For a while now I have held the belief that staunch followers of the PC movement actually do more to harm race relations than any other group.

I believe they stiffle debate by dismissing anyone who dares raise any subject to do with immigration, culture or religion by branding such people as racist, BNP or bigots. IMO, oppressing peoples concerns like this is counter productive because it actually fuels inter-racial resentment, mistrust and bitterness and that this in turn leads to protest votes for extreme groups like the BNP. I thought it would be interesting to test my theory with a poll.

Please vote and feel free to add to the debate with your own observations and comments.

Note: The term "PC Brigade" is a common expression that everyone other than those who are part of the PC Brigade understand. If you do not like/understand the term then please assume the term PC Brigade to mean people like you.

So it's harmful and stifles debate for people to lump everyone who disagrees with them as bigoted or BNP members, but it's perfectly fine for you to label everyone who disagrees with you as PC brigade members?

Ok, I got it.

Note: The term "PC Brigade" is a common expression that everyone other than those who are part of the PC Brigade understand. If you do not like/understand the term then please assume the term PC Brigade to mean people like you.

Which effectively undermines the whole point of your post, Zamo. It sets up a situation wholly counterproductive to debate just as effectively as your claim that the fictional PC brigade won't allow discussion of race relations without resort to calling people bigots, BNP'ers or racists.

It's a bit like the ''Do you still beat your wife?'' question.

You've missed a few other cliches from your post there , Zamo. Add 'lefty', 'do-gooder' and perhaps also 'ivory tower' and we'll all know exactly what you're talking about :roll: .

It's been my opinion for a long time that the BNP has people in the lefty parties thinking up this rubbish as they know it gets peoples backs up and so helps them out no end.
That and the daily mail back it up with a couple of nice anti muslim headlines.

Hitler did it with the national socialists and it worked well for him so why not repeat a proven formula.

Same old faces, same old stock replies :D

Always trying to defend the indefensible. :(

Same old faces, same old stock replies :D

Always trying to defend the indefensible. :(

Come again? I didn't see anyone trying to defend the indefensible. Looked like people pointing out a major logical flaw in Zamo's post. I'll point it out in case you missed it, artisan.

Zamo is saying that the 'PC Brigade' stifle debate, by calling anyone who expresses opinion about race relations racist, bigoted or BNP.

He then goes on to say that anyone who disagrees with him is a member of said PC Brigade, thus stifling debate.

If that's not a case of pot calling kettle I'll eat my hat.

I am aware of a couple of occasions where people have been driven towards sympathising with the BNP because of pressure from others.

Whilst the individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions, some people with a 'right on' approach need to realise that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, and that if you encounter someone who is 'on the edge' you might do more to win them away from the BNP by debating things rationally with them rather than entering in to a harangue.

Any extreme group - secular or religious - will always recruit from people who feel marginalised from the majority of their fellows. If you want to stifle extremisim, work with the 'edge people' to bring them back in to the fold rather than denouncing them as the spawn of <enter hate figure here>.

It's not as much fun, but in the longer term will be more beneficial. There will always be some incorrigibles, who woudl go that path under all circumstances, but by choosing a civilised approach you might easily reduce the number of people who fall in to extremisim by accident.

So it's harmful and stifles debate for people to lump everyone who disagrees with them as bigoted or BNP members, but it's perfectly fine for you to label everyone who disagrees with you as PC brigade members?

Ok, I got it.
Already being forced to defend the expression PC Brigade. :rolleyes: The "label" PC Brigade is not demeaning in the same was as calling someone a racist, BNP or bigot is. IMO, the PC Brigade are well intended people who simply want harmony, tolerence and to correct the injustices in the world (not bad traits at all) but have - how can I put it - got a little carried away.

You've missed a few other cliches from your post there , Zamo. Add 'lefty', 'do-gooder' and perhaps also 'ivory tower' and we'll all know exactly what you're talking about.

For the record... I do not read the Daily Mail or any tabloid paper. I do not agree with the death penalty and have voted labour all my life... until the invasion of Iraq, which I complete oppose. Therefore, by common definition I might be called a lefty, do-gooder myself. I am however most defininately not PC Brigade, which is something different altogether.

If anyone joins an extreme political party, they do it because they agree with their policies and agree with their views. To state that they may do so because of political correctness is absurd.

Already being forced to defend the expression PC Brigade. :rolleyes: The "label" PC Brigade is not demeaning in the same was as calling someone a racist, BNP or bigot is. IMO, the PC Brigade are well intended people who simply want harmony, tolerence and to correct the injustices in the world (not bad traits at all) but have - how can I put it - got a little carried away.

If the label PC Brigade is not demeaning why is it so frequently wheeled out to be used in a derogatory manner? I've never heard it used with any positive connotations so it seems pretty demeaning to me. Of course this is missing the fact that there is no such thing as a "PC Brigade" it's simply a tabloidism, though admittedly a fairly effective one (in that it has been taken up and used rather than it being usefull or descriptive).

If anyone joins an extreme political party, they do it because they agree with their policies and agree with their views. To state that they may do so because of political correctness is absurd.

I didn't say join an extreme party I said vote for. The Government (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2138301,00.html)don't think protest voting is absurd.

Wakey, wakey... this is the sort of attitude I am talking about.

[QUOTE]Which effectively undermines the whole point of your post, Zamo. It sets up a situation wholly counterproductive to debate just as effectively as your claim that the fictional PC brigade won't allow discussion of race relations without resort to calling people bigots, BNP'ers or racists.

But the latter is exactly what happens. It has happened to me two or three times in the last week, once when someone claimed that nine out of ten people who critisised Islamic ideology was a racist. Someone else's only answer when I happened to disagree with him on something was to just accuse me of having 'right wing tendencies'. When I told someone I thought communism was as evil as faschism, they called me not normal and invoked my mental health problems. Nice, huh? I'm tired of supposed anti-bigotry campaigners being rigid with prejudice themselves, of being blinkered and dogmatic and unable to see how hypocritical they are.

Political Correctness absolutely exists. I have had the misfortune to meet countless teachers, mental health workers, social workers, students, council workers and so on who have had their capacity for free thinking erased by the dogma that Zamo refers to. (I do think that he was wrong to make reference to a 'PC Brigade' as that was obviously going to deflect the debate away from his main point.) I've had my own life stymied by being at the mercy of people of that cultural mindset. I've been damned many times for daring to have an open mind and not being cowed by taboos, for not talking according to a script, for wanting to discuss prickly issues rather than turn a blind eye. The liberal left has got a disease, the effect of which has been 'wholly counterproductive' to the values they claim to have.


It's a bit like the ''Do you still beat your wife?'' question.

What the hell are you talking about?

Note: The term "PC Brigade" is a common expression that everyone other than those who are part of the PC Brigade understand. If you do not like/understand the term then please assume the term PC Brigade to mean people like you.

Actually I think the term "PC Brigade" is a common expression used by people who are incapable of saying what they actually mean.
When challenged they are generally unable to identify any member of this brigade, or indeed to show any action that 'they' have taken, apart from a few obscure examples of nursery administraters who stupidly try to ban or change nursery rhymes 5 years ago.

If you want to stifle extremisim, work with the 'edge people' to bring them back in to the fold rather than denouncing them as the spawn of <enter hate figure here>.


Margaret Thatcher
George W Bush
etc...

Definately!
I utterly bloody despise the PC gibbons with their stupid ideas.
Id do it to spite the buggers. I only think I eat meat because i know it`d annoy the veggies.

...It has happened to me two or three times in the last week...
There will always be individuals who are unable to resist slapping a label on someone because they express a view which seems to fit their definition of that label. It's a bit like designating someone who counters a clearly racist view a member of the 'PC Brigade'.

IMO, the PC Brigade are well intended people who simply want harmony, tolerence and to correct the injustices in the world (not bad traits at all) but have - how can I put it - got a little carried away.



You make some excellent points Zamo, but I disagree with your charitable assumption that the pc brigade are generally 'well intended'. We all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions - but where political correctness is concerned, I don't accept the premise that the intentions are always good. We should not make the mistake of assuming that political correctness necessarily springs from misplaced altruism. Much of it does emanate from cynical opportunism, as well as from self-serving zealotry, from the delight in exercising power (however petty), from fear of being labelled 'politically incorrect' oneself, from exhibitionist posturing, from point scoring, from disguised vendettas against certain social groups, from a desire to shinny up the career ladder, or simply from a desire to appear morally superior to others. :thumbsup:

Oh great, another 'Isn't everything rubbish and everyone's stupid apart from me and people who share exactly the same views as me on everything?' thread! Just what this forum needed. Good call!

But the latter is exactly what happens. It has happened to me two or three times in the last week, once when someone claimed that nine out of ten people who critisised Islamic ideology was a racist. Someone else's only answer when I happened to disagree with him on something was to just accuse me of having 'right wing tendencies'. When I told someone I thought communism was as evil as faschism, they called me not normal and invoked my mental health problems. Nice, huh? I'm tired of supposed anti-bigotry campaigners being rigid with prejudice themselves, of being blinkered and dogmatic and unable to see how hypocritical they are.

Political Correctness absolutely exists. I have had the misfortune to meet countless teachers, mental health workers, social workers, students, council workers and so on who have had their capacity for free thinking erased by the dogma that Zamo refers to. (I do think that he was wrong to make reference to a 'PC Brigade' as that was obviously going to deflect the debate away from his main point.) I've had my own life stymied by being at the mercy of people of that cultural mindset. I've been damned many times for daring to have an open mind and not being cowed by taboos, for not talking according to a script, for wanting to discuss prickly issues rather than turn a blind eye. The liberal left has got a disease, the effect of which has been 'wholly counterproductive' to the values they claim to have.


I know EXACTLY what you mean, Purdyamos, and agree with you 100% on this.

The infuriating thing is how self-righteous so many of these 'politically correct' people are - and how they refuse to listen to anything that might even slightly question their way of looking at the world. They are so hypocritical it's unbelievable - they have this little set of issues that they are fanatically right-on about, but anything outside those issues is fair game for their contempt and disregard - and they don't see that as hypocritical :confused:

I honestly think they're afraid to discuss their sacred cow issues with anyone who deviates (sic) even slightly from their accepted 'norm' - if you try to question the commonsense of some of their ideas, they turn very nasty very quickly and throw labels like 'fascist' and 'racist' around with gay abandon. That suggests to me they're shaky in the validity of their beliefs, or they'd be able to defend them, rather than seek to attack others.

