NJS

That's fine by me if they still went to the Metro centre or maybe the match or for a meal in town. I'm sure that some do but as I say having their own schools, rarely marrying outside their group and erecting a sort of fence around them is wrong imo.

I think the "Muslim country in 60 years" is obviously shite but the underlying fear behind that is as you say reasonable. However I think the constitution both you and I would like to see is a long way off linked as it is to the monarchy. Having said that I'm hoping the idiocy of the jug-eared twat might open up a debate when he finally gets in which might see progress. I have to say I like the idea on mulitcultarism in principle - I would hate to see a homegenised society where everyone is "English" (whatever that really means) but the isolation of some communities is a stumbling block. It's not just Muslims on this btw - there are communities as far ranging asas orthodox jews and Scottish highlanders who I think lead very insular existences. I wouldn't force openness on theme but I'd certainly encourage it

My great-grandparents are all in the 1901 census in Jarra or Shields (one couple had moved to Jarra in about 1880). I think my surname however has its roots in Ireland or the Isle of Man.

I think I said in my first post in this thread that the privacy angle was something I agree with. I also think sacking people for membership is a dangerous road to travel down but at the same time companies and organisations have to consider their reputation. I know the BNP is legal and I think that's fair enough but to some extent I do think that people have to think carefully before they join simply because of their history and their reputation. It's still McCarthyism though (whether officially sanctioned or a blind eye turned by the back-door). It doesn't make it any better just because people happen to agree with it....... because the next time maybe people won't happen to agree with the group chosen for exclusion/prejudice. And of course it's impossible to decry and yet support prejudice at the same time with any moral credibility. Which is what I genuinely don't understand legally, either the party is illegal or it's not, it's a strange shadowy world where it's legal, but semi-illegal too. It is strange - I remember a lot of outrage stemming from McCarthyism which was aimed at people who were falsely accused which I found the wrong angle as they should have been outraged for the people who were communists which should have been okay (as long as they weren't spys obviously). I think people are a bit wary of the BNP for two reasons - the history of thuggery and the association with the right which makes people think of Hitler. Having said that I remember a World in Action years ago where a company was selling businesses list of people who were communists or SWP members. I'd like to see a world where there is no discrimination based on opinions/beliefs but sometimes I think there has to be limits. What those limits are I think is up for debate.

Why on earth did you get that done? Must've been worried in case he had the rogue mackem gene given his location. For more ammo for you (though no Mackem) - it also made me do a bit of genealogy which showed I have roots 3 or 4 generations ago in Cumbria and Berwick (as well as solid Shields and Jarra) - I presume you can prove centuries in Newcastle.

Didn't realise he mentioned crime as well - don't forget to mention the free rifle for every white male from the BNP.

Why on earth did you get that done? Being eliminated from enquiries would be my guess. It's a while since I left any DNA anywhere incriminating

Why on earth did you get that done? Just personal interest after reading the books with the methodology/existing data in them.

I had my genes categorised earlier this year - it was both interesting and to some extent diappointing in that I am distinctly "average" belonging to the most common male and female groupings. This was a basic test though - you can get more sequences analysed which provides more granularity but that costs a bit more.

Most british people are "celtic" in the sense we are descended in the main from what is known as the "AMH" genetic group (Atlantic Modal Hablotype I think). This refers to people who re-populated europe after the last glacial max from refuges which included the Basque area. Whats interesting is that depsite all of the invasions/immigarion, most people still belong in some sense to this group - though the picture is confused by the fact that the Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans also were broadly descended from AMH type ancestors. I've read both Oppenheim's and Sykes' books on british genetics and its an interesting subject. It does show that nearly all brits are very much one with the rest of Europe.

What changes did Labour make that makes them responsible? If anything the minimum wage should mean less people can claim to be better off not working than under Tory anything goes policies. Did you care about the underclass when there was at least twice as many unemployed under the Tories? If you think that the 3m reached by the tories is going to go as deep as the current lot you have another thing coming. Labour took the control of the UK markets out of the control of BOE and handed it to the incompetent FSA. We are now paying the price. Do you for one moment think the Tories would have regulated the banks any differently? The de-regulation was inline with the rest of the world - you can blame global capitalism but not individual governments.

What changes did Labour make that makes them responsible? If anything the minimum wage should mean less people can claim to be better off not working than under Tory anything goes policies. Did you care about the underclass when there was at least twice as many unemployed under the Tories?

What long term gain? For whom? 90% of this country. The Tories handed over an economy on the up to Gordon Brown and Labour. Rather than making the most of the boom times handed to them, Labour borrowed heavily in a boom, sold gold at an all time low and built an economy on a consumer credit house of cards. 90% is a massive exaggeration, the gold sale was an EU directive, it was the Tories who relaxed credit controls and the only reason Labour had to borrow was because the people of this country are too stupid to realise you have to increase taxes to pay for things they want.

