Talk:British National Party/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

I corrected (with Link) the factual error that non-Caucasians are not admitted as members; in fact there are even BNP non-causcasian candidates. This correction has been rejected. Thus Wikipedia Mgmt are wilfully propagating False information-a message to this effect has been posted on a number of newsgroups, with the recommendation that Interested parties should not waste their time on a Propaganda vehicle, but use another Community Encyclopedia which respects the Truth. Alan Truelove 571-242-1053 (US), alan_truelove@hotmail.com. May 2, 2006. - - - - - -


If the BNP was founded in 1992, how can the current chairman have joined the party in 1989? - DrBob

Is there any historical link between the BNP and the British Union of Fascists?

It's very tenuous. Tyndall was not connected to the BUF. The link is of no more significance than the link between the labour party and communism. '80.225.73.197'

About my reversions: removing the fact that some people call the BNP far-right or Neo-Nazi is not useful. It's a fact that some people say that, whether you think so or not. Changing "race riots" to "asian riots" is also not useful - apart from anything else "race riot" is a widely used term, while "asian riot" isn't. --Camembert

that some people call them that should be mentioned, but it should suggest that they are "neo-nazi", to avoid bias. I agree with you RE riots. '80.225.73.197 '

What does "Far Right" mean any more - does it mean the economics of a free market? Or is it more authoritarian in nature? Would Adam Smith be a member of the "Far Right"?

Well, the idea of "right" and "left" are pretty inadequate, but I've never heard the phrase "far right" used to mean anything other than near-fascism (or actualy fascism). Our article on far-right (linked from this article) explains it (very briefly). --Camembert

---

Is it accurate to target collapse of the Tory vote in BNP council gains? Looking at BBC figures for Burnley 2003 they BNP took 3 seats off Labour (for example).

Also surely skilled exploitation of local government corruption is also a factor?

Muppet

From the text: "...Nick Griffin, joined the BNP in 1989 after spending time as an activist for the National Front while reading a Law degree at Cambridge University." Is it *reading* a Law degree, or *earning* a law degree?

  • Reading* would be the correct term.
Reading in this context means studying, so it has to be "reading law" or "reading for a law degree", but not "reading a law degree". --Wik 15:13, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

I've removed the implication that anti-immigration == racism. Many parties (including the torys and David blunkett, according to what he said on the JV show today), are against immigrants "taking" jobs. (for the record I'm not). I've also removed the "overwhelming evidence" part, unless someone can provide some example of overwhelming evidence?

I've clarified that there have never been any BNP MP's. Most of their support comes from a fear of crime rather than "loss of jobs". And they do not deny being a racist party. The nastiness of their ideas is evident in the "voluntary repartiation" policy, not in their anti-immigration stance, which is mainstream. M-Henry 11:30, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In fact a voluntary repatriation policy already exists. It is simply very poorly funded. The BNP say they will increase the funding of this. They do deny being "racist" per se, although some things they say could be construed as racism.

A BNP apologist is claiming that only extreme left-wingers describe the BNP as neo-Nazi. Please try this Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk+bnp+nazi

to see the views of the Daily Telegraph, a right-wing British newspaper. -- Karada 14:47, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)


I'm new here, so apologies for not having set up a userid yet. I presume you are referring to me though Karada, as you've been changing the changes that I've changed! I was under the impression that name calling such as "BNP apologist" was against Wikiquette rules - http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks - but maybe I'm wrong. However, just for the record, I am not a member of the BNP; I have never voted for the BNP; I do not speak for the BNP, only myself; I do not apologise for or on behalf of the BNP. I am, however, a proponent of free-speech, no matter who is doing the speaking and no matter how distasteful or otherwise I find their views. I do not shout other people down and I do not allow other people to shout me down. I thought that wikipedia was about neutrality and acknowledging that other people may share different views to ones own. If that's not the case please let me know. I believe in honesty above all other policies!
As for your google search, that gets 16 hits; not suprising as some of the pages refer to the 'anti nazi league'. If you change 'nazi' in the search string to 'neo-nazi', you only get 4 hits. Admittedly, the BNP are called "neo-nazis" in these 4 articles, but none of the articles is dated this year, 3 of them being from 2002 and 1 from 2001. If you remove the keyword 'nazi' (or 'neo-nazi') and just search for BNP, you get 200 hits (172 if you add the keyword '2003'). What I am trying to make clear is that the Telegraph and most other middle or right wing papers rarely call the BNP "neo-nazis" these days, preferring to simply use the terms 'right-wing' or 'far-right' instead or, indeed, leaving out any description altogether.

