BNP district council group leader Pat Richardson will contend the Epping Forest constituency (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news & views by texting WFNEWS to 80360, or email us
BNP district council group leader Pat Richardson will contend the Epping Forest constituency
6:48pm Tuesday 16th March 2010 in
AN announcement that the British National Party will once again field a candidate for Epping Forest in the General Election has drawn concern from some in the district.
BNP district council group leader Pat Richardson has been confirmed by the far right party as its choice to fight the Epping Forest constituency in 2010.
Independent Loughton councillor Stephen Murray, who claimed last year he was targeted for abuse by BNP supporting youths, urged caution over the announcement.
He said: “I think they'll take a number of votes from other parties because there's a level of disillusionment, but I don't think they'll do very well. More and more people are beginning to realise their values and what they stand for.
“I don't know if they'll cause problems during the election. It depends on how they decide their tactics. If they display their true colours in any way then that could cause issues but if they play that down it might not have an impact.”
Loughton Festival organiser Sue Taylor has also called for voters to think extra carefully in this year's election.
She said: “I'm not a BNP supporter. They make people's view on race an issue and I take offence at the leaflets that go through my door. I'm not happy with any BNP candidate, but let them stand, it's people's choice.”
Conservative Epping Forest MP Eleanor Laing said: “I fully expected they would put up a candidate. I believe in free speech but I'm very concerned some disillusioned Labour voters will consider voting for the BNP. I hope most people will decide against that because the BNP are divisive in their outlook, and I believe the vast majority of people in Epping Forest would prefer to see an in inclusive and integrated society.”
Labour's parliamentary candidate Katie Curtis said: “Of course it's an issue of concern when a candidate from a party which is based on issues of race and dividing communities is standing. However, I think people see through their policies. If people in Epping Forest are looking for a change that is going to be us, the Labour Party.”
Lib Dem parliamentary candidate Ann Haigh said: "The only way to beat the Conservatives in Epping Forest is to vote Liberal Democrat. I am campaigning on the issues that matter most to local residents:fairer taxes,protecting the NHS and cleaning up politics."
Pat Richardson declined to comment on her position as parliamentary candidate but a statement posted on the BNP's Epping Forest blog said: “Pat understands the issues and concerns of the local residents and wishes to take them up at parliamentary level. She has served her electorate locally with sincerity and commitment.”
In the 2005 election BNP candidate Julian Leppert secured 1,728 votes.
This year, seven parties have so far declared a candidate: the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, The BNP, UKIP, the Green Party, and the English Democrats.
Comments(30)
setrac
says...
7:10pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Manxman2
says...
7:36pm Tue 16 Mar 10
stevewhite
says...
11:28pm Tue 16 Mar 10
The problem with the BNP is not the decent people but the racist, far-right underbelly that they try so hard to hide from us. Indeed, some of the decent people may not know or refuse to see that it exists. But it does exist. The problem that we have at the moment is that society is not fair for many people. However, the simplistic solutions offered by the BNP will not provide the answer. If there is one party that we should take a long hard look at it is the BNP.
Investigations
says...
5:25am Wed 17 Mar 10
ConcernedofLoughton
says...
6:36am Wed 17 Mar 10
stevewhite wrote:Totally agree. What the BNP says in public and what a lot of their members say in private are totally different. Clear case in point is that of BNP Director of Publicity Mark Collett, who was sacked for his racist views (when caught on camera) but then reinstated shortly afterwards. This tolerance of extreme views shows that even at the top levels the BNP has another agenda than is being portrayed by their 'normal' supporters.(http://e
Pat Richardson might be pleasant. BNP supporters might be normal decent people. But I would not say good luck Pat. The problem with the BNP is not the decent people but the racist, far-right underbelly that they try so hard to hide from us. Indeed, some of the decent people may not know or refuse to see that it exists. But it does exist. The problem that we have at the moment is that society is not fair for many people. However, the simplistic solutions offered by the BNP will not provide the answer. If there is one party that we should take a long hard look at it is the BNP.
n.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Mark_Collett)
Morris Hickey
says...
7:50am Wed 17 Mar 10
Investigations wrote:Why don't you concentrate your attentions on Victoria and Quebec?
