Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In the UK there has been controversy recently over the publication of the membership of the British Nationalist Party (a semi-neo nazi, racist group with quite a large representation in local government).

Due to the publication of the member-list policy officers all over the country who's name was found on the list have been suspended pending review as it is currently illegal to be both a police officer and a member of the BNP...the logic being that it is impossible for someone to belong to a group with views incompatible to the duties of a police officer.

However, is it right- especially considering freedom of political choice etc- for this restriction to exist? (If it is right should it be extended to all public offices, like teachers?)

if they can sit down and drink a beer without any more than fist fight than who cares....?

It is important this is put in context, before people blame intefering governments etc.

The ban on police officers being in the BNP was not declared or enforced by the Government, it was decided by ACPO, the police force's own policy unit comprised of senior officers. They put the ban in place because a decision had been made for all police to fully comply with the Race Relations Act. BNP membership is incompatible with that Act, so therefore it was impossible to be a police officer and a a member of the BNP without breaking the policy which has to apply to all officers- following the RRA is actually a legal duty for the police.

You may not agree with ACPO's decision but I do think that context is important. It seems entirely rational to me.

Groups rendering public service through tax payer's for tax payers shuld also not for part of these extreme groups.

Ie, not only police, Firemen, Nurses....etcd

I'd have to think about it for a bit, but, not considering what Ush said, and rather replying to the hypothetical question, I'd say that in a system where you already are stripped of certain freedoms by means of force, the enforcers of such rules may very well be held to higher or different standards by their employer. You'd have to decide on a balance, as, on the one hand you might value the freedom of expression and rights to a private life, while you also have to consider that the people are in charge of something, very, very important, in theory the only allowed force over its citizens, as such you might hold them to higher standards to ensure your precise values are enforced, rather than personal opinions. Or, lets say, if a private company didn't want to hire a person which known to it actually hates what the company produces, I think they should have the right to fire them, though, rules for private companies, imo, should be different than those for the government.

I wouldn't be surprised if every perp collared by the extremist Cops was hospitalised after "resisting arrest"

Well thinking about it.

I think from an employers perspective. You want to hire people that you feel are gonna do the job you want them to do. If you think there is someone better or that the person you are thinking of hiring is not up to snuff then they shouldn't be hired.


From a personal standpoint. I think people in official positions such as a police officer, should be held to higher standards in who let in. I think this is basically relevant to the power or responsibility that position entails. The more power an organization or person has over other people then they need to adhere to a higher set of rules then what the average citizen should be put through.

the problem is only arising in the UK of this happening because this is no real moderately right of centre party...the conservatives occupy the exact same middle ground as labour...then next party to the right is the BNP (UKIP not with-standing)...

there is no party that is highlighting the real issues regarding race relations in this country...noone is saying how dangerous the serperate ghetto-isation of asian and white estates in many British cities really is.

noone highlighting the fact that a 5% increase in the UK population in 3 years from immigrant workers who then export alot of the money generated back out of the country is doing damage to the economy

noone trying to really find solution to these problems

instead what we have is a government and opposition who do nothing and say nothing about these issues for fear they will be called racist

and then we have extreme right wingers who say that all immigrants are evil and all muslims are terrorists

the truth of the matter is that there is alot of working and middle class white UK citizens (the majority class of this country) who do fall in between...and they are being driven further to the right by the inactions of a fearful government.

it's leading to a dangerous polarization of the UK...

i know i've gone a bit off-topic but these are possibly the reasons why a respectable police officer (or someone from any proffesion) may feel compelled to vote BNP...not because they whole-heartedly support their racist ideals...but because the UK government needs shocked into realising just what it's policies are doing...and what the lack of other alternative, less extreme options there are

Originally posted by shiv
I wouldn't be surprised if every perp collared by the extremist Cops was hospitalised after "resisting arrest"

inferring that every "perp" is thus an ethnic minority...thus reinforcing the BNP rhetoric that the majority of crime is perpetrated by minorities

well played

Being an American, I am not so up on British parliamentary parties.
What makes the BNP racist? Gav said "Neo-Nazi"? Nazi was National Socialist workers party, and they Were against the Communist who where taking advantage of the terrible economy Germany was going through to further the Bolshevik expansion. So I'm curious as to what the BNP stands for. Are they Anti Muslim?

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Being an American, I am not so up on British parliamentary parties.
What makes the BNP racist? Gav said "Neo-Nazi"? Nazi was National Socialist workers party, and they Were against the Communist who where taking advantage of the terrible economy Germany was going through to further the Bolshevik expansion. So I'm curious as to what the BNP stands for. Are they Anti Muslim?

I call pure anti-communism bullshit on this.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Being an American, I am not so up on British parliamentary parties.
What makes the BNP racist? Gav said "Neo-Nazi"? Nazi was National Socialist workers party, and they Were against the Communist who where taking advantage of the terrible economy Germany was going through to further the Bolshevik expansion. So I'm curious as to what the BNP stands for. Are they Anti Muslim?