Please discuss material here before deleting it. To repeat:

  • commentators from all sides of politics, including right-wing ones, regard the BNP as neo-fascist / neo-Nazi
  • the criminal convictions of BNP leaders are relevant to the sort of party it is (a party is only a group of people, after all)
  • you need only Google for "nick griffin convicted", or read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1507680.stm for evidence of his conviction for inciting racial hatred.

-- Karada 15:15, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)


The BBC, Guardian, Observer and Daily Telegraph newspapers have described the BNP as "neo-Nazis", as has Searchlight Magazine, widely viewed as an authority on European neo-fascism. These are all mainstream, respected, sources. The fact that many left-wing sources agree with them does not detract from this. -- Karada 20:52, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

By "The BBC", I guess you're mostly referring to the 'unbiased' Panorama programmes concerning the BNP, produced and variously staffed by key members of Searchlight Magazine.
The Guardian and Observer are basically one and the same, even sharing the same website. Most of the information they publish concerning the BNP is sourced from and/or quotes - you guessed it - Searchlight Magazine! They even include a link to Searchlight on each such article published on the web. The Guardian/Observer is usually referred to as a "fascist left" newspaper by rival commentators in "The Sun" newspaper, due to its extreme left leanings.
I've dealt with the Telegraph already. They have not called the BNP "neo-nazis" during 2003, despite publishing 172 articles that mention them.
Then we have Searchlight Magazine themselves. They are a nasty bunch, not adverse to publishing names, addresses and photos of their "opponents", many of whom have subsequently been attacked. Their "opponents" include other 'anti-fascist' organisations and anarchist organisations, whom they denounce in order to keep their monopoly on all things 'anti-fascist'. Searchlight was founded and is run by members and former members of 'The Communist Party of Great Britain' - hardly torchbearers of democracy! Searchlight are mostly controlled and paid for by British State Intelligence Agency - MI5. Of course, I'm sure you've done your research and are well aware of all this.
To put it simply Karada, neither your sources, your opinions or your writings could be described as un-biased, could they! That's fine by me. Like I said, you're entitled to your opinions, but please don't try and hide them as the mainstream opinions of all sections of the media and the public.

194.165.163.127 please dont insult our intelligence by claiming that "its only the far-left who try to call the BNP neo-nazis, not the mainstream" youre fooling nobody. I'm sure the Guardian/Oserver would be surprised to hear that they had "far left leanings", mildly centre-left leanings would be more like it. G-Man 22:56, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

G-Man, I read the guardian, and it is a great newspaper, but lets be honest, it is about as neutral as a party political broadcast. But there is is no need for arguements about these things - the BNP entry can include all opinions, as long as it is clear whose claims they are. And if you describe the BNP as neo-nazi, since this is an encyclopdia, it should be made clear that the BNP are not like ww2 german or italian militarists - they are right wing isolationists, not right wing conquerers. They are "only" described as nazis because they are violent racists. And the dispute is whether or not they are violent. Which can be made clear in the article. M-Henry 10:43, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution to the "neo-nazi" question is to look at parallels between the policies of the Nazi party, as exposed in Mein Kampf and the parties that are called "neo-nazi". For all I know, the BNP advocates neither the expulsion of Jews from British society, neither the military expansion of the United Kingdom at the expense of the neighbouring countries. David.Monniaux 10:53, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Could someone please give a source reference (here only) to the Nick Griffin attributed quote that "racism is a natural instinct". I sought/googled, but could not find!

