The BNP Game Plan - NOT their policies

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
I am not sure if the mods will allow this comment, since they said;

"The best advice that ARRSE can offer is that, if you want to discuss BNP policies, **** off to a BNP site to do it. "

I only wish to discuss Employment Law and Equal Opportunities.

But what I want to discuss is not their POLICIES but their METHODS and a warning to Employers/Unions.

So I wish to open a discussion about how a legally recognised political party can use the law to defend those who put forward their views.

(Their views. My own views are irrelevant to this discussion of their METHODS) Forgive the caps - just emphasising a point.

Now to my points;
1. The BNP states that membership is limited to those of a certain race. (See their web site for proof).

2. An employer might sack an employee for being a member of the BNP.

3. Because membership of the BNP is decided by race then to sack an employee simply because he is a member of the BNP is racial discrimination.

4. Racial discrimination pays big bucks in Employment Tribunals.

This neither a troll nor looking for NAFFI Bar type answers - any better qualified legal minds care to comment ?

The plan must be that ;anyone who tries to "silence" them or oppose them is racist .
 
#2
I really do not understand what you are asking here - how many beers you had?
 
#3
AFA06 said:
I really do not understand what you are asking here - how many beers you had?
I am suggesting;

The way they have positioned themselves means that (in law) if you "discriminate" against them because you do not like them, then you are a racist.

And thus liable to the sanctions that the law holds against other racists.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
smallbore said:
AFA06 said:
I really do not understand what you are asking here - how many beers you had?
I am suggesting;

The way they have positioned themselves means that (in law) if you "discriminate" against them because you do not like them, then you are a racist.

And thus liable to the sanctions that the law holds against other racists.
thats a statement, not a question.
 
#5
smallbore said:
The way they have positioned themselves means that (in law) if you "discriminate" against them because you do not like them, then you are a racist.

And thus liable to the sanctions that the law holds against other racists.
I'd say no because it not their race they are being discriminated against.
 
#7
I know that definitions do change with time but the word 'racist' usually refers to particular races or cultures, not politics.
 
#8
As I was going to St. Ives,
I met a man with seven wives.
Each wife had seven sacks,
Each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits.
Kits, cats, sacks, and wives,
How many were going to St. Ives?
 
#9
9?
 
#10
or is it 2?
 
#11
one
 
#12
1 but them women have big fook off sacks.
 
#13
None - I turned round and went off with the best-looking wife. ( Brave - or stupid - man by the way , seven wives - one to nag him every day of the week!).
 
#14
It depends on how you read the question. The usual answers are:

None, assuming the question is how many 'kits, cats, sacks and wives' were going to St. Ives - only the writer (and possibly the man) were present and they're not part of the question.

One, if the question refers to everything mentioned in the poem and the man (and possibly his entourage) were going from St. Ives, leaving the writer.

Two - as above, but the writer overtakes or is overtaken by the man who has seven wives etc, etc and is also going to St. Ives - but the rest of the group isn't present (it just says that he had the wives - ie, that he was married to them - not that he had them there).

441 - the total number of kits, cats, sacks and wives if all are present and are going to St. Ives.

Then potentially anything up to 443, depending on how you muck about with the distinction between 'had' and 'had present' in lines 3, 4 and 5.


Back on topic - I read of Griffin citing this exact argument in an interview in...can't remember if it was the Times or the Telegraph...during the election campaign. I'm not sure it flies and wish any such claimant joy in proving the BNP are an ethnicity rather than a political party.
 
#15
Juvenal said:
Back on topic - I read of Griffin citing this exact argument in an interview in...can't remember if it was the Times or the Telegraph...during the election campaign. I'm not sure it flies and wish any such claimant joy in proving the BNP are an ethnicity rather than a political party.
Discrimination against the BNP might be indirect discrimination against a race as only certain races can join the BNP.

That said, the police seem to be getting away with discriminating against the BNP. So I don't fancy the BNP's chances taking an employer to court.
 
#16
smallbore said:
3. Because membership of the BNP is decided by race then to sack an employee simply because he is a member of the BNP is racial discrimination.
No, it's not so long as the employer doesn't sack every white employee at the same time. The sacking would be because the individual employee held views incompatible with continued employment, not because of their race.

Particularly in the service industries, why would an employer want to keep a member of staff if they were active in a party that was devoted to reducing the employer's client base? Or preventing the employer from hiring who they liked?
 
#17
If the employer has any common sense, he/she won't sack BECAUSE employee is a member of the BNP but BECAUSE said employee makes a priick of themselves at some point with their views.
 
#18
Its just a lame, arrse about face way of justifying their racist membership policy.

"We are only being exclusive because you are discriminating against our membership"

They are attempting to move forward in the legitimacy stakes and get the employers bans on employees being members

you can look at this in different ways,

the PC world have legislated against the BNP to the point where a genuine (like it or not) political party is being "strangled/oppressed" Un democratic?

A barely coherent borderline political party with only racist policies is getting too much exposure from over reactions of the PC world
 
#20
hadenough! said:
Surely no one should be discrimminated against who ever they are.
So you don't want burglars inconvenienced in any way, then? Remind me, where do you live?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Latest Threads