Are the power and drug besotted fools we see in control in Westminster, Washington and Strasbourg the sort of people we really wish to have in control of !our destiny? Democracy has dismally failed to meet our hopes and expectations! Vote for decent, honest and sober men not besotted with party allegiances whether they're Communist, BNP, Socialist or dowright Tory so long as they think for themselves and us!
setrac
says...
9:02am Wed 17 Mar 10
5:25am Wed 17 Mar 10
Are the power and drug besotted fools we see in control in Westminster, Washington and Strasbourg...
are they really all taking drugs? Wow that explains a lot.I just thought they were all mad.Good to see some people from The Colonies taking an interest in Epping Forest politics.
loughtonkid
says...
10:07am Wed 17 Mar 10
I do not agree with the BNP, and will not vote for them, but I didn't make this decision because someone persuaded me! I do agree with SOME of the BNP's points, like sorting out immigration, and think to keep British cultures which are now disappearing.
A good thing about the BNP (I suppose) is the fact that it might force other parties (like Labour or Conservatives) into sorting out some of the problems this country faces, like immigration..
SN3
says...
4:03pm Wed 17 Mar 10
word of mouth
says...
4:13pm Wed 17 Mar 10
setrac
says...
4:29pm Wed 17 Mar 10
because of course no-one in the area is disillusioned with Mrs Laing around here.Nose still firmly in the expenses trough.
stevewhite
says...
6:54pm Wed 17 Mar 10
dr adford
says...
10:12pm Wed 17 Mar 10
How is it that we have scores of areas in this country which have much higher than the national average of ethnic minorities in them?
Let me see...
In 1950, this country was 99.9% white people. Nobody had a problem with the tiny number of non-white immigrants who lived here, because they were just that- a tiny number, not viewed as a threat, and were of great interest to white people, more than anything else, who had often never seen a real African or Indian person before.
Then in the 1950s large numbers of immigrants were invited into this country, directly against the express wishes of the majority of the population. (No doubt you supported that tyranny, stevewhite...)
So a previously all white area, in 1960, experienced an influx of a few hundred black people (for example). When the next house came up for sale in that area, there would have been a hundred times as many potential white buyers, as non-white buyers, because non-whites were much less than one percent of the population. So how come specific areas saw an increase in the population of non-whites? Why didn't white people buy those houses? And why did white people move OUT of those areas so rapidly?
Please explain to us all, how London has become more than 50% non-white over the past few decades, and why white people, who are still the majority of this country, aren't moving back IN to London, and preventing any areas from having more than the national average of non-whites in them.
The simple explanation is: most white people want to live in an all white country.
Why aren't white people allowed to have their own countries any more?
Got any answers, 'comrade' steve?
Perhaps you can tell us what this country will be like in thirty years' time, when the population is 80% non-white? A veritable paradise, am I right?
If so, why aren't YOU moving to Haiti, or Liberia, since being a white minority is apparently such a wonderful thing?
dr adford
says...
10:18pm Wed 17 Mar 10
These immigrants have got their OWN countries, have they not? So why aren't they taking all that they have learnt here, at our cost, to their own countries, to help their own people?
The 'final solution' of idiots like stevesmith is to bring ALL of Africa and India into Europe, as if somehow, by moving onto a different LAND MASS, they will solve all their problems. He actually believes that LAND MASSES make people more or less intelligent, more or less law abiding, etc. Whereas we all know the truth...
stevesmith is a tyrant who hates democracy. He doesn't want you to have any say over who you live with. He wants to decide how YOU and your family live, and he is terrified of democracy, because he knows that most white people want to live in an all white country.
Why is it that 99.5% of white British people who leave this country to emigrate, emigrate to majority white countries? Why aren't they all moving to one of the 'wonderful' countries in Africa? We all know why.
So white people who simply want non-involvement with other races - i.e. to simply live with their own kind, are "racists"? That's like calling a woman who refuses a man's sexual advances a "sexist".
Would stevesmith be against a million women who wanted to live in their own, all female country, to get away from predatory men? Of course he would. He doesn't support free association, he supports FORCING people to live with people who they don't want to.
dr adford
says...
