Piano Forum
Non Piano Board => Anything but piano => Topic started by: zheer on November 11, 2006, 03:23:21 PM
-
For those who have not heard of the BNP, it is a political group that insight race hate in the UK, only recently the leader of this party was found not guilty, for calling the muslim faith as a wicked, evil vicious faith, a faith that permits muslim men to rape women and basically is a threat to white man. Now I'm sorry if this wanabe Hitler isn't racist then who is. Its like me saying all Christians are evil and so is its religion.
I remember when I was young groups of white men would write NF on school walls and start fights with Asians black, these NF people are members of BNP. Now I'm sorry but recently a black man was stabed to death by a group of white men and this leader of BNP justified it by saying well this black man was a bad person, so no big deal.
-
Christianity is also an evil wicked fate that permits men to rape woman.
The only question is if people are insane enough to believe all of it or if they are moral enough to cherry-pick things from their 'holy books'.
-
Please read that.
-
What should I say about that? What do you mean? Read the comments posted below or listen and read the video?
I have protested 'together' with angry muslim teenagers at anti-war protests.
-
I have protested 'together' with angry muslim teenagers at anti-war protests.
Ok prometheus you talk sense 99% of the time, but you know i dont know what to think,
that was really shocking.
-
Which part?
-
Which part?
Well i was reading 5% of the comments, and that was basically kill all muslims they are all scum what are they doing in a white country ect ect, honestly.
-
Total rispect for this guy. Just listen how he talks.
-
As loathsome as the BNP is this was an important victory for free speach, since for years, hate filled Muslim preachers have been able to spew out poison with relative impunity.
The shoe being on the other foot for once has upset a lot of people, but everyones view deserves to be heard.
Thal
-
The shoe being on the other foot for once has upset a lot of people, but everyones view deserves to be heard.
Thal
Agreed everyones view should be heard.
-
It's a shame Britain doesn't have a First Amendment.
-
The difference between inciting hate and freedom of speech can be a very small one. Even more so, maybe they overlap.
I can't really say if this is a victory for freedom of speech or a victory of ultra-right because I don't know the context of these statements and the character of this party well enough.
-
The difference between inciting hate and freedom of speech can be a very small one. Even more so, maybe they overlap.
I can't really say if this is a victory for freedom of speech or a victory of ultra-right because I don't know the context of these statements and the character of this party well enough.
Any political speech that isn't made to immediately incite law-breaking should be legal. I don't want politicians deciding what constitutes 'hate speech.'
-
Is there any place in the world where politicians decide what is 'hate speech' and what is not? Or did you mean court?
But you need to be careful. People can be politicians and say things that can cause violence against minorities. It is the duty of the state in a democracy to protect minorities.
So here both things do collide.
Politicians should show leadership in the sense of moral leadership. You can only lead by example. So politicians should be nuanced towards difficult issues, especially minorities and other weak members of society.
-
I would assume that politicians passed the laws banning hate speech, which means they would get to decide.
It's already illegal to commit violent acts against minorities. There's no reason to use that as a pretext for restricting speech.
-
Yes, but if a person/leader incites hate she or he doesn't get punished if people commit violence inspired by that person/leader.
Politicians just pass laws saying that you can't incite hate. Then a judge makes a judgement if this happened or not. If you call on people to murder others and you have the authority to do so you have a big change to be found guilty.
Same goes for Islamic Imams.
In my country it is already illegal to say blasphemous things about god, though it is never applied anymore. It is also illegal to insult the head of state(king or queen). You can get up to 3 years of prison for this.
Politicians here are also looking to make it illegal to justify terrorist attacks. But this is even more problematic. I don't see why the same politicians that propose this shouldn't be found guilty themselves for justifying the war against Iraq.
Now I am against this. I am also against banning politicians with racist ideas. Something which is also often illegal. And against banning denying the holocaust and other genocides. But Europe has less freedom of speech than the US.
I remember that I pointed this out before and I got heat from it by someone. It seems this person did not understand this.
-
Come on! who ever listens seriously to the views of the BNP they are UK comedy show! They delivberately go out of their way on every issue to be contreversial and radical. You cant seriously take the comments as being advocacy of the counrties stance on the Muslim population. Although Thalbergmad you are right it has caused the media and government and hopefully the public in general to see that the victims are not only muslims there are many voices in the UK which are oppressed and misrepresented and we are lucky to live in a country were we can make this known publically. We have to also remember that politicians are just people - not God. They have knee-jerk reactions too, were all fallible. Religion is something everyone feels strongly about for whatever reason. When its stirred and challenged or peoples rights to hold beliefs are challenged they do react badly - it is destabilizing to have ones worldview changed hence people cannot avoid speaking passionately on such matters.
-
Well it's nice to know that we can share our views in a civilized way.It can be done.
-
I don't think the BNP is as openly racist as it was, especially if you compare it to the old National Front.
President Bliar and his PC cronies have done a great job in recruiting members to the BNP, by being totally ineffective at halting illegal immigrantation, totally innefective at deporting the ones they catch and even more impotent at dealing with Islamic Fanatics.
If you have an effective an balanced government, you have no need for parties such as this. But in the present climate, they will grow and prosper as many disenchanted English people such as myself, feel they have no voice.
Thal
-
English people such as myself, feel they have no voice.
Thal
Ok I see, I'm sorry about that.
-
With the inequality of the world today one cannot stop illegal immigration. Illegal immigration was predicted years before it happened.
The only way is to reduce inequality.
So you think Blair is turning people into racists as long as he doesnt implode the Uk economy?
-
In order to maintain the so far good natured progression of this thread, i would like to present a picture of my attempt to incite racial hatred in a cafe in Aberdeen.
(https://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a94/Thalbergmad/DSC00024.jpg)
-
What is BNP?
-
So you think Blair is turning people into racists as long as he doesnt implode the Uk economy?
Blair is recruiting for the BNP as long as he is seen to do nothing to halt illegal immigration. In January, the next invasion from Bulgaria and Romania will start. Has anyhting been done to limit this??
We do not need so many foreign workers. What the Labour Party needs to do is get a generation of workshy English back into employment instead of throwing benefits at them.
The prisons are full, the NHS and other public services are stretched at break point, the roads are full, there are no houses left. For pities sake, stop this nonesense.
-
The prisons are full, the NHS and other public services are stretched at break point, the roads are full, there are no houses left. For pities sake, stop this nonesense.
Yes thats true Thalb, but you have to remember many have also moved abroad, or like me are looking to live abroad soon. Yes the NHS is going down, the roads are full and yes houses are like way too expensive. I can see your frustration fully i've heard it all.
You know most people are likly to spend over 50 years paying a morgage on a house,same old story , rich get richer poor get poorer. :)
-
Blair is recruiting for the BNP as long as he is seen to do nothing to halt illegal immigration. In January, the next invasion from Bulgaria and Romania will start. Has anyhting been done to limit this??
We do not need so many foreign workers. What the Labour Party needs to do is get a generation of workshy English back into employment instead of throwing benefits at them.
The prisons are full, the NHS and other public services are stretched at break point, the roads are full, there are no houses left. For pities sake, stop this nonesense.
Blair welcomes migrant workers because he (and his friends in corporate business) know that they can be paid more cheaply than the native workforce. He's too short-sighted to notice, or care, about the sociological effects this will have ie the established tradesman being priced out of the market, leading to resentment of the immigrants, leading to racism, which, whilst wrong, is understandable given what provoked it.
-
Exercise your right of free speech...by professing your hatred for it.
Usama is great! Jihad! Jihad! Allahu akhbar. Slay those who criticise Islam. Death to Denmark - we want Danish blood. JIHAAAAD!!!!! AAHHHH!!!
These people would be hilarious for their stupidity if they weren't so dangerous.
-
In order to maintain the so far good natured progression of this thread, i would like to present a picture of my attempt to incite racial hatred in a cafe in Aberdeen.
(https://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a94/Thalbergmad/DSC00024.jpg)
DEATH BE UNTO THALBERGMAD. JIHAD. JIHAD!! ALLAHU AKHBAR!!!!!
-
Exercise your right of free speech...by professing your hatred for it.
Usama is great! Jihad! Jihad! Allahu akhbar. Slay those who criticise Islam. Death to Denmark - we want Danish blood. JIHAAAAD!!!!! AAHHHH!!!
These people would be hilarious for their stupidity if they weren't so dangerous.
You mean: "Islam = Peace. Death to those who think Islam is a religion of violence!"
-
Hahaha yeah man. That's another really funny one. ;)
-
DEATH BE UNTO THALBERGMAD. JIHAD. JIHAD!! ALLAHU AKHBAR!!!!!
A FATWAH has been issued against me by the Aberdeen Football Club Supporters Assoc.
Thal
-
A FATWAH has been issued against me by the Aberdeen Football Club Supporters Assoc.
Thal
Rotfl. What did you do? Go to the Pittodrie Bar with an inflatable sheep?
-
Rotfl. What did you do? Go to the Pittodrie Bar with an inflatable sheep?
Just the silly hat old chap, as in the photo above.
Thal
-
Is Thal in reality a Taliban agent?
-
Yes, his full name: Mohammed Al Queda Ali Aqbar Kazeem Shaq Al Fayed Alibahbah Thali.
-
Yes, his full name: Mohammed Al Queda Ali Aqbar Kazeem Shaq Al Fayed Alibahbah Thali.
You will get me chucked out of the BNP for that ;D
Thal
-
As important a victory for free speech as this was, it has been soured somewhat by Blair and his cronies deciding to change the law now that it has been proved to them that people are willing to stand up for themselves again in cases of this type. It's a sad state of affairs when one's own government starts changing laws simply because the don't fit in with their idea of justice. Despite the increased threat from terrorists and extremists that we are living with, it seems as though nothing is being done to protect us from these people, so naturally popular support will shift to a party that promises to do just that.
-
As important a victory for free speech as this was, it has been soures somewhat by Blair and his cronies deciding to change the law now that it has been proved to them that people are willing to stand up for themselves again in cases of this type. It's a sad state of affairs when one's own government starts changing laws simply because the don't fit in with their idea of justice. Despite the increased threat from terrorists and extremists that we are living with, it seems as though nothing is being done to protect us from these people, so naturally popular support will shift to a party that promises to do just that.
Extremely well said. Blair did not like the result, so he simply tries to change the Law so it does not happen again.
A lot of people probably joined the BNP this week.
Thal
-
In order to maintain the so far good natured progression of this thread, i would like to present a picture of my attempt to incite racial hatred in a cafe in Aberdeen.
(https://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a94/Thalbergmad/DSC00024.jpg)
Well (if you'll pardon the fact of what I'm about to write being largely off-topic), this person was definitely not seen in the vicinity of London's The Warehouse yesterday evening - but that was presumably because he was busy at home sending this picture and other messages. Shame not to have seen you there.
Best,
Alistair
-
They are back.,
-
Under this Labour Government, it is now almost illegal to be White, English, Christian and proud of it.
The Labour Party have increased the membership of the BNP, more than they could have ever done themselves by sucking up to minorities and ignoring the majority.
Almost a million people voted BNP at the European elections. At next years General Election, it would not surprise me if it was considerably more.
Thal
-
Under this Labour Government, it is now almost illegal to be White, English, Christian and proud of it.
Let's take this one apart, for all that I can bring myself to understand and sympathise with the kind of feelings that have prompted it. Something is either "illegal" or it isn't - it cannot really be "almost illegal" in purely legislative terms - it either transgress the current statutes or it doesn't. But then what about these four paraments that you cite - are you talking about a combintion of all four or any one or more thereof? If you're "proud of it" but don't espouse all three of the other parameters that you cite firts, then the argument is immediately weakened (for example, I'm white, Scottis and non-Christian [though most certainly not anti-Christian], so to what extent can whatever I may be pround of make any kind of overall sense here?).
The Labour Party have increased the membership of the BNP, more than they could have ever done themselves by sucking up to minorities and ignoring the majority.
No. Certain activities and lack of same from the party currently in what might otherwise pass for governmental power in UK may well have disappointed some of their traditional supporters, but I don't see how that could have forced them into the hands of the BNP as such - there are other places for disaffected Labour supporters to go, after all. What's perhaps even more important is your reference to a "majority"; what "majority" might that be? - in other words, is there - and indeed can there even be - any such thing any more?
Almost a million people voted BNP at the European elections. At next years General Election, it would not surprise me if it was considerably more.
Given the turnout at yesterday's by-election in Glasgow, it wouldn't surprise me if support for BNP is less at next year's General Election in UK - by which I mean to point out the sheer paucity of turnout at that by-election which could well reporduce itself next year at the bigger electoral event.
Best,
Alistair
-
No. Certain activities and lack of same from the party currently in what might otherwise pass for governmental power in UK may well have disappointed some of their traditional supporters, but I don't see how that could have forced them into the hands of the BNP as such - there are other places for disaffected Labour supporters to go, after all.
No, they will go to a party where they feel they have a voice and that is obviously BNP.
It is Labour voters who have been mostly affected by the negative side of an open immigration policy. There is only one place for them to go.
Thal
-
No, they will go to a party where they feel they have a voice and that is obviously BNP.
It is Labour voters who have been mostly affected by the negative side of an open immigration policy. There is only one place for them to go.
I'm sorry, but I simply do not agree with you. BNP have had such a poor showing of late and their credibility as a party that could even begin to govern UK and manage all matters of concern to the electorate rather than just immigration remains substantially less even than that of the outfit that is currently in so-called "power" - and that says quite a lot, I think. BNP did poorly in last night's by-election, for example. It's not only certain Labour voters that feel disaffected by those aspects of immigration policy - some voters for other parties do so too. Perhaps last night's by-election resuilt is a different kind of pointer to what may happen in the General election, in the sense of a record low percentage turnout leading to even greater weakness thereafter in that not only does no single party have any kind of workable majority but also that only a small percentage of those entitled to vote will actually have exercised that right in favour of any party...
