Today's most viewed
| TOP STORIES | |  | | | | | FEATURES | | | | | | MAYOR NEWS | | | | BIZARRE LONDON | | | | TRAVEL | | | | COMPETITIONS | | |
|
|
|
BNP member: 'I'm here to stay'
 |
| City Hall |
The BNP member of the London Assembly has launched an angry tirade at the first meeting of the Assembly.
Richard Barnbrook, who represents Barking and Dagenham and won the party's first seat at City Hall, told the other members "I'm here and I'm here to stay" at this morning's meeting.
The far-right politician is facing a boycott from the mainstream parties and has been warned to step back from promoting the British National Party's racist agenda.
Candidates from other parties walked out as he started his victory speech last weekend and staff at City Hall from ethnic minorities are reportedly reluctant to work with him.
"I don't care if I received one vote or a thousand - I'm here and I'm here to stay," the 47-year-old former artist angrily told the Assembly today.
He said that if other members continued to make comments about him he would have "no qualms going straight to the English Standards Board".
"I'm here to work for London with Londoners," he added.
Mr Barnbrook secured 5.3 per cent of the vote in last week's election, narrowly passing the five per cent required
3:02pm Friday 9th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: M McAndrew, Watford on 5:28pm Fri 9 May 08
So the BNP must "step back" from promoting its "racist" policies, must it ? I take it that means stop defending the right of the indigeneous British to keep their own identity and their own culture, and exposing what the Labour, LibDem and Conservative parties are all doing to turn our once wonderful country into a dirty, crowded, chaotic, crime-ridden South American-type melting pot ?
Perhaps some Lab-Lib-Con members will one day admit what a dreadful thing they have been doing to their own country and their own people, but I doubt the BNP will ever give up the fight. They are our last hope.
So the BNP must "step back" from promoting its "racist" policies, must it ? I take it that means stop defending the right of the indigeneous British to keep their own identity and their own culture, and exposing what the Labour, LibDem and Conservative parties are all doing to turn our once wonderful country into a dirty, crowded, chaotic, crime-ridden South American-type melting pot ?
Perhaps some Lab-Lib-Con members will one day admit what a dreadful thing they have been doing to their own country and their own people, but I doubt the BNP will ever give up the fight. They are our last hope.
Posted by: David, London on 5:46pm Fri 9 May 08
I think the Labour members should not to be corrupt and give public money to their friends like many of the the last Labour lot. Have they been warned if they get caught they could go to prison?.
I think the Labour members should not to be corrupt and give public money to their friends like many of the the last Labour lot. Have they been warned if they get caught they could go to prison?.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 12:37am Sat 10 May 08
[quote]So the BNP must "step back" from promoting its "racist" policies, must it ? I take it that means stop defending the right of the indigenous British to keep their own identity and their own culture, and exposing what the Labour, LibDem and Conservative parties are all doing to turn our once wonderful country into a dirty, crowded, chaotic, crime-ridden South American-type melting pot ?[/quote]
Nah ,what they are probably referring to when discussing bnp racist policies, are policies like the bnp advocating the removal of millions of British citizens(repatriatio
n) on grounds of ethnicity, now they may fool you by dressing this policy up as "defending the rights of indigenous people" but I am quite certain most reasonably educated 12 year olds can see through this and realise it is just plain and simple fascism.
As for your belief that our society will descend into chaos, unless we allow the bnp to save us.......Oh look!! what is that pink thing flying past my window!!!
I must admit though, I did find Barnbrook`s assembly speech quite amusing , he claimed about 3 times that he would help the people of London regardless of their creed or colour.....Not exactly in line with his party`s "repatriation" policy......Oh well so much for them being the only party that tell the truth.
So the BNP must "step back" from promoting its "racist" policies, must it ? I take it that means stop defending the right of the indigenous British to keep their own identity and their own culture, and exposing what the Labour, LibDem and Conservative parties are all doing to turn our once wonderful country into a dirty, crowded, chaotic, crime-ridden South American-type melting pot ?
Nah ,what they are probably referring to when discussing bnp racist policies, are policies like the bnp advocating the removal of millions of British citizens(repatriatio
n) on grounds of ethnicity, now they may fool you by dressing this policy up as "defending the rights of indigenous people" but I am quite certain most reasonably educated 12 year olds can see through this and realise it is just plain and simple fascism.
