Isn't that the "unrestricted immigration" which is the fundamental right of EU citizens to the right to travel and work anywhere within the EU
It was "unrestricted". And Britain [u]did not[/u] have to accept EU citizens from the new EU member countries at the time of enlargement. Britain did so, because the New Labour government [u]chose[/u] to do so.
.
by mixing the entirely seperate issues of Asylum Seekers, Economic Migrants from non EU countires
You can't simply make wild allegations like that - copy and paste where I have done that.
.
BTW : [i]"places you firmly into the BNP/UKIP/Tory Boy school of politics"[/i]
Why ? Because I am prepared to talk about "immigration" ?
......and people are mystified as to why the BNP are doing so well 😕
[i]But presumably he is arguing that only Maoris have legitimate rights in New Zealand - all other New Zealanders have no right whatsoever to be there. [/i]
With respect, I think you're collapsing two propositions into one.
1 - can you identify some sort of indigenous population in a geographical area?
2 - If yes, should those people always enjoy a privileged position in whatever state now exists in that area?
Griffin thinks the answer is "yes" to both, but saying "yes" to the first proposition does not commit you to saying "yes" to the second.
With respect, I think you're collapsing two propositions into one.
Too right I am. I was listening to what Nick griffin was saying. And his argument concerning Maoris in New Zealand was a "wholly silly" one.
[i]how could the government have restricted the EU accession state immigrants? [/i]
In exactly the way they did for the Bulgarians (and other EU governments did for the Poles), by imposing transitional controls on visitors from new accession states. They may have been legally dubious under the treaty, but they prevented the sudden influx that we saw after Poland's accession.
Go on then, what did he actually say about maoris. I must have had my ears screwed on wrong. 🙂
EDIT: actually don't worry. You're doing that thing where you get side-tracked making very low value points against someone who doesn't actually disgaree with you on the larger issue. I'll do some work and let you crack on. 🙂
not that i support him, let me make that very clear, but i thought that griffin came over like a normal politician last night.
evasive, snidey, shifty, and very untrustworthy.
as was mr straw.
BD you can do this with isolated communties farily easily. To do this on this island with this mongrel race is not easy/realistic.The reality is Grifin just means white when he says it and is being media savvy inhis own eyes and bloody stupid in my eyes. Just admit you are a racist your opponents and supportes know this to be the case as your parties routes demonstrate so clearly. In Britain it has nothing of any real value we are not a distinct race like Maoris, Red Indians etc. We have always been genetically mixed so the question reverts back to him meaning if you are not white f@ck off.
EDIT: Bombadillo Most politicians dont deny the holocaust, refuse to accept their own quotes as real, hang out with the KKK and calls gays creepy do they?
Personally I think NG is a weasly little racist nobody with ridiculous extreme views he tries to cover up but is too thick to do so.
What would really worry me is if someone with brains and charisma takes over the outfit.
As a talking point such views of separatism are not the exclusive preserve of whites as often gets portrayed. Does anyone remember Luois Theroux with the Nation of Islam, being told that it 'wouldn't matter if they killed him because he was white and therefore less important than a dog'.
I found that one line really chilling - that any person could think that of others, and that's irrespective of whether thet're black, white, pink, yellow or blue.
what did he actually say about maoris
He gave the Maoris as an example of an indigenous people whilst arguing that only indigenous people had rights - a wholly silly point.
What's wrong with your ears ?
I found that one line really chilling - that any person could think that of others, and that's irrespective of whether thet're black, white, pink, yellow or blue.
I don't think that anybody is disputing that. Bigotry by any group is unpleasant.
Fair-minded people believe in equal opportunity -by definition, that means for everybody!
I will come in a defend Ernie on immigration - I believe he is wrong but he clearly is no racist and clearly does not follow the usual racist anti immigration line.
Clearly there is a debate to be had about immigration and clearly controls are needed when you are a heavily populated island. that is why we have some of the toughest immigration controls in the world and why we take so few asylum seekers. Both true - not that the Daily Wail would have you believe this.
junkyard, he will not be the 1st of last politician to be a lying ****er then will he.
the most famous one being mrs thatcher.