Best,
Alistair
-
I think. BNP did poorly in last night's by-election, for example.
Of course they did it was in Scotland. who take in a small portion of immigrants when compared to parts of England.
The Labour Party are supposed to be the party for the average working class Brit, but they are the people who have suffered most from 12 years of a Labour Government as they have been fined at every possible opportunity and taxed to buggery. They suffer most from the negative effects of an open immigration policy. They are concerned about their jobs, access to public services, crime and how their kids can be educated in a school where 40 other languages are spoken.
Not only have the Labour party failed to stem immigration, they actually seem to not even want to enter into a debate about the negative effects it can have on this Country and its population, and it is this that plays directly into the hands of the far right. The BNP have a good chance to gain a seat in Parliament at the next Election as they will be contesting the Grays in Essex seat and thanks to the Labour Party, they stand a good chance.
Of course the BNP have very little credibility and no chance to govern, but to deny they have no valid points that appeal to certain parts of the electorate is stupidity, as it would be to deny that the Labour Party have done more to increase their voteshare than they could ever have managed themselves.
Extremist parties can develop best when a Country is in chaos and there is large scale concerns about an existing government. The Labour Party's motto was "education, education, education". The motto should be "deportation, deportation, deportation".
Thal
-
Of course they did it was in Scotland. who take in a small portion of immigrants when compared to parts of England.
The Labour Party are supposed to be the party for the average working class Brit, but they are the people who have suffered most from 12 years of a Labour Government as they have been fined at every possible opportunity and taxed to buggery. They suffer most from the negative effects of an open immigration policy. They are concerned about their jobs, access to public services, crime and how their kids can be educated in a school where 40 other languages are spoken.
Not only have the Labour party failed to stem immigration, they actually seem to not even want to enter into a debate about the negative effects it can have on this Country and its population, and it is this that plays directly into the hands of the far right. The BNP have a good chance to gain a seat in Parliament at the next Election as they will be contesting the Grays in Essex seat and thanks to the Labour Party, they stand a good chance.
Of course the BNP have very little credibility and no chance to govern, but to deny they have no valid points that appeal to certain parts of the electorate is stupidity, as it would be to deny that the Labour Party have done more to increase their voteshare than they could ever have managed themselves.
Extremist parties can develop best when a Country is in chaos and there is large scale concerns about an existing government. The Labour Party's motto was "education, education, education". The motto should be "deportation, deportation, deportation".
Thal
As a British citizen living in London, and a as a person that has traveld to different parts of the world, i've noticed that people have immigrated to all corners of the globe, it just so happens that London has far more immigrants than the neghbouring EU nations.
-
it just so happens that London has far more immigrants than the neghbouring EU nations.
Indeed it does, us British are known for our tolerance and London would be a natural magnet for immigrants.
The problem with an open door policy is that you don't always get the kind of people you want. Last year, there was a 300% increase in arrests of Romanian pickpockets in London. Due to the freedom of movement in the EU, we are not able to eject this unwanted scum from our Country, or even better dump them somewhere in the North Sea. They will either be let off, or locked up for a short period of time in conditions that are superior from the latrine from whence they originally came.
1 in 7 of our prisoners are foreigners, but not 1 in 7 of our population. The far right can use this as fodder to claim that a high percentage of foreigners and immigrants are criminals, where to me it demonstrates that an open door policy lets in the sh*t.
As a Country, we have enough pond life of our own, so we definately don't want any imports.
Thal
-
Of course they did it was in Scotland. who take in a small portion of immigrants when compared to parts of England.
The Labour Party are supposed to be the party for the average working class Brit, but they are the people who have suffered most from 12 years of a Labour Government as they have been fined at every possible opportunity and taxed to buggery. They suffer most from the negative effects of an open immigration policy. They are concerned about their jobs, access to public services, crime and how their kids can be educated in a school where 40 other languages are spoken.
I'm not about to defend the present UK government - far from it - but immigration policy is not decided only by the UK government, whichever government it may be. It is vital to consider the subject by distinguishing between those who might apply (or have applied) for permission to live in UK and those who are already entitled to do so; the latter group includes all British citizens and most British subjects currently living outside UK and all citizens from the other 26 EU countries. It is also necessary to consider emigration which whilst not governed by "policies" in the same way, nevertheless does happen and on a not particularly small scale. Of course it is true that UK cannot support as many people as can France because its land mass is so much smaller, but I'm not quite sure what can be done about it. We cannot simply pull up the drawbridge to those already entitled to be here and, if we did, those people would come here anyway and be able to do so without breaking the law; indeed UK would be breaking its own as well as EU law if it tried to do so.
Of course the BNP have very little credibility and no chance to govern, but to deny they have no valid points that appeal to certain parts of the electorate is stupidity, as it would be to deny that the Labour Party have done more to increase their voteshare than they could ever have managed themselves.
That may not be entirely untrue, but I strongly suspect that the number of votes BNP gets at the next General Election will be very small compared even to the numbers of voters who decline to vote at all.
Extremist parties can develop best when a Country is in chaos and there is large scale concerns about an existing government. The Labour Party's motto was "education, education, education". The motto should be "deportation, deportation, deportation".
The first part of this is true and can be demonstrated by precedent, not least that of Germany during the 1930s. The latter part is nonsense; we have no statutes to permit deportation other than of certain proven criminals or illegal immigrants - nor should we.
Lastly, just because I happen to hold British citizenship and an EU passport, I do not feel possessive over Britain; I may be entitled to live here, but the extent to which I feel it is "my" country (especially as I will be emigrating from it in due course) is a good deal more limited than some people's - especially yours, I imagine!
Best,
Alistair
-
The latter part is nonsense; we have no statutes to permit deportation other than of certain proven criminals or illegal immigrants - nor should we.
Rubbish, If i have not yet made my stance clear, i will do so now. I have no problem with immigrants who want to come here legally, abide by our laws, work & pay taxes. Illegals, criminals and those whose only desire is to live off the State should be deported. Regretfully, the Human Rights Act brought in by Blair so his wife and cronies could make millions, makes things harder than they should be.
It is costing millions of pounds every year to keep foreign prisoners in our cushy jails whereas it would would cost much less if they were deported when convicted. Similarly, deporting illegals immediately upon entry would save millions of pounds on hearings and appeals and trying to find them at a later date.
In case it has escaped your notice, the rest of Europe seems to be out of recession whilst jolly old England is still in. Soon, immigrants will stop wanting to come here when this Country becomes worse than the craphole they came from.
There is some light on the horizon though as it appears that Libya are assisting in closing down one of the routes into Europe and the Italians are stiffening their resolve against a flood of unwanteds, so hopefully, the numbers that arrive at Calais awaiting to infest our shores will decrease.
We have enough crap of our own. We do not need any more.
Thal
-
That may not be entirely untrue, but I strongly suspect that the number of votes BNP gets at the next General Election will be very small compared even to the numbers of voters who decline to vote at all.
No doubt, but obviously seats and elections are won by people that DO vote, not by people that stay at home. If you feel strongly enough to support a party like the BNP, it is highly unlikely that you would to decline to vote.
Thal
-
I will be emigrating from it in due course
Bye Bye
-
Bye Bye
I wrote "in due course", not "now"! In any case, I will, as you know, be relocating only a comparatively short distance, so there is no need for any au revoir in any case...
Best,
Alistair
-
(delete duplicate post)
-
No doubt, but obviously seats and elections are won by people that DO vote, not by people that stay at home. If you feel strongly enough to support a party like the BNP, it is highly unlikely that you would to decline to vote.
The first part of this is, of course, true in principle, but the fewer members of the electorate that do vote, the weaker the resulting government (if any) will inevitably be. As to the second, by "you" you obviously mean "one" (since I'm sure you don't intend to suggest my own support of this party) but if has to be said that those who do wish to vote for it will have to be in a constituency where it is fielding a condidate, which is not likely to be anywhere near as many as the main parties will do, so there will be a greater proportion of BNP supporters accordiongly disenfranchised than will be the case with supporters of the main parties.
Best,
Alistair
-
If i have not yet made my stance clear, i will do so now. I have no problem with immigrants who want to come here legally, abide by our laws, work & pay taxes.
Are you entirely sure about that? When you complain about immigrants coming to UK to take the jobs of British citizens already living here or to deny those citizens jobs by accepting them in their stead, you are talking of people who, in the main, will be working and paying taxes and no doubt living in as law-abiding a fashion as those that are already here!
Illegals, criminals and those whose only desire is to live off the State should be deported.
But in many cases they can be; I do agree that certain recent legislation has on occasion made this more difficult than once it might have been, but it is usually possible as long as the culprits can be found, tried, convicted and made available for deportation in the first place. Furthermore, in order to deport immigrants whose "only desire is to live off the State" - even if British law permitted this, which it doesn't - would require a court to prove that each such immigrant came to britian with that intent and no other and it would make no due allowances for those who might end up "living off the State" not because they even intended to do so but merely because they get jobs here that they then lose through no fault of their own, just as often happens to British citizens that are already here. It would also be inconsistent (which is why the law does not permit deportation in such circumstances alone), in that would then be argued that British citizens should also be deported if they can be proved in a court of law to "desire to live off the State".
It is costing millions of pounds every year to keep foreign prisoners in our cushy jails whereas it would would cost much less if they were deported when convicted.
That is undoubtedly true, but it still costs quite abit just up to the point of conviction.
Similarly, deporting illegals immediately upon entry would save millions of pounds on hearings and appeals and trying to find them at a later date.
Indeed it would, but that would require every suspected illegal immigrant to be identified - or at least reasonably suspected - as being one, arrested and placed in custody subject to the laws applicable to UK citizens while on British soil and then tried and convicted - which itself doesn't come cheap.
In case it has escaped your notice, the rest of Europe seems to be out of recession whilst jolly old England is still in. Soon, immigrants will stop wanting to come here when this Country becomes worse than the craphole they came from.
It has come to my notice that certain pundits are trying to persuade us that this is so, but where the evidence is to support it I have no idea. Official unemployment figures for France, for example, have been between 7.5m and 10m for more than 30 years and, for a country with approximately the same population as UK, this contrasts strongly with the UK unemployment situation. Furthermore, "the rest of Europe" includes Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Portugal and a host of other countries outside EC such as Moldova, Iceland, Albania and Turkey - so don't try to persuade us that Britain is lagging behind every other European country!
There is some light on the horizon though as it appears that Libya are assisting in closing down one of the routes into Europe and the Italians are stiffening their resolve against a flood of unwanteds, so hopefully, the numbers that arrive at Calais awaiting to infest our shores will decrease.
Britain has plenty of other entry points besides Dover - far more ports than many other countries and a good deal more airports than some. What will you think when Libya eventually gets EU membership and Libyans themselves will be able to come here? That's a long way down the line, admittedly, but once Turkey and Morocco join, It'll only be a matter of time before the rest of north Africa does, followed by Middle Eastern nations from Yemen to Afghanistan - and even perhaps an independent Waziristan and, by that time, all the old Soviet satellites will doubtless be on the membership application trail as well. Once again, when presenting your arguments, please do not forget those British citizens and immigrants in UK who are leaving of their own accord.
Best,
Alistair
-
The first part of this is, of course, true in principle, but the fewer members of the electorate that do vote, the weaker the resulting government (if any) will inevitably be. As to the second, by "you" you obviously mean "one" (since I'm sure you don't intend to suggest my own support of this party) but if has to be said that those who do wish to vote for it will have to be in a constituency where it is fielding a condidate, which is not likely to be anywhere near as many as the main parties will do, so there will be a greater proportion of BNP supporters accordiongly disenfranchised than will be the case with supporters of the main parties.
I don't know why you posted this twice and i do not know of any party that is fielding a condidate.
Thal
-
Are you entirely sure about that? When you complain about immigrants coming to UK to take the jobs of British citizens already living here or to deny those citizens jobs by accepting them in their stead, you are talking of people who, in the main, will be working and paying taxes and no doubt living in as law-abiding a fashion as those that are already here!
It is illegal immigrants that are the main problem as they do not pay tax, as officially they should not be working. Hundreds of companies were fined last year for employing illegals and that is probably just the tip of the iceberg. These were jobs that could have been done by ohers, such as bone idle benefit loafers.
As a Country we have always had enough workforce to fill vacancies, but the Labour Party has failed to get a generation of benefit dependants into work. We never needed the amount of immigrants that came in, it was only the Labour Party that needed them.
Thal
-
But in many cases they can be;
Yes, they can be but in many cases they are not. The government has a huge backlog of appeals that they will never clear and that can lead to a further armistice which is damaging to this Country.
We need to streamline the deportation process or even better, stop illegals getting in.
Thal
-
Once again, when presenting your arguments, please do not forget those British citizens and immigrants in UK who are leaving of their own accord.
I don't blame them as this Country is not as nice to live in as it used to be.
-
Furthermore, "the rest of Europe" includes Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Portugal and a host of other countries outside EC such as Moldova, Iceland, Albania and Turkey - so don't try to persuade us that Britain is lagging behind every other European country!
Stupid nitpicking and you knew what i meant. I would be truly worried if we were lagging behind Romania in anything but gymnastics.
Thal
-
What will you think when Libya eventually gets EU membership and Libyans themselves will be able to come here?
Hopefully i will be long dead before that happens, but i thank the Libyans for their excellent work in closing down some of the people trafficking routes and stemming the flow of Africans trying to get into Italy.
Of course, the conditions that some of the immigrants are held in are not good, but if the message gets back to others that "it is not worth trying", that can only be positive for Countries that don't want these people.