10:30pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Tell us stevesmith, if black people had inhabited Europe since the dawn of mankind, and white people had evolved in Africa, so that Europe was all black, and Africa was all white, would Europe have been the cradle of all the inventions that you doubtless take for granted, and would those poor white Africans be constantly in a state of war or mass starvation, waiting for the black Europeans to come and provide them with billions of pounds of free aid every year?
We all know the answer to that.
But stevesmith insists that it's LAND MASSES that make Europeans what we are, and if we can just get enough non-Europeans to stand on this 'magical' piece of land called the U.K., they will all transform into darker versions of ourselves.
We were never asked if we wanted mass immigration, because we would have said NO.
We vote with our FEET by the house buying choices we make. You cannot refute that, stevesmith. Look at parts of Bradford - they are 100% muslim now. They were 100% white people just thirty years ago. How do you explain that? Why aren't millions of white people desperately trying to move into those muslim areas in Bradford, since, according to you, we ALL 'love' 'diversity'?
Quickexit
says...
8:14am Thu 18 Mar 10
"dr adford" is one of those BNP bores who believe that skin colour is a reflection of someone's moral character, that Africa has always been a savage land of starvation, war and disease, that immigration from the Empire/Commonwealth was never required to rebuild Britain after war (a war non-white people fought valiantly beside British officers) and had nothing to do with plugging labour and skills shortages.
Then he rounds off "If so, why aren't YOU moving to Haiti, or Liberia, since being a white minority is apparently such a wonderful thing?" - perhaps forgetting that these countries and their problems were the product of European slavery, that if thousands of Africans had not been forced to the Americas there would be no Haiti or Liberia.
Profoundly ill-read and bigoted, this contributor demonstrates exactly the type of moron that supports the BNP. It's better to laugh in these people's faces than take them seriously.
The only person interviewed in this article who gave the correct answer was the Liberal Democrat candidate Ann Haigh, who effectively said that she will stand on her party's policies to defeat the Tory incumbent. That's all that really matters. Making a big song and dance about a few neo-Nazis with marginal support detracts from the real issues and how to use your vote wisely.
SN3
says...
1:17pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Quickexit
says...
2:24pm Thu 18 Mar 10
SN3 wrote:Yes, I will vote Lib Dem because it has many of the policies I like, not because I am voting against other parties. I think the Lib Dem candidate was right in not indulging in this moral panic about the BNP (as the other two did, thus giving this fringe party the notoriety it craves), but talking about the issues people want addressed.
I Presume from that Quickexit you are a Lib Dem? People should vote on policy and how they feel about the candidates. It is also a fact that many people around here are fed with the main three parties, and I hope they look to a party other than the BNP when thinking about where to put their vote.
If you disagree, then vote for another party. But the election should be about voting for something, not against something else. There's plenty to choose from: Greens, UKIP, English Democrats.
All I can see in the BNP is people who are bitter and prejudiced about those who they think are different from them. I don't see any real answers, other than "send 'em back", which means you're not really going to get a well-thought out statement from them on resolving the banking crisis or the complexities of reforming the NHS. I don't really have much faith in the intelligence of those in the BNP to come up with workable solutions. Fair enough, let those people have a party for themselves, so long as they don't intimidate or beat people up, which has been their traditional modus operandi. And let's see them at hustings and put under the same scrutiny as other candidates - I get the feeling the BNP wouldn't want this as it will show them up for what they are. Pat Richardson is not, frankly, the brightest tool in the box, which is why they hide her away from the media - every time she opens her mouth, she says something silly and embarrasses her colleagues.
I'm fairly confident they won't get very far. The BNP is not a popular party even in Loughton. People still overwhelmingly vote for the main three parties in general elections and will do so in 2010.
My personal hope is that we get a hung parliament in which the Lib Dems and other smaller parties have the chance to put forward more ideas. After 13 years of New Labour, I am sick of arrogant one-party rule and dogma that has failed to solve major problems facing the UK and which has lost public trust - like most people, I chuckled when I read Katie Curtis' comment: "If people in Epping Forest are looking for a change that is going to be us, the Labour Party" - what planet is she on? The likely outcome of a hung parliament could be an electoral system where smaller parties like the BNP have a greater chance of representation, but if people want to vote for them then they have as much right to representation as I do.
