MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I take it then, that you've got a really good attitude to work and work for **** all 5thElefant.
Have done, sure. I certainly wouldn't expect others to pay me for doing nothing when I'm able to work, no matter how badly paid. Which I assume is the alternative to refusing to work for **** all?
And I can't see me voting for the Nazis to get a pay rise.
Well, i agree with Ernie here (mainly). The reason that these faschist scumbags are gaining support, is because people see them as the 'only option'. I have heard of a few people saying that they will vote BNP to 'make a point' and 'what else can we do'. Whilst i would never ever vote for the BNP, or any fascist organisation, I think a point does need to be made. I dont think i can put it any better than Ernie Lynch did when he said -
'. The Labour Party has turned it's back on it's core voters, and it is no coincidence that the BNP only does well in traditional Labour territory - never in Conservative areas. New Labour has a very heavy burden of responsibility for the growth of the BNP.
Britain needs a party which puts the interests of the ordinary British people first. But not one which is fascist, racist, or homophobic.'
I do believe, that they should be given the right to go on the programme. I beleive in free speech, and think it would be wrong to ban Mr Griffin. I hope he makes a complete c0ck of himself, but i must say, i fear he wont. To be honest though, i also think that a party like that will never gain any real influence in british politics. After all, who is really british, we are a nation made up of immigrants, dating back centuries.
El-Bent:
No "bleeding heart liberals" are denying the right to freedom of speech here or anywhere else, they are merely exercising their right to free speech to point out the flaws in others political beliefs, just as you would.
Really? Is that really true?
"The BBC should not have agreed to put the BNP alongside the other democratic parties" - Peter Hain
Wilders's presence has the potential to "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety" - Jaqui Smith, on banning Wilders from entry to the country
Sounds rather like repressing someones right to free speech to me!
In Contrast - that well known right winger Peter Tatchell said the following:
"The Home Secretary is guilty of gross hypocrisy. She gives visas to demagogues who incite violence and murder, while banning from the UK a Dutch MP who has never incited violence against anyone,"
Clearly Tatchells a BNP sympathiser!
Griffin is a Cambridge educated bloke with excellent presentation skills, I doubt very much that he'll "make a cock of himself".
From Mr_Agreeable's Vice Mag link:
[i]I kind of got into it through my friend Danny. He’s really racist. Everyone calls him “Nazi Danny.” He started telling me about them, and it made a lot of sense.[/i]
Love that. Thanks for reminding us. 🙂
I think what is interesting about that is that they've found 3 people, who admittedly don't seem to be very clued up. Of those:
Rebecca doesn't know what "fascist" means and it isn't clear whether she is a fascist, although she is probably fairly described as a racist.
Jo is quite confused about a lot of things, but isn't spooked by the idea she's a fascist. She doesn't mind, and considers that people's convictions are what they are, regardless of whether they're racist. She either knows or rightly guesses that she thinks Enoch Powell is a hero, and identifies Nelson Mandela as a villain.
Helen accepts that she is a member of a fascist party, but isn't at all troubled by the label. She considers that having honest convictions is more important than what your convictions are.
These girls aren't enough of a sample, but they trouble me. They aren't going to watch QT, but equally if you, me or Griffin told them that the BNP was an overtly racist national socialist movement with a history of street violence or wotnot they'd shrug, and note that the other parties are too soft to do what's needful. They haven't so much been sold the BNP's ideas, as been sold a worldview in which the BNP's ideas make very good sense. I don't know what anyone could show them [i]about the BNP[/i] to convince them that it's a bad thing.
You'd have to show them things about Britain to convince them that the BNP was lying to them about Britain before you'd make any progress with their ideas being nasty nonsense. And they haven't got all their ideas about Britain from the BNP either. They'll have got them from basically respectable newspapers, TV etc etc as well. 😐
Tell you what mind, it would be really, really amusing for Nick Griffin to turn up on Question Time in a full on Brownshirt ensemble, complete with 'tache and combover... 😀
So, Mr pies, are you suggesting that as he was educated at cambridge, he is incapable of making a mistake? I think it has been been proven that he can make 'slip ups' and reveal himself for who he really is before...
I did say i find it unlikely he will though, i just hope he wil
No, I'm just saying that he's no intellectual knuckle dragger who can be caught out easily. Sure he could slip up but unlikely I think.
He's on CH4 now...
