Did BNP fellow tale around inciting tribal abomination?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi…

"Anthony Bamber, 54, a BNP activist, told a jury his intention was to create a debate almost the ''crime against humanity'' that was the flow of the drug on to Britain's streets."

We know that the BNP do not like debate. They looked fruitless on question time, they looked even worse on newsnight, they have not debate their policies at any point in time. On here many BNPers will not and cannot debate their policies other because everyone knows they are racist.

On newsnight before the see this year Griffin basically said that you could not be British and black, but you could be ethnically russian and British. Go figure.

Griffin when asked roughly speaking being a holocaust denier basically said he view on speaking about the holocaust had changed, but his actual view on the holocaust had not changed. He does not want to get arrested, so he does not read aloud what he thinks.

So why would someone who follows Griffin actually not be racist and not want to incite cultural hatred which is the only passageway that the BNP can actually gain more votes!
Answers:
Yeah, it did not affect me at all. Why does it bother you? You liberals and your pre-answered questions crack me up. LOL.
I love the BNP.

Nicholas John Griffin is actually my hero.

They recount it like it is and fight for the British population.
You'll never adopt that white Americans, Australians or South Africans are native so why can't you accept that blacks are not original to a white country? The BNP would like to debate policies it's people close to you can only throw out abuse and bring up something he said over ten years ago, if you do resembling debate when why was the question in the region of immigration and rising unemployment on question time overlooked?

This guy was just exaggerating, this in opposition is inciting racial hatred:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C73ePf_2K…
The court of imperative obviously did not think he lied, since I do not enjoy a transcript of the trail I assume he was found not guilty for a good root.
The BNP are a disgrace, an imitation of the Nazi knees-up is what they are. They attract gullible support by offering a quick fix solution to Britains problems, but their policies are naive and too simplistic to work. All successful economy are built and sustained by co-operating with the international community, take China for example, until only just it was a relatively poor country until it allowed room for Foreign Direct Investment and its economy boomed. A Government lower than the BNP would drastically reduce FDI and we would be in another recession quicker than you can say aloud "Mein Kampf"

Edit - I would just like to add on that during the 19th Century Britain was the main trader within Heroin to/from China and waged two successive wars beside the Chinese in order to fetch on trading in this lethal drug. So he have a bit of a nerve to say that Islam is the effect for the heroin on our streets when we dabbled with exporting the apt as well.
I don't get you. It's pretty obvious you don't close to the BNP but, what I don't get is why you keep bringing them up?

Fair plenty, attack any pro-BNP questions but, to keep bringing them up suggests you want relations to talk about the BNP. There's a aphorism "no news is good report." By getting more people to discuss the BNP you are promoting them. It doesn't matter what your panorama on them is, you've given a link to an article which shows that a BNP lecturer is allowed to read aloud that "Before the Islamic invasion it was impossible to find heroin in our home. Muslims are almost exclusively responsible for its production, transportation and sale. " - Connotations being that nearby is some truth in this and that's what you want us to read?

They are an elected party and will not be disallowed. We are a country that believes in freedom of speech and democracy. You don't have to similar to what they say, you don't even have to listen but, they are entitled to matching rights as everyone else. Should their views be challenged, yes. But, do it directly, comment on their website etc. Don't try and attack them indirectly here. It doesn't work.
The BNP have lied and deceived and tried to convince empire that they are not inherently racist. So yes, it is possible that they have conned some genuinely non-racist folks into supporting them.

But I think this guy is just mortal disingenuous. I am no sympathiser with Islam, but to blame them for single-handedly developing the drug trade, and then claim you are not racist, is a moment ago silly!
Tom, I am sorry you perceive the BNP do not debate the issues you bring up, As a firm supporter of the BNP I would be willing to debate any political issue with you because explicitly the way to get to the truth and stop others lying. OK, apart from Sceptic specifically, he only tells fib and distorts the truth because he is usually (not always) beaten to pulp in a straight up front discussion between a BNP supporter and himself.. Most BNP supporter greeting a debate.if you look a dictionary you may be surprised to know there are other words besides Nazi and racist.

ATB Red

Edit Sceptic

Abuse you, now that's a roll with laughter coming from someone with a definite grievance against dyslexics. Didn't you read out you wanted Nick Griffin beaten up by Mike Tyson because he have only got one eye. ABUSE! 'gawd backing us 'Scep another fib.

Lets see this answer where you thrashed me in a debate after, sorry Scep I can't quiet recall that one,

ATB Red.
Bamber manage to convince a jury that his intentions were not to incite racial spite, and they decided to acquit him. We must respect that decision and assume that he wasn't lying.

That doesn't be a sign of that he isn't a racist - after all he is a member of the UK's foremost racist political get-together.

But it does mean that he wasn't intending to incite racial detestation on this occasion.

EDIT: Resorting to abuse again, Redmonk - that's why you're not worth trying to debate near. People can compare our answers and see who can marshall an argument, and who gets the abuse contained by first.

MORE EDIT: I did look for the argument in your edit, but couldn't find it among the cheap mishandle and lying nonsense.

If you read carefully, I suggested that others could compare our answers - it's not for you or me to formulate other people's minds up.

Or is suggesting that you have trouble reading an answer properly going to lead to you playing the dyslexic card again?


Related Questions: