BNP leader to appear on Question Time

PaulieD

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re assuming they are still in the country?

Yes. Did you read the link I provided? Last year, the Irish state spent some 91 million euro to house failed asylum seekers. I have a better idea, deport them.

saol alainn

Anyway, in my opinion, the BNP, and others like it, is not the solution. I well remember the NF days when in England. Even if you were a red-head, or the owner of curly dark hair, you'd be labelled 'unworthy', to be polite. There are some views which I just may see the sense in, such as the threat of islamic extremism in Europe, but that's the total sum of it.

The problem is, going by the programme on Thursday night, the other speakers (apart from the women. In fact there was only one point I especially disagreed with the baroness. There are bogus asylum-seekers.) waffled and blathered on just as much as Nick Griffin did.

marco_polo

PaulieD wrote: »

Will people stop repeating this lie. Thanks.


2) Social Assistance (Non-Contributory).
This is paid on the basis of having a low income and is means tested (i.e. your income must be below a certain level). These payments do not depend on contributions made through PRSI.

Please contact DSFA for a full list of Social Insurance and Assistance payments.


Supplementary Welfare Allowance & Exceptional Needs Payments:
Health Service Executive Supplementary Welfare Allowance provides a basic weekly allowance as a right to eligible people who have little or no income. People with low incomes may also qualify for a weekly supplement payment under the scheme to meet certain special needs, for example, help with rent/mortgage interest payments. In addition, payments can also be made for urgent or exceptional needs. Supplementary Welfare Allowance and Exceptional Needs Payments are administered by the Health Services Executive (HSE). Health and personal social services in Ireland are now delivered by the Health Service Executive, through a network of Local Health Offices, health centres and clinics. You should apply for Supplementary Welfare Allowance tothe Community Welfare Officer at your local health centre.
For more information click here
For Local Health Centres: click here

Supplementary Welfare Allowance: All EU & EEA workers can now access these payments as long as they have a history of working in the state. The Community Welfare Officer, who administers the payment through the local Health Centres, decides whether the work done can be considered as 'effective and genuine work'. Eg, an EEA national who shows s/he has been working for 3 hours per day, five days a week for the last 3 months could be considered to have "genuine and effective" work. There is no clear definition of "genuine and effective employment" but an example given in the original DSFA circular states that "an EEA national who shows s/he has been working for 3 hours per day, five days a week for the last 3 months, and could be considered to have effective and genuine work". See.
The Habitual Residence Condition test is still applied to Unemployment Assistance.
For further information on the HRC click here.
Or contact your local social welfare officer.

http://www.mrci.ie/know_rights/socia...re_system.html

You know what countries are in the EEA? Is there much evidence of big numbers of people from Norway, Switzerland and Iceland or the EU block , abandoning their lifes in their home countres to come to live here soley on the Suplementary welfare allowance?

PaulieD

marco_polo wrote: »

You know what countries are in the EEA? Is there much evidence of big numbers of people from Norway, Switzerland and Iceland or the EU block , abandoning their lifes in their home countres to come to live here soley on the Suplementary welfare allowance?

Nope. Plenty of evidence of other nationalities coming over here to live off our generous benefit system.

Such as, the figure for Nigerians is 18.6pc of their total Irish population of 16,300. Alas, just how many more Nigerian dependents are the beneficiaries of the rent allowances that are being granted to the 3,024 family-heads, I cannot say.
Now this reliance upon the state for the accommodation of so many Nigerians reflects another rather uncomfortable truth which was revealed in the 2006 census, but which has never -- so far as I know -- been highlighted in the media. It is this: contrary to almost all predictions about the impact of immigrants upon an economy, a majority of Nigerians are not economically active at all. For even at the height of the boom, in 2006, only 38pc over the age of 15 were at work.
Maybe this is because so many are too old for work? Not so. There are almost no Nigerians over 50. Their average age is 26.6, with some 10,000 between the ages of 25 and 44. Yes, there are a large number of Nigerian children (3,845 under fifteen), but that figure of 38pc at work is a percentage of the over-15s only. The equivalent working proportions are: Poles, 84pc; Lithuanians, 82pc; and Latvians 82pc. On the other hand, the figures for rental-subsidy (remember: Nigerians 18.6pc) are Poles, 1.5pc; Lithuanians, 3pc; and Latvians, 4.3pc.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/risible-lies-about-immigrants-no-substitute-for-honest-debate-1456226.html

Nodin

PaulieD wrote: »

Nope. Plenty of evidence of other nationalities coming over here to live off our generous benefit system.