Aristotle - what I was trying to get over was the shock I found, as a white person, that others could think that of me. Daft as it sounds I had never considered that other groups could believe that about me.
Probably the first time I had ever really had an inkling of how minotities can be made to feel, perhaps all the time.
And of course there's no grading of bigots, all are equally evil.
At last a coffee break and a chance to read this thread.
Watched QT last night and have to agree with Coyote - a ridiculous spectacle of the mob picking on the class idiot.
+1 for Goan - Jack Straw was embarrassing, and the others not far behind - needed someone with a sharper mind to lever open the debate about other policies to show Griffin up as a one trick pony. Showing him up as a racist bigot is like shooting fish in a barrel, the panel and audience went for the easy option - lazy politics. Ian Hislop would have been a good choice, although Bonnie Greer was amusing.
Ernie-Lynch - And he wasn't 'trying to avoid expressing the illegal ones' as you claim. It was made very clear to him that he could deny that the Holocaust had occurred, if he so wished - he was told that it was not illegal to do so in Britain. But he obviously realised that it would be a PR disaster to do so.
I think you may be incorrect here Ernie, as an MEP he will have to travel within Europe to countries where Holocaust denial is an offence and which, if I understand correctly, would then leave him open to prosecution.
it is correct that the 'anglo-saxon-celtic-norman race' , whites, are indigenous griffen is right on that - i agree with him.
where we differ is the conclusions, ideology and policies he draws from that. My line is toleration, his is abhorrent.
bombadillo - junkyard, he will not be the 1st of last politician to be a lying ****er then will he. the most famous one being mrs thatcher.
Think Blair & New Labour would give her a good run for her money.
[url=
'Anglo-Saxons' came from Germany
'Normans' came from Normandy
'Celts' come from just about everywhere dependent upon who you talk to!
It's all arbitrary, ridiculous and utterly pointless to try to produce a hierarchy of peoples' rights based on where their ancestors lived.
as an MEP he will have to travel within Europe to countries where Holocaust denial is an offence and which, if I understand correctly, would then leave him open to prosecution.
Not as far as I am aware. David Irving for example, was convicted by an Austrian court for Holocaust denial speeches in Austria - not for what he said in Britain. I have no doubt that Nick Griffin would be fine as long as he didn't repeat the false claims in countries were it is illegal to do so. Furthermore, the fact that it was illegal deny Holocaust in some countries didn't stop him from making them in the first place. I think it is fair to conclude that Griffin realised it would be a PR disaster to repeat the false claims.
Ernie is right once more.
rogerthecat, i would not disagree mate.
From last night's QT programme it appeared the Nick Griffin is now "unsure" as to why he thought (or was it actually why he said in front of an audience?) those things. ...those things that would keep him out of mainstream public life and leave him open to prosecution.
Ernie/TJ - I would think that the issue regards David Irving would be that his case was prior to the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant
some interesting discussion here:
You all seemed to love Bonnie Greer but I thought she was terrible why did she get bogged in the argument about whether there is a large section of the aboriginal population living in this country or not this played right into Nick Griffins hands and made her look completely stupid.
This argument can go either way depending on which current historical theories are in the ascendancy and there really no way of tell without DNA testing every living person and extracting as much DNA from as many corpses as you can dig up.
Also surely its not the point if defining people by race is what the BNP do why is she trying to do it too.
You all seemed to love Bonnie Greer but I thought she was terrible why did she get bogged in the argument about whether there is a large section of the aboriginal population living in this country or not this played right into Nick Griffins hands and made her look completely stupid.
She was talking crap, but with that voice she's allowed.
Despite the universal cries of how Griffin mad a **** of himself I suspect his supporters won't see it that way. He just got mobbed. I suspect the BNP will do quite nicely out of this and the "there's no such thing as british" stuff is the best propaganda they could hope for.
It's not about race though. It's about hand-outs. If there were no hand-outs for the 'working' class they'd have to do the jobs we use immigrants to fill. Get rid of benefits and I'd pay less tax and working class Nazis will be happy.
Next problem?
