# BNP posters in east london



## nightowl (Mar 23, 2010)

i've noticed several big posters beside the a13 in the vicinity of barking/dagenham recently. surprisingly they seem to get defaced fairly quickly. anyway, the billboard company is called clear channel. if anyone wants to let them know what they think about dealing with griffin's racists their contact details are 

Clear Channel Outdoor 
Unit 1
440 Springfield Road
Hayes
Middlesex 
UB4 0JS

020 7478 2200


----------



## ajdown (Mar 24, 2010)

Whether you like it or not, the BNP is a legitimate, legal political party, and have just as much right to buy advertising space on billboards as any of the other political parties or anyone else who wants to pay for it.

Freedom of speech also involves allowing others to have it, in case you hadn't realised.  You do of course have the right to object to that particular party's point of view, but you do not have the right to stop them having it.


----------



## Sadken (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Whether you like it or not, the BNP is a legitimate, legal political party, and have just as much right to buy advertising space on billboards as any of the other political parties or anyone else who wants to pay for it.
> 
> Freedom of speech also involves allowing others to have it, in case you hadn't realised.  You do of course have the right to object to that particular party's point of view, but you do not have the right to stop them having it.



This.

They set up over the road from my office very regularly and it genuinely hurts me to see them there becuase I have a lot of love for the area and the people but they have a right to be there that I prize as highly as the rights of the people they hate to be here.


----------



## nightowl (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Whether you like it or not, the BNP is a legitimate, legal political party, and have just as much right to buy advertising space on billboards as any of the other political parties or anyone else who wants to pay for it.
> 
> Freedom of speech also involves allowing others to have it, in case you hadn't realised.  You do of course have the right to object to that particular party's point of view, but you do not have the right to stop them having it.



So if you ran the company and they approached you you'd take their money. I find this 'legitimate party' thing such a cop out. There are plenty of racist organisations with similar views that no one would touch with a bargepole in terms of advertising but because the bnp is 'legitimate' (although are it's membership rules still illegal?) that's alright. They may have a right to party political broadcasts and to put leaflets through people's doors with pictures of non White people alongside phrases like 'is this what you really want?' but a private company can make a moral decision on whatadvertising to accept. Plenty of newspapers refuse to accept bnp adverts. Would you prefer them to accept them?


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2010)

Clear Channel are cunts.  They refused to display anti-war billboards, and the fact that they are happy to take money off fascists is about as suprising as shit  being smelly


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2010)

Sadken said:


> This.
> 
> They set up over the road from my office very regularly and it genuinely hurts me to see them there becuase I have a lot of love for the area and the people but they have a right to be there that I prize as highly as the rights of the people they hate to be here.



I don't do voltairish liberal bullshit. Fuck them, may annoying student antifa types hound them and all decent folks refuse to give them ad space etc.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2010)

Paintball them.

Not the first time it's been raised - http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/camp...t-clear-channel-over-bnp-deal/3000982.article


----------



## Sadken (Mar 24, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't do voltairish liberal bullshit. Fuck them, may annoying student antifa types hound them and all decent folks refuse to give them ad space etc.



So...freedom of speech, so long as you agree with what I say?  I can't get down with that any more than I can with them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2010)

Freedom of speach is a meaningless concept, like jesus, an independant judiciary and abstract nouns like Justice, Love etc.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 24, 2010)

Sadken said:


> So...freedom of speech, so long as you agree with what I say?  I can't get down with that any more than I can with them.



Do you believe in unfettered freedom of speech?


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 24, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Freedom of speach is a meaningless concept, like jesus, an independant judiciary and abstract nouns like Justice, Love etc.



Don't forget to add communism to your list.


----------



## Tacita (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Whether you like it or not, the BNP is a legitimate, legal political party, and have just as much right to buy advertising space on billboards as any of the other political parties or anyone else who wants to pay for it.



but they refused to sell space to antiwar protesters.  

don't really see it as a freedom of speech issue, clearwater are just a business, surely they decide whose money to accept based on how profitable it will be/their own values.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 24, 2010)

I don't know if the company themselves have any particular guidelines as to what they may and may not accept, but the Advertising Standards Authority may be why they can't carry 'anti war' advertising, or at least certain imagery.

I've not seen the billboard/advertisment but I would assume it doesn't say "Send 'em all home" or something similar.