As for your belief that our society will descend into chaos, unless we allow the bnp to save us.......Oh look!! what is that pink thing flying past my window!!!
I must admit though, I did find Barnbrook`s assembly speech quite amusing , he claimed about 3 times that he would help the people of London regardless of their creed or colour.....Not exactly in line with his party`s "repatriation" policy......Oh well so much for them being the only party that tell the truth.
Posted by: derrick, A Once Great Land on 12:47am Sat 10 May 08
How Dare Londoners have the effrontery to democratically elect someone to represent them who the Lib/Lab/Con trick cartel politicians do not approve of!
How Dare Londoners have the effrontery to democratically elect someone to represent them who the Lib/Lab/Con trick cartel politicians do not approve of!
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 1:02am Sat 10 May 08
[quote]How Dare Londoners have the effrontery to democratically elect someone to represent them who the Lib/Lab/Con trick cartel politicians do not approve of![/quote]
Just goes to show, that democracy in Britain is alive and well I suppose...
...Shame for Richard that the rest of his colleagues, in City Hall are also exercising their democratic rights and want nothing to do with him, but apparently all is well ,as Richard does not mind being a "lone wolf" or is that lone leper???
How Dare Londoners have the effrontery to democratically elect someone to represent them who the Lib/Lab/Con trick cartel politicians do not approve of!
Just goes to show, that democracy in Britain is alive and well I suppose...
...Shame for Richard that the rest of his colleagues, in City Hall are also exercising their democratic rights and want nothing to do with him, but apparently all is well ,as Richard does not mind being a "lone wolf" or is that lone leper???
Posted by: Croyboy on 1:35am Sat 10 May 08
"...staff at City Hall from ethnic minorities are reportedly reluctant to work with him."
Really! What about the fact that many of the ethnic majority are reluctant to live with [italic]them[/italic]?
"...staff at City Hall from ethnic minorities are reportedly reluctant to work with him."
Really! What about the fact that many of the ethnic majority are reluctant to live with
them?
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 2:38am Sat 10 May 08
Yeh, but from what I hear it doesnt stop at ethnic minorities within city hall, apparently nobody there wants anything to do with him....No doubt this is due to some kind of LibLabCon conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Yeh, but from what I hear it doesnt stop at ethnic minorities within city hall, apparently nobody there wants anything to do with him....No doubt this is due to some kind of LibLabCon conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Posted by: xcess, watford on 6:48am Sat 10 May 08
"No doubt this is due to some kind of Lib-Lab-Con conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Maybe its Ken Livingstone and what he/his party stands for that appalls people hence the bnp got in?
The thing is if 30 million people in this country voted for a bnp government,the other 30 million would cry foul.Obviousley whatever the bnp policies,they worked and its no different to labour promising to make the world a better place and then sending it into chaos
Why is it that every time a bnp man gets in anywhere,the rest shout foul,its about time politicians listened to the people that elected them rather than feathering their nest and ramping up the pensions.
Look at the waste of space we have for an MP in Watford(Claire Ward Lab)She is on maternity leave since Christmas and cant vote on important issues,representing her electorate,yet as soon as a camera from the local rag shows up she happily poses with baby...it makes you sick
So in a nutshell im APPALLED by this LABOUR party and all it stands for.....
"No doubt this is due to some kind of Lib-Lab-Con conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Maybe its Ken Livingstone and what he/his party stands for that appalls people hence the bnp got in?
The thing is if 30 million people in this country voted for a bnp government,the other 30 million would cry foul.Obviousley whatever the bnp policies,they worked and its no different to labour promising to make the world a better place and then sending it into chaos
Why is it that every time a bnp man gets in anywhere,the rest shout foul,its about time politicians listened to the people that elected them rather than feathering their nest and ramping up the pensions.
Look at the waste of space we have for an MP in Watford(Claire Ward Lab)She is on maternity leave since Christmas and cant vote on important issues,representing her electorate,yet as soon as a camera from the local rag shows up she happily poses with baby...it makes you sick
So in a nutshell im APPALLED by this LABOUR party and all it stands for.....
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 6:39pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote]"No doubt this is due to some kind of Lib-Lab-Con conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Maybe its Ken Livingstone and what he/his party stands for that appalls people hence the bnp got in?