I would think that the issue regards David Irving would be that his case was prior to the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant
Well I'm not going to read all that stuff in your link ratty, but as I understand it, the European Arrest Warrant might have meant David Irving could have been extradited from the UK for Holocaust denial in Austria, rather than the Austrians having to wait until he was in the country. It doesn't suggest that he could have been put on trial for what he said in Britain.
Anyways ...... why should Nick Griffin be bothered about spending 3 years in prison for something he believes in ? He could be the new Nelson Mandela.
Glad to hear he got a shoeing (didn't watch as had much more interesting things to be doing) but I'm a little worried that his supporters (who probably didn't watch either) will only remember that NG actually got to have a go at playing politician on QT like the other "big boys" not the kicking that he got. Or the bnp may somehow manage to put some positive spin on it about getting ganged up on.
He could be the new Nelson Mandela.
Freeee-eeee-eeee nick griffin...
Sorry doesn't scan.
ernie_lynch - MemberIsn't that the "unrestricted immigration" which is the fundamental right of EU citizens to the right to travel and work anywhere within the EU
It was "unrestricted". And Britain did not have to accept EU citizens from the new EU member countries at the time of enlargement. Britain did so, because the New Labour government chose to do so.
If choosing to abide by the rules which they have agreed to in joining an organisation such as the EU is in fact choosing in the context you infer then yes....yes they did choose. The choice was in fact one between accepting now, or accepting later. Not to allow or not to allow.
by mixing the entirely seperate issues of Asylum Seekers, Economic Migrants from non EU countiresYou can't simply make wild allegations like that - copy and paste where I have done that.
Well yes you are. Firstly, the UK has some of the most strict border controls of EU member state. Try driving through Europe and then tell me about how many times you get stopped at any border apart from ours. Secondly, given the fact that there is NO QUESTION whatsover of the UK or any other member state being able to legitimately block the movement of EU citizens either for work, migration or simply travel, except for temporarily your statement is as I said disingenuous and frankly rabble rousing.
.
BTW : "places you firmly into the BNP/UKIP/Tory Boy school of politics"Why ? Because I am prepared to talk about "immigration" ?
No,becuase you are dealing in half truths and making them into somethign that they are not.
......and people are mystified as to why the BNP are doing so well
No not really, I think everyone is aware its due to ignorance on the part of their core audience and their aptitude for using half truths to perpetuate myths, much like the one you have been using.
Apparently he is contemplating complaining to the BBC as they abandoned the traditional format in favour of giving him a group kicking.
<slowhandclap>Well done Dimbleby, Straw, Huhne, Greer, Marzi and the BBC. You've handed him the martyrs card. Brlliant.</slowhandclap>
I pity the poor, hard-done-to, genocide victim 😆
Had he shone as a great orator and potential Fuhrer for the nation I doubt that he'd have been complaining.
You've handed him the martyrs card. Brlliant.
but isn't that their entire position ? Poor whities hard done by in their own country ?
I was cheering when Dimbleby started rattling of quotes to him, though I subsequently thought he was straying from his supposedly impartial position as chairbeing.
If they had not all been so wrapped up in proving he was a racist and anti-semitic they could have asked him about BNP policy on Transport, Education, Environment, law & Order, etc, etc all of which would have left his little flabby jaw wobbling in the breeze without a clue what to say, but no. Still seething half way through the following day - grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
but as I understand it, the European Arrest Warrant might have meant David Irving could have been extradited from the UK for Holocaust denial in Austria, rather than the Austrians having to wait until he was in the country. It doesn't suggest that he could have been put on trial for what he said in Britain.
An EAW was never issued against Irving, and as his arrest was fairly early after the introduction of EAW's there might have been some teething issues (?) - however the parliamentary report states that one was issued by a German court against an Australian Holocaust denier, Gerald Toben, for publication on the internet, which resulted in his arrest whilst in transit at Heathrow - however was dismissed by the court as being invalid as it did not give enough information, there certainly doesn't appear to be a bar against EAW's being issued against an EU citizen for something illegal in the applicant state that are not illegal in the other. the other point is that although Britain might refuse to extradite someone for an alleged crime committed here under an EAW, it might prevent that person from travelling abroad for fear of arrest in another EU state under the same warrant - Its certainly an interesting legal topic and its [i]possible[/i] that he had a fair point in refusing to explain himself on that basis.