The BNP wants to end immigration to the UK under any circumstances...all current immigrants from basically any time after the British empire will be offered financial packages to move back to their countries of origin...despite the fact that many of these families are now 3rd and 4th generation British born...they simply want rid of them because of the colour of their skin

Originally posted by jaden101
i know i've gone a bit off-topic but these are possibly the reasons why a respectable police officer (or someone from any proffesion) may feel compelled to vote BNP...not because they whole-heartedly support their racist ideals...but because the UK government needs shocked into realising just what it's policies are doing...and what the lack of other alternative, less extreme options there are

I don't want to get into a big debate about the political spectrum and what-not.

But just on this particular area as pertaining to what sparked this thread off, I think everyone should appreciate the very real and significant difference between voting for a party and being a member of it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't want to get into a big debate about the political spectrum and what-not.

But just on this particular area as pertaining to what sparked this thread off, I think everyone should appreciate the very real and significant difference between voting for a party and being a member of it.



If you have time, could you go into details as to what you were alluding? What are those significant differences and why are they significant, or something like that.

No, I'm not asking to start an argument. I don't have time for that. I'm just curious from an intellectual perspective.

You'd expect the convictions of a member of a party to be much stronger and probably more in line with the party on the whole than that of a casual voter. A voter might have a few issues they think that the party would support or just see them as less harmful, while a member, usually, due to having to put money and time down to support the party would be assumed to be a real supporter of close to all causes of the party. That's anyways what I'd expect, I am sure there are exceptions, but membership is either way a step up from voting.

Absolutely. A voter might vote for a party because he liks the candiate, or thinks certain policies are useful on a local level, or simply because he/she thinks all the other parties are worse. In fact, almost never does a person vote for a candidate and back all of their party's policies- or, quite often, even a majority of them.

Whereas actively joining a party is a far greater statement of support for that parties' beliefs and policies. It's a much more significant process. The separation between "I once voted for the Conservatives." and "I am a member of the Conservative party" is actually rather big.

i would disagree...although i'm a bit of an exception given that i actively worked for a trade union that supports a party i have never and will never support or vote for personally

Originally posted by jaden101
i would disagree...although i'm a bit of an exception given that i actively worked for a trade union that supports a party i have never and will never support or vote for personally

You disagree with that being the general behaviour or you mean there are exceptions, like you?

i disagree that being an active member is hugely different from voting...given that all you need to do is pay a very small membership fee...and not have to actually promote the party

Originally posted by jaden101
i disagree that being an active member is hugely different from voting...given that all you need to do is pay a very small membership fee...and not have to actually promote the party

Hmm, I don't know how it is in the UK, but in Germany if you state "I voted for ..." it is a much weaker statement then "I'm a meber of ..."

You'd associate a stronger conviction with a person who calls themselves a member, especially since members of a political party is a very small part of all voters.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I don't know how it is in the UK, but in Germany if you state "I voted for ..." it is a much weaker statement then "I'm a meber of ..."

You'd associate a stronger conviction with a person who calls themselves a member, especially since members of a political party is a very small part of all voters.

perhaps....obviously not with me though as i stated

and it also brings me back to the question of whether some of the people who have voted for and/or become members of the BNP would have done so if there was a party with a more moderate opinion...somewhere between them and the conservative party

i also think that there is going to be a huge problem in this country when someone from the BNP does get voted to the house of commons as an MP...as i have the strangest feeling that the government will block it, thus casting a huge doubt over the validity of democracy

although there has been a precedent for it in the case of Bobby Sands...although he was elected as an MP while in prison and was banned from taking his place on that principle...and the law was changed to stop prisoners from running for election

although that begs the question would the government ban people from running for election who had right wing ideas

Originally posted by jaden101
perhaps....obviously not with me though as i stated

and it also brings me back to the question of whether some of the people who have voted for and/or become members of the BNP would have done so if there was a party with a more moderate opinion...somewhere between them and the conservative party Which is a fair argument, really. But I don't know how you would relate that to the question at hand.


Another question of course is how far the government should be allowed to decide which democratic political parties are allowed and which aren't.

well as for the question in the initial post...i don't think the belief or disbelief in a law is inextricably linked to the ability to uphold that law...i believe that someone can personally believe an individual law to be wrong but still have enough respect for law as a whole to uphold it.

i also believe that in a democracy, freedom of political belief is paramount...and any undermining of it is dangerous

it's a country of bizarre contradictions though...we allow IRA terrorists to become MP's but we don't allow police officers to support right wing parties

Well, I guess the problem is not their support, but the fear that they might abuse their powers towards a particular group based on the beliefs that make them vote the way they do.

On the other hand, they don't seem to forbid them from voting whatever they want.

Yeah, that's what I was wondering about.

It makes sense to assume what Bardock42 and Ushgarak said. That's what I assumed he meant. However, I was thinking of several exceptions.

Recently, there were several registered dems and republicans who voted for the opposing party.

