Talk:British National Party: Difference between revisions

• Talk:British National Party/Archive 1
• Talk:British National Party/Archive 2
• Talk:British National Party/Archive 3

The Guardian's infiltration

I think that the Guardian article raised a number of ethical questions. The publication of workplace details of BNP members can only be seen as a form of McCarthyism, designed to incite harassment or victimisation. It's fine to scrutinise those who stand for political office but I don't see the public interest in the publication of personal details of ordinary members. I hope that they will not suffer discrimination or worse as a result. If they do then I think Ian Cobain will be directly responsible.

BNP weblogs are also saying that Ian Cobain signed a Data Protection Act form pledging confidentiality. Has the Guardian broken the law?

No one should be discriminated against on account of their political views whether they are Muslim activists, Socialists or members of the BNP. - Art of War 217.38.66.18 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if the bnp is wrong and bad then fine, but two wrongs dont make a right. The Guardian probably has broken the law but as is so often the case with so called 'extreme' political parties, the main 3 parties turn a blind eye (Fethroesforia 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

Article is horribly biased..

Im rather annoyed by the obvious but hidden prejudice and bias against the bnp throughout the article. Throughout it is portraying the bnp as thugs and skinheads. When in reality, this is not the case. Almost all violence in bnp rallies has been caused by anti-bnp protesters, mostly drunk, looking for a fight. The bnp has a voice and has a right to it. So this article being biased against the bnp is not only against wikipedia policies, it is against everything democracy stands for. I will be changing the article in the future to allow for an unbiased opinion on the subject (not me..im biased but will not hide it, unlike narrow minded communists who attempt to hide their poltical views whilst editing articles) (Fethroesforia 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

'Front' group

As a member of Solidarity who is also a Socialist I was intrigued to see the Union described as a 'BNP front'. It certainly enjoys both Third Way and BNP support. That is mainly because members of both organisations have been the subject of witch-hunts in the established Unions. Clearly their members still recognise the need for collective protection and organisation in the workplace (wasn't that why Unions were formed in the first place?). It doesn't follow a BNP agenda and is not reliant for the BNP for funds. To describe it as a 'front group' is pretty simplistic in my view. Many people are disgruntled with the cronyism and corruption in many TUC affiliated Unions. I personally am interested in many of the political issues covered in Trade Unions journals (like the people who write them) but I dare say that many ordinary workers find them irrelevant and partisan. The fact that the likes of the CWU continue to finance New Labour with a reactionary, anti-working class, warmongering policy platform is a provocation. The established unions have really failed to effectively tackle cheap non-unionised labour and offshoring. They've sold us out. I feel that Solidarity will attract far wider support than the BNP ever could.

The article simply states that there is evidence that they are a front group, but that this does not necessairily make them so. --Robdurbar 18:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article goes a little further than that. The wording implies that Solidarity is a front group. One possible reason that they might deny being a 'front' is that they are genuinely independent! This doesn't seem to have been recognised by the user who wrote this section. The whole logic of saying that because some organisers are members of the BNP they are a front is twisted. On that basis you could condemn many independent groups as Conservative, Liberal or New Labour 'fronts'. In the building industry there is a safety campaign with many former/present Workers Revolutionary Party members involved. Is it a 'front' for the WRP? I don't think so and it does very good work! - Art of War

I note that in Issue 78 of the BNP newspaper 'Voice of Freedom' whilst a plug is given to Solidarity in an article stressing that it doesn't discriminate against BNP members they also urge their supporters who hold membership of other unions to opt out of the political fund and deny support to New (Cheap) Labour. The relationship between Solidarity, the BNP and TUC affiliated unions appears quite complex to me and this is not reflected in the Wikipedia article. - Dissident Voice

Of course it's a front group. How could it be otherweise? "Solidarity's" management team consists of John Walker (BNP Treasurer), Clive Potter (BNP candidate), Jay Lee (BNP Candidate), Lee Barnes (BNP Head of Legal Affairs). The chairman is Patrick Harrington (of Third Way rather than the BNP), but a veteran of far right politics, a former leader of the NF and close contact of BNP leader Griffin. Emeraude 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

I see that you are relying on a BNP press statement for information as to who is on the Executive of Solidarity (as does Wikipedia)! Not a good idea. Pat Harrington has a quite separate position from that of the BNP and Third Way directly recruits amongst all ethnic and religious communities. Why not say that he is a 'close contact' of veteran anti-Fascist Larry O'Hara? Or indeed any number of other people of various political persuasions. Doesn't that fit the script?