The thing is if 30 million people in this country voted for a bnp government other 30 million would cry foul.Obviousley whatever the bnp policies,they worked and its no different to labour promising to make the world a better place and then sending it into chaos
Why is it that every time a bnp man gets in anywhere,the rest shout foul,its about time politicians listened to the people that elected them rather than feathering their nest and ramping up the pensions.
Look at the waste of space we have for an MP in Watford(Claire Ward Lab)She is on maternity leave since Christmas and cant vote on important issues,representing her electorate,yet as soon as a camera from the local rag shows up she happily poses with baby...it makes you sick
So in a nutshell im APPALLED by this LABOUR party and all it stands for.....[/quote]
I wouldn't exactly call 5.3 % of the vote and one representative on the GLA "getting in"....Were you under the impression that Boris Johnson was the bnp candidate...LMFAO.
BTW for the bnp to ever get 30 mill votes at a general election they would only need to show, a mere 15625%(ballpark) improvement on their best previous effort, highly likely I`m sure.
"No doubt this is due to some kind of Lib-Lab-Con conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Maybe its Ken Livingstone and what he/his party stands for that appalls people hence the bnp got in?
The thing is if 30 million people in this country voted for a bnp government other 30 million would cry foul.Obviousley whatever the bnp policies,they worked and its no different to labour promising to make the world a better place and then sending it into chaos
Why is it that every time a bnp man gets in anywhere,the rest shout foul,its about time politicians listened to the people that elected them rather than feathering their nest and ramping up the pensions.
Look at the waste of space we have for an MP in Watford(Claire Ward Lab)She is on maternity leave since Christmas and cant vote on important issues,representing her electorate,yet as soon as a camera from the local rag shows up she happily poses with baby...it makes you sick
So in a nutshell im APPALLED by this LABOUR party and all it stands for.....
I wouldn't exactly call 5.3 % of the vote and one representative on the GLA "getting in"....Were you under the impression that Boris Johnson was the bnp candidate...LMFAO.
BTW for the bnp to ever get 30 mill votes at a general election they would only need to show, a mere 15625%(ballpark) improvement on their best previous effort, highly likely I`m sure.
Posted by: Croyboy on 3:00am Sun 11 May 08
Yogi wrote:[quote]I wouldn't exactly call 5.3 % of the vote and one representative on the GLA "getting in"....Were you under the impression that Boris Johnson was the bnp candidate...LMFAO.
[/quote]
Is this the same Yogi (Still, apparently, laughing his fat posterior off) who was assuring me on another thread that BNP policies never attract more than 0.7% of the electorate? Oops, looks like people are starting to vote the "wrong" way, Yogi!
As for their chances in a general election, who knows how well they'd do with all the money - often from shady sources, and that from the taxpayer, which they give themselves - availible to the Lib/Lab/Con-men?
Referring to Barnbrook, Yogi wrote:[quote]nobody there wants anything to do with him....No doubt this is due to some kind of LibLabCon conspiracy/trick...[/quote]
A "conspiracy"? Well, if you mean the serving members of establishment parties are all doing very well for themselves, thank you, and see no reason why they should rock the boat, then yes, a "conspiracy" in the legal sense of the word.
Yogi wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call 5.3 % of the vote and one representative on the GLA "getting in"....Were you under the impression that Boris Johnson was the bnp candidate...LMFAO.
Is this the same Yogi (Still, apparently, laughing his fat posterior off) who was assuring me on another thread that BNP policies never attract more than 0.7% of the electorate? Oops, looks like people are starting to vote the "wrong" way, Yogi!
As for their chances in a general election, who knows how well they'd do with all the money - often from shady sources, and that from the taxpayer, which they give themselves - availible to the Lib/Lab/Con-men?
Referring to Barnbrook, Yogi wrote:
nobody there wants anything to do with him....No doubt this is due to some kind of LibLabCon conspiracy/trick...