I feel really sorry for anyone who works in the public sector who dares to express views that aren't 100% what the politically correct bunch want to hear. The really 'funny' thing is, these liberals who think they're so right-on and morally superior just don't see they're behaving in exactly the 'fascistic' manner they profess to hate.

"There's none so blind that will not see".

StarSparkle

StarSparkle, the post you quote above was by purdyamos, but attributed to me - I'd be grateful if you could edit it to reflect this, thankyou.

For purdyamos; the 'Do you still beat your wife question' is one to which , if one answers yes, condemns a person and if one answers no, still leaves the interpretation open that you used to but don't anymore.
I felt that the way Zamo posed his post similarly left no option for anyone with a contrary view not to be seen in a bad (PC Brigade) light.

Oh great, another 'Isn't everything rubbish and everyone's stupid apart from me and people who share exactly the same views as me on everything?' thread! Just what this forum needed. Good call!
Who have I rubbished? :huh:

StarSparkle, the post you quote above was by purdyamos, but attributed to me - I'd be grateful if you could edit it to reflect this, thankyou.

Editing done as requested :thumbsup: Apologies for any confusion

StarSparkle

Another question is Sheffield forum the recruitment sergeant for the BNP?

There will always be individuals who are unable to resist slapping a label on someone because they express a view which seems to fit their definition of that label. It's a bit like designating someone who counters a clearly racist view a member of the 'PC Brigade'.

But it's exactly that definition that is the problem. The prevailing definitions of 'racist', 'reactionary', etc, as designated by dogmatists, have become so mild and knee jerk that most people (literally, in the 'nine out of ten are racist' man I mentioned) are tarred for even mentioning some topics. People who get labelled 'PC Brigade' (and I repeat I think it is an unhelpful label) are often not countering 'a clearly racist view' but something perfectly reasonable and unprejudiced that has been decreed off limits.

I know a woman from Argentina, 60ish, who has lived under political dictatorships of all political colours and lived through several revolutions. She was horrified when she moved here at the extent to which many people are afraid to say what they think about many things, even level headed and fair observations, not rabid Alf Garnetts. Most issues are made of shades of grey and have myriad graded viewpoints. But we are constantly bullied into black and white standpoints. Threads on SF are forever collapsing into polarised, mutual blinkeredness. The mindset and lazy dogmatism is frequently as bad on both sides.

For purdyamos; the 'Do you still beat your wife question' is one to which , if one answers yes, condemns a person and if one answers no, still leaves the interpretation open that you used to but don't anymore.


That's so ironic; you state there are only two possible answers to the question, yes or no. Black and white thinking in action. It shows the polarised mindset to which I was referring. How about the option of 'I have never beaten my wife.'

Another question is Sheffield forum the recruitment sergeant for the BNP?

No....some months back I did some statistics on the number of BNP related posts on here. Less than 2% of all postings were to do with the BNP or those against the BNP.

What I DO find interesting on here is the number of times that the BNP threads on here go quiet, only to be resurrected by people who are purportedly AGAINST the BNP and all that it stands for. :)

There's a Forum down in Oxfordshire, I think, that also attracts a lot of postings about the BNP - I believe at least one of our 'anti-BNP' people on here uses that Forum as well. This came up when I was doing my statistics - it does seem that the BNP don't really need an online recruiting sergeant when threads about them are bought to the attention of 'passers by' by their opponents.

Purdyamos, I don't believe we are constantly bullied into black and white standpoints, particularly in the context of this forum, and I certainly don't agree that the mere mention on the forum of certain controversial or 'off limits' issues is enough to acquire the label 'racist' or 'reactionary'. Surely such a view simply feeds into the mythical, stereotypical image of the 'PC Brigade' as portrayed and defined by some members of the media?

Are those with level-headed and fair observations really afraid to express their views?

That's so ironic; you state there are only two possible answers to the question, yes or no. Black and white thinking in action. It shows the polarised mindset to which I was referring. How about the option of 'I have never beaten my wife.'

purdyamos, you're right, but Halibut was only explaining the context to which he/she brought up the hypothetical question. Of course there are more detailed responses, but that was the point. The question (and the OP on this thread)) is designed to limit the number of responses because it contains a presupposition which the speaker has thrown in without proof. It's actually a standard example of this kind of thinking, Halibut was merely quoting it.

In the OP, Zamo included the presupposition that the "PC brigade" exists and explicitly stated that anyone who disagrees is a member of said regiment, therefore intending to move the debate forward in a way that he could barely lose.

In fact, the hypocrisy was so glaring that I suspect you've all been had by an extremely clever piece of irony and satire by Zamo.

No....some months back I did some statistics on the number of BNP related posts on here. Less than 2% of all postings were to do with the BNP or those against the BNP.

What I DO find interesting on here is the number of times that the BNP threads on here go quiet, only to be resurrected by people who are purportedly AGAINST the BNP and all that it stands for. :)

There's a Forum down in Oxfordshire, I think, that also attracts a lot of postings about the BNP - I believe at least one of our 'anti-BNP' people on here uses that Forum as well. This came up when I was doing my statistics - it does seem that the BNP don't really need an online recruiting sergeant when threads about them are bought to the attention of 'passers by' by their opponents.

As you probaly know I am knew to this forum but in most cases when I log on & search new posts there is a BNP or Muslim topic up their at the top. I know you did the research a few months back but would you say its still the same now as it was a couple of months back?

Although I have seen a lot anti-BNP posts, I have seen just as many supporting BNP and anti muslim posts as well, or could it be that the same people log on at the same time and make it more of an issue?

Also Is it possible to see the statistics from the research?

IMHO ignorance and poor education are the biggest recruiting sergeants for the BNP.

IMHO ignorance and poor education are the biggest recruiting sergeants for the BNP.

So they are ignorant and thick ?

Sometimes when a rational opinion is expressed, people either take offense as if it was directed personally at them, or others totally dismiss the poster's opinion. Too much political correctness is a turn off to any sensible person. However, I for one am glad that we live in a society that has moved away from using pejorative terms to describe people of other races. I am not a lefty, sandal wearing tree hugger, neither am I of the 'PC brigade, nor am I of the fascist persuasion. I suppose I am middle of the road politically. I believe in responsibilities sitting alongside rights. I believe in the welfare state as a safety net, not as a catch all for those who can't be bothered, whether they are British by birth, or have chosen to live here more recently. I loathe the fact that some people can express hatred towards others simply because they are visibly different.

I do however feel it is reasonable that people who choose to live in another country, and benefit from the opportunities that they obviously recognise, should go some way to accepting the culture of their new home. By this I mean things like learning the language, and not excluding themselves from mainstream activities. I listened to George Alagiah talking at the University the other night, he has created some controversy around a book he's written about his own immigration story. Some of his critics disapprove of his decision to become as English as he could, in speech and attitude. He saw that as the best way both to integrate and to succeed in his new country. Its obviously worked, as he is a respected foreign correspondent and journalist. The woman who recently lost her teaching job due to her insistance in wearing an extreme form of cultural dress, I believe is responsible for her own situation.

Most of the areas where immigration is seen as a problem are areas where the indigenous population have become the minority. These areas are usually fairly deprived, so apart from the difficulties immigrants face by living amongst people who are often poorly educated, they are even more resented as the already limited resources such as housing and health care are stretched to breaking point. Many of the immigrant population in this type of situation don't integrate, they don't accept the British way of life, or even attempt to learn the language. All of these things cause resentment, and people turn away from the established political establishment to parties like the BNP. I think a real debate about immigration and multi-culturism is well overdue.

IMHO ignorance and poor education are the biggest recruiting sergeants for the BNP.

The biggest recruiting sergeants for the BNP have been the Blair governments since 1997, which have presided over the largest waves of mass immigration in Britain's history and which have also promoted the dangerously divisive doctrines of multiculturalism (the malign consequences of which are now coming home to roost).

That's so ironic; you state there are only two possible answers to the question, yes or no. Black and white thinking in action. It shows the polarised mindset to which I was referring. How about the option of 'I have never beaten my wife.'

It's phrased as a closed question. If you were being lawyerish then the only acceptable answers to a closed question are yes or no, no prevarication or justification allowed.

Political correctness seeks to set limits on what we are allowed to say, usually for fear of offending minority groups of one kind or another. It seeks to set boundaries on our use of language and even on what we are allowed to think (unless of course we keep our thoughts to ourselves).

Underlying this is a kind of ideological totalitarianism, or liberal bigotry, in which a particular view of the world is deemed by its adherents to be beyond criticism (and dissident voices to be beyond the pale of legitimate discourse). It is usually justified on the grounds that expression of certain thoughts or words is damaging to social cohesion and order. These values are deemed to be paramount over the values of freedom of expression, whenever there is a conflict between the two.

In many recent cases discussed on this forum, the fear of offending (and alienating) a particular minority group is purportedly weighing more heavily than the loss of freedom of expression or action which a particular (usually very petty) prohibition would entail.

Many of these cases involve a kind of pre-emptive grovelling to the perceived interests or sensitivities of a particular minority group, even when the group in question has made no complaint.

It's phrased as a closed question. If you were being lawyerish then the only acceptable answers to a closed question are yes or no, no prevarication or justification allowed.

But that closed pattern of thinking and judgement is exactly the pattern that dictates so many of the discussions I've attempted to have.

The really ludicrous litmus test is that many of the points I've argued on the Islam discussions, for instance, I have discussed openly with muslims who will talk about the various standpoints openly. Then when I mention it to white left leaners, I'm suddenly an ignorant right winger! There was a recent thread about the enforcement of the hijab at a muslim school (on non-muslims too). I argued, as muslims had informed me, that the hijab should be 100% a female's choice to wear. It should never be forced. But several liberal SFers were bending over backwards to protect the enforcement of this controversial garment, even on non-believers. One person agreed with me that the enforcement was out of order - a muslim! Yet I was still accused of being 'patronising' and even psychologically unsound. It is at times like that that a reasonable person can feel they are banging their heads against a brick wall until their brains are leaking out of their ears.

As you probaly know I am knew to this forum but in most cases when I log on & search new posts there is a BNP or Muslim topic up their at the top. I know you did the research a few months back but would you say its still the same now as it was a couple of months back?

Although I have seen a lot anti-BNP posts, I have seen just as many supporting BNP and anti muslim posts as well, or could it be that the same people log on at the same time and make it more of an issue?

Also Is it possible to see the statistics from the research?