At the end of the day, Clear Channel is a company run for profit, and it may just be that the anti-war groups just couldn't pay the rates they wanted, and CC weren't willing to do a discount.  Do we know for sure exactly who was trying to get these advertisments put up, and what their content was?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2010)

"Antiwar Group Says Its Ad Is Rejected"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/nyregion/12billboard.html




			
				NYTimes said:
			
		

> A group of antiwar advocates is accusing Clear Channel Communications, one of the nation's largest media companies, *with close ties to national Republicans*, of preventing the group from displaying a Times Square billboard critical of the war in Iraq.
> 
> The billboard - an image of a red, white and blue bomb with the words "Democracy Is Best Taught by Example, Not by War" - was supposed to go up next month, the antiwar group said, and it was to be in place when Republicans from across the country gathered in New York City to nominate President Bush for a second term.
> 
> But members of the group, Project Billboard, contend that Clear Channel backed out of a leasing agreement last month that the two had reached in December for the billboard site, on the Marriott Marquis Hotel at Broadway and 45th Street.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2010)

god i cant decide who's more annoying, idiot UAF types or this stupid "freedom of speech" libertarian bullshit


----------



## fogbat (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> I don't know if the company themselves have any particular guidelines as to what they may and may not accept, but the Advertising Standards Authority may be why they can't carry 'anti war' advertising, or at least certain imagery.
> 
> I've not seen the billboard/advertisment but I would assume it doesn't say "Send 'em all home" or something similar.
> 
> At the end of the day, Clear Channel is a company run for profit, and it may just be that the anti-war groups just couldn't pay the rates they wanted, and CC weren't willing to do a discount.  Do we know for sure exactly who was trying to get these advertisments put up, and what their content was?



You're right, they may have been putting up some sort of offensive material. Nobody should have the right to put up such -

Oh.


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> Clear Channel are cunts.  They refused to display anti-war billboards, and the fact that they are happy to take money off fascists is about as suprising as shit  being smelly



isn't this the company that stopped playing dixie Chicks on their US radio stations cos they were anti war?

CUNTS


----------



## nightowl (Mar 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> god i cant decide who's more annoying, idiot UAF types or this stupid "freedom of speech" libertarian bullshit



yes, we mustn't discriminate against the bnp's right to advertise their decision to discriminate


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 24, 2010)

nightowl said:


> yes, we mustn't discriminate against the bnp's right to advertise their decision to discriminate



racial attacks, just a bit of a laugh...


----------



## behemoth (Mar 24, 2010)

Heaven forbid voters might be allowed to see an election poster and make up their own mind.

We must protect these simpletons with our superior politics.

In fact, let's stop them voting altogether.  Just in case they make the wrong choice.  Bastards.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2010)

How very reactionary!


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 24, 2010)

let's rewind to 1930's Germany and rephrase the question - should Hitler youth billboards be allowed?


----------



## cantsin (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> I don't know if the company themselves have any particular guidelines as to what they may and may not accept, but the Advertising Standards Authority may be why they can't carry 'anti war' advertising, or at least certain imagery.
> 
> I've not seen the billboard/advertisment but I would assume it doesn't say "Send 'em all home" or something similar.
> 
> At the end of the day, Clear Channel is a company run for profit, and it may just be that the anti-war groups just couldn't pay the rates they wanted, and CC weren't willing to do a discount.  Do we know for sure exactly who was trying to get these advertisments put up, and what their content was?



do actually you know anything about Clear Chanel, or are you just spouting again ?   ( first relevant link I came to :   http://oldsite.prometheusradio.org/cc_corporate_war_facts.shtml  )


----------



## nightowl (Mar 24, 2010)

behemoth said:


> Heaven forbid voters might be allowed to see an election poster and make up their own mind.
> 
> We must protect these simpletons with our superior politics.
> 
> In fact, let's stop them voting altogether.  Just in case they make the wrong choice.  Bastards.



would you accept the bnp pound then?


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 24, 2010)

cantsin said:


> do actually you know anything about Clear Chanel, or are you just spouting again ?   ( first relevant link I came to :   http://oldsite.prometheusradio.org/cc_corporate_war_facts.shtml  )



they are at least as horrible as Murdoch, and that takes some fucking doing


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 24, 2010)

cantsin said:


> do actually you know anything about Clear Chanel, or are you just spouting again ?   ( first relevant link I came to :   http://oldsite.prometheusradio.org/cc_corporate_war_facts.shtml  )



thats a really good read ....


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 24, 2010)

I believe in freedom of expression especially if it is done with bricks.


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 24, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I believe in freedom of expression especially if it is done with bricks.



hopefully Clear Channel will get the message the hard way?


