BNP force cancellation of Blair book signing

[Nicholas]

Former prime minister Tony Blair is considering cancelling a high-profile signing session of his new memoir because of planned protests.

Mr Blair said he was concerned about the potential "hassle and cost" to the police of pressing ahead with Wednesday's central London event.

He said the Metropolitan Police were "fabulous and they will do whatever we ask them to do" but should not be asked to commit resources unnecessarily.

"The book is selling fantastically. There are people - particularly now the BNP apparently say they want to get in on the action - you end up just causing a lot of hassle for people and cost when there are better things for the police to do and it's not as if we need to do it.

Protest threat could cancel Blair book signing - Yahoo! News UK

Quote: "Mr Blair said he was concerned about the potential "hassle and cost" to the police of pressing ahead with Wednesday's central London event."
That's funny - he's not at all concerned about the ongoing cost of protecting him....

[Midas]

Former prime minister Tony Blair is considering cancelling a high-profile signing session of his new memoir because of planned protests.

Mr Blair said he was concerned about the potential "hassle and cost" to the police of pressing ahead with Wednesday's central London event.

He said the Metropolitan Police were "fabulous and they will do whatever we ask them to do" but should not be asked to commit resources unnecessarily.

"The book is selling fantastically. There are people - particularly now the BNP apparently say they want to get in on the action - you end up just causing a lot of hassle for people and cost when there are better things for the police to do and it's not as if we need to do it.

Protest threat could cancel Blair book signing - Yahoo! News UK

Quote: "Mr Blair said he was concerned about the potential "hassle and cost" to the police of pressing ahead with Wednesday's central London event."
That's funny - he's not at all concerned about the ongoing cost of protecting him....

That's something of an exaggeration given that Blair had already announced the cancellation of the book signing before the BNP jumped in to try to make a bit of political capital out of it, saying they'd always been opposed to his actions! So had I; should I announce I've been partly responsible for the cancellation too?

[sheffield39]

There would'nt be any hassle if B...Liar was in prison, where he belongs with the rest of these political warmongers, its beyond belief how these traitors have been allowed such freedom, freedom to go about their lives as if they are NOT responsible for the shocking state Britain is in today! He knew all along there were no W-O-M-D in Saddams arsenal, as he was informed at every step of the missile inspectors way, yet like the USA puppet he was he pursued the destruction of Iraq and the deaths and maiming of so many of our young soldiers! The 'Lib/Lab/Conmen party' completely ignored many calls for a 'U TURN', with the loudest from the BNP and stormed ahead with their quest for personel wealth-n-power! Well it looks very much like B..Liar has got his wish and thinks he can still walk all over the British people, as he reaps his millions from his brainwashed public, one day these traitors will pay for their crimes!

[DaveUK]

There would'nt be any hassle if B...Liar was in prison, where he belongs with the rest of these political warmongers, its beyond belief how these traitors have been allowed such freedom, freedom to go about their lives as if they are NOT responsible for the shocking state Britain is in today! He knew all along there were no W-O-M-D in Saddams arsenal, as he was informed at every step of the missile inspectors way, yet like the USA puppet he was he pursued the destruction of Iraq and the deaths and maiming of so many of our young soldiers! The 'Lib/Lab/Conmen party' completely ignored many calls for a 'U TURN', with the loudest from the BNP and stormed ahead with their quest for personel wealth-n-power! Well it looks very much like B..Liar has got his wish and thinks he can still walk all over the British people, as he reaps his millions from his brainwashed public, one day these traitors will pay for their crimes!

So which is it? Do you support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or not? Judging by the tirade of opposition to any comments I and others have made against these illegal and immoral wars, I was under the impression that you supported it.
Or is it the case that you simply cannot bring yourself to agree with someone with left wing views, even if by disagreeing you contradict yourself?

I agree with Midas, this is political opportunism by the BNP. The signing and the party were cancelled before the BNP jumped on the bandwaggon.

[sheffield39]

So which is it? Do you support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or not? Judging by the tirade of opposition to any comments I and others have made against these illegal and immoral wars, I was under the impression that you supported it.
Or is it the case that you simply cannot bring yourself to agree with someone with left wing views, even if by disagreeing you contradict yourself?

I agree with Midas, this is political opportunism by the BNP. The signing and the party were cancelled before the BNP jumped on the bandwaggon.

I have never given my support to any of these illegal wars, I've always been against them! Whatever gave you that impression I supported such aggression? There's nothing I'd like better than to see the entire British force, pulled out safely and brought home! The BNP however, have been champaining for a pullout since it all started, so I can't see where you've been looking to exclude Nick Griffins constant call for our troops to be brought home!

[DaveUK]

I have never given my support to any of these illegal wars, I've always been against them! Whatever gave you that impression I supported such aggression? There's nothing I'd like better than to see the entire British force, pulled out safely and brought home! The BNP however, have been champaining for a pullout since it all started, so I can't see where you've been looking to exclude Nick Griffins constant call for our troops to be brought home!

Giving support to our military in the prosecution of these wars is giving support to these wars. You can't have it both ways. As I have already said to you in another thread, a soldier of any rank, from general down to private, not only has a right to refuse an illegal order, but a duty and legal obligation.
If as you claim, you and your party believe these wars to be illegal, the buck doesn't just stop with the politicians. Everyone involved is culpable. No one tried in the nuramberg trials got away with saying "I was just following orders".
The dilema for people like you and your leader though, is that there's no political opportunism and vote grabbing in holding soldiers accountable is there?
BTW, many in the left opposed these wars before the even started, in the run up to them, and had the moral courage to stand down and end their political careers in deffiance. Griffin is just an opportunist.

[Midas]

I have never given my support to any of these illegal wars, I've always been against them! Whatever gave you that impression I supported such aggression? There's nothing I'd like better than to see the entire British force, pulled out safely and brought home! The BNP however, have been champaining for a pullout since it all started, so I can't see where you've been looking to exclude Nick Griffins constant call for our troops to be brought home!

I think you've missed the point. We know the BNP have always been against these wars and we know Nick Griffin has said so many times. But the point is that their call to cancel the book signing was made after it had already been cancelled, implying that they were partly responsible for that happening, which is little more than trying to jump on an already moving bandwagon.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

the BNP had absolutely nothing to do with Anthony Charles Lynton BLAIR cancelling his book signing.

Blair's indisputable Crimes Against Humanity - War Crimes and dishonesty as the most corrupt Minister in modern British history together with the lies he orchestrated with John Scarlet in return for a Knighthood and the lies he and the cabinet orchestrated jointly and which Jack Straw acted as messenger for when he lied to Colin Powell leading to Powell's speech to the UN and subsequent resignation and the obscene self enrichment of Blair and his lavender wife led to such revulsion amongst the public at large that his book signing in Dublin led to a huge protest that had much of the Guardie on standby and seemingly some 50 visible police on duty just so this egregious piece of filth could sign a few books for yet more money.

It was decided that his book signing could lead to major problems in London and was cancelled.

May I point out that his utterly incompetent premiership and the economic illiteracy of his Chancellor led to more damage to Britain and its economy also to its self determination, sovereignty and future than did Adolf Hitler and the entire Nazi war machine - though so far not as many deaths. That is potentially to come.