A "conspiracy"? Well, if you mean the serving members of establishment parties are all doing very well for themselves, thank you, and see no reason why they should rock the boat, then yes, a "conspiracy" in the legal sense of the word.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 9:08pm Sun 11 May 08
[quote]Is this the same Yogi (Still, apparently, laughing his fat posterior off) who was assuring me on another thread that BNP policies never attract more than 0.7% of the electorate? Oops, looks like people are starting to vote the "wrong" way, Yogi[/quote]
I think you will find that I have previously stated the bnp have never managed to attract more than o.7% of the vote at a [bold]general election[/bold],actually less than 0.5% of the electorate, obviously we all know they have sporadically achieved better results in certain local elections, but seemingly when it comes to the crunch(general election) they tend to fail dismally.
[quote]As for their chances in a general election, who knows how well they'd do with all the money - often from shady sources, and that from the taxpayer, which they give themselves - available to the Lib/Lab/Con-men?[/quote]
I suppose this is in some way similar to us never knowing, whether if given the same amount of money Arsenal fc have at their disposal, could Barnet fc compete for the premiership, but as Barnet do not attract the same level of public support as Arsenal it is unlikely that Barnet will ever amass the kind of revenue needed to compete with the big boys. Do you think Barnet fc also have grounds to accuse Arsenal, Man U and Chelsea of a conspiracy or trick?
[quote]A "conspiracy"? Well, if you mean the serving members of establishment parties are all doing very well for themselves, thank you, and see no reason why they should rock the boat, then yes, a "conspiracy" in the legal sense of the word.[/quote]
I think I am grasping how this works now, any person/party who disagrees or shows distaste for the bnp or far right in general, is guilty of either trickery or conspiracy.I must admit this is quite a good concept...When you can`t win, just cite opponent`s trickery or conspiracy, as being the reason.
Is this the same Yogi (Still, apparently, laughing his fat posterior off) who was assuring me on another thread that BNP policies never attract more than 0.7% of the electorate? Oops, looks like people are starting to vote the "wrong" way, Yogi
I think you will find that I have previously stated the bnp have never managed to attract more than o.7% of the vote at a
general election,actually less than 0.5% of the electorate, obviously we all know they have sporadically achieved better results in certain local elections, but seemingly when it comes to the crunch(general election) they tend to fail dismally.
As for their chances in a general election, who knows how well they'd do with all the money - often from shady sources, and that from the taxpayer, which they give themselves - available to the Lib/Lab/Con-men?
I suppose this is in some way similar to us never knowing, whether if given the same amount of money Arsenal fc have at their disposal, could Barnet fc compete for the premiership, but as Barnet do not attract the same level of public support as Arsenal it is unlikely that Barnet will ever amass the kind of revenue needed to compete with the big boys. Do you think Barnet fc also have grounds to accuse Arsenal, Man U and Chelsea of a conspiracy or trick?
A "conspiracy"? Well, if you mean the serving members of establishment parties are all doing very well for themselves, thank you, and see no reason why they should rock the boat, then yes, a "conspiracy" in the legal sense of the word.
I think I am grasping how this works now, any person/party who disagrees or shows distaste for the bnp or far right in general, is guilty of either trickery or conspiracy.I must admit this is quite a good concept...When you can`t win, just cite opponent`s trickery or conspiracy, as being the reason.
Posted by: Croyboy on 2:04am Mon 12 May 08
Speaking of non-establishment parties, Yogi wrote:
[quote]we all know they have sporadically achieved better results in certain local elections, but seemingly when it comes to the crunch(general election) they tend to fail dismally.[/quote]
I'm not sure I'd choose the term "fail dismally", it's more a matter of not being able to match the funds of the Lib/Lab/Con-men, and are thus unable to contest every constituency. That being the case, many potential supporters either don't vote, or are resigned to voting for second best.
BTW, I'm afraid, Yogi, that matters concerning football clubs - including their "public support" (whatever that means!) - is [italic]terra incognita[/italic] to me.
Yogi wrote:[quote]
I think I am grasping how this works now, any person/party who disagrees or shows distaste for the bnp or far right in general...[/quote]
No, you're not "grasping how this works". I'm, for one, am not the slightest bit interested in the far left, far right, or anything in between. But I [bold]do[/bold] want my country in general and home-town in particular back from the hordes that have invades us. To that end I'll vote "far" anything, including fascist, communist,vegetarian
, or Methodist.
Speaking of non-establishment parties, Yogi wrote:
we all know they have sporadically achieved better results in certain local elections, but seemingly when it comes to the crunch(general election) they tend to fail dismally.
