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.

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?.

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.

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!

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???

"...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?

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.

"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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

LOL...Yogi breathes a sigh of relief ;-)

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.

Well if you offer no challenge to my classification of your views , why do you waste time constantly admonishing said classifications.

Are you saying I am promoting violence?

No, I was actually just pointing out that Ghandi advocated not using violence under any circumstance.
Whereas I`m sure you have previously stated that if implementing "repatriation" or a bnp government meant civil war, it would be a "worthwhile consequence".
So this would imply that you are not totally against violence, well not quite to the point that Ghandi was anyway. LOL

And as for "an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler", the states in India under direct British rule were well-known for being less oppressive 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?

I have no interest in debating the merits or flaws of any past or present Asian government, but I will clarify my earlier statement. Firstly, English Dictionary definition of "oppressed";

People who are oppressed are treated cruelly or are prevented from having the same opportunities, freedom, and benefits as others.

I am quite certain under British rule the native people of India were not afforded the same opportunities, freedoms and benefits than that of the British settlers in their country. Feel free to challenge this point.

Secondly, English Dictionary definition of "democratic";

relating to a country, organization, or system in which leaders are chosen or decisions are made by voting

I think you will find under British rule, native Indians had no vote regarding leadership or in fact anything else in their country.

As for whether it was an "immigrant" or "foreign" government, in this instance I don't think it makes much difference to my argument which of these words are used , so if it makes you happy ,I will amend my original statement to ;

Ghandi fought for a non violent independence from a foreign, oppressive, undemocratic ruler.

Now if you can seriously challenge the factual content of this statement,please let me know.

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.

The quotation marks you make reference to were used just to put emphasis on "certain" words, rather than being used to "falsely quote you".
But given that you would like to see immigrants and their descendants removed from this country, I am interested to know what would be left apart from an "all indigenous" population if your vision was to come to fruition.

Yogi wrote

Well if you offer no challenge to my classification of your views , why do you waste time constantly admonishing said classifications.

No, you've still got it wrong: I was "admonishing" (Extending your vocabulary, Yogi? That's nice!) - if anything - your apparent need to classify them: there's a subtle difference.

I`m sure you have previously stated that if implementing "repatriation" or a bnp government meant civil war, it would be a "worthwhile consequence".

I don't recall using that expression, but if I did, then it was probably a recognition of one possibility: at independence there was in effect a civil war in India too, of course. ...And the non-violent Ghandi, who had been imprisoned by the British, was murdered by an Indian.

Ah, thank you for the definition of "oppressed", especially the bit "People who are...prevented from having the same opportunities, freedom, and benefits as others." Like just about every country on earth for most of recorded history, you mean? It would certainly apply to working-class English people in Victorian times.
Context, Yogi, context!
And "British settlers"? In India? ...They must have been pretty few and far between! I think you've got a very dodgy "fact" there.

The quotation marks you make reference to were used just to put emphasis on "certain" words...

Please note that the usual way of showing emphasis is to use italics.

Yes, I personallywould like to see the great bulk of immigrants and their descendants removed from this country, but this does not mean - and I have never said - "every last one", so any talk of an "all indigenous" population is sheer fantasy.

I don't recall using that expression, but if I did, then it was probably a recognition of one possibility: at independence there was in effect a civil war in India too, of course. ...And the non-violent Ghandi, who had been imprisoned by the British, was murdered by an Indian.

Lets get back on track a little , the reason we are discussing Ghandi and Colonial India is because, you claimed that if I believed your ideals were "far right", then I must adopt the same view of Ghandis.

So, at the risk of sounding repetitive I will reiterate my position.

Ghandi, fought for a non violent, independence from an oppressive, undemocratic ruler, whereas you are advocating the removal of immigrants/descendan

ts from a democratic indigenously governed country.
I don't believe there are many similarities if any, between Ghandi`s ideals and your own(expressed here,anyway), Ghandi campaigned for equality and democracy for all persons in India, you simply want rid of non indigenous persons from England...
Equality, is not something usually associated with the far right.
"Repatriation" on the other hand ,I think we can safely say is a far right vision.

Ah, thank you for the definition of "oppressed", especially the bit "People who are...prevented from having the same opportunities, freedom, and benefits as others." Like just about every country on earth for most of recorded history, you mean? It would certainly apply to working-class English people in Victorian times.
Context, Yogi, context!

Are you challenging my claim, that British colonial rule in India was "oppressive" to the natives, or just nonsensically waffling?
Oh and thanks for educating me to the fact that this was not the only oppressive regime in "recorded history"....Although I don't remember implying that it was.
As for British people being oppressed in Victorian times, at least I suppose ,they had the luxury of being oppressed by their own government rather than a foreign one, eh?

And "British settlers"? In India? ...They must have been pretty few and far between! I think you've got a very dodgy "fact" there.

I don't remember making any claims as to the number of "British settlers" there were in Colonial India, but it is fact that there were British settlers and it is also fact that they enjoyed a much privileged lifestyle compared with that of the native people....So before suggesting that my claimed facts are "dodgy", I recommend you actually research said "facts" first.
Try reading the book "Empire Families" if you require any further proof of "British Settlers", if this isn`t enough evidence, let me know I`m sure I can provide further links that prove my "dodgy" fact, is in fact, factual. LOL

Please note that the usual way of showing emphasis is to use italics.

Now, I know you are an English language expert....So it pains me to point out, that it is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with the rules of Standard Written English to use quotation marks to put "emphasis" on selected "word/s" and not usually considered unusual....Hehe!(I can provide evidence, that this is the case, if required).

Yes, I personallywould like to see the great bulk of immigrants and their descendants removed from this country, but this does not mean - and I have never said - "every last one", so any talk of an "all indigenous" population is sheer fantasy.

Well, whether you would like to see the removal of all or just the "great bulk" of immigrants from this country,the likelihood of either happening IMO is not a million miles away from being "pure fantasy".

Yogi wrote

I don't believe there are many similarities if any, between Ghandi`s ideals and your own...