I've lost the figures from my PC - you may be able to find them on here with a search, but I have no intention of wasting another weekend putting it all together. :)

When you say pro-BNP, what exactly do you mean? Posts supporting of the BNP per se of people who just share soem of the same concerns? There is a MAJOR difference that some people choose to ignore; by labelling anyone who is concerned about immigration and similar issues as a BNP supporter, racist or racist apologist it is a wonderful means of stifling debate.

The current BNP Megathread was kicked off on 22nd August, and has accumulated 440 odd posts in that time. The Forum gets something like 2000 posts a day. So, that's about 60 days, let's say a total of 120,000 posts, and of those 440 have ended up on the BNP thread. (This includes posts threads started on BNP related topics that we've merged together). So...that's....0.3% of all posts on the Forum have been directly BNP related.

A further interesting observation - the thread went quiet on 9th September, and was re-opened on the 25th September with a post from someone who is definitely NOT a BNP supporter, with the opening words 'Yes I know the BNP thread isn't so much visited at the moment, but still thought it was worth a quick resurrect... ' Which is fine, all well and good, but just indicates that the BNP thread is often kept going by people providing ANTI-BNP propaganda - we don't differentiate on that thread.

The period when I did the statistics covered the Elections - so it was probably biased by that.

But that closed pattern of thinking and judgement is exactly the pattern that dictates so many of the discussions I've attempted to have.

The really ludicrous litmus test is that many of the points I've argued on the Islam discussions, for instance, I have discussed openly with muslims who will talk about the various standpoints openly. Then when I mention it to white left leaners, I'm suddenly an ignorant right winger! There was a recent thread about the enforcement of the hijab at a muslim school (on non-muslims too). I argued, as muslims had informed me, that the hijab should be 100% a female's choice to wear. It should never be forced. But several liberal SFers were bending over backwards to protect the enforcement of this controversial garment, even on non-believers. One person agreed with me that the enforcement was out of order - a muslim! Yet I was still accused of being 'patronising' and even psychologically unsound. It is at times like that that a reasonable person can feel they are banging their heads against a brick wall until their brains are leaking out of their ears.

It sounds more like people arguing from a position of ignorance than being pc to be honest.
I try to do a bit of research if I have no idea about something, arguing from a position of ignorance generally just leaves the arguer looking silly.

[QUOTE=JoeP]I've lost the figures from my PC - you may be able to find them on here with a search, but I have no intention of wasting another weekend putting it all together. :)

[QUOTE=JoeP]I've lost the figures from my PC - you may be able to find them on here with a search, but I have no intention of wasting another weekend putting it all together. :)

I've lost the figures from my PC - you may be able to find them on here with a search, but I have no intention of wasting another weekend putting it all together. :)

When you say pro-BNP, what exactly do you mean? Posts supporting of the BNP per se of people who just share soem of the same concerns? There is a MAJOR difference that some people choose to ignore; by labelling anyone who is concerned about immigration and similar issues as a BNP supporter, racist or racist apologist it is a wonderful means of stifling debate.

The current BNP Megathread was kicked off on 22nd August, and has accumulated 440 odd posts in that time. The Forum gets something like 2000 posts a day. So, that's about 60 days, let's say a total of 120,000 posts, and of those 440 have ended up on the BNP thread. (This includes posts threads started on BNP related topics that we've merged together). So...that's....0.3% of all posts on the Forum have been directly BNP related.

A further interesting observation - the thread went quiet on 9th September, and was re-opened on the 25th September with a post from someone who is definitely NOT a BNP supporter, with the opening words 'Yes I know the BNP thread isn't so much visited at the moment, but still thought it was worth a quick resurrect... ' Which is fine, all well and good, but just indicates that the BNP thread is often kept going by people providing ANTI-BNP propaganda - we don't differentiate on that thread.

The period when I did the statistics covered the Elections - so it was probably biased by that.

Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear, what I meant was when you did the research what percentage of all Topic Starters was BNP/Muslim/Immigration orientated?

And did you evaluate what percentage of posts/replies was for & against BNP related policies?

I have done a search on the forum for the figures & findings you mentioned but have had no joy.

If on the off chance you do happen to find the data & statistics you collected would it be possible for you to post them on SF?

No....some months back I did some statistics on the number of BNP related posts on here. Less than 2% of all postings were to do with the BNP or those against the BNP.

What I DO find interesting on here is the number of times that the BNP threads on here go quiet, only to be resurrected by people who are purportedly AGAINST the BNP and all that it stands for. :)

There's a Forum down in Oxfordshire, I think, that also attracts a lot of postings about the BNP - I believe at least one of our 'anti-BNP' people on here uses that Forum as well. This came up when I was doing my statistics - it does seem that the BNP don't really need an online recruiting sergeant when threads about them are bought to the attention of 'passers by' by their opponents.



Exactly Joe, the party has all these people who say the hate the BNP yet they are the ones who cant do without them,similar to drug addicts they need their fix of the BNP.

Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear, what I meant was when you did the research what percentage of all Topic Starters was BNP/Muslim/Immigration orientated?

And did you evaluate what percentage of posts/replies was for & against BNP related policies?

I have done a search on the forum for the figures & findings you mentioned but have had no joy.

If on the off chance you do happen to find the data & statistics you collected would it be possible for you to post them on SF?

Back in July / August / whenever I basically looked at the posts that were about the BNP / Immigration / Muslim, counted them, and then compared iwth the total number of posts made to SF over the same period.

I seem to remember that the figures came in at about 1.9% of all posts were on those topics - from any side of the argument.

I'm not going to waste time with it - to be honest the reason it cropped up in the first place was exactly this debate that SF was being used to recruit for the BNP and that all that was discussed was race related issues, and the argument was whether to censor posts on SF that related to the BNP.

Every few months we have a new attempt to label SF as being full of fascist apologists, racists, Nazis and BNP supporters. Which never seems to quite stack up when posts are counted. :)

I would hate to think S F is full of those nasty BNP people:thumbsup: they are soooo racist they ought to be given a no platform to expouse their vile racist posts.;) Terrible people.

Every few months we have a new attempt to label SF as being full of fascist apologists, racists, Nazis and BNP supporters. Which never seems to quite stack up when posts are counted. :)

Granted but the extremists on both sides have very few members compared with the masses of people they claim to stand for.
They still manage to cause a hell of a lot of trouble.

Back in July / August / whenever I basically looked at the posts that were about the BNP / Immigration / Muslim, counted them, and then compared iwth the total number of posts made to SF over the same period.

I seem to remember that the figures came in at about 1.9% of all posts were on those topics - from any side of the argument.

I'm not going to waste time with it - to be honest the reason it cropped up in the first place was exactly this debate that SF was being used to recruit for the BNP and that all that was discussed was race related issues, and the argument was whether to censor posts on SF that related to the BNP.

Every few months we have a new attempt to label SF as being full of fascist apologists, racists, Nazis and BNP supporters. Which never seems to quite stack up when posts are counted. :)

Thanks, So there is hope for other Topics to be discussed more in depth afterall on SF, even though sometimes to me anyhow it doesn't seem that way.

Granted but the extremists on both sides have very few members compared with the masses of people they claim to stand for.
They still manage to cause a hell of a lot of trouble.


Yes its terrible that anyone cares for their country .bloody trouble makers all of them.:thumbsup:
Of course you love your country sooooo much,how dare they want to preserve their culture and identity bloody facists.

Yes its terrible that anyone cares for their country .bloody trouble makers all of them.:thumbsup:
Of course you love your country sooooo much,how dare they want to preserve their culture and identity bloody facists.

I do love my country and hate the idea of the political and/or religious nutters ruining it.
The few islamic nutters can do a lot of damage but the far right political nutters can destroy the whole country with their dangerous crap.

See what the idiot nazis did to germany with their daft ideas.

Thanks, So there is hope for other Topics to be discussed more in depth afterall on SF, even though sometimes to me anyhow it doesn't seem that way.

Yeah, the space taken up by those 99.7% posts that currently are nothing to do with the BNP doesn't leave much space for debate on other issues, does it?

Seriously - if you want to debate other issues then bloody well start threads! That's what the Forum is here for.

I do love my country and hate the idea of the political and/or religious nutters ruining it.
The few islamic nutters can do a lot of damage but the far right political nutters can destroy the whole country with their dangerous crap.

See what the idiot nazis did to germany with their daft ideas.


The nazis did many things that were for the betterment of the country in the begining,they got the people in work and they gave the nation a sense of pride which was sadly missing after the first world war.
They gave the workers a wage instead of nothing, just why is is that the plus points are always ignored by the historians,I watched a prog last night to listen to a old woman who said that many things were better in the Nazi times than what she had lived through before.
Hitler gave the nation sense of purpose and identity which was sadly lacking after the first war,the standard of living shot up and the feeling was of good times in the reich.
Of course he made mistakes and I wont gloss over them,BUT in the beginning he made the germans feel valued again,something this counrty is missing right now.

Of course he made mistakes and I wont gloss over them,BUT in the beginning he made the germans feel valued again,something this counrty is missing right now.

What mistakes were they Roy, just so that they're not glossed over.

Of course he made mistakes and I wont gloss over them,BUT in the beginning he made the germans feel valued again,something this counrty is missing right now.

Hilarious. Mass genocide a "mistake". Or do you think he didn't go far enough in trying to kill every Jew unfortunate to live in the countries his stormtroopers invaded?

Yeah, the space taken up by those 99.7% posts that currently are nothing to do with the BNP doesn't leave much space for debate on other issues, does it?

Seriously - if you want to debate other issues then bloody well start threads! That's what the Forum is here for.

I have started various threads but it would seem to me that the majority of people on SF are mainly interested in BNP / Muslim / Capital Punishment / Immigration type topics which is fine by me.

This is just a observation and as I said earlier I am new to SF and would just like to see more of a contribution on SF to other topics.

Please do not htink in anyway I am blaming SF for this matter because I think at end of the day its the members what make Forums.

The nazis did many things that were for the betterment of the country in the begining,they got the people in work and they gave the nation a sense of pride which was sadly missing after the first world war.
They gave the workers a wage instead of nothing, just why is is that the plus points are always ignored by the historians.

What an utter load of rubbish.

Again your rather selective understanding of history rears its ugly head. I know this thread is about Political correctness, but I cannot let the above comment go unchallenged. It is accepted by most historians that the Nazis kept the German economy going by massive spending surplasses that were never sustainable. The economy would have melted down by the early 1940's, if not earlier. The war economy was only kept alive by the the use of slave labour and repatriations by the occupied countries.