Those are the exceptions, of course.

I was also thinking that those not registered, such as just about every member of my family who votes republican without fail, are every bit as active in their party of choice as a registered member.

I would say that there are those "soft-core" members too who are members only in name.

However, joining up with the BNP takes quite a bit of forethought when you're in law enforcement. It's not like a person who joins the Dems and doesn't do jack or holds little interest with the Dem party.

then that itself begs the question of whether he joined the BNP before or after he joined the police.

the irony is though that the BNP gets the reputation it does because it came from extremely racist beginnings...i.e the national front...which were basically a bunch of skinhead racist thugs...but like all political parties...they evolved...yet they are still considered a bunch of racist thugs...where as sinn fein started life as the political arm of a terrorist organisation that has killed over 2000 people in 30 years...yet they're are lauded as peace makers and were up for the nobel peace prize despite being lead by a former IRA sniper

Really i dont think ANYONE should be allowed to but of course not police officers. They should not be biased towards any one group or against any one group.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
In the UK there has been controversy recently over the publication of the membership of the British Nationalist Party (a semi-neo nazi, racist group with quite a large representation in local government).

Due to the publication of the member-list policy officers all over the country who's name was found on the list have been suspended pending review as it is currently illegal to be both a police officer and a member of the BNP...the logic being that it is impossible for someone to belong to a group with views incompatible to the duties of a police officer.

However, is it right- especially considering freedom of political choice etc- for this restriction to exist? (If it is right should it be extended to all public offices, like teachers?)


Most police are racist anyway so it probably doesn't matter

I can't be for removing the rights of association for any individuals.

That being said, if the police as an organization have a policy against it, the issue is much different (though it is still a State policy, as the police are the arm of the state).

Originally posted by jaden101
where as sinn fein started life as the political arm of a terrorist organisation that has killed over 2000 people in 30 years...yet they're are lauded as peace makers and were up for the nobel peace prize despite being lead by a former IRA sniper

Members of the Quebecoise terrorist group, the FLQ, are now members of the provincial parliment in Quebec, and are largely lauded as local heroes.

I know its not the same as the IRA, but I sort of hear what you are saying. Sinn Fein certainly must be lauded for some advances in the political process, yet it is still run by these murderes and violent individuals. I also get the feeling that Sinn Fein covers and protects those who are violent within the IRA.

Voting simply fails.

Originally posted by inimalist


I know its not the same as the IRA, but I sort of hear what you are saying. Sinn Fein certainly must be lauded for some advances in the political process, yet it is still run by these murderes and violent individuals. I also get the feeling that Sinn Fein covers and protects those who are violent within the IRA.

the violence in northern ireland is still highly prevalent and perpetrated by people who still have close ties to Sinn Fein...namely ex IRA...because it is the people from these organisations (along with their opposites in the UVF etc) that are responsible for organised crime in northern ireland

but this stuff is conveniently brushed under the carpet to save the peace process...people who have committed bombings in the past are let out of jail years before their sentences are up...all in the name of the peace process

yet these people still have sway in the halls of power...but someone with right wing views that are far from meaning they will go and start murdering immigrants and terrorists are suspended from their jobs in the civil service because of their beliefs

so we welcome one kind of far more violent extremism into power and shun and ridicule a far less dangerous form of extremism

like i said in the baby Peter thread though...it's the product of an overly PC society...

In a word, no.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
In the UK there has been controversy recently over the publication of the membership of the British Nationalist Party (a semi-neo nazi, racist group with quite a large representation in local government).

Due to the publication of the member-list policy officers all over the country who's name was found on the list have been suspended pending review as it is currently illegal to be both a police officer and a member of the BNP...the logic being that it is impossible for someone to belong to a group with views incompatible to the duties of a police officer.

However, is it right- especially considering freedom of political choice etc- for this restriction to exist? (If it is right should it be extended to all public offices, like teachers?) Well, lets say I was a cop, and I joined a local skinhead group. Ideally what one does in their down time is of no business to their employer, but how long would it be before I let my racist views interfere with enforcing the law? Sooner or later I will let it get the better of me and it will affect my judgement.

well it turns out it wasn't a list of member's names but actually a list of people who had contacted the BNP through their website for any reason...so the man has been suspended for nothing...not only that but someone's car was torched last night because their name was on the list...despite the fact that it may have even been someone emailing them to criticise their policies

lol

racist hunts!

Originally posted by jaden101
well as for the question in the initial post...i don't think the belief or disbelief in a law is inextricably linked to the ability to uphold that law...i believe that someone can personally believe an individual law to be wrong but still have enough respect for law as a whole to uphold it.

i also believe that in a democracy, freedom of political belief is paramount...and any undermining of it is dangerous

it's a country of bizarre contradictions though...we allow IRA terrorists to become MP's but we don't allow police officers to support right wing parties

Terrorists? Freedom Fighters IMHO

terrorists....end of discussion

Not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by jaden101
terrorists....end of discussion

Discussion restarted-

Freedom Fighters.