I never said anything about "Ghandi's ideals" (plural): I only spoke of "wanting my country back", as did Ghandi. I never suggested our situations were similar apart from that. I did feel, however, moved to expound just a little on British India, when you chose to take the dreary old flagellant's line of "Oh, God, were't we awful!" ...Actually, taken in context (Remember that, Yogi?), "we" did a pretty good job. Maybe you missed my not altogether rhetorical question above regarding "the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here. Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been that bad, could it?"
Yogi wrote

Are you challenging my claim, that British colonial rule in India was "oppressive"...

Yes. Two-thirds of India was ruled through native proxies (Isn't that mentioned in "Empire Families"?), where ordinary people had far fewer or no rights. In the areas under direct British rule Indians could, and did, take the British administration and institutions to court, where it was generally recognised they'd get just treatment. ...Try that in a Third-World country today!

As for British "settlers", the very word summons up lands such as South Africa, Canada, and Australia. How many actual "settlers" were there, beyond merchants, planters, missionaries, and civil servants? Do tell!
(I suppose if there were very many, Lahore
would have an English mayor, rather than
Leicester's having an Indian one!)


Yogi wrote

you simply want rid of non indigenous persons from England...

I simply don't want to be swamped.

...it pains me to point out, that it is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with the rules of Standard Written English to use quotation marks to put "emphasis" on selected "word/s" and not usually considered unusual...

Sort of: if one is indeed using "Written English" (handwriting), then there are occasions when it would be acceptable, because one doesn't have the facility of employing italics, unlike here. Also, Yogi, ever wondered why those little above-the-line commas are called "quotation marks"? Yes! ...'Cos they mark words as having been quoted! ("Hehe!" etc.)

Well, whether you would like to see the removal of all or just the "great bulk" of immigrants from this country,the likelihood of either happening IMO is not a million miles away from being "pure fantasy".

Mm, wonder how many German Jews in the 1920s thought something similar?

I never said anything about "Ghandi's ideals" (plural): I only spoke of "wanting my country back", as did Ghandi. I never suggested our situations were similar apart from that. I did feel, however, moved to expound just a little on British India, when you chose to take the dreary old flagellant's line of "Oh, God, were't we awful!" ...Actually, taken in context (Remember that, Yogi?), "we" did a pretty good job. Maybe you missed my not altogether rhetorical question above regarding "the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here. Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been that bad, could it?"

You tried to suggest that anyone deeming your "vision" as "far right" must also take the same view of Ghandis, implying that, what you would like to happen in this country and what Ghandi fought for in his, are somehow the same thing. Which for the reasons I have already given,is pure nonsense.
As for your take on colonial India, you seem to make it sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives, the fact is the natives were viewed as inferior beings and treat as such, and the only real concern of the British, was simply that of lining their pockets. Perhaps it is fitting that a few million or so people of Asian origin should reap the benefits of living in Britain, seeing as their not too distant ancestors helped to substantially fatten Empire coffers, for very little reward to themselves.

As for British "settlers", the very word summons up lands such as South Africa, Canada, and Australia. How many actual "settlers" were there, beyond merchants, planters, missionaries, and civil servants? Do tell!

I made no mention of numbers,my claim was that it was fact that there were British settlers in Colonial India. You claimed this was a "very dodgy fact".
After being presented with evidence of said settlers, you now resort to mumbo jumbo rantings, that because I used the word "settlers" this made you think of Australia and Canada, and confused you as to the meaning of the word "settler"?
I suggest consultation with a dictionary may clear this one up.

Sort of: if one is indeed using "Written English" (handwriting), then there are occasions when it would be acceptable, because one doesn't have the facility of employing italics, unlike here. Also, Yogi, ever wondered why those little above-the-line commas are called "quotation marks"? Yes! ...'Cos they mark words as having been quoted! ("Hehe!" etc.)

I know you are somewhat stuck in the past, but in modern day Written English(handwritten or typed), it is perfectly acceptable and quite common to see the use of quotation marks in instances other than when denoting a quotation.

Mm, wonder how many German Jews in the 1920s thought something similar?

Yeh that`s true!
I wouldn`t recommend holding your breath though!!

Yogi wrote

As for your take on colonial India, you seem to make it sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives.

Do I? Then you must have misread my post. But I can certainly tell you from one who was there (not me) that the Indians treated other Indians far worse than the British ever did.

I made no mention of numbers,my claim was that it was fact that there were British settlers in Colonial India. You claimed this was a "very dodgy fact".

I'm sure you wouldn't mention numbers, because both you and I know they'd be so small as to be meaningless, therefore it is a "very dodgy fact" as I said, because it's thrown in to mislead the unaware or less informed (Or maybe the latter is you!)
And yes, the word "settlers" tends to make one (not only me) think of such lands as Australia and Canada, impying as it does those who go abroad with the intention of staying for ever: how many Brits did this apply to in the case of India? Go on, Yogi, give us a number!

BTW, if you want a big-boy's book on the subject of things colonial, try Jan Morris's Pax Britannica.

...it is perfectly acceptable and quite common to see the use of quotation marks in instances other than when denoting a quotation.

Yes, Yogi, but not in the way you used them previously.
Consider: The "president" gave the order himself.
i.e. Someone purporting to be the president.
v. The president gave the order himself.
i.e. Not anyone else.
See the difference?
(Get a big-boy's book on English too!)

Do I? Then you must have misread my post.

I don`t think so.
Your actual quote was;

" But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too"

Are you trying to say , that there is no implication in this statement, that you and Ghandi share a common goal, and that the reader cannot classify one of you as "far right" without the other?

But I can certainly tell you from one who was there (not me) that the Indians treated other Indians far worse than the British ever did.

And your point is?
It is ok to for a foreign government to severely oppress the natives of a country, if the regime is less oppressive than an indigenous government would be?

I'm sure you wouldn't mention numbers, because both you and I know they'd be so small as to be meaningless, therefore it is a "very dodgy fact" as I said, because it's thrown in to mislead the unaware or less informed (Or maybe the latter is you!) And yes, the word "settlers" tends to make one (not only me) think of such lands as Australia and Canada, impying as it does those who go abroad with the intention of staying for ever: how many Brits did this apply to in the case of India? Go on, Yogi, give us a number!

Firstly, Collins English Dictionary definition of a "settler";

a person who settles in a new country or a colony

Doesn`t seem to be any mention of time scale/limit.