Thal
-
Indeed it would, but that would require every suspected illegal immigrant to be identified - or at least reasonably suspected - as being one, arrested and placed in custody subject to the laws applicable to UK citizens while on British soil and then tried and convicted - which itself doesn't come cheap.
It is well known that many immigrants simply destroy all their papers to avoid being identified. The Law should be simple, "no papers, no entry".
Thal
-
I don't know why you posted this twice and i do not know of any party that is fielding a condidate.
I didn't post anythig twice and the duplicate appearance of one post of mine (which I've now deleted) occurred as a consequence of problems getting it to appear just once; that's however, for drawing this to my attention. I don;t know what you mean by the rest of this, since I merely pointed out that people who support BNP will be unable to vote for a BNP candidate unless the party fields one in the next General Election and I understand that Mr Nicholas Griffin, the leader of that party, has now announced that he will be standing in the Barking constituency, which seems to me to encapsulate a kind of poetic justice, really...
Best,
Alistair
-
I don't blame them as this Country is not as nice to live in as it used to be.
OK - no doubt you do not (and I can accept that), but it remains important to include them in any arguments that you post about immigration into UK and its actual or potential consequences; the question of whether Britain is "as nice to live in as it used to be" depends on a raft of parameters including but by no menas limited to who it may be that holds (or purports to hold) such an opinion, how long they've lived in UK and what they believe might constitute a "nice" place in which to live in the first place...
Best,
Alistair
-
It will be poetic justice if he wins it, albeit if he does it will be thanks to anti Labour votes.
Thal
-
Hopefully i will be long dead before that happens
I do not share that hope!
but i thank the Libyans for their excellent work in closing down some of the people trafficking routes and stemming the flow of Africans trying to get into Italy.
...despite the fact that, whatever the may seek to persuade people for appearances' sake, they've actually achieved no such thing in any case...
Of course, the conditions that some of the immigrants are held in are not good, but if the message gets back to others that "it is not worth trying", that can only be positive for Countries that don't want these people.
But which countries do not want who? - and how can any one country's views be polarised to such an extent that such a majority view in any one of them could acquire the remotest shread of credibility? This is not about countries so much as individuals from all countries and none who do, or try to do, just what they want and can get away with, for reasons that may be anything from utterly honourable to utterly despicable, although if and when any attempt may be made to challenge the movement of any individual from any one country to any other at any time by bringing any such country's legal sanctions to bear upon it, the taxpayers of that country will have to pay the costs and the outcome, however expensive, will almost certainly never satisfy anyone other than the lawyers who can hardly help but pick up fortunes from their representational involvement therein.
Best,
Alistair
-
OK - no doubt you do not (and I can accept that), but it remains important to include them in any arguments that you post about immigration into UK and its actual or potential consequences;
It is not always relevant, but i wonder how many are intending to destroy their papers and sneak as an illegal into Libya or Iran.
Thal
-
It will be poetic justice if he wins it
Thaat's debatable and dependent on each individual's view of what constitutes poetry...
albeit if he does it will be thanks to anti Labour votes.
That will be impossible to prove beyond doubt; the phenomenon of tactical voting has held sway for some time now and that of double tactical voting is now establishing itself quite firmly in some places, especially in those marginal seats where a substantial number of candidates (inluding the usual suspect bunch of no-hopers) is fielded, so even if Griffin does happen to win that seat, it will be virtually impossible to tell from which party or parties he may have done so. The ultimate result will in any case be of little overall consequence unless such a win is replicated in many other constituencies.
Best,
Alistair
-
It is not always relevant, but i wonder how many are intending to destroy their papers and sneak as an illegal into Libya or Iran.
Probably not many - but then if, as you posit, UK is not as nice a place to come to as once it was, then it surely may not be long before you, and/or someone with similar views as you appear to hold, might pose the same question of people intending to do the same and sneak as an illegal into UK...
Best,
Alistair
-
...despite the fact that, whatever the may seek to persuade people for appearances' sake, they've actually achieved no such thing in any case...
Rubbish, much valuable work is being done by both the Libyans and Italians to stop illegal immigration. The two Countries are now cooperating.
The pact between them allows Italy's coastguard to swiftly deport boatloads of illegal immigrants back to Libyan shores, skipping procedures for filing potential asylum applications. If only we had a similar agreement with the French.
This is good news for Italy and good new for Europe. It is only bad news for the people traffickers and the illegals themselves.
Thal
-
That will be impossible to prove beyond doubt;
And equally impossible to disprove, unless the Labour Party actually starts to talk to the people who live in this area and listen to their views.
I would have thought this unlikely as immigration is a taboo subject with Labour.
Thal
-
But which countries do not want who?
Do you know any Countries that want boatloads of illegals??
-
Rubbish, much valuable work is being done by both the Libyans and Italians to stop illegal immigration. The two Countries are now cooperating.
The pact between them allows Italy's coastguard to swiftly deport boatloads of illegal immigrants back to Libyan shores, skipping procedures for filing potential asylum applications. If only we had a similar agreement with the French.
This is good news for Italy and good new for Europe. It is only bad news for the people traffickers and the illegals themselves.
I am not for one moment seeking to suggest that no work of the kind that you describe is being done; all that I am saying is that any international people trafficking network worth its salt that notes what you do here about this particular co-operation (and they surely all must do, having ears to the ground at least as effective as yours) will simply use other routes to continue to develop its often highly profitable business; as I said earlier, there are so many routes into Britain. That said, the activities of such organisations are one thing and the handling of the cases of individuals who may at any time be apprehended on suspicion of entering any country illegally are quite another and have to follow quite different sets of expensive due legal process than would be the case in trying to prosecute slippery organisations who trade on the basis of being exempt from the laws of any particular country including those in and from which they may operate - an investigative process that is infinitely more expensive than dealing with all the individuals' cases put together and will only continue to be more so.
Agreements between any pairs or groups of countries in such matters are only as good as (a) the constantly changing governments of each that seek to implement them can make them and (b) their effectiveness in practice (if any) once "implemented" by means of entering them on countries' statute books.
Best,
Alistair
-
Do you know any Countries that want boatloads of illegals??
I have not suggested that I do, but that is not my point; what I do suggest is that it is by no means a simple matter to determine beyond all doubt who wants who to be where at any given time, any more than it is so to police who IS where at any given time.
Best,
Alistair
-
Do you know any Countries that want boatloads of illegals??
Many western countries/economies do need more young workforce than theyre currently 'producing' themselves though. The problem is that most of these countries dont do enough to let these people adapt the the new culture/system easily.
Lots of illegals want to work like legals, their tag 'illegal' makes it very hard though, and risky.
-
Lots of illegals want to work like legals, their tag 'illegal' makes it very hard though, and risky.
I expect they do, but if they went through the proper procedures they would have a much greater chance.
Thal
-
I am not for one moment seeking to suggest that no work of the kind that you describe is being done; all that I am saying is that any international people trafficking network worth its salt that notes what you do here about this particular co-operation (and they surely all must do, having ears to the ground at least as effective as yours) will simply use other routes to continue to develop its often highly profitable business
Which is why the battle to close them down must continue. It is the message that is sent out that is even more important. "If you want to come here, do it through the proper procedures".
Once illegals are sent back home, they will tell others (hopefully) not to try, so the cooperation between the Italians and Libyans is vital.
Thal
-
That said, the activities of such organisations are one thing and the handling of the cases of individuals who may at any time be apprehended on suspicion of entering any country illegally are quite another and have to follow quite different sets of expensive due legal process than would be the case in trying to prosecute slippery organisations who trade on the basis of being exempt from the laws of any particular country including those in and from which they may operate - an investigative process that is infinitely more expensive than dealing with all the individuals' cases put together and will only continue to be more so.
The Italians appear to have bypassed such expensive legal processes by shipping illegals straight back from whence they came and denying them the chance to claim asylum.
We have much to learn from this method as it not only reduces the number of illegals, but the bill for the taxpayer as well.
Thal
-
Which is why the battle to close them down must continue. It is the message that is sent out that is even more important. "If you want to come here, do it through the proper procedures".
Many such people would not have any such "propoer procedures" made available to them by the countries that they are trying to leave, so even if Britain were to make such procedures available, the effect would be substantially compromised.
Once illegals are sent back home, they will tell others (hopefully) not to try, so the cooperation between the Italians and Libyans is vital.
The ones that are killed when they get back won't tell anyone anything but, as I said, the traffickers will just change routes to avoid the consequences of such measures as you write about here. If every country tried to set up and maintain such pacts, the cost would be so prohibitive as to make those of handling such issues as they're now being handled look very puny indeed; professional trafficking organisations are well aware of this fact, just as they are of the sheer unlikelihood of the establishment of sustainable global co-operation between every conceivable pair of countries that would be imperative for this to work other than as an easily avoidable exception.
Best,
Alistair
-
The ones that are killed when they get back won't tell anyone anything
Alistairtair
Dear Alistairair,
I am aware the dead cannot talk, but when unfortunate deaths are reported by the media, it is sending a very powerful message to those that wish to enter Europe illegally.
Of course the traffickers will look for other routes, but they will have no trade if the immigrants themselves stop wishing to come. This is why what the Italians are doing is so important.
Thal
-
Dear Alistairair,
Just out of interest, is anyone else here encountering difficulties in sending posts here at present? I'm finding that the system jams up quite frequently and it is unclear for a time even whether a post has gone or not (I'm not finding any problems with other sites). Anyway, Thal, you omitted a "t" from your attempted repetition of the mistype here, just as you and others have so often done when writing "Elliot Carter"...
I am aware the dead cannot talk, but when unfortunate deaths are reported by the media, it is sending a very powerful message to those that wish to enter Europe illegally.
I doubt that very much; there is not yet anything like as much evidence that people have actually been deported and subsequently met their deaths in the countries to which they have been forcibly repatriated than there is that such people have been threatened with such summary execution upon their return.
Of course the traffickers will look for other routes, but they will have no trade if the immigrants themselves stop wishing to come. This is why what the Italians are doing is so important.
But the immigrants won't for the most part want to stop coming - especially those whose circumstances in their own countries are particularly parlous compared to those in Britain.
However, what you still seem unwilling to address is the possible outcome of large numbers of people already entitled to live in UK coming to UK to do so, including British citizens living abroad. The very fact, for example, of the British pound's unfavourable situation via-à-vis the euro is forcing quite a few of those ex-pat Brits - especially those on fixed income payable in pounds sterling - to consider having to return to Britain purely for reasons of economic necessity; add those to the ever-increasing numbers of EU citizens entitled to live in UK and who choose to do so and you have then only to consider the balancing factor of existing immigrants and UK-based British citizens in order to try to arrive at sensible and sanguine conclusions about what level of population Britain might be capable of supporting at any given time, though it's far from a simple matter.
Best,
Alistair
-
But the immigrants won't for the most part want to stop coming - especially those whose circumstances in their own coutries are particularly parlous compared to those in Britain.
If i remember correctly, there has been a reduction on those attempting the "Italian" route. This shows us the way forward and what can be achieved with a bit of effort.
No doubt those that live in terrible conditions might still want to risk the journey, but when the word gets back of the terrible conditions in detention centres, people might think twice. The problem is that in England we are and are seen to be a soft touch. I am not without compassion for people that wish to come here illegally to improve their lives, but as a Country we have to have control over our borders.
I do not blame illegal immigrants for wishing to come here and they should not blame us for trying to keep them out.
Thal
-
However, what you still seem unwilling to address is the possible outcome of large numbers of people already entitled to live in UK coming to UK to do so, including British citizens living abroad. The very fact, for example, of the British pound's unfavourable situation via-à-vis the euro is forcing quite a few of those ex-pat Brits - especially those on fixed income payable in pounds sterling - to consider having to return to Britain purely for reasons of economic necessity; add those to the ever-increasing numbers of EU citizens entitled to live in UK and who choose to do so and you have then only to consider the balancing factor of existing immigrants and UK-based British citizens in order to try to arrive at sensible and sanguine conclusions about what level of population Britain might be capable of supporting at any given time, though it's far from a simple matter.
You have explained very well why we need to keep out illegals.
Thanks
Thal
-
If i remember correctly, there has been a reduction on those attempting the "Italian" route. This shows us the way forward and what can be achieved with a bit of effort.
That demonstrates to me (if indeed it is to be believed) that other routes are already gaining ground.
No doubt those that live in terrible conditions might still want to risk the journey, but when the word gets back of the terrible conditions in detention centres, people might think twice.
But that's just it; the word rarely if ever does get around. Communications are often very bad t the best of time for some of these people and they are in any case being conned with land-of-milk-and-honey (as mercifully distinct from land-of-hopelessness-and-vainglory) promises which the most vulnerable members of society have little choice but to hope to believe.
The problem is that in England we are and are seen to be a soft touch. I am not without compassion for people that wish to come here illegally to improve their lives, but as a Country we have to have control over our borders.
Yes, we do have to try to do that within reson beause we only have so much space.
I do not blame illegal immigrants for wishing to come here and they should not blame us for trying to keep them out.
I reckon that some of the illegal immigrants don't even possess the mental energy to blame us for anything, frankly...
Best,
Alistair
-
You have explained very well why we need to keep out illegals.
Thanks
That's OK; I never suggested that it was less than necessary to try to stem the flow of illegal immigrants but I'm just not convinced that you're satisfied with the situation about legal ones or about British nationals living abroad who decided that they'd like (or feel obliged or forced) to return, either and/or both of which could cause a massive increase in the UK population.
Best,
Alistair
-
That demonstrates to me (if indeed it is to be believed) that other routes are already gaining ground.
Which is why the struggle must continue and amicable arrangement made with other Countries for the immediate return of illegals.
Thal
-
That's OK; I never suggested that it was less than necessary to try to stem the flow of illegal immigrants but I'm just not convinced that you're satisfied with the situation about legal ones or about British nationals living abroad who decided that they'd like (or feel obliged or forced) to return, either and/or both of which could cause a massive increase in the UK population.