SylvieM
says...
3:43pm Thu 18 Mar 10
stevewhite
says...
6:07pm Thu 18 Mar 10
dr adford wrote:Pure and utter muppetry in every sentence. Where can I start? Oh yes, lets start with the biggest falsehood first. 'Most white peole want to live in an all white country'. Where is your evidence for this? Why don't you attempt to prove this clearly false assertion. What you mean is most white people that "I know" want to live in an all white country. This of course speaks volumes about the people that you know. White people should have their own country according to you. What does this mean? Do you mean it should be 100% white or only white people should own anything or vote, or stand for parliament? You were not too clear. I suspect, but can't be sure that you would like the "white culture" to dominate. Two problems here. One is that there is no single white culture, I can't stand some art forms but like others and I have little in common with people who hunt and fish. I can't afford to go to Wimbledon and prefer football and cricket. Some of the cultural aspects I don't like are white dominated, often white upper class dominated. So perhaps not all white culture is good. I prefer jazz and reggae to lots of almost exclusively white music. Some English folk music, not all, is appallling. I could go on. Is English food good and should it dominate the cultural identity? No it is much poorer than many other more interesting cuisines.
Perhaps 'comrade' stevewhite can explain something to us all... How is it that we have scores of areas in this country which have much higher than the national average of ethnic minorities in them? Let me see... In 1950, this country was 99.9% white people. Nobody had a problem with the tiny number of non-white immigrants who lived here, because they were just that- a tiny number, not viewed as a threat, and were of great interest to white people, more than anything else, who had often never seen a real African or Indian person before. Then in the 1950s large numbers of immigrants were invited into this country, directly against the express wishes of the majority of the population. (No doubt you supported that tyranny, stevewhite...) So a previously all white area, in 1960, experienced an influx of a few hundred black people (for example). When the next house came up for sale in that area, there would have been a hundred times as many potential white buyers, as non-white buyers, because non-whites were much less than one percent of the population. So how come specific areas saw an increase in the population of non-whites? Why didn't white people buy those houses? And why did white people move OUT of those areas so rapidly? Please explain to us all, how London has become more than 50% non-white over the past few decades, and why white people, who are still the majority of this country, aren't moving back IN to London, and preventing any areas from having more than the national average of non-whites in them. The simple explanation is: most white people want to live in an all white country. Why aren't white people allowed to have their own countries any more? Got any answers, 'comrade' steve? Perhaps you can tell us what this country will be like in thirty years' time, when the population is 80% non-white? A veritable paradise, am I right? If so, why aren't YOU moving to Haiti, or Liberia, since being a white minority is apparently such a wonderful thing?
Why don't I move to Haiti or Liberia. Well don't be daft.
Finally we are not a white minority, this is only true in some parts of London, very few, and a few major cities. I never said this was a wonderful thing. However, would the type of society you advocate be better. I think it wouldn't. It is a pure fantasy for one thing. If anything like it did exist then it was for a very brief moment after the WW2.The problem is that we live in a global economy with global rules that benifit big business and that society can not exist again. Only in the minds of a few and even then with no great clarity.
stevewhite
says...
6:19pm Thu 18 Mar 10
dr adford wrote:Very interesting. I haven't got time to answer all the points because it is mainly a personal attack with lots of wrong assumptions. And lets face it you got the name wrong
stevesmith is probably under 30, and has never experienced what it was like to live in an all white environment, like this country was during the 60s (and obviously, before that). A time when we didn't hear the word "racist" spouted a dozen times every day on the controlled media, a world where we didn't have to worry about saying 'the wrong thing' in case one of the 'offended' overheard us, and reported us to the thought police, for the crime of 'thinking the wrong thoughts'. stevesmith is a typical insane Marxist who will only be happy when this country has been completely destroyed. Tell us stevesmith, if black people had inhabited Europe since the dawn of mankind, and white people had evolved in Africa, so that Europe was all black, and Africa was all white, would Europe have been the cradle of all the inventions that you doubtless take for granted, and would those poor white Africans be constantly in a state of war or mass starvation, waiting for the black Europeans to come and provide them with billions of pounds of free aid every year? We all know the answer to that. But stevesmith insists that it's LAND MASSES that make Europeans what we are, and if we can just get enough non-Europeans to stand on this 'magical' piece of land called the U.K., they will all transform into darker versions of ourselves. We were never asked if we wanted mass immigration, because we would have said NO. We vote with our FEET by the house buying choices we make. You cannot refute that, stevesmith. Look at parts of Bradford - they are 100% muslim now. They were 100% white people just thirty years ago. How do you explain that? Why aren't millions of white people desperately trying to move into those muslim areas in Bradford, since, according to you, we ALL 'love' 'diversity'?
