could be wrong here but i smell a fish (rotten) here, why would you want people to publish their details here when all that are published are some names?. The fash feel there on a (misplaced) roll here, don't give them any platform to spout their crap from.

and how excactly putting up a name on the net will fight racism? or is it another shitty thing for the redwatch unintelligent info gathering.

I would like to first point out my ignorance of much of the details and context regarding the recent trial of Nick Griffin head of the BNP and a party activist. I will refrain from talking about the case in much detail other than to point out a number of interesting themes with particular relevance to the struggle for an equal and fair society.

I see the various passionate and aggressive anti-fascist and anti-racist comments here and elsewhere and am aware they come from a real place within most people. When I become aware of agents using underhand tactics to incite racism; building up a contingent body of people who believe that within this country their needs come above the needs of others, I’m disgusted. When I hear of those same agents covertly using violence and physical aggression, I too feel my fist clench and violent thoughts pass through my mind.

I feel we must remember, though, that anger is an easy and destructive emotion. I believe we can see the effects of angry and unsympathetic thoughts at the heart of so many of the terrible conflicts throughout the world. So to attempt to understand the meaning and significance of the trail of BNP leader and activist, I feel we must attempt to understand what members of the BNP feel.

We see that the rhetoric of the victory resembled much of the rhetoric on websites such as these. Calls to battle the oppressive forces of government and passionate, deeply felt cries of freedom. Are we to dismiss these people as racist scum that deserve to burn in hell or men and women with a deeply misunderstood vision of how to make society better? I truly believe these people would make tuff, yet potential, converts to a true understanding of the destructive workings of capitalist society.

What is the response of the political activist, holding close to their heart the, in my opinion, best picture of the future? Is it to call the government to try harder to oppress the racist voices calling people to join them? Is it to take upon themselves the role of oppressor and coercer and hound these people into oblivion with aggression and violence? Are these not hypocritical responses to the situation?

I believe in freedom of speech. In a true atmosphere of freedom of speech where all people can express themselves totally many people would express things that would disgust and upset me and others. Is that necessarily a price too expensive for true freedom of speech? I agree there must be balance. I just believe the balance should be much more towards freedom. Is the call for freedom of speech from a person who says “Islam in England should be eradicated” different from a similar call from someone who says “government in England and the world should be eradicated”? Are these not true strains of thought present in society? Do we not have the ability to manage these debates within ourselves without violence? If that is true then my ideal of a society without hierarchy is unobtainable.

The real victors of the scenario are, of course, the ruling class. At best, individually, they speak with shared disgust at the result of the recent BNP trail. Essentially the significance of the case and the general mood it has been received has added an extra element to their argument that we must be governed and governed with increasing centralised power. “You must be protected by the black and white fanatics who lurk everywhere.” is, in my opinion, the resounding message underneath the words of the media and government.

listen trolls, there might be some dumb fucks around but that's got to be the worst yet...must try harder

I'm guessing with respected 'names' like that on the the list you are aiming for an effective, direct but non-violent response. I've no problem with a non-violent response, anything is better than apathy, I just want you to make that clear to other people here if that is the case. Lot's of people already choose to respond to racist and fascist violence with violence and may be confused by the rather atypical strong language you'd used. Your post does give the impression you are about to smash some rather thick skulls and I doubt that you are.

For you lot, if you are planning a non-violent campaign, I'd recommend stealing their office equipment, blocking and shaming whoever prints their leaflets or disseminates their propaganda, tracking and publicising their activities, using the law against them whichever way you can, and compiling the same databases of their membership and sympathisers that they use against us. I look forward to reading here what acts you get up to. I am sure you will do something worthwhile.

I also hope you don't ever feel the need to condemn or grass on those of us who feel the need to physically fight even if you think we are sinking to their level. Of course it is better to persuade an enemy than to fight them but sometimes, some credible level of violence saves innocent lives. In my view the pacifist position was right 1914-18 and wrong 1933-45. If you really want fighters, I found it is best to reach out to existing fighters. A BNP march planned for a city near me was deterred by recruiting sympathetic local football 'hooligans'. No violence was used, but the genuine threat of greater violence worked. Non-violent and violent campaigns can't work togther but if their aim is the same then there is no need for recriminations or backstabbing over what is after all a moral but tactical dispute. Good luck, and courage.