----------



## Badgers (Mar 24, 2010)

Clear Channel would not give a shit as long as they get paid


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2010)

Is it possible that if BNP posters are regularly getting defaced or damaged, then Clear Channel might eventually begin to consider that the cost element of continually repairing or re-hanging such posters might not be worth it?


----------



## ajdown (Mar 24, 2010)

And the point of vandalism, simply because you disagree with the message on the poster, is ....?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2010)

to deny them a message.


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> And the point of vandalism, simply because you disagree with the message on the poster, is ....?



or simply because you disagree with the mass murder in Iraq which Clear Channel also promoted.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> And the point of vandalism, simply because you disagree with the message on the poster, is ....?



To get on your big fat man-tits.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2010)

Make it economically non-viable for Clear Channel to continue running BNP campaigns. Use the principles of the 'market' against itself.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> To get on your big fat man-tits.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2010)

Besides, bilboard advertising is at the very heart of the capitalist free market fantasy - destroy it.


----------



## the button (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> And the point of vandalism, simply because you disagree with the message on the poster, is ....?



.... an exercise of freedom of expression.


----------



## cesare (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> And the point of vandalism, simply because you disagree with the message on the poster, is ....?



Right of response.



butchersapron said:


> To get on your big fat man-tits.



But probably this


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 24, 2010)

> although are it's membership rules still illegal?



Keep up, the BNP has admitted it's first non-white member, (IIRC a Sikh chap who's also a raving nationalist) proving that it has an equal access policy for wankers, as the Mash reported.

Re: the thread - unless the agreement is to continue to replace defaced billboards FOC, after a certain number of replacements CC will start charging the BNP. Or they'll just leave them.


----------



## nightowl (Mar 24, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Keep up, the BNP has admitted it's first non-white member, (IIRC a Sikh chap who's also a raving nationalist) proving that it has an equal access policy for wankers, as the Mash reported.



the last thing i read was that, even though the criteria had been amended, a judge had ruled that they were still discriminatory


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> And the point of vandalism, simply because you disagree with the message on the poster, is ....?



What made you think the expression would be vandalism?

Bricks could also be used to build a holding cell to throw you and the rest of the spineless fash apologists until it is time for your assassination.


----------



## tbaldwin (Mar 24, 2010)

Also HUGE BNP posters on the North Circular leading into Barking. They are really going for it. I dont know if its same company?


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2010)

Clear Channel own most hoardings, iirr, so it probably is.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 24, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> What made you think the expression would be vandalism?
> 
> Bricks could also be used to build a holding cell to throw you and the rest of the spineless fash apologists until it is time for your assassination.



Oh really?

Let's analyse this shall we.

The BNP is, basically, a white-only party.

You're advocating targetted, racially aggravated violence and murder. 

Such vitriol.  You ought to get some help for that anger problem you have.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Such vitriol.  You ought to get some help for that anger problem you have.



And you ought to swallow some bleach. Or play on the railway lines. Whichever is closer.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 24, 2010)

I'd rather just take down the numbers, thanks.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> I'd rather just take down the numbers, thanks.



Off you go, then.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 24, 2010)

Bit late in the day to go down and hang around Brixton station, in all honesty.

I'll let you know what I see at the weekend.  In the meantime, enjoy this:


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 24, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Bit late in the day to go down and hang around Brixton station, in all honesty.



Not for someone of your ilk. Now can you fuck off and bother your wife. Or your boyfriend. Or dog.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 24, 2010)

I've experienced the wonders of both The Mallard and The Flying Scotsman.


----------



## behemoth (Mar 24, 2010)

nightowl said:


> would you accept the bnp pound then?


What an odd question.  Haven't been offered it.  But just because I wouldn't deal with them, doesn't mean they don't have every right to campaign in a free and fair election.  Before the forthcoming election, please submit all your political beliefs to me so I can decide if you are allowed to express them.  Very slippery slope that is likely to backfire on the people loudest in their opposition to the BNP.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 24, 2010)

Yes, why don't we all just sit about sipping tea?


----------



## nightowl (Mar 25, 2010)

behemoth said:


> What an odd question.  Haven't been offered it.  But just because I wouldn't deal with them, doesn't mean they don't have every right to campaign in a free and fair election.  Before the forthcoming election, please submit all your political beliefs to me so I can decide if you are allowed to express them.  Very slippery slope that is likely to backfire on the people loudest in their opposition to the BNP.



You're missing the point. It's not about them taking part in the election, it's whether a private company can make a decision on whether to accept advertising or not. Tv companies have no choice but to air their party broadcasts but newspapers choose not to accept their adverts. Clear channel was under no obligation to accept them either.