I'm not sure I'd choose the term "fail dismally", it's more a matter of not being able to match the funds of the Lib/Lab/Con-men, and are thus unable to contest every constituency. That being the case, many potential supporters either don't vote, or are resigned to voting for second best.
BTW, I'm afraid, Yogi, that matters concerning football clubs - including their "public support" (whatever that means!) - is
terra incognita to me.
Yogi wrote:
I think I am grasping how this works now, any person/party who disagrees or shows distaste for the bnp or far right in general...
No, you're not "grasping how this works". I'm, for one, am not the slightest bit interested in the far left, far right, or anything in between. But I
do want my country in general and home-town in particular back from the hordes that have invades us. To that end I'll vote "far" anything, including fascist, communist,vegetarian
, or Methodist.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 10:01pm Mon 12 May 08
[quote]I'm not sure I'd choose the term "fail dismally", it's more a matter of not being able to match the funds of the Lib/Lab/Con-men, and are thus unable to contest every constituency. That being the case, many potential supporters either don't vote, or are resigned to voting for second best.
BTW, I'm afraid, Yogi, that matters concerning football clubs - including their "public support" (whatever that means!) - is terra incognita to me.[/quote]
Well when people like yourself and the bnp themselves are constantly trying to tell us, that people sharing their far right views are in the majority, then I would say when they manage votes totaling less than 0.5% of the electorate at gen election then surely this must be considered as "failing dismally".
As for my reference to football clubs, I was just trying to point out that the spending power of a football club is directly linked to the amount of "public support" they receive, i.e gate receipts, merchandising, demand for tv coverage and so on. Just as the election funds of a political party are also directly linked to public support, going on 2005 election results the Labour Party has 50 times the support of the bnp , with this information in mind it is probable that Labour cash donations are 50 times higher than that of the bnp.
Basically what I am trying to say is that like Barnet fc, for the bnp to expand their financial clout they must expand their "public support".
I really cannot see how this is a trick or a conspiracy.
[quote]No, you're not "grasping how this works". I'm, for one, am not the slightest bit interested in the far left, far right, or anything in between. But I do want my country in general and home-town in particular back from the hordes that have invades us. To that end I'll vote "far" anything, including fascist, communist,vegetarian
, or Methodist[/quote] .
You may not be interested in far right , far left etc, etc, but the fact is,[bold] all[/bold] of the views I have seen you express on this site are certainly far right views.
As for you being prepared to vote for a communist or fascist party if you believe they will deliver your vision of an "all indigenous Britain". Then maybe you are just one of these people who would bite their own nose off to spite their face.
I'm not sure I'd choose the term "fail dismally", it's more a matter of not being able to match the funds of the Lib/Lab/Con-men, and are thus unable to contest every constituency. That being the case, many potential supporters either don't vote, or are resigned to voting for second best.
BTW, I'm afraid, Yogi, that matters concerning football clubs - including their "public support" (whatever that means!) - is terra incognita to me.
Well when people like yourself and the bnp themselves are constantly trying to tell us, that people sharing their far right views are in the majority, then I would say when they manage votes totaling less than 0.5% of the electorate at gen election then surely this must be considered as "failing dismally".
As for my reference to football clubs, I was just trying to point out that the spending power of a football club is directly linked to the amount of "public support" they receive, i.e gate receipts, merchandising, demand for tv coverage and so on. Just as the election funds of a political party are also directly linked to public support, going on 2005 election results the Labour Party has 50 times the support of the bnp , with this information in mind it is probable that Labour cash donations are 50 times higher than that of the bnp.
Basically what I am trying to say is that like Barnet fc, for the bnp to expand their financial clout they must expand their "public support".
I really cannot see how this is a trick or a conspiracy.
No, you're not "grasping how this works". I'm, for one, am not the slightest bit interested in the far left, far right, or anything in between. But I do want my country in general and home-town in particular back from the hordes that have invades us. To that end I'll vote "far" anything, including fascist, communist,vegetarian
, or Methodist
.
You may not be interested in far right , far left etc, etc, but the fact is,
all of the views I have seen you express on this site are certainly far right views.
As for you being prepared to vote for a communist or fascist party if you believe they will deliver your vision of an "all indigenous Britain". Then maybe you are just one of these people who would bite their own nose off to spite their face.