I read that one in the guardian a while back - I'm trying to find it now, I'll post a link when I do. M-Henry 08:44, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

-Found it. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,783675,00.html

"So when white bleeding hearts or black radicals accuse white people of being inherently racist, he is in complete accord. That's right, he says, that's perfectly natural." Observer, 1st September 2002. I'll correct the main article so it is sourced better. M-Henry 08:58, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm - there are no quotation marks around what NG is alleged to have said. At the very least, the BNP page should be changed to acknowledge this fact. What is written in the Observer/Guardian article and how that is paraphrased on the BNP page are really at odds within an encyclopedic environment. (The O/G article itself is all the more questionable for the correction printed at the bottom of it. Did the reporter ever really attend such a meeting and meet the people he named?) Regardless, another O/G article - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4407688-102273,00.html - states: "together with the strutting figure of Nick Griffin, whose assertion that he is not racist ...". This clearly contradicts the other attributed quote. I think the BNP page should have the "On the other hand, when asked, Nick Griffin does not deny claims of racism, which he says is a natural instinct." line removed, unless someone can come up with something more substantial to back it. Comments?


Another good one is http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,222602,00.html - which somewhat contradicts the observer interview, showing how Nick Griffens language changes over time. I have no idea why he gives all these interviews to the Guardian/Observer when he must know they fully intend to demonise him. M-Henry 09:14, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've fleshed out the one-liner about Griffin's conviction (which wasn't factually correct in itself). Everything added is fact and in the public domain. I originally deleted the one-liner about Griffin's conviction the other day, as it is repeating what is said in Griffin's own article, but someone put it back saying it was relevant. So I decided to add details and context in this (BNP) article as well. I'd be happy to move the whole section to the Griffin article proper if people think that best. Comments welcomed. Tails 01:54, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of edits seem to have the effect of presenting things from the BNP's POV just recently. As the vast majority of UK people are anti-BNP, I find this imbalance curious. Not that I'm suspicious or anything, but I've added this article to my watchlist. -- The Anome 12:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that the earlier versions of this article read more like a leaflet from the ANL than an unbiased encyclopedia. Your latest revisions appear to be carrying on that earlier tradition. You leave in whatever sounds negative about the BNP and remove any attempt at providing context or balance. Your assertion that "the vast majority of UK people are anti-BNP" is like saying "the vast majority of UK people eat meat, so vegetarians have no right to their point of view"! If you want to add your POV, that's fine, but don't remove things which may represent a POV you disagree with unless you can come up with a more constructive reasoning than that stated above. -- Tails 18:26, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think we need to rework the wording in some parts of this article. Like it or loathe it, the BNP are a registered political party in the UK. "Opponents" of it, in a political context, customarily refers to other political parties. Neither 'Searchlight' magazine, nor the ANL/SWP are registered political parties, therefore I think they should be referred to as 'critics' or something akin to that - (non-abusive suggestions welcome).

Also, it is not factual to say that the BNP "are opposed by all of the mainstream media". Apart from the Guardian Group, it would be very difficult to say that the rest of the mainstream media has, in place, a de facto policy of opposition to the BNP. It would be fairer to say that, as far as the mainstream media is concerned, the BNP don't really feature on their radar at all. Either way, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia reporting facts, not assumptions.

Indeed many critics of the BNP believe the Daily Mail is a supporter Paul Weaver 16:05, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Finally, stating that the BNP are opposed "by all of the mainstream political parties" is a case of stating the (proverbially) obvious! All political parties, mainstream or not, oppose all other political parties; that is the reason for their existence. Stressing the point here is silly. -- Tails 19:20, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Tails, I won't go into all your points in detail. However, I would just like to stress the point that the mainstream parties are publically united in condemnation of the BNP, in much the same way as they are united against other issues that almost all voters agree on. -- The Anome 15:25, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Anome - of course they're "united in condemnation", but again, that is stating the obvious. The BNP are standing candidates against them, splitting their previously comfortable three-way votes, and actually winning some council seats. The "mainstream" parties are hardly going to be "united in celebration", are they! It's a hell of a lot easier to simply all condemn the BNP than it is to actually answer the real reasons behind their own failure to get elected.

