RICHARD W. SYMONDS (RWS) - INDEPENDENT ANALYST

The definitions of 'Racist' are:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Having just read the BNP Local Election manifesto I can only deduce that you may be confusing race with culture and/or nationality.
 

Having read the BNP history, and the Election Manifesto, I am very clear what I mean...
 

You may be 'clear what you mean' but for the benefit of the rest of us can you identify the chapter, paragraph, sentence or phrase in the Local Election Manifesto that is either implicitly or explicitly racist (including anything that even seems to infer racism), so that we can understand the facts.
Many thanks.
 

"The BNP say put British people first" ('The BNP Plan For A Better Britain', Manifesto Leaflet for Ifield, April 2007).

"British people", I assume, means the 'British race', with its pink skin-colour (white), according to the BNP.

The Collins English Dictionary defines a "Racist" thus :
"Someone who believes that races have distinctive cultural characteristics...and that this endows some races (eg the British race - Ed) with an intrinsic superiority over others".

As I read it, therefore, Plan 2 (of 8) in the BNP Leaflet - "No to Asylum Seekers" - is racist :

"Asylum seekers come here and get everything handed to them on a plate - at your expense. The BNP say put British people first".

Read up on a little BNP history, then substitute the word "Asylum Seekers" with Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Pakis, Arabs etc...and you'll get my meaning clear enough.

"Yesterday is the new tomorrow" ?

God, I hope not.
 

I assume that by 'British people' they mean those who currently posess a UK Passport and are taxpayers. I take it that no reference to skin, hair or eye colour means that they do not think it a valid discriminator.
The issue of asylum is an easy one. There is a UN charter that states that asylum must be sought in the nearest safe harbour nation. A quick perusal of those claiming asylum here since 1997 will tell you that that law is being flouted routinely. Why would you need Sangatte if that charter was being enforced?
Read into the history of any of the parties and you will be able to find things that you disagree with. One hundred years ago in this country women couldn't vote - all the parties agreed with that. What is important is being able to look forward and decide what sort a of a nation we want to be. I think we can conclude that the social experiment that those of your ilk have tried to implement in Britain since 1945 is not a model for sustained social or cultural success. For reference read the article written by Trevor Philipps in The Times a few months ago. What the new model has allowed for is a generation of the lower classes (mainly peasants) to stand on the shoulders of a new under-class. This is driven by pure greed and ignorance - something that is being perpetuated in the classrooms of Britain today.
 

I assume that by 'British people' they mean those who currently posess a UK Passport and are taxpayers. I take it that no reference to skin, hair or eye colour means that they do not think it a valid discriminator.
The issue of asylum is an easy one. There is a UN charter that states that asylum must be sought in the nearest safe harbour nation. A quick perusal of those claiming asylum here since 1997 will tell you that that law is being flouted routinely. Why would you need Sangatte if that charter was being enforced?
Read into the history of any of the parties and you will be able to find things that you disagree with. One hundred years ago in this country women couldn't vote - all the parties agreed with that. What is important is being able to look forward and decide what sort a of a nation we want to be. I think we can conclude that the social experiment that those of your ilk have tried to implement in Britain since 1945 is not a model for sustained social or cultural success. For reference read the article written by Trevor Philipps in The Times a few months ago. What the new model has allowed for is a generation of the lower classes (mainly peasants) to stand on the shoulders of a new under-class. This is driven by pure greed and ignorance - something that is being perpetuated in the classrooms of Britain today.
 

I wonder whether the BNP has changed its ideals. Or is it perhaps that it suits them not to include racist slogans in their campaign?

I would say that years and years of participating in elections with almost no success in the British politics has made them dress themselves in the lamb fur.

Undoubtedly a new tactics.