This is the picture being hawked around the papers today. It depicts Times journalist, Dominic Kennedy being ejected, with some force, from a BNP press conference where, apparently, he was deemed to be persona non grata. Matthew d'Ancona, writing about the incident declares: "the party represents a clear and present danger"
And the righteous are queuing up to condemn this as "the real face of the BNP" Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, but it says no more (or everything) about the British National Party than the ejection of Walter Wolfgang from the Labour Party Conference says about New Labour. Not to mention his subsequent arrest under terrorist legislation, whereby the police were used as a blatant political tool.
It seems to me you are merely being offered a choice of which Police State you wish to live in. If there is a difference, it's subtlety is beyond my comprehension. The soft left just about manage to get hysterical about a party that stands no chance of ever running this country, but which dares to say what cannot be any longer said. If you are looking for clear and present danger, Mr d'Ancona, you need look no further than the Labour Party.
10 comments:
You've been a busy weasel since your return.
I'm not sure how a tiny fringe party are a "clear and present danger" to anything other than rocking the boat for the big boys.
In a BNP police state i assume it would be all things british that took precedence, in the labour version it appears to be everything but.
Everyone is panicking about the BNP gaining power and turning us into nazi germany while in the meantime Labour has managed to turn us into communist East Germany.
Norton, I try not to agree with you on principle, but fail, which is why I read your blog, like a naughty schoolboy reads a copy of Fiesta.
Why would you disagree with me on principle?
WW Welcome Back. I thought I had lost your inteesting views.
Norton Folgate, Sadly you would not know what 'principle' means.
Keep up the good work WW. I find the hypocrisy over the BNP astounding. Cameron BANS his candidates from mentioning the word immigration. Brown tries to con everyone that they are going to ban would be students and the Lib Dems will say nowt!
I do hope people give these three parties a kick up the backsides.
Why wouldn't i know what principle means?
Do enlighten me please.
Norton, your blog is sweary and tends to say things they don't say on the BBC. On the whole I would say it reflects a right wing view that some people might not be comfortable with. But if I really felt that bad about it, you would not be consistently on my blog roll. I did not mean anything too profound with my original remark. The strength of your blog is that there is no hidden agenda and, like OH and others, merciless about hypocrisy.
Strapworld can explain himself.
Strapworld, none of the parties want to discuss immigration. That is why the BNP exists. Sooner or later, they will have to, and by then it will be too late.
I agree with your conclusion, but one of the reasons that the Labour Party's a danger is that they've gerrymandered some of their constituencies so egregiously that their disaffected supporters are bringing fascists into elected positions by acts of ommission or ocmmission. Remember the trouble caused by Mosley's British Union of Fascists? The Blackshirts never had one elected member.
Thanks for that, i know i get a bit sweary but its mostly just exasperated puntuation.
I may sound a bit right wing but it was not always the case and i am not of the "far right".
I fail to see how strapworld is in any position to judge me or my principles at all.
That is my fear. All hell breaking loose.
Norton Folgate, Within this context one can only judge one on the words they write. I can find no principle within your epistles. Therefore I have judged you as I have. If I have upset you I apologise but you are the author of your own position.
Post a Comment