Is that why unemployment has shot up recently ?Britain wasn't flooded with cheap foreign labour by New Labour because of "poor attitude to work ". Unless of course, you think that not wanting to work for peanuts constitutes a "poor attitude to work ".
Er, no, its shot up because we are in a recession. And yes I do think that not being prepared to earn an honest living instead of sitting on your sovereign-ringed kappa-slappa mother-of-two arse living of a state income, ahem I mean benefits IS a poor attitude to work. Every single foreign worker I've met is perfectly happy to earn what they get paid, are glad for the work, and still maintain a comfortable lifestyle. They're not into throwing away money on status symbols such as big tv's or flash cars (or mountainbikes).
I work in the housebuilding industry, and pretty much every site manager I have spoken to commends foreign workers for their willingness to just get on with the job. If they're a brickie and it rains, they stick up a tarp and carry on working which earns them more money. The local workers will have a cup of tea and moan about their crap wages until the rain stops.
"ordinary British people"who are exactly? what? white and a bit thick? or who were born, live and work here?
Yup, you're on the right wavelength there. Possibly born here, definitely living and working here, possibly white, possibly a bit thick, it all depends on the individual really.......... all in all just, pretty ordinary British people.
But not one of Peter Mandelson's typical friends, shall we say.
Of course as I have said before, the BNP does not [i][b]actually[/i][/b] believe in "British jobs for British people".
No, the BNP believes in "British jobs for some British people". Which is altogether quite different.
According to the BNP amongst other things, how much melanin someone has in their skin and how it affects their skin's pigmentation, is all important when deciding whether someone is entitled to a job (and up until now, whether they could join the BNP)
It is really quite amazing that these moronic and medieval views should now be receiving such massive publicity. As too, is the fact that so many people are falling over each other in a bid to give these cretins a platform so that they can further their extremely dangerous and divisive doctrine.
Nick Griffin on QT is a victory for all those who wish to replace harmony and societal cohesion, with division and social disintegration. Al-Qaeda amongst others, will I'm sure, be very pleased.
oh come on BigDummy, you skipped the best bit....
Do you think Nick Griffin is actually gay, or is that just a vicious rumour?
[i]No. I think it’s a vicious rumour.
[/i]Have you seen him in the flesh? He’s quite mincey.
reading some of these comments and come to the conclusion that there's some arrogant pricks on here!
Griffen is a closet gay - for sure
Do you think Nick Griffin is actually gay, or is that just a vicious rumour?
IIRC all the rumours of Nick Griffin's alleged homosexuality originate from the BNP itself. It is a fact that members of fascist organisations are constantly falling out with each other, and allegations of homosexuality are often made. Often these allegations, specially in the old and highly homophobic National front, have proved to be true.
I very good mate of mine who was for many years an [i]extremely[/i] active member of the NF, has told me of his shock when he discovered how widespread homosexuality was within the NF leadership. I remember how he emphasised his incredulity at the thought that these people who he had heard so many times denounce homosexuality, should themselves have been homosexuals.
Disgruntled fascists are often very keen to cause maximum damage to their former colleagues ..........it's worth remembering that a BNP full membership list was posted on the internet for all to see by a disgruntled BNP member.
And apparently it has been done again today :
Ernie, I'm still not clear what (if anything) you think actually needs doing about these chaps now.
That labour and the tories have failed a large chunk of British society seems clear enough, and that they need political mobilisation of some sort seems reasonable.
Right now, we've got a fascist party with growing electoral support, which doesn't seem to have needed a platform on QT to grow thus far. You reckon it does them good to have people on QT, so the best thing is not to have them on there, to ignore them.
Will that actually set them back in the meantime? The hope that a better political party comes along to harness the enthusiasm of those currently being gulled by Griffin's boys is a while off being fulfilled I suspect. I can't help thinking that if they're doing OK at present they can do better whether or not they're on TV.
Is there a strategy to complement ignoring them at present? Or do you consider the risk of them simply getting steadily stronger is manageable?
(apologies if I'm being dense)
[It's an entertaining diversion and nothing more, but there's some circumstantial evidence for [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Hitler ]Hitler being gay[/url], and Jonah Goldberg argues in "Liberal Fascism" that there was a lot of gayness in the german nazi party. Until they started to get seriously into logical racism a lot of the politics of it attracted unconventional people who broke taboos, lived in the moment and thought sex was an elemental force, a significant number of whom were gay. But I doubt Griffin would run the argument.]
Ernie, I'm still not clear what (if anything) you think actually needs doing about these chaps now.
That's probably because I don't post a great deal about the BNP 😉
I have consistently argued that the BNP should not be ignored. A couple of years ago someone on here told me to stop waffling on about the BNP because if they were ignored, they would simply go away. Historically the threat from fascism has tended to be ignored, this has always worked in their favour. Fascism needs 3 ingredients to thrive. An economic crises, a section of society to use as a scapegoat, and a dismissive attitude towards them. Their rise to power under those circumstances can be very impressive. "Let's make Herr Hitler Chancellor/give him a platform on QT, he is such an idiot that he will completely screw up and support for the NSP will collapse" Mussolini's rise to power was equally impressive.
The BNP should not be ignored but neither, should they be viewed simply as a party like all other parties - they are not. Not because they have different opinions (their views on the EU are much closer to mine than the Tory party's views) but because they are racist. Racism is at the very core of [u]everything[/u] which the BNP believes in/stands for. This [i]automatically[/i] makes them utterly undemocratic - you cannot disenfranchise people on the basis of skin colour, and then expect to be allowed to participate in democratic debate.
But of course as I have already said, the most effect way to stem growing support for the BNP is by dealing with the very legitimate grievances, which they exploit for their nasty filthy racist agenda (and that includes immigration btw) Unfortunately British politics is in dire straights at the moment, and large sections of British society feel abandoned and unrepresented. I think we will have to wait a few months until the general election to discover exactly what direction British politics next takes. New Labour is dead, the funeral will take place next election. What replaces it has yet to be decided.
Wilders's presence has the potential to "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety" - Jaqui Smith, on banning Wilders from entry to the country
Labrat,
You think that this Government are Bleeding heart liberals? Are you so right wing that you've deliberately had your right leg blown off below the knee so you can lean further over to the right?
Thanks Ernie.
You're welcome ...... although I'd like to revise my earlier suggestion that there is little chance of Nick Griffin screwing up on QT. I can't believe that today he has compared Britain's top generals with Nazi war criminals
......... is the geezer a complete ****ing idiot ? 😯
Although I can understand why he's done it - it is an absolute classic, fascist knee-jerk reaction. Fascist invariably accuse others of what they are themselves - it is an attempt to deflect criticism away from themselves.
For example the BNP love to portray themselves as victims, consequently, they are forever whingeing about being the victims of racism (anti-white racism) and anti-democratic practices, despite the fact that they are themselves obviously both racist, and anti-democratic .
Accusing others of being homosexual when you yourself are one, is another good one. As is, accusing your opponents of being fascist - something which the BNP regularly does. Indeed Labrat regularly accuses me on here of being a fascist in the same vane (I think he did it yesterday in fact)
So when faced with some stinging criticism from top generals, Nick Griffin did what came naturally - accused them of being like Nazis. I'm sure he didn't give it much thought at all if he had, he wouldn't have been so stupid (and he unbelievably compounded the problem by threaten them with retribution - what a tw4t) Let's hope his mouth reacts quicker than his brain on QT.
btw, I found Nick Griffin obvious detailed knowledge of German Nazi generals who were hanged after Nuremberg during his rant today 'interesting'. And it reminded of how a couple of years ago I was involved to a debate at work with an active member of the BNP who was trying to convince me that Winston Churchill was a war criminal.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6883093.ece
[i]"Mr Griffin reacted furiously, saying that the comments were “nothing but a dying Tory toady gasp”. He added: “Along with the political leadership of Nazi Germany, the chiefs of staff of the German Army, Alfred Jodl and Wilhelm Keitel, were also charged with waging aggressive war."[/i]
Ernie, I wouldn't call you a Fascist - I do believe I called you a "socialist worker reading recalcitrant Bolshevik p*nis!" though, just after you called me a "daft fascist plonker" and accused me of tacit racism for even mentioning the fact that the former head of the CRE thought multiculturalism had failed...
However, on the subject, can you point anyone here towards an agreed unified definition of Fascism? as it seems to me that your criteria seems somewhat reminiscent of that applied by Rick from the young ones...
Its very hard to define but easy to recognise IMO. Lots of discussion here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Ernie, I wouldn't call you a Fascist
This historical and factual gobbledygook, certainly seemed to suggest that I was more or less a fascist :
Zulu-Eleven - MemberErnie -
The most amusing thing of course, being that the BNP are about as right wing as Joseph Stalin - its essentially a collectivist platform. nationalisation of industry, introduction of co-operatives across the farming industry. their policies are almost entirely socialist, paternalistic and totalitarian, far more in accordance with your own beliefs than mine Ernie!