If British nationals are living abroad legally, i can see no reason why they would feel obliged to return or be forced to. If any have managed to smuggle themselves into Iraq illegally, i assume they might wish to come back.
Thal
-
But that's just it; the word rarely if ever does get around.
If nobody gets sent back, i would agree, but this is no longer the case.
In addition, the British Government has actually sponsored a soap opera broadcast on African radio and television stations to try to convince people not to try to come here illegally.
For once, the penny finally appears to have dropped.
Thal
-
Which is why the struggle must continue and amicable arrangement made with other Countries for the immediate return of illegals.
But how shall that be achieved and under whose agreed direction and with whose agreement - and how should such agreement be established and maintained? Too many countries are involved or potentially involved to render any such universal agreement betwen all possible pairs of nations remotely likely.
Best,
Alistair
-
If British nationals are living abroad legally, i can see no reason why they would feel obliged to return or be forced to. If any have managed to smuggle themselves into Iraq illegally, i assume they might wish to come back.
You misunderstand my point. Such ex-pat Brits would not, of course, be "forced" (for example by the governments of the countries in which they have settled) to repatriate; what I'm talking about is the Brits who may feel that they are no longer left with any option other than to consider returning because of economic factors such as (but by no means necessarily limited to) the increasingly parlous relationship between the British pound and the euro that affects quite a few ex-pat Brits, especially those on (as I mentioend) fixed pound sterling incomes.
Best,
Alistair
-
If nobody gets sent back, i would agree, but this is no longer the case.
Hardly anyone gets sent back against their will and in situations that may be risk to them - and the few that are make very little difference to any arguments on this.
In addition, the British Government has actually sponsored a soap opera broadcast on African radio and television stations to try to convince people not to try to come here illegally.
For once, the penny finally appears to have dropped.
Fine - East Africa Enders, perhaps? What difference do you suppose that this might hope to make when a substantial majority of those who end up intending to enter UK illegally have no obvious option to try to enter that country other than illegally? The penny dropped? The pound has already dropped almost to invisibility, so I'd not worry overmuch about those pennies if I were you!
Best,
Alistair
-
What I'm talking about is the Brits who may feel that they are no longer left with any option other than to consider returning because of economic factors such as (but by no means necessarily limited to) the increasingly parlous relationship between the British pound and the euro that affects quite a few ex-pat Brits, especially those on (as I mentioend) fixed pound sterling incomes.
If this is likely to happen, it is even more reason to stem the flow of illegals. We have a limited amount of space in England.
Apart from ex pats who are wanted by the British Police, i cannot see why there would be any problem with a majority of them returning. They would not need to smuggle themselves in on the back of a lorry.
Thal
-
But how shall that be achieved and under whose agreed direction and with whose agreement
I am not a bloody politician. Ask the Italian government.
They seem to have a good system.
Thal
-
Fine - East Africa Enders, perhaps? What difference do you suppose that this might hope to make when a substantial majority of those who end up intending to enter UK illegally have no obvious option to try to enter that country other than illegally?
If it convinces just a few people not to try, it is worth it. If it convinces a hundred, the investment has been returned with interest.
Thal
-
Just out of interest, is anyone else here encountering difficulties in sending posts here at present?
Not me.
Perhaps you might want to considering popping the corks a little later in the day.
Thal
-
If this is likely to happen, it is even more reason to stem the flow of illegals. We have a limited amount of space in England.
Correct.
Apart from ex pats who are wanted by the British Police, i cannot see why there would be any problem with a majority of them returning. They would not need to smuggle themselves in on the back of a lorry.
True - although you could have added any other police force, not only the British one; the only problem that you might find is that if most of these people did indeed return you might be minded to consider that all manner of immigrants already here would have to be deported to make room for them, as the UK population might otherwise risk being catapulted to hopelessly impractical levels...
Best,
Alistair
-
I am not a bloody politician. Ask the Italian government.
I won't waste time consulting Signor Berlusconi, then; instead, I'll take the Italian gvovernment's word for it that you're "not a bloody politician"...
Best,
Alistair
-
If it convinces just a few people not to try, it is worth it. If it convinces a hundred, the investment has been returned with interest.
And it it doesn't do anything of the kind because resourceful international people trafficking organisations can (as indeed they are doing and will continue to do) always find another way around such efforts, then what?
Best,
Alistair
-
Not me.
Perhaps you might want to considering popping the corks a little later in the day.
OK, fine - but I do not type using a cork...
Best,
Alistair
-
all manner of immigrants already here would have to be deported to make room for them, as the UK population might otherwise risk being catapulted to hopelessly impractical levels...
Sounds good to me if we would be deporting illegals.
-
Hardly anyone gets sent back against their will and in situations that may be risk to them - and the few that are make very little difference to any arguments on this.
Since the Rome-Tripoli agreement, over 1000 illegals have been returned to Libya. How many got back to their Countries of origin i do not know, but according to Panorama the other week, some certainly do and advise other people not to try.
Very good news and a positive development.
Thal
-
And it it doesn't do anything of the kind because resourceful international people trafficking organisations can (as indeed they are doing and will continue to do) always find another way around such efforts, then what?
If there are less customers, there is less business.
Simplez
Thal
-
Since the Rome-Tripoli agreement, over 1000 illegals have been returned to Libya. How many got back to their Countries of origin i do not know, but according to Panorama the other week, some certainly do and advise other people not to try.
As you admit, you have no idea (and nor have I) how many of these people eventually go back to their countries of origin but I'm certain that quite a substantial number of them have another go at getting into Britian or elsewhere via a different route.
I wonder if Libya's agreement with its almost neighbouring EU country is part of a ruse towards eventually seeking to persuade Brussels that it ought itself to become eligible to apply for EU membership; frankly, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if that were the case.
Best,
Alistair
-
If there are less customers, there is less business.
That of course is true, but if there are almost as many disaffected customers (i.e. those who get sent back) who then get sold a slightly different product (i.e. a diffeernt route) by one of the unscrupulous people trafficking cartels, there's ample business, thanks!
Simplez
Wot langwidge is that?...
Best,
Alistair
-
Wot langwidge is that?...
It is Alexander Meerkat language.
I have asked Santa for one for Christmas.
Thal
-
I wonder if Libya's agreement with its almost neighbouring EU country is part of a ruse towards eventually seeking to persuade Brussels that it ought itself to become eligible to apply for EU membership; frankly, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if that were the case.
I think oil might be part of the equation as well.
Thal
-
I wonder if Libya's agreement with its almost neighbouring EU country is part of a ruse towards eventually seeking to persuade Brussels that it ought itself to become eligible to apply for EU membership; frankly, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if that were the case.
Best,
Alistair
Hmmm, Libya part of the EU. That would mean another country run by criminals to leach the resources of the (comparatively) better run ones. Oh well, yet one more would hardly be noticable by now. :P
Perhaps they should do an EU-wide poll among the inhabitants about this... (joking, of course! No sense in doing polls if you know beforehand you're going to loose them, us being a democratic brotherhood after all!)
all best,
gep
-
joking, of course!
I am glad you added that.
For a moment, i almost thought that we would get a vote on something.
Thal
-
You folks who are posting to this theme are fantastic. It is not often an outsider gets an insight into UK politics. One quick question: where will the BNP votes come from? In other words, which party will loose voters switching to the BNP? Or do you think the BNP will attract first time voters?
Thanks!
-
You folks who are posting to this theme are fantastic. It is not often an outsider gets an insight into UK politics. One quick question: where will the BNP votes come from? In other words, which party will loose voters switching to the BNP? Or do you think the BNP will attract first time voters?
BNP might attact a few otherwise disaffected first-time voters; otherwise, it might attract some equally disaffected voters who have previously voted for other parties. That said, other parties will "lose" to them only if the switch to BNP in any constituency where it fields a condidate (which will be far from all of them) is of sufficient substance, but that goes equally for all the other parties who are currently describable as being in a very small monirity.
Best,
Alistair
-
As i have said before, parties like the BNP can only exist when there is large scale dissatisfaction with the existing government and regretfully at the moment we have a Labour Government. The Labour Party traditionally is supposed to support the average working man, but it is he/she that has suffered most from the Labour's non existant immigration policy.
There are parts of our Country that were already overcrowded and deprived, but these are the same places where immigrants end up living, putting an even greater strain on public services and housing. When there was enough work to go around, the problems were not so drastic, but when the recession started to bite and jobs were scarce, there was wide scale resentment concerning cheap foreign labour. Our idiot Prime Minister bloated on about "British jobs for British workers", which he had no intention or ability to enforce. Unbelievably, some Labour Councils advertised jobs where only applications from ethnic minorities would be considered.
Under a Labour government, the sense of pride in being British has been seriously eroded. Blair did some idiotic things like apologising for our participation in the slave trade, but would not apologise for dragging the Country into war on non existant evidence. The Labour Party kept promoting multi culturism and took pride in our diversity, but i cannot remember Blair saying he was proud to be British. Even more damaging was Labour's surrender of our rebate to the European Union and inability to allow a referendum on the European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty which has now been approved without a mandate from the British people.
When the Labour party took over from the Tories in 1997, they inherited a Country in a pretty good state. Now, after 12 years we are in the worse recession in years, violent crime has increased at an alarming rate, council tax has doubled, we are involved in a pointless war we cannot win, our filthy hospitals kill hundreds of people despite huge investment and our schools have churned out a generation of unemployable youths. Most damaging to them is that the poverty gap has actually increased and they are so far behind on their targets, they have had to put back erasure of child poverty to 2020.
We live in a Society where our soldiers live in worse conditions than terrorists held in our jails, where violent criminals are let out of jail early to kill more people, where people are promoted to jobs they are not fit for because their ethnicity is under represented and undoubtedly a Country where more Councils will stop Christmas decorations being put up this year incase they offend Muslims. Not all Labours fault, but this has happened on their watch.
However loathsome some might consider the BNP to be, they do offer an ear to those that feel their Country has been sold and changed forever and offer a platform where people can voice their opinions about immigration without being branded as racist. The Labour Party do not want to seem to get into a debate about the effects on this Country of legal immigration and illegal immigration. If they did allow this important subject to be aired and started to listen to the concerns of many people, we as a Country would have no need for a party such as the BNP.
They Labour party have consigned themselves to a generation of weak opposition and they only have themselves to blame. In addition, they are in some way to blame for almost a million people voting for the BNP at the recent Euro elections.
Thal
-
As i have said before, parties like the BNP can only exist when there is large scale dissatisfaction with the existing government.
Good point, most political parties exist and are elected due to dissatisfaction.
-
Good point, most political parties exist and are elected due to dissatisfaction.
That's all very well, but at the same time most situations in which no political party has a majority and therefore able to ensure strong government also arise largely as a result of dissatisfaction - a dissatisfaction in which, while some voters simply migrate loyalties from one party to another, many more indulge in single or multiple tactical voting strategies or abstain altogether; the more candidates fielded in an election in any constituency, the greater the likelihood that voters will seek to play one off against another tactically and the recent Glasgow by-election was not only one of many such cases but also an example of disaffected voters deciding not to vote at all, as the distressingly paltry turnout proved.
The principal objective of the exercise in voting in a General Election is surely the attempt to elect a government of one's choosing that is perceived to be capable of righting past wrongs and doing the job that its electorate asks of it (I know that this notion reeks of wild over-optimism in practice but it still holds good in principle, I think). I cannot see how the electorate's adherence to such an objective could enable the election of more than the odd one or two BNP MPS, let alone a BNP government, if for no better reason than that no one - probably even including the candidates that BNP might field in a General Election - appears to have a clear idea of that party's proposed manifesto in any areas of politics other than those of race and immigration; what might be its policies on transport, employment, healthcare, education, housing, etc.?
Ultimately, the disaffection that results in temporary migrations of party loyalties and that which encourages abstinence from voting tend to bring abiout similar results - weaker and less sustainnable governments. I know that, in the 1930s, for example, one could not say that of what arose in Germany largely as a consequence of such disaffection on a vast scale, but that is history - by which I do not at all mean to undermine or ignore it but to draw attention to the fact that post-WWII European history has demonstrated that, to a large extent, people have learnt lessons from that kind of thing and ensured that nothing like it has been permitted to occur again.
Best,
Alistair
-
no one - probably even including the candidates that BNP might field in a General Election - appears to have a clear idea of that party's proposed manifesto in any areas of politics
I think the same could be said of all political parties.
Thal
Thal
Thal
-
I think the same could be said of all political parties.
It could indeed, but there remains a fundamental difference; the three main parties - and indeed some of the other fringe ones to a greater or lesser extent - at least seek to set out a monifesto, even if it might be hard to believe at the time and not carried out to the letter following an election victory (both of which are usually the case with those parties who have indeed achieved such a victory), whereas BNP do not even seem to be interested in promoting its policies on most issues that one expects a government-to-be to promote.
Best,
Alistair
-
I do not know exactly what the BNP is or stands for, but I think we have a party in The Netherlands that is at least somewhat the same; it goes by the name of Party for Freedom (Dutch short: PVV), and it’s leader goes by the name of Geert Wilders. Currently, polls estimate him at 29 (of 150) places in the parliament, what would make him the biggest party. Why so many people seem to consider voting for him, rather than the “old boys” parties? I’ll give some Dutch issues, which may be reflected in the UK.
The European Constitution was voted down in NL, so was quickly renamed “Lisbon Agreement”, and shoved down our throats that way. A governmental flyer explained (jn bold type) that “Dutch laws prevail, of course”, and on the back (in much smaller type) “EU laws go above national ones”.