Secondly, it is totally irrelevant to the accuracy of my claimed fact, how many British settlers there were, it is the same as saying, bnp general election voters don't actually exist, because they made up less 0.5% of the electoral population in 2005.

It is utterly and totally ridiculous to dispute the "existence" of a group, because you believe(correctly or not)that they were few in numbers.
So I would suggest regarding this matter you are the one making "very dodgy" statements. And the fact that you even got yourself into the position of disputing the existence of Brit settlers in India, would suggest you may wish to include yourself, when talking of the "less informed" regarding this subject.

Finally, as your admonishment of my claimed fact(re; Brit settlers in India)seems to be rapidly if unfoundedly gathering momentum, here is another little tit bit for you:

Quoting from George Orwell, himself a 2nd generation British settler in Colonial India;

"the attraction of India (and more recently Kenya, Nigeria, etc.) for the lower-upper-middle class in India, with cheap horses, free shooting, and hordes of black servants, it was so easy to play at being a gentleman" . Indeed, in pursuit of gentility, respectability, and social status, many Britons throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries found their way to the Indian subcontinent.

Now Mr Orwell claims that many Britons relocated to India.....Whereas the Croyboy, speaking on the existence of British settlers in India, says;

I'm sure you wouldn't mention numbers, because both you and I know they'd be so small as to be meaningless

Hmmmm.......who to believe?? George Orwell.... or the far more knowledgeable and well informed croyboy??? LMFAO!!!!!!

The words "shot", "to" and "pieces" spring to mind.

BTW, if you want a big-boy's book on the subject of things colonial, try Jan Morris's Pax Britannica.

Perhaps you will consider consultation with your "big boy books" before disputing my "facts" in the future.

Yes, Yogi, but not in the way you used them previously.
Consider: The "president" gave the order himself.
i.e. Someone purporting to be the president.
v. The president gave the order himself.
i.e. Not anyone else.
See the difference?
(Get a big-boy's book on English too!)

As with many other things, I don't take your criticism of my use of quotation marks or anything else concerning the English language too seriously, seeing as in the past you have demonstrated difficulty in understanding the meaning of quite simple English words, such as "poll" and "election"!!

Maybe it`s time you take some of your own advice and.......Crack open the Big Boy books!!!

Apologies, a very small part of the George Orwell quote, for some reason was omitted....So rather than risk being accused of "misquotation", here is exactly how it should of read;

the attraction of India (and more recently Kenya, Nigeria, etc.) for the lower-upper-middle class in India, with cheap horses, free shooting, and hordes of black servants, it was so easy to play at being a gentleman" . Indeed, in pursuit of gentility, respectability, and social status, many Britons throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries found their way to the Indian subcontinent.

the attraction of India (and more recently Kenya, Nigeria, etc.) for the lower-upper-middle class(is that) in India, with cheap horses, free shooting, and hordes of black servants, it was so easy to play at being a gentleman" . Indeed, in pursuit of gentility, respectability, and social status, many Britons throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries found their way to the Indian subcontinent.Quote | Report

Yogi wrote Are you trying to say , that there is no implication in this statement, that you and Ghandi share a common goal, and that the reader cannot classify one of you as "far right" without the other?
However, I was clearly referring to your claiming that I made "colonial India...sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives". I repeat, if that's the impression you got, you must have misread my post.

And your point is?
It is ok to for a foreign government to severely oppress the natives of a country, if the regime is less oppressive than an indigenous government would be?
One point is that British India wasn't oppressive relatively speaking - and "relatively" is an important word here. Examples:
1/ Would you prefer to be an "oppressed" Rhodesian native, or a "free" Zimbabwean?
2/ An "oppressed" native of British Burma, or a "free" Myamarese?
Please Yogi, don't affect such boorish, politically-correct (but ultimately phoney!) idealism at the expense of others. Try asking those who are/were there.

Thank you for the definition of "settler", but I stand by what I said as regarding the implication of the word: one who goes abroad with the intention of staying for ever. (cf "settled community")

...it is totally irrelevant to the accuracy of my claimed fact, how many British settlers there were, it is the same as saying
Okay, agreed!
There were Jews in the Nazi party (a fact), but don't you think it would be highly misleading to blow this "fact" up out of all proportion? I can't answer for you, of course, but any reasonable person would surely agree. India was not a land that was "settled" by British immigrants in any (sane) accepted meaning or understanding of the word. Again, ask anyone from the sub-continent how many "British settlers" live or lived in their area. I trust you'll take their word for it!

Mr Orwell claims that many Britons relocated to India....
"Many" relative to what? ...The numbers of people from the sub-continent who have settled here? Now that would be something! Also, how many stayed post-independence? (Yes, that is relevant, because I can't see people of British descent flocking back from Aussie if it went completely its own way tomorrow.)

Perhaps you will consider consultation with your "big boy books" before disputing my "facts" in the future.
No need. I don't comment of things I know nothing about, and I also employ logic and common sense when I make my points - and those, I'm afraid, you are either endowed with...or not!

As with many other things, I don't take your criticism of my use of quotation marks or anything else concerning the English language too seriously...quote]
Pity, maybe you should. "You can lead a horse to water..."

However, I was clearly referring to your claiming that I made "colonial India...sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives". I repeat, if that's the impression you got, you must have misread my post.

Ok , but looking at your statement of :

" But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too"

Do you disagree that this statement
strongly implies that, the reader must accept that if your views are far right then so were Ghandi's?

One point is that British India wasn't oppressive relatively speaking - and "relatively" is an important word here. Examples:
1/ Would you prefer to be an "oppressed" Rhodesian native, or a "free" Zimbabwean?
2/ An "oppressed" native of British Burma, or a "free" Myamarese?

Ok ,so now British rule in colonial India, wasn’t oppressive at all!!... “relatively” speaking.(lol)

What utter nonsense.
So, working on the same logic, would you agree that a mugger who only uses violence when necessary ,to gain his victims possessions is “relatively” speaking not actually a mugger , when compared to a mugger who likes to always punch his victims a few times before robbing them.
Now I would suggest “relatively" speaking mugger A is still a mugger, possibly a “relatively” more humane mugger than B……But still a mugger all the same.