----------



## albionism (Mar 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> To get on your big fat man-tits.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2010)

I suppose i should offer something more to aj that that really - aj, look at defacing posters as a democratic intervention designed to combat the dominance of money and power over the public sphere, i.e more money = larger voice. Whilst highlighting the non-existence of the right to free speech for those without that money and power. It's a profoundly democratic act and to be consistent you must support it. This question has got bugger all to do with free speech.

(To be honest, i don't think posters in themselves, defaced or otherwise, make the slightest bit of difference - what seems more important is the wider reporting of those posters rather than the posters themselves and the use that can then be made of that 2nd impression in constructing damaging images or narratives of your opponents - the backfiring one of  Cameron photo-shopped to hell one for example)


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> Clear Channel are cunts.  They refused to display anti-war billboards, and the fact that they are happy to take money off fascists is about as suprising as shit  being smelly





stephj said:


> Is it possible that if BNP posters are regularly getting defaced or damaged, then Clear Channel might eventually begin to consider that the cost element of continually repairing or re-hanging such posters might not be worth it?





trevhagl said:


> hopefully Clear Channel will get the message the hard way?





stephj said:


> Make it economically non-viable for Clear Channel to continue running BNP campaigns. Use the principles of the 'market' against itself.





the button said:


> [defacing billboards is].... an exercise of freedom of expression.



This^


----------



## albionism (Mar 25, 2010)

> look at defacing posters as a democratic intervention designed to combat the dominance of money and power over the public sphere, i.e more money = larger voice. Whilst highlighting the non-existence of the right to free speech for those without that money and power. It's a profoundly democratic act and to be consistent you must support it. This question has got bugger all to do with free speech.



^this


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> look at defacing posters as a democratic intervention designed to combat the dominance of money and power over the public sphere



... or you could just look at it as vandalism, as it actually is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 25, 2010)

Appropriately directed vandalism is OK in my book. Shit, wrt these fash clowns it is practically a political statement.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> ... or you could just look at it as vandalism, as it actually is.



As opposed to the environmental and social vandalism caused by erecting huge bilboards everywhere trying to sell people false dreams.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 25, 2010)

Clear Channel is an American corporation.  They also have a policy of Diversity which rather clashes with the aims of the BNP




> Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (OTCBB:CCMO) is a global media and entertainment company specializing in mobile and on-demand entertainment and information services for local communities and premiere opportunities for advertisers. Based in San Antonio, Texas, the company's businesses include radio and outdoor displays.
> 
> 
> Diversity
> ...



That reminds me I must get on with the ironing.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

stephj said:


> As opposed to the environmental and social vandalism caused by erecting huge bilboards everywhere trying to sell people false dreams.



I didn't say I agreed with billboards being stuck up here, there and everywhere - but that wasn't the point of this discussion.

It was simply how it was somehow considered acceptable to deface/vandalise billboards simply because "you" disagreed with the material displayed upon it.


----------



## belboid (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> It was simply how it was somehow considered acceptable to deface/vandalise billboards simply because "you" disagreed with the material displayed upon it.



well, of course it is.  It's what they're there for.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> I didn't say I agreed with billboards being stuck up here, there and everywhere - but that wasn't the point of this discussion.
> 
> It was simply how it was somehow considered acceptable to deface/vandalise billboards simply because "you" disagreed with the material displayed upon it.



And I'm putting to you aj... which one really constitutes 'vandalism'?


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

stephj said:


> And I'm putting to you aj... what really constitutes the 'vandalism'?



What normally constitutes vandalism?

Destruction of property that is not yours?

Scribbing/drawing/painting/spraying on something that is not yours?

Changing the message of something that is not yours to change?

In addition, there may be charges of trespass when actually getting close enough to the billboard to do any of the above.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2010)

We're obviously not going to get anywhere on this


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

No, because you have a non-argument and are confusing two completely different subjects:

1) Is the existance of billboards in themselves wrong?

2) Is it acceptable to deface a poster simply because you don't like what it displays, or the organisation it is advertising?

You may feel that, morally, you are justified in breaking the law by vandalising billboards for either of the above reasons - but I'm pretty sure the country's legal system would not if you were caught, and neither would the owners of the billboard.

It sounds very much like, by denying the right of the BNP to voice their message and advertise their presence, you are no better than those you are fighting against.  I'm sure the BNP get more headline space and airtime due to the left trying to supress it, rather than ignoring them and allowing them to dig their own hole and embarrass themselves.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> No, because you have a non-argument and are confusing two completely different subjects:



No, because you can't join up the wider picture.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 25, 2010)

Wider picture? I hope not!