- Art of War

Query about allied companies

The BNP has a number of companies attached that can't really be described as affiliated. Albion Life can because it states its affiliation clearly on its site. However, Brightahomes and Skip Hire Register are companies that are run by the BNP as fundraisers but do not state their connection with the party. Perhaps there ought to be another section - Fake Companies.--Ketlan 10:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you any evidence that the company mentioned are BNP fronts? RichardLangford 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The only link out from Albion Life goes to brightahomes.co.uk and the only link from that is to skiphireregister.co.uk. A WHOIS check shows that the registrant of the domain skiphireregister.co.uk is Steve Blake, also the registrant of the BNP website. Blake is also the registrant for Albion Life. Pretty clear really.--Ketlan 23:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

New link in 'affiliated' section

Added link to Albion Life Insurance.--Ketlan 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Video removed

In the section Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, I've changed the link to the video of Young, nazi and proud on Google to the Channel Four page that gives a summary of the documentary. The video has been removed and the previous link went nowhere.--Ketlan 16:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Previous British National Parties

The article says that the name BNP has been used on two previous occasions. Has anyone got a source for this? RichardLangford 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see the name has only been used twice; once following the merging of the White Defence League and the National Labour Party in 1960 or thereabouts, and in 1982 when Tyndall renamed the New National Front to the BNP (which name remains to date). Perhaps the editor was thinking of the British Nationalist Party? --Ketlan 10:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Islam stuff

"Recently, the BNP has dropped explicit anti-Semitism in favour of attacks on Islam. " Extremely non-NPOV. "In favour of attacks on Islam"? Puh-lease.

I also agree with the guy under me. 217.44.109.170 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be non-NPOV if it wasn't exactly what Griffin says in the cited speech. I think we can safely use the party leader as an authority on strategy. Dogville 08:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, having said which, your edit is fair enough. Dogville 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

... though I maintain unnecessary. The deleted sentence said nothing more than Griffin has.Dogville 08:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Complete lack of neutrality

As an Australian I'm not terribly familiar with British politics but I must say the entire page seems heavily slanted against the BNP. Maybe the entire article should be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. Yes I do understand the BNP touches on controversial and sensitive topics, and some feel morally obliged to protest the stance of the BNP, but wikipedia is not the place. It's very unlikely you will change someone's views by writing a biased article.

As an Australian, perhaps you could point to some factual inaccuracies or specific instances of POV? Comments like this are so vague as to be effectively meaningless, which I'm sure was not your intention. Dogville 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Far Right Position Is Questionable

I would like to point out that the position of the BNP on the traditional left-right political spectrum can be brought under scruntiny. It would be more accurate to refer the BNP as an Authoritarian Socialist party using a more versitile multi-dimensional ideological postioning system, as this quote from http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright illustrates:

"The difference between the BNP and the Greens in economics isn't great, but there's a huge gap on the social scale."

The diagram is also useful. I realize that I'm not essentially criticising the facts of the article, but more the system used. This is however true of society in general. If a group is identified as xenophobic or racist they are instantly associated with the "far right". The authoritarian left can be just as bigotted and tyrannical.

I agree. Indeed, the BNP seems to believe in largely centre-left economics(in agreement with the above quote). Labelling the party far-right does seem incredibly naive, but then so does labelling it far-left, as some pundits have. To be fair, it's neither. 'Authoritarian centre' might be more accurate, but I'm just speculating.

Furthermore, I'm amazed at this quote from the relevant section of the article - "Rather, the description of them as 'far-right' relates to their nationalist and collectivist policies". Surely, the 'left' can be just as nationalist and collectivist as the 'right'? For example, anarchism which is usually labelled as far-left, is the epitome of collectivism, whilst no-one can deny that figures such as Stalin and Gandhi were both strongly nationalist as well as left-wing, as it were. Consequently, any system which places these two individuals close togther on the political spectrum, considering their vastly different opinions on the state, needs a rethink.