Posted 2 days ago
I have certainly called you a fascist before now Ratty. That is very much based on the my own experience on how fascists argue and the sort of stuff you post. Excluding the racism. I am not aware of you ever having made racist comments - other than your recent dig at multiculturalism which I thought stunk of racism. But that appears to have been an isolated incident. And if you were indeed a racist, it would more than likely have become evident in your numerous posts (although I don't read everything you post) You actually strike me as a reformed ex-NF member - one which has dropped the puerile racism but hung on to much of the extreme right-wing ideology. Although I could be wrong, I just find it hard to believe that you don't have a 'background' - you just know a bit too much about far right politics. I can't imagine that you've never made the leap to join a political party. ......could be the far right of the Tory Party though I suppose (never met any on a personal level)
Griffin's wikipedia bio makes interesting reading. Didn't know he was Cambridge educated and had a glass eye (I just thought he was thick and ugly). Shows my ignorance I suppose.
He's still a tool in my opinion. But I now know he's a well educated tool.
Just goes to prove that an Oxbridge education does not automatically guarantee a well rounded and balanced individual ....... which is a bit of a concern given the disportionate number of our leaders who emanate from there.
Suggest that I was more or less a fascist
No Ernie - I didnt say that, I said what I wrote - [i]socialist, paternalistic and totalitarian[/i]
I'm accusing you (and your left wing buddies) of Stalinism - an obsession with state control, restriction of freedom and an intolerance of divergent points of view, lack of individuality and liberty in the name of collectivism.
totally different from Fascism, however equally repugnant!
Its easy to call the BNP right wing, however their economic policies are far, far from right wing - and thats one of the many reasons that I think they are a disgusting bunch of simplistic idiots, however I still think they have an absolute right to freedom of speech as long as they do incite violence.
Hang on Zulu -
" I still think they have an absolute right to freedom of speech as long as they do incite violence"
Did you really mean to say that?
If so then you need help.
I still think they have an absolute right to freedom of speech as long as they do incite violence.
Hope that was a slip of the keyboard. Problem with you Libertarians is you see anything remotely collective you scream Stalinism. We have a right wing Government in power and THEY are the ones that are restricting our freedoms.
As for a intolerance of divergent points of view: pot calling kettle black.
Muddy dwarf - I think most of us have concluded that zulu is beyond help 🙂
I have the same arguments with American right wing conservatives.
They equate 'socialism' with Nazims because Nazism contains the wording 'National Socialism'. It is an old tactic of deflection, they know that Nationalism is diametrically opposed to the internationalism of true Socialism but they use it as a scare tactic against Americans who are told to be petrified of Socialism.
The BNP are attempting to do too, accusing the Army Chiefs of Nazi-like behaviour so that their more simple fellow-travellers will think "they can't be nazis 'cos he's just called them that".
I suspect the more neanderthal of the BNP's membership will start to slip their bonds as the election approaches and we will see them in their true colours.
Yes, clearly I missed out the word Not - apologies, but I'm sure you all knew where I was coming from 😉
We have a right wing Government in power and THEY are the ones that are restricting our freedoms.
I don't think that our government are anything approaching right wing economically
I think the problem for many of you is that you miss the difference between right wing/left wing economic policies and libertarian/authoritarian social policies - they get grouped together with a belief that right wing is automatically authoritarian, and left wing stands for freedom, its categorically not true, as we saw in Russia for most of the past century.
I disbelieve wholly and emphatically in authoritarian, controlling, paternalistic big state government.
I also disbelieve thoroughly in left wing economics, however thats a different argument
think the problem for many of you is that you miss the difference between right wing/left wing economic policies and libertarian/authoritarian social policies - they get grouped together with a belief that right wing is automatically authoritarian, and left wing stands for freedom, its categorically not true, as we saw in Russia for most of the past century.
Your right of course, in theory. History has taught us otherwise.
Ratty - your suggestion that the BNP is "left-wing" is simply absurd.
Every reference ever made about the BNP, describes it as right-wing/far right party.
The link which I providing yesterday to the latest leaked BNP membership list describes it as :
"[i]a right wing ethno-nationalist party[/i]"
which I think is an excellent and very precise description - the best I've ever heard actually.