Please Yogi, don't affect such boorish, politically-correct (but ultimately phoney!) idealism at the expense of others. Try asking those who are/were there.

More Croyboy Logic?

So, now following Croyboy logic, by my stating that Colonial rule in India was oppressive, this makes me guilty of being ideologically politically correct and phony , and at who`s expense exactly is my accused "ideology" supposed to be at?

I must admit, I don`t know anyone who was there first hand , but it is fairly well documented(and I thought pretty widely accepted), that Colonial rule in India was severely oppressive to the natives .
Here is another quote from George Orwell , (someone who was there) and someone who`s opinions, I would suggest are quite well respected, of course not to the extent of your opinions or the person/s who is feeding you these “first hand” insights into Colonial India. LMFAO!

“I was in the Indian Police for five years, and by the end of that time I hated the imperialism I was serving with a bitterness which I probably cannot make clear. In the free air of England that kind of thing is not fully intelligible. In order to hate imperialism you have got to be part of it. Seen from the outside the British rule in India appears--indeed is--benevolent and even necessary.... But it is not possible to be part of such a system without recognizing it as an unjustifiable tyranny. Even the thickest-skinned Anglo-Indian is aware of this.” I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically--and secretly, of course--I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British. As for the job I was doing, I hated it bitterly.... In a job like that you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters. The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the gray, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos--all these oppressed. me with an intolerable sense of guilt.

Thank you for the definition of "settler", but I stand by what I said as regarding the implication of the word: one who goes abroad with the intention of staying for ever. (cf "settled community")

This is just a further example of you having difficulty understanding the "actual" meaning of quite simple English words.

There were Jews in the Nazi party (a fact), but don't you think it would be highly misleading to blow this "fact" up out of all proportion? I can't answer for you, of course, but any reasonable person would surely agree. India was not a land that was "settled" by British immigrants in any (sane) accepted meaning or understanding of the word. Again, ask anyone from the sub-continent how many "British settlers" live or lived in their area. I trust you'll take their word for it!

Hmmm…..A fact being blown up out of all proportion, eh? , surely a fact is either accurate or inaccurate…..So when disputing a fact ,I suggest you should display some evidence that challenges the accuracy of said fact. Unfortunately amongst your mumbo jumbo, nonsensical rantings ,of why my “fact” was in your eyes “very dodgy”, you have offered no such evidence.
The fact that your understanding of the word “settler” does not coincide with that of the English Dictionary definition, or that you believe the number of settlers was not great, neither of these points detract from the accuracy of my claim, that there were British settlers in India and that they did lead much privileged lives ,than that of the natives.
If ,as you say these facts “have been blown out of all proportion” ,the reason for this is because ,even after being provided with further evidence supporting my claims, you have, if feebly ,still continued to dispute these facts.

"Many" relative to what? ...The numbers of people from the sub-continent who have settled here? Now that would be something! Also, how many stayed post-independence? (Yes, that is relevant, because I can't see people of British descent flocking back from Aussie if it went completely its own way tomorrow.)

Why are you so insistent on arguing the numbers of British “settlers” , when I have on numerous occasions told you I am claiming their existence, and not the vastness of their numbers. However I would imagine that many of the “pukka sahibs” would of taken umbrage to your classification of them as “meaningless”, because their numbers were not great enough, and I would suggest that there were in fact more of them than you seem to think there were…..As you are so certain of the minuscule numbers involved, and as you are the one arguing numbers, why don’t you give us some “figures” that support your case.
As publicized in my previous post, George Orwell(someone who was there!) claimed many” Britons during 18th, 19th and 20th century relocated to India, now I would suggest that given Orwell`s grasp of the English language, we can surmise with some confidence, that when he says “many Britons” he means at least ,a large enough amount, to be considered a significant number of Britons.
Also, in regards to why many British settlers returned to Britain post independence . Could it be because they lost the majority of the preferential benefits and privileges afforded them by British rule? LOL
As for your reference to “British descent Aussies” and wondering if they would flock back to the UK if Australia went it`s own way , why would they?? They already totally control Australia.
Do you think the Brits would of flocked back from India post 1946 if they had of ,like in Australia, managed to totally crush the natives and claim India for themselves.

No need. I don't comment of things I know nothing about, and I also employ logic and common sense when I make my points - and those, I'm afraid, you are either endowed with...or not!

As highlighted earlier, your idea of “logic”, I would best describe as ,(to coin a phrase) “ Croyboy dodgy logic” and I wouldn’t be too surprised if your view of common sense is similarly distorted.
Croyboy , I will give you some credit though, you pride youself on your "perfect" punctuation, grammar and spelling which(on the whole) is all pretty good, but as for the actual content of your posts on this site…..The word “laughable” would be a fair description.

Yogi wrote (on 18th May)

"As for your take on colonial India, you seem to make it sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives."

Remember? To this I responded "Do I? Then you must have misread my post."
Where have I said anything about a "charitable crusade"? ...Or "improving the lives of the natives"? You're simply setting up a straw man to knock down again - as you've done in the past.
But to return to what Ghandi and I have in common (Again!), yes, we both want(ed) our countries back. It therefore follows that if you choose to classify me as "far-right", then obviously he must have been far-right too.

"Ok ,so now British rule in colonial India, wasn’t oppressive at all!!... “relatively” speaking.(lol)"

"at all"? ...Where did that come from? But by the standards of colonialism at that time it was indeed relatively enlightened. ...And
have you noticed, Yogi, out of all of those that must have read this exchange whose families had to have had some first-hand experience of the Raj, not one has contradicted me. Why?

"So, working on the same logic, would you agree that a mugger who only uses violence when necessary ,to gain his victims possessions is “relatively” speaking not actually a mugger..."

No (rubbish in, rubbish out), because the mugging itself is clearly a crime no matter how it's carried out. At the time of the Empire - dispite (your) hindsight being 20/20 - colonialism wasn't considered a crime. To many it was a civilising mission, to a lot of others business (e.g. the East India Company), but hardly reprehensible. Also, I suspect not a few natives thanked their lucky stars they weren't colonised by the Spanish, Dutch, Belgians, or Portuguese. Yes, relative values again; that comes of living in the Real World.
BTW, George Orwell was writing at the tail-end of the British Empire, when sentiments among the more comfortable middle-classes was changing. ("Nineteen Eighty-Four" was written 1948, the year after Indian independence.)

