...Huh. I was going to ask if I should try to get into this show this season since everyone on this site seems to love it.
[sub]Now I'm too scared.[/sub]
[sub]Now I'm too scared.[/sub]
Wow, one constituency, well done.JDKJ said:FYI, in the 2010 General Elections, the BNP got more votes than the Lib-Dem candidate in the constituency of Barking (North London). Further FYI, in the 2006 council elections, the BNP gained 12 of the 51 council seats, making the BNP the party with the second highest number of councilors (Labour had 38 seats).Megacherv said:That's besides the point that the BNP is neither a major political party (there are 3 really, Labour, Tory and Lib-Dem), nor did they have anything close to a large number of votes in our country during the last election.JDKJ said:I may not be a genius, but I can recognize "fuzzy math" when I see it. Total number of population is irrelevant. Total number of registered voters is what matters.Megacherv said:Yes, out of 62,041,708 people in the country, and let's say that maybe only half of them voted, that's still a tiny amount of people.JDKJ said:I'm not associating them with "all." Just the 250,000 British citizen that voted for them in 2008.Megacherv said:They're still not a major political party, and should never be associated with all British citizensJDKJ said:I wouldn't be keen to have my country associated with that lot but the fact remains that someone over there likes them enough to vote for them in significant numbers. In 2008 the BNP polled an average of 14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates. The total number of votes polled by the BNP stood at 240,968. The party gained 15 seats and had 55 councillors in all local authorities. (Source: wiki)Megacherv said:They are nowhere near being a major national party. Please don't associate Brits with BNP, associate racists with the BNP.JDKJ said:More extremist than the Brits and the BNP? Doesn't the "N" in "BNP" stand for "nationalist?" At least the Yanks don't have a major political party proudly founded on the principles of racism and xenophobia.Daverson said:£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p
And this was back in 2008, their support has fallen a lot more since then.
And if their support has fallen in the UK since 2008, it may have to do with the fact that they are now focusing on the EU elections -- where they continue to garner surprising levels of support.
As more general FYI, The BNP put forward 338 candidates for the 2010 General Election, gaining 563,743 votes (more than double what they gained in 2008). Nick Griffin came third in the Barking constituency, behind Margaret Hodge of Labour and Simon Marcus of the Conservatives, who were first and second respectively. At 14.6%, this was the BNP's best result in any of the seats it contested.
Someone in Barking likes Nick and the BNP.
No, but it's kinda hard for me to readily dismiss the fact that more than half a million voters cast their vote for the BNP in a general election. It does begin to look as if all that "Fuck the Pakis!! Send 'em all back to Pakiland!!" rhetoric strikes somewhat of a responsive chord. Clearly it's not being totally ignored.Megacherv said:Wow, one constituency, well done.JDKJ said:FYI, in the 2010 General Elections, the BNP got more votes than the Lib-Dem candidate in the constituency of Barking (North London). Further FYI, in the 2006 council elections, the BNP gained 12 of the 51 council seats, making the BNP the party with the second highest number of councilors (Labour had 38 seats).Megacherv said:That's besides the point that the BNP is neither a major political party (there are 3 really, Labour, Tory and Lib-Dem), nor did they have anything close to a large number of votes in our country during the last election.JDKJ said:I may not be a genius, but I can recognize "fuzzy math" when I see it. Total number of population is irrelevant. Total number of registered voters is what matters.Megacherv said:Yes, out of 62,041,708 people in the country, and let's say that maybe only half of them voted, that's still a tiny amount of people.JDKJ said:I'm not associating them with "all." Just the 250,000 British citizen that voted for them in 2008.Megacherv said:They're still not a major political party, and should never be associated with all British citizensJDKJ said:I wouldn't be keen to have my country associated with that lot but the fact remains that someone over there likes them enough to vote for them in significant numbers. In 2008 the BNP polled an average of 14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates. The total number of votes polled by the BNP stood at 240,968. The party gained 15 seats and had 55 councillors in all local authorities. (Source: wiki)Megacherv said:They are nowhere near being a major national party. Please don't associate Brits with BNP, associate racists with the BNP.JDKJ said:More extremist than the Brits and the BNP? Doesn't the "N" in "BNP" stand for "nationalist?" At least the Yanks don't have a major political party proudly founded on the principles of racism and xenophobia.Daverson said:£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p
And this was back in 2008, their support has fallen a lot more since then.