If you are genuinely dismissing the BNP as in your opinion, a left-wing party, then it simply shows what a right-wing extremist you really are. Quite scary really 😯
ukip=bnp in suits=torries in europe?
[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/20/tories-eu-allies-us-pressure [/url]
Again Ernie, you're falling into the common and widespread conflation between economic policies and social policies.
Nobody in their right mind could call the BNP's [b]economic[/b] policies right wing - they are the absolute opposite of free market economics - nationalisation of industry, trade tariffs, state owned businesses - a right wing policy?
Its probably sub-conscious but it reflects a reflexive left:good / right:bad mindset. the BNP have nothing to do with right wing politics - they're a nasty, protectionist, bigoted divisive racist party that has its roots firmly planted on the[b] economic [/b]far left of the political spectrum
Nobody in their right mind could call the BNP's economic policies right wing - they are the absolute opposite of free market economics....
Directly from the BNP website dealing with "Policies" sub-section "Economy" the BNP is, quote :
[i][b]"Fully cognisant of the reality that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise"[/b][/i]
You really need to stop talking nonsense Ratty 😐
Ernie - this question has no hidden agenda nor is it from any political standpoint, it is a genuine question:
Why, in your opinion, is it immediately racist to question the success of multiculturalism?
Why, in your opinion, is it immediately racist to question the success of multiculturalism?
It isn't imo. The context in which the comment was made had a strong whiff of racism about it.
I have already said that Ratty, as far as I am aware, doesn't have a track record of making racist comments. So despite the fact that he didn't respond imo, to my request to clarify exactly what he meant, I am prepared to accept that it wasn't said with racist intent.
btw just for the record, I am a very strong supporter of tight immigration controls. It's a shame that the big parties tend to shy away from dealing with issue in a sensible non-racist way. Thereby leaving it to nasty racist organisations to exploit the issue for their own repulsive agenda.
Ernie - if you are to the right of attilla the hun like ratty then all economic policies seem to be from the far left
Nice discussion on what is fascism here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8316271.stm
The exact details are blurred on what *is* fascism, but the article comments on how it is generally bandied about by people when they want a really offensive insult to sling.
Nice Selective quote there Ernie - how about the other points?
Globalisation has caused the export of jobs and industries to the Far East, and has brought ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities who depend on them.Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers.
Free market economics? I think not!
When this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end and secure, well-paid employment will flourish.We further believe that British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people.
Right wing?
To that end the BNP will restore our economy and land to British ownership and will take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants.Fully cognisant of the reality that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise, a BNP government will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates. Such schemes are the only guarantee of workers being motivated to ensure the success of their employers.
Sorry, thats sounds suspiciously like [i] the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.[/i] To me!
The Labour government recently introduced legislation to discriminate against white males in the job market. This racist legislation is a travesty and gross betrayal of the British working class, and will be repealed forthwith by a BNP government, along with all other measures which in any way discriminate against the indigenous population.The state institutions were built by British taxpayers and there is a moral duty and obligation on the state to give preference in the job market to native Britons.
Free market?
The banksters cannot be let off the hook for their role in the current financial crisis. The BNP demands that the banksters responsible for the catastrophe which has crippled the international banking system be held personally legally liable for their actions in terms of corporate governance laws. They should have to pay a personal price for the mess they have created, and not be rewarded with huge bonuses which have come from taxpayer-funded bailouts.In a nutshell, the BNP plan to rebuild Britain will consist of the following steps:
- The nurturing and encouragement of new and existing British industries;
- The protection of British companies from unfair foreign imports;
market protectionism? right wing?
- The promotion of domestic competition;- Increased taxes on companies which outsource work abroad;
- The reintroduction of the married man’s allowance;
- The raising of the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million;
- The encouragement of savings, investment, worker share-ownership and profit-sharing;
- Halving council tax by centralising education costs and eliminating multiculturalism spending and unnecessary bureaucracy;
- [b]The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services[/b], compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors.
Renationalisation? Right wing policy?
[b]The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation[/b]. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism, which means that British workers must compete against those in China and India who work for as little as a pound a day.Oriental countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore have managed their economies to combine private enterprise competition with the national good, and these are the models the BNP would emulate.
Collectivism!
