Should the BNP allowed to be teachers and policeman?

I do not know what the Labour party thinks. Because I have nothing in common with the local MP; I am not homosexual, I have served in war theatre for my country, I have a mind of my own and I detest dogma and I don't centralise my belief around envy: I have nothing in common with the Labour mind. I believe that an MP has to represent all constituents and all situations; just a single glance at MP’s declarations of interests’ shows where their personal preferences lie. Our local MP declares that he works hard for homosexual affairs and matters. That means by implication that he does not work equally hard for injured soldiers, destitute families, heterosexuals, for his ordinary constituents, yet he has been appointed as the Chair for Veteran Soldiers Affairs; this I find incomprehensible and insulting. So Labour does not represent me, does not permit me access to their inner sanctum to challenge their antiquated and narrow views, but they demand that I accept their every epistle as honest, truthful, in my interest and in every one’s interest.

The Conservatives are equally as bad. I spent a short time with the local Conservative Party and I make no apologies that my natural instincts lean towards conservatism with a small ‘c’; not that the semi-literate will understand that distinction. They have a quaint position of political secretary, which in Blackpool is a sinecure in everything except name. I also had a brief time as a treasurer but resigned when I discovered a local councillor had taken a donation and not declared it immediately to me. A declaration was made but I had seen enough to know I would never be subservient to someone who did not understand propriety. I am not a professional person so I do not understand the wonderful nuance of language that allows political figures to perpetrate obvious illegal activities with the panache of a saint. If you are of that disposition then continue to contribute your hard earned pennies to parties who have long since lost all credibility and moral superiority.

The Liberal Party are so irrelevant that only the quaint and the flamboyant are members or supporters; but a massively obvious matter of physics hits me squarely between the ears. If the Liberals have their wishy-washy views and manifesto, why cannot an equal group of people have a diversely opposite view and ethos? If ever a Party was opposite or contrary to the Lib Dems than it has to be the BNP.

I am not going to try to explain the BNP as I have not the Lib Dems. The reason, because I have never been to a Lib Dem meeting, have no idea what they are about and find their stance on matters like immigration indefensible and illogical. I have had the displeasure though of attending several BNP meetings. I found the majority of attendees decent and disturbed. The fact was that on every occasion they allowed themselves to be addressed by a short, ginger scouser -do me for racism - who was lucky to get out of the meeting with his head still on his shoulders. Not because of his policies - there were no political views expressed - just a diatribe against the downturn in today's society and where this moron hit a raw nerve was when he started to use the Royal Marines as an example of modern decline. The occasion could not have been more inappropriate as my comrade and BNP supporter, Dennis Shambley, had just that week received information that his sister’s boy had lost fingers in an explosion whilst in action in Helmand Province. The fact that the lad was serving with 42 Commando, in which Dennis and I had first met, in Borneo, some 44 years past, made the comparison insulting and crass. One idiot addressing one meeting does not made a message invalid, if there is a personal message. Just like me saying my old oppo Paddy Pantsdown is no a likeable Liberal even though he is a known womaniser and fornicator extra-ordinary. But there has to be a message and there has to be open and free debate. For all students of politics there is an anathema within all the major parties because they – political main parties - would become answerable to their membership and, through them, the people.

Why, I ask, does the BNP instil such hatred amongst the power merchants of the mass media and some daily newspapers? This morning on BBC’s The Big Question, they addressed the question posed above. The bias was obvious and even the Devil’s Advocate committed the cardinal sin of showing his bias against the BNP members in the audience. They even imported an eye surgeon who was happy to announce that he did not want his children to be educated by BNP members. No-one challenged this immigrant over his attitude to taking money from BNP members as part of his salary, nor why he had left his home nation where his expertise is sadly missing, to ply his profession where the rewards are far more lucrative and he would have to rub shoulders with people he obviously finds odious. I wonder what he would be saying if he tried to ply his wares in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Bangladesh or even Pakistan –that is a rhetorical question because we all know that we are importing doctors and nurses from the Third World whilst their nations are suffering from a lack of decent medical care.

When Labour and Conservatives can address the questions,… ‘why have you metamorphosed a generation of Sharron Matthews, her lack of literacy or innumeracy in our communities?’ then I will listen. Even addressing the problems has led to a plethora of abuse, yet Sharron Matthews and all the other dross are the results of an experiment of fifty years of social engineering that has failed miserably. We have schools which do not produce sportsmen but hide behind a façade of excellence never earned. In Southern Africa the kids went to school at an unholy early hour of the morning, did a couple of hours sports training, had a decent breakfast then went into academic lessons. Teachers here are universally against this except in the grammar schools and the private education sector. Yet anyone proposing reasonable measures is shouted down by the same educationalists that are failing the children.

There are far more important questions than teacher’s or policemen’s political beliefs.

The main question is, why are the English people not allowed to address English problems? And while the types of another Sharon, Sharon Shoesmith, cannot understand that it was on her watch that an evil neglect was perpetrated on the community thus making her accountable, then the situation will never improve. Who do these people think they are, BANKERS?