Meiktila 16:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but most people recognise left/right easily and many sources call the BNP 'far-right'. However, to also mention something such as the political compass (which itself has its critics) to clarify for the reader could be useful. --Robdurbar 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think there's a certain circularity to the objections. 'Far right' is in common usage to mean the sort of politics the BNP espouses. 'Far right' does not mean and never has meant extreme economic liberalism. The political compass seems to be assuming the mantle of dogma here. It's a useful analysis but it's not [i]the[/i] analysis. Dogville 22:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the term far right has any factual basis and should be removed from the article. We live in a time of mass propaganda and because of this that the media and rival politicians like to use the highly inaccurate term.

I don't think Authoritarian Socialist would be a good description either as Authoritarian and democratic don't sit well together, The BNP is showing it's commitment to democracy by taking part in elections. RichardLangford 21:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Band by same Name

I would like to also point out that there is a British rock band by the name of British National party, which completely mocks the party of the same name. I don't know anything about the band other than the above info.

Don 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gay Porn

This was placed on the talk's archived page, as a new discussion. I have moved it here. --Robdurbar 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

oi ! my gay porn article is completely acceptable

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/9925

it deserves to be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweeny666 (talk • contribs)

I think that the complaint was not about the contribution, but more about its placement randomly in the article. The article is used to justify the assertion that 'the BNP has always been associated with the gay porn industry', not something that I am aware of. Furthermore, this story is already linked too (though again poorly explained) in the 'plocies' section of the article. Feel free to help improve its discussion there. --Robdurbar 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tided that bit up a little. However, I wonder if there is scope for a 'BNP and homosexulaity' section that could describe the party's approach to the issue? --Robdurbar 21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Couple things.

1. Much as I'd love it to be, it really doesn't sound like the film is porn, nor should we describe it as such. It's evidently a student art movie, albeit homoerotic.[1]

'Much as I'd love it to be' - yes, I think I let my pov control my editing there. Indeed, it could be spun positively for the BNP... here's a member who is clearly comfortable enough with his sexuality to make such a film, showing some level of sophstication and intelligence! --Robdurbar 09:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2. For what it's worth the Guardian's description (flagellation, naked men frolicking in the river) sounds exactly like the beginning of Part 2 of Riefenstahl's Olympia. So hardly incompatible with the BNP's ideological heritage ...

3. A 'BNP and Homosexuality' section could get very long indeed ... Dogville 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob, nice work on the BNP & homosexuality section. I'm wondering though whether some of the info shouldn't still be under policies (as well)? At least a mention of their previous desire to recriminalise and apparent dropping? Dogville 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about discussing previous policies in the current policy section; that sort of thing could snowball and would involve us being a bit picky and thus going a little non-neutral. However, the comment that it should be illegal to promote homosexuality is reasonable to go into the policies bit. --Robdurbar 23:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, hadn't thought of it like that. Dogville 12:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 election duplication

We have a lot of this info twice, in the history section and the electoral performance one. I'm not quite sure what to do about it. Dogville 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, should just be in electoral performance I think. RandomIdiot 06:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Eire

it says here that the BNP wants to bring Eire into the UK.Their website didn't give me much information on this ridiculous concept.If anyone knows anymore about this policy could they tell me here. Dermo69

In the 'Northern Ireland' section of the provided link: 'In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles. ' --Robdurbar 18:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rule Britannia? --Quentin Smith 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an old 1980s NF policy that been carried into the post-Tyndall BNP. Considering that two former NF leaders - Nick Griffin & Martin Wingfield - are in the centre of things currently, perhaps not surprising. The idea of a British Isles federation has been long mooted across the political spectrum, although post 1992 it has been seen as somewhat redundant a conceptMarkBoyle 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rights for Whites

Needs citation. I thought it was a general comment; if it was intended as a citation go ahead. --Quentin Smith 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's cited now. -- WGee 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've doubly removed. --Quentin Smith 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Noticed a lot of weasel words, e.g. in the first paragraph, "some argue..." - who argues? There's a few others in there, hence why I flagged it. If nobody's done it by the morning I will - I would do it now but I'm absolutely knacked. John..