King Rat,

Actually, I think that it's a fair point that people are interested in the issues you mention - but an intrest in the issues doesn't actually mean that everyone who expresses an interest has the same point of view.

Lively debate on these contentious issues is important - by keeping these debates going - even if we sometimes have to guide some discussions away from being truly offensive - we give people a space to talk about things and exress their concerns on issues that do concern them.

I have started various threads but it would seem to me that the majority of people on SF are mainly interested in BNP / Muslim / Capital Punishment / Immigration type topics which is fine by me.

This is just a observation and as I said earlier I am new to SF and would just like to see more of a contribution on SF to other topics.

Please do not htink in anyway I am blaming SF for this matter because I think at end of the day its the members what make Forums.

SF has been up and running as a very successful Forum for a number of years now, and many, many topics have been discussed on here. I think part of the problem is that us 'old-timers' have discussed many subjects almost to death - we have basically said what we have to say on them already.

Perhaps it's up to the 'newbies' to find interesting new angles on old topics, to whet everyone's appetite and get the debate flowing?

StarSparkle

No....some months back I did some statistics on the number of BNP related posts on here. Less than 2% of all postings were to do with the BNP or those against the BNP.

What I DO find interesting on here is the number of times that the BNP threads on here go quiet, only to be resurrected by people who are purportedly AGAINST the BNP and all that it stands for. :)

There's a Forum down in Oxfordshire, I think, that also attracts a lot of postings about the BNP - I believe at least one of our 'anti-BNP' people on here uses that Forum as well. This came up when I was doing my statistics - it does seem that the BNP don't really need an online recruiting sergeant when threads about them are bought to the attention of 'passers by' by their opponents.

That’s from the whole site? 2% from the entire site? Mainly they are posted in this forum, and you guys tend to be pretty strict about the correct forum. They (threads about minority crimes not being investigated, threads about veils etc) generally should be posted in this forum. I think BNP type threads, the kind created by the 6 or so clear BNP information people, take up far more than 2% of this forum. The site is huge and has many specialist forums, and i am sure when you take the entire site it would be 2%. But the BNP have little reason to post in the Entertainment forum or the Fun and Games forum.

I have noticed that twice today you have blamed the detractors of the BNP for adding to threads that were dying, and you even said critics of the ideas behind the BNP (PC Brigade which I have also seen you say doesn't exists) was pushing people towards it (2 people you knew even). Joe I just don’t agree. And if those two friends of yours went the BNP route because of critisism of racist policies, then something is very wrong.. but people should still speak up about things they disagree with. I dont get your view that shutting up and not questioning is the best route. If people are so fickle to do that, to join an extream party as a backlash to the PC Brigade, then let them, the clearly have some underlying issues. I think blaming the detractors of the BNP for the BNP's success is claptrap, and the defense of letting them say what they want in free speech but banning people who legitimately remind people what Roy has said on this forum is biased. And of all the moderators you are the most BNP friendly (i do think the forum should have a range of mods, crossing all the spectrum), as I think your two comments i mentioned above show, why were you tasked with finding out those stats? Why wasn't it one of the more objective mods? Please understand i am not accusing you of anything joe, but in the interests of seeming fair there are mods who have bene less active defending the BNP's rights to say what they want.

And i think you would have to be naive to think that the BNP are putting less effort in to this forum than others. Look at the sites they post exactly the same material and i believe you will find they are far more active here than any other forum. And thats understandable, as this forum has so many members, which also menas there is so much responsibility to moderate, i do understand the problems you have and how hard it is. In my view we have 3 or 4 hard core BNP activist posting here. Then we have a few more supporters, and then at least two people who post who are being dishonest about their affiliation with the BNP. I have not seen a more active BNP membership on a forum outside the BNP forum and they are nearly as active here.

You guys have a tough job, it’s hard. I have seen your moderation change and i have noticed recently you have cracked down on talk that could be incitement. And i have seen that word used by mods. So i think you also understand there is a problem, and by you taking so much time to total the number of BNP threads you must be looking in to it. But i would certainly question the 2% stat; i think it’s meaningless if it’s the entire site. And how did you categories these threads? Just if Roy or VAPD started it? Or did you include the "veil" or "blood in the streets" threads? To me it seems like 15%+ on this (the genral forum, the correct forum for Veil or "England is going to pot", or the many reverse racism or free speech threads) forum, i may be wrong but i don't believe i am that far out and that’s not representative.

But the main issue i have personally is that a personal attack on a named member is a clear banning offence, and it should be, but a clear and unsubstantiated attack on a race, religion or creed is accepted. And they happen almost every day, from the same people under the same guise and sometimes with violent pre-texts ("streets of blood"). Its ok to spread disinformation if it's for a large group, but even if you say something true (or not) about an individual you can and will be banned? I will never understand that. And i can point to several entities where a group has been baselessly slandered and no banning has occurred.

I fully expect this to be deleted and banned, but it had to be said. And i think the forum deserves some transparency on the 2% stat, because i dont think it represents the reality of the situation. Sorry Joe i just dont buy it.

What mistakes were they Roy, just so that they're not glossed over.

:D Just what I was curious about. Thanks for asking the question, I can't bring myself to engage with fascists on a public setting personally. As entertaining as it can be.

Of course he made mistakes and I wont gloss over them,BUT in the beginning he made the germans feel valued again,something this counrty is missing right now.

I'm sure they did felt very valued until they felt homeless or dead.

The extremes of politics always require someone to blame for all the countries troubles. The nazis main target was the jews while the BNP blame 'pakis'.
They both have the same stupid and destructive 'white race' ideals that have been proven so wrong time and time again.

I agree that many of the nazi policies of getting people into work and being proud of themselves and their country were good ideas that could have worked well if handled in a better way.
I have many quite right wing feeling towards crime and would love to see a return to pride in what we do and higher moral and ethical values but not so stupid as the nazis were in putting all the blame on any one group.

White supremicy is a joke mate.
People may well be placed apart by many things including the level of education they have and he social conditions that they live in but it's got bugger all to do with what colour their skin is or by what name they call god.

Many people in Thailand thing that all British men like to use prositutes, get drunk and be sick on the carpet.
These hotel workers see it all the time and think we are all drunken sex pervs.
Problem is they are right as far as the British they see go.

Many Chinese in this country see p****d up English guys that just want to fight and mess up the shop. Many of them think that most English are inebriated idiots.
Problem is they are right as far as the English they see go

Makes you proud to be part of the superior white race eh ?

Downtroad - I just counted the posts, and yes, across the whole Forum. I admitted that. I'm not lying or hiding anything - that's how I did the sums on both occasions.

We apply the rules here pretty rigourously - the few BNP supporters on here have probably been banned more than any other people on here. If posts are racist we will pull them - as we did with a post from one user last night who has been banned for a month.

I'm sorry you think I'm 'BNP Friendly' - I actually try and give all oints of view a fair shot - if you're suggesting that I'm some sort of BNP sympathiser, then I suggest that you apologise because I would take that as a libel. By the way, I wasn't 'tasked' with it. It was something I genuinely wanted to do because I was curious myself. Again, if you're accusing me of falsifying the information, an apology would be nice. I have been VERY open as to how the figures were arrived at.

Why should I remove the post and ban you - it's your view, you're welcome to it. I was transparent about how I did the calculations 3 or 4 months ago, and I've been transparent about how I did it tonight.

As I said - a BNP megathred that accumulates all BNP posts (don't forget, that's what the issue was), that accumulates 440 posts over 2 months. A Forum as a whole that accumulates about 120,000 posts over the same time.

The percentages would be different if I did teh sums on prticular parts of the Forum, over particular timescales - that's bloody obvious. I've not denied otherwise.

The main issue is that we give people of all political persuasions space to talk in. We have banned racists, BNP supporters and other posters who breach the Law on racial or religious hatred, or post offensively on here, quite regularly and for periods of time between a few days and 6 months. What we will NOT do is ban people based on what they post IF they stay within the law and are not offensve or abusive.

That would be censorship - we're not willing to do that unless a post breaches the law or our rules.

With reference to downtroad's post above:

(1) I don't think there is evidence to support the view that a small group of activist people is responsible for all the immigration/Islam etc related threads. My impression is that quite a wide circle of people initiate and contribute to such threads.

(2) When such threads do commence their popularity is sustained by the pro and anti discussions which then ensue. A thread cannot thrive for any length of time on the basis of a one-sided posting of views.

(2) When such threads do commence their popularity is sustained by the pro and anti discussions which then ensue. A thread cannot thrive for any length of time on the basis of a one-sided posting of views.

I agree and wait for Roy or someone else in the BNP to point out what mistakes Hitler made - just so that they're not glossed over.

I'm sorry you think I'm 'BNP Friendly' - I actually try and give all oints of view a fair shot - if you're suggesting that I'm some sort of BNP sympathiser, then I suggest that you apologise because I would take that as a libel.



I am not saying you are not as fair as any other mod, sympathizer is not something i was saying, but the quick jump to libel (which you would have to prove i did you harm, economically or otherwise) is very threatening and quite without merit or requirement. It would be quiet hard to prove i did you any harm, and certainly at this stage. When making threats make sure they are realistic.


Why should I remove the post and ban you - it's your view, you're welcome to it. I was transparent about how I did the calculations 3 or 4 months ago, and I've been transparent about how I did it tonight.

As I said - a BNP megathred that accumulates all BNP posts (don't forget, that's what the issue was), that accumulates 440 posts over 2 months. A Forum as a whole that accumulates about 120,000 posts over the same time.

The percentages would be different if I did teh sums on prticular parts of the Forum, over particular timescales - that's bloody obvious. I've not denied otherwise.

The main issue is that we give people of all political persuasions space to talk in. We have banned racists, BNP supporters and other posters who breach the Law on racial or religious hatred, or post offensively on here, quite regularly and for periods of time between a few days and 6 months. What we will NOT do is ban people based on what they post IF they stay within the law and are not offensve or abusive.

That would be censorship - we're not willing to do that unless a post breaches the law or our rules.

Happy to hear all this :) I am not sure that has been fully inforced, but its good policy. Still about that transparency? What other methods apart from the entire forum did you use?

That’s from the whole site? 2% from the entire site? Mainly they are posted in this forum, and you guys tend to be pretty strict about the correct forum. They (threads about minority crimes not being investigated, threads about veils etc) generally should be posted in this forum. I think BNP type threads, the kind created by the 6 or so clear BNP information people, take up far more than 2% of this forum. The site is huge and has many specialist forums, and i am sure when you take the entire site it would be 2%. But the BNP have little reason to post in the Entertainment forum or the Fun and Games forum.