Can't get off the soapbox, can you?

Nodin

saol alainn wrote: »

The problem is, going by the programme on Thursday night, the other speakers (apart from the women. In fact there was only one point I especially disagreed with the baroness. There are bogus asylum-seekers.) waffled and blathered on just as much as Nick Griffin did.

What she said has been explained earlier in the thread.

djpbarry

PaulieD wrote: »

Yes. Did you read the link I provided? Last year, the Irish state spent some 91 million euro to house failed asylum seekers.

Try again. The article states:

The cost of housing asylum seekers in 2008 was €91m

Perhaps you would be so kind as to highlight the word 'failed' in that statement?

PaulieD

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps you would be so kind as to highlight the word 'failed' in that statement?

Sure.

RTE News wrote: »

He added that people who are not successful through the asylum process, then seek humanitarian leave to remain and 'seek every conceivable form of appeal to that process'.

He said the department is housing 'homeless people that have pitched up on our shores to whom we have an obligation to put a roof over their heads'

marco_polo

PaulieD wrote: »

Sure.

You seem to have selective quoting issues too, from the same link.

He said it will be difficult to hold down costs, but that legislation before the House will mean asylum seekers will have to disclose all ground to stay here at the beginning of the process, rather than the current process 'that is been strung out', where people are exercising their legal rights 'in an adept way'.

Nobody is claiming that things are perfect, it is widely acknowledged that problems exist and efforts are underway to improve the system.

djpbarry

PaulieD wrote: »

Sure.

RTE News wrote:

He added that people who are not successful through the asylum process, then seek humanitarian leave to remain and 'seek every conceivable form of appeal to that process'.

He said the department is housing 'homeless people that have pitched up on our shores to whom we have an obligation to put a roof over their heads'

Shift goal-posts much?

You claimed that "last year, the Irish state spent some 91 million euro to house failed asylum seekers". Nothing in the article you linked to comes close to supporting that statement.

I think I'm done with this thread anyhow. I'm actually slightly dissappointed with myself that I persisted with it for a full 55 posts after the 'free prams, free taxis and discount cars' twaddle was trotted out.

Robbo

djpbarry wrote: »

I think I'm done with this thread anyhow. I'm actually slightly dissappointed with myself that I persisted with it for a full 55 posts after the 'free prams, free taxis and discount cars' twaddle was trotted out.

I'm just pissing myself with the irony that the gist of the thread to begin with is whether to give free speech to fascists to peddle their lies. I await a post that starts referencing phrenology...

PaulieD

djpbarry wrote: »

You claimed that "last year, the Irish state spent some 91 million euro to house failed asylum seekers". Nothing in the article you linked to comes close to supporting that statement..

These people were refused asylum, ergo, they are failed asylum seekers who were housed at the taxpayers expense.

djpbarry wrote: »

I think I'm done with this thread anyhow. I'm actually slightly dissappointed with myself that I persisted with it for a full 55 posts after the 'free prams, free taxis and discount cars' twaddle was trotted out.

Are we reading the same thread? Nobody mentioned any of the above.

PaulieD

Robbo wrote: »

I'm just pissing myself with the irony that the gist of the thread to begin with is whether to give free speech to fascists to peddle their lies. I await a post that starts referencing phrenology...

What lies? Seriously, are we reading the same thread?

Nodin

PaulieD wrote: »

These people were refused asylum, ergo, they are failed asylum seekers who were housed at the taxpayers expense..

Where does it say they were "failed"?

PaulieD wrote: »

Are we reading the same thread? Nobody mentioned any of the above.

Yes, they did. Try reading the thread.

PaulieD

Nodin wrote: »

Where does it say they were "failed"

The refusal of asylum seeker status is a start.

bonkey

PaulieD wrote: »

The refusal of asylum seeker status is a start.

It would be.

One would have to ask, then, why the article cited a cost for asylum seekers if the people in question had been refused that status...

One would additionally have to ask how the reader was able to interpret the term "asylum seekers" as "those who were refused asylum seeker status".

Incidentally...aren't you confusing those who were refused asylum seeker status and those who were refused asylum, having been oficially recognised as an asylum seeker?
It is the former, that you appear to be referring to here, but the latter in many of your previous mails.

MrMicra

Captain Furball wrote: »

Your understanding of this topic has been corrected numerous times, so i took a wild guess and thought you got it from the good old news papers.

He has backed up everything that he has said with real facts and you've made everything that you say up out of whole cloth.
You haven't corrected him correctly once.