Sure, but be careful. The first "some argue" certainly can't be simply removed, or it would state a BNP claim as fact. Dogville 07:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

" the UK's first-past-the-post system makes it difficult for small parties to achieve electoral success in UK elections", is there anyone that disputes this fact?

Depends what you mean by a small party. Its helped small parties such as the Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern, Plaid Cyrmu, or, in its early days, the Labour Party. I think that the claim '...makes it difficult for geographically-diffuse parties' would be the claim made. --Robdurbar 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, people. There's a difference between admitting the fact as quoted and saying that this is the reason for the BNP's lack of electoral success. That's where the phrase 'this is because' comes in.

Having looked at the edits, I'm not sure why "the BNP and others argue" is less weasel-wordy than "some argue"; although it's certainly more clumsy. But the claim that the BNP's relative lack of success is simply ascribable to the FPP system is hardly obviously factual (other factors, like lack of widespread popular support for overt racism, might play a part). So I think keep "some argue" as in this case it's simply true. And remove the weasel tag unless other examples can be cited. Dogville 23:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the source now provided (I'll change to 'some argue', but with a source its fine and not weasel words) states directly that the likes of the BNP/Greens/UKIP have suffered because of first past the post.

I don't think the article now suggests that it is the only case; so with source it should be OK. --Robdurbar 17:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Private eye article

I can't find a link, but there was an interesting article regarding the BNP (and their collective IQ) in Private Eye.

Apparently the BNP councilers in Barking and Dagenham, proposed a motion against discrimination of the indiginious majority, when the time came for the vote only one member actually voted, as the rest did not realise they were meant to vote...

Who says the BNP could run the country.... --SolDrury 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Private Eye is not a factual magazine, it's a humourous one. I'm not sure any of their articles are factual so this may just be a joke at the expense of the BNP and their stereotypical thick skinhead thug image.

Private Eye has a great deal of factual coverage, particularly of local politics. The story cited is entirely true. Dogville 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

UKIP/UAF

Is it true that UKIP (arguably not too far off fascism) are supporters of Unite Against Fascism, as the article says? --BobFromBrockley 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to say that UKIP are near Facism (they are more near the Cons then the BNP) but obviously it would help them to surpport such an organisation to help distenguish themselves from partys such as the BNP.

UKIP is a centre-right party which supports British withdrawal from the European Union - what exactly is "fascist" about it?

From what I've seen, its membership consists largely of lapsed Tories. Some of these people admittedly harbour slightly non-PC views on race and immigration, but to describe the party as "not too far off fascism" is sheer hyperbole. 217.155.20.163 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Labour is closer to being fascist by the accepted definitions: (from the Fascism article):

- developed as a reaction against Communism - yup

- viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check - yup

- tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict, replacing it instead with the struggle between races, and the struggle of the youth versus their elders - yup

- is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic; in the examples given, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws and a strong, sometimes brutal militia or police force for enforcing them - yup

- uses explicit populist rhetoric - yup

etc etc. The UKIP is the oppositve of Fascist, as it wishes to reduce state power.

21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Vandals

Islamophobia is up for deletion. Cast your votes

POV

The sun front page is POV, it serves no purpose in the artical and should be removed. It is very clearly one sided.

Though I agree that the picture is POV, we can present the opinions of others, such as The Sun. The picture is useful as it indicates the coverage that the BNP receive from the mainstream press.

However, it should only be reintroduced with an appropriate caption. --Robdurbar 17:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Shorly more than one paper (with one POV) should be shown. --88.108.234.169 17:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means find a cover story from a mainstream newspaper about the 2004 BNP documentary (or anything else) that provides a substantially different viewpoint. Dogville 17:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Griffin photo

The black and white photo of Griffin is tagged as public domain, and therefore acceptable for use in Wikipedia. Please don't replace it with a different photo unless you also tag that photo with copyright info -- or what will happen is we end up losing both (because the new, untagged photo can be deleted at any time, and the old public domain one will be deleted as a matter of policy if it's not used in an article). Dogville 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Far Right?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

Why has the BNP been listed as a far right party? Last time I checked, its economic policies were quite centrist. I will make the necessary changes to "extreme authoritarian".--CaptainSurrey 00:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Politicalcompass.org, while a nice idea, isn't accepted as the dominant force in political discussions. I'll quote from Wikipedia here...