I have noticed that twice today you have blamed the detractors of the BNP for adding to threads that were dying, and you even said critics of the ideas behind the BNP (PC Brigade which I have also seen you say doesn't exists) was pushing people towards it (2 people you knew even). Joe I just don’t agree. And if those two friends of yours went the BNP route because of critisism of racist policies, then something is very wrong.. but people should still speak up about things they disagree with. I dont get your view that shutting up and not questioning is the best route. If people are so fickle to do that, to join an extream party as a backlash to the PC Brigade, then let them, the clearly have some underlying issues. I think blaming the detractors of the BNP for the BNP's success is claptrap, and the defense of letting them say what they want in free speech but banning people who legitimately remind people what Roy has said on this forum is biased. And of all the moderators you are the most BNP friendly (i do think the forum should have a range of mods, crossing all the spectrum), as I think your two comments i mentioned above show, why were you tasked with finding out those stats? Why wasn't it one of the more objective mods? Please understand i am not accusing you of anything joe, but in the interests of seeming fair there are mods who have bene less active defending the BNP's rights to say what they want.

And i think you would have to be naive to think that the BNP are putting less effort in to this forum than others. Look at the sites they post exactly the same material and i believe you will find they are far more active here than any other forum. And thats understandable, as this forum has so many members, which also menas there is so much responsibility to moderate, i do understand the problems you have and how hard it is. In my view we have 3 or 4 hard core BNP activist posting here. Then we have a few more supporters, and then at least two people who post who are being dishonest about their affiliation with the BNP. I have not seen a more active BNP membership on a forum outside the BNP forum and they are nearly as active here.

You guys have a tough job, it’s hard. I have seen your moderation change and i have noticed recently you have cracked down on talk that could be incitement. And i have seen that word used by mods. So i think you also understand there is a problem, and by you taking so much time to total the number of BNP threads you must be looking in to it. But i would certainly question the 2% stat; i think it’s meaningless if it’s the entire site. And how did you categories these threads? Just if Roy or VAPD started it? Or did you include the "veil" or "blood in the streets" threads? To me it seems like 15%+ on this (the genral forum, the correct forum for Veil or "England is going to pot", or the many reverse racism or free speech threads) forum, i may be wrong but i don't believe i am that far out and that’s not representative.

But the main issue i have personally is that a personal attack on a named member is a clear banning offence, and it should be, but a clear and unsubstantiated attack on a race, religion or creed is accepted. And they happen almost every day, from the same people under the same guise and sometimes with violent pre-texts ("streets of blood"). Its ok to spread disinformation if it's for a large group, but even if you say something true (or not) about an individual you can and will be banned? I will never understand that. And i can point to several entities where a group has been baselessly slandered and no banning has occurred.

I fully expect this to be deleted and banned, but it had to be said. And i think the forum deserves some transparency on the 2% stat, because i dont think it represents the reality of the situation. Sorry Joe i just dont buy it.

I think you owe Joe an apology for such a personally insulting post.

You're taking advantage of his fairness in making such a post - you know if you said such defamatory things about another forummer, Joe would have no hesitation in removing your post.

StarSparkle

With reference to downtroad's post above:

(1) I don't think there is evidence to support the view that a small group of activist people is responsible for all the immigration/Islam etc related threads. My impression is that quite a wide circle of people initiate and contribute to such threads.


Only one person can initiate a thread.


(2) When such threads do commence their popularity is sustained by the pro and anti discussions which then ensue. A thread cannot thrive for any length of time on the basis of a one-sided posting of views.

I understand that, not sure what point you are making though. Sure popular threads stay open longer than others. But to tell people to be quiet as that only makes the BNP more popular is certainly not something i agree with.

White supremicy is a joke mate.

Supremacy isn't a term I'd use.
However, a little exercise for you, upinwath: pick any (non-white) country you like and tell me its equivalent of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin and Dickens.

I think you owe Joe an apology for such a personally insulting post.

You're taking advantage of his fairness in making such a post - you know if you said such defamatory things about another forummer, Joe would have no hesitation in removing your post.

StarSparkle

I disagree. And i understand you would be one of the people who would be upset by what i posted, and i am sure Roy will also be outraged. But i think the local media should take this up. Because in my mind SF is a BNP recruiting ground, and that has nothing to do with Joe. Please offer examples of where i was unfair and give me the opertunity to respond. That would be fair.

Downtroad - many people on SF know my real name, and quite a few people on here know me face to face. I'm proud of my words and chose from the beginnng of my time on here to not hide behind a 'nom de plume'.

I think it quite likely that people who know me would hold me in a lower esteem were they to believe me to be a BNP supporter or apologist - that would certainly be grounds for libel, even if you didn't mean to defame me. I'm not making a threat - I'm just suggesting that an apology would be nice.

I've been very transparent about post counts. I told you tonight EXACTLY what I did - I can't be more transparent than that.

As for earlier in the year, can't remmeber, but I posted up then EXACTLY what I did to calculate the figures.

Again, I was transparent then, have been transparent now.

As for enforcing the rules - if you see a post that you feel we've missed, report it. We will apply the rules (as listed in the FAQs) and the Laws of England, and determine whether or not it needs removing.

[QUOTE= purdyamos]

But the latter is exactly what happens. It has happened to me two or three times in the last week, once when someone claimed that nine out of ten people who critisised Islamic ideology was a racist. Someone else's only answer when I happened to disagree with him on something was to just accuse me of having 'right wing tendencies'. When I told someone I thought communism was as evil as faschism, they called me not normal and invoked my mental health problems. Nice, huh? I'm tired of supposed anti-bigotry campaigners being rigid with prejudice themselves, of being blinkered and dogmatic and unable to see how hypocritical they are.

Political Correctness absolutely exists. I have had the misfortune to meet countless teachers, mental health workers, social workers, students, council workers and so on who have had their capacity for free thinking erased by the dogma that Zamo refers to. (I do think that he was wrong to make reference to a 'PC Brigade' as that was obviously going to deflect the debate away from his main point.) I've had my own life stymied by being at the mercy of people of that cultural mindset. I've been damned many times for daring to have an open mind and not being cowed by taboos, for not talking according to a script, for wanting to discuss prickly issues rather than turn a blind eye. The liberal left has got a disease, the effect of which has been 'wholly counterproductive' to the values they claim to have.




What the hell are you talking about?


I don't doubt political correctness exists, but the term is all too frequently used on this forum to describe anyone who does not hold with certain right wing dogmas.

Many people who frequently post about the 'pc brigade' have descredited their own arguments by changing the meaning of the phrase.

I believe it originally refered to a small clique of left wing and liberal professionals who seek to curb free speech by attempting to brand those who do not agree with their views on certain issues as racists or sexists etc.

However, what is meant by a lot of people on Sheffield Forum when they use the term 'pc brigade,' is anyone who's views differ from those of the Daily Mail.

I disagree. And i understand you would be one of the people who would be upset by what i posted, and i am sure Roy will also be outraged. But i think the local media should take this up. Because in my mind SF is a BNP recruiting ground, and that has nothing to do with Joe. Please offer examples of where i was unfair and give me the opertunity to respond. That would be fair.

If you wish to take this up with the local media, abut SF being a BNP recruiting ground, I suggest you marshall your evidence and contact the site owner directly.

His email address is geoff-[@]-sheffieldforum.co.uk.

He deals with all legal and media affairs. Again, I hope that there's no suggestion that the Admin Team are allowing the BNP to recruit through this site - that's not the case and again we'd take great exception to that. And such allegations would be seen as potentially damaging to the site.

So....can I suggest that you dig out the threads that provide the evidence and contact Geoff with them directly.

I disagree. And i understand you would be one of the people who would be upset by what i posted, and i am sure Roy will also be outraged. But i think the local media should take this up. Because in my mind SF is a BNP recruiting ground, and that has nothing to do with Joe.

So you're defaming me now?

You're talking exactly the sort of crap I was deriding this afternoon on another thread on here - the tendency of the politically correct to label as a 'fascist' or a 'racist' anyone whose views differ minutely from the line laid down by the PC police. It's really getting tiresome on here, all these silly attempts by the right-on crowd to smear everyone who dares speak out against their orthodoxy as politically suspect, being secret BNP supporters and similar crap.

As a matter of fact, I am, and have for many years, been a staunch Socialist, but one who happens to believe in free speech, something that is becoming quite rare amongst left-wingers in this country.

If you were a person of any decency, you would apologise to both me and Joe over your attempted defamations.

StarSparkle

Downtroad - many people on SF know my real name, and quite a few people on here know me face to face. I'm proud of my words and chose from the beginnng of my time on here to not hide behind a 'nom de plume'.

I think it quite likely that people who know me would hold me in a lower esteem were they to believe me to be a BNP supporter or apologist - that would certainly be grounds for libel, even if you didn't mean to defame me. I'm not making a threat - I'm just suggesting that an apology would be nice.

I've been very transparent about post counts. I told you tonight EXACTLY what I did - I can't be more transparent than that.

As for earlier in the year, can't remmeber, but I posted up then EXACTLY what I did to calculate the figures.

Again, I was transparent then, have been transparent now.

As for enforcing the rules - if you see a post that you feel we've missed, report it. We will apply the rules (as listed in the FAQs) and the Laws of England, and determine whether or not it needs removing.

Once again i didn't say you were a member supporter etc, i said you were more friendly than other mods. If i had accused you of more than that i would appologies, i did not, so i will not.

And the only reason i question is because i see a whole lot of threads on a daily basis for the BNP and many active BNP members here and being told its only 2% of threads.. in all forums including forums the BNP could not post in. Why do you think they are here? Can you show me another forum where ther are spending so much time? I have looked and cannot seem to find one.

I really am not attacking you personally, i think mods should be from across the spectrum. And do not beleive you are an apologist. But i do think that when many people have rasied issues, it would be just the smartest thing to do, to let somebody compile that stats that is more detached from these debates. No more, no less.

But your reaction?

So you're defaming me now?

You're talking exactly the sort of crap I was deriding this afternoon on another thread on here - the tendency of the politically correct to label as a 'fascist' or a 'racist' anyone whose views differ minutely from the line laid down by the PC police. It's really getting tiresome on here, all these silly attempts by the right-on crowd to smear everyone who dares speak out against their orthodoxy as politically suspect, being secret BNP supporters and similar crap.

As a matter of fact, I am, and have for many years, been a staunch Socialist, but one who happens to believe in free speech, something that is becoming quite rare amongst left-wingers in this country.