The BNP played no part in the matter and would most likely have disintegrated with no MEPs had it not been for the efforts of Nigel Farage & Mark Croucher of UKIP making such efforts to raise their name at every opportunity prior to the election.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[NationalLiberalSupporter]

Yes,Blair is the ultimate hypocrite and should be tried for war crimes for his attacks on sovereign states,albeit states where the governing regimes are abhorrent to most people in the West and were responsible for the deaths of thousands of their own people.
The BNP will jump on any bandwagon they can to appear "acceptable".The trouble is that no one I know trust a party led by a former holocaust denier (or has he changed his mind again?)who appears to wilt under pressure (Question Time) when this and his other racist views are challenged.
The BNP are a spent force,because although the average "indigenous" Brit is fed up with the immigration laws or lack of them in this country.Although the average Brit want the Lisbon treaty re-negotiated and only skilled workers here (even Big Issue sellers are out of work because of East Europeans it seems!).Although the average Brit wanted to vote Liberal Democrat but couldn't because of the silly stance on immigration and Europe and were looking for a Nationalist stance.They just couldn't bring themselves to vote BNP, when it was a real vote and not a council/European protest vote.They had too much sense.
So no matter what the almost bankrupt BNP do and no matter what bandwagon they jump on.Common sense is catching up with them.It's a shame the same can't be said of "top of the book list" Blair!

[octopus]

Just about sums Mr Blair up - a coward as well as a crook!

[TheMixer]

That's right Tony...It's us decent people like you and me against the BNP. I've Got the message! pwhhh!

[flash]

Yes,Blair is the ultimate hypocrite and should be tried for war crimes

I am no lover or supporter of Blair but just because I am curious could you tell me what “crime” did he commit? To commit a crime you have to break a law. Show me the law he broke. Please be specific.

I was under the impression he was authorized by your rules of government to commit UK troops. What law do you break if you are the Commander in Chief (which I assume the Prime Minster of the UK is) and you commit UK troops?

Also, if he was acting alone and committing a crime as you claim then why wasn’t he simply voted a no confidence out of power which is allowed under your Parliamentary form of government?

If he did commit a crime then why hasn’t he been charged and convicted of the crime? I don’t mean some stupid Left Wing placard level of indictment but a real indictment by the people whose laws he broke.

I suspect that he didn’t break any law but people like you claim illegality because you don’t want to take responsibility for the actions of your democratically elected officials. Isn’t that the really the case? You do understand that sometimes democratically elected officials do things that some of the people disagree with, don’t you? Just because you disagreed with his actions doesn’t mean it is illegal. If that was the case I would have this piece of crap Obama thrown in jail.

[NationalLiberalSupporter]

Why hasn't Blair been arrested ?

Within the UK, there is no means of prosecuting Mr Blair. In 2006 the law lords decided that the international crime of aggression has not been incorporated into domestic law(5). But elsewhere in the world it has been. In 2006 the professor of international law Philippe Sands warned that “Margaret Thatcher avoids certain countries as a result of the sinking of the Belgrano, and Blair would be advised to do likewise.”(6)

Here is the case against him.

The Downing Street memo, a record of a meeting in July 2002, reveals that Sir Richard Dearlove, director of the UK’s foreign intelligence service MI6, told Blair that in Washington “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”(9) The foreign secretary (Jack Straw) then told Mr Blair that “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.” He suggested that “we should work up a plan” to produce “legal justification for the use of force.” The Attorney-General told the prime minister that there were only “three possible legal bases” for launching a war: “self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [Security Council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.” Bush and Blair failed to obtain Security Council authorisation.

The legal status of Bush’s decision had already been explained to Mr Blair. In March 2002, as another leaked memo shows, Jack Straw had reminded him of the conditions required to launch a legal war: “i) There must be an armed attack upon a State or such an attack must be imminent; ii) The use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable; iii) The acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack.”(10) Straw explained that the development or possession of weapons of mass destruction “does not in itself amount to an armed attack; what would be needed would be clear evidence of an imminent attack.” A third memo, from the Cabinet Office, explained that “there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD … A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers’ advice, none currently exists.”

The main charges against Blair relate to his collusion with Bush in an illegal war of aggression against Iraq in 2003.
Crimes against peace:
Blair repeatedly and deliberately deceived the UN, his allies and his own people that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could be rained on anyone within 45 minutes. In deceit and conspiracy, he incited passions for an illegal war.
The resulting amassing of an American, British and Australian invasion force outside Iraq and the invasion of March 20, 2003, were flagrant acts of lawlessness and an international crime.
Horrors
The Charter of the UN contains a general prohibition against force as a means of resolving disputes. The unleashing of the horrors of war on innocent populations is permitted in only two circumstances by the Charter. First, legitimate self defence, under Article 51 in the event of an actual armed attack. Iraq had not attacked the US, the UK, Spain or Australia, and the argument about self-defence had no credibility.
Second, specific Security Council authorisation of force as a last resort to maintain peace and security under Articles 39 to 42 of the Charter. There never was such a resolution. The US and UK had tried to bulldoze one through but the Security Council was divided and the attempt failed, rendering the subsequent invasion a crime against peace.
Genocide and crimes against humanity: The Anglo-American alliance is also guilty of the heinous crimes of war, genocide and crimes against humanity.
The misadventure in Iraq has up to now caused 1.4 million deaths, four million refugees and countless maimings and traumas. Two to three million Iraqis are mentally and physically disabled. Iraq today is a land of five million orphans and one to two million widows.
There is near-total devastation of basic infrastructure, health, cultural and educational systems. Water systems have been contaminated. Iraq's assets have been looted by the Allies.
In the prosecution of the illegal war, indiscriminate rocket attacks were, and still are, being rained on civilian centres, killing thousands of innocent women and children.
In 2004, the entire population of Fallujah was expelled, save for young men of military age. Banned radioactive ammunition like depleted uranium, white phosphorous and cluster bombs have been used. Torturing of prisoners of war has been practised on a large scale.
Crimes
These crimes of complicity by Blair are punishable under the United Nations Charter, the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Nuremberg Principles, Article 146 of the 1949 Geneva Convention and Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention.

Estimates range between 100000 and 1.4 MILLION for the amount of people who have lost their lives in the "war".

Let's play spot the crime! How can I take responsibility for criminal actions of my democratically elected officials? I marched against the war.I hated Saddam and all he stood for.Much as I hated Bush,but we never decided to attack America,who I probably trust as much with nuclear weapons as I would have Iraq,if they'd ACTUALLY had anything more dangerous than a large pea shooter! which admittedly they could fire in less than 45 minutes!

As for Obalma.He was "democratically" elected.Blame yourself for his actions.

I am no lover or supporter of Blair but just because I am curious could you tell me what “crime” did he commit? To commit a crime you have to break a law. Show me the law he broke. Please be specific.

I was under the impression he was authorized by your rules of government to commit UK troops. What law do you break if you are the Commander in Chief (which I assume the Prime Minster of the UK is) and you commit UK troops?

Also, if he was acting alone and committing a crime as you claim then why wasn’t he simply voted a no confidence out of power which is allowed under your Parliamentary form of government?