"...there were British settlers in India and that they did lead much privileged lives ,than that of the natives."

Of course! Why on earth go to what was considered a backward country otherwise? ...To live like the natives? Oh, please! But precious few went to stay, but rather to "make their fortune" as was the expression at the time, and then to return "home".

"Do you think the Brits would of flocked back from India post 1946 if they had of ,like in Australia, managed to totally crush the natives and claim India for themselves."

I don't recall that there was ever any suggestion that the British wanted to "totally crush the natives" in India! What, 500 million of them? For that very reason (population) - as I've said - the situation was quite different to Canada etc.
And "would of", Yogi?
"would of"? Oh, dear!

Unfortunately amongst your mumbo jumbo, nonsensical rantings ,of why my “fact” was in your eyes “very dodgy”, you have offered no such evidence.

I've already explained that at length. If you choose not to understand, there's nothing I can say. Likewise, I've "offered no such evidence" that the moon isn't made of green cheese! ...Neither would I: I've better things to do with my life.

"...you pride youself on your "perfect" punctuation, grammar and spelling..."

There you go again: I've never said anything about being "perfect" in anything, so please don't pretend to quote me. Also, you have absolutely no idea what I'm proud of, if anything!

Remember? To this I responded "Do I? Then you must have misread my post."
Where have I said anything about a "charitable crusade"? ...Or "improving the lives of the natives"? You're simply setting up a straw man to knock down again - as you've done in the past.

Ok, you have said previously, that Colonial rule in India, wasn’t too bad for the natives , implied that they enjoyed a fair judicial system, and claimed many saw it as a civilizing mission. All these things sound pretty charitable wouldn’t you agree?
I wonder how many of the victims of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre , shared your opinions on native life in Colonial India ?

But to return to what Ghandi and I have in common (Again!), yes, we both want(ed) our countries back. It therefore follows that if you choose to classify me as "far-right", then obviously he must have been far-right too.

Ghandi fought for equal and democratic rights for the native people of India, who were living under a foreign , undemocratic, oppressive government.
Whereas you would like to see the expulsion of immigrants/descendan

ts from Britain , where the native people enjoy a mainly indigenous, democratically elected, non oppressive government.
I would suggest that “Croyboy dodgy logic” is playing tricks on you again, if you believe these two “visions” share any common ground.

have you noticed, Yogi, out of all of those that must have read this exchange whose families had to have had some first-hand experience of the Raj, not one has contradicted me. Why?

I am sure there are ,“hordes” of such people reading these exchanges……Hilarious

!
But why should their silence, indicate that your account of Colonial India is accurate, why then, have they not contradicted my opinions?

No (rubbish in, rubbish out), because the mugging itself is clearly a crime no matter how it's carried out. At the time of the Empire - dispite (your) hindsight being 20/20 - colonialism wasn't considered a crime. To many it was a civilising mission, to a lot of others business (e.g. the East India Company), but hardly reprehensible. Also, I suspect not a few natives thanked their lucky stars they weren't colonised by the Spanish, Dutch, Belgians, or Portuguese. Yes, relative values again; that comes of living in the Real World.
BTW, George Orwell was writing at the tail-end of the British Empire, when sentiments among the more comfortable middle-classes was changing. ("Nineteen Eighty-Four" was written 1948, the year after Indian independence.)

Ok , possibly my previous analogy didn’t state my point plainly enough . So here`s another scenario ; Mugger “A” likes to punch his victims between 3-6 times during muggings, whereas muggers “B”, “C”, and “D” punch their victims between 10-15 times , all 4 muggers operate in the same area at the same time, and between them are responsible for all of this areas muggings.
Now using the same “ logic” as you use when saying…..”Colonial India wasn’t oppressive “relatively speaking”, I suppose you would also have to say, mugger “A” , “relatively speaking” is not a “violent” mugger.
I would suggest That British rule in Colonial India was “relatively” more oppressive to India`s natives , than the British Government was , to its own natives in Britain at the same time.
Oppressive regime is still oppressive regime, regardless whether or not it is the most oppressive regime of it`s time. In the same way mugger “A” is still a violent mugger , even though he may not be the most violent mugger of his time.

I don't recall that there was ever any suggestion that the British wanted to "totally crush the natives" in India! What, 500 million of them? For that very reason (population) - as I've said - the situation was quite different to Canada etc.
And "would of", Yogi?
"would of"? Oh, dear!

You asked the question “ how many Brits stayed on in India, post independence” and stated that “ you couldn’t see people of British descent flocking back to the UK if Australia went completely its own way, tomorrow.”
The fact is, British descendants have long since crushed the native people of Australia, so in the event of Australia going “ completely its own way” , it would not mean the overthrowing of the “British descent” government there, and would have little impact on Australia`s British descendants day to day life. Whereas Indian independence and the end of British rule there, had massive implication and impact on Brit /descendants there.
I neither, suggested that there was any aim to totally crush the natives of India, I was just pointing out the reason as to why a large proportion of the Brits living in India departed post independence, and why the majority of British descendants would stay put ,should Australia “go completely it`s own way”.

Likewise, I've "offered no such evidence" that the moon isn't made of green cheese! ...Neither would I: I've better things to do with my life.

It isn’t? You have?
Wonders cease to amaze me!!

There you go again: I've never said anything about being "perfect" in anything, so please don't pretend to quote me. Also, you have absolutely no idea what I'm proud of, if anything!

Well the fact you quite regularly feel the need to correct others punctuation, grammar, and spelling led me to believe that you considered yourself “perfect” in such matters and the frequency of your “corrections” , I took to mean , these are things you personally “take pride in”.
Apologies if my assumptions were incorrect ……Oh and for pretending to “quote” you again , of course!!

Yogi wrote

"...you have said previously, that Colonial rule in India, wasn’t too bad for the natives , implied that they enjoyed a fair judicial system, and claimed many saw it as a civilizing mission. All these things sound pretty charitable wouldn’t you agree?"