The far right has often been associated in various degrees with paleoconservatism, social, cultural and religious conservatism, reactionary monarchism, reactionary nationalism, jingoistic chauvinism, populism, economic protectionism or economic free trade, anti-immigration or racist and xenophobic policies. The BNP is all of these to be quite honest, or at least 90% of them. An authoritarian party wouldn't be a party at all, arguably anyway. Another quote: Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by strict obedience to the authority of the state, which often maintains and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures. The term may also be used to describe the personality or management style of an individual or organization which seeks to dominate those within its sphere of influence and has little regard for building consensus. HawkerTyphoon 08:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but the BNP is still a party, authoritarian or not, until such time that it gets into power, at which point it will cease to be a party, and become a permanent authority. You therefore are incorrect! Also, the old scale of left and right is no longer sufficient to measure political parties; and politicalcompass.org isn't so much a "nice idea", but an authority on politics. Just because you want to call the BNP "far right", because it's a catchy leftist attack-term, doesn't mean I have to bow before you an accept it. I suggest we have a vote on the issue.

Unfortunately for you, populism; anti-immigration-ism, racism; and xenophobia are not economic issues. Therefore their presence in a party’s manifesto does not mean that said party is right-wing; if anything, said party is fascist. Fascism lies on the vertical scale, along with authoritarianism. They are parallel. The horizontal scale is purely about economic issues, not social ones.--CaptainSurrey 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The BNP are actually slightly to the left of center on the economic axis, I think. However, they are extremely authoritarian, racist, anti-intellectual, etc - these are all social ideologies rather than economic ones. The descriptions of far-left, far-right (etc) are crude and simplistic descriptions that can often be misleading. Far-right would more accurately describe a regime like that of General Pinochet who was both murderously authoritarian and way to the right on the economy. However, the political compass idea may take a while to filter through into mainstream consciousness. -Neural 00:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia shouldn't be using what is, in the end, just one political theory, as if it were a world accepted truth that all understand. Left/Right - whilst limited - is an easily understood shorthand. And besides, most people would say that their economic policy is not the most interesting or notable thing about the BNP. Robdurbar 07:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Political Compass is not a reliable source and is far from being "an authority on politics". The political sceince establishment does not pay much attention to its political spectrum, evidently, nor do I. Multitudes of reputable political scientists declare that the BNP is far-right. And we don't vote on the issue, CaptainSurry; we go by what the reputable sources say. -- WGee 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that 'far right' is a deliberately misleading term. I suppose it may be being used by leftists as a way for them to attempt to dissociate themselves from the actual left-wing economic policies of the BNP. Just imagine that if every one accepted that the BNP was a left-of-centre party with authoritarian social policies, it would mean troublesome association for other leftist parties which themselves have potentially authoritarian policies. Marxists may tell you that all they want is a classless society for justice, but what would happen when such a society gets under way? It would become authoritarian, enforcing its policies upon the hapless laissez-faire libertarians.

So plenty of political scientists are calling the BNP far right, fine. But they may have something to gain from doing so, namely the unfair denouncement of the extreme policies of the BNP. But calling the BNP far right is a bit problematic, since the conservatives are closer to the far right than they are to the centre. And it's obvious that the BNP and the Conservatives have not a lot in common. -- --CaptainSurrey 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo

The BNP leader and the other women both look compleatly stupid in there photos, whether this was intentional or not i surgest that the photos are changed. --88.108.161.10 13:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is in finding free-use photos that are not under copyright, or have rights released etc.; if you have any then feel free to add them. --Robdurbar 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the leader does have a glass eye. Hut 8.5 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Anti-BNP photos and other sources --Boris Johnson VC 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No wonder - how is it going to be NPOV if anti-BNP opinion is excluded? Hut 8.5 14:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific here? Bear in mind that almost all mainstream sources - newspapers, television companies etc. - are anti-BNP. As for the photos; we are restricted by copyright laws, but if better photos can be found, please do provide them. --Robdurbar 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, shorly it can't be that difficult to get a photo of such a well known person-despite copyright. Furthermore u say that mainstream sources are anti-BNP, i accept this but somthing like a Telegrapth front page with "55% of Britains support BNP policies" would do-soz but i dont know how to upload myself. Finaly there is a lot of criticism of the BNP but very little about support for the BNP from other orgainsations. Thanx--Boris Johnson VC 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the survey is already mentioned in the article. I'll have a look for that cover, though. And if you can find any organisations that support the BNP then please, suggest some here. --Robdurbar 09:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As for images; trust us it is. We need to find an image that has been released for free use, is owned by a Wikipedian, or one that is fair use (e.g. an image from a party conference that has been released for publicity). I can't find any at the BNP's website. --Robdurbar 09:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...any similar cover will do. I still have resivations but i will remove my notice--Boris Johnson VC 15:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Boris. I removed the Sun cover. Showing a single paper headline with Bloody Nasty People is definitely POV. Add to the fact there isn't an alternative POV headline shown and the whole article becomes unbalanced.--Triedandtested 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is POV: it's an accurate reflection of mainstream media coverage of the BNP. Note that the Wikipedia article doesn't say that the BNP are "Bloody Nasty People," but that the mainstream media is universally critical of the party. There's nothing POV in showing that. VoluntarySlave 22:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that is true. And please keep in mind WP:NPOV#Undue weight. We must include opinions in in proportion to thier prevalence; thus, since the predominant opinion of the BNP is negative, most of the sources in the article will be negative. -- WGee 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You must admit that it is probably one of the worst headlines that could have been found. That was the main thing that led me to believing it was POV. I think it would be better if something more reflective was found even if it is negative. Either that or another headline added with an opposing view alongside the Sun's, if one can ever be found. --Triedandtested 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

i deleted the outdated financial debt figure that the BNP is suppose to have look: http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1217

far right v. rightist

I have just reverted an alteration that was made in the first paragraph. To describe the BNP as "rightist" and link that word to an article in Wikipedia which is tagged as disputed is not helpful; in fact it is downright misleading. The BNP is, within the spectrum of British politics, on the far right, as were its openly fascist and Nazi forebears. Emeraude 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is Biassed

All wikipedia articles are supposed to be pretty much neutral, only stating the facts. However this article tends to be extremely biassed from an anti-bnp point of view.

it's not biased, it states facts. its not anyones fault but theirs that their policies and ideaology are so backward and fundamentally wrong that when its put on to paper it makes them look like nasty fascists.

Oh look...*points* A sociology student with dispraxia, I bet. Let me know when you get your third class degree from some plate glass university...--213.40.60.204 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

don't be arrogant. i don't see how my education comes into this you narrow minded pretentious ::azi other fascists parties and far right parties in general hate with a passion, any sort of welfare protectionist state. They were almost whole against nationalisation of industry and core services. The Communists and the left on the other hand are for these things. The BNP is for these things the bNP are not capitalists. They are socialists who also happen to be racists. The BNP is far left.

I know this is a brief and somewhat poorly documented account but it does not make it any less true.

• It's also a load of bollocks! The BNP's supporters are either middle class or lumpemproletariat, classic supporters of fascist parties. When did all these old far right xenophobes of the NF who founded the BNP suddenly become far left xenophobes? Nonsense, absolute nonsense. Don't waste our (and your) time with this rubbish. Emeraude 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The BNP are not strictly speaking a far right pary as the do not want mass economic deregulation they are infavour of renationalisation of the railways and maintaining a national health service. So in that sence they are not a far right party. the reason they may be clasified as a far right party is because of their immigration stance that is a typical policy of far right groups such as UKIP and the NF, but other policies contradict them from being steryotypically far right. This means that classifying them as either far right or xenaphobic center left is difficult if not damn near impossible.--Lucy-marie 15:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's no use picking on these policy areas as being left or right - the BNP is nothing but a populist party which is why it latches onto what is dear to the hearts and minds of the British people, such as maintaining the Health Service - there is not a single party in the UK that would dare suggest otherwise. Similarly, renationalising railways: everyone agrees that the railways now are a disaster. But consider the antecedents of the BNP and the history of its founders and leading membbers - they are out and out Nazi, a taint the National Front was unable to shake off but which the BNP has made more effort with, unsuccessfully, because anyon who cares to look can see that its founders had convictions for violence, were photographed in Nazi regalia, had a long history of anti-semitism etc etc. Don't let the BNP's protestations of innocence fool you. Rather, look at the totality. To digress slightly, Gen. de Gaulle (a right winger) when in power nationalised the banks and the car industry. Does that make him left wing, or was he just punishing them for collaboration 1940-1945? As I said, you need to see the totality, not one or two isolated points. Emeraude 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