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

Of course I can't if some left-wing muppet is going to keep tearing bits off of it.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2010)

0/10


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Wider picture? I hope not!





That'll be the poster that uses American models then!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> No, because you have a non-argument and are confusing two completely different subjects:
> 
> 1) Is the existance of billboards in themselves wrong?
> 
> ...



This where you fall flat on your face; attempting to draw a moral equivalence ('you are no better than...') between defacing a poster and encouraging the dishonest and damaging racialisation of society. Get that lefty hating plank out of your eye and you might be able see a little more clearly. Alternatively keep it in place and carry posting ill thought out nonsense masquerading as reasoned argument.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> What normally constitutes vandalism?
> 
> Destruction of property that is not yours?
> 
> ...



According to whose rules?


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 25, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Wider picture? I hope not!



wonder what the person who owns the house behind that thinks of it?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 25, 2010)

If it's British Jobs for British Workers then why did Prick Griffin accept a job from Europe?


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> If it's British Jobs for British Workers then why did Prick Griffin accept a job from Europe?



good point


----------



## nightowl (Mar 25, 2010)

stephj said:


> That'll be the poster that uses American models then!



and first used on leaflets printed by a muslim run printing firm as i remember


----------



## audiotech (Mar 25, 2010)

nightowl said:


> and first used on leaflets printed by a muslim run printing firm as i remember



East European.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> If it's British Jobs for British Workers then why did Prick Griffin accept a job from Europe?



In the words of a former leader of the BNP group on the council in Stoke: 'to make himself rich and famous'.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Alternatively keep it in place and carry posting ill thought out nonsense masquerading as reasoned argument.



Sorry, and you are _who_ again?  

It's only nonsense to you because you are too dumb to understand the points being made.  

I'm not making "moral points" - I'm stating facts.

1) Defacing a poster is vandalism in the eyes of the law of this country.

2) The BNP have the right to be heard even if you disagree with their point of view.

3) By attempting to remove BNP posters and targetting all your hatred towards what is accepted as a recognised political party in this country, you are denying people the opportunity to consider all views before placing their vote.

Typical leftie behaviour, as demonstrated by the many tiny little splinter groups all arguing with each other - you have the right to beleive what you want, as long as you agree with us.

If the left could actually agree and put together a coherent, balanced, sensible reason as to why their way is the correct way, they might achieve something.  Has this utopian idea of socialism actually ever worked in modern times anywhere in the world?


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> According to whose rules?



The laws of the country in which we live.


----------



## belboid (Mar 25, 2010)

writing 'responses' to shitty advertising is as old as advertising itself.  it is actually a part of the democratic process.  only utter fuckwits realy argue anything else, even the tories dont really give a toss when there posters were defaced (well, except when the defacing is vastly cleverer and wittier than their pisspoor attempts)


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> The laws of the country in which we live.



If the law allows a platform for odious wankers to peddle their vile then I have no problem in that law being ignored. After all, I don't recall being consulted on it.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> If the law allows a platform for odious wankers to peddle their vile then I have no problem in that law being ignored. After all, I don't recall being consulted on it.



You don't have to be consulted on laws, especially those that are well established over many years.  We don't have the option to ignore laws we feel are inconvenient.

If you don't like odious wankers peddling their vile, why don't you campaign to ban the swappies as well?


----------



## belboid (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> YWe don't have the option to ignore laws we feel are inconvenient.



of course we fucking do


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> You don't have to be consulted on laws, especially those that are well established over many years.  We don't have the option to ignore laws we feel are inconvenient.



Of course we have that option. We may be punished for it (if caught) but perhaps being able to sleep at night is preferable to nodding all this through under the banner of "freedom of speech". You do know that's the first thing these fuckers will get rid of should they get a sniff of power, don't you?



> If you don't like odious wankers peddling their vile, why don't you campaign to ban the swappies as well?



Their politics may be wrong, but their heart is in the right place.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> of course we fucking do



Then don't whine when the police catch you breaking the law and you suffer the consequences of your actions.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Of course we have that option. We may be punished for it (if caught) but perhaps being able to sleep at night is preferable to nodding all this through under the banner of "freedom of speech". You do know that's the first thing these fuckers will probably get rid of should they get a sniff of power, don't you?



Can you prove that they'd get rid of 'freedom of speech' if by some complete miracle they got enough seats to take parliament (which I don't see happening, by the way).