However the stuff on Europe and Africa was loaded with racist ignorance. Can I suggest that you read a book or two on the subject? Jarred Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel deals with this whole area. In short, a lot of the developments are more to do with natural geography and what resources are available than the intelligence of different races. I suspect that you have no wish to do this because it is so much easier to insult me and hang on to your prejudice.
setrac
says...
9:39pm Thu 18 Mar 10
SylvieM
says...
11:53pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Oh really QUICKEXIT? Are you talking about the state sponsored UAF or the BNP? Because as far as I am aware there has been no violence from the BNP, they prefer the ballot box. And seeing as 70% of the people in this country wants immigration to stop altogether, it doesn’t really matter who anyone knows personally, who may or may not have the same views, as your response to DR ADFORD’s comment states, because it is country wide. It isn’t just happening here either. It is Europe wide. The Liberal Democrats poll stats hardly changes from 16 to 22 in the polls, and has to rely on a hung parliament to get anywhere at all. That says it all.
Quickexit
says...
8:34am Sat 20 Mar 10
I think you are quite naive. Their leading members such as Nick Griffin and Richard Edmonds have criminal convictions. No other party leader has a criminal conviction. Sure, if you want to vote for convicted criminals, then do so. But I don't think it really advances the cause of fighting corruption in public life.
"And seeing as 70% of the people in this country wants immigration to stop altogether"
I don't know what poll you are quoting. I've also seen polls that state that most British people are comfortable with an ethnically diverse nation. The BNP advocates racial nationalism with nationhood based on race. That's their ideology and people have a right to vote for it, but it is not popular - 98% of the electorate did not vote for the BNP in the 2010 European elections, which were meant to be their best performance yet. Most stayed at home.
"The Liberal Democrats poll stats hardly changes from 16 to 22 in the polls, and has to rely on a hung parliament to get anywhere at all. That says it all."
Sure, but it is a better position than the BNP. The best it can hope for is one MP in the next election, which gives it no bargaining power. Nick Griffin is the next George Galloway - an embarrassing figure people will poke fun at, although perhaps less eloquent (his performance on BBC Question Time was abysmal and only won the BNP support through pity). The nature of the electoral system means that parties that are not Tory or Labour find it impossible to get the seats needed to form a government, but the LibDems are best placed to break that duopoly.
dr adford
says...
11:59pm Sat 20 Mar 10
No answer, as usual, from the insane Left.
You aren't moving to Haiti or Liberia, because they are black countries, and representative of ALL majority black countries on Earth.
Zimbabwe and South Africa are two classic examples of what happens when 'evil' whites are displaced from positions of both power, and business, by blacks in Africa.
By the way, I can PROVE that "most white people want to live in an all white country" simply by looking at house buying choices...
It is impossible for concentrations of non-whites to exist in any area of this country, at higher than the national average, unless white people both move OUT of areas which have been 'enriched', and most importantly, don't move INTO areas which have been 'enriched'.
Perhaps you should study statistics a bit.
I don't need to ask a single person their opinion about this very important matter - the simple existence of numerous 'enriched' areas in this, and every other white country, which have a much higher proportion of non-white residents than the national average, proves beyond ANY doubt, that the vast majority of the white population do not want to live there.