i see the point you are coming from and i say that your points are valid but to out and out label them as Far right just because of their predecessors is wrong. So because the labour party used to be an ultra left wing party when it was founded does that mean that still today they have to be classified as ultra left wing rather than the centrist party they have become.--Lucy-marie 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Labour Party" used to be ultra left wing"?? When? How? Never in a million years (well a hundred) could the LP have been described as ultra left (or even far left). Emeraude 10:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The simple answer is that there is no clear definition of left and right on the political spectrum and whilst calling them far-right clearly has its difficulties - as you note with refernece to economic policy - it is also the term most commonly used for their sort of policies and is the term by which their actions are best understood. --Robdurbar 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

BNP isn't just about racial intolerance, its about a basic intolerance of anything other than a fat, white skinhead christian. Their "socialist" and "left" policies are merely a means to attract votes and do not define them as a party. They are extremely right wing, they are Nazi. Hitler included many socialist policies in his national SOCIALIST party just to attract votes, i don't think anyone would dispute him being far right.--Joeshawuk 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally with Joeshawuk here. From what I've just read on this party it sounds like they are a populist far right party. Most of their public policies are flexible depending on what will get them power. There are a few quotes of their party members and indeed leaders saying that they're happy to step away from Anti-semitism for example simply to get into power. However that said ... Hitler did conceal the extent of his Anti-semitism until after he had abolished elections and even to a degree began losing on the Eastern Front. Additionally ... the same people who get quoted as saying they're not anti-semites publicly also get quoted privately contradicting this. This just goes to show that this party puts on a public front that has policies which appeal to British people ONLY as a means to an end. There are many historical precedences for political parties that have done this and many were just as bad at concealing the truth as the BNP. -Senor Freebie / James Rowlands [j_hexen at yahoo dot com]

The BNP is a radical right-wing populist party with strong fascist tendencies, similar to the Nazi party before it gained power. Anyone who asserts that the BNP—and by extension the Nazi party—is left-wing simply because of its populist economic policies has no clue about political science and should thus be more humble in their assertions. -- WGee 19:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me mr im am the greatest of the great and am the only autority to talk on these matters with an opinion the counts. I am a politics student and the british national party do contain elements of extremem neo-nazi style faschism in their past with things such as forced repatriation. However the people who espoused these tendancies such as John Tindle are either dead or have been excluded from the party. Today they only espousle voulntary re-patriation so have moved even if ever so slightly to the left away from the neo-nazi past they once had. they also cannot be considered far-right on issues such as the environment and agriculture they are extremly left-wing with policies such as high ammounts of polluter pays taxation and a return to self suficency in farming rather than a free trade in food. also form an economc point of view they do not fit nicley into any catagory as they want high rates of corporation tax high VAT but no such thing as income tax. so saying they are an extreme faschist far right party is over subjected and single minded as only a few issues such as national service and immigration are being considered, for an accurate place on the scale all aspects need to be considered from the environment to public transport to taxation as well as immigration and defence. a better comparison with the nazi party is not the BNP but the November 9th Society an analysis of them will show the diffrences betwwen modern naziism and the BNP.--134.225.177.27 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Far be it from me to contradict such a modest politics student. I am merely a graduate in politics, but to take just one of your points: voluntary repatriation. The fact that Tyndall and a few other founders are now dead or expelled is not relevant. That merely reflects longevity and the endemic infighting of the British far right (everyone wants to be Fuhrer!). Here's what NF members in the 1970s thought: "....’We haven’t actually worked out the mechanics of repatriation,’ Mr Fairhurst said. ‘But as we become stronger over the next few years, many of the wealthier coloureds will get their money out and get themselves out too. As the NF comes to power, they will leave of their own free will. We would also pass a law saying that anyone who breaks the law will automatically be repatriated, and spongers will also be repatriated.’" (Source: interview in The Guardian 8 October 1974) All very voluntary, but we know what they really meant. And we know that the BNP is a direct descendant of the NF. Emeraude 12:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That Quote cannot be used as it is not quoting the BNP themselves. Its like quoting the Labour party from the 1950's and saying it is a representation of the SDP.--Lucy-marie 16:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it can be used and I made it quite clear why I had used it. It was User:134.225.177.27 who suggested that the BNP favours 'voluntary repatriation' and that this was somehow a step change from the earlier groups. It isn't. Emeraude 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think it is highly dubious to use a difrent party which i admit was a fore-runner but is not the actual party to quote what current members of the party are like. there must have been a reason for the split or they would still be the NF not the BNP.--Lucy-marie 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying I can't mention Take That in a discussion about Robbie Williams. Not that would have such a discussion. On the last point, you're absolutely right. Basically, a faction fight in the NF eventually led to its older leaders being kicked out. If you want to know details, I suggest you read up on the background to the formation of the BNP as well as their antecedents, and not just in Wikipedia - check out some of the works cited. Emeraude 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Far right or Anti-immigration