If you were a person of any decency, you would apologise to both me and Joe over your attempted defamations.

StarSparkle

WOW you read a whole lot in to very little. I just said i would expect you to be outraged, why is that defaming? (another legal term.. how many mre threats will i get in this thread?) You generally are supportive of the threads i am talking about.

...This is just a observation and as I said earlier I am new to SF and would just like to see more of a contribution on SF to other topics. ...
Irrespective of statistical analysis of the forum's subject matter, the point is that new forumers have noticed and commented upon the BNP threads and extreme right-wing views expressed by some forum members. I wonder how many potential SF members have been put off joining by such extremism?

I believe someone commented a little while ago that the BNP instructed their members to use the country's internet fora to 'spread the word'. From the number of news articles posted by certain members all in a similar vein, it's apparent that SF might be being used for this purpose.

WOW you read a whole lot in to very little. I just said i would expect you to be outraged, why is that defaming? (another legal term.. how many mre threats will i get in this thread?)

You were obviously trying to imply I am some sort of BNP supporter, which I find grossly offensive personally, and defaming to my good name on here.

An apology from you would be appropriate.

StarSparkle

Supremacy isn't a term I'd use.
However, a little exercise for you, upinwath: pick any (non-white) country you like and tell me its equivalent of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin and Dickens.

Pick any white country that had cities and a system of law and writing 4000 years ago.

http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/kids/archive/theme_china.html
Chinese civilisation started around 11,000 years ago. Early China was ruled by emperors from different "dynasties", or royal families, and the people of Ancient China invented and discovered many things. It is the oldest civilisation that still exists, and Chinese people still celebrate many old traditions and festivals.


Shakespeare/Dickens - try this (http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/people/poets/index.htm) and this (http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/people/fiction-writers/index.htm)
Newton/Darwin - try this (http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/people/scientists-engineers/index.htm)

Try this page and see how many white races invented many of the things that we still use today.
http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/words/Activities/ancientdr.html
Oh my god - none of them.

The fact you may not understand them or that you choose to ignore them to confirm your stupid 'white is right' ideas does not mean that china and other ancient races did not have all the things you are so proud of but did so while we were still hanging about in caves hitting each other over the head with bits of wood and shouting "ug".

We didn't manage much until after the 12th century so I wonder how you explain that little lot.
Unless you think the lefty PC brigade made it up.

It's so easy to counter racist bull that it makes me wonder why anyone is fooled by this rubbish.

You were obviously trying to imply I am some sort of BNP supporter, which I find grossly offensive personally, and defaming to my good name on here.

An apology from you would be appropriate.

StarSparkle

I am glad you say its offensive to be accused of being a BNP supporter. :)

And i wasn't really saying that, i was just saying that usually you support the BNP line of racial/immigration or blood in the streets questioning. As to if you are a supporter, i would not know. I only see what you write on this forum.

Once again to prove defamation you would have to show i actually did your good name harm. So please drop the legal terms.

Once again i didn't say you were a member supporter etc, i said you were more friendly than other mods. If i had accused you of more than that i would appologies, i did not, so i will not.

And the only reason i question is because i see a whole lot of threads on a daily basis for the BNP and many active BNP members here. Why do you think they are here? Can you show me another forum where ther are spending so much time? I have looked and cannot seem to find one.

I really am not attacking you personally, i think mods should be from across the spectrum. And do not beleive you are an apologist. But i do think that when many people have rasied issues, that it would be just the smartes thing to do, is let somebody compile that stats that is more detached from these debates. No more, no less.

We don't actually have to compile any stats at all. However, after soem furtling through the archives, I found teh following from June :



There have been several posts on various threads suggesting that when you do such searches, Sheffield Forum always comes out to be heavily associated with the BNP. This is one of those things that irritates the Hell out of me, because it is wrong, pure and simple.

Your post simply triggered me to do some research, starting on Google, and now with post counts on here.

So, taking a look at the three BNP related threads at the moment :

BNP Meggathread - started 3rd March, 1744 posts.
Ban BNP users - started 5th June, 95 posts
UAF thread - started 4th June, 156 posts

So, here are some numbers. I have some statistics on post counts from 1st April, so I'll use those. These counts are the total posts on the public Forums made to SF from 1st April.

BNP Megathread. 1744 posts from 3rd March, 146,430 Net total of posts from 1st April. A quick percentage calculation, which will OVERSTATE the BNP threads proportion of total posts gives us : 1.2% of total posts.

Ban BNP Users. 95 posts on this thread, 9257 Net total of posts since 00:01hrs 5th June. 1% of total posts in the period 5th June to present.

UAF Thread. 156 posts on this thread, 11472 net total of posts since 00:01 hrs on 4th June. 1.3% of total posts in the period 4th June to present.

From 1st April, a percentage of (156 + 95 + 1744) / 146,430 posts are related to the Megathread or the two most recent active BNP / UAF threads. A total of 1.36% of posts on SF since 1st April have had anything to do at all with the BNP. This isn't totally accurate, - the BNP Megathread pre-dates the available post counts, so I think this is overstating the case.

Which means that 98.64% of posts on SF are nothing to do with the BNP, Banning the BNP or the UAF, over a period that has included an election in which the BNP featured high in the headlines.




Now, that's EXACTLY what I posted in June. A total breakdown of the steps I took to derive the figures. No one pulled me on my methodology - but I was TOTALLY open with what I'd done. I fail to see where I'm NOT being transparent here.

As for other Forums with BNP threads, take a look at :

http://www.oxfordshireforums.co.uk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=34381

I'm sure that a little time with Google will find more. SF is one of the most popular 'general' Forums in the area, probably in the UK, and so it's inevitable that we attract people. However, we have a policy - that is applied - of removing overtly political BNP 'party political' material. We permit the discussion of their policies so that (as usually happens) members can pick them apart - just as happens with the policies of other parties.

As for BNP members on here - yup, I think there are either one or two that we know of. Just like we have Labour Party Members and Councillors, Tories, Liberal Democrats, Greens, UKIP, whatever. The BNP is still alegal poltical party in the UK.

As for 'many people raising issues' - this has been the second time in 3 or 4 months that this issue has been raised. You say you're not making this a personal issue against me; good. However, if you are levelling these accusations at the Forum, I would prefer it if you made them direct to Geoff, especially as you are mentioing contacting the media etc.

Irrespective of statistical analysis of the forum's subject matter, the point is that new forumers have noticed and commented upon the BNP threads and extreme right-wing views expressed by some forum members. I wonder how many potential SF members have been put off joining by such extremism?

I believe someone commented a little while ago that the BNP instructed their members to use the country's internet fora to 'spread the word'. From the number of news articles posted by certain members all in a similar vein, it's apparent that SF might be being used for this purpose.

Not just new ones either, old ones, many wo are not here anymore due to a percieved (on their part) bias towards BNP rhetoric. If you look at some of the big BNP threads you will see people taking part that are no longer around, some because they got banned so many times, some because they felt it not worth while. I think that when you have a persistant BNP presence and people leaving the anti-BNP debate left right and center maybe this should be looked at by the forum owner in a objective and transparent way.

I am glad you say its offensive to be accused of being a BNP supporter. :)

And i wasn't really saying that, i was just saying that usually you support the BNP line of racial/immigration or blood in the streets questioning. As to if you are a supporter, i would not know. I only see what you write on this forum.

Once again to prove defamation you would have to show i actually did your good name harm. So please drop the legal terms.

How dare you - now that IS libel.

I challenge you to produce a thread where I have said any such thing.

As a graduate in politics, I am naturally interested in political threads on here - I am a thinking person and I formulate my own ideas about what is going on in the world, and I speak as I find. I have NEVER supported anything the BNP has said, and I am absolutely outraged that you've suggested such a thing.

StarSparkle

Not just new ones either, old ones, many wo are not here anymore due to a percieved (on their part) bias towards BNP rhetoric. If you look at some of the big BNP threads you will see people taking part that are no longer around, some because they got banned so many times, some because they felt it not worth while.

Oddly enough we get people leaving SF and telling us it's because the place has become too left wing, too serious, too flippant - recently it was too religious. Basically, I guess you can't please all the pople, all the time.

Quite a few posters on the older BNP threads HAVE been banned - that's what we do to people who are offensive or racist - we ban them or make it uncomfortable for them to be here.

That's what we've said we do, that's what we do do. Sounds like we're getting something right.

If people perceive that there are too many threads about issues they feel pander to the Far Right, then why don't those people kick off threads to counter them? Debating politics is something that should be possible without name calling and taking your ball home when people say things that you find disagreeable.

Not just new ones either, old ones, many wo are not here anymore due to a percieved (on their part) bias towards BNP rhetoric. If you look at some of the big BNP threads you will see people taking part that are no longer around, some because they got banned so many times, some because they felt it not worth while.
Oh I know the established forum members have noticed. I only commented on the fact that a new member had raised the subject because it's an issue I mentioned some months ago in a similar context, and it struck a chord with me.

I must add that in the majority of cases, extremism is countered with reasoned debate, and the more outrageous of Daily Mail clippings are knocked back for the drivel they are. It just seems to me that SF is being used, and it's to its detriment.

Oddly enough we get people leaving SF and telling us it's because the place has become too left wing, too serious, too flippant - recently it was too religious. Basically, I guess you can't please all the pople, all the time.

Quite a few posters on the older BNP threads HAVE been banned - that's what we do to people who are offensive or racist - we ban them or make it uncomfortable for them to be here.

That's what we've said we do, that's what we do do. Sounds like we're getting something right.


You are getting many things right Joe, please do not see this as a blanket critisism. It's not. You have a hard job and get many things right even in my mind.


If people perceive that there are too many threads about issues they feel pander to the Far Right, then why don't those people kick off threads to counter them? Debating politics is something that should be possible without name calling and taking your ball home when people say things that you find disagreeable.

I just do not think these threads are representative of Sheffield or England. Polling for the BNP shows that in my mind, if we had an updated figure more correct than the 2%. It's not about what i feel is disagreeable. It's about being representative and fair. SF is private so it has no reason to be fair, but i would expect it would like to be representaive. You must know you have a much more vocal BNP segment than is usuall for a forum like this?

Oh I know the established forum members have noticed. I only commented on the fact that a new member had raised the subject because it's an issue I mentioned some months ago in a similar context, and it struck a chord with me.

I must add that in the majority of cases, extremism is countered with reasoned debate, and the more outrageous of Daily Mail clippings are knocked back for the drivel they are. It just seems to me that SF is being used, and it's to its detriment.