If he did commit a crime then why hasn’t he been charged and convicted of the crime? I don’t mean some stupid Left Wing placard level of indictment but a real indictment by the people whose laws he broke.

I suspect that he didn’t break any law but people like you claim illegality because you don’t want to take responsibility for the actions of your democratically elected officials. Isn’t that the really the case? You do understand that sometimes democratically elected officials do things that some of the people disagree with, don’t you? Just because you disagreed with his actions doesn’t mean it is illegal. If that was the case I would have this piece of crap Obama thrown in jail.

[flash]

The Charter of the UN contains a general prohibition against force as a means of resolving disputes.

You posted a lot of crap but I will specifically answer this one because I think that is the heart of the matter.

First of all “deceiving the UN” is not a crime. Your claims of deception are funny to read but it doesn’t mean anything. If deception via the UN is a crime then a lot of people should go to jail because the UN has been putting out deceptive information about global warming for several years now not to mention other things. The UN is a political organization and I hate to be the one that breaks this to you but politicians lie all the time.

Second of all there is nothing in the UN Charter that requires any nation to give up its sovereignty when it comes to war. Most countries adopt treaties as part of their law but that doesn’t mean they can’t change the terms of adhering to that treaty if it is in the best national interest to do so. In fact that is done all the time. Contrary to the demand of all the filthy One Worlders on earth the UN Charter does not require any country to give up their sovereignty. In fact there is a clause that specifically says any country can act in its own defense and Blair was very articulate with his arguments that removing Saddam was in defense of the western world. You elected him your Prime Minister and that was his judgment and if you think he was wrong then your remedy was to remove him from office, which you didn’t do.

However, getting back to the UN BS. If the UN felt Blair was doing something “illegal” then the mechanism for addressing that is in the UN Security Council. It is funny but I don’t remember the UK being brought up on any charges. The only way that the UN can declare something illegal is for the Security Council to vote it to be so. Since the UK has a veto in the Security Council good luck on making that happen. Until the UK is declared to have done something illegal by the Security Council then it hasn’t happen yet. You can make all stupid claims you want but there has not only been no conviction but also no indictment or trial. In other words nothing. You are doing nothing but rambling about illegality and while amusing it means nothing.

All that "case against Blair" did was give somebody's opinion on the matter. Until Blair (or the UK) is convicted by the UN then there is nothing. It is just like Saddam could break all the UN sanctions he wants but unless the UN votes to take action against him then he would not be held accountable.

[DaveUK]

You posted a lot of crap but I will specifically answer this one because I think that is the heart of the matter.

First of all “deceiving the UN” is not a crime. Your claims of deception are funny to read but it doesn’t mean anything. If deception via the UN is a crime then a lot of people should go to jail because the UN has been putting out deceptive information about global warming for several years now not to mention other things. The UN is a political organization and I hate to be the one that breaks this to you but politicians lie all the time.

Second of all there is nothing in the UN Charter that requires any nation to give up its sovereignty when it comes to war. Most countries adopt treaties as part of their law but that doesn’t mean they can’t change the terms of adhering to that treaty if it is in the best national interest to do so. In fact that is done all the time. Contrary to the demand of all the filthy One Worlders on earth the UN Charter does not require any country to give up their sovereignty. In fact there is a clause that specifically says any country can act in its own defense and Blair was very articulate with his arguments that removing Saddam was in defense of the western world. You elected him your Prime Minister and that was his judgment and if you think he was wrong then your remedy was to remove him from office, which you didn’t do.

However, getting back to the UN BS. If the UN felt Blair was doing something “illegal” then the mechanism for addressing that is in the UN Security Council. It is funny but I don’t remember the UK being brought up on any charges. The only way that the UN can declare something illegal is for the Security Council to vote it to be so. Since the UK has a veto in the Security Council good luck on making that happen. Until the UK is declared to have done something illegal by the Security Council then it hasn’t happen yet. You can make all stupid claims you want but there has not only been no conviction but also no indictment or trial. In other words nothing. You are doing nothing but rambling about illegality and while amusing it means nothing.

All that "case against Blair" did was give somebody's opinion on the matter. Until Blair (or the UK) is convicted by the UN then there is nothing. It is just like Saddam could break all the UN sanctions he wants but unless the UN votes to take action against him then he would not be held accountable.

What a load of nonsense. One of the main reasons that the US led coalition went to war against Iraq was because the US admin claimed that Saddam was decieving the UN security council, and to do so was illegal under international law, which they said precludes domestic law.
The main reason for the rhetoric over Iran that is coming from Washington is because Washington claims that Iran is decieving the UN, which they say is illegal under international law.

The US loves to site the UN as an institution who's laws must be abided by when it suites their foriegn policy, but boycots and breaks UN law when it sees fit.

There is only one or two people on this forum consistently posting crap, and you sir seem to have a manopoly.

[uncon]

But the point is that their call to cancel the book signing was made after it had already been cancelled, implying that they were partly responsible for that happening, which is little more than trying to jump on an already moving bandwagon.

On the plus side, the prospect of watching them fall off the bandwagon is increasingly likely when it is moving and I do love a bit of slapstick

[flash]

What a load of nonsense. One of the main reasons that the US led coalition went to war against Iraq was because the US admin claimed that Saddam was decieving the UN security council, and to do so was illegal under international law, which they said precludes domestic law.
The main reason for the rhetoric over Iran that is coming from Washington is because Washington claims that Iran is decieving the UN, which they say is illegal under international law.

The US loves to site the UN as an institution who's laws must be abided by when it suites their foriegn policy, but boycots and breaks UN law when it sees fit.

There is only one or two people on this forum consistently posting crap, and you sir seem to have a manopoly.

Ninety nine percent of everything you post is wrong but even an old blind hog will find an acorn every once in awhile.

In this rare case you are right. Countries use the UN to promote their own interest and ignore it when it is not in their interest. For instance, the UK ignored the UN when it sent its troop to kill Christians in support of Muslims in Bosnia. I don’t think the UK got UN permission to kill Argentineans back in the 1980s. The UK did not get UN approval prior to invading Iraq in 2003 or fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The UN is a worthless organization for the most part. UN “approval” for kicking ass is not worth the paper it is written on for the most part. Who cares if a country gets it or not? That doesn’t stop wars.

In your stupid comments you forgot to answer the point that I made, which is very valid. How can something be illegal if there is no conviction on the “crime”? For the UK to be found guilty of illegally invading Iraq according to the UN rules then the UN Security Council needs to declare it. Not only did that not happen but there was never a discussion on it or a vote or anything. In other words no foul have been called by refs.

“This War is Illegal” may make a jim-dandy slogan on a stupid anti war placard but it has no validity.

[DaveUK]

Ninety nine percent of everything you post is wrong but even an old blind hog will find an acorn every once in awhile.

In this rare case you are right. Countries use the UN to promote their own interest and ignore it when it is not in their interest. For instance, the UK ignored the UN when it sent its troop to kill Christians in support of Muslims in Bosnia. I don’t think the UK got UN permission to kill Argentineans back in the 1980s. The UK did not get UN approval prior to invading Iraq in 2003 or fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The UN is a worthless organization for the most part. UN “approval” for kicking ass is not worth the paper it is written on for the most part. Who cares if a country gets it or not? That doesn’t stop wars.