MrMicra

walshb wrote: »

I am not anti English or anyone, but to maintain that thru history, British persons and those in power were liberal and tolerant of all ethnic groups
is having a laugh

You're a realist WalshB. I don't agree that the English are anything as bad as they used to be even in the 70s and 80s. (Though that could be because all the english working class people I know are londoners).

Saltour Sossiez

The program was a farce. The BBC and their hatred for whites is pathetic.
MEP Griffin was treated incredibly poorly . Why couldn't the program have been handled in a decent, balanced way?

wes

Saltour Sossiez wrote: »

The program was a farce. The BBC and their hatred for whites is pathetic.

Care to give examples of the BBC hatred for "Whites"? Also, I am pretty sure that the people running the BBC are mostly "white" themselves and find it hard to believe they all hate themselves.

**EDIT**
Also, can you tell what the hell a "white" is? As those who appear "white" don't actually come from a single ethnic or cultural group, and in reality encompasses several different ethnic or cultural groups.

Saltour Sossiez wrote: »

MEP Griffin was treated incredibly poorly . Why couldn't the program have been handled in a decent, balanced way?

So asking Griffin about his parties policies is somehow poor treatment? If Griffin came off poorly, it has only himself to blame.

O'Morris

wes wrote:

So asking Griffin about his parties policies is somehow poor treatment?

He wasn't asked much about the BNP's policies. Most of the abuse directed at him had to do with his past behaviour.

The reality is that most of the BNP's policies are popular with the British public and so they have no reason to not want to be honest about them. Their problem is their history, not their policies. That's why the BBC chose to focus on the former rather than on the latter.

I agree with Saltour Sossiez. I think the BBC's treatment of Nick Griffin was disgraceful.

wes

O'Morris wrote: »

He wasn't asked much about the BNP's policies. Most of the abuse directed at him had to do with his past behaviour.

There are plenty of question marks about the parties past and Griffin in particular. I see it as perfectly valid as the BNP, have never clearly repudiated this past.

O'Morris wrote: »

The reality is that most of the BNP's policies are popular with the British public and so they have no reason to not want to be honest about them. Their problem is their history, not their policies. That's why the BBC chose to focus on the former rather than on the latter.

The BNP are clearly a racist party in the here and now firstly. Now people may vote for them out of ignorance. Still, I found it very odd that Griffin, couldn't simply say that he was wrong in the past, but rather chose to try and dance around it instead.

O'Morris wrote: »

I agree with Saltour Sossiez. I think the BBC's treatment of Nick Griffin was disgraceful.

From what I have seen of question time, the treatment seems to be pretty normal. Griffin simple wasn't up to much imho and was exposed for what he is.

O'Morris

wes wrote:

There are plenty of question marks about the parties past and Griffin in particular.

The BNP should be judged on their current policies, not on their policies of a decade ago. People will vote for them based on their current policies.

wes wrote:

The BNP are clearly a racist party in the here and now firstly. Now people may vote for them out of ignorance.

The BNP does contain some racists but I don't think it would be fair to call the party itself racist. I think it would be more accurate to describe their outlook as racialist rather than racist. It's more about being pro-white and pro-British than about being anti-black or anti-foreigner. There are a lot of good people in the party who are motivated by patriotism rather than hatred.

wes wrote:

From what I have seen of question time, the treatment seems to be pretty normal.

It was nowhere near normal. I've watched Question Time before and I've never seen anyone subjected to that level of abuse. Last Thursday was the first time I've ever seen a full programme devoted to attacking the views of a single member of the panel. It was out of order and Nick Griffin deserves an apology from the BBC for their shameful treatment of him.

wes wrote:

Griffin simple wasn't up to much imho and was exposed for what he is.

People have been critical of his performance but I think he performed well considering what he was up against. Even though he was outnumbered four to one and most of the questions were directed to him he was barely given a chance to speak. I don't think he was even given the chance to answer half of the questions put to him.

Penn

When you have the leader of a party with the reputation that the BNP has, it would be foolish to expect anything other than questions about that party. If the majority of people there want to ask questions about the BNP, then the majority of questions featured in the programme will be about the BNP. Even when they tried to steer the topic away with the question regarding the Daily Mail article about Stephen Gately, Nick Griffin insulted pretty much the entire gay community.

He was exposed for what he truly is on that programme, and nobody expected anything different. If he didn't think that most of the questions would be directed at him and he'd be attacked during the programme, then he's incredibly naive

Penn

O'Morris wrote: »

People have been critical of his performance but I think he performed well considering what he was up against. Even though he was outnumbered four to one and most of the questions were directed to him he was barely given a chance to speak. I don't think he was even given the chance to answer half of the questions put to him.

