ignorant, lips. I have 2 half sisters and a half brother that are half cast anglo indians, a brother-in-law who is an Egyptian Muslim, I have jewish blood in me from long ago (Max Bygraves is apparently a distant relative of mine), one of my closest friends while growing up was from Sri Lanka, I now have pacific islanders living on one side of me and Maori's living on the other side of me, I'm friends with both, I have several "African decent" black friends all around the world, were I an American or in America I would have voted for Obama and when he got in I was overjoyed to the extent that his acceptance speech brought a tear to my eye! In general I couldn't give a flying **** what color someones skin is, nor could I care less that they emigrate to another country for a better life, I DO however care what the government of a country does to protect the rights and availability of employment to it's EXISTING citizens, before inviting the rest of the world to come and fill the positions.
So considering the above why did I vote BNP? The same reason my dad did (He's the one that was once married to an Indian woman and hence the reason I have those siblings I spoke of) and my mum did. Because of news stories like the Cab driver who was arrested for wearing an England shirt during the world cup, because it might 'offend' people from other countries, whilst he was in his own cab, in england, supporting his country! Because good ol Tony Blair decided to open the gates of England to EVEN more immigrants when the country is already bursting at the seems. Because while I was at college I spoke to hundreds of 16 - 18 year old kids who had started apprenticeships and gone to college to learn a trade like plumbing, plastering, electrician etc (Because they were promised a career by the government) only to be betrayed, by Labour allowing thousands of immigrant tradesman to come in and flood that market so these poor kids wouldn't have a job when they left college. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with immigrants, I am one in the country I'm in now, but when I moved to where I am now, I had to prove I could speak English, I had to pay thousands to get medicals and prove I could support myself, I'm not allowed to bring in extended family members for over 5 years and I MUST work or run a business. There is a huge difference and NO ONE here is ever told off or reprimanded for being patriotic or personal beliefs, in fact patriotism is rife here.
I don't know a single racist person in my family but the majority of them voted for BNP last election, not because of racism, but because they were the ONLY party who had ANY kind of policies which would tighten the gates of England, introduce PROPER and FAIR immigration policies, sort out the unemployment problem with hundreds of thousands of natural born British citizens being out of work, while people from all around the globe just waltz in and take a job that should be paid well, at minimum wage instead. I'm not saying these people born in England are prepared to work, but they should be forced to before we just say "F*** it let's bring others in to do it instead". Force people who refuse to work, to work at McDonalds, or cleaning out toilets, pot washing jobs in restaurants etc. One thing that was introduced was the young apprentice schemes, but then before these young apprentices could finish and qualify, their jobs were given away.
The copper should have known better tbh, it's pretty obvious that you are not allowed to be a member of ANY political party while serving in the police, the army etc. However, I condemn to damnation the police force for their comments about specifically the BNP policies not being allowed, they should have kept it generic. As for christmas I couldn't care less but it does still annoy me, as for hate, the guy with the hook was allowed to stand in Trafalgar Square shouting hate messages and the government protected him, yet he was basically shouting for the death of all white people and people of mixed race. WTF!! WTF!! WTF!! When did being English, patriotic and concerned about your nations well being become a racist thing or something you must not do? This is why I left England and this is why as much as I miss my family and friends I won't be coming back anytime soon.
As for publishing the list online, the people who did it should be subject to the law with regard to theft of personal information, the data protection act with respect to publishing personal information and the BNP should be investigated to verify that they took appropriate measures to safeguard the material and if they did not, they should also be subject to the penalties defined by law. The copper and the army officers and the teacher should not be fired, if there genuinely is a problem legally (There is with the copper and the army officers) then they should be asked to resign gracefully and go find other employment where they are allowed to hold a political party membership, simple as that.
I have commented elsewhere in my role as an official of the Trade Union Solidarity. I've made it clear that we will take action to defend the rights of any of our members bullied by Bosses as a result of being on this list. There is no justification for employers converting this list into a blacklist. In a purely personal capacity, however, I would personally like to a few points.
Much media comment has focused on knee-jerk denunciation and vilification of the B.N.P. as racist without attempting to even ASK (let alone attempt to ANSWER) the question of WHY some people support it. Some of this, at least, is the work of politicians trying to deflect attention away from their own inadequacies. Some of it is journalistic laziness. I think that maximum emphasis should be placed on encouraging a debate about people`s MOTIVES for joining/supporting. There is evidence that this is already happening, but it requires as wide an audience as possible - and constant repetition.
One reason why many people sympathise with the B.N.P. in the textile towns of West Yorkshire and East Lancashire is simple hostility to change. They don`t like whole neighbourhoods where they grew up being transformed out of all recognition, pubs and churches closed, the de facto segregation of schools, local butchers dealing only in halal meat etc. The middle classes object to change as well, but they are allowed to defend their own environments in the name of conservation etc. But when the working classes try to do the same they are denounced as racists. It should be stressed too that such towns are mostly bi-cultural not multi-cultural – more like Belfast and Londonderry than Birmingham or London.
I hope that the publicity surrounding the publication of this list will lead to a much wider debate within our civic society between all those (of all political affilations) who are sincerely interested in harmony.
"I'm surprised so many people have trouble accepting the idea that it's simply impossible to do a job well if your personal morals do not comply with that of your employer."
What is your opinion on religious people working in the health service? Large number of doctors are Muslims and Christians, hardly harboring the most tolerent of views towards homosexuals and transgendered people who they need to offer comfort and lifesaving care to.
Should all asian muslims and white/black christians be removed from the NHS pronto? If you agree, is that not racist towards asians or intolerent of religion in general? If you disagree, are you a homophobic?
"What is your opinion on religious people working in the health service? Large number of doctors are Muslims and Christians, hardly harboring the most tolerent of views towards homosexuals and transgendered people who they need to offer comfort and lifesaving care to."
Just because you are muslim or christian doesn't mean that you aren't tolerant to others choices , nor that you believe the whole story.
I think it's wrong that people are banned from any particular political party but I see no problem with banning someone from public service if their actions aren't compatible with public service. IE in this case it'd be wrong to fire someone because they are a member of the BNP but it wouldn't be wrong for the internal affairs/integrity commission to investigate people on the list to see if their actions aren't compatible with the public service.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019