Political Correctness - the curse of both Tory and Labour governments - is massively restricting freedom of speech.  Are you fighting that too?


----------



## belboid (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Then don't whine when the police catch you breaking the law and you suffer the consequences of your actions.



no one here has. The 'whining' is all in your mind.


----------



## belboid (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Political Correctness - the curse of both Tory and Labour governments - is massively restricting freedom of speech.  Are you fighting that too?



only morons say 'political correctness' these days.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Can you prove that they'd get rid of 'freedom of speech' if by some complete miracle they got enough seats to take parliament (which I don't see happening, by the way).



Didn't their hero do just that? They don't support Trades Unionism. Can you find evidence that they'd allow trade unions to operate without harasment?



> Political Correctness - the curse of both Tory and Labour governments - is massively restricting freedom of speech.  Are you fighting that too?



Depends what they're restricting. If it's stopping your right to use racially offensive language then I fully support it.


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Sorry, and you are _who_ again?
> 
> It's only nonsense to you because you are too dumb to understand the points being made.
> 
> ...



the nazis, they're not all bad, just have different views.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Didn't their hero do just that? They don't support Trades Unionism. Can you find evidence that they'd allow trade unions to operate without harasment?



I don't support unions either.  They belong in a bygone age.



Citizen66 said:


> Depends what they're restricting. If it's stopping your right to use racially offensive language then I fully support it.



Personally I'd just say grow some balls and stop letting a few words get to you.

There's plenty of offensive stuff thrown towards me on this forum, but you don't see me going off crying do you?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> I don't support unions either.  They belong in a bygone age.



They're actually a fairly recent phenomenon. It is your views which are ancient.



> Personally I'd just say grow some balls and stop letting a few words get to you.
> 
> There's plenty of offensive stuff thrown towards me on this forum, but you don't see me going off crying do you?



The words don't get to me. It's the thinking behind them that I find pretty repulsive.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

There's quite a few things in your - and others round here - thinking I find repulsive too, but I'm not using a campaign of hate, violence and intimidation to stop people thinking them.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> There's quite a few things in your - and others round here - thinking I find repulsive too



Such as?


----------



## JimW (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> There's quite a few things in your - and others round here - thinking I find repulsive too, but I'm not using *a campaign of hate, violence and intimidation* to stop people thinking them.



That's great. What's it got to do with a campaign of defacing posters?


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Such as?



Your apparent hatred for this country, its traditions, its heritage and its indigenous people, for a start.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

JimW said:


> That's great. What's it got to do with a campaign of defacing posters?



It's what the left seem to want to do to stop the BNP exercising its rights to hold its views.

Presumably you haven't seen the "smash the BNP" campaigns of the left then?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Your apparent hatred for this country, its traditions, its heritage and its indigenous people, for a start.



Link?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Presumably you haven't seen the "smash the BNP" campaigns of the left then?



If the left repulse you so much, what the fuck are you coming to a left wing haunt for you raging pillock?


----------



## JimW (Mar 25, 2010)

Why do you hate our British tradition of tumultuous popular interventions in the democratic process? They long pre-date the popular vote, including scrawling on walls and blood-curdling sloganeering. Your professed love for the indigenous people is just a projection of some of your own prejudices, it seems.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> If the left repulse you so much, what the fuck are you coming to a left wing haunt for you raging pillock?



I live in Brixton, therefore I have a reason to post here.

I tend not to use the politics area and people like you who seem completely oblivious to the fact that there are other ways than the mung bean eating, hemp smoking, tree hugging, sandal wearing hippy crap are mostly the reason, in all honesty.

It's impossible sometimes to have a reasoned debate round here because people just gang up and get personal at the drop of the hat, without addressing the actual issues outside of their cosy little utopian viewpoint.

Extreme political viewpoints on either side of the political spectrum are dangerous.  You lot seem to concentrate on attacking the BNP, why shouldn't people be allowed to challenge your side too?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> I live in Brixton, therefore I have a reason to post here.
> 
> I tend not to use the politics area and people like you who seem completely oblivious to the fact that there are other ways than the mung bean eating, hemp smoking, tree hugging, sandal wearing hippy crap are mostly the reason, in all honesty.



Loving the left stereotypes there. 



> It's impossible sometimes to have a reasoned debate round here because people just gang up and get personal at the drop of the hat, without addressing the actual issues outside of their cosy little utopian viewpoint.



Well you could always just fuck off?



> Extreme political viewpoints on either side of the political spectrum are dangerous.  You lot seem to concentrate on attacking the BNP, why shouldn't people be allowed to challenge your side too?