But we are being told this issue does not exist, it must me in our minds? I agree do not ban people reminding others of post in threads made by members, when its valid to the debate.

I do not beleive its inherant to SF, as you said SF is being used as a tool of extreamists.

Also people threatening me with legal action should just do it. I have been threatened by people in the BNP and outside, with all sorts of things, but non have gone through with it. Bullies are like that. I have given SF the right (and continue to) to give out my details to the lawyers of people making these threats and that offer still stands to anybody feeling i have misrepresented them. It always comes from people wanting to silence debate and they are always empty threats.

You are getting many things right Joe, please do not see this as a blanket critisism. It's not. You have a hard job and get many things right even in my mind.



I just do not think these threads are representative of Sheffield or England. Polling for the BNP shows that in my mind, if we had an updated figure more correct than the 2%. It's not about what i feel is disagreeable. It's about being representative and fair. SF is private so it has no reason to be fair, but i would expect it would like to be representaive. You must know you have a much more vocal BNP segment than is usuall for a forum like this?

Funnily enough, we don't compare the demographic of our users with the demographic of Sheffield or the rest of the country.

We CANNOT be representative of the views of the people of Sheffield or UK as a whole because the online representation of different social groups is not reflective of the make up of society as a whole.

These threads are almost certainly not representative of Sheffield or the UK - AGAIN, we NEVER claim they are - we're not a polling organisation. The threads on here represent views posted by members of the Forum who can be arsed to post - nothing more, nothing less.

If people have different views they feel strongly about, then the answer is clear, I think. POST! The only other option is that we withdraw posts from here purely because the posters represent a particular political party. That would be censorship - the problem with that is were do we stop? BNP now, but where next?

To me the best approach is to fight post with post; to put idea against idea; to debate issues, not personalities. To discuss policies, not scream at each other with labels.

If people can't be bothered to post their views in opposition to something they find disagreeable, then that's their tough luck.

Apathy is not a reason for censorship.

Underlying this is a kind of ideological totalitarianism, or liberal bigotry, in which a particular view of the world is deemed by its adherents to be beyond criticism (and dissident voices to be beyond the pale of legitimate discourse). It is usually justified on the grounds that expression of certain thoughts or words is damaging to social cohesion and order. These values are deemed to be paramount over the values of freedom of expression, whenever there is a conflict between the two.




You are right, but this is not a new phenomenon. During the Thatcher years - for example - holders of certain left wing ideologies were dubbed as 'paid by Moscow,' or anarchists intent on reducing the country to mayhem.

During WW1, those who did not wish to die in the trenches were held in the common conciousness as 'cowards.'

Every era has it's 'truths', which only the brave dare contradict. In fact, it is probably safer to challenge the establishment's dogmas now than at any other time in history.

The right wing are traditionally accustomed to setting the tone of the nation's commonly held misconceptions. Today's sacred cows of ideology are more left leaning. As a result, many people are for the first time, begining to notice that partisan ideas can be accepted as inalienable truths by large sections of society and the media.

Also people threatening me with legal action should just do it. I have been threatened by people in the BNP and outside,

I wonder if the amount of threats that you have had reflects the possibility that you may be p*****g people off in one way or another.

Just wondered. :)

Also people threatening me with legal action should just do it. I have been threatened by people in the BNP and outside, with all sorts of things, but non have gone through with it. Bullies are like that. I have given SF the right (and continue to) to give out my details to the lawyers of people making these threats and that offer still stands to anybody feeling i have misrepresented them. It always comes from people wanting to silence debate and they are always empty threats.

No-has threatened you with legal action, and I don't see anyone bullying you here.

As for silencing debate - I could have closed this thread hours ago but I didn't, despite your initial comments. I believe wholeheartedly in supporting debate from all sides. I often disagree with what gets posted here, but regard my responsibility to SF as keeping it as open to as many different opinions as possible as I can.

Funnily enough, we don't compare the demographic of our users with the demographic of Sheffield or the rest of the country.

We CANNOT be representative of the views of the people of Sheffield or UK as a whole because the online representation of different social groups is not reflective of the make up of society as a whole.

These threads are almost certainly not representative of Sheffield or the UK - AGAIN, we NEVER claim they are - we're not a polling organisation. The threads on here represent views posted by members of the Forum who can be arsed to post - nothing more, nothing less.

If people have different views they feel strongly about, then the answer is clear, I think. POST! The only other option is that we withdraw posts from here purely because the posters represent a particular political party. That would be censorship - the problem with that is were do we stop? BNP now, but where next?

To me the best approach is to fight post with post; to put idea against idea; to debate issues, not personalities. To discuss policies, not scream at each other with labels.

If people can't be bothered to post their views in opposition to something they find disagreeable, then that's their tough luck.

Apathy is not a reason for censorship.

Ahh so once again it's the sane people who do not stand up against the BNP that are to blame? For not posting more? But you said in a post on the first page people are being pushed towards the BNP by posting PC brigade stuff? You personally have banned (and removed posts) people reminding users what Roys lady said on this forum. She said it here Joe, and if she didn't mean it why say it in the public domain?

I am not talking about censorship joe, in a way i am (see last paragraph) i am talking about realizing you (SF) are a tool and keeping the playing field level. Some people against racism have felt they have been pushed away by SF, is that fair and balanced? WHen the BNP members clearly do not feel like they should leave?

I would like to remind you, that you are but one mod and you do not speak for all.

...If people can't be bothered to post their views in opposition to something they find disagreeable, then that's their tough luck.

Apathy is not a reason for censorship.
I don't think that in many cases the reason is apathy. Maybe intimidation has something to do with it. Perhaps some don't have the confidence to counter much of the - admitedly skillfully composed - extremist rhetoric posted on here.

Perhaps also some otherwise vocal members have simply been worn down by responding to post after post of cut-and-paste stuff, and by clicking on the links to yet another Daily Mail article, only for another crop to appear Medusa-like the following day. Perhaps that counts as apathy, though.

Ahh so once again it's the sane people who do not stand up against the BNP that are to blame? For not posting more? But you said in a post on the first page people are being pushed towards the BNP by posting PC brigade stuff? You personally have banned (and removed posts) people reminding users what Roys lady said on this forum. She said it here Joe, and if she didn't mean it why say it in the public domain?

I am not talking about censorship joe, in a way i am (see last paragraph) i am talking about realizing you (SF) are a tool and keeping the playing field level. Some people against racism have felt they have been pushed away by SF, is that fair and balanced? WHen the BNP members clearly do not feel like they should leave?

Again you have not answered if you feel the BNP are more active here (than other boards) and why?

Yes, I did that. Again, it's public record that I've done it - after she was banned and couldn't come back on it. Banned for one of the longest bans we ever applied.

If people leave here, that is their concern - if we banned people because their rpesence upset other users, then again - where do we stop? Who do we listen to to determine who to ban?

As for the BNP being more active here than on other boards - I commented above about the board down in Oxfordshire that has it's own rather large BNP thread, and also stated above that as I don't know the demographics of our users I don't know whether the posts on BNP threads represent the population or not.

And I have no idea about other Forums - I just look after this place. And if they are active here, and if they break the rules or the Law, they'll be removed. And if they stick within the rules and the Law, they won't be. And if you see posts that you regard as in breach of the rules of SF and the Law, then report them.

We don't stop people posting against the BNP on here - I think the arguments presented here have frequenty demolished the BNP arguments more effectively than censorship would.

We've also seen off a lot of BNP supporters who tried 'bussing in' here last year - they found it a hard place to do business and went away.

It's clear that we will never agree. I don't particularly mind how you regard me - I do the job on SF I was put here to do. And that is not censoring posts or removing posters because they support a political party, still legal in the UK, no matter how personally objectionable I find their policies.

I have a job to go to in the morning - I'm off to bed. As I said, and to summarise :

If you have issues about the editorial policy of SF, or feel that the Moderating team are biased, then please contact Geoff directly - I gave his email address above.

We're aware of the concerns of users about the BNP, but we are not going to be conducting a 'no platform' policy for BNP supporters whilst their party is legal and their actions on here adhere to the laws of the land and the rules of this Forum.

And I KNOW I'm only one moderator - I don't claim to speak for all my colleagues, but as we all wrk to the same rules, guidelines and Laws of England there's very little difference between how the Mods act on these issues - we are here to apply the rules and the Law - that's all.

I'm not going to continue this debate tomorrow - there's little point as we will simply not agree.

I don't think that in many cases the reason is apathy. Maybe intimidation has something to do with it. Perhaps some don't have the confidence to counter much of the - admitedly skillfully composed - extremist rhetoric posted on here.

Perhaps also some otherwise vocal members have simply been worn down by responding to post after post of cut-and-paste stuff, and by clicking on the links to yet another Daily Mail article, only for another crop to appear Medusa-like the following day. Perhaps that counts as apathy, though.

Not to mention the aggressive and derogatory language - 'lefties, do gooders,' 'pc brigade' - which is widely used in place of proper argument by a large clique on the Forum, in order to tar anyone who might disagree with them.

Here's an example: ''If you do not like/understand the term then please assume the term PC Brigade to mean people like you. '' (From the op of this thread)

Not to mention the aggressive and derogatory language - 'lefties, do gooders,' 'pc brigade' - which is widely used in place of proper argument by a large clique on the Forum, in order to tar anyone who might disagree with them.

Here's an example: ''If you do not like/understand the term then please assume the term PC Brigade to mean people like you. '' (From the op of this thread)
Donkey... chill!!!

You miss the irony of the definition but never mind. I had hoped that injecting a little humour may allow for a discussion on the subject raised and not about the rights or wrongs of the term "PC Brigade". For the purpose of the poll it is actually irrelevant whether or not you agree there is such thing or what it might encompass. I just wanted to find out if people were considering voting for the BNP because of what they regarded as over-zealous policing of political correct ideas by the "PC Brigade".

Anyway, whilst you have all got your knickers in a twist over the "aggressive and derogatory" PC Brigade slur (apparently far worse than calling someone a racist) the less vocal have being voting. OK so its not a big enough poll to have any serious significance but it does give an indication for how people feel.

If we exclude the outlyers (those that vote BNP anyway or were honest enough to admit they are probably PC Brigade) then 45% of people have at least considered voting BNP in protest at what they see as a bullying PC culture. That is potentially a lot of people.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that this because these people are ignorant, uneducated, unintelligent, inarticulate, Daily Mail and tabloid reading fools (as has been done). However, by doing this you only reinforce the feeling people have that they are not permitted a voice. It adds to the resentment and frustration, makes a vote for BNP more likely and increases the chance that debate could be replaced by violent protest.