Recent figures show that, in the age of 15-25, some 6% on Dutch youngsters commit crimes, against some 70% of Turkish, and 75% of Moroccan youngsters. In jails, some 60% of inmates is of non-Western extraction, while being only some 6% of the population. When the PVV asked questions (“how can this be, and what is planned to do about it?”), the answer was “these figures should have remained confidential”. And criminal figures were henceforth banned to show ethnic makeup.
When the acceptance of Romania was voted in the EU, the fact that the Romanian government deliberately falsified their national financial figures was kept secret until after the vote was cast. In Holland, of all crimes of a “skimming” nature (copying your bank card to rob your account) 95% turn out to be committed by Romanian criminals, and in Romania there are special schools now to learn the trade. Nothing is done, since Romania is a brother nation now, and still “learning”.
Last figures about eastern European people in Holland are given as “some 250,000, of which about ¾ come here to work”. What the other ¼ (some 60,000+ people) come here for is not specified. But apparently they bring some €800,000,000 worth yearly to Poland alone. “Proletarian shopped” as they call it here. (i.e.: stolen goods). Facts are ignored, as to not harm the friendship with the Polish government, of course.
A Dutch Islamic school teaching children that they cannot be friends with, or even speak to non-Muslims “because we can never have peace with non-believers” is left untouched. A politician stating he finds Islam an “oppressive religion” is called a racist.
Labout party here voted for a 30% increase in their salary recently. When the Unions asked for a 1,25% raise a minister of that same Labour party called that request “insane, and irresponsible in these hard times”.
Another member of parliament left yesterday. He will receive his full wages some 6 years to come. People losing their job and not taking their employer to court about that directly are considered “wilfully unemployed”, and are cut off all social security barring the lowest level.
Etc Etc Etc.
I think people voting for BNP in the UK, or PVV in The Netherlands or similar parties in other countries do so not because they agree so much with everything that parties say, but because they are loath of the looking away, self-absorption, hypocrisy, wilful ignorance and arrogance of the powers that be.
Oh, and that same Mr. Wilders was denied access to the UK recently, because "social upheaval" was feared. When a UK judge nulled that decision, and Wilders went to the UK, he was greeted by some men with long beards waving signs with "Freedom can go to Hell, Sharia for Europe" and such. Apparently these are the "social elements" UK government had wanted to protect from Wilders populism.....
As one Dutch politician recently said "You call me populist, something you do not wish to be? Know then that 'populist' means 'of the people', and I thank you for your compliment, and your honesty in stating that you do not want to be 'of the people'!"
All best,
gep
-
whereas BNP do not even seem to be interested in promoting its policies on most issues that one expects a government-to-be to promote.
They do, but the only policy that is ever talked about in the press is immigration.
Thal
-
They do, but the only policy that is ever talked about in the press is immigration.
Well, I've seen almost nothing of this and I'm quite certain that if the party promoted its other policies appropriately it might get taken rather more seriously (or revealed as an even more appalling prospect as a party in government than it is already generally thought to be).
Best,
Alistair
-
Mr. Wilders was denied access to the UK recently, because "social upheaval" was feared. When a UK judge nulled that decision, and Wilders went to the UK, he was greeted by some men with long beards waving signs with "Freedom can go to Hell, Sharia for Europe" and such. Apparently these are the "social elements" UK government had wanted to protect from Wilders populism.....
To initially deny Mr. Wilders access was typical of our stupid Labour Government. It is said he was added to the "do not let in the Country list" when the Labour Party realised that the existing list consisted only of black people and Muslims and they did not want to be seen as racist. The press had a field day with this and i expect a few more Labour voters went over to the BNP.
You seem to have similar problems in Holland and every point in your post i can relate to. Here in good old England, Muslims can burn our flag in broad daylight and shout "death to the infidel" and will be left unmolested by the Police, whereas a couple of Christian Hotel owners who questioned the belief of their Muslim guests were hauled down the Police Station and threatened with prosecution.
On the subject of racism, someone sent me an e mail which is supposedly Michael Richards defence speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. For people who do not know who this is, Michael Richards is better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld. I do not know if this is accurate or a joke, but it makes interesting reading. I have removed some words as it is not my intention to offen anyone. Here it is.......
"Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this? There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.
And then there are just Americans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'... and that's OK.
But when I call you, Kike, Towel head, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink .. You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you... so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi..
You have the NAACP. You have BET... If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that??
A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any colour can be in the Miss America pageant..
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US. Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists..
You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
I am proud... But you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists??"
Thal
-
Well, I've seen almost nothing of this and I'm quite certain that if the party promoted its other policies appropriately it might get taken rather more seriously (or revealed as an even more appalling prospect as a party in government than it is already generally thought to be).
Almost repeating my previous post, but they do promote other policies, but you will not read about it in the papers or see it on telly, as this is not news.
Thal
-
Almost repeating my previous post, but they do promote other policies, but you will not read about it in the papers or see it on telly, as this is not news.
If a political party's policies cannot be accessed via - and are not announced and discussed in - the media (internet, television, radio, newspapers and other journals, etc.), what kind of "promotion" is that? To whom are BNP's raft of policies being "promoted" if most people never get to hear about them? OK, perhaps they do have well-thought-out policies on all of those other issues that I mentioned (and others besides) - although I rather doubt it - but there is such a thing as a right to free speech within the law in UK so how come information about BNP's policies is simply not being disseminated? It might be interesting to observe whether the electorate as a whole becomes any more enlightened as to the details of these policies if and when BNP fields candidates in the next General Election; even then, if most people consider those policies to be less credible or acceptable than those of other parties, it won't help their cause.
Best,
Alistair
-
most people never get to hear about them?
Almost repeating my previous post again. You will not hear about other policies as it is not news. BNP candidates do promote other policies, but you will not read about it.
The media are only interested in their racist policies and nothing else.
Thal
-
Almost repeating my previous post again. You will not hear about other policies as it is not news. BNP candidates do promote other policies, but you will not read about it.
Then I will evidently have almost to repeat mine by asking yet agin to whom they are promoting their other policies - or, perhaps, more specifically, by what means are they promoting or endeavouring to promote their policies and to whom?
Were I to "promote" the Concerto Preservation Society by emailing hopefully interested parties about it and advertising its wares on specialist fora, then I will have gotten the message about it through to any recipient of such email messages and readers of my forum posts who might want to know; if, on the other hand, I wanted to draw the attention of the general public to it, I would have to conduct a vastly more widespread advertising and promotional campaign that would inevitably have to include television and radio airtime and exposure of the organisation in newspapers and other journals, otherwise news of it would not reach that public.
In the general absence of news and other promotional material about BNP's policies on issues other than race and immigration - and on the assumption that you appear to be aware of what at least some of those policies are - perhaps you might care to offer some enlightenment to forum members here on that subject.
Best,
Alistair
-
Repeating for the fourth (and last time), the BNP do not have the same kind of media exposure as other parties (or the funds to attempt to) and when they are mentioned in the press or on television, it concentrates on the racist aspect.
Their "policies" are available for people with the intelligence to use a computer keyboard, which at the moment does not appear to include you.
Promoting to the wider public would be extremely difficult on what one would think are limited funds.
Enlightenment is not my one of my strong points.
Thal
-
Repeating for the fourth (and last time),
No, your're mentioning it for the fourth time (not that anyone asked you to), so repeating it for the third time.
the BNP do not have the same kind of media exposure as other parties (or the funds to attempt to) and when they are mentioned in the press or on television, it concentrates on the racist aspect.
I do not disagree with this, but then they need (if they could care less) to ask themselves why that might be; furthermore, if they have insufficient funds to mount a campaign on a scale similar to those of other parties, they're hardly likely to get their policies (if they have any) across to the voting public and will accordingly find themselves in a position to expect a level of success commensurate with such lack of public exposure.
Their "policies" are available for people with the intelligence to use a computer keyboard, which at the moment does not appear to include you.
Then it's strange that my posts appear of their own accord, is it not? The fact remains that a considerable proportion of the voting public has access to the internet but this fact has so far made almost no visible or audible impact on public consciousness of BNP policies or its general manifesto.
Promoting to the wider public would be extremely difficult on what one would think are limited funds.
Then they may as well either pack up and shut up or go and rob what's left in the banks in order to play the political promotion games because, as I've said, a political party without massive funding is almost inevitably going to find itself ona a hiding to nothing.
Enlightenment is not my one of my strong points.
That depends upon the subject under discussion!
Best,
Alistair
-
The fact remains that a considerable proportion of the voting public has access to the internet but this fact has so far made almost no visible or audible impact on public consciousness of BNP policies or its general manifesto.
Made no visible or audible impact on YOUR consciousness.
I don't know how you can speak for the entire British public.
Thal
-
Made no visible or audible impact on YOUR consciousness.
As is abundantly clear from what I have written on the subject, it's not MY consciousness that we're concerned with here, since I am not the electorate but merely one member thereof.
I don't know how you can speak for the entire British public.
I'm sure that you don't - but that is because I do not do so, nor do I pretend to do so, nor is who I may or may not speak for relevant to the issues that have been discussed, which are the gravely ability of the party concerned to promote suchever range of policies as it may have to the majority of the British electorate, which is ironical given that it calls itself the British National Party.
Best,
Alistair
-
it's not MY consciousness that we're concerned with here, since I am not the electorate but merely one member thereof.
Thanks for making this clear.
I thought for a moment you were aware of the conciousness of the entire British Public.
Thal
-
I will not dwell on the BNP, because I do not kwow enough about that. But here are some volatile thoughts perhaps...
If one lives in a free country, with free speech, doesn't that mean you can have, on ANY subject, a pro AND a con opinion? You're free to oppose either the pro or the con, but both have an equal right to exists. Assuming, of course, that no one of those opinions should be forced upon anyone.
We have freedom of faith. Good. Sign of civilisation. So how about someone being anti-faith. Such a person is considered (usually by the faithful) to be anti-social. But then, isn't a Christian automatically an anti-Hindou? Or a Hindou an anti-Muslim?
If anyone can say "My God(s) want me to behave such and so", is anyone else evenly free to say "your God(s) is/are a product of your imagination".
Why is it not OK to say "I hate homosexuals", but is it of course freedom of religion to say "God hates homosexuals, and therefore so do I"?
If I refuse (which I don't, let that be clear) to shake hands with a Muslim, I discriminate. If that same Muslim refuses to shake hands with my mother because she is a female, then that is freedom of religion, and should be accepted. Why?
If anyone has problems with any political party, and finds faults with their arguments, they should be countered with arguments. If certain parties are airing untruths or extreme exaggerations, such should easily be proven. A politician stating that, among young Dutch Moroccans, criminality is 15 times higher than among Dutch youths, he is deemed racists. If that were true, such could easily be proven by giving the correct statistics, showing that that politician’s statement is wrong. Problem is, that politician is right. And he is no racist, he (merely) states that criminality among Moroccan youths is much higher than average. You can do two things. Either you acknowledge the fact, and try to find out why this is so, and accept the answers and try to correct things. Or you can ignore the facts and answers because they are not politically desirable, and let the all to real problem continue to spiral out of hand.
The answer is not that Moroccans are, by nature, more criminally inclined (thát statement would be racist!), and that particular politician does not say that, but that Moroccan culture sits ill at ease with Dutch culture, and as a result Moroccan youths are caught between two worlds. The “home” one in which they are (usually) raised in a very authoritarian way, with little respect for women in general and the aggressive drive to be “top dog” so to say, and the country one in which every member is regarded equal, and pecking order is suppressed. Added (and originating in that particular culture) is the fact that any critique ushered upon it is regarded an attack that, if not countered in the hardest (manliest) possible way, means loss of stature and honour within that community. So any self criticism is out of the question too. And so the problem festers on….
Of course there are those within those communities who do not want to go along that road any more, but want to be part of this community. And now comes the sad part. These people are in trouble because of their own people (who do not take any such “betrayal” lightly) AND because of Dutch politicians who do not support them, but rather their much louder opponents.
And so, because the troubles that are there and are getting more and more out of hand, and with “traditional” politicians deciding to look away, the theatre gets set for parties like the BNP and the Dutch PVV and others in other countries. Generally, they say TOO LOUD what other are silent upon. And they are TOO CRUDE where others are too soft. But people will go to them, because the problems are all too real, and all too shied away from.
As I said earlier, I do not think most people vote for such parties because they fully agree with them, but because they address problems (even if too exaggerated in certain aspects, but thát is part of all politics!) other parties choose to ignore. Either those other parties start listening, or they will get into trouble.
Fact is, there are people coming here because they wish to seize the possibilities given to them here, and wish to become a positive addition to society. Those are always welcome, as far as I am concerned. But there are those (and rather many) who want to come here because of the easy life, and become, in fact, nothing but parasites. You do not want lice on your head. So why allow them into your country?
I am not a racist, I deem that a silly way of thinking. But I do try to assess people on their behaviour, and a lot of behaviour may be culturally based. And then, yes, there are cultures that are inferior to others. Usually you can tell by how any culture behaves to any other culture. Compare, say, Saudi Arabian religious culture with that of the USA or Norway. Try sell a Bible, to find out.
If all cultures were equal, cannibalism would be a matter of taste…
all best,
gep
-
A politician stating that, among young Dutch Moroccans, criminality is 15 times higher than among Dutch youths, he is deemed racists. If that were true, such could easily be proven by giving the correct statistics, showing that that politician’s statement is wrong. Problem is, that politician is right. And he is no racist, he (merely) states that criminality among Moroccan youths is much higher than average. You can do two things. Either you acknowledge the fact, and try to find out why this is so, and accept the answers and try to correct things. Or you can ignore the facts and answers because they are not politically desirable, and let the all to real problem continue to spiral out of hand.
We suffer from similar idiocy in England. If i stated that if you had your pocket picked in London there was an 8 in 10 chance it was done by a Romanian, i would considered racist by some politically correct infested imbeciles. Whereas, I could actually be quoting a statistic.