Of course some of the questions weren't put to him, they were trying to involve the other panellists and not have the whole show be about Nick Griffin.

O'Morris wrote: »

It was nowhere near normal. I've watched Question Time before and I've never seen anyone subjected to that level of abuse. Last Thursday was the first time I've ever seen a full programme devoted to attacking the views of a single member of the panel. It was out of order and Nick Griffin deserves an apology from the BBC for their shameful treatment of him.

Did you see the one which featured Margaret Beckett, who was one of the first ones accused when the expenses scandal first started. Nick Griffin got a rough time, but trust me, he's not the only one who has.

wes

O'Morris wrote: »

The BNP should be judged on their current policies, not on their policies of a decade ago. People will vote for them based on their current policies.

They should easily be able to repudiate there old policies then. Say they were a bad idea or a mistake, why dance around the issue?

Also, the current policies aren't any better really.

O'Morris wrote: »

The BNP does contain some racists but I don't think it would be fair to call the party itself racist. I think it would be more accurate to describe their outlook as racialist rather than racist. It's more about being pro-white and pro-British than about being anti-black or anti-foreigner. There are a lot of good people in the party who are motivated by patriotism rather than hatred.

Patriotism, isn't the word I would use. Jingoism, would be more accurate imho, and Jingoism has cause a lot of strife accross this continent in the past.

Honestly, why can't a Black or Asian person be British? Why on Gods green earth does the colour of there skin matter in anyway shape or form? Is Ashley Cole or Nasser Hussain any less British?!?

To say a party that wants the country to be white, is not racist is ridiculous imho. They are very clearly racist and to say otherwise is to deny the fundamental nature of the BNP.

O'Morris wrote: »

It was nowhere near normal. I've watched Question Time before and I've never seen anyone subjected to that level of abuse. Last Thursday was the first time I've ever seen a full programme devoted to attacking the views of a single member of the panel. It was out of order and Nick Griffin deserves an apology from the BBC for their shameful treatment of him.

I am going to disagree here. The presence of the BNP, naturally meant that there controversial history and policies would be put under a microscope, and Griffin simple wasn't up much in defending them. He knew what to expect going in, and is now crying as he was unable to handle it.

O'Morris wrote: »

People have been critical of his performance but I think he performed well considering what he was up against. Even though he was outnumbered four to one and most of the questions were directed to him he was barely given a chance to speak. I don't think he was even given the chance to answer half of the questions put to him.

I taught, the BBC was more than fair to him imho. He was given a chance to sit with the big boys and was found wanting, and is now trying to act like some kind of martyr. His racist views were exposed for all to see, and he has only himself to blame.

Hippo

Here's a quote from the BNP website:

We accept that Britain always will have ethnic minorities and have no problem with this as long as they remain minorities and do not change nor seek to change the fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. (my italics)

This is a racist political party, it is at best disingenuous to suggest otherwise. For this reason, it is not like other political parties, nor should it have any role in the political mainstream.

The_Minister

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

. Even when they tried to steer the topic away with the question regarding the Daily Mail article about Stephen Gately, Nick Griffin insulted pretty much the entire gay community.

Tbh, that question was designed to highlight his bigotry. It was a jab at him in another form.

O'Morris

paddyirishman85 wrote:

Of course some of the questions weren't put to him, they were trying to involve the other panellists and not have the whole show be about Nick Griffin.

The whole show was about Nick Griffin though. They chose to change the format so that most of the questions would be put to him. If they were going to allow members of the audience to spend the entire programme putting questions to him they should at least given him a chance to answer those questions.

wes wrote:

They should easily be able to repudiate there old policies then. Say they were a bad idea or a mistake, why dance around the issue?

For the same reason that the Sinn Fein leadership refuse to repudiate their past. It's because they want to keep the hardliners on-side as they change the party.

wes wrote:

Also, the current policies aren't any better really.

They're a lot better than they were a decade ago. Before Nick Griffin became leader, the BNP were committed to the compulsory repatriation of blacks from Britain. That's no longer a policy of the party.

wes wrote:

Patriotism, isn't the word I would use. Jingoism, would be more accurate imho, and Jingoism has cause a lot of strife accross this continent in the past.

Jingoism is usually connected with support for an aggressive foreign policy that aims at furthering the interests of your own country at the expense of others. The BNP have an isolationist, non-interventionist foreign-policy and they're opposed to the idea of Britain getting involved in foreign wars.

wes wrote:

Honestly, why can't a Black or Asian person be British?

