h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6255723.stm

Just wanted to hear your views and opinions on the protest today. As far as I understand it, the BNP is not illegal and therefore however distasteful their policies are, it is not a crime to be a member.

Following that line then, why do the protesters think they have any right whatsoever to attempt to destroy her career? It seems to be happening more and more these days - one sector of society thinks they have the right to dictate to others, even when no laws have been broken. Whatever has happened to tolerance of others views and opinions?

Well I don't have an awful lot of patience for the BNP, but it doesn't make any sense to me why they're making such a row about her political preference, or her job for that matter. Did I miss something here, do ballerinas have some hither-to unknown influence over the way this country is run?

"Following that line then, why do the protesters think they have any right whatsoever to attempt to destroy her career?"

Looks to me like they think they're protecting somebody from something. In this case I'd guess the public from a bad influence/example. Either that or they just believe that the BNP's ideas are wrong to the extent where they feel the need to stand up against it any way they can...a bit like shouting at a closed door during an argument. You know the person on the other side probably isn't listening, and that continuing to shout serves no logical purpose, but you feel compelled to shout anyway because you know you're right and you want them stop being silly and admit they're wrong.

"It seems to be happening more and more these days - one sector of society thinks they have the right to dictate to others, even when no laws have been broken. Whatever has happened to tolerance of others views and opinions?"

*Is* there really more intolerance then there used to be, do you think? Or is this nothing new? The idea of a witch hunt doesn't sound so incredibly far off the mark to me.

And as someone pointed out to me today; the protestors have just as much right to express their views as her or anybody else. It's up to each of us to have enough common sense to decide whether we'll take them seriously or not.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that all through life we get used to seeing people who's views make us uncomfortable, and might even cause them to act in a (from our POV) stupid way that could be harmful to someone/something around them, and our first instinct is to try and get them to see from our point of veiw. In other words to see that they're wrong. As we get older and wiser we learn to try and see things from our opponents view too- in order to understand the situation better. A handy skill, but very difficult to learn and even harder to practice. It's far easier to slip into the attitude that you're right and they're wrong...

just my

Can't honestly say I've followed this story in any detail as I get quite bored with these kind of one off sensationalist stories about bizarre individuals that feed the tabloids. The sensationalist and weird angle presumably being both a BNP member and a ballerina at the ENO. From what I understand there was a story about it initially in the Daily Hatemail. Sounds like she was rather dumb to give an interview. It's all so yawningly predictable that there would be a fuss. But hey when did being dumb and thick ever prevent anyone joining the BNP?

I'm surprised that a ballet dancer is so newsworthy, but I suppose it's a celebrity world that has it's own following. Anyone in the public eye is going to be scrutinised as a possible role model, but whther this is pertinent to the protest, I don't know.

Unless her political views affect how she works/behaves e.g. refusing to appear with an immigrant, I can't see why it need be a problem. It does rather sound as though she sees their policies as applying to other people but not herself. I certainly can't see her membership doing any good for the BNP, but nor do such protests show the opposers in a good light.

Seems like a daft protest to me.
However much I dislike what the BNP stands for, and however much I distrust the sc^H^H people who run it, it is a legal party.

I might have my own negative opinions about individuals who take its public pronouncements of policy at face value, but arguing that such people shouldn't be allowed to work does seem plain wrong.

For one thing, it will make martyrs out of people and give the BNP more publicity, and for another, ultimately it might cut the party *membership* down while having no necessary effect on the funding or the number of people who vote for it.

As I understand it this came about after a Guardian reporter spent six months undercover investigating the BNP. He discovered the shocking facts that addresses of BNP members are kept on an encrypted database, there are plans to canvass middle class areas at the next elections and a leading ballet dancer was a member. The Guardian ran an initial story with these sensational findings then followed it up with a special about the dancer. Before the Guardian ran the story, nobody at the ENB was aware of her politics as she didn't discuss them. Since the story broke, she's had posses of reporters following her around. The ENB has come under pressure to sack her and now there are protests outside the theatre.

All because the Guardian publicised her politics.

Sorry SWL you can't say that - all negative stories must originate in the Daily Hate Mail, I'll think you'll find this has been written into the BBC constitution.

How *could* it have been in the Daily Mail - it appears to have been true?

All this fuss is IMHO over the top.

Yes she as her position is importan within that organisation it could have reporcussions for many people what her political affiliations are, but that's true for so many other people who arent BNP members in high profile jobs. I have in the past stated why I think the police, judiciary, teaching and health service ought to be off limits to such people.

I dont think making such people into total pariahs or "ostracising" them is the answer so not every job should be.

As the BNP officially is anti-gay I dont see how she will last that long in her job now the truth is out anyway. Or maybe she has divocred her work from her attitudes and other employees have dealth with what she delivers and decided that its good enough to over look her personal attitudes. I think they should be left to decide for themselves without outside interference.

I would like to post on this thread, but given it specifically names a certain party, and the Mods have made it clear you cannot criticise openly said party I feel rather constrained.

Might a BNP lanlord be in the same position as a Christian one refusing to let a double room to a homosexual couple?

Of course. The whole point is that *no-one* can discriminate. *Anybody* discriminating in this way should be treated with equal derision and subject to the law.

>>Might a BNP lanlord be in the same position as a Christian one refusing to let a double room to a homosexual couple?<<

So who might the BNP landlord refuse to let his/her room to?

Crikey I thought someone might state the obvious as I'm trying to test out what FB says. I never saw his posts that were censored. The BNP landlord MIGHT refuse to let out his room to let out his room to a black person

If he did do that and it was due to his belief in BNP ideology, it was suggest that the BNP is a racist organisation.

I'm curious to see what will happen to this post. It would be nice to think it doesn't get pulled.....

Well, side-stepping the meta-politics of BBC discussion rules a second, I'd like to agree with those who've said that if it doesn't actually impact her actions, there's no reason we should care about her party membership. After all, plenty of people voted for the BNP at various elections, but discovering that somebody did so wouldn't (in itself) be considered reasonable grounds to sack them.

The only argument would be that she was somehow "using her status to gain publicity for the party", which is an intriguingly twisted suggestion, since she has only gained publicity either as an individual or as a party member since being "uncovered" by an *undercover* reporter! Maybe said reporter was actually a double-agent: a BNP supporter who "infiltrated" the Guardian to raise some publicity...

In other words, who cares who believes the BNP are making sense and worth supporting; if you don't agree, go forth and persuade them otherwise - but trying to intimidate them into changing their minds isn't a particularly good plan.

>>"If he did do that and it was due to his belief in BNP ideology, it was suggest that the BNP is a racist organisation."

True, but essentially tautological. Essentially, it's saying "*If* BNP ideology is racist, then that would suggest BNP ideology is racist".

Personally, I'd have thought it rather more likely that an individual in the BNP who was racist would have likely been racist before they joined the BNP, and maybe saw it as the party closest to their views.

However, if the BNP (and UKIP, I suppose) disappeared tomorrow, many of the members might shift their allegiance to the Conservative party, but that wouldn't make Tory ideology blameable for everything the people thought.

"However, if the BNP (and UKIP, I suppose) disappeared tomorrow, many of the members might shift their allegiance to the Conservative party, but that wouldn't make Tory ideology blameable for everything the people thought."

I'd have thought BNP members would be more likely to switch to the Labour party - they're the ones who want to lock up illegal immegrants without trial.

Well, this news story sadly doesn´t surprise me. As someone else mentioned, you scratch the surface of most liberals and you´ll find someone just as fascist as the ones they claim to oppose. So when will someone introduce a Registration Act for BNP supporters?