The Labour party will not publicly acknowledge the downside of uncontrolled immigration and frustrated people who do suffer negative effects could defect to far right parties. If you cannot even acknowledge a problem, you can never solve it.
Thal
-
And so, because the troubles that are there and are getting more and more out of hand, and with “traditional” politicians deciding to look away, the theatre gets set for parties like the BNP and the Dutch PVV and others in other countries. Generally, they say TOO LOUD what other are silent upon. And they are TOO CRUDE where others are too soft. But people will go to them, because the problems are all too real, and all too shied away from.
I could not have put it better myself.
Thal
-
Thanks for making this clear.
I thought for a moment you were aware of the conciousness of the entire British Public.
My pleasure (and my necessity, it would also seem where you are concerned); whether or not or to what extent I might be aware of the consciousness of the British public, I have certainly never sought to represent it in any way (and "consciousness" has just one more "s" than the three to which you allot it).
Best,
Alistair
-
We suffer from similar idiocy in England. If i stated that if you had your pocket picked in London there was an 8 in 10 chance it was done by a Romanian, i would considered racist by some politically correct infested imbeciles. Whereas, I could actually be quoting a statistic.
The Labour party will not publicly acknowledge the downside of uncontrolled immigration and frustrated people who do suffer negative effects could defect to far right parties. If you cannot even acknowledge a problem, you can never solve it.
That is of course true and important to recognise, but in the end one's pocket is picked (or one's credit card compromised) by a criminal, be he/she a Romanian, a Scotsman, a Greenlander or a Somalian.
Some might even suggest that an undue laissez-faire attitude to who may be allowed to enter the country is of itself asking for a higher crime rate, but I would nevertheless submit that crime will in any case be committed by whomsoever is available to commit it, irrespective of their ethnic origin or immigrational status; for example, most of the crimes committed around where I now live are by locals who are not immigrants.
Best,
Alistair
-
The fact remains that a considerable proportion of the voting public has access to the internet but this fact has so far made almost no visible or audible impact on public consciousness of BNP policies or its general manifesto.
I am glad you never sought to represent public contiosuness in any way.
Thal
-
most of the crimes committed around where I now live are by locals who are not immigrants.
If duckjacking is considered a crime, you are probably correct.
But when was the last stabbing or mugging in your area?. Are you too afraid to walk to the pub on your own?. When was the last armed robbery at the Post Office and the last time someone beat you up because you were white? When was your wallet last lifted, your car stolen or the last drug bust? When was the local pimp last prosecuted or the local brothel raided?
Be thankful that the peaceful area you live in has not yet been infested with illegal immigrants.
Thal
-
That is of course true and important to recognise, but in the end one's pocket is picked (or one's credit card compromised) by a criminal, be he/she a Romanian, a Scotsman, a Greenlander or a Somalian.
Some might even suggest that an undue laissez-faire attitude to who may be allowed to enter the country is of itself asking for a higher crime rate, but I would nevertheless submit that crime will in any case be committed by whomsoever is available to commit it, irrespective of their ethnic origin or immigrational status; for example, most of the crimes committed around where I now live are by locals who are not immigrants.
Best,
Alistair
True, but fact is that a number of people come here specifically to commit crimes, for the rich pickings to get here. We have more than enough criminals ourselves, therefor no need to import them, if only to prevent the backlash of their presence on those of the same origin that do want to be a valuable part of this society. If I may quote my (hard working Afghan) neighbour: "after every crime done by a foreigner, I get the 'you're a foreigner too' troubles". And thát is a pity!
gep
-
Handbags away gentlemen please!
-
but in the end one's pocket is picked (or one's credit card compromised) by a criminal, be he/she a Romanian, a Scotsman, a Greenlander or a Somalian.
Indeed, but you need to look at it from the point of view of the victim.
Suppose a close member of your family was murdered. If the murderer was someone that should not even be in the Country, that is a crime that could have been avoided. Would you not be slightly irritated by this??
We have enough scum of our own in England. We do not need any imports.
Thal
-
True, but fact is that a number of people come here specifically to commit crimes, for the rich pickings to get here. We have more than enough criminals ourselves, therefor no need to import them, if only to prevent the backlash of their presence on those of the same origin that do want to be a valuable part of this society. If I may quote my (hard working Afghan) neighbour: "after every crime done by a foreigner, I get the 'you're a foreigner too' troubles". And thát is a pity!
We are singing from the same hymn sheet here (unusual).
Our beloved resident composer has what appears to be a limited sphere of experience.
He needs a reality check, or even better, a weekend break in Bradford.
Thal
-
I am glad you never sought to represent public contiosuness in any way.
I would never seek to represent anything that I neither understood nor recognised, even as an anagram - and "public contiosuness" is one such thing; if by it you meant "public consciousness" (which seems likely), you have no need to be glad, since the idea of seeking to represent that has never occurred to me, nor is it likely ever to do so...
Best,
Alistair
-
If duckjacking is considered a crime, you are probably correct.
No, that's not a crime here - indeed, I'd suggest that it's almost compulsory; in any case, it surely beats claiming expenses on duck housing, or flipping second duck homes, or whatever it was...
But when was the last stabbing or mugging in your area?. Are you too afraid to walk to the pub on your own?. When was the last armed robbery at the Post Office and the last time someone beat you up because you were white? When was your wallet last lifted, your car stolen or the last drug bust? When was the local pimp last prosecuted or the local brothel raided?
Be thankful that the peaceful area you live in has not yet been infested with illegal immigrants.
I admit that I do not pretend to have any of those statistics to hand, although I imagine that the last stabbing or mugging in Hereford would have been of relatively recent occurrence, I have no problem walking to the pub alone except that the nearest one isn't worth walking to (but that's only because I don't live in the nearest city), the last robbery at the local sub-post office was about a month ago and was not an armed one (but since that office is likely to close soon I suppose that such thieves will have to go elsewhere in future in order to continue with their professional activities), it would not be as easy os some might think to be certain after being beaten up whether or not the reason was my skin colour, my wallet was last lifted in 1990 on the way to a Michelangeli recital in London's Barbican (and in those days I was fitter than I am now so I gave chase and finally got it back - which made me late for the concert), my car has never been stolen and the last drug bust in Hereford probably happened within the past 12 hours or so - drugs and drug-related crime are hardly unknown in the city of Hereford (although I cannot tell you about the pimping or prostitution activities there). In conclusion, I wouldn't go walking in the centre of Hereford on a Friday or Saturday night, thanks...
That said, I also do not have to hand statistics on immigrants, legal or otherwise, in Hereford or in Herefordshire.
Best,
Alistair
-
Handbags away gentlemen please!
There aren't any - some illegal immigrant nicked them!
Best,
Alistair
-
Indeed, but you need to look at it from the point of view of the victim.
Suppose a close member of your family was murdered. If the murderer was someone that should not even be in the Country, that is a crime that could have been avoided. Would you not be slightly irritated by this??
The two factors would nevertheless remain separate. Why, if someone had indeed murdered a close family member, would I be any more aggrieved than I would had the murderer been a "fellow" Scots person or indeed a Romanian who, as another EU citizen, was in the country legally? And suppose that crime had indeed been committed by an illegal immigrant, would I expect to feel any differently had that person been living in his/her own country having been refused entry to Britain but had murdered a member of my family who happened to live in the murderer's country? - would I expect to feel any better about that?
We have enough scum of our own in England. We do not need any imports.
Ah - true colours again! (red, white and what's the other one?...). ANY imports, you write! In other words, you are, as I had observed much earlier, also bothered by legal immigration, even though you are rather more exercised about the illegal variety. "England for the English is already bad enough!" seems to be the thrust of your statement here (funny thing is that I'd have to go through Wales and back out again to get to Bristol airport for a plane back to Scotland). Now I'm sure you could make hay with what I'm about to write, but I'll write it anyway and wait for your witticisms; were Scotland to become independent of the rest of Britain (which it might), I would immediately become an immigrant myself (albeit presumably a legal one, at least for the time being, with my residence protected by an unwritten and unspeakable constitution) - yet this fact would not have resulted from my having attempted to enter any country, legally or otherwise, nor would it encourage me to pick pockets, steal cars, mug English citizens or do drug deals...
Best,
Alistair
-
The two factors would nevertheless remain separate. Why, if someone had indeed murdered a close family member, would I be any more aggrieved than I would had the murderer been a "fellow" Scots person or indeed a Romanian who, as another EU citizen, was in the country legally? And suppose that crime had indeed been committed by an illegal immigrant, would I expect to feel any differently had that person been living in his/her own country having been refused entry to Britain but had murdered a member of my family who happened to live in the murderer's country? - would I expect to feel any better about that?
Any crime that is committed by an illegal immigrant in England is a crime that could have been avoided, by either not letting the immigrant in or deporting him/her before the crime was committed.
This is pretty simple.
Thal
-
Frankly, I reckon the whole issue of immigration restrictions is ridiculously out of date. It now takes less time to travel from Australia - even from a small town in rural Australia - to anywhere in Europe than it took just 200 years ago to travel from one end of a small European country to the other. 'Immigration' should cease to be a concept and borders should assume the significance merely of those currently existing between, say, counties in the UK or Départements in France. Everyone's so happy to accept the free market economy as applied to finance, so why not as applied to people's place of residence?
-
In conclusion, I wouldn't go walking in the centre of Hereford on a Friday or Saturday night
But you would (if you so desired) walk to your local pub on a Friday or Saturday night. I had no idea Hereford was that bad. Perhaps some illegal immigrants have moved in since i last visited.
Thal
-
Ah - true colours again! (red, white and what's the other one?...). ANY imports, you write! In other words, you are, as I had observed much earlier, also bothered by legal immigration, even though you are rather more exercised about the illegal variety.
I am bothered by some aspects of legal immigration. As Gep observed earlier, some people go to other Countries with the specific intention of committing crime. One National newspaper reported that a Mayor of a town in Romania was overjoyed as the criminals in his town all went to England. It has a ring of truth about it. Perhaps if a family of Romanian Gypsies moved onto land near you, you might view things from a different angle.
Thal
-
yet this fact would not have resulted from my having attempted to enter any country, legally or otherwise, nor would it encourage me to pick pockets, steal cars, mug English citizens or do drug deals...
Good, but what you need to get into your brain is that this is the intention of some immigrants, illegal or otherwise. If it were not, we would not have so many in our prisons.
Thal
-
I had intended not to add to this thread any more, for what has been passed by has given me so much to think about and, yes, worry about that I even lost sleep over it last night. Call that exaggerating, but I do think about this subject often.
First, I think you misunderstood Thal in
We have enough scum of our own in England. We do not need any imports.
Ah - true colours again! (red, white and what's the other one?...). ANY imports, you write! In other words, you are, as I had observed much earlier, also bothered by legal immigration, even though you are rather more exercised about the illegal variety. "England for the English is already bad enough!" seems to be the thrust of your statement here
Thal states that there is already enough “scum of our own”, and thus the UK needs not to import any more scum. Much as Thal may have a hard edged opinion about certain aspects of immigration, or at least writes in such a way, I do not believe he is opposed to people who wish to enter the UK legally, in order to seize the opportunities it offers for those of good will and intend.
I, too, am opposed to people coming here with specific criminal intend, just as much as I oppose people from here going abroad with criminal intend. I could take as an example of the former the increasing trouble Polish workers (and those people work hard and long and accept often too low wages!) have in getting jobs here because the increasing influx of criminal people from Poland is making employers wary of “risking” hiring a Polish person. I would want that there was more checking at the border of people coming in AND people going out, in order to protect I will say it again: the goodwilling people of foreign extraction living here, and to prevent other countries from having to deal with criminal Dutch people.
I do not oppose immigration of people. But I do oppose the immigration of people with bad intend. Likewise I do oppose the emigration of people with bad intend, since we should deal with out own criminals and suchlike. To keep it between the UK and The Netherlands in this respect: I do not want criminals from the UK expanding their business into The Netherlands, and I equally do not want criminals from The Netherlands expanding their bussines into the UK. I do not think that wanting to protect one’s country from the influx of people of bad intend is nationalistic, let alone fascistic.
Put it like this: do you want to have control about who enters your house or not, or do you believe your house should be open to whomever wants to enter for whatever reason? Do you want such measures being taken that thieves and such are prevented to enter your home, or at least that they are removed once they turn out to be thieves and such? If you like your house to be safe like that, why not your country? Is that nationalistic? I think not!
All best,
Gep
NB: I’ve put a lot of energy in this “debate” and thinking about it all, and rather too much energy, so I intend to let this be my last post on this subject. I want to be able to sleep tonight…
-
I am bothered by some aspects of legal immigration. As Gep observed earlier, some people go to other Countries with the specific intention of committing crime. One National newspaper reported that a Mayor of a town in Romania was overjoyed as the criminals in his town all went to England. It has a ring of truth about it.
That particular case would likely have a broadly similar ring to it had the Romanians in question moved somewhere else in Romania to commit their crimes, in that the mayor concerned would have gotten them - and any responsibility for them and their criminal actions - well and truly off his back.
Perhaps if a family of Romanian Gypsies moved onto land near you, you might view things from a different angle.
There are already a few in and around the area in which I live - and they mind their own business as far as I can tell. As I mentioned before, most of the crime committed around here is not committed by immigrants, legal or otherwise.
Best,
Alistair
-
We are singing from the same hymn sheet here (unusual).
I cannot quite imagine you or Gep singing from any hymn sheet as such, let alone as a duet!
Our beloved resident composer has what appears to be a limited sphere of experience.
He needs a reality check, or even better, a weekend break in Bradford.
Not Bradford-on-Avon, I presume (which is close to where I lived until around a year ago).