And if their support has fallen in the UK since 2008, it may have to do with the fact that they are now focusing on the EU elections -- where they continue to garner surprising levels of support.
As more general FYI, The BNP put forward 338 candidates for the 2010 General Election, gaining 563,743 votes (more than double what they gained in 2008). Nick Griffin came third in the Barking constituency, behind Margaret Hodge of Labour and Simon Marcus of the Conservatives, who were first and second respectively. At 14.6%, this was the BNP's best result in any of the seats it contested.
Someone in Barking likes Nick and the BNP.
Not a representative of the entire British society
Agreed. I'll take the obvious evil over the hidden one every time. But that has nothing to do with the assertion that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system." I'll beg to differ with that assertion.Fronzel said:You think the dishonesty in the US system is an advantage? At least everyone knows what they're dealing with in the BNP.JDKJ said:And that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" is also a matter for debate. At least the American politicians couch their hatred in code words and dog whistles. The BNP's candidates don't hesitate to call a Pakistani a "Paki bastard."
When I said fire, I meant out of a cannon.Karma168 said:Russel left the same time David Tennant did so why are mentioning at him?Daveman said:now somebody fire Russel T Davies and we might have something decent to work with).
How am I wrong? My position is that the BNP enjoys enough support -- at least at the level of local representative government -- not to be dismissed as a bunch of cranks or inconsequential to the British political game. There are constituencies where they hold a significant number of seats in local councils. And they received half a million votes in the last general election. If you can point me to the part of that which is "wrong," then I'll gladly admit that I am wrong. But I'm just citing facts in support of my position. Facts which tend to support my position -- far as I'm concerned.Abandon4093 said:JDKJ is just a grand idiot. He's trying to suggest that the UK is more nationalist than the US because of the existence of one very minor nationalist come fascist party while the US has none.Megacherv said:Wow, one constituency, well done.JDKJ said:FYI, in the 2010 General Elections, the BNP got more votes than the Lib-Dem candidate in the constituency of Barking (North London). Further FYI, in the 2006 council elections, the BNP gained 12 of the 51 council seats, making the BNP the party with the second highest number of councilors (Labour had 38 seats).Megacherv said:That's besides the point that the BNP is neither a major political party (there are 3 really, Labour, Tory and Lib-Dem), nor did they have anything close to a large number of votes in our country during the last election.JDKJ said:I may not be a genius, but I can recognize "fuzzy math" when I see it. Total number of population is irrelevant. Total number of registered voters is what matters.Megacherv said:Yes, out of 62,041,708 people in the country, and let's say that maybe only half of them voted, that's still a tiny amount of people.JDKJ said:I'm not associating them with "all." Just the 250,000 British citizen that voted for them in 2008.Megacherv said:They're still not a major political party, and should never be associated with all British citizensJDKJ said:I wouldn't be keen to have my country associated with that lot but the fact remains that someone over there likes them enough to vote for them in significant numbers. In 2008 the BNP polled an average of 14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates. The total number of votes polled by the BNP stood at 240,968. The party gained 15 seats and had 55 councillors in all local authorities. (Source: wiki)Megacherv said:They are nowhere near being a major national party. Please don't associate Brits with BNP, associate racists with the BNP.JDKJ said:More extremist than the Brits and the BNP? Doesn't the "N" in "BNP" stand for "nationalist?" At least the Yanks don't have a major political party proudly founded on the principles of racism and xenophobia.Daverson said:£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p
And this was back in 2008, their support has fallen a lot more since then.
And if their support has fallen in the UK since 2008, it may have to do with the fact that they are now focusing on the EU elections -- where they continue to garner surprising levels of support.
As more general FYI, The BNP put forward 338 candidates for the 2010 General Election, gaining 563,743 votes (more than double what they gained in 2008). Nick Griffin came third in the Barking constituency, behind Margaret Hodge of Labour and Simon Marcus of the Conservatives, who were first and second respectively. At 14.6%, this was the BNP's best result in any of the seats it contested.
Someone in Barking likes Nick and the BNP.