In the first sentence to avoid the arguments i think the senctence should be changed from most prominent far right party to most prominent anti immigration party. what do other people think?--Lucy-marie 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucy-marie has previously written on this page: "the labour party used to be an ultra left wing party when it was founded". This is nonsense. She has also written "The BNP are not strictly speaking a far right pary as the do not want mass economic deregulation". Well, partly true, but neither do the Conservatives any more. It would appear to me that Lucy-marie is at least confused over what makes a party left or right wing. It is not one policy, or even several policies in one area (such as economic deregulation or not). One must consider the totality of the party's policies. To be honest, the BNP's economic derelugation policies are neither well-known nor the main thrust of their propaganda, but even if they were, the rest of the BNP's policies, plans and programmes are unashamedly extreme right. This fits their background as a direct descendant of 60 years of post-war British neo-Nazi/fascist tradition. (Is anyone suggesting Nazis were left-wing because they planned part of the economy?)

Clearly, taking the totality of the BNP position, they are an extreme right party and I would support labelling them as such here, except that extreme right gets redirected to far right anyway. So keep far right and stop trying to portray them as something they are not.

(Out of interest, why is it only right wing groups that claim that they are not what they are, backed up by supporters and apologists? I've never heard anyone on the left claim to be anything other than a left winger. Is it because if you are or were an open or a closet Nazi, and you want to get public support, you need to pretend you are not as extreme as you are? Just a thought.) Emeraude 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal atttacks on my character by claiming i am a closet nazi. I simply want to have clarity in the article and my opinion on labelling a group on a few isues as one thing or another is wrong. I am not a nazi or any other rediculous thing you can think of. Please refrain from rediculous comments and kep thoughts about someone to yourself.--Lucy-marie 09:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I have in no way suggested YOU are a closet Nazi. I have no thoughts on you at all, have made no ridiculous (or other) comments about you at all. I did refer to some of your earlier writings which I quoted. The words you are referring to are in my last paragraph, in brackets, clearly an aside and not about any one person, let alone you. Emeraude 16:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucy, it is not tendentious to label the BNP a far-right political party when every reputable political scientist and news agency describes it as such. Considering your age, your standard of English, and your earlier comment that the Labour Party was originally "ultra-left", you are uninitiated in the realm of political sceince; thus, you should be more humble in your edits and assertions. -- WGee 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I find you comments Wgee conderscending especially when refering to my level of english. Please can we stop having a go at me on this talk page and discuss the Issue that I raised.--Lucy-marie 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But the issue you raised is nonsense. You've made an uninformed assertion that the term "far-right" is not neutral in reference to the BNP, despite the fact that all reputable sources describe it as such. That is analogous to saying that it is not neutral to refer to the massacre of about one million Armenians between 1915 and 1917 as a genocide, merely because some Turkish nationalists reject the label. -- WGee 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't mean to disparage you by mentioning your standard of English. I merely used it to infer that you are not an undergraduate or graduate. I apologize for offending you. -- WGee 02:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Better refrencing

There are 106 website links and 44 refrences this cannot be good. The refrences also do not use a template, i am aware this is nt essential but would improve the refrences greatly and creat a more comprehensive list of refrences.--Lucy-marie 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)