Going back to point I made about the "mainstream" media, much of it recently seems to be virtually neutral when reporting about the BNP. There have been very few 'attacks', as such, when the BNP have had recent election successes. Some sources even appear to be dropping the term 'far right', either using 'right wing' or no description at all. Very few outlets are using the word 'extremist'. Even fewer use the word 'racist' - and only those connected with Searchlight in some manner now describe the BNP as 'neo-nazi'. Even Gary Younge, writing in the Guardian recently - http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1037373,00.html - only described the BNP as "rightwing"!

To summarise:

  • there is no evidence that the BNP are actively "opposed by all of the mainstream media" (although, obviously, they are not actively supported by them either)
  • stating that the mainstream parties are "united in condemnation" of the BNP is worthless comment in an encyclopedic environment

-- Tails 19:48, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This seems to be turning into an edit war -- and it seems that Tails is going a bit overboard in an attempt to achieve "balance" and turning this into a POV article with the idea that thay may not be right-wing after all. Bcorr 00:45, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Uhhm, you are kidding, aren't you Bcorr!? The statement about most people in the UK not being BNP voters is totally dumb in a supposed encyclopedia. Try and find a similar statement in any wikipedia article about any other political party. Most people in the UK don't vote for the Liberal Democrats, but I doubt (without looking) that that fact is spelt out in their article! It's blatant bias. Factual, but pointless! The stated facts about how many candidates the BNP have fielded and how many got elected speak for themselves. (Or maybe there are some people here who would edit the Rottweiler article and add the line: "Rottweilers cannot fly". Factual, but pointless!)
I have no idea where you get the idea that I'm trying to change the article to appear that the BNP aren't right-wing! Would you care to enlighten me?
Besides, there's nothing wrong with a little edit war every now and then. (Nor, indeed, an editor war - vi rulez, emacs suckz!) To paraphrase Winston Churchill: it's far better to WikiWiki than to hit each other with a StickiSticki! -- Tails 02:22, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
First, I want acknowledge that I was mistakenly crediting you with a couple of user:80.225.30.236's edits. But I think I was a bit confused because, well, let's just say you've also done make the article "softer" by adding things like "Some people say that" and adding in Griffin's arguments in his defence after the sentence that says he was convicted. Also, it's a bit strong to call the sentence you repeatedly removed on most people in the UK not being BNP voters dumb or biased, so let's just say you caught my attention. It's true that user:80.225.30.236is obviously biased and that you have removed some of their more egregious edits. -- Bcorr 04:35, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgement - I didn't think I'd been that overzealous!! As for parts of the article that I did amend, that's just an attempt to keep some balance and add some context where necessary. If I and others didn't do that, this article might just as well only have a link to either the BNP website or the ANL website, depending on who got the last edit in! Perhaps my use of the word dumb was a tad strong in the Wikipedia world. Accurate, mind you, but strong! -- Tails 05:07, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There's a big difference from stating a neutral fact ("The BNP are from the right of the political spectrum; a non-representative minority of critics from the radical left describe the BNP as "neo-nazi" in outlook, althouh the party strongly refutes this allegation.") and twisting that facts by the use of emotive words, which are likely to bias the reader ("The BNP are a FAR RIGHT party often described as neo-NAZI by the ANTI-FASCIST magazine, searchlight"). Facts can be accurately described without resorting to such words. The only reason searchlight call themselves an "anti-fascist" magazine is so that people immediately associate anyone they criticise with fascism, whether this is justified or not. So, by using such terms, you can easily be biased in favour of such organisations.