Not a representative of the entire British society
Which on the surface seems like a valid point.... If you don't understand how the British political system works.
Free assembly and all that.
The US has a 2 party system. (If you're vacant enough to actually buy that.)
In other-words his entire argument is based on a logical fallacy.
The reason there is no ANP is because they do not allow for a third party. So America's racists have to vote elsewhere. The UK allows for as many parties as we can think up.
.... He also seems completely incapable of admitting when he's wrong.
If you're going to live there, yes, you'd alter your language whether you wanted to or not.Jaime_Wolf said:...yes, a number of them probably would.Spangles said:Yeah, like the Yanks would come here and call it petrol.Jaime_Wolf said:Seriously? You're complaining that they used the word "gasoline" while they were in America? You people will complain about anything.
It's a perfectly valid gripe, it's a UK concept, filmed as a UK show, using public UK funds.
Too right we don't want your grubby fingerprints all over it.
It's incredibly common for people to adopt the local alternant of characteristic word alternations like gasoline~petrol when they travel.
And you're right about the fact that it's a UK concept, filmed as a UK show, using public UK funds. You just seem to forget that the current episodes are being set in the US. They're having the characters behave as realistic travellers to the US.
I'd reccomend buying last years series on DVD first (Or of course you could find them online and watch them illegally, but of course that would be illegal and I in no way condone such actions *suspiciousshuffling*) as several things in this series relate back to events last year. Please do try and watch it though, it's great!AbsoluteVirtue18 said:...Huh. I was going to ask if I should try to get into this show this season since everyone on this site seems to love it.
[sub]Now I'm too scared.[/sub]
Did you overlook the "more" in "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system?" You don't understand that to say -- regardless of what prompted it -- that racism and xenophobia are more prevalent in the US political system than it is in the UK's? And I'm the "grand idiot."Abandon4093 said:No one said that it was more present in the US's political system. The original quote that you were initially replying to was,JDKJ said:Agreed. I'll take the obvious evil over the hidden one every time. But that has nothing to do with the assertion that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system." I'll beg to differ with that assertion.Fronzel said:You think the dishonesty in the US system is an advantage? At least everyone knows what they're dealing with in the BNP.JDKJ said:And that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" is also a matter for debate. At least the American politicians couch their hatred in code words and dog whistles. The BNP's candidates don't hesitate to call a Pakistani a "Paki bastard."
The guy was making a cast away comment about America's patriotism....£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p
some would have called it a joke.
They have significant power at the level of local government. Have you never heard the old saw: "All politics is local?" Why are you operating under the mistaken assumption that a seat in Parliament is the begin all, end all. When so many aspects of your daily life (e.g., housing, trash collection, business and other licenses, education, etc., etc.) are functions of local government?Abandon4093 said:I highlighted it for you.JDKJ said:How am I wrong? My position is that the BNP enjoys enough support -- at least at the level of local representative government -- not to be dismissed as a bunch of cranks or inconsequential to the British political game. There are constituencies where they hold a significant number of seats in local councils. And they received half a million votes in the last general election. If you can point me to part of that which is "wrong," then I'll gladly admit that I am wrong. But I'm just citing facts in support of my position. Facts which tend to support my position -- far as I'm concerned.Abandon4093 said:JDKJ is just a grand idiot. He's trying to suggest that the UK is more nationalist than the US because of the existence of one very minor nationalist come fascist party while the US has none.Megacherv said:Wow, one constituency, well done.JDKJ said:FYI, in the 2010 General Elections, the BNP got more votes than the Lib-Dem candidate in the constituency of Barking (North London). Further FYI, in the 2006 council elections, the BNP gained 12 of the 51 council seats, making the BNP the party with the second highest number of councilors (Labour had 38 seats).Megacherv said:That's besides the point that the BNP is neither a major political party (there are 3 really, Labour, Tory and Lib-Dem), nor did they have anything close to a large number of votes in our country during the last election.JDKJ said:I may not be a genius, but I can recognize "fuzzy math" when I see it. Total number of population is irrelevant. Total number of registered voters is what matters.Megacherv said:Yes, out of 62,041,708 people in the country, and let's say that maybe only half of them voted, that's still a tiny amount of people.JDKJ said:I'm not associating them with "all." Just the 250,000 British citizen that voted for them in 2008.Megacherv said:They're still not a major political party, and should never be associated with all British citizensJDKJ said:I wouldn't be keen to have my country associated with that lot but the fact remains that someone over there likes them enough to vote for them in significant numbers. In 2008 the BNP polled an average of 14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates. The total number of votes polled by the BNP stood at 240,968. The party gained 15 seats and had 55 councillors in all local authorities. (Source: wiki)Megacherv said:They are nowhere near being a major national party. Please don't associate Brits with BNP, associate racists with the BNP.JDKJ said:More extremist than the Brits and the BNP? Doesn't the "N" in "BNP" stand for "nationalist?" At least the Yanks don't have a major political party proudly founded on the principles of racism and xenophobia.Daverson said:£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p
And this was back in 2008, their support has fallen a lot more since then.
