Now, look here: I want to make something absolutely clear, OK? Read my lips.
If you are a group of Asian men, and you spend a day abusing people of a number of different colours and then kick an innocent white guy to death, after which you shout ""We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business" then you have definitely not committed a racially motivated crime. Because, you see, you abused more than one racial group.
If, however, you are a group of white men and you stab both a white man and a black man, killing the latter, then then you have committed a racially motivated crime, OK?
The ludicrous "racial motivation" laws should never, ever have been brought in. It is difficult to determine the true motivation for a murder, but the sentencing should not relect what colour the victim's skin was. All that this does is to increase racial divides: you are, essentially, saying that one person's life is worth more than another. Not only is it a form of discrimination, but it also breeds a resentment which is counterproductive to integration.
And, here's another thing: it doesn't terribly matter how many times you repeat the mantra that people only voted for the BNP as a protest vote, all that you are in fact doing is reinforcing your own prejudices. Simply because you would never vote for the BNP because they are racists, you are assuming that no one else would. This is, as I have said before, a foolish, blinkered, arrogant and, ultimately, dangerous view to hold.
At the local elections yesterday, the BNP doubled their number of seats to 44. Bookdrunk points out that the Greens have more seats (at a total of 91) but what I want to know is this: how many candidates did the BNP field, and how many did the Greens field? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the BNP were only fielding 8% of the total, or something like that. Can anyone tell me where I could get hold of the information?
In any case, one cannot dispute that support for the BNP, amongst those who voted in places where the BNP fielded a candidate, has increased. Furthermore, I bet that the Greens had far more candidates than the BNP, and that BNP people got in even when there was an alternative (Green) protest vote.
So, you can write those extra BNP votes off as protest votes if you like; personally, I'm not so stupid.
UPDATE: Thanks to the commenters who supplied the required information.
The Green Party fielded 1,294 candidates, of which 91 were returned = 7.0%
The BNP fielded 363 candidates, of whom 44 were returned = 12.1%
The national average for "other parties" was 7%, which means that the BNP—despite their racist nastiness—polled nearly double what might reasonably be expected to indicate protest votes.
Is anyone listening yet?
I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...
Short answer: no. Slightly longer answer: Vote Leave did play fast and loose with the actual definitions—hey! it's marketing. And in...
Via Chicken Yoghurt and his exciting new post format, I am reminded of Pigdogfucker , whose post on these peepers I am entirely in agreeme...
Your humble Devil was thoroughly amused by Neil Ferguson's fall from grace, and is very pleased to have found the time to outline Fergus...