Originally posted by jaden101
terrorists....end of discussion

not all IRA are terrorists. nowadays, sure, you could argue it, but they weren't always like that, and its not every single member.

After there 8 or 12 hour shift is over, they can be themselves again.

Originally posted by Raoul
not all IRA are terrorists. nowadays, sure, you could argue it, but they weren't always like that, and its not every single member.

they're a terrorist organisation...if you're a member...you're a terrorist...not argue against is like saying that Osama Bin Laden isn't a terrorist because he personally hasn't killed anyone

nowadays they're just criminals...for the most part, anyway

and i'm not saying that this is exclusive to the Catholic side of the divide...it applies to the unionist opposite of the IRA...



you can't triple stamp a double stamp Lloyd...you can't triple a stamp a double stamp

THEY CAN BE BOTH EASILY!!!

It's not acceptable whatsoever for someone to be able to go to jail or otherwise be in trouble with the law for being racist. Freedom of speech in the case of racism should be a white man's inalienable right as long as he doesn't try to carry out his beliefs with actual actions. We're not talking about pedophiles and zoophiles here. If you must arrest a white man for being racist, then you must arrest every single member of the Nation of Islam and every single Jew because their holy book claims that we "goyim" (meaning non-Jews, especially referring to whites) are inferior and not God's children. The fact that white people have gone to jail for being racist is the worst kind of politically correct liberal fascism and a total violation of the very most basic rights of a human being. It's perfectly natural and perfectly human to hate. It's not wrong just because it offends the completely insane, leftarded, moonbat oversensitivities of the world's most vulgarly spineless excuses for human beings.

Originally posted by Ahsoka Tano
After there 8 or 12 hour shift is over, they can be themselves again.

Oh, I'm so in awe of their long work day. In fact, I so repspect the verbal diarrhea I over heard in the book store the other day that I'm willing to donate money to the fraternal order of police. I listened to a guy on the other side of the aisle that said he was joining for the 10 grand sign-up bonus and how it was free and clear money because his living expenses were paid for by the government. (What most patriotic americans would call Socialism and hand-out loving communists) So, because his breakfast and dinner were on the K&W line we pay for as tax-payers, he should be allowed to bilk the government for money he likely won't earn; which would send your average Palin supporter into a tizzy. We've got hundreds of thousands of Americans who join the military for a free education or thousands of sign-up dollars being called real-America-loving patriots who are out on those oil feilds defending our freedom and standing up for Democracy and American ideals while actually only concerning themselves with their bank account and the "stupidity" of the one half of America ideals they resent and bash. It's just like a cop getting killed in the line of duty and everyone acts like a real American hero died for us when he really fell for an add line and signed up to serve himself. Just because a 22 year old was sent to his death doesn't mean he did so for your right to buy cheap gasoline and tube socks at Wal-Mart, much less the American way of life. Personally, I think the greatest disrespect we pay our service men and women is the assumption that they died for any one of us and not themselves. By claiming they're Americans that weren't looking out for themselves when they signed up for service is a lazy and unrealistic way of removing our own selfish, self-serving reality. They're just as selfish as any one of us are. We call them saviors and patriots and heroes so that we can assume some measure of that idology for ourselves, but we do it in the face of the reality that we're lazy ****s that don't do a damn thing because we didn't fall for the line of bullshit and benefits that were offered to those who did. If you sign up for a job that gives you substandard body armour, a gun and a helmet and end up getting killed, then you aren't a victim; you're fodder. I feel bad for every American mother who thinks they sacrificed their child to a war over money and oil and consoles herself with the idea that she offered up her child to the alter of freedom and democracy. I hope the weight of thedeath and their base, supperficial knowledge of American ideals get so heavy that the suffocate when they collapse on top of them.

Originally posted by jaden101
they're a terrorist organisation...if you're a member...you're a terrorist...not argue against is like saying that Osama Bin Laden isn't a terrorist because he personally hasn't killed anyone

nowadays they're just criminals...for the most part, anyway

i'm just glad you're differentiating between past and present, is all...

It's no worse or different from being part of a church or a....."synagoge"

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
In the UK there has been controversy recently over the publication of the membership of the British Nationalist Party (a semi-neo nazi, racist group with quite a large representation in local government).

Due to the publication of the member-list policy officers all over the country who's name was found on the list have been suspended pending review as it is currently illegal to be both a police officer and a member of the BNP...the logic being that it is impossible for someone to belong to a group with views incompatible to the duties of a police officer.

However, is it right- especially considering freedom of political choice etc- for this restriction to exist? (If it is right should it be extended to all public offices, like teachers?) On their own time, police should have the right to join a racist group. However, any action deemed even slightly bigoted should be punishable as such and the membership taken as evidence against said police officer.

Originally posted by Taomon
On their own time, police should have the right to join a racist group. However, any action deemed even slightly bigoted should be punishable as such and the membership taken as evidence against said police officer.