Posted by: Croyboy on 3:31am Tue 13 May 08
Yogi wrote:[quote]Well when people like yourself and the bnp themselves are constantly trying to tell us, that people sharing their far right views are in the majority... [/quote]
That does seem a reasonable conclusion to come to: just ask ordinary people their opinion of immigration. ...Also, if - for example - the BNP don't put up a candidate in 75% of the constituencies in a general election, what sort of overall percentage would you [italic]expect[/italic] them to get?
Yogi wrote:[quote]all of the views I have seen you express on this site are certainly far right views.[/quote]
I can't help but wonder about your preoccupation with labelling the views of others as "left", "right" etc. Of what significance is it, anyway? But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too. So what?
[quote]As for you being prepared to vote for a communist or fascist party if you believe they will deliver your vision of an "all indigenous Britain"...[/quote]
Forgive me, Yogi, but where did you get the "all indigenous Britain" (your quotes)bit from? It's not something I've ever said. I merely hold the common-sense view that mass immigration has not been in the interest of the British people.
Yogi wrote:
Well when people like yourself and the bnp themselves are constantly trying to tell us, that people sharing their far right views are in the majority...
That does seem a reasonable conclusion to come to: just ask ordinary people their opinion of immigration. ...Also, if - for example - the BNP don't put up a candidate in 75% of the constituencies in a general election, what sort of overall percentage would you
expect them to get?
Yogi wrote:
all of the views I have seen you express on this site are certainly far right views.
I can't help but wonder about your preoccupation with labelling the views of others as "left", "right" etc. Of what significance is it, anyway? But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too. So what?
As for you being prepared to vote for a communist or fascist party if you believe they will deliver your vision of an "all indigenous Britain"...
Forgive me, Yogi, but where did you get the "all indigenous Britain" (your quotes)bit from? It's not something I've ever said. I merely hold the common-sense view that mass immigration has not been in the interest of the British people.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 11:27pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote]That does seem a reasonable conclusion to come to: just ask ordinary people their opinion of immigration. ...[/quote]
I prefer to believe mass opinion and solid evidence ie general election results, rather than the anecdotal findings of a few.
[quote]Also, if - for example - the BNP don't put up a candidate in 75% of the constituencies in a general election, what sort of overall percentage would you expect them to get?[/quote]
As I explained earlier ,IMO it is not because of any conspiracy that the bnp lack enough suitable candidates to enable them to be represented in more areas, or that they do not have large enough election coffers to pose any serious threat, these are just the realities of being a minor league political party.
As for your question of ,how well would the bnp do if they were represented in more constituencies, I suppose the same question could be asked by the UKIP , the Green Party or the DUP all parties that "polled" better results than the bnp in the last gen election.
But as this question is so hypothetical, and the onus is on themselves to be better represented ,could be why these parties do not bother asking this question.
[quote] can't help but wonder about your preoccupation with labelling the views of others as "left", "right" etc. Of what significance is it, anyway?[/quote]
Rather than being preoccupied with anything, I would prefer to say, I just speak as I find and given that nearly all of your posts here are in some way or another anti-immigrants/ immigration, I would say my classification of your views(far right) is quite accurate.
The fact that you seem to take umbrage at being "labelled" far right, is quite amusing given your views.
[quote]But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too. So what?[/quote]
So what?.....LMFAO.
Ghandi fought for a non violent Indian independence from an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler,not a typically far right goal. Whereas you would like to see the removal of immigrants and their descendants from a by and large indigenously governed country, an ideal widely accepted as being far right.
So for you to imply that if your views are far right, then Ghandi`s views must be too, is laughable and just further evidence of your deluded state of mind.
[quote]Forgive me, Yogi, but where did you get the "all indigenous Britain" (your quotes)bit from? It's not something I've ever said. I merely hold the common-sense view that mass immigration has not been in the interest of the British people.[/quote]
Well you advocate the removal of immigrants and their descendants from this country, so can you enlighten me as to what would be left, other than an "all indigenous" population were your vision ever to be realised? Oh and BTW there is a slight difference between being opposed to mass immigration and advocating "repatriation".
That does seem a reasonable conclusion to come to: just ask ordinary people their opinion of immigration. ...
I prefer to believe mass opinion and solid evidence ie general election results, rather than the anecdotal findings of a few.