You've just contradicted yourself. You began by saying why shouldn't you be here. Fair enough. Then you claimed that you don't bother in politics, this thread aside, naturally. You then go on to ask why shouldn't we be 'challenged', thus lending weight to the notion that you do post in politics after all which you do, as demonstrated by this thread. And while we're off down bullshit avenue:



ajdown said:


> Your apparent hatred for this country, its traditions, its heritage and its indigenous people, for a start.



Found any evidence yet that I hate this country, its traditions, its heritage and its indigenous (lol) people? Or is this just a case of you projecting some tired old left wing stereotype of yours on to me?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Your apparent hatred for this country, its traditions, its heritage and its indigenous people, for a start.



Quoted simply for making me lol!


----------



## nightowl (Mar 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Your apparent hatred for this country, its traditions, its heritage and its indigenous people, for a start.



is that from a griffin speech?


----------



## Fictionist (Mar 25, 2010)

Meanwhile, despite the intellectual debate on U75, voters in Barking & Dagenham consider Margaret Hodge (MP)..........


----------



## albionism (Mar 26, 2010)

> Your apparent hatred for this country, its traditions, its heritage and its indigenous people, for a start.


 
This country has a long and fine tradition of political graffiti and of defacing  political posters....And who the fuck are its indigenous people ?Angles, Saxons, Jutes?


----------



## cesare (Mar 26, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Your apparent hatred for this country, its traditions, its heritage and its indigenous people, for a start.



Oh aye? Which indigenous people are you thinking of then?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 26, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Sorry, and you are _who_ again?
> 
> It's only nonsense to you because you are too dumb to understand the points being made.
> 
> ...



You are trying to draw a moral equivalence (no mention of 'making "moral points"' - quotation marks are used for quotes not inaccurate or partial paraphrases); just because you don't have the capacity to recognise that, doesn't make it any less true. 

If it's not a moral equivalence, then in what sense are the people who defaced the posters 'no better' than the BNP; is it a matter of caligraphy perhaps. If it's about respect for all laws - which I suspect is the dead end you'd like to try to go down - than you're still stuffed, since that is itself a thoroughly moral choice to make; there is a long a varied history of the recognition of this in this country (so don't go trying to play the indigenous tradition card).

Similarly, don't to try wriggle out by spluttering about 'lefties complaining when they're caught'; the history of the rejection of respect for laws is also a history of people not just accepting the consequencies of their law breaking, but of using those consequencies to further attack the law (or the practice, or organisation that the law protects).

It seems that your_ ideas_ (and I'm being very generous there) of Britishness, history and politics are so absurdly narrow, that they leave you impotently flailing about; rather than actually challenging your imagined enemies (imagined in the sense that you so obviously have little knowledge and even less understanding of those you're trying to oppose).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 26, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> If it's British Jobs for British Workers then why did Prick Griffin accept a job from Europe?





trevhagl said:


> good point



True.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2010)

fatty cheek one-eye is happy to take europs money but not it's migrant workers obv


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2010)

Surely that's more a  case of British jobs for British workers?


----------



## fogbat (Mar 26, 2010)

"Indigenous people".

Awesome, AJ. You excel yourself.


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 26, 2010)

nightowl said:


> is that from a griffin speech?



its the same speil that a football hooligan i know came out with when he was trying to recruit me!! I'm guessing they have cards printed with it on or something!


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Surely that's more a  case of British jobs for British workers?



and not foreign models that they use on their leaflets


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 26, 2010)

Fictionist said:


> Meanwhile, despite the intellectual debate on U75, voters in Barking & Dagenham consider Margaret Hodge (MP)..........



it is indeed a gift from God for the nazis (or should that be gift from whatever God they have in Valhalla)


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Surely that's more a  case of British jobs for British workers?



Are MEPs 'workers' ?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2010)

Well yeah.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 26, 2010)

albionism said:


> This country has a long and fine tradition of political graffiti and of defacing  political posters....And who the fuck are its indigenous people ?Angles, Saxons, Jutes?



Very good point. There have been black people in this country for a couple of thousand years at least, apart from in the port areas, some were living quite well in York circa 400AD.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 26, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Your apparent hatred for this country, its traditions, its heritage and its indigenous people, for a start.



You are have been and are being sold the myth of "ROMANTIC NATIONALISM". 

Nationalism is an invented tradtion, borders move, people move etc. 

What is called 'Britain' is a recent phenomena, the act of Union between Scotland and England was in 1707, the Union Jack dates from after 1800, the Irish and 'British' border moved in 1922. Rather than NATIONALISM & 'RACE' (another invented 'tradition') history is actually about power and money, they are the real driving forces of history. Anything else is just an illusion.