I like this. In Nebraska a Patrol Trooper (or something like that) was involved in the KKK and was fired for it. The official reason (I think) was the clan affiliation, but he ticketed an african american shortly before he was fired.

The only danger I can see is that an officer would be afraid to do their job and uphold the law if the offender was of non-white descent.

No one can rant like DK can.

no they should not, they should be impartial hands of the law. Being in such an organization would allow people to play the race card against the pd, and would possibly lead to police officers becoming biased.

Yes they should be allowed to join whatever organization they wish. Their superiors should also be allowed to fire them for it.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
no they should not, they should be impartial hands of the law. Being in such an organization would allow people to play the race card against the pd, and would possibly lead to police officers becoming biased.

But apparently police officers being racists isn't a problem for you?

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
No one can rant like DK can.


What makes my rants less effective is that the further into them I get the more spelling mistakes I make. By the time I've said all of it, I'm too lazy to go back and correct my mistrokes.

But, I think everyone should have as much to say. Even if it's on the other side of the arrgument.

Originally posted by Devil King
What makes my rants less effective is that the further into them I get the more spelling mistakes I make. By the time I've said all of it, I'm too lazy to go back and correct my mistrokes.

I've always thought it was because you stop hitting enter and the rant becomes a nearly unreadable block of text.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've always thought it was because you stop hitting enter and the rant becomes a nearly unreadable block of text.

No, I still hit enter and the spacebar, but not always at the right times.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes they should be allowed to join whatever organization they wish. Their superiors should also be allowed to fire them for it.



But apparently police officers being racists isn't a problem for you? I said it might lead to them becoming biased. that's racism.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I said it might lead to them becoming biased. that's racism.

Why would someone join a racist organization if they weren't already racist? That's just silly.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
In the UK there has been controversy recently over the publication of the membership of the British Nationalist Party (a semi-neo nazi, racist group with quite a large representation in local government).

Due to the publication of the member-list policy officers all over the country who's name was found on the list have been suspended pending review as it is currently illegal to be both a police officer and a member of the BNP...the logic being that it is impossible for someone to belong to a group with views incompatible to the duties of a police officer.

However, is it right- especially considering freedom of political choice etc- for this restriction to exist? (If it is right should it be extended to all public offices, like teachers?)


Wouldn't this party be contrary to what it means to be an officer of the law? I mean Police Officers are supposed to have a neutral stance on any system of indoctrination.

Originally posted by Stoic
Wouldn't this party be contrary to what it means to be an officer of the law? I mean Police Officers are supposed to have a neutral stance on any system of indoctrination.

Ideally, that's nice. But realistically speaking it's improbable, at the least. Especially when reconciled with the reality that a large number of cops become law enforcement officials because they have small penises and need to feel like they're still in high school. Not that they don't do it for their country, of course.

By the by, I've just been threatened with a ban by a particular mod of the SW section because I disagree with him, via PM no less. Perhaps mods shouldn't be given authority if they hate anyone who disagrees with them.

Originally posted by Devil King
By the by, I've just been threatened with a ban by a particular mod of the SW section because I disagree with him, via PM no less. Perhaps mods shouldn't be given authority if they hate anyone who disagrees with them. advertising it publicly is probably the stupidest thing you could do. PM Naz with details, is what I hear you should do with rogue mods.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
advertising it publicly is probably the stupidest thing you could do. PM Naz with details, is what I hear you should do with rogue mods.

Personally, I shit on you. Why not start another "blacks are cool, jews rock and women are equal" posts with the words "I'm sorry, but..."

Originally posted by Devil King
Personally, I shit on you. Why not start another "blacks are cool, jews rock and women are equal" posts with the words "I'm sorry, but..." why not go fVck yourself with your non-existent genitalia?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
why not go fVck yourself with your non-existent genitalia?

Why not show us all how big yours are by starting a thread that doesn't imply how small yours really are?

Come on, be the man you profess to be.

Start a thread that isn't about how what you are is better than what so many others are not? What a man you must be!

In fact, why are you posting a comment without apologizing for what you're about to say? Why apologize if your entire point is not to be offensive while insulting everyone who reads a single thing your head deems translatable to your fingers? You're a troll. Deal with it. Everyone else has. You suck, your mother sucks, your grandparents suck. That's apparent because you've never learned to keep your stupidity to yourself. How does it feel to know so many generations of what you consider to be your greatest stregth have all made an effort for nothing? To me, it seems: priceless.

Originally posted by Devil King
Why not show us all how big yours are by starting a thread that doesn't imply how small yours really are?
comeback bombed.
I never called myself anything.
I never started a thread saying I was better than anyone else either.

