SevenRivers Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The Labour Party doesn't make campaigning against Asian paedophiles a central issue while covering up white paedophiles in its rank. Your website contains the names of 25 paedophiles. The Labour Party has had millions of members. The BNP just tens of thousands. If you took the proportion of paedophiles in the Labour Party (25 of mllions) compared to in the BNP, the BNP's percentage would be far higher. Add in all the other convictions and general criminality in the BNP would dwarf all other parties. It was formed by someone who had been in the National Socialist Movement and who had gone to prison for setting up a paramilitary organisation based on Hitler's SA. The BNP is dead as an organisation by the way. Its membership has collapsed and it can do little other than slag off other parties. If you want to waste your time defending the corpse of the BNP you could consider more useful past-times. There are 25+19 listed actually. But the central tenet of what you've been saying is that the BNP cannot possibly criticise paedophiles without being hypocrites, because there have been party activists then convicted of paedophile offences. Applied logically and objectively, it must also apply to Labour too. I'm not defending the BNP paedophiles here by any stretch, a paedo is a paedo regardless of party colours, but at least try to be logical and objective. Should the existence of paedos with any particular political party membership prohibit that party from condemning paedos? The logical answer is no it doesn't, which is why Nick Griffin as well as Ann Cryer and Jack Straw are perfectly able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Applied logically and objectively, it must also apply to Labour too. There are differences in Labour's favour on this one. First Labour has had far more members down the years and if the BNP can only find 30 or 40 out of millions that's paltry compared to the percentage of BNP members who are paedophiles. Second Labour doesn't make paedophilia a central plank of its policies and if it has had paedophiles in its ranks it hasn't turned a blind eye to them like the BNP has while denouncing other paedophiles. Third, Labour has had decades in local and national government running the state which has involved enforcing law and order. The BNP's only contact with the judiciary is being in the dock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 There are differences in Labour's favour on this one. First Labour has had far more members down the years and if the BNP can only find 30 or 40 out of millions that's paltry compared to the percentage of BNP members who are paedophiles. Second Labour doesn't make paedophilia a central plank of its policies and if it has had paedophiles in its ranks it hasn't turned a blind eye to them like the BNP has while denouncing other paedophiles. Third, Labour has had decades in local and national government running the state which has involved enforcing law and order. The BNP's only contact with the judiciary is being in the dock. Ah I see, so a Labour paedophile isn't as bad, because there are more people that subscribe to the same political views. Maybe Labour (and the others for that matter and the authorities) should have been more switched on to the paedophile gangs like the BNP were. They were saying it years ago, as was Ann Cryer, but it was all swept under the carpet. If only they were listened too earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Have the BNP ever made their presence felt by protesting against white paedophiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Have the BNP ever made their presence felt by protesting against white paedophiles? White paedophiles aren’t ignored by the councils and the police so there is no reason for a political party to specifically stand up against them. But this is what they want to do to all paedophiles including the white ones. Restore capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute (such as with DNA or other compelling evidence). http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/crime_justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 White paedophiles aren’t ignored by the councils and the police so there is no reason for a political party to specifically stand up against them. The rest of us have been reading about Jimmy Savile in the news recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 The rest of us have been reading about Jimmy Savile in the news recently. The BNP didn’t exist when he allegedly committed his crimes so I don’t think they could have told anyone about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John1954 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 White paedophiles aren’t ignored by the councils and the police so there is no reason for a political party to specifically stand up against them. But this is what they want to do to all paedophiles including the white ones. Restore capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute (such as with DNA or other compelling evidence). http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/crime_justice Isn't that the level of proof required already or are you saying beyond reasonable doubt is different from beyond dispute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 The BNP didn’t exist when he allegedly committed his crimes so I don’t think they could have told anyone about him. The BNP was founded in 1982. Stop lying. That's one of the biggest loads of rubbish re paedophilia since MrSmith stopped posting round about the time you joined. Coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Isn't that the level of proof required already or are you saying beyond reasonable doubt is different from beyond dispute? I would think they are saying beyond reasonable doubt is different to a video of someone committing a crime, or DNA evidence found inside a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.