My experience is considerably less limited than you appear to imagine. I therefore need no such check. Of course there are illegal immigrants in Britain, the Netherlands and elsewhere and of course some of those come to those countries with the principal or even sole intention of committing crimes (just as somoe of the British, Dutch, French, Spanish, Protuguese, etc. colonisers committed crimes in the countries that they once colonised and from which some of these illegal immigrants come). If criminals who are British citizens or legal immigrants commit crimes in Britain and get arrested, tried and convicted for them, due legal process usually ensures that they get fined or imprisoned in Britain or both; when illegal immigrants do so, the same happens to them if their illegal status is not revealed at criminal trial but, if it is so revealed on that or other occasion, they may indeed end up being deported and, unless there is very good reason for that not to happen, that seems only fair.
That said, you admitted that you are concerned not only about illegal immigration but about immigration per se; likewise, as I implied previously, I would hope that, as far as crimes committed by non-British citizens against British citizens are concerned, you would be bothered by these regardless of whether or not they are committed on British soil; in other words, go deport a Somalian illegal immigrant for having committed crimes in Britain and sit back and wait for that person to get involved in the kind of piracy activity that is currently in the news and which affects British and other non-Somali citizens while they are not on British or other non-Somali soil. There are also illegal immigrants who commit no crimes and work and pay taxes in Britain, the Netherlands and elsewhere, just as there are the other kind. If you really want to minimise the risk that any non-British citizens anywhere commit crimes against any British citizens anywhere, you'd have to ensure as far as possible not only that all immigrants, legal and illegal, be deported forthwith but also that no British citizen be permitted to leave british territory at any time - and I don't think that you - or even BNP - would seek to advocate that!
You and Gep each have very valid points about this difficult and vexing subject, but prosecutable crimes are prosecutable crimes regardless of who commits them - and that includes the crime of illegal immigration; the problem here is one of population balance (which needs to be kept in check as far as is possible - and I'm by no means certain how this could be done reliably and consistently) and sheer complexity; I'm sure that I have no need to point out that i am not referring to skin tone when I say that this issue is very far from black and white.
Best,
Alistair
-
That particular case would likely have a broadly similar ring to it had the Romanians in question moved somewhere else in Romania to commit their crimes, in that the mayor concerned would have gotten them - and any responsibility for them and their criminal actions - well and truly off his back.
By them coming to England, he is more certain that they will not return.
There is little that can be do to stop movement within a Country, but there is something that can be done to make it difficult for people with criminal intent to move between Countries.
Thal
-
Thal states that there is already enough “scum of our own”, and thus the UK needs not to import any more scum. Much as Thal may have a hard edged opinion about certain aspects of immigration, or at least writes in such a way, I do not believe he is opposed to people who wish to enter the UK legally, in order to seize the opportunities it offers for those of good will and intend.
Correct and thank you.
Sleep well.
Thal
-
As I mentioned before, most of the crime committed around here is not committed by immigrants, legal or otherwise.
Good, but what you need to do for 5 seconds of your valuable time is to appreciate the feelings of people who live in areas where that is not the case.
Thal
-
they may indeed end up being deported and, unless there is very good reason for that not to happen, that seems only fair.
It does not happen as fast as it should and as often as it should.
The Human Rights Act makes it much more difficult than it should be.
Thal
-
Good, but what you need to do for 5 seconds of your valuable time is to appreciate the feelings of people who live in areas where that is not the case.
But of course I appreciate these already; my concern here, however, is to point out that crimes are crimes regardless of who commits them and regardless of who their victims may be. The murder of a British citizen is no better or worse than that of a non-British one. The murder of a British citizen by another British citizen or by a legal immigrant or by an illegal immigrant is still a murder. The murder of a British citizen on British soil is no less or more of a crime than that of a British citizen that is committed outside Britain.
Best,
Alistair
-
just as somoe of the British, Dutch, French, Spanish, Protuguese, etc. colonisers committed crimes in the countries that they once colonised and from which some of these illegal immigrants come
You sound like a Labour politician. Dig up the evil we did 200 years ago to justify what is done to us now.
Thal
-
You and Gep each have very valid points about this difficult and vexing subject, but prosecutable crimes are prosecutable crimes regardless of who commits them
Of course, but some crimes are avoidable.
Every crime by an illegal in this Country is avoidable for the amazingly simple reason that if he/she were not here, no crime would have been committed.
Thal
-
By them coming to England, he is more certain that they will not return.
That's probably true in most cases, yet this is Romania; if we consider the eastern European country that joined EU at the same time as Romania, it might be wise also to bear in mind the crimes committed there by certain Brits and other non-nationals who had started to move in there a few years ago to broker a property boom (that's now largely gone flat) - I refer, of course, to Bulgaria - so it can work both ways and I daresay that a similar village mayor in Bulgaria might equally have considered that if these Brits either got deported or returned to Britain and elsewhere of their own accord, the likelihood of their return to Bulgaria would be small.
There is little that can be do to stop movement within a Country, but there is something that can be done to make it difficult for people with criminal intent to move between Countries.
Of course both of these statements are true, but whilst plenty of security measures are already in place in many countries to try to stem the tide of illegal international movements, it is also true that (a) some of these measures risk adversely affecting many citizens in their own countries (ever more prevalent CCTV, stop-and-search and surveillance powers, the threat of ID cards, increasing collection and storage of data by governments that can't even be trusted with it, etc.) and (b) it is very difficult and even more expensive to effect such measures reliably and consistently; there is indeed an argument that suggests that if sufficient threats of illegal entry are made sufficiently often, the potential victim country could be near-bankrupted by the sheer cost of implementation of measures to prevent it and still more measures to prosecute and deal with it when it is discovered to have occurred.
Whilst some of the following might be a little off-topic, consider:
https://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/A5_final-2.pdf
and the following article in The Guardian that draws attention to it:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/14/constitutional-reform-parliament-electoral-system
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Best,
Alistair
-
But of course I appreciate these already; my concern here, however, is to point out that crimes are crimes regardless of who commits them and regardless of who their victims may be. The murder of a British citizen is no better or worse than that of a non-British one. The murder of a British citizen by another British citizen or by a legal immigrant or by an illegal immigrant is still a murder. The murder of a British citizen on British soil is no less or more of a crime than that of a British citizen that is committed outside Britain.
I agree and i don't think i have ever written anything to the contrary, but i will try yet again to get you to understand one important point.
CRIMES COMMITTED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON BRITISH SOIL ARE AVOIDABLE AS THEY SHOULD NOT BE HERE IN ORDER TO COMMIT THEM
A five year old could understand this.
Thal
-
It does not happen as fast as it should and as often as it should.
The Human Rights Act makes it much more difficult than it should be.
So what would you advocate in respect of the Act: its wholesale abolition or it substantial revision? Either way, it would be difficult for there to be no adverse consequences for the British citizen...
Best,
Alistair
-
Of course, but some crimes are avoidable.
Every crime by an illegal in this Country is avoidable for the amazingly simple reason that if he/she were not here, no crime would have been committed.
So you really believe that illegal immigrants only ever commit crimes in the country in which they reside illegally? You amaze me!
Best,
Alistair
-
I agree and i don't think i have ever written anything to the contrary, but i will try yet again to get you to understand one important point.
CRIMES COMMITTED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON BRITISH SOIL ARE AVOIDABLE AS THEY SHOULD NOT BE HERE IN ORDER TO COMMIT THEM
A five year old could understand this.
Some five-year-olds might also be able to understand that the only thing that is "avoidable" in this is the fact of the crimes being committed on British soil on which the criminals concerned have no legal right to be; that is not the same as saying that the crimes wouldn't take place at all, anywhere.
Best,
Alistair
-
Of course both of these statements are true, but whilst plenty of security measures are already in place in many countries to try to stem the tide of illegal international movements, it is also true that (a) some of these measures risk adversely affecting many citizens in their own countries (ever more prevalent CCTV, stop-and-search and surveillance powers, the threat of ID cards, increasing collection and storage of data by governments that can't even be trusted with it, etc.) and (b) it is very difficult and even more expensive to effect such measures reliably and consistently; there is indeed an argument that suggests that if sufficient threats of illegal entry are made sufficiently often, the potential victim country could be near-bankrupted by the sheer cost of implementation of measures to prevent it and still more measures to prosecute and deal with it when it is discovered to have occurred.
It would have to be enormously expensive to come anywhere near the cost illegal immigration is costing this Country. The Police are spending £25 million a year just on translators alone.
The most important job any government must do is to protect its people. If it cannot do that, there is little point to its existance. The Labour Party has forgotten this and will be removed from power.
Thal
-
So what would you advocate in respect of the Act: its wholesale abolition or it substantial revision? Either way, it would be difficult for there to be no adverse consequences for the British citizen...
There is already adverse consequences for the British people as it holds up the deportation of people who are a dangerous threat to the British people.
It seemed a lot of people apart from Labour Party dunces knew that this was going to be a Chancers Charter. The people that have benefitted most from the Act are criminals, illegal immigrants, terrorists and Cherie Blair.
It needs to be revised.
Thal
-
Some five-year-olds might also be able to understand that the only thing that is "avoidable" in this is the fact of the crimes being committed on British soil on which the criminals concerned have no legal right to be; that is not the same as saying that the crimes wouldn't take place at all, anywhere.
What are you prattling on about now??. This is completely irrelevant. It is crimes committed on British soil that SHOULD be of concern to its government and its people.
I am English and proud to be English. I love my Queen and Country and the protection of our people is important to me. I do not greatly concern myself with what criminals do in other Countries whether they are there legally or not. That is their problem to sort out.
Thal
-
It would have to be enormously expensive to come anywhere near the cost illegal immigration is costing this Country. The Police are spending £25 million a year just on translators alone.
Yes - and the Courts and other organisations involved have to budget for similar expenditure, too - but just how much more is being spent annually on the kinds of security measures of which I have examples above? (I realise that those measures are not just in response to the risks attached to illegal immigration, but that certainly accounts for a significant proportion of it).
The most important job any government must do is to protect its people. If it cannot do that, there is little point to its existance. The Labour Party has forgotten this and will be removed from power.
The British Labour Party is indeed almost certainly going to be removed at the next General Election (although to be replaced by quite what I have less than no idea); while in office, they have already done a pretty competent job of removing - or at least diminishing - their own power, for all the vast swathes of law that they have passed with the avowed intent of hanging on to as much of it as possible - but, to be fair, if any country is forced to spend disproportionate amounts of money that it may ill be able to afford just in protecting its people from this and that, the country will in any case be weakened because it has insufficient funds left over to take due care of its citizens' other needs; many of the trafficking cartels know this well and can and do go some way towards holding other nations' economies to ransom by exercising that knowledge from outside those nations.
Best,
Alistair
-
What are you prattling on about now??. This is completely irrelevant. It is crimes committed on British soil that SHOULD be of concern to its government and its people.
I am English and proud to be English. I love my Queen and Country and the protection of our people is important to me. I do not greatly concern myself with what criminals do in other Countries whether they are there legally or not. That is their problem to sort out.
I think that you missed something there. Whilst it is obvious that the British government should be concerned about crimes committed on British soil against British citizens, you say that a government's most importnat rôle is to protect its citizens, so do you really believe that this rôle does not and/or need not extend to those British citizens who happen to be other than on British soil when crimes are committed against them, either because they are on vacation, working abroad or emigrants living in another country? Don't forget - before answering that - that even some British citizens living abroad still pay some British taxes. I'm not seeking to tell you now to answer this or even how some people might think you should answer it - just wondering what your thoughts are on that aspect of the subject.
Your reactions to those two articles are still awaited with considerable interest...
Anyway, it occurs to me that the thread has now for some time strayed rather far from its original topic of an alleged political party that stands less than a snowball's chance in hell of success in the next British General Election, its name notwithstanding...
Best,
Alistair
-
'Hmm, I said I'd stay of of this, but hey, I'm stupid...
I love my Queen and Country
Let me just say I like my country.....
I do not greatly concern myself with what criminals do in other Countries whether they are there legally or not. That is their problem to sort out.
Here I must ask you what you think then of UK (meaning they were English and legally so too)criminals that come to my country to rob a bank? Happend this week. Doesn't the UK have a obligation to try and keep it's criminals in (preferably behind some serious walls and such)? Just like the Dutch justice system should have the obligation to keep Dutch criminals in (but note the italics...).
Going out again...
gep
-
I think that you missed something there. Whilst it is obvious that the British government should be concerned about crimes committed on British soil against British citizens, you say that a government's most importnat rôle is to protect its citizens, so do you really believe that this rôle does not and/or need not extend to those British citizens who happen to be other than on British soil when crimes are committed against them, either because they are on vacation, working abroad or emigrants living in another country? Don't forget - before answering that - that even some British citizens living abroad still pay some British taxes. I'm not seeking to tell you now to answer this or even how some people might think you should answer it - just wondering what your thoughts are on that aspect of the subject.
In my opinion it is the British Governments duty to protect all of its citizens no matter where they are. However, the vast majority of British citizens actually live in Britian and are therefore easier to protect.
I do not see the relevance of your post to what we have been discussing.
Thal
-
Your reactions to those two articles are still awaited with considerable interest...
I have wasted far too much valuable time on this thread already. Time that could be better spent on breaking copyright laws.
Thal
-
I love my Queen and Country
Leaving aside the extent to which this Scotsman might either wish or be entitled to describe Elizabeth II as "my" Queen, not only do I not know her personally but I have never met her, so it would be both presumptuous and insincere of me to express such a sentiment towards her. I believe that she doesn't much like music (unlike her late mother and eldest son) and must wonder why she has a Master of her Music who, though not himself Scots, lives about as far away from Buckingham Palace as it is possible to get in these islands without visiting your beloved Shetlands; indeed, I understand that the only time she has been noted visibly to have winced while conducting a knighthood ceremony was when this dubious honour was bestowed upon Harrison Birtwistle.
