Yes, but that doesn't mean MPs are the only means of representing the views of the people, and MPs are not a requirement for democracy.
This is true but im not sure i see your point. If there are racists in a democracy then their opinions must be represented. Who is to decide which views are worthy of MP representation? If we leave it to you then the BNP are not worthy. Left to the people the BNP are worthy of representation (evidently). Which is the more domocratic approach?
I was taking issue with your statement here:
Yay for the BNP getting seats (WTF?!?). If we dont represent all of the view points in society its not a democracy.
I would also like to point out that not all viewpoints are valid. Racism is not an acceptable viewpoint, and saying "it's not a democracy unless we listen to everyone" is a flawed viewpoint that can lead to the tyranny of the majority, something famous democratic thinkers like Rousseau and J.S Mill were very much against.
No, that's a terrible example, because "British" isn't a race, it's a nationality dur. This group of people will get preferential treatment because they are british and live in britain. Giving anyone preferential treatment isn't great, by and large, but it's not racism.
This is one of many examples which highlights the inherently racist attitude of many Brits. Your splitting hairs with race/nationaltiy here and "dur" is a little pathetic.
Further examples of the British attitude towards foreigners can be seen in the marketing of many products being "british" products. Supermarkets shelves are full of products bearing union jacks because it sells. Why does it sell? Is it because after sampling the produce of various contries consumers have decided that British stuff is better? No its not. This marketing strategy plays on the inherent racism of Brits.
Distinguishing between race and nationality is not splitting hairs, nor is it pathetic (I'll cop to the "dur" thing, it was meant to be light-hearted).
If we look at
Wikipedia, we get "The term race or racial group usually refers to the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics". Meanwhile,
nationality comes up as "the relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty". There is not a lot in the way of overlap there.
Looking at the attitude of British marketing towards British people tells you nothing whatsoever about the attitude of the British towards foreigners. Pride in one's nation, no matter how misplaced (can't wait for Sheepz to catch wind of this topic, should be good reading), is not indicative of one's attitude to another nation. By way of illustration: I like dark chocolate. That doesn't mean I dislike white chocolate or milk chocolate, I just like dark chocolate. Whether my reasons for that decision are good or not has nothing to do with how I feel about other flavours of chocolate. You are doing a lot of inferencing here with no reasoning behind it.
So you're making a blanket statement about a nation of some 60 million people based on a tiny sampling of anecdotal evidence then? Excuse me while I go and gather my own statistical sampling from the renowned thinktank, the University of Some Bloke I Met In The Pub.
Yes thats exactly what i am doing as i said. I didnt say this proves anything i gave my opinion based on my experience and stated that I have not met a large enough sample to give a proper estimate. Why you have chosen to attack that statement is beyond me.
I would be interested in other peoples estimates of the percentages but obviously they dont prove anything.
The phrase: "The sad fact is" is not a statement of opinion, no matter what you think.
The sad fact is that the proportion of brits who are at least partially racist is closer to 60% of the population not 6.
Read that sentence you wrote again, and tell me how that is anything but an attempt to state a fact (incorrectly). I have attacked your statement because it's bizarre, based on nothing I would trust to advise me to buy a newspaper let alone vote for someone, and is generally indicative of your entire argument, which is, if I may bring in some levity for a second,
batamphetamine parrot beslubbering crazy.