Berm Bandit - I asked you to copy and paste where I am guilty of, quote : [i]"mixing the entirely seperate issues of Asylum Seekers, Economic Migrants from non EU countires"[/i] and you are obviously completely unable to do so. Because it is clearly total bollox.
So you choose instead to waffle on about : [i]"the UK has some of the most strict border controls of EU member state"[/i] as if that has anything to do with it........So ? So what ?
I see that now at least you do admit that Britain [u]didn't have to[/u] allow massive immigration from the new member states at the time of enlargement. But you try to wriggle out of it by claiming that it would have been necessary to do it later - so it made no difference. Of course it bleedin did.
At the time of EU enlargement in 2004 only 3 countries, Britain, Ireland, and Denmark, accepted workers from the new member states. This meant that the scope for finding work for say, unemployed Poles, was rather limited - they couldn't choose to go to France, Germany, or Italy, for example. So surprise surprise, hundreds of thousands came to Britain. If we had waited until all other EU countries had fully opened their borders, then there might have been a more even spread of immigration.
And anyway, Britain is not legally bound to stay in the EU. And if it is not in our favour to do so, then there is no reason at all why we should not leave.
I accept that immigration into the UK is important, but it needs to been done in a sensible and controlled way. And very importantly, it has to be done in an ethical way. So if immigrants are to be allowed in, then priority should be given to some over others. I believe we have far more responsibility towards immigrants from places such as Nigeria and the Indian sub-continent, than immigrants from Lithuania and Hungary - wtf do we owe them ? Also priority should be given to asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution. Sadly UK immigration policies stink of racism.
because you are dealing in half truths and making them into something that they are not.
Yeah right.........you mean because I am prepared to talk about an "untouchable" subject, ie immigration ? Is that why you accuse me of, quote : "rabble rousing" ? ffs
Listen mate, I've got things to do, so if you bother to reply to my post, I doubt whether I will be arsed to respond back.
Z11 - thought that may be the case.
This raises the question of timing - when did he "change his mind" and was it prior to any laws being passed that would have rendered him liable to criminal prosecution? And, can you be retrospectively charged with something that was not an offence at the time it was done?
Exactly Simon. He tries to participate in TV panel debating show and gets picked on by the bigger boys. Sort of proves his twisted point that "indigenous" white brits can't get a fair deal in their own country!
Like rogerthecat says, if they hadn't been so preoccupied in showing how clever they all were, yes I'm looking at you Straw, and concentrated on debating their other policies then they would have shown him for what he is, a resentful little man with nothing of value to add.
Again its because our current bunch of politicians are so shit at leading that these parties emerge. Who do you really think runs the country? Labour? Gordon Brown? The queen? Fat chance, its big businesses and they are well know tyrannical practices.
Some examples to consider: who ruled before hitler, mugabe, hussein? Not a clue because they were shit.
Its simple psychology. People look for leaders and when there are going through a phase where leadership is needed but not forthcoming they tend to accept a leader that they wouldn't otherwise touch with a bargepole.
I bet he does respond
roger the cat that is axactley how i feel what ****in waste of a chance to let him hang himself.
And there we have it. Interview with some of his constituents on Radio 5 Live, "I felt sorry for him, he didn't stand a chance." "I didn't like the BNP before but I thought it was disgraceful the way he was treated". These are not "exact" quotes but are pretty close. Better result for the loverly Nick than many would like I think.
strooth really 🙄
coyote
this was always gonna be the case.
if certain members of the public had not put on a big anti NG display, if the fuss had not been so great, if the anti whatever protesters had not had a tissy fit, the whole thing would have gon e on not as well noticed/reported.
mm, bit like what i said yesterday realy. storm in a tea cup.
I was decried earlier for saying "Who really gives a ****". If more people had shown him more indifference. Maybe allowed him to speak. Run QT with the normal lack of hype and open format. Then maybe, just maybe he would have come across as the pitiful empty vessel that he undoubtably is. QT and the bully-boys have done him a great favour.