Let me explain it to you, because your bigotted mind is obviously incapable of ever having thought about this:
When a house went up for sale in the 1960s, in Brixton, there were over 200 times as many white people living in this country, as non-white. But somehow the house was bought by a black family. Now, what are the chances that the next house that goes up for sale in that street will be bought by a black family? Well, if the majority of white people don't mind living in an 'enriched' area, then it should have been 200 to 1. And therefore it should have been impossible for any non-whites to concentrate into certain areas in this country, as they would only be able to buy houses at random, if white people did the same...
Clearly this is not the case. There are hundreds of areas of this country which are now majority non-white, often majority black, or majority muslim, etc.
Can you explain it? There is only one explanation. Most white people want to live in an all white country.
stevewhite said "However the stuff on Europe and Africa was loaded with racist ignorance."
In other words - he is claiming that LAND MASSES make people more or less intelligent!
Africans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years longer than white people. How come no African country ever invented a written language?
Then the Marxist stevewhite said "However, would the type of society you advocate be better. I think it wouldn't. It is a pure fantasy for one thing. If anything like it did exist then it was for a very brief moment after the WW2."
Duh. Try looking at photographs of England ANY time before the 1950s... You are telling me that THAT England wasn't better than the multi-culti hellhole we are forced to inhabit now? Please explain.
So what you're saying is that YOU should be able to decide how 60 million people live, are you not? Since you know full well that most white people want to live around their own kind - OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE MIXED WITH OTHER RACES HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO.
I wonder why stevewhite isn't crying about Africa's 'lack of diversity', or India's 'lack of diversity', or China's 'lack of diversity'. Why aren't you advocating that Africa takes in 50 million Chinese and Indians every year, to completely destroy THEIR identity?
Why is the BNP the most popular website of all the political parties in this country?
When non-whites move into an area, white people move out.
So again I ask, what is this country going to be like in twenty years' time when non-whites are a majority? A veritable 'multi culti' paradise?
Special rights for minorities will end right about the time white people become a minority.
So tell us, steve, what percentage of the human population of the entire planet is white? Do you know? Do you care? Obviously not.
Here's something for your tiny mind to try and grasp: when there are no white people left, there will be no more free aid for Africa. All future famines will result in mass starvation on a scale you cannot comprehend. All of Europe will be living under the totalitarian boot of Islam.
Perhaps you can explain the lack of blacks in professions such as computer programming, computer chip design and fabrication, car engine design, NASA, etc. (Don't tell me about NASA, by the way, they are all 'affirmative action' hires and everybody knows it. This is being proved with every passing year, as NASA gets rapidly less and less intelligent and fails miserably to even put a robot on the moon...)
I said:
"Tell us stevesmith, if black people had inhabited Europe since the dawn of mankind, and white people had evolved in Africa, so that Europe was all black, and Africa was all white, would Europe have been the cradle of all the inventions that you doubtless take for granted, and would those poor white Africans be constantly in a state of war or mass starvation, waiting for the black Europeans to come and provide them with billions of pounds of free aid every year? "
You have no answer to this.
Perhaps you can name me ONE 'enriched' area of this country which is now a better place to live in, and which white people are desperate to move INTO rather than OUT OF. In other words, name me an 'enriched' area which is rapidly becoming 'unenriched' as whites desperately move into it, to live around all that 'diversity' you laughably claim we all want.
dr adford
says...
12:22am Sun 21 Mar 10
Crossbench peer Baroness Deech has called for a 'vigorous' public campaign to deter marriages between family members, which is common in Muslim and immigrant communities.
Her comments come as figures show up to 75 per cent of British Pakistanis in some areas are married to first cousins."
Another of the 'benefits of diversity', right, stevesmith?
According to you, if this country was people solely by Pakistanis, they would magically be 'British', and it wouldn't matter a jot that the ORIGINAL, REAL British people no longer existed, right?
Morris Hickey
says...
12:32am Sun 21 Mar 10
..
Mr Bernard
says...
1:03am Sun 21 Mar 10
I have read through your comments and can safely say that you need to check your facts.
There has been immigration to the UK long before 1945 just on a much smaller scale. WW2 was the catalyst that changed everything. Many British people fought to protect our islands, not from foreign residents, but from facist leaders, leaders who wanted to impose a highly controlled state. We won the war due to soldiers fighting side, black, white and asian....English, Caribbean, Australian, Canadian, Indian I could go on. That is the first thing you need to acknowledge.