Yes, the natives did enjoy a fair judicial system post-Mutiny (1857) in those areas directly administered by the British, which was only around a third of the country.
And yes, some did see it as a civilizing mission, but I wouldn't for a moment attribute that motive to the colonial project in general.
Also, I wouldn’t agree that the Rule of Law has anything to do with charity!

I wonder how many of the victims of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre , shared your opinions on native life in Colonial India ?

Context again, Yogi. You'll find relatively few such incidents, all of which pale into insignificance compared to those who died immediately post-independence. Furthermore, are the Romans remembered for their (many!) massacres! ...And I wouldn't be surprised to find a number of those related to those who died in India living here!

Oppressive regime is still oppressive regime, regardless whether or not it is the most oppressive regime of it`s time.

Sure, that's the official trendy "Oh weren't we terrible!" view of history. Unfortunately it's also superficial and ultimately worthless. We all know this at some level of consciousness - even you, Yogi - which is perhaps why history has almost become a non-subject in recent years.

As for mugging, it's a crime of violence by its very nature, thus your analogy didn't work at all.

I'd love to continue, but other matters call!

Also, I wouldn’t agree that the Rule of Law has anything to do with charity!

I think the natives of Colonial India would of probably agreed!

Context again, Yogi. You'll find relatively few such incidents, all of which pale into insignificance compared to those who died immediately post-independence. Furthermore, are the Romans remembered for their (many!) massacres! ...And I wouldn't be surprised to find a number of those related to those who died in India living here!

British soldiers firing live ammunition into an unarmed crowd of peaceful protesters, inclusive of women and children, killing hundreds if not more, pales into insignificance?
Does it pale into insignificance compared with any brutal act the native Indians may have perpetrated on their British oppressors?
And as I have previously stated ,I believe it is only right that there should be a large number of Asian heritage British citizens , seeing as their ancestors contributed directly to the wealth of the “empire” and as you point out , many living here now, may even be relatives/ancestors of those killed in acts of “empire” barbarism.
Also, would I be correct in thinking, that since this atrocity occurred post 1857, it should be considered as further evidence of the “fair judicial system” that was in operation at this time.

Sure, that's the official trendy "Oh weren't we terrible!" view of history. Unfortunately it's also superficial and ultimately worthless. We all know this at some level of consciousness - even you, Yogi - which is perhaps why history has almost become a non-subject in recent years.

I don’t think it’s a particularly “trendy” view, to recognize that on many levels, the treatment of Indian natives by the “empire” was oppressive undemocratic and inhumane. And I would suggest “weren’t we terrible” may be comparable to saying a murderer has been “a little bit naughty”.
I suppose history can be interpreted differently by different people……I mean ,many people believe that Adolf Hitler was some kind of hero, despite there being an abundance of evidence that tells us he was a monster responsible for the systematic slaughter of millions. Yet some people still choose to hero worship him, I suggest your interpretation of some quite recent British history , may be the result of simalarly distortive spectacles.

As for mugging, it's a crime of violence by its very nature, thus your analogy didn't work at all.

I don’t see why, that the fact that mugging is a "crime" has any bearing on the functionality of my analogy. Especially if you consider that oppressive regime is also a “crime” , against humanity at least. So I would say my “mugger” analogy portrayed my point quite clearly.

Yogi wrote

"British soldiers firing live ammunition into an unarmed crowd of peaceful protesters, inclusive of women and children, killing hundreds if not more, pales into insignificance?"

"British soldiers firing live ammunition..." I'm not quite sure what you're getting at: would you expect them to fire blanks?
"...inclusive of women and children, killing hundreds if not more..."
Par, I'm afraid
Yogi, for the Third World today, let alone then!
BTW, I see on checking that you're referring to the Amritsar Massacre. Yes, that's a real poster boy for the trendies, isn't it? ...The reason being that it's one of the very few such incidents there is. And if memory serves, your "British soldiers" were all Indians. Well, it figures: the Indians have always hated each other because of language, dialect, religion, region, caste, or political affiliation. With that in mind, yes, the Brits did a pretty good job overall. And if you want "acts of... barbarism", try post 1947 India.

I don’t think it’s a particularly “trendy” view, to recognize that on many levels, the treatment of Indian natives by the “empire” was oppressive undemocratic and inhumane.

Yes, yes, we're all impressed by your bid to establish liberal credentials, Yogi. Meanwhile, back in the Real World, perhaps you can give me an example of an empire that was less
"oppressive, undemocratic and inhumane" than ours. (...Or maybe I should say "mine"! As you seem so keen to run down Britain at every chance you get, I have my doubts.)

I don’t see why, that the fact that mugging is a "crime" has any bearing on the functionality of my analogy. Especially if you consider that oppressive regime is also a “crime” , against humanity at least. So I would say my “mugger” analogy portrayed my point quite clearly.

Oppression might well be considered "a “crime” , against humanity" bytoday's standards, but we're not talking about today, are we? e.g. Homosexual relations were illegal in the UK not long ago - now we have queers in the Cabinet! Times change, standards change.
Come on, Yogi, take off those "distortive spectacles".

"British soldiers firing live ammunition..." I'm not quite sure what you're getting at: would you expect them to fire blanks?

No ,I was just highlighting the fact that it wasn’t rubber bullets or tear gas or anything else being fired into an unarmed crowd, but actual live rounds of ammunition.

"...inclusive of women and children, killing hundreds if not more..."
Par, I'm afraid
Yogi, for the Third World today, let alone then!
BTW, I see on checking that you're referring to the Amritsar Massacre. Yes, that's a real poster boy for the trendies, isn't it? ...The reason being that it's one of the very few such incidents there is. And if memory serves, your "British soldiers" were all Indians. Well, it figures: the Indians have always hated each other because of language, dialect, religion, region, caste, or political affiliation. With that in mind, yes, the Brits did a pretty good job overall. And if you want "acts of... barbarism", try post 1947 India.

Oh I see, so this massacre wasn`t actually so bad , because after all it was one of only a few massacres that occurred under British Rule…LMFAO.
And whether the soldiers were of Indian or British descent, they were certainly carrying out instructions issued by British command.
Here is Winston Churchill`s take on this massacre;

"The incident in Jallian Wala Bagh was 'an extraordinary event, a monstrous event. The Indians were 'packed together so that one bullet would drive through three or four bodies'; the people 'ran madly this way and the other. When fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, and the fire was then directed on the ground. This was continued for eight or ten minutes, and it stopped only when the ammunition had reached the point of exhaustion".....