Depends what your basis is. I have no opposition to EU worker migration or skilled immigration of any kind. I am opposed to Asian immigration of "peasants" by extended family/arranged marriage because I don't feel they come here for the right reasons which benefit the country. I think in those terms any debate is fine. If on the other hand people start talking about too many Poles taking our jobs or too many blacks moving in then I think using the racist label is fair enough because people who cry about being called racist never seem to object to the huge numbers of Aussies etc who come here.

What long term gain? For whom?

Are you saying someone could join the BNP and not realise what they are all about? That person would be a moron to an incredible degree - as Skol said if you have very strong ideas on immigration then the UKIP is a lot less nasty

The association is there though - I think a decent level of patriotism is fine in the sense of a community of people. However when that becomes "The English are better than everyone else" its sets off down a road that I don't like - it ends up with shit like booing national anthems as an example. I think the way football hooligans embrace nationalism and tend towards BNP support says it all really - its the thug end of the market no matter how legitimate they try and sell themselves.

Didn't you say you work in the city? I work in an investment bank there and out of about 130 people I can think of one black and two Asian workers. I sometimes get the single/childless angle myself but the "white" part is fucking bollocks.

I think I said in my first post in this thread that the privacy angle was something I agree with. I also think sacking people for membership is a dangerous road to travel down but at the same time companies and organisations have to consider their reputation. I know the BNP is legal and I think that's fair enough but to some extent I do think that people have to think carefully before they join simply because of their history and their reputation.

11 years of labour rule. It has fostered a "I dont have to do anything I dont want to attitude in England". We need a Tory government who are willing to act like a tory government to get these fucks back into society and functioning again. If thety dont, let them starve IMO. Who was in power when the parents of the "problem generation" were growing up? WHo preached the greed is good mantra? Who were happy to have 4.5m on the dole as part of monetarism?

Have you actually read their manifesto? It's littered with "native" and "white". It mentions how "white british" people are discrimitaed against - this would be the group that runs the government, the civil service,. the armed forces, the judiciary and all the top businesses. They want to withdraw from the EU while at the same time stopping the import of foreign goods (apart from trade wit AU, CA and NZ) which would see the cost of living go through the roof. They want to stop foreign investment which would as a flipside mean the withdrawal of foreign companies from here - how would they replace the jobs? They want to make all farming organic - imagine what that would do the cost of living. As well as being absolutely uncosted and unworkable the undercurrent is there as plain as day - an insular, white, anglo-saxon country which encourages nobody to visit and nobody to consider the world as a whole - white anglicism rules and if you don't like it or belong to it then tough.

Yes it does. Racism pervades their every policy and viewpoint. "concerned about immigration" my arse - their repatriation of british citizens based on skin colour is about as racist as you can get. Myth. Do you really think the repatriation will include Aussies, Kiwis and South Africans?

Yes it does. Racism pervades their every policy and viewpoint. "concerned about immigration" my arse - their repatriation of british citizens based on skin colour is about as racist as you can get.

Just to clarify I'm not implying any kind of real comparison between the McCann's and "real" child abuse - I was mainly alluding to the opinion which I tend to support that an "underclass" family who'd done the same in Benidorm would have been treated with a lot less sympathy. My point was that assuming being poor or however else you define it does not make people more or less likely to be child abusers and the rich have an "abuse culture" of their own. I'd even count a lack of discipline from middle class families as an abuse of sorts in allowing their kids to grow up without a concept of considering other people. Of course "decent" working class discipline which I was subject to doesn't have to involve physical abuse. Turning to the points about Thatcher and the industries she killed I honestly think economics were way down the list of her motivations below real spite and at best a misguided notion that people would be "Better" in some kind of brave new world she imagined (but wasn't prepared to create). There is a sort of shallow sense in her "society" stance in that looking after your family should be your main ambition. Where she got it wrong was that thinking that if everybody did that, then things would fall into place for everyone else - I think once your family are sorted then the decent thing is consider others and also appreciating that working with other people is in fact a way of benefiting yourself.

I certainly accept that there is a "price" to what I would call a more free society. As I've said before I've read Muslims defending their opression (my view) of women based on a notion that we have more rape. I don't think theres a correlation there but even if there was I think a happy medium towrads our free society is preferable. On the specific notion of an underclass I find it a bit hypocritical for the "elite" to look down on such people to such a degree. Thatcherism especially could not have benefited so many people without the economic "front line" of the unemployed to allow her economic policies to "work". Indeed if there was a miracle cure to make everyone on benefits suddenly get jobs to some degree the economy would be fucked. Having said that, like most people, I do find the benefits mentality to be depressing but I'd also argue that the perceived lower standards of morality which you allude to isn't the preserve of the underclass. To some degree the McCann's neglect of their kids is to my mind comparable to the treatment of baby P (tin hat on) in that being "rich" certainly isn't a guarantee of moral rectitude.