The 'indiginous people of Britain' have spent FAR FAR more time, struggling against power and for their rights than they have for the illusion of nationalism. This _tradition of struggle_ is from all over the 'UK', it can be found all over the world too.


----------



## Fictionist (Mar 29, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> it is indeed a gift from God for the nazis (or should that be gift from whatever God they have in Valhalla)



This. And it remains the case despite some of the changes (and choices) instituted within the local Labour Party.

And now we have former boxing promoters in the mix too......


----------



## audiotech (Mar 31, 2010)

A BNP billboard (cost £2000) has been given a paint job in Scotland. The BNP has reportedly hired two security guards to keep an eye on the Aberdeen billboard round the clock. Of course they have! 







Source.


----------



## Open Sauce (Apr 2, 2010)

stephj said:


> Is it possible that if BNP posters are regularly getting defaced or damaged, then Clear Channel might eventually begin to consider that the cost element of continually repairing or re-hanging such posters might not be worth it?





Badgers said:


> Clear Channel would not give a shit as long as they get paid



Clearchannel were in Bush's pocket (or vice versa) and are well known cunts. Is it worthwhile targeting clearchannel's other customers - or are they too monopolistic for them to take their business elsewhere?


----------



## nightowl (Apr 5, 2010)

If clearchannel don't give a toss then I wonder how other companies feel about their products being advertised next to a bnp poster. One that springs to mind is an m&s one (featuring three black models) immediately next to an (albeit badly defaced) bnp poster near barking


----------



## ohmyliver (Apr 5, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Your apparent hatred for this country, its traditions, its heritage and its indigenous people, for a start.



Um, aren't the BNP an English Nationalist party? The English were immigrants, the name coming from a Danish/Northern German tribe called the Angles.


----------



## audiotech (Apr 5, 2010)

Those invaders, the Normans (Norsemen), French speakers still own a quarter of these lands.


----------



## nightowl (Apr 5, 2010)

And that all British royal family. Nothing foreign there


----------



## chico enrico (Apr 6, 2010)

MC5 said:


> A BNP billboard (cost £2000) has been given a paint job in Scotland. The BNP has reportedly hired two security guards to keep an eye on the Aberdeen billboard round the clock. Of course they have!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you ask me the 'defacing of that poster' is an own job, and the _BNP = NAZI SCUM_ bit was done separately and by someone else. 

This is a pretty weird thread. Why does everyone have to subscribe to this 'free speech' lark? Just because the BNP have ditched the jackboots and marches for Moss Bros suits and a Euro parliament seat that somehow makes them 'legitimate'? Would folk be championing the 'free speech right' of Combat 18 or P.I.E. (if they still existed)? Why then extend the right of 'freedom of speech' to the BNP, whose fundamental raison d'etre is to remove and deny the rights of others, if necessary by force? It only further legitimises them and their views, a card they are demonstrably adept at playing, ending up in this absurd situation of the BNP being accredited the same 'rights' as 'any other political party' to begin with.


----------



## ernestolynch (Apr 6, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> Very good point. There have been black people in this country for a couple of thousand years at least, apart from in the port areas, some were living quite well in York circa 400AD.



Dope


----------



## audiotech (Apr 6, 2010)

chico enrico said:


> If you ask me the 'defacing of that poster' is an own job, and the _BNP = NAZI SCUM_ bit was done separately and by someone else.



I suspect you're right. They know their posters are going to be defaced, so why not use this to their own advantage. Put their own subtle message over about the left loving 'ethnics' and 'asians', but underlying that is their message that the BNP will put a halt to more 'ethnics' and 'asians' coming here, garner some extra publicity by talking about 24 hour security and also paint (excuse the pun) their opponents as being against "free speech".

Win, win.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 7, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Dope



Do you smoke?


----------



## audiotech (Apr 8, 2010)

You could always email it's PR department at zoe.jones@clearchannel.co.uk if you so wish.


----------



## nightowl (Apr 8, 2010)

I notice they've now replaced their defaced posters with ones featuring four supposed veterans with a bring the troops home slogan. Probably hoping people might think twice about lobbing a tin of paint over it


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 9, 2010)

MC5 said:


> A BNP billboard (cost £2000) has been given a paint job in Scotland. The BNP has reportedly hired two security guards to keep an eye on the Aberdeen billboard round the clock. Of course they have!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would have been funnier to give them all a Hitler tash.


----------