I'm sorry, but your a dumbass troll who can't leave stuff alone. Your debating skills suck, your logic sucks, your views, while you have the right to them, are unsupported, you post insults for arguments, you look like a moron, and you smell funny.

wow.... amaizing. oooo my grandparent's suck. I'm going to go tell my mommy!

fixed.
I have no idea what you are talking about. sounds like your over-dramatizing and trying to monologue like a deranged super villain role player at the wrong convention. my greatest stregth? and you who know so much, which stregth would that be?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I don't know how it is in the UK, but in Germany if you state "I voted for ..." it is a much weaker statement then "I'm a meber of ..."

You'd associate a stronger conviction with a person who calls themselves a member, especially since members of a political party is a very small part of all voters.

In the UK I feel it is mucvh the same....

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
comeback bombed.
I never called myself anything.
I never started a thread saying I was better than anyone else either.

I'm sorry, but your a dumbass troll who can't leave stuff alone. Your debating skills suck, your logic sucks, your views, while you have the right to them, are unsupported, you post insults for arguments, you look like a moron, and you smell funny.

wow.... amaizing. oooo my grandparent's suck. I'm going to go tell my mommy!

fixed.
I have no idea what you are talking about. sounds like your over-dramatizing and trying to monologue like a deranged super villain role player at the wrong convention. my greatest stregth? and you who know so much, which stregth would that be?

That's a lot to say to a person Baby Jesus should have already taken care of...

Sadly, he didn't.

You fail.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's a lot to say to a person Baby Jesus should have already taken care of...

Sadly, he didn't.

You fail. um... you fail. you've misquoted me many times, you've made unfounded claims, haven't supported your arguments, always come out with a shitty comeback and present yourself as a moron. Welcome to my ignore list.

Lord Knightfa11 and Devil King, cut it out. This feud is starting to spread all over the place and mess up threads. Carry on and it is a warning.

DK, that's another official warning to you for your anti-mod comment there, which aside from attacking mods and revealing private messages does not even vaguely reflect the truth of the matter. If you like I'll send a copy of what you said to queeq to Raz, and you'll be out of here forever, and perhaps everyone else would also care to see the nature of your outright flame to queeq which is actually what you were warned for, not because you disagreed with him. Saying it was because of that is a disgraceful and cowardly lie.

As it is, this is a final warning on this matter now. You have been warned and banned enough on it. If you keep attacking mods in that way, or making such outbursts, after repeated warnings made to you to stop, the next ban will be permanent. Keep ALL your troubles with mods off the boards.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lord Knightfa11 and Devil King, cut it out. Yessir.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Yessir.

Pussy.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lord Knightfa11 and Devil King, cut it out. This feud is starting to spread all over the place and mess up threads. Carry on and it is a warning.

DK, that's another official warning to you for your anti-mod comment there, which aside from attacking mods and revealing private messages does not even vaguely reflect the truth of the matter. If you like I'll send a copy of what you said to queeq to Raz, and you'll be out of here forever, and perhaps everyone else would also care to see the nature of your outright flame to queeq which is actually what you were warned for, not because you disagreed with him. Saying it was because of that is a disgraceful and cowardly lie.

As it is, this is a final warning on this matter now. You have been warned and banned enough on it. If you keep attacking mods in that way, or making such outbursts, after repeated warnings made to you to stop, the next ban will be permanent. Keep ALL your troubles with mods off the boards.

No, it's not a lie. While you're sending off messages, make sure you include the whole story. All the private messages and threats via PM from Queeq are an important part of the story. If you need my password to acces my PM's, just let me know and I'll give it to you.

Good Lord, you really do try my patience, DK. I have the PM you sent queeq with the flame in, and that is what you were warned for and threatened with a ban for. Your attempt to make out that the warning was just for disagreeing with him is SO clearly a lie, and your continual attempts to deny it are feeble.

Final warning. Try and argue or discuss this any further and you will be permanently banned. I mean it, If you try and prolong this in any way you will be right out of the door. Do not make one post or one comment on it at KMC, at all, ever- and that goes for any other disciplinary issue you find yourself under either. You have had a frankly gratuitious number of warnings on this, and it is the absolute end of the line.

The same goes for you sending further insulting PMs to queeq.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord, you really do try my patience, DK. I have the PM you sent queeq with the flame in, and that is what you were warned for and threatened with a ban for. Your attempt to make out that the warning was just for disagreeing with him is SO clearly a lie, and your continual attempts to deny it are feeble.

Final warning. Try and argue or discuss this any further and you will be permanently banned. I mean it, If you try and prolong this in any way you will be right out of the door. Do not make one post or one comment on it at KMC, at all, ever- and that goes for any other disciplinary issue you find yourself under either. You have had a frankly gratuitious number of warnings on this, and it is the absolute end of the line.

The same goes for you sending further insulting PMs to queeq.

So either you have an ability to read member's Private Messages, or you read the one forwarded to you by Queeq. No chance of the two being different.

I understand that you think there is no room for discussion when dispensing the law, but are you sure you know everything? You repremanded me for divulging aspects of a PM, but seem to have no issue with a moderator threatening me with a permanant ban based on a conversation had via PM.