Also, if - for example - the BNP don't put up a candidate in 75% of the constituencies in a general election, what sort of overall percentage would you expect them to get?
As I explained earlier ,IMO it is not because of any conspiracy that the bnp lack enough suitable candidates to enable them to be represented in more areas, or that they do not have large enough election coffers to pose any serious threat, these are just the realities of being a minor league political party.
As for your question of ,how well would the bnp do if they were represented in more constituencies, I suppose the same question could be asked by the UKIP , the Green Party or the DUP all parties that "polled" better results than the bnp in the last gen election.
But as this question is so hypothetical, and the onus is on themselves to be better represented ,could be why these parties do not bother asking this question.
can't help but wonder about your preoccupation with labelling the views of others as "left", "right" etc. Of what significance is it, anyway?
Rather than being preoccupied with anything, I would prefer to say, I just speak as I find and given that nearly all of your posts here are in some way or another anti-immigrants/ immigration, I would say my classification of your views(far right) is quite accurate.
The fact that you seem to take umbrage at being "labelled" far right, is quite amusing given your views.
But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too. So what?
So what?.....LMFAO.
Ghandi fought for a non violent Indian independence from an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler,not a typically far right goal. Whereas you would like to see the removal of immigrants and their descendants from a by and large indigenously governed country, an ideal widely accepted as being far right.
So for you to imply that if your views are far right, then Ghandi`s views must be too, is laughable and just further evidence of your deluded state of mind.
Forgive me, Yogi, but where did you get the "all indigenous Britain" (your quotes)bit from? It's not something I've ever said. I merely hold the common-sense view that mass immigration has not been in the interest of the British people.
Well you advocate the removal of immigrants and their descendants from this country, so can you enlighten me as to what would be left, other than an "all indigenous" population were your vision ever to be realised? Oh and BTW there is a slight difference between being opposed to mass immigration and advocating "repatriation".
Posted by: Croyboy on 3:25am today
Yogi: much as I'd enjoy taking your argument apart piece by piece - as I'm wont to do - I regret that I'm still at the Ends of the Earth, and am consequently posting under difficulties. I shall thus restrict myself to a few points.
[quote]The fact that you seem to take umbrage at being "labelled" far right, is quite amusing given your views.[/quote]
No, it's not that I "take umbrage" (Sticks & stones, and all that!), it's just that it seems an irrelevancy. "So what?" is the obvious question. I therefore wonder why you should bother to waste your time, that's all.
[quote]Ghandi fought for a non violent Indian independence from an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler[/quote]
Are you saying I [italic]am[/italic] promoting violence?
And as for "an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler", the states in India under direct British rule were well-known for being [italic]less[/italic] opressive than those left to the not-so-gentle mercies of native rulers. And "undemocratic"? Compared with what exactly in Asia at that time? ...Or now!
"immigrant ruler"? Surely "foreign ruler"? How many Brits actually immigrated there? ...As opposed to the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here! Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been [italic]that[/italic] bad, could it?
Lastly, your "all indigenous Britain" looks for all the world as though you're quoting from me. How you choose to interpret another's views is up to you, but it is [italic]not[/italic] board etiquette quote falsely.
Yogi: much as I'd enjoy taking your argument apart piece by piece - as I'm wont to do - I regret that I'm still at the Ends of the Earth, and am consequently posting under difficulties. I shall thus restrict myself to a few points.
The fact that you seem to take umbrage at being "labelled" far right, is quite amusing given your views.
No, it's not that I "take umbrage" (Sticks & stones, and all that!), it's just that it seems an irrelevancy. "So what?" is the obvious question. I therefore wonder why you should bother to waste your time, that's all.
Ghandi fought for a non violent Indian independence from an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler
Are you saying I
am promoting violence?
And as for "an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler", the states in India under direct British rule were well-known for being
less opressive than those left to the not-so-gentle mercies of native rulers. And "undemocratic"? Compared with what exactly in Asia at that time? ...Or now!
"immigrant ruler"? Surely "foreign ruler"? How many Brits actually immigrated there? ...As opposed to the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here! Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been
that bad, could it?
Lastly, your "all indigenous Britain" looks for all the world as though you're quoting from me. How you choose to interpret another's views is up to you, but it is
not board etiquette quote falsely.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