The 'Alleged links between the BNP and neo-Nazism and racism' section is silly. It is just there to satisfy a liberal POV that insists that the BNP are neo-Nazis because they have different views to those on the left. It is guilt by association. There is no similar section within the Conservative Party article, although the same guilt could easily be shown for them. Even IDS has had talks with members of the French FN. There is no similar section within the Labour Party article, although they could easily be called Communists if guilt by association was the only proof needed. Tony Blair has shaken the hand of Gerry Adams, but nobody calls Blair a terrorist!

William Pierce may have addressed a BNP rally 8 years ago in the days of Tyndall, but Pierce is now dead and Tyndall was deposed as Chairman 4 years ago and recently expelled outright from the party. David Duke was the "National Director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" between 1974-78, but that particular KKK was a legal organisation and his association with it ended 23 years before he shared a platform with Griffin. Duke has also lectured at Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard universities and was elected to the House of Representatives in Louisiana! Both of these men could well be described as "White separatists", but guilt by association, especially with such a small association, is never valid and certainly, in this case, hardly grounds for branding the present day BNP as neo-Nazis.

Unless someone can say (here) why the links section should remain, I'm going to remove it soon. It is clearly not NPOV and looks more like something added to please the Wikipedia Friends of Searchlight! -- Tails 04:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think the links ought to stay. To talk about David Duke as if he has been completely separated from the Klan for 25 years, that and since he won an election for state rep and has spoken ("lectured" sounds as if he had a position as a lecturer) he's suddenly a horse of a different color is at best ignorant of the reality of David Duke, and at worst, highly disingenous! In fact, the sections used to just say "Links..." and perhaps changing that back would help. -- Bcorr 04:53, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You didn't quite read into what I said. I acknowledged that Duke was with the KKK and that he could be described as a "White separatist". What I am trying to point out is that Duke appearing on the same platform as Griffin, once, does not banish the BNP to be known as a neo-nazi party for all time. 'Guilt by association' is not valid. If it was, then all the others who sat with Duke in the Louisiana House of Representatives, would also be classed as neo-nazis, which I doubt they were. I also pointed out how easy it would be to call the Conservatives neo-nazis and the Labour Party Communists if guilt by association is the only evidence required. They are not labelled as such though, and the BNP are entitled to the same privilege. -- Tails 05:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Changes justification to end current edit war with the Anome and other left-wingers

>>

"Many opponents claim that it is racist, whilst some far left-wing fringe organisations go so far as to brand it fascist and/or neo-Nazi. "

No major national newpaper, broadcaster, etc. has refered to the BNP as "fascist" or "neo nazi". Only the far-left ANL do this. Hence the original statement is biased.


    1. "Links between the BNP and neo-Nazism "

>>

"Alleged Links between the BNP and neo-Nazism"

Because these links are alleged and subjective!

  • 1. deletion of "However it fails to explain what would happen if the immigrants did not want to be repatriated. Or what would happen to non-white people who have been born/brought up in the UK."

Because this is utter rubbish and a downright lie. Immigrants who "didn't want to be repatriated" would remain in the county, according to BNP policy. Have a look on their website. The same applies to "non white people born in the UK", etc.

  • 2. "although their share of the vote has increased in recent years in some areas." - deletion of "in some areas"

This is not relevant - of it their share of the vote will only go up in places where they stand candidates! Redundant and unnecessary.

  • 3. deletion of "The BNP are strongly disliked by liberal/left-wing sections of the population and media, as well as by many who would consider themselves moderate or moderate right-wingers."

All parties are disliked by some groups. The right wing press are " strongly disliked by liberal/left-wing sections of the population and media", and liberal/left-wing sections of the population and press are strongly disliked by right-wing sections of the press and population! Again redundant and utterly pointless.

  • 4. "The ANL is supported and part funded by Trade Union affiliations, and will usually counter-campaign in the right-wing party's target wards. "

>>

"The ANL is supported and part funded by Trade Union affiliations, and will usually heavily leaflet and counter-campaign in many of the right-wing party's target wards. "

Additional information, and the addition of "many of the wards" to correctly stipulate than the ANL do not leaflet all wards.

  • 5. addition of "Both groups have held frequent protests against BNP events, some of which have ended in violent confrontation and in which the police have been required to intervene to keep the peace.