And if their support has fallen in the UK since 2008, it may have to do with the fact that they are now focusing on the EU elections -- where they continue to garner surprising levels of support.
As more general FYI, The BNP put forward 338 candidates for the 2010 General Election, gaining 563,743 votes (more than double what they gained in 2008). Nick Griffin came third in the Barking constituency, behind Margaret Hodge of Labour and Simon Marcus of the Conservatives, who were first and second respectively. At 14.6%, this was the BNP's best result in any of the seats it contested.
Someone in Barking likes Nick and the BNP.
Not a representative of the entire British society
Which on the surface seems like a valid point.... If you don't understand how the British political system works.
Free assembly and all that.
The US has a 2 party system. (If you're vacant enough to actually buy that.)
In other-words his entire argument is based on a logical fallacy.
The reason there is no ANP is because they do not allow for a third party. So America's racists have to vote elsewhere. The UK allows for as many parties as we can think up.
.... He also seems completely incapable of admitting when he's wrong.
1.9% of the total votes cast is inconsequential.
Until they gain a seat in parliament, they have no power.
Their existence is clearly a problem. One I wish we could just shoot dead and forget about. But that problem is unfortunately universal.
I also highlighted the general issue with your attitude.
Christ. Where'd you learn to read? What, pray tell, does "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" mean to you? That's not an ambiguous statement. And before you rush to answer, read it over a few times first while wearing your thinking cap (that would be the cap that's not conical in shape with a pointy top -- that's a dunce cap).Abandon4093 said:I've not read anyone saying that nationalism is more prevalent in the US political system. If they have said that. I haven't seen it.JDKJ said:Did you overlook the "more" in "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system?" You don't understand to say -- regardless of what prompted it -- that racism and xenophobia are more prevalent in the US political system than it is in the UK's? And I'm the "grand idiot."Abandon4093 said:No one said that it was more present in the US's political system. The original quote that you were initially replying to was,JDKJ said:Agreed. I'll take the obvious evil over the hidden one every time. But that has nothing to do with the assertion that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system." I'll beg to differ with that assertion.Fronzel said:You think the dishonesty in the US system is an advantage? At least everyone knows what they're dealing with in the BNP.JDKJ said:And that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" is also a matter for debate. At least the American politicians couch their hatred in code words and dog whistles. The BNP's candidates don't hesitate to call a Pakistani a "Paki bastard."
The guy was making a cast away comment about America's patriotism....£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p
some would have called it a joke.
You did however insinuate that it's more prevalent in the UK. As a country. Which is completely bogus.
The only reason that we have overt racists in our political system is because - and I've said this many times now - we have a multi-party system. Any idiot can set up their own party for whatever reasons they see fit.
You're conveniently ignoring this fact because it moots your point. The UK isn't any more racist than the US. (as a whole) We just have a political system that allows the racists to create a party that they can all vote for. A Political system that is admittedly not perfect. But one I'd take over yours any day of the week.
Are you actually saying the US has a better sense of humour than the UK?I don't know how "jokes" work where you're from, but where I'm from, jokes are expected to be funny. If they're not, they're something other than "jokes."
The UK is pretty much renowned for it's sense of humour. We have successful comics from all sides of comedy. Including a massive amount of love for American comics. Breeding comedy and allowing it to grow is essentially what we do.