In your stupid comments you forgot to answer the point that I made, which is very valid. How can something be illegal if there is no conviction on the “crime”? For the UK to be found guilty of illegally invading Iraq according to the UN rules then the UN Security Council needs to declare it. Not only did that not happen but there was never a discussion on it or a vote or anything. In other words no foul have been called by refs.

“This War is Illegal” may make a jim-dandy slogan on a stupid anti war placard but it has no validity.

Temper temper, you'll bust a blood vessel at this rate.

Under UN law, a country has the right to defend it's teritory against an agressor, that is what Britain did in the Falklands.
You are correct that the war in Afghanistan was and is illegal. There is no moral or ethical justification for it either. We illegaly invaded a contry that OBL had long fled, and western intel knew very well he had. We had no hope of defeating the Taliban, and still don't. We've installed an extremely corrupt government, arguably as ruthles as the Taliban. Kasai has engaged in power sharing talks with them on numerous occassions and plans to do so once the coalition has left. We've driven the Taliban into the arms of their Pakistani comrades, who look set to seize power in Pakistan via the military, which means they may well have access to nukes.
We've made things worse for the people of Afghanistan, we've achieved the unbelievable task of actually strengthening the Taliban, we look set to leave in defeat.........the best we could ever claim is a stale mate.

You appear to have difficulty in understanding and recognising what constitutes a stupid statement, probably why you make so many, but just to help you a little I've highlighted one below for you.

In your stupid comments you forgot to answer the point that I made, which is very valid. How can something be illegal if there is no conviction on the “crime”?

Read more: http://www.politic.co.uk/british-nat...#ixzz0zd5b60zc

This isn't a point, you didn't make one, because the premise is false. There doesn't need to be a conviction for something to be illegal. OJ Simpsom was never convicted of his crime, but what he did was illegal. If someone commits a crime, and for whatever technical reasons no charges are brought, doesn't make what they did legal.
Blair and Bush were instructed to obtain a futher UN resolution, they didn't get one. Therefore their military aggression against Iraq was illegal. Whether the UN prosecute them under international law is another matter. I hope they do and lock them up for the rest of their wretched lives.

With regard to Bosnia, Britain should have acted sooner. In the early 90's Britain lobbied the EU fiercly for a peace keeping soluton, which clearly did not work. People were being slaughtered right in front of UN peace keeping forces. If ever there was a demonstration that pacifist peace keeping (or isolationist none intervention, which is what Clinton opted for initially) is imoral and ineffective, that was it.
Once Britain and the US did decide to act, Blair advised Clinton to adopt a ground force strategy in order to minimize casualties. Clinton went for the carpet bomb option, killed almost as many Muslims as the Catholic fascists had done, and drove Molosevic into a killing rampage.

BTW I have no compunction in killing Christians if they happen to be genocidal fascists.

[flash]

Under UN law, a country has the right to defend it's teritory against an agressor, that is what Britain did in the Falklands.

Your elected leader, who by the way is the only person in the UK that is legally given the job to make that determination as Commander in Chief, very aggressively argued that Saddam was an aggressor. Just because you disagree with him doesn’t make what Blair did illegal. If you don’t like his decision then don’t vote for him. If you think he acted illegally then doesn’t your Parliamentary system allow for him to be removed from power, which didn’t happen?

You are correct that the war in Afghanistan was and is illegal.

No I didn’t say that and once again your reading comprehension has failed you. I said the UK ignored the UN like they had on other occasions by sending troops to Afghanistan. It was legal.

There is no moral or ethical justification for it either. We illegaly invaded a contry that OBL had long fled, and western intel knew very well he had. We had no hope of defeating the Taliban, and still don't. We've installed an extremely corrupt government, arguably as ruthles as the Taliban. Kasai has engaged in power sharing talks with them on numerous occassions and plans to do so once the coalition has left. We've driven the Taliban into the arms of their Pakistani comrades, who look set to seize power in Pakistan via the military, which means they may well have access to nukes.

We've made things worse for the people of Afghanistan, we've achieved the unbelievable task of actually strengthening the Taliban, we look set to leave in defeat.........the best we could ever claim is a stale mate.

That is just your stupid opinion. The man that was elected by the people of the UK and had the job as Commander in Chief had another opinion. You can ramble your stupid opinions all day long but it doesn’t mean anything. If you don’t like what your government is doing then you can run for PM.

This isn't a point, you didn't make one, because the premise is false. There doesn't need to be a conviction for something to be illegal.

Are you really this dumb? Do you even know what the UN Security Council does? They are the ones that make that determination, not stupid people like you.

I may J-walk and not get caught and I would have committed a crime. It is a little different with the UN. In fact a big difference. The UK invaded Iraq and it was not a case of getting caught or not. It was like all over the news for many months. The only people that could charge the UK with a violation didn’t do it. Without a charge, trial and conviction it didn’t happen. In other words the UN agreed (at a minimum by default) with Tony Blair’s assertion the invasion was for the security interest of the UK, which is allowed, as you so eloquently pointed out.

With regard to Bosnia, Britain should have acted sooner. In the early 90's Britain lobbied the EU fiercly for a peace keeping soluton, which clearly did not work. People were being slaughtered right in front of UN peace keeping forces. If ever there was a demonstration that pacifist peace keeping (or isolationist none intervention, which is what Clinton opted for initially) is imoral and ineffective, that was it.

Once Britain and the US did decide to act, Blair advised Clinton to adopt a ground force strategy in order to minimize casualties. Clinton went for the carpet bomb option, killed almost as many Muslims as the Catholic fascists had done, and drove Molosevic into a killing rampage.

BTW I have no compunction in killing Christians if they happen to be genocidal fascists.

OK now we get to the argument that it is legal to kill the people that you want killed but illegal to kill the people you don’t want killed. Typical hypocrisy of the Left. You liked killing the Christians in Bosnia that have been defending their homeland from an invasion of Muslims for 600 years but you didn’t like killing Muslims extremists in Afghanistan that had been slaughtering civilians left and right.

You cannot argue that it is illegal to go to war without the UN permission on one hand and then give your country a pass when it participate in one of your so called good wars without UN permission.

You need to establish your convictions and quite frankly I don’t see where you have any. You just wing it. You have your filthy Left Wing hate but no real convictions on anything.

My convictions on this are real simple. Screw the UN. I don’t care if anybody thinks the military actions of my country are “legal” or not. We will kick ass if we feel the necessity to do so and we won’t worry if the stupid Left Wingers like you think it is legal or not. If I don’t like what my elected Commander in Chief does then I will protest internally and probably not vote for the SOB. For instance, I felt that moron Clinton had absolutely no reason to protect the Muslims in Bosnia or go after the warlords in Somalia. What a waste of American resources. However, that was between Clinton and me and the friggin UN doesn’t get a vote.

[Midas]

Can we please get this thread back to the topic of whether the BNP had any genuine hand in forcing the cancellation of Blair's book signing or not.

If you want to continue a discussion on the legality or otherwise of certain acts of war I'll move the relevant posts to a new thread.