The police have also several times had to invoke exclusion zones for ANL protesters around BNP events in the interests of preventing such confrontations."

This information is both correct and relevant. 80.225.80.146 20:57, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC) (80.255)

Are the BNP a neo-Nazi Organisation?

As can be seen, I changed the title and format of the 'Alleged Links to neo-Nazism and Racism' section. I don't know if this format is acceptable in the Wikipedia environment, but I think it's better than what we had already. All the 'opponents claim'/'BNP deny' stuff is becoming very repetitive, whilst also being repetitive and, one might add, a bit repetitive. I just thought I'd try something different. The 'response' to the Combat 18 stuff is borrowed from the BBC Panorama/Searchlight programme, so it's not as though it's even a biased opinion. Please discuss the section here if you decide to revert or amend it. Thanks -- Tails 06:53, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can see that you are trying to address concerns raised whilst still making it clear that it's a matter of opinion as to whether the BNP is neo-Nazi, racist, &c. However, I think that in itself is a POV -- and a minority viewpoint as well. For example, this passage from your latest edit seems clearly POV: "Some opponents have claimed that the BNP are neo-Nazis and, by implication, racist, fascist and xenophobic. Obviously such claims are highly emotive, frequently disputed and rarely objective. When a subject such at this arises, the only reasonable solution is to allow both 'sides' to state their case." I also think that the way you rewrote the allegations into debate makes it seem as though those are the main reasons that many consider them neo-Nazi, &c. -- Bcorr 13:59, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"A label commonly applied to the BNP is fascist and/or neo-Nazi. "

>>

"Many opponents claim that it is racist, whilst some far left-wing fringe organisations go so far as to brand it fascist and/or neo-Nazi. "

No major national newpaper, broadcaster, etc. has refered to the BNP as "fascist" or "neo nazi". Only the far-left ANL do this. Hence the original statement is biased.

>>

It is nonsense to claim that it is only the "far-left" who call the BNP "fascist" or "neo-nazi". It is in fact a widespread perception of the BNP by most of the public, you may believe that "it's only the far-left who describe them as neo-nazi but I dont think many other people would agree with you, and hence I am putting back my version.

>>>

  • 3. deletion of "The BNP are strongly disliked by liberal/left-wing sections of the population and media, as well as by many who would consider themselves moderate or moderate right-wingers."

All parties are disliked by some groups. The right wing press are " strongly disliked by liberal/left-wing sections of the population and media", and liberal/left-wing sections of the population and press are strongly disliked by right-wing sections of the press and population! Again redundant and utterly pointless.

>>

No the "opponents" section as presently written gives readers the hopelessly misleading impression that the BNP are opposed "only" by the ANL searchlight etc, which is a grotesque misrepresentation of the truth and does not reflect the widespread nature of opposition to the BNP, and the fact that the majority of the population finds them abhorent. Hence I am putting the passage back G-Man 18:10, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

FAO Tails: I'm pretty sure that the BNP now have 18 councillors, after the most recent victory in essex, and including the Luke Smith expulsion. I'll try and find a list of these people and post it here. In the meanwhile, I direct you to this recent BBC article, which states 18, and was written some time after the BBC covered the Luke Smith expulsion story. 80.255 05:16, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Most recent edit by me:

  • yet again removed pointless and irrelevant "[vote has increased] in some areas" - of course it has, since they've only stood for election in some areas!
  • Replaced deleted "jovially" with "light-heartedly"; like it or, that comment was light hearted. It isn't POV to say so - he would hardly literlly mean the PR department was made from orange peel!
  • balanced irrelevant and biased commensts on the london nailbomber, who did say that he left the BNP because ti was "too democratic". He was also a member for about 2 months...
  • added the many people consider the panorama programme very biased, which is true. It would be better if the use of that as a source were avoided, but if you insist, it must be mentioned that many do consider it biased - read the talk page on the BBC website.