They can be British but they can't be ethnically British. They're not indigenous to the British Isles. For the same reason a white Australian can't become an Australian aborigine because he's not indigenous to Australia. His roots are in a different continent.

wes wrote:

Why on Gods green earth does the colour of there skin matter in anyway shape or form?

It's not just the colour of someone's skin. Racial differences run much deeper than skin colour. It has much more to do with ancestry - about where people's roots lie.

wes wrote:

Is Ashley Cole or Nasser Hussain any less British?!?

They're not part of the same ethnic group as the indigenous British people.

wes wrote:

To say a party that wants the country to be white, is not racist is ridiculous imho.

I want Ireland to remain white and I'm not a racist.

wes wrote:

They are very clearly racist and to say otherwise is to deny the fundamental nature of the BNP.

A racist is someone who treats people of a different race with less respect than he treats people of his own race. A racialist is someone who treats people with respect regardless of their race but who still identifies strongly with his own race and nation and who is committed to seeing that nation and race survive into the future. The BNP are racialist, not racist.

Hippo wrote:

Here's a quote from the BNP website:

We accept that Britain always will have ethnic minorities and have no problem with this as long as they remain minorities and do not change nor seek to change the fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. (my italics)

I fully agree with that statement and I see nothing racist about it. The BNP want Britain to still be a British country in a hundred years from now. I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now. I think most people in Britain and Ireland feel the same way. That's why I think parties committed to dealing with the problem of mass immigration will have a bright future in these islands and throughout the rest of Europe.

wes

O'Morris wrote: »

For the same reason that the Sinn Fein leadership refuse to repudiate their past. It's because they want to keep the hardliners on-side as they change the party.

So they want hard core Neo Nazi's onside? Seems to me that the BNP, really only have themselves to blame then.

O'Morris wrote: »

They're a lot better than they were a decade ago. Before Nick Griffin became leader, the BNP were committed to the compulsory repatriation of blacks from Britain. That's no longer a policy of the party.

No, insteads it will be "voluntary". The mere suggesstion of removing people from a country based on there skin colour is farcical, regardless of whether it is voluntary or not. I honestly don't get the obsession, with a single aspect of a person, like skin colour, its bizare.

O'Morris wrote: »

Jingoism is usually connected with support for an aggressive foreign policy that aims at furthering the interests of your own country at the expense of others. The BNP have an isolationist, non-interventionist foreign-policy and they're opposed to the idea of Britain getting involved in foreign wars.

Here is a defintion of jingoism from Answer.com:

jingoism

n.

Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

The second half of the defintion "chauvinistic patriotism", would apply to the BNP, who seem to think only "White" people can be proper British people.

O'Morris wrote: »

They can be British but they can't be ethnically British. They're not indigenous to the British Isles. For the same reason a white Australian can't become an Australian aborigine because he's not indigenous to Australia. His roots are in a different continent.

No, one is claiming they can be ethnically British, but I don't see why that matter in anyway shape or form. It seems pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Also, go far back enough and everyone is related, for example Iranians, North Indians, and some Europeans, share a common ancestry if you go far back enough.

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not just the colour of someone's skin. Racial differences run much deeper than skin colour. It has much more to do with ancestry - about where people's roots lie.

Where people roots lie? You mean like how every single last Homo Sapien on the planet ancestors came from Africa, if we want to go that far back?

Also, I think you will that racial difference, actually don't ammount to a whole lot. In fact it is rather arbitrary in a lot of ways. Sure, why not say blond people are a different race, than people with black hair, it makes about as much sense.

O'Morris wrote: »

They're not part of the same ethnic group as the indigenous British people.

So? They are a British citizens, why does there ethnicity come into it? It really makes no sense.

O'Morris wrote: »

I want Ireland to remain white and I'm not a racist.

Great, so tell who are the "whites"? Do you mean all light skinned people? My skin colour is similar to someone from Italy or Spain, and I have Indo-European ancestry, does this make me "white" enough?!?

O'Morris wrote: »

A racist is someone who treats people of a different race with less respect than he treats people of his own race. A racialist is someone who treats people with respect regardless of their race but who still identifies strongly with his own race and nation and who is committed to seeing that nation and race survive into the future. The BNP are racialist, not racist.

The BNP, are indeed racist. The entire, lets get rid of all the people with different skin colour thing that they desire, kind of makes them racist.

As for racialists and racists, they differences between the 2 groups tend not to amount to much.