Seems like this great Brit, views this “incident” as being a little more significant, than you seem to believe. Or don’t tell me, you are one of these people that believe Churchill was a traitor of his own race? …. How surprised I`d be if that were the case!!

Yes, yes, we're all impressed by your bid to establish liberal credentials, Yogi.

Gee, thanks!!

Meanwhile, back in the Real World

You know of this place?

perhaps you can give me an example of an empire that was less
"oppressive, undemocratic and inhumane" than ours. (...Or maybe I should say "mine"! As you seem so keen to run down Britain at every chance you get, I have my doubts.)

Oh I get it, you can slag off our current and recent governments till your hearts content , calling them crooks and con men under the guise of being patriotic and “wanting the best for my country” ,but if anyone should question British actions during Imperial times , then this is seen as running down Britain at every chance…..Hmmmm , is “Croyboy dodgy logic” at work here?
Perhaps Imperial style rule is more acceptable to you than our current regime.
I have heard of people being ahead of their time, are you perhaps , the opposite of this?

Oppression might well be considered "a “crime” , against humanity" bytoday's standards, but we're not talking about today, are we? e.g. Homosexual relations were illegal in the UK not long ago - now we have queers in the Cabinet! Times change, standards change.
Come on, Yogi, take off those "distortive spectacles".

We may not be talking about today ,but since we are talking today, I thought it obvious,that unless otherwise stated, the intention is for my opinions to be viewed relative to "todays standards", no?
And you seem to be joining my argument, with your mention of homosexuals, highlighting the fact, that in the past people have been treat oppressively or xenophobically by our government. But as you say “by todays standards” we are now aware that this is wrong.
BTW your choice of the word “queers” is just further evidence , that your perception of “the real world” probably has little in common with Britain 2008.

Yogi wrote

"Oh I see, so this massacre wasn`t actually so bad , because after all it was one of only a few massacres that occurred under British Rule…"

To the extent that you keep banging on (and on!) about it, no, I suppose in a sense it wasn't "actually so bad". I can only say once again that it has to be seen incontext. If this "proves" how brutal the Brits were, then what about all the massacres that occurred after they left? Are those to be blythly ignored in Yogi's History Book? ...And if not, what does that make the people responsible for them: even worse than the Colonials, surely?

"Or don’t tell me, you are one of these people that believe Churchill was a traitor of his own race? …. How surprised I`d be if that were the case!!"

When have I ever mentioned "race"? ...Besides, Churchill was part Red Indian (on his mother's side).

"Oh I get it, you can slag off our current and recent governments till your hearts content , calling them crooks and con men under the guise of being patriotic and “wanting the best for my 'country'"

As a matter of fact, you rarely seem to "get it", Yogi.
1/ I've never claimed to be "patriotic".
2/ I slag off all politicians who present themselves as Democratic Represenatives of the People, then studiously ignore what those same people actually say.

"...but if anyone should question British actions during Imperial times , then this is seen as running down Britain at every chance…"

No, I'm far from being a knee-jerk nationalist or flag-waver, but endlessly trying to promote some trendy, distorted, non-contextual,
politically-correct view of history does no one any favours. ...And it certainly seems as though you do go in for "running down Britain at every chance"!

I thought it obvious,that unless otherwise stated, the intention is for my opinions to be viewed relative to "todays standards", no?

In which case, weren't the Babylonians/ancient Egyptions/Persians/R

omans etc., etc. simply awful!
Okay? Feel better now that we're in good company? Or is it only Britain that's terrible?
...And the "no" bit at the end of your statement is most alien!

"But as you say “by todays standards” we are now aware that this is wrong."

No, I'm simply saying “by todays standards” without moralising.
And I use the word "queer", as some of them are bloody miserable, thus "gay" seems unsuitable. Also, we must be very careful of those who'd control our language!

When have I ever mentioned "race"? ...Besides, Churchill was part Red Indian (on his mother's side).

Lucky we never had a bnp government in his day then, otherwise instead of leading Britain to victory in WWII, under bnp "repatriation" policy he would of probably been shipped off to California or somewhere.

As a matter of fact, you rarely seem to "get it", Yogi.
1/ I've never claimed to be "patriotic".
2/ I slag off all politicians who present themselves as Democratic Represenatives of the People, then studiously ignore what those same people actually say.

I don't think any of the established parties make any false claim that they intend to represent people with your views on how we should treat non indigenous citizens. I am certain all three parties make quite clear their stance on equality.
You are never going to feel represented by any government and neither should you, because your views on what should happen to all the terrible non indigenous people of our nation, are abhorrent to the majority of British people.

No, I'm far from being a knee-jerk nationalist or flag-waver, but endlessly trying to promote some trendy, distorted, non-contextual,
politically-correct view of history does no one any favours. ...And it certainly seems as though you do go in for "running down Britain at every chance"!

Well ,I have provided quotes from two great Brits ,one of which lived and worked in Colonial India and the other was probably the highest regarded Prime Minister in British history. The first, seems to agree with my view on "Colonial India " as a whole, and the second seems to believe that the British perpetrated Amristar massacre , was as I claimed a monstrous atrocity, you know the incident you think "wasn't so bad"....if seen in context of course!. Were these two also guilty of promoting trendy, distorted, non-contextual, politically-correct history", huh?

Or is it only Britain that's terrible?

Not really, I happen to think modern day Britain is pretty good , I just happen to believe British Rule in India was oppressive and at times inhumane to the natives.

...And the "no" bit at the end of your statement is most alien!

Wast ist dast!! An alien?.....It shall be removed, immediately!!

In which case, weren't the Babylonians/ancient Egyptions/Persians/R


omans etc., etc. simply awful!

Egyptions...???
Tsk...Tsk Croyboy are standards slipping?

In regard to humanitarian issues, yes. But if I were to point out that the Roman practice of throwing Christians to the lions was appalling ,how many sane people would disagree? or how many would say “not if you view it in context”?