I do respect her in certain ways, however and there can be no doubt that, for all the obvious compensations that she enjoys, she works extremely hard, especially for someone well past state retirement age and she hardly ever really has what one might call a proper vacation.
Just as a matter of interest, though, since you declare your affection both for Britain and for its current monarch in the same short sentence, would you love your country any the less were she to abdicate or were the monarchy to wind up altogether following her eventual demise?
Best,
Alistair
-
In my opinion it is the British Governments duty to protect all of its citizens no matter where they are. However, the vast majority of British citizens actually live in Britian and are therefore easier to protect.
I do not see the relevance of your post to what we have been discussing.
That is perhaps because, in this particular context, you do not realise how many British citizens spend working time or vacations abroad or who actually live abroad; however, I am pleased to note that you do not distinguish between British citizens in Britain and those elsewhere when considering the British government's duty to protect its citizens.
Best,
Alistair
-
I have wasted far too much valuable time on this thread already. Time that could be better spent on breaking copyright laws.
It has to be said that you're always up for some delightful wit and this is no exception! Having spent so much time talking about people committing crimes, you now express regret at having done so to such an extent that it has prevented you spending time committing some yourself!
What would we all do without THAL?!...
I have less than no idea and do not in any case wish to contemplate so regrettable a prospect!
Anyway - back to the topic. I think that there is more than a mere whiff of poetic justice in the fact that BNP "leader" Mr Nicholas Griffin has announced that in the next General Election he will stand as that party's candidate in the Barking constituency...
Best,
Alistair
-
Doesn't the UK have a obligation to try and keep it's criminals in (preferably behind some serious walls and such)
If they were already convicted criminals beforehand then yes.
Under our beloved Labour government, there seem to be many criminals that are given absurdly short sentences and many are let out early to ease overcrowding. The reoffend rate of criminals let out early because they are no longer considered a threat is alarming. This poses a danger to the British people as well as people from other Countries which they might visit.
We do need more prisons to be built, as for the last couple of years the 80,000 places we have does not appear to be sufficient. Of course, we must not let our prisoners suffer from overcrowding as this might infringe their human rights.
Thal
-
Just as a matter of interest, though, since you declare your affection both for Britain and for its current monarch in the same short sentence, would you love your country any the less were she to abdicate or were the monarchy to wind up altogether following her eventual demise?
Yes I would love my Country less if the Monarchy ended. I know to many it is old fashioned & pointless, but it is part of our history. Britain would not be the same without her.
I would much rather have a Queen than an unelected Federalist President of Europe.
Thal
-
however, I am pleased to note that you do not distinguish between British citizens in Britain and those elsewhere when considering the British government's duty to protect its citizens.
I do not distinguish nor do i remember ever having done so.
Our Labour government has failed to protect its citizens. It has built up years of hatred and spawned generations of suicide bombers by invading Countries, killing people and trying to introduce a democracy that does not even exist in UK.
It is more important than ever to be in control of our immigration policy and our borders.
Thal
-
I would much rather have a Queen than an unelected Federalist President of Europe.
Thal
I couldn't agree more with you. . .
-
Thank you sir and i hope i am not the only one that found what has recently happened to be disgusting.
500 million people in Europe and not one had a say.
However, i rejoice that it was not Blair that became President and hope the humiliation prevents him from any position of power in the future.
Thal
-
Thank you sir and i hope i am not the only one that found what has recently happened to be disgusting.
500 million people in Europe and not one had a say.
However, i rejoice that it was not Blair that became President and hope the humiliation prevents him from any position of power in the future.
Thal
Considering the fact that currently 70% of our legislation originates in the European Parliament, I think illegal would be a more appropriate description of what is going on there. Strange enough most people don't seem to know anything (or should I say, don't care?) about it.
And yes, I hope Blair agrees with you. ;D
Greetings.
-
Yes I would love my Country less if the Monarchy ended. I know to many it is old fashioned & pointless, but it is part of our history. Britain would not be the same without her.
I would much rather have a Queen than an unelected Federalist President of Europe.
I just asked - and you have answered. Thank you for that.
Best,
Alistair
-
Thank you sir and i hope i am not the only one that found what has recently happened to be disgusting.
500 million people in Europe and not one had a say.
However, i rejoice that it was not Blair that became President and hope the humiliation prevents him from any position of power in the future.
Humiliation? You must be joking! He'll probably get the equivalent of half what's left (if anything at all) of the Gross National Product of his country from the rights to the book he'll get someone to ghost-write for him on that subject; he and his wife are both lawyers, don't forget - and, whatever happens anywhere, it is almost always the lawyers that make the most money.
Best,
Alistair
-
Considering the fact that currently 70% of our legislation originates in the European Parliament, I think illegal would be a more appropriate description of what is going on there. Strange enough most people don't seem to know anything (or should I say, don't care?) about it.
And yes, I hope Blair agrees with you. ;D
Greetings.
The problem with that in the particular context of this thread is that if so much actual legislation is itself deemed to be "illegal" for whatever reason, what has to be left in its wake can hardly hope to result in anything other than a total free-for-all for people moving from one place to another without anyone anywhere being able to say or do anything about it; the notion of an 80+-nation EU in the next 30 or so years is just one illustration of the proof of that and, whilst it may not actually occur, it is far from impossible - and if it does occur, citizens of some one-third of the world's countries will have legitimate free movement within that 80+-nation zone, thereby cutting down by a not inconsiderable margin the level of what we now discuss as "illegal immigration"...
Best,
Alistair
-
Blair will undoubtedly make more money not being President, but his ego has taken a gigantic hit. No doubt he would have accepted if he had been offered the position, despite the monetary loss which he would have suffered.
Amazingly, he never actually stated that he was interested and he will try to use this to save face.
One of the few decent things that Brown has ever done. As soon as he backed Blair he was doomed. Brown could not back a winner in a one horse race.
Blair is finished as any kind of political force and his old comrade is not far behind.
Thal
-
the notion of an 80+-nation EU in the next 30 or so years is just one illustration of the proof of that and, whilst it may not actually occur, it is far from impossible - and if it does occur, citizens of some one-third of the world's countries will have legitimate free movement within that 80+-nation zone, thereby cutting down by a not inconsiderable margin the level of what we now discuss as "illegal immigration"...
Then we must hope that certain Countries are not deemed to be sufficiently corrupt to join.
Thal
-
I do not want to be misunderstood; legislation is needed. However, the way the European Parliament is currently operating is at least to some extent undemocratic. The necessity of legislation, in my opinion, does not automatically legalize or justify the means by which it is conceived and instituted, namely an undemocratic process - the decisions of the European Parliament, which in no practical way (fully) represents any people of the European Union.
Greetings
-
Blair will undoubtedly make more money not being President, but his ego has taken a gigantic hit. No doubt he would have accepted if he had been offered the position, despite the monetary loss which he would have suffered.
Amazingly, he never actually stated that he was interested and he will try to use this to save face.
One of the few decent things that Brown has ever done. As soon as he backed Blair he was doomed. Brown could not back a winner in a one horse race.
Blair is finished as any kind of political force and his old comrade is not far behind.
Most of this is largely true except that Blair has a legal background (not to mention a wife with the same) so he'll be careering of into suchever sunsets as he can inveigle anyone into making for him for as long as he can keep going and continue to make fortunes out of the citizens of many countries by so doing, whereas poor old Protestant Calvinist "principled" Brown will just see suchever power as once he might have dreamed of sapping away one inevitable gram at a time - he couldn;t even back a loser in a no-horse race. When he loses the next General Election, the only accolade with which I can see him limping off is that of ensuring that no one of any party or persuasion will have the remotest chance of taking over and achieving anything remedial as a consequence of the systematic and methodical destruction that he instigated and continued to ensure while chancer of the exchequer. Britain - end of? Not necessarily, but it wouldn't surprise me. And I cannot help but suspect that Blair will sitll be laughing all the way to suchever banks as he may own long afterwards...
Best,
Alistair
-
And I cannot help but suspect that Blair will sitll be laughing all the way to suchever banks as he may own long afterwards...
He will, but his failure to secure the Euro Presidency must hurt him deeply. It is the first time in politics that he has tasted a major & bitter personal defeat.
Blair always gave me the impression of a man who was only interested in securing his place in history as some great statesman. He will now be known as the 2nd worst prime minister in history and the man who failed to become president, despite selling his Country, signing away it's powers and denying his people the democratic right which he invaded other Countries to impose.
Thal
-
He will, but his failure to secure the Euro Presidency must hurt him deeply.
I'm pretty certain that such hurt as this may have visited upon him will by no means have proved unamenable to the ameliorative effects of the plaster that Cherie will already have placed upon the possibly injured area.
It is the first time in politics that he has tasted a major & bitter personal defeat.
Whether or not that may be a truth is entirely irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, since it will be turned by heavily-paid spin-doctors, biographers, "historians" and all the other invited British-taxpayer-finded first class passengers on the the unstoppable gravy (sorry - jus) train of PR into just one stop on an unending leaves-on-line-free journey of success stories that will sell in their multi-millions to the disadvantage of poor people all over the world, including Britain itself.
Blair always gave me the impression of a man who was only interested in securing his place in history as some great statesman. He will now be known as the 2nd worst prime minister in history and the man who failed to become president, despite selling his Country, signing away it's powers and denying his people the democratic right which he invaded other Countries to impose.
No, he won't; if anything, he'll probably end up being known as one of the prime movers that instigated the drive towards the massively inflated EU whose development and expansion we may be about to encounter over the next who knows how many years - not because he actually was responsible for this, of course, but because all the spin-sters have been and will continue to be handsomely paid (out of your pocket and mine) to decide that this is how history shall be presented to future generations. Who, after all, gives a stuff about the truth (whatever, if at all, that may be) when the smart money is on the spin?
But once again we're getting away from the thread topic which, whilst it barely deserves topic status here, nevertheless remains the actual topic! Perhaps it might be suggested that the difference between the law-abiding British citizen gong about his/her legitimate business and the criminal at large in Britain (whether a British citizen or a legal or illegal immigrant) is encapsulated in the difference between one of the old cries of London
"Who will buy my red red roses?"
and the rather more contemporary
"Why doesn't someone nick Griffin?"...
Best,
Alistair
-
No, he won't; if anything, he'll probably end up being known as one of the prime movers that instigated the drive towards the massively inflated EU whose development and expansion we may be about to encounter over the next who knows how many years - not because he actually was responsible for this, of course, but because all the spin-sters have been and will continue to be handsomely paid (out of your pocket and mine) to decide that this is how history shall be presented to future generations. Who, after all, gives a stuff about the truth (whatever, if at all, that may be) when the smart money is on the spin?
I sincerely hope you are wrong about Blair and EU expansion.
We know more about our MP's than ever before and it becomes increasingly difficult to hide what has actually gone on. Althought immense efforts went towards hiding MP's expenses, it eventually came out into the public domain.
Concerning the EU, it would appear to me that the major leaders have indicated that they still want to be in charge of their own affairs by putting such lightweights in charge. Rumpy Pumpy and Baroness unelected are non entities that will be laughed off the world stage and have no chance in developing this nonsense further (I hope).
Anyway, back to the BNP
Thal
-
I sincerely hope you are wrong about Blair and EU expansion.
But it probably won't matter a great deal who is ultimately credited for this expansion or even who is responsible for it or both - if that expansion occurs, it may be that Balir and others might seek to take credit for it as it gradually proceeds but, in the end, I suspect that whoever may actually have been responsible for seeing it through over however many years it taken will contrive to get hidden amongst the multi-trillions of pages of verbiage about the controversies surrounding it.
We know more about our MP's than ever before and it becomes increasingly difficult to hide what has actually gone on. Althought immense efforts went towards hiding MP's expenses, it eventually came out into the public domain.
Yes, but there is a strong argument to suggest that, had MPS been paid decent salaries for the work that they should carry out as MPS, the expenses scandal would have been much smaller and those still guilty of misdemeanours thereunder would be far more vociferously vilified than is the case now.
Concerning the EU, it would appear to me that the major leaders have indicated that they still want to be in charge of their own affairs by putting such lightweights in charge. Rumpy Pumpy and Baroness unelected are non entities that will be laughed off the world stage and have no chance in developing this nonsense further (I hope).
I rather suspect that the expansion of EU will happen regardless of the efforts or otherwise of such people, if for no better reason than that a country as small as Europe as currently represented by EU is far to small even to have the remotest chance of seizing and using opportunities to perform meaningfully on the global political stage.
Best,
Alistair
-
Would you care to un encapsulate yourself??
-
Would you care to un encapsulate yourself??
Indeed I would - and have; apologies for the inconvenience caused by my mere omission af a closing square bracket (and "unencapsulate" is either a single word or a hyphenated one, incidentally, but thanks for the request)...
Best,
Alistair
-
Yes, but there is a strong argument to suggest that, had MPS been paid decent salaries for the work that they should carry out as MPS, the expenses scandal would have been much smaller and those still guilty of misdemeanours thereunder would be far more vociferously vilified than is the case now.
Don't know how they can survive on 60K a year. Poor bastards.
-
Don't know how they can survive on 60K a year. Poor bastards.
Nor do I; the do actually have legitimate expenses as well as all those illegitimate and sometimes quite ridiculous ones for which some of them have all too rightly been exposed and upbraided.
As someone I know who is a self-employed sole trader without any staff said to me recently, "I daresay that if some people knew that I turned over £1.63m last year, they'd assume something quite other than that I'm struggling to pay for my modest house and car - but that would be because they wouldn't immediately realise that my taxable profit was only £53,000, so my net disposable income after tax was obviously quite a bit less even than that".
Best,
Alistair