Secondly, mass immigration was due to a large skills shortage as you would imagine after such a damaging war and although I would imagine having new communities settling in areas that were all white scary and different over the past 50 years we have managed to get over that. While I believe more needs to be done to promote British culture and traditions I do feel that we can learn from others and immigration allows us to do this. The problem with immigration is that Labour have failed to control it. Rather than trying to train young Brits they have opened the gates. Companies are also to blame as many prefer to hire immigrant workers knowing that they will work for less and do not give local people a shot. Immigration needs to be controlled. You may want to return to an all white England but I hope you remember that many people that drive the buses, work in the hospitals, runs taxis etc are the same people that you dislike. Councils also have a large part to play as they control where people are housed and in the past used to use this to separate communities rather than integrate.
Thirdly you talk about white minority areas. Parts of Tower Hamlets that previously had a low percentage of white Brits ARE changing. Although many white people do move out of the city I think this has more to do with having the opportunity to attain a better quality of life rather than running from immigrants! Many long term Black and Asian Brits also move further afield for the same reasons. In comparison many people traditionally not from London want to live in the city and so places like Spitalfields, Stepney and parts of Hackney are now hotspots for these new city dwellers.
I rather not get into the ins and outs of the conflicts between Europe and Africa but you have to understand that the world is a much smaller place now and movement is more prominant than ever before, especially in a business sense. Globalisation has created a system where we are reliant on other nations for certain things such as Cocao from Ghana to make chocolate for instance. Links between us all are tighter.
Britain the in 1950's was not the financial centre of the world, the place of mass wealth and opportunities like it is today and this has occurred due to all British communities coming together. Even in an all white Britain, we would still have crime, still have drugs and still have dirty streets so whose life would change?
While it is not up to me to tell you who to vote for, I do feel that your anger and 'facts' need to be questioned.
Things do need to change in the UK which is exactly why Brown will get the boot on May 2010, but like others have said on here...I would not want to see the BNP dealing with our hospitals or the economy or anything for that matter as you clearly have a backward looking mentality where you feel reverting to the past is better than looking to create a better future...without a Labour government might I add!
Quickexit
says...
4:23pm Sun 21 Mar 10
Africa and India are highly diverse as are countries like Pakistan and Iran. A multitude of religions, ethnic and linguistic groups, diverse cultures with long histories, etc. You see them as uniform savages because you are an ill-educated racist. The BNP exists for people like you and I am glad of it as it is easier to take on an organisational embodiment of racist and neo-Nazi ideas than a general prejudiced sentiment. And I would rather these views be argued against in an electoral democracy than banned or fought against with violence.
Nevertheless, we need to get it into perspective. Racist ideologies are not attractive to the vast majority of Brits. Immigration may be seen as a problem to a significant number of people, but these same people are generally not racist and are not advocating a racially 'pure' white nation. Moreover, I would argue that this ideology is less popular than the level of BNP suggests. Many BNP voters are not necessarily racist or interested in that party's racial ideology. So, we have a party that wins, at best, just under a million votes, which works out at little over 2% of the electorate and perhaps at least half of these votes are from people who have no problem with living next to Black and Asian people or with mixed marriages, which the BNP opposes.
Why on earth do we take seriously a party whose ideology has the support of just 1% of the electorate? Why the big fuss about these fringe lunatics? Why not just be confident of your policy platform and put yourself across to the electorate on that basis, as the Lib Dem Ann Haigh has done, instead of kicking up a hue and cry about the latter-day Monster Raving Loonies?
More News stories
- EPPING: Four cars crash on M25
- WALTHAM FOREST: Train services suspended
- CHINGFORD: Homes hit by power cut
- LONDON / ESSEX: Weather warning
- BARKINGSIDE: Man charged with girl's murder
- LOUGHTON: Cyclist hurt in crash
- WALTHAM FOREST: ASBO teen banned from borough
- LEYTONSTONE: Event for memory loss sufferers
- WALTHAMSTOW: Bingo chain eyes up E17
Pat Richardson
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Morris Hickey says...
6:58pm Tue 16 Mar 10