Something for the PC Brigade to think about whilst they read their Guardian or SWP paper. ;)

Hardly a balanced poll is it. Excluding the two outlying results, you've left two Yes options and only one No option.

You can word a poll to achieve whatever results you like at the end of the day.

Hardly a balanced poll is it. Excluding the two outlying results, you've left two Yes options and only one No option.

You can word a poll to achieve whatever results you like at the end of the day.

I think it is a fair poll, well fairer than most, which takes the form

Would you vote for the BNP?

Definately?
Probably?
Probably not?
Definately not?

Well said Zamo.

The 'pc brigade' are out in force on this thread and as usual the only weapons they are capable of deploying are smears and innuendos about 'ignorance', 'The Daily Mail' and 'racists' in response to anyone who dares to challenge their puerile prejudices. Have you noticed how upset they get when you refer to them as 'pc'? The reason is that they are in the grip of a fixed mindset which allows only one opinion (their own) on certain topics. Anyone who dares to prod at their thick carapaces of self-righteous zealotry on issues such as immigration or multiculturalism can expect to be on the receiving end of the slurs I mentioned above. As exemplified in several posts above, their intention is to shut people up and to prevent discussion on this forum about the issues you raise.

A tactic they have employed on here before (so far without success) is to intimidate the moderators into banning certain types of threads or discussions. The irony is that they often, inadvertantly in some cases, perhaps deliberately in others, give to these threads a longer life than they otherwise would have. I would agree with them though on one thing (although not for the same reasons). The term 'politically correct' is not the right term to describe them as they are seldom correct about any of the issues they discuss. The term 'liberal bigot' is more appropriate and accurate, as that is precisely what they are. :thumbsup:

Hardly a balanced poll is it. Excluding the two outlying results, you've left two Yes options and only one No option.

You can word a poll to achieve whatever results you like at the end of the day.
The answer is either yes or no... so it is perfectly balanced.

The reason for dividing the yes vote was to provide some degree of measure for the extent to which people are peed off by what they view as PC Brigade bullying. It doesn't mean the yes vote has somehow been doubled.

It also makes perfect sense to take out the outlyers i.e. those that would vote BNP anyway (8 votes) or are part of the unofficial PC establishment (thanks to the 2 for being honest).

Indeed, you can load questions to provide a particular answer. I don't think this was a loaded question though. Taking out the outlyers actually watered down the result you imply I was trying to achieve! How would you have made it more balanced?

The fact you may not understand them or that you choose to ignore them to confirm your stupid 'white is right' ideas does not mean that china and other ancient races did not have all the things you are so proud of but did so while we were still hanging about in caves hitting each other over the head with bits of wood and shouting "ug".

Well, OK, but you had to go quite a long way back to find these examples. In fact I'd quite readily acknowledge that far easterners (the Chinese, Japanese etc) are on a par with Europeans: perhaps owing to a similar evolutionary history of surviving ice ages. In IQ tests in western countries people of Chinese descent tend to achieve the highest scores (largely attributed to having a greater numerical ability).

In the last 500 years or so, however, it has been mainly European peoples (and people of European descent) who have made the running in science, the arts, commerce and industry. China is likely to overtake America as the world superpower in a few decades time so there may be more opportunity for Chinese talents to be showcased in the future.

There is another aspect to European civilisation, however: our liberal and tolerant social attitudes (and the free press, fair trials etc). These help to spawn the creative arts, amongst other things. China and Japan, on the other hand, are, to a degree, authoritarian and conformist societies. As one small example of a cultural difference there was a slightly unpleasant story in the news a few weeks ago about body parts of executed criminals being put up for sale in China.

The central fallacy of the multiculturalists, it seems to me, is that one can go on continually diluting the cultures of European countries and the good things about European societies will always remain. Sadly, one day the good things will no longer be there.

Irrespective of statistical analysis of the forum's subject matter, the point is that new forumers have noticed and commented upon the BNP threads and extreme right-wing views expressed by some forum members. I wonder how many potential SF members have been put off joining by such extremism?

I believe someone commented a little while ago that the BNP instructed their members to use the country's internet fora to 'spread the word'. From the number of news articles posted by certain members all in a similar vein, it's apparent that SF might be being used for this purpose.

In answer to your first point, I've noticed that these 'throw your hands up in horror' comments have come from people who have newly joined but have made no attempt to contribute to the threads. As if discussing race relations in this country should be taboo in some way - I would guess by people with a liberal right-on viewpoint who don't want it challenged in any way. A forum is a place for open discussion; they are free to make the choice as to whether that's the sort of environment where they feel comfortable.

The trouble with the BNP megathread is that the majority of it is the same people banging heads in an almost ritualistic fashion. It is the individual issues such as veil wearing or even-handedness of media coverage that can give rest of us the opportunity to engage in a more constructive debate.

Which brings me to your second point, that threads like this one (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=153217) are getting pulled. This inevitably leads to the unhappy situation where threads are judged in terms of who originally posted them rather than what they contain.

The answer is either yes or no... so it is perfectly balanced.

The reason for dividing the yes vote was to provide some degree of measure for the extent to which people are peed off by what they view as PC Brigade bullying. It doesn't mean the yes vote has somehow been doubled.

It also makes perfect sense to take out the outlyers i.e. those that would vote BNP anyway (8 votes) or are part of the unofficial PC establishment (thanks to the 2 for being honest).

Indeed, you can load questions to provide a particular answer. I don't think this was a loaded question though. Taking out the outlyers actually watered down the result you imply I was trying to achieve! How would you have made it more balanced?

It isn't balanced, the wording you have used makes it more likely that someone will vote in one of the yes categories than in a no category.
I wasn't saying that excluding the outliers was wrong, just that it left 2 yes answers and one no answer.

How would I make it more balanced... okay

Do the antics of the PC Brigade ever make you feel like a protest vote for BNP?

I would rephrase this.

Are you likely to (or have ever) cast a vote for the BNP in response to the effects of people being Politically Correct.

And I would rewrite the answers as;

Yes I am likely too or have done.
No I am unlikely too and have not done.
I am unswayed either way, PCness will not affect my vote (whatever it currently is).

Oddly enough we get people leaving SF and telling us it's because the place has become too left wing, too serious, too flippant - recently it was too religious. Basically, I guess you can't please all the pople, all the time.

Quite a few posters on the older BNP threads HAVE been banned - that's what we do to people who are offensive or racist - we ban them or make it uncomfortable for them to be here.

That's what we've said we do, that's what we do do. Sounds like we're getting something right.

If people perceive that there are too many threads about issues they feel pander to the Far Right, then why don't those people kick off threads to counter them? Debating politics is something that should be possible without name calling and taking your ball home when people say things that you find disagreeable.


So Joe you have let the cat out of the bag I see,making people who hold certain views (uncomfortable) thats not right is it.
Why make them uncomfortable? like you say everyone is entitled to their opinion.

As to this site being a BNP friendly place you must be joking:hihi: I have been banned more times than I care to remember and I think on occasions for very little indeed.
Again some on the left would love to see free speech killed off,if that day happens it will be a very sad day for this country.

what cat what bag

people who are offensive or racist - we ban them or make it uncomfortable for them to be here.

Offensive and racists views are against the forum rules, uncomfortable is being rather lax really, they should be booted out so fast that they're gone before they can say SheffieldForum.

what cat what bag


Offensive and racists views are against the forum rules, uncomfortable is being rather lax really, they should be booted out so fast that they're gone before they can say SheffieldForum.

And when they express that racism or offesnsive behaviour in posts they are booted - as most people on here seem to realise.

Again - if you see something you disagree with, report it.

And when they express that racism or offesnsive behaviour in posts they are booted - as most people on here seem to realise.

Again - if you see something you disagree with, report it.

I do.
I was responding to Roys post that you had somehow let a metaphorical cat out of it's metaphorical bag.

what cat what bag


Offensive and racists views are against the forum rules, uncomfortable is being rather lax really, they should be booted out so fast that they're gone before they can say SheffieldForum.

There isn't a publicly available SF working definition for 'racist view', so it isn't clear how the decisions can be reached in a consistant way. As in most things, there are grey areas which can be ignored, handled with a light touch or handled with a big stick. It looks like they've chosen the 'middle way' to me.

If everyone on here who had ever caused offence to anyone else on any subject was banned, there'd only be a handful left.

I would rephrase this.

Are you likely to (or have ever) cast a vote for the BNP in response to the effects of people being Politically Correct.

And I would rewrite the answers as;

Yes I am likely too or have done.
No I am unlikely too and have not done.
I am unswayed either way, PCness will not affect my vote (whatever it currently is).
The negative association with the term "PC Brigade" is key to the poll because it is the consequence of people having a negative opinion of political correctness that I'm trying to measure.

It is also important to have answers that allow you to take out people who are already BNP or part of the (preceived) PC Brigade problem. The idea is to measure the effect on swing voters and not those already with intrenched political views. Swing voters determine the outcome of elections. Dismissing their views and concerns is therefore not smart... something I'm trying to get across.

Hence the 3rd option, PCness is unlikely to affect either a BNP voter or a member of that illusive group "the PC Brigade".

You were interested in teh people who would be affected, all that is required is a simple, yes, no, not affected, as possible answers.

The original question is loaded with negative conotations aimed at 'the pc brigade' who of course are some sort of unidentifiable quasi mystical group who represent all that is bad in excessively trying to enforce equalness on people.

If you challenge someone to identify them or their actions the best they can come up with is baa baa black sheep being temporarily banned by a stupid man in birmingham and councils banning christmas (as reported by the daily mail).

You were interested in teh people who would be affected, all that is required is a simple, yes, no, not affected, as possible answers.



This is simply not true. There is no point in having a survey where you cannot make any meaningful conclusions on the basis of the results. Zamo's survey tells you why people are voting the way they do, your's can't even distinguish between left and right.

I'll grant thet the word 'antics' would be better replaced with 'behaviour' and that ideally there would be a lead up question along the lines of

"Do you believe there is such a group as the 'PCBrigade' operating within SF? If YES go to Q1a, if NO go to Q2."

No-one's claiming to be MORI.

Thanks for all the contributions - this thread seems to have wandered from where it started to Poll design, via the now traditional quarterly call for SF to be a 'no platform for the BNP' Forum.

So, I'm going to close the thread down - many thanks for the contributions.