Chambers Dictionary defines fascism as being composed for four or five characteristics, one of which is “militarism”. Labour plus Tories took the British military to Iraq (“for the oil” according to Alan Greenspan) and a million Muslims and Kurds died as a result. In contrast the BNP always opposed the war. Who are the fascists on that score?

And then there is small question of the million or so Muslims and Kurds killed. Who are the racists?

The BNP are going to have to kill an awful lot of Muslims etc before they become more racist than Labour or the Tories.

Another element of fascism as per Chambers dictionary definition is “restrictions on personal freedom”. There have been dozens of articles in broadsheet newspapers in the last year cataloguing the attacks on civil liberties and human rights by Labour.

And then there was the undemocratic (i.e. fascist decision) to implement a policy of mass immigration to the UK, a decision taken without consulting and against the wishes of the majority of Brits: a decision backed by Labour and Tories and opposed by the BNP.

The list of Labour and Tory fascist characteristics is endless. It’s a moot point as to who the fascists are, isn’t it?

It is not a question of legitimising the BNP although that is a factor. When dealing with Fascism, one is not dealing with "reason" or "reasonable" people. Their appeal is specifically not to reason. It is a visceral appeal – to ignorance, suspicion and hate. Giving the BNP the oxygen of publicity only allows them to spread that message wider. Given that it is a message that will always find a resonance amongst the lumpen or deluded, it allows this egregious culture to fester and grow. Sensible debate in those cirumstances will convince the vast liberal majority who believe in democracy, free speech and fair play. For those who do not, and those are the very people who support the BNP, it only provides them with the ammunition to spread their bile further. The sad thing about PR is the BNP have only gained prominence recently not because their vote has increased, quite the converse as opposed to the 1970's, but due to the low threshold of PR it allows their representatives to now claim the vital platform and "legitimacy" of being a servant of the people. That is why I do not believe in PR, nor in sharing a platform with those who peddle evil. yours fraternally, Chanel Stevens

As for the BNP becoming a "a real alternative", it seems that they have used the notoriety of being treated as a special case to their adavntage and have already painted themselves as the ultimate protest vote aginst LibLabCon hegemony.

Blackburn, as you rightly noted, have done very well against the BNP by dealing with the problem in a clear and direct manner.

What I really don't want to happen is to see them in 10 years winning on average 10% of the vote as the Front National do in France, thinking collectively "if only we'd gone at the all guns blazing to begin with."