You know where to take it if you have questions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You know where to take it if you have questions.

where?...cause Raz hasn't been online since october 15th

unless he only comes on when he gets an email prompt after getting a pm

A PM to me is what I was referring to. As you know very well, you should PM mods to discuss such things, not rant about it on the boards.

as i have done previously...but i think it's best if it works both ways...but then i've made this point in the suggestions thread so no point in repeating myself.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A PM to me is what I was referring to. As you know very well, you should PM mods to discuss such things, not rant about it on the boards.

Which is what Queeq and I were engaged in until he decided to threaten me with a permanant ban for disagreeing with him via PM. Again, if you'd like the password to my account, just PM me. Just because he's a section mod doesn't mean he's free of culpability in this situation. I can't change the PM except via reponses, which would show up in the unalterble PM that came before it in my inbox. This was between he and I before he decided to privately threaten me with retribution he doesn't have the authority to dispense and for reasons that would merrit no such an action. He can stop responding to me just as easily as I can to him.

Originally posted by Devil King
Which is what Queeq and I were engaged in until he decided to threaten me with a permanant ban for disagreeing with him via PM. Again, if you'd like the password to my account, just PM me. Just because he's a section mod doesn't mean he's free of culpability in this situation. I can't change the PM except via reponses, which would show up in the unalterble PM that came before it in my inbox. This was between he and I before he decided to privately threaten me with retribution he doesn't have the authority to dispense and for reasons that would merrit no such an action. He can stop responding to me just as easily as I can to him.

Then be the better man and DROP IT! Now, I'm asking you to drop it OR I will give out the ban.

The discussion is on Police Officers becoming Nazis.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Then be the better man and DROP IT! Now, I'm asking you to drop it OR I will give out the ban.

The discussion is on Police Officers becoming Nazis.

About which I have shared my position.

No, that's it, I am out of patience with DK, who has again aired his dirty laundry to attack mods in public- again lying in the process (which I know full well abouyt, because the ban warning came through queeq but via me after I saw the PM in question) after many MANY direct orders to take it to PM including two previous bans for that issue. End of the line- he's out of here.

Any more off-topic posts in here will result in warnings.

So police officers are prohibited from joining racist organisations- the general argument seems to be that it is incompatible with their duty to provide equal protection to all peoples... However, should the ban be extended to other public-servants? Say Teachers?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So police officers are prohibited from joining racist organisations- the general argument seems to be that it is incompatible with their duty to provide equal protection to all peoples... However, should the ban be extended to other public-servants? Say Teachers?

Any government service should require this ban. Since they are public services. Private services should probably adopt it too, however it is there choice.

Originally posted by Kram3r
Any government service should require this ban. Since they are public services. Private services should probably adopt it too, however it is there choice.

Well, wouldn't IBM banning its members from joining the KKK or BNP be an infringement of human rights?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well, wouldn't IBM banning its members from joining the KKK or BNP be an infringement of human rights?

IBM?

Oh right, I just got what you meant. No it would not be. IBM is a private company. It therefore has the right to choose who it wants to work for them, to represent it's company's image.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that's it, I am out of patience with DK, who has again aired his dirty laundry to attack mods in public- again lying in the process (which I know full well abouyt, because the ban warning came through queeq but via me after I saw the PM in question) after many MANY direct orders to take it to PM including two previous bans for that issue. End of the line- he's out of here.

Any more off-topic posts in here will result in warnings.

You should really let Queeq do his own dirty work, you essentially perma-banned DK because he has the audacity to disagree with Mods' POV, the horrors of that. This is a discussion forum, right?

What a joke.

Originally posted by Robtard
You should really let Queeq do his own dirty work, you essentially perma-banned DK because he has the audacity to disagree with Mods' POV, the horrors of that. This is a discussion forum, right?

What a joke.

Stay on topic please, there's no need to get involved in this issue it doesn't concern you- is it worth getting banned over? Just leave it.

Originally posted by Kram3r
Oh right, I just got what you meant. No it would not be. IBM is a private company. It therefore has the right to choose who it wants to work for them, to represent it's company's image.

What if it chose not to employ black people?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Stay on topic please, there's no need to get involved in this issue it doesn't concern you- is it worth getting banned over? Just leave it.



What if it chose not to employ black people? I believe Kram3r, like I, would deem that to be the decision of the private company. I don't think an employer should be force in any way to work with someone they don't want to work with, no matter what their reason.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe Kram3r, like I, would deem that to be the decision of the private company. I don't think an employer should be force in any way to work with someone they don't want to work with, no matter what their reason.

I actually would agree but then we get to the issue of blatent public racism- is that a step backwards or is it a step forwards in terms of rights?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I actually would agree but then we get to the issue of blatent public racism- is that a step backwards or is it a step forwards in terms of rights? In terms of "rights"? It's a step forward. Whether that is a good step to take in order for other considerations, such as safety or equality, is of course not certain.

Originally posted by Robtard
You should really let Queeq do his own dirty work, you essentially perma-banned DK because he has the audacity to disagree with Mods' POV, the horrors of that. This is a discussion forum, right?

