The BNP ( British national party)

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

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

[gep]

'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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[vanbeethoven]

I would much rather have a Queen than an unelected Federalist President of Europe.

Thal

I couldn't agree more with you. . .

[thalbergmad]

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

[vanbeethoven]

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.

Greetings.

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

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

[ahinton]

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.

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[vanbeethoven]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

Would you care to un encapsulate yourself??

[ahinton]

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

[thalbergmad]

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.

[ahinton]

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