And I use the word "queer", as some of them are bloody miserable, thus "gay" seems unsuitable. Also, we must be very careful of those who'd control our language!

Well I suppose its an improvement from your previous label ling of them as "benders".

Yogi wrote referring to Churchill:

"Lucky we never had a bnp government in his day then, otherwise instead of leading Britain to victory in WWII, under bnp "repatriation" policy he would of probably been shipped off to California or somewhere."

1/ No, he wouldn't: the problem is and has always been one of mass migration, not a question of individuals.
2/ Who knows? ...If we'd had a BNP-style government, there might not have been a WWII.
3/ "he would of probably"?!

"I don't think any of the established parties make any false claim that they intend to represent people with your views on how we should treat non indigenous citizens."

Ah, I see: only those with the "correct" views are represented. In fact, I'd much prefer the established parties to actually say that: at least it's honest!
As for our "non indigenous citizens", you're jumping the gun: the fundamental question is whether they should indeed be citizens.

"...your views on what should happen to all the terrible non indigenous people of our nation, are abhorrent to the majority of British people."

Oh? ...So you claim to speak for the "majority of British people", do you? ...On what grounds? There again, you might be right; a referendum on the subject would soon clear it up, wouldn't it?
And why "terrible non indigenous people"? It's just a case of not needing to import people into this already crowded island - "terrible" or otherwise.

"Were these two also guilty of promoting trendy, distorted, non-contextual, politically-correct history", huh?"

No, only you are. They weren't able to view events from the perspective of 2008, were they?

"Egyptions...???
Tsk...Tsk Croyboy are standards slipping?"

Due to the uncomfortably small screen I was then using, rather than slipping standards. ...But hardly in the class of "would of probably"! (see above)

"...if I were to point out that the Roman practice of throwing Christians to the lions was appalling ,how many sane people would disagree? or how many would say “not if you view it in context”?"

Yes, we'd all agree in the abstract, I'm sure - but what's the point of the whole exercise? To pat ourselves on the back? It's just an empty, feel-good, trash-TV-type gesture of concern for the intellectually lazy. Consider, a thousand years later the Christians were burning old ladies at the stake. What about the Inquisition? ...And that's not even mentioning the Crusades. So yes, "appalling", but so was everyone else, that's why it has to be viewed in context to in order to understand an even and give it any meaning. ...And in the final analyses it simply doesn't matter what label we choose to stick on any action, or what you "happen to believe"...unless you're a complete egomaniac!

"Well I suppose its an improvement from your previous labelling of them as "benders"."

Did I say "benders"? ...Actually, I prefer "brown-hatters": so much more descriptive, don't you think?

1/ No, he wouldn't: the problem is and has always been one of mass migration, not a question of individuals.

As far as I am aware, unless there has been a recent policy change, the bnp advocate the removal of mixed race citizens from the UK , so I would suggest under bnp rule Churchill could of been expelled from Britain, he certainly would never have been Prime Minister, that's for sure.

2/ Who knows? ...If we'd had a BNP-style government, there might not have been a WWII.

You could be right, but we could also be speaking a different language now too.
Oh? ...So you claim to speak for the "majority of British people", do you? ...On what grounds? There again, you might be right; a referendum on the subject would soon clear it up, wouldn't it?

Speaking on behalf of the masses...Tsk...Tsk..

..Naughty me!
Anyway, as I have explained on more than one occasion, the fact that the only parties advocating the expulsion of people considered “not British enough”, are the bnp and nf, and as I have also stated before, the fact that they only managed 0.7% of the vote at the last gen election, I think this gives us a little indication, as to the popularity of their policies with the British public.

And why "terrible non indigenous people"? It's just a case of not needing to import people into this already crowded island - "terrible" or otherwise.

I think the bnp`s people exportation policies, may be of more concern, than their people importation policies.

No, only you are. They weren't able to view events from the perspective of 2008, were they?

LMFAO !!
If Churchill and Orwell ,were able to recognize that events in colonial India were oppressive, and at times barbaric, and they were actually around at the time, then surely this would suggest that my stated opinions of Colonial India are perfectly “in context”!!

And in the final analyses it simply doesn't matter what label we choose to stick on any action, or what you "happen to believe"...unless you're a complete egomaniac!

Thanks for your “final analysis”(lol) But I really don’t see how expressing an opinion/s on any past or present political regime would make someone guilty of being a “complete egomaniac”. Seems like a strange conclusion to come to.

Did I say "benders"? ...Actually, I prefer "brown-hatters": so much more descriptive,
don't you think?

Whatever floats your boat……Personally I find the words gay or homo-sexual adequately descriptive”.

Yogi wrote re: Churchill

"As far as I am aware, unless there has been a recent policy change, the bnp advocate the removal of mixed race citizens from the UK , so I would suggest under bnp rule Churchill could of been expelled from Britain..."

I would have to bow to your superior BNP knowledge there, Yogi: I've just been to their site and can't see anything of the sort mentioned.

"Speaking on behalf of the masses...Tsk...Tsk..

"

Yes, without a shred of support. I'm happy to be proved wrong in a referendum - are you? (...in the unlikely event of either you or the government ever having the cojones, that is!)

"I think the bnp`s people exportation policies, may be of more concern, than their people importation policies."

And I think that with a society increasingly falling apart and with a world running out of stuff (not only oil), you're at odds with reality.

With all due respect to Churchill and Orwell, they were in no position at that time to see the bigger picture either in the sense of conditions elsewhere - especially in the colonies of other nations - or in the sense of conditions in the future independent nations of the Indian sub-continent and Burma. ...And if it's oppression you're flagellating yourself over, try modern day Burma, to give a glaring example! (...Or can all that be safely ignored because the oppressors are from the "right" ethnic group?)

"Thanks for your “final analysis”(lol) But I really don’t see how expressing an opinion/s on any past or present political regime would make someone guilty of being a 'complete egomaniac'".

No, I don't suppose you do "see", which is the problem. Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, but setting down a judgement That Must Not Be Questioned because of your vastly superior moral authority and god-like compassion is most questionable: just read what you've written!

"Personally I find the words gay or homo-sexual adequately descriptive."

Do you have to be quite so po-faced, Yogi?