What a joke.

That's a warning for you Robtard! Persist with these rants and whining and you will be removed for three days. Drop it as well!




...

Sorry about that...eveyrone please continue.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In terms of "rights"? It's a step forward. Whether that is a good step to take in order for other considerations, such as safety or equality, is of course not certain.

See, if an employer can chose who he employs, will that not lead to an employer choosing who he can serve?

Should we really go back to the days when hotels have "NO BLACKS" in the window?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
See, if an employer can chose who he employs, will that not lead to an employer choosing who he can serve?

Should we really go back to the days when hotels have "NO BLACKS" in the window?

It sure kept the ******* out.

edit: we can say *******?

Apparently so.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That's a warning for you Robtard! Persist with these rants and whining and you will be removed for three days. Drop it as well!




...

Sorry about that...eveyrone please continue.

Listen, I know you just love to Mod-Troll, be a complete hypocrite and then play the little victim up on that cross you made for yourself, but I OBVIOUSLY dropped it, as I didn't reply to GMG's reply to the post initially; anyone can see that.

Edit: Please make it six days, it's my lucky number.

Oh what the hell just close the thread.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Oh what the hell just close the thread.

No need, I was done initially, as I didn't reply to your post. I just couldn't resist WD's trolling and had to retort.

/end

The last on-topic post ended with something about "*******", be my guest.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
haahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaa


I'm laughing at....uh......................................





symmetric chaos's discovery of a certain word.

Originally posted by dadudemon
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
haahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaa


I'm laughing at....uh......................................





symmetric chaos's discovery of a certain word.

I didn't find it very funny, bit cheeky if you ask me....

as for Sym.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
See, if an employer can chose who he employs, will that not lead to an employer choosing who he can serve?

Should we really go back to the days when hotels have "NO BLACKS" in the window? No, then again, I don't think there'd be many hotels doing that nowadays.

If a hotel keeper doesn't want blacks in, then I think it's his right to decide so. Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It sure kept the ******* out.

edit: we can say *******?

Yes, a few plurals of "offensive" words are not caught by the censor.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, then again, I don't think there'd be many hotels doing that nowadays.

If a hotel keeper doesn't want blacks in, then I think it's his right to decide so.

Yes, a few plurals of "offensive" words are not caught by the censor.

FoTN will see that changed I'm sure.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
FoTN will see that changed I'm sure. It's a rather known fact for many, many years now, not sure why it isn't included, maybe on the basis that censorship in such a way is, at best, a joke.

But, don't you want to reply on my outrageousness in denying them blacks equal treatment?


Haha, the 6 day ban is great. Very, very funny.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's a rather known fact for many, many years now, not sure why it isn't included, maybe on the basis that censorship in such a way is, at best, a joke.

But, don't you want to reply on my outrageousness in denying them blacks equal treatment?


Haha, the 6 day ban is great. Very, very funny.

Not really, because I agree that people should have the right to serve who they want to serve in their hotels.

I myself wouldn't stop people from staying in a hotel due to skin colour and I wouldn't feel comfortable staying in a hotel that did, but that's my personal viewpoints- I couldn't really get it to gel with the "Good Samaritan" parable...

It should be made 12 'cause it really really wasn't...showing off infront of other people is hardly acceptable, but this issue is going to run through this thread now I think and I wouldn't want the regular posters in the GDF to drop even further because of peoples stupidity- so again I would ask a Mod to close this thread. Though I suspect they would anyway.

Originally posted by Robtard
Listen, I know you just love to Mod-Troll, be a complete hypocrite and then play the little victim up on that cross you made for yourself, but I OBVIOUSLY dropped it, as I didn't reply to GMG's reply to the post initially; anyone can see that.

Edit: Please make it six days, it's my lucky number.

Fine, I'll make it seven then.





Don't use that word in a derogative manner to certain KMC members. That would constitude bashing and harrasment.

As for the closing the thread.

No!

The discussion will continue. We won't allow the behavior of some members to ruin the discussion.

From here on...anyone who gets tough will be toughen out of the thread.




Continue with the discussion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd have to think about it for a bit, but, not considering what Ush said, and rather replying to the hypothetical question, I'd say that in a system where you already are stripped of certain freedoms by means of force, the enforcers of such rules may very well be held to higher or different standards by their employer. You'd have to decide on a balance, as, on the one hand you might value the freedom of expression and rights to a private life, while you also have to consider that the people are in charge of something, very, very important, in theory the only allowed force over its citizens, as such you might hold them to higher standards to ensure your precise values are enforced, rather than personal opinions. Or, lets say, if a private company didn't want to hire a person which known to it actually hates what the company produces, I think they should have the right to fire them, though, rules for private companies, imo, should be different than those for the government.

So no racist police officers?

Thread is now closed by request.

Anyone who feels like to continue the discussion feel free to open a new thread.

No bickering...we'll be watching.