Excellent question – and one that folks seem reluctant to grasp.

The answer being avoided is I guess obvious but politically incorrect for those who consider enmity with BNP as more important than anything else (like those who here have said that fascists should not have freedom of speech unlike the rest of us).

Yes, the native Brits surely ought to have a say in how the country is expanded and what sort of culture shifts are desireable.

As I recall, the ninth comment was pretty concise. Something about me asking you a question.

What I shouldn’t have asked you was have you ever worked in a newsroom or do you understand the rules a local reporter has to work from.

As for the it wasn’t a jab at one person jibe? So, you put the reporter’s e-mail up on your site just to encourage people to send him birthday greetings then? How charming.

Let’s just leave it with I agree with the initial article being a bit wet and their approach being a bit flacid, but we won’t ever agree on the way you think local papers should criticise the BNP on every single article during the run up to an election. That’s not the way local papers work, which is what I think the real editor of that real paper pointed out to you.

Meanwhile, keep on coming with those critical articles about your local “friends of the BNP” rag and hope the PSP and knitting world mags don’t fold.

Consider myself knocked out.

Your title’s definitely snappier. Oh, and as this isn’t your blog Sarah, it appears this time you can’t “moderate” this comment into blog-oblivion or call a halt to comments as and when you see fit.

But then hey, that’s free speech, eh? What an irony.

But it might still be true, even if it’s in BNP literature. I know it’s an awful thought but all the same …

“it overturns the whole tradition of citizenship being granted to people because they’re born in a state or because they choose to live in that state”

I’m not in favour of overturning tradition either. But I don’t think UK tradition HAS been to grant citizenship based either on birth or on someone choosing – without reference to the wishes of that state’s citizens – to live in a particular state.

And after all, don’t the people who live in a state have any right to decide who they offer to share it with ? Do Palestinians not have a right ? Or are they racist bigots if they oppose Israeli settlements on the West Bank ? Did the Native Americans, the Aboriginal Australians, not have a right ? Or does a piece of land belong to whoever can maintain themselves on it by whatever means and whoever the previous inhabitants were ? Doesn’t sound very liberal to me.

See? I didn’t even have to mention that the whole idea of discrete, concrete races is bunk.

clumsy little phrase, perhaps – we’re all ethnic, aren’t we ?

But what’s so hateful about the rest, other than the redundancy of ‘white’ ? For good or ill, the indigenous British ARE white – or pink, to be more exact. Nothing to be proud (or ashamed) of in that, it’s just the historical reality.

(I’m hoping, not with any great optimism, that you won’t start the ‘what’s indigenous British’ game. I know we all came from Africa a very long time ago. But I wouldn’t, for example, in the context of European immigration to America, call the Native Americans just another set of immigrants because they came from Siberia more than ten thousand years ago. They’d been there a long time. As have the Native Brits. Though not as long, excepting (maybe) the Celts).

I think the BBC is also at fault here. The coverage around the Queen’s Palace invitation was so cringingly bad, a journalist actually asked something like, ‘But what do you say to people who think you’re not the sort of person who should be invited to the Queen’s palace‘. As far as I’ve seen, they’ve not mentioned anywhere the fake people used in the BNP flyer and asked them to respond to that.