[uncon]

isn't it somewhat laughable to assume that a party who can't stop campaigning against it's own leader would have the time left from it's extremely limited resources to produce a threat to a security protected ex PM?

What isn't laughable however is to assume that a pissed off nation may provide a serious Google Page Ranking threat to a man whose entire future career relies on good will...they love him in the US remember!

[octopus]

So which is it? Do you support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or not? Judging by the tirade of opposition to any comments I and others have made against these illegal and immoral wars, I was under the impression that you supported it.
Or is it the case that you simply cannot bring yourself to agree with someone with left wing views, even if by disagreeing you contradict yourself?

I agree with Midas, this is political opportunism by the BNP. The signing and the party were cancelled before the BNP jumped on the bandwaggon.

These two illegal wars are only endorsed by the the main parties, in the main. The far-left and far-right are both opposed to involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan - I too, am opposed to these "overseas" projects, that have cost hundreds of BRITISH lives, cost billions of pounds - AND WHAT WILL THE UK GET OUT OF IT?

The BNP are only reflecting their pledge, in their manifesto, to look after Britain, and British people. To a lot of people that is how it should be, Dave. (they may not vote for it). Plus many right wingers, also disagree with these illegal wars, for the same reason. No doubt the far-left are concerned with the welfare of the Afghans and Iraq citizens, also. However, Dave, don"t you think it is about time we left such matters to the charities. I don"t think anyone is contradicting themselves here. Personaly, anyone that ruffles Mr Blair"s feathers, is worthy of a pat on the back - whether BNP or BT.

I don"t know if the BNP had any influence on Mr Blair"s cancellation. What I have noticed through, any trouble or adverstity, whilst he was in Office - YOU DIDN"T SEE MUCH OF HIM, IF HE WASN"T COMFORTABLE! Plus, would he have gone on BBC Question Time as Nick Griffin did, with minmal security compared to his high profile secruity he enjoyed as PM - WITH A HOSTILE CROWD LIKE MR GRIFFIN FACED? One Policeman injured, five arrests, before it even started - PLUS AROUND THREE AND FIFTY CALLS ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF MR GRIFFIN - one of them me.

The 45 minute weapons of mass destruction, didn"t even ring true to me, and I am no expert. Unfortunately, I don"t think he will ever face justice for taking us into those terrible wars; me, you or anybody on this forum would. With a reported £100, 000, 000 fortune, gives away houses to his children, like I give away tips to waiters, that commands a lot of power. As for the book - I WOULD STORE IT UNDER FICTION! (you could never believe a word he said) Probably our worst ever PM, which could be shared with the gentleman who succeded him.

[DaveUK]

These two illegal wars are only endorsed by the the main parties, in the main. The far-left and far-right are both opposed to involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan - I too, am opposed to these "overseas" projects, that have cost hundreds of BRITISH lives, cost billions of pounds - AND WHAT WILL THE UK GET OUT OF IT?

The BNP are only reflecting their pledge, in their manifesto, to look after Britain, and British people. To a lot of people that is how it should be, Dave. (they may not vote for it). Plus many right wingers, also disagree with these illegal wars, for the same reason. No doubt the far-left are concerned with the welfare of the Afghans and Iraq citizens, also. However, Dave, don"t you think it is about time we left such matters to the charities. I don"t think anyone is contradicting themselves here. Personaly, anyone that ruffles Mr Blair"s feathers, is worthy of a pat on the back - whether BNP or BT.

I don"t know if the BNP had any influence on Mr Blair"s cancellation. What I have noticed through, any trouble or adverstity, whilst he was in Office - YOU DIDN"T SEE MUCH OF HIM, IF HE WASN"T COMFORTABLE! Plus, would he have gone on BBC Question Time as Nick Griffin did, with minmal security compared to his high profile secruity he enjoyed as PM - WITH A HOSTILE CROWD LIKE MR GRIFFIN FACED? One Policeman injured, five arrests, before it even started - PLUS AROUND THREE AND FIFTY CALLS ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF MR GRIFFIN - one of them me.

The 45 minute weapons of mass destruction, didn"t even ring true to me, and I am no expert. Unfortunately, I don"t think he will ever face justice for taking us into those terrible wars; me, you or anybody on this forum would. With a reported £100, 000, 000 fortune, gives away houses to his children, like I give away tips to waiters, that commands a lot of power. As for the book - I WOULD STORE IT UNDER FICTION! (you could never believe a word he said) Probably our worst ever PM, which could be shared with the gentleman who succeded him.

Sheffield (it would be easier to have a name to refer to),

I too think that British people should be put first, on that we are in agreement. I think the core difference from what I have seen is that I do not differenciate British people by the colour of their skin (and I'm not accusing you of doing that before you say I am). The BNP however, evidenced by their policies, do. Yes they recently changed their comstitution to extend membership to none whites, but only when forced to do so by the courts. There is no moral or ethical merit in that to my mind. I could never offer any kind of support or voice to a party formed by disgruntled NF members. Anyone that suggests that the NF were NOT a fascist organisation, is either lying or deluded.
I firmly believe that Britain is a better country for being multi ethnic. Where the problem come is when we started to encourage multi culturalism, ledby the liberal PC brigade. It has been a disaster for this country.

I agree with regard to the 45 minute claim, it sounded utterly incredulous when he said it.
Just 5 minutes pause for thaught and most sensible people would have laughed such a claim off as fantacy. Saddam was utterly destroyed in 91. We saw the extent of his misile delivery capability then. He had a bunch of scuds that couldn't get within 10 miles of their targets most of the time. He'd been sanctioned almost out of existence by Clinton during the 90's. By 2003 his military capability was about that of Wales on a bad day.

I'll get around to reading his book when it hits the cheap book shops next year. By the time they get hold of it, they'll have baught it from whole sale clearence sales and he won't get more than a few pence for it.

[NationalLiberalSupporter]

Store it under fiction,next to "Holocaust? What holocaust?" N.GRIFFIN!

These two illegal wars are only endorsed by the the main parties, in the main. The far-left and far-right are both opposed to involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan - I too, am opposed to these "overseas" projects, that have cost hundreds of BRITISH lives, cost billions of pounds - AND WHAT WILL THE UK GET OUT OF IT?

The BNP are only reflecting their pledge, in their manifesto, to look after Britain, and British people. To a lot of people that is how it should be, Dave. (they may not vote for it). Plus many right wingers, also disagree with these illegal wars, for the same reason. No doubt the far-left are concerned with the welfare of the Afghans and Iraq citizens, also. However, Dave, don"t you think it is about time we left such matters to the charities. I don"t think anyone is contradicting themselves here. Personaly, anyone that ruffles Mr Blair"s feathers, is worthy of a pat on the back - whether BNP or BT.

I don"t know if the BNP had any influence on Mr Blair"s cancellation. What I have noticed through, any trouble or adverstity, whilst he was in Office - YOU DIDN"T SEE MUCH OF HIM, IF HE WASN"T COMFORTABLE! Plus, would he have gone on BBC Question Time as Nick Griffin did, with minmal security compared to his high profile secruity he enjoyed as PM - WITH A HOSTILE CROWD LIKE MR GRIFFIN FACED? One Policeman injured, five arrests, before it even started - PLUS AROUND THREE AND FIFTY CALLS ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF MR GRIFFIN - one of them me.

