I'll send an email. They are not worth worrying about, though.

That Charlie Brookers article was sentimental at best. And very naive.

The challenge should be for mainstream politics to get its act together sufficiently enough for people not to be drawn to single issue parties like the BNP, UKIP, etc. I have no sympathies with their politics, but I fear that suppressing the BNP will only reinforce their appeal amongst sections of an electorate increasingly alienated from the centreground. Besides, so far as I'm aware, none of the BNP's policies break any laws. I say let them speak openly, if only so that their position can be more openly scrutinised and subsequently picked apart, hopefully by someone with a bit more savvy than Charlie Brooker.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...=Clear_Channel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_C..._Clear_Channel

i believe that there can be no "offense of opinion".

i think that in mature, free societies there's no need to"protect" people from these billboards. i mean, isn't that an insult to the people's critical mind?

free speech has been used too many times to just belt out whatever racist statements politicians want to make. here in belgium, a far-right flemish political party sends out flyers to everyone in fthe city stating actually untrue facts about immigrants and crime. too bad, there will always be people who don't see right through those hollow slogans and made-up 'facts'. i don't mind politicians advertising for themselves, but as soon as they start getting people on their hand by using untrue statements that result in hate towards other civilians, it goes too far.

it's true that there is a problem with some of the immigrants here in antwerp, but that's maybe ten percent of the entire immigrant population. the rest are just common people who try to get a job and learn the language. not to speak about how many 'pure belgian' kids and teens end up as drugdealers or thieves these days.

also, the big guys who make such a fuss about all these problems and yell that people 'aren't safe outside at night anymore' are usually the ones who live in the big villas out of the city, between doctors and lawyers. i live in the middle of the city and go out in the places that are supposed to be 'dangerous', but i never got in trouble, and i don't know anyone else who did. it's just a matter of being smart enough: if you're in a neighbourhood where nine out of ten people barely make enough money to buy food, don't go walking around alone at night, waving your fancy mobile phone around.

I get NF campaign leaflets through my door, they are black and white photocopies that are covered in smudges, these frequently make the racial identity of the candidate appear ambiguous. They reassure me of the amateur nature of the artless shitballs that distribute them (who probably all smoke weed anyway).

As for the BNP, they dont ever bother.

You cant expect anything from the mainstream parties (two factions of The Busines Party) - they're responsible for the economic decline and social atomization that spawns these disenfranchised elements of society!
The only thing that could happen would be the more extreme faction of the two, which usually doesn't bother with pretending about social niceties, would co-opt it: start espousing similar BNP/UKIP rhetoric, policies, and so on.
Thats what happened here in Australia with the One Nation party, and in the US with their 'angry white male' phenomenom in the '90s & again in the 2008 election.

The way to combat is looking at what these groups are appealing to - are there legitimate grievences being used for alterior motives? And the place to do it in is community organisng, independents, third parties, et cetera.

That's the fear. It's regrettable though that a section of the population are putting issues of immigration and, to a lesser degree, Europe quite high on their list of political priorities. Many of these are already quite long term unemployed and live in public housing, often within quite impoverished multi-ethnic areas, so the current economic crisis has less significance for them (in their eyes) than the colour/religion of their neighbours. Certain members of my own family who live in just such circumstances and were once hard-line labour voters have told me that they're strongly considering voting for the BNP and that they know a lot of friends that are too. (It was, after all, primarily the traditionally left-leaning unions who came out in support of the tory mp Enoch Powell in the 1960s.) Furthermore, anyone who underestimates the BNPs election threat should remember its council by-election victory in 1993. People had written them off just prior to that too.

Obviously, the potential vote for the BNP could never pose a threat to the actual mainstream in terms of competing for government. However it does suggest growing ripples of discontent amongst certain sections of the working class that any mainstream party would be seen as being particularly arrogant if they were to ignore it completely.

So that's the problem. Does the mainstream disregard this group altogether, in which case parties like the BNP really could grow into something far more threatening than they are now, or do they address some of their issues, fully aware that to steal some of the BNPs thunder they'd have to adopt some pretty odious policies?

The problem will continue for as long as the issue of immigration is treated as a non-issue by the mainstream. Moreover, while those who tend to make the most of the immigration issue tend not to focus on the economy, they're ultimately the ones most affected by it, and as jobs and public funds become even more scarce, this is sure to only increase tensions within that community as they search for a scapegoat to blame for their plight.