80.255 08:30, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)


When you say that the Panorama programme was biased, are you saying that it is incorrect in reporting that the BNP officials it named have the criminal convictions that it alleges? -- The Anome 08:38, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm saying that the programme emphasized facts like that in a biased manner. Many people in the UK (20% of the working population) have criminal convictions. Many people in the labour/tory/lib dem/ etc/ parties have criminal convictions. Conversely, many officials in the BNP do not have convictions of any kind. If information like that is over-emphasized with any sense of perspective then it gives a misleading impression and is biased. Many people observed this about the panorama progamme. It's motive was not " let's give an accurate and informative picture of the BNP", but "let's do all we can to emphasize the bad aspects of the BNP in order to give an overall misleading picture that they are the worst thing since the black death". Panorama also gave much importance to such highly biased and unreliable sources as the ANL/SWP and Searchlight.
If you want to include all BNP official's previous criminal convictions then go ahead - but I expect no complaints from you, let alone reverts, if I do the same for "searchlight magazine/educational trust"...
80.255 09:06, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I note that you are not claiming that the Panorama allegations are untrue. I also note your point that a substantial minority of the population have minor criminal convictions. Minor crimes are in general defined as crimes not considered so serious that they result in prison sentences. The Panorama listing alleges a variety of serious offences which resulted in imprisonment or suspended sentences. I very much doubt that you could show a comparable level of offending in the leadership of the mainstream Labour / Lib Dem / Conservative parties.

Please feel free to list alleged convictions on both sides: don't forget to cite references, of course. -- The Anome 10:35, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to dispute the truth or validity of the allegations in question; I shall asume, however, that they are based on some semblance of factual acuracy, and give the highly biased programme makers the benefit of the doubt on the grounds of factual accuracy alone (against my better judgement, in the most part). However, I am qualified, as a person equipped with reason and independent thought, to dispute the manner in which these allegations have been selectively laid out and emphasized, and it is starkly clear that the objective of the programme was anything but objective!
I stated that a substantial minority of the population have criminal convictions; I did not use or imply the word "minor", and furthermore what consitutes a "minor" crime is not set in stone, as far as I am aware. "Spin", as always, can construe crimes as being more or less serious than an objective and neutral commentator would tend to believe. If you wish to change my statement of the presence of criminal convictions in a large percentage of the population to the presence of minor convictions, then please provide evidence to support this, and define a minor offence.
regarding your last comment : "I very much doubt that you could show a comparable level of offending in the leadership of the mainstream Labour / Lib Dem / Conservative parties" - this has potential for being a specious comparison. The three "mainstream" parties are far larger organisations than the BNP, and thus their "leadership" will be at a far higher level. Comparisons of "the leadership" is rather akin to comparing "the senior management" of your local butcher's shop to "the senior management" of a huge multinational corporation employing thousands of workers. At the moment the BNP has only local councillors, so for a fair comparison we should look for "serious" criminal convictions in councillors and local activists of the three major parties.
There is certainly no shortage of such convictions! Serious fraud, rape, paedophillia, theft... I could certainly find a not inconsiderable number of cases of such serious (more serious than those alleged of BNP officials)convictions amongost councillors and activists of the main parties, particularly libdem and labour. However, they would not be relevant in this article, unless mentioned simply to restore NPOV for "BNP convictions". Of course, the "mainstream" parties, being much bigger organisations, can afford to be more selective in their respective leaderships to exclude people who would attract unwated publicity/notoriety for these reasons. This is simply because they have at their disposal much more money, and hence a far larger pool of people from whom to choose the "cleanest"; the BNP does not. This, coupled with the fact that all convictions mentioned took place a rather long time ago - certainly during Tyndall's reign - and many even before membership of the party (unlike many Libdem child molestors who haven't even been expelled from their party for it!), leads me to suggest that mention of such convictions is at best completely irrelevant, and at worse highly opinionated, biased, and divisive. And I haven't even begun to mention "Searchlight Criminal Trust", upon which the anti-BNP leftie lynch-mob so consistently relies...
80.255 18:30, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party/Archive_1&oldid=318971121"