The 45 minute weapons of mass destruction, didn"t even ring true to me, and I am no expert. Unfortunately, I don"t think he will ever face justice for taking us into those terrible wars; me, you or anybody on this forum would. With a reported £100, 000, 000 fortune, gives away houses to his children, like I give away tips to waiters, that commands a lot of power. As for the book - I WOULD STORE IT UNDER FICTION! (you could never believe a word he said) Probably our worst ever PM, which could be shared with the gentleman who succeded him.

[octopus]

Store it under fiction,next to "Holocaust? What holocaust?" N.GRIFFIN!

I agree, to say the holocaust never took place is unaceptable. But did he actually say it? He denied it. Mr Griffin is not exactly without enimies, and controversey is never far from him, even within his own party.

On question time he was the only panalist I could idendify with; the others were on "cloud cukoo land" He was saying what the the main parties SHOULD be saying, if they had the guts - he knows the people of Britain, they don"t - IT WOULD GET THEM VOTES, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND! On that night I agreed with with what he said - it could have be me in that chair, quite scary really, as I was not a BNP supporter, untill then. After that night, I looked at them in a different light.

Yes, he has got his faults, linked with sinister company, court apperances and Cambridge University took away his law degree - only time will tell if these suspicions are justified. But unless the top three get with it and see the danger, the right, and perhaps the far-right WILL get their day - everybody else is too frightend to even discuss it; the alternative could be even worse if Britain was to become, say an Islamic republic - NOT AS FAR FETCHED AS IT SOUNDS! We would be the ones under the boot of tyranny if this became a reality. With a Muslim birth rate at present around 3/1 above ours (although I can see UKIP"S Lord Pearson"s prediction of 10/1 becoming a reality in the future); saying nothing of the eastern europeans, afro-carrbeans, sikhs and hindus.

And I will tell you something else - AND I SPEAK FOR A NUMBER OF PEOPLE I KNOW PERSONALY WHO ALSO WATCHED THAT PROGRAMME IN OCTOBER! If it came to a choice between Tony Blair and Nick Griffin for PM- Mr Griffin would win hands down. Again, scary, perhaps, but the reason, TONY BLAIR LEGACY TO BRITAIN AND THE BRITISH PEOPLE. I will NOT be buying his book - after all, we had 13 years of Labour lies, treachery, double-standards, corruption and misery which will last for decades.

[octopus]

Sheffield (it would be easier to have a name to refer to),

I too think that British people should be put first, on that we are in agreement. I think the core difference from what I have seen is that I do not differenciate British people by the colour of their skin (and I'm not accusing you of doing that before you say I am). The BNP however, evidenced by their policies, do. Yes they recently changed their comstitution to extend membership to none whites, but only when forced to do so by the courts. There is no moral or ethical merit in that to my mind. I could never offer any kind of support or voice to a party formed by disgruntled NF members. Anyone that suggests that the NF were NOT a fascist organisation, is either lying or deluded.
I firmly believe that Britain is a better country for being multi ethnic. Where the problem come is when we started to encourage multi culturalism, ledby the liberal PC brigade. It has been a disaster for this country.

I agree with regard to the 45 minute claim, it sounded utterly incredulous when he said it.
Just 5 minutes pause for thaught and most sensible people would have laughed such a claim off as fantacy. Saddam was utterly destroyed in 91. We saw the extent of his misile delivery capability then. He had a bunch of scuds that couldn't get within 10 miles of their targets most of the time. He'd been sanctioned almost out of existence by Clinton during the 90's. By 2003 his military capability was about that of Wales on a bad day.

I'll get around to reading his book when it hits the cheap book shops next year. By the time they get hold of it, they'll have baught it from whole sale clearence sales and he won't get more than a few pence for it.

I do acknowledge the colour difference, I"m afraid. Although not necessarily in negative sense. A black or Asian person is NOT BRITISH and never will be. I could be born in China - I will never be Chinese in a million years. However, that does not mean that they are any less human - the rules of humanity and protection should apply to all whilst in our country. Why I don"t in some cases is because some countries are too far removed from the normal codes of behavoir and decency, ie, stoning people to death, mutlitilation and a lifestyle that belongs in the middle ages, that they are NOT EQUAL, to europeans, in my view.

As for the BNP being racist, they obviously aren"t now, because they have ethnic members - an act of law, or not THEY STILL HAVE THEM! If they were a racist party, why do ethnics want to join anyway? I think we are in the realms of Monty Python; sums up New Labour in a nutshell. Plus saying nothing of the other far-right parties.

As for Mr Blair"s book, only if I fancy a laugh! A certain four letter word sums it up - S**T! Just like the last 13 years!

[sheffield39]

I do acknowledge the colour difference, I"m afraid. Although not necessarily in negative sense. A black or Asian person is NOT BRITISH and never will be. I could be born in China - I will never be Chinese in a million years. However, that does not mean that they are any less human - the rules of humanity and protection should apply to all whilst in our country. Why I don"t in some cases is because some countries are too far removed from the normal codes of behavoir and decency, ie, stoning people to death, mutlitilation and a lifestyle that belongs in the middle ages, that they are NOT EQUAL, to europeans, in my view.

As for the BNP being racist, they obviously aren"t now, because they have ethnic members - an act of law, or not THEY STILL HAVE THEM! If they were a racist party, why do ethnics want to join anyway? I think we are in the realms of Monty Python; sums up New Labour in a nutshell. Plus saying nothing of the other far-right parties.

As for Mr Blair"s book, only if I fancy a laugh! A certain four letter word sums it up - S**T! Just like the last 13 years!

Well there again who has any say now-a-days; there's that many foreigners allowed in here, that after a two day stay here can class themselves as Brits and the PC thinkers will back them to the hilt! However, I draw the line at any foreign desendent being an MP or having a title bestowed upon them, allowing them the whip-hand over 'REAL' British people; the like of Wassi for 1! The ordinary British people have been the most tolerant nation in the world, to have allowed this sort of behaviour by so many governments, to go on unchallanged! The BNP have the right idea when it comes down to who should be running this land, foreignors have no place in deciding on law issues of the British people, and should never be granted citizenship at any stage! Take that Q.T. it should have been the turning point for the British people, instead of the 'Whitewash' it became, set out without a fair number of nationalists among the audience, hostile members on the panel and most of all a totally bias chairman (Dizzy Dumblebee)! Why do you think there are not many BNP'ers on this site? Bnp'ers are sick to the back-teeth of reading and hearing the same old rhetoric, from the same sort of brainwashed know all's, the same old stupid name-calling brigade, who can't see past their noses, that most of the shyte put down to the BNP, is just not true and is skillfully fabricated material. Our interlect is always at question, as if we are beneath any debating, our ideas of maintaining the balance of immigration into Britain, always comes down to the same stupid old outdated issues, planted into their minds by their superiors; hence the Nazi slants! Time is running out for the white British people and by the time THEY ALL realise this , it may well-be TOO late to recover! Now to debate this theory among such brainwashed posters would be almost an impossibllity. In as much as the childs elder saying "you'll regret that when you get older and more sense"!
PS You want to drop the idea of b-Lairs book!

