you can't change the goal posts, there is very little nationalist behaviour in japan, that was the relationship between overcrowding and BNP that you brought up. didn't mention suicide!

restricting any one from health caRE should be a crime.. end of!

i'm sure your just trying to wind me up rather than have a reasoned debate. so i intend to no longer respond to your baiting!

imo any policy held by the BNP is a thin veil for hatred, you will not convince me otherwise, so lets just leave it there.

I wonder if the BNP would dedicate Police and NHS resources to rape victims?

why make an impact on what some members of the BNP consider accepable behaviour, irronically i wonder how we'd cope without all the black, asian and foreign doctors, nurses and health care proffesionals?

if a BNP member became ill and the consultant/surgeon was black and the only person who could treat/save him would he refuse treatment?

He wouldn't mind if they were French.

You're the chief goal-post mover here; it was you said India was more crowded than Englnd when simply it isn't. And Japan has been the most nationalist, inward looking country on earth for hundreds of years; check your history books.

And with regard to the NHS, why shoud healthcare be a free option for all. Somebody above mentioned drug users as an example; why the **** have I worked all my life to pay for people who deliberately abuse themselves? Thye should be bloody sent a bill.

I am not a BNP supporter, however for the purpose of informed discussion, their stated policy is concerned with controlling the levels of immigration both caucasian and otherwise which by all main political party's admission is out of control. They also wish to facilitate non-caucasian British citizens to return to their country of ethnic origin should they so wish.

So in answer to your question no, the BNP member would not refuse treatment from a black consultant. In addition you may like to consider that some BNP members are non-caucasian.

Furthermore I do not recall the BNP having a policy which condones sexual offences. I think you may have made that bit up.

The most racist people I have ever met have been non-caucasian. Absolutely no contest.

This is such a naive argument it is untrue. Why should someone without children pay the additional tax and NI to educate yours? With respect it's a daft argument. Where would you draw the line smokers, drinkers, drug addicts, rock climbers, fell walkers etc.

We pay because it is the best for civillised society.

Sadly the Commission for Racial and Equality and the "liberal elite" including the leftist leaning BBC like to gloss over that.

How can you put rock climbers on the same level as drug abusers? Drug abusers deliberately poison their own bodies and also put others at risk with their behaviour. Surely some of this behaviour means that they should forfeit the right to free healthcare, particularly if they are repeat offenders?

And with regard to [iyour[/i naive argument, you contribute to education because when the educated leave school they will contribute back to the economy which benefits all in society.

Rock climbers deliberately put themselves into positions of danger for challenge. As do drug users.

So where do you draw the line?

Oh come on; rock climbers will surely do their sport for fitness and the purposes of a challenge yes but they will do so intending to put themselves at risk. It also doesn't harm others.

If you say, inject a drug, you will know that this will do your body damage. And their altered behaviour may result in harm to others, for instance if they go and drive whilst under the influence. I was't under the impression that you took drugs as a 'challenge'.

Also last time I looked drug abuse was illegal and rock climbing isn't!

how very true! i'd forgotten that one, french catalonian no less
i do hope he was black as well!

I meant to say drugtakers put themselves into a position of danger. Although statistically ecstasy causes less deaths per year in the UK than peanut allergies.

Moving the argument on to it's rather tedious conclusion:- Under your scheme the "drugtaker" has overdosed on Heroin and requires immediate medical assistance or they will die. Said drugtaker doesn't have the funds to pay for his/her treatment. What happens next?

If you are considering a "let them die" reply then it's the end of the argument for me. If you are considering a "well in that case we will pay" you have just advocated a means tested health service. Either way its the end of the NHS as we know it.

both pastimes are done in the hope/desire for enjoyment, both put themselves at danger through choice, what about base jumping that's illegal. do you smoke or drink, eat fatty food, perhaps you've inherited some genetic defect, with your master race logic some one may deny you treatment one day.