The BNP ( British national party)

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

Wot langwidge is that?...

It is Alexander Meerkat language.

I have asked Santa for one for Christmas.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

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

[gep]

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.
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

[thalbergmad]

joking, of course!

I am glad you added that.

For a moment, i almost thought that we would get a vote on something.

Thal

[oxy60]

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!

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[zheer]

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.

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[gep]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[gep]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[gep]

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

[shortyshort]

Handbags away gentlemen please!

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

Handbags away gentlemen please!

There aren't any - some illegal immigrant nicked them!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[richard black]

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?

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[gep]

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…

[ahinton]

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