[sheffield39]

I could never offer any kind of support or voice to a party formed by disgruntled NF members. Anyone that suggests that the NF were NOT a fascist organisation, is either lying or deluded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I firmly believe that Britain is a better country for being multi ethnic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more: http://www.politic.co.uk/british-nat...#ixzz10MoOJLiC



I take it 'Dave UK' that you would sooner get into talks with the 'Sinn Fein', political leaders of the IRA, murderers of innocence and British troops! YET, you would not bring yourself
down to the level of debating with the leaders of the BNP, who I would add, have never been involved in any murders of civilians or British troops, EVER! Don't you think that those views are a little strange for an adult, free-thinking man?

[DaveUK]

I take it 'Dave UK' that you would sooner get into talks with the 'Sinn Fein', political leaders of the IRA, murderers of innocence and British troops! YET, you would not bring yourself
down to the level of debating with the leaders of the BNP, who I would add, have never been involved in any murders of civilians or British troops, EVER! Don't you think that those views are a little strange for an adult, free-thinking man?

They are indeed very strange views for anyone to hold. So, before you "take it to be the case", you'd do better to ask first. I would have no truck with catholic republican nationalist fascists, just as I wouldn't with BNP nationalist fascists, many of which appear also to be Christian.
People shouldn't be suprised at Christian links with fascism.

As for nationalists and BNPers not being fairly reprisented on QT, don't know what polls you follow but you'll find you are a minority group.

[NationalLiberalSupporter]

YouTube - Nick Griffin, Cook Report, 1997

Blair had the power and he was a pretty evil,self indulgent piece of work.Luckily for US ALL,Griffin hasn't and will NEVER be in power to provide a comparison.

Of course we have a "stupid" immigration policy.Of course British workers of all colours and creeds are being affected by it.It MUST be addressed and the BIG parties must be pressurised,by small parties and individuals.Do you REALLY (and you strike me as intelligent) see the BNP as your voice? or is it that you feel you have NO voice? That's how I felt.

I'd genuinely like a multi-racial society,but with people who want to be British living here and not people with their own agenda,as many muslims do,by clearly not trying to integrate and as many east Europeans do,by working here and sending a tidy sum back to Poland or wherever.Not that I blame them.I'd do the same in their shoes and with the opportunity that was presented to them.I blame the Government.Write to Cameron and get your friends to do the same.Everyone should.Perhaps we should even be protesting to save British jobs.I would.Do all these things but whatever you do,DON'T be fooled by the BNP.

National Liberal Party | LIBERTY: INDEPENDENCE: DEMOCRACY

I agree, to say the holocaust never took place is unaceptable. But did he actually say it? He denied it. Mr Griffin is not exactly without enimies, and controversey is never far from him, even within his own party.

On question time he was the only panalist I could idendify with; the others were on "cloud cukoo land" He was saying what the the main parties SHOULD be saying, if they had the guts - he knows the people of Britain, they don"t - IT WOULD GET THEM VOTES, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND! On that night I agreed with with what he said - it could have be me in that chair, quite scary really, as I was not a BNP supporter, untill then. After that night, I looked at them in a different light.

Yes, he has got his faults, linked with sinister company, court apperances and Cambridge University took away his law degree - only time will tell if these suspicions are justified. But unless the top three get with it and see the danger, the right, and perhaps the far-right WILL get their day - everybody else is too frightend to even discuss it; the alternative could be even worse if Britain was to become, say an Islamic republic - NOT AS FAR FETCHED AS IT SOUNDS! We would be the ones under the boot of tyranny if this became a reality. With a Muslim birth rate at present around 3/1 above ours (although I can see UKIP"S Lord Pearson"s prediction of 10/1 becoming a reality in the future); saying nothing of the eastern europeans, afro-carrbeans, sikhs and hindus.

And I will tell you something else - AND I SPEAK FOR A NUMBER OF PEOPLE I KNOW PERSONALY WHO ALSO WATCHED THAT PROGRAMME IN OCTOBER! If it came to a choice between Tony Blair and Nick Griffin for PM- Mr Griffin would win hands down. Again, scary, perhaps, but the reason, TONY BLAIR LEGACY TO BRITAIN AND THE BRITISH PEOPLE. I will NOT be buying his book - after all, we had 13 years of Labour lies, treachery, double-standards, corruption and misery which will last for decades.

[DaveUK]

I watched the Nick Griffin QT episode again last night. I don't think I've ever seen such a greasy, slimey, lying, decietful, seedy, atrocious little man as Nick Griffin before in my life.
I found myself wondering why a party that wishes to be taken seriously by the electorate, would allow such a shoe scraping as Griffin to lead them. But then it occured to me, that's obviously the best they can do, which is a good job really, because while a pariah like Griffin leads them, they'll stay where they belong, in the political wilderness.

[sheffield39]

Lucily for us all don't cut it NLS, the people of Britain deserve MORE than luck at the poles man, because all thats on offer to us Brits, are the like of the Lib/Lab/Conmen, made up of a great deal of thieves, liars, and traitors to look after us and our country! You are just using the same old rhetoric that these brainwashers use, every time they open their mouths! The British people are sick of these liars, running down the small parties at every chance they get, in order to keep the biggest lump of the votes on their side, (not very British, proves these politicians are anti-British) even when it came out about them stealing money from the taxes, to feather ther own nests, they closed ranks desperately trying to cover their true character, hoping it would all blow-over; but it did'nt we've all found out what a bunch of thieves we have looking after Britain! The BNP are smeared, tarnished and lied about, with some frightening video footage going back 50 years depicting struggling nationalists of various parties, now all made out to be the BNP! Every bit of this skillfully edited tripe, is there to scare the voters away from the BNP, although it did'nt quite kill the party off as was the Lib/Lab/Conmens intention, the BNP still gathered members, so a total blackout of the media was enforced, blacking out the BNP's broacasting to its supporters, on top of that the establishment gave support to small trouble making groups, in order to harrass the BNPs meetings at every available occassion, labeling the BNP as racists, fascists, nazi's, hence, upping the prodiction of horror videos, brainwashing the British public by the sight of these manufactured cult videos! You know the score, as do the nationalists, who will never bend the knee to the British traitors! We should all vote the BNP!

[sheffield39]

Yes I watched that Q.T. again and still say there were no nationalist views in that audience, in a nut-shell the entire audience was hand-picked, with Nick Griffin, the sacrificial goat! Now where could one see such a poor exibition of democracy in action? As planned question after question was fired at Griffin, giving this man little chance to give a full explanation as to it being a valid accusation! the whole program was just a load of political rubbish, anyone who watched this set-up and claimed otherwise would be a liar; clearly the best man on the program was Nick Griffin!

[NationalLiberalSupporter]

Liars and thieves who are power hungry and continually let the electorate down OR racist thugs,who I admit have had a smear campaign against them,which I can't understand because I'd have just let Griffin and the top brass talk unedited and in doing so frighten MOST British people to death! with their views on history and race. Catch 22 isn't it? NOT ALL BNP supporters are racist thugs.Some are disillusioned.Some are Nationalist.BUT sadly some are as described above.Stick a holocaust denying,power hungry leader (oh he's changed his mind because he needs the votes presumably,as he has no other explanation!) into the melting pot and what have you got? Not a lot.The mess that is the BNP.

Lucily for us all don't cut it NLS, the people of Britain deserve MORE than luck at the poles man, because all thats on offer to us Brits, are the like of the Lib/Lab/Conmen, made up of a great deal of thieves, liars, and traitors to look after us and our country! You are just using the same old rhetoric that these brainwashers use, every time they open their mouths! The British people are sick of these liars, running down the small parties at every chance they get, in order to keep the biggest lump of the votes on their side, (not very British, proves these politicians are anti-British) even when it came out about them stealing money from the taxes, to feather ther own nests, they closed ranks desperately trying to cover their true character, hoping it would all blow-over; but it did'nt we've all found out what a bunch of thieves we have looking after Britain! The BNP are smeared, tarnished and lied about, with some frightening video footage going back 50 years depicting struggling nationalists of various parties, now all made out to be the BNP! Every bit of this skillfully edited tripe, is there to scare the voters away from the BNP, although it did'nt quite kill the party off as was the Lib/Lab/Conmens intention, the BNP still gathered members, so a total blackout of the media was enforced, blacking out the BNP's broacasting to its supporters, on top of that the establishment gave support to small trouble making groups, in order to harrass the BNPs meetings at every available occassion, labeling the BNP as racists, fascists, nazi's, hence, upping the prodiction of horror videos, brainwashing the British public by the sight of these manufactured cult videos! You know the score, as do the nationalists, who will never bend the knee to the British traitors! We should all vote the BNP!

[NationalLiberalSupporter]

Maybe the editing did leave a little to be desired upon reflection,but a more eloquent speaker would have dealt with it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk

Yes I watched that Q.T. again and still say there were no nationalist views in that audience, in a nut-shell the entire audience was hand-picked, with Nick Griffin, the sacrificial goat! Now where could one see such a poor exibition of democracy in action? As planned question after question was fired at Griffin, giving this man little chance to give a full explanation as to it being a valid accusation! the whole program was just a load of political rubbish, anyone who watched this set-up and claimed otherwise would be a liar; clearly the best man on the program was Nick Griffin!

[octopus]

Well there again who has any say now-a-days; there's that many foreigners allowed in here, that after a two day stay here can class themselves as Brits and the PC thinkers will back them to the hilt! However, I draw the line at any foreign desendent being an MP or having a title bestowed upon them, allowing them the whip-hand over 'REAL' British people; the like of Wassi for 1! The ordinary British people have been the most tolerant nation in the world, to have allowed this sort of behaviour by so many governments, to go on unchallanged! The BNP have the right idea when it comes down to who should be running this land, foreignors have no place in deciding on law issues of the British people, and should never be granted citizenship at any stage! Take that Q.T. it should have been the turning point for the British people, instead of the 'Whitewash' it became, set out without a fair number of nationalists among the audience, hostile members on the panel and most of all a totally bias chairman (Dizzy Dumblebee)! Why do you think there are not many BNP'ers on this site? Bnp'ers are sick to the back-teeth of reading and hearing the same old rhetoric, from the same sort of brainwashed know all's, the same old stupid name-calling brigade, who can't see past their noses, that most of the shyte put down to the BNP, is just not true and is skillfully fabricated material. Our interlect is always at question, as if we are beneath any debating, our ideas of maintaining the balance of immigration into Britain, always comes down to the same stupid old outdated issues, planted into their minds by their superiors; hence the Nazi slants! Time is running out for the white British people and by the time THEY ALL realise this , it may well-be TOO late to recover! Now to debate this theory among such brainwashed posters would be almost an impossibllity. In as much as the childs elder saying "you'll regret that when you get older and more sense"!
PS You want to drop the idea of b-Lairs book!

The funny thing is, Sheffield, most of the people off this forum, I speak too, could be political mirror images of me and you, yet they usually vote for the main parties, who push this nonesense.

Time and events will make them change their minds, though. At the moment I think this country has gone mad!

[sheffield39]

The funny thing is, Sheffield, most of the people off this forum, I speak too, could be political mirror images of me and you, yet they usually vote for the main parties, who push this nonesense.

Time and events will make them change their minds, though. At the moment I think this country has gone mad!

I'm sorry octi but I don't see it like that, there's too many posters saying it the way they think it is. Blokes I know and think like me usually spit things out like me and would never vote against their beliefs, we are all losing OUR country rapidly because there's too many British spongers, getting paid for nowt, 'the establishments fault' and OUR fault for allowing these political clowns to get away with allowing it to happen in the first place! Able-bodied people not working should be sent to live and work on British farms for 5 days a week, 'no-work-no-pay, end of! I'm afraid theres just not enough nationalist thinkers! I'm not saying that they (who ever votes other than BNP) are thinking wrong or stupidly; but what I am saying is they are NOT thinking like a 'freeman' and through it, we are losing Britain to a load of grasping foreignors! For starters 'I'm NO racist!' But will never stand by and allowed any foreignor (because he's a foreigner) to go before me, an Englishman, or take something that was mine, by right of my birth, or my turn in the queue sort of thing! I find the British people today, have just gone overboard, far too ready to bent the knee when confronted by the foreignor, most of the time in situations that arise, when on the whole they would'nt dream of any such actions if it happened to be one of their own countryman, you've all heard them state as much (IE..I would'nt cross the road and pi$$ on him if he were on fire, type of thing), But then in the event of the 'F' they'll bend over backwards bowing-n-scraping as if their servants! To be quite honest, the 'F' have NO rights ahead of any of my countrymen eager to do their best for the good of OUR country, I don't blame the 'F' for coming to Britain to better his/her way of life, providing they have jobs and means to support themselves before coming here! NO these posters are nothing like how I think and I would tell them all to vote the BNP!

[soloman]

Former prime minister Tony Blair is considering cancelling a high-profile signing session of his new memoir because of planned protests.

Mr Blair said he was concerned about the potential "hassle and cost" to the police of pressing ahead with Wednesday's central London event.

He said the Metropolitan Police were "fabulous and they will do whatever we ask them to do" but should not be asked to commit resources unnecessarily.

"The book is selling fantastically. There are people - particularly now the BNP apparently say they want to get in on the action - you end up just causing a lot of hassle for people and cost when there are better things for the police to do and it's not as if we need to do it.

Protest threat could cancel Blair book signing - Yahoo! News UK

Quote: "Mr Blair said he was concerned about the potential "hassle and cost" to the police of pressing ahead with Wednesday's central London event."
That's funny - he's not at all concerned about the ongoing cost of protecting him....

I consider there are enough 'activists' in Britain right now, who hate Tony Blair enough to have required he did not appear for the book signing; I would not blame the BNP for that.

[sheffield39]

I consider there are enough 'activists' in Britain right now, who hate Tony Blair enough to have required he did not appear for the book signing; I would not blame the BNP for that.

You may well have a point there sol, I think everyone is digusted by this mans cavellier attitude to the British publics opinion of him and his book; although I'm glad my party have shown their disproval in public! Well done all concerned!