I
n a world in which irreplaceable natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate we have a duty to our children and future generations to move towards economic growth which is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable in the long-term, rather than the present ‘boom and bust’ policies.Personal tax is far too high. Billions of pounds can be slashed off government spending by inter alia:
- Ending the £9 billion foreign aid budget;
- Ending the £4.5 billion a year wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;
- Ending the untold billions spent subsidising the immigration swindle and all its ancillary costs (benefits, court and jail services, counter-terrorism measures, the “race relations” industry and a host of others);
Sounds pretty much like every government since time immemorial
- Ending the billions pumped into the EU swindle;- Severely curtailing the tax-subsidised feeding frenzy at Westminster and other levels of government; and
- Cutting back all unnecessary layers of government which have been artificially created by years of politically correct Labour and Tory rule.
Actually about the only points I'd agree with them on
I've just spent a week in South Africa on business. I'm not easily phased when abroad, but the overt racism that I came across when I was there really shook me rigid. Two particular instances stick in my mind, one being a discourse at the dinner table by an intelligent, articulate, well travelled white woman as to how the "blacks" are not as reliable as the "coloureds", however, if you want someone who'll be really trustworthy they have to be white. The second being another discourse, this time on the subject of how the Jews are responsbile for the worlds current economic situation.
The point of this, was that until being slapped in the face with this throwback to the 60's and 70's I was of the opinion that free speech was the significant issue, and that even racists had a right to their opinions. We, in this country have moved on a long way, but frankly it would be a mistake to let that slip. I cannot even start to explain how deeply offensive I found those comments, and it really has made me reconsider my stance on ALL of the intolerants and bigots in this world, whther it be Nick Griffin, or anyone else.
They are not entitled to abuse and denegrate others. It is simply unacceptable, and as far as I'm concerned should be limited to the closet and nowhere else.
When was the last time the UK allowed in a foreign Muslim to preach hatred against Christians?
Um, Abu Hamza? And as far as I can tell, he got on unchallenged for a fair amount of time.
Ratty really, you need to stop it ......you're talking complete nonsense mate.
You know very well that even extreme right-wing fascists like General Franco believed in nationalising the railways, but it didn't stop him from being committed to right-wing free markets policies.
And yes, the BNP have jumped on the bandwagon and attacked bankers, or "banksters " as they call them in their childish way because it sounds like "gangster" .......unbelievable how they can descend into such puerile bollox on their own official website. But there is no mention whatsoever of nationalising the banks - obviously it's not something which they believe in.
And yes, they talk about schemes which are [i]"the only guarantee of workers being motivated to ensure the success of their employers."[/i] So workers should only be motivated to "ensure the success of their employers" ? That doesn't sound very "left-wing" to me.
Of course you completely ignore the fact that they believe, quote : [i]"that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise"[/i] despite the fact that you claimed they had no commitment to free enterprise !
I could go on, but quite frankly I can't be arsed mate .............sorry 😐
BB - Having worked in several international plcs and travelled for my job, the views you heard are not only confined to SA. There are equally abhorrent views held in Aus, US, and, more on a national basis than race, in a lot of Europe.
We are not perfect by a long way, but we are better than many.
Um, Abu Hamza?
Firstly he's in prison.
Secondly, he was already living in Britain when he committed his offences. Britain did not [i]knowingly[/i] allow someone in on the understanding that they would be spreading hatred.
There is no comparison whatsoever.
Wasn't Abu Hamza wanted in Jordon for similar things when we accepted him here? Thought there was a whole issue about him being repatriated there.
In which case ernie, this ain't right.
Britain did not knowingly allow someone in on the understanding that they would be spreading hatred.
Wasn't Abu Hamza wanted in Jordon for similar things when we accepted him here?
Not that I am aware of. Abu Hamza has been a British citizen since 1980 - a time when Islamic fundamentalists and extremists were being officially supported by the British government.
I don't believe that Geert Wilders has ever held British nationality.
Don't touch that dial...
😉
soz Ernie, Yemen not Jordon.
Just something I remembered about the hooker of Islam from the depths of my memory somewhere.
Apologies.
Yemen not Jordon.
As I understand, Abu Hamza is wanted in Yemen in connection with bomb plots - not for preaching hatred. I believe that the alleged terrorist involvement occurred long after Abu Hamza had become a British citizen and had the right to entry into the UK.
He is not a good example of a foreigner who has knowingly been allowed by the authorities, to enter the UK with the aim of spreading hatred and social discord.
I have to assume that if he is the best example in answer to my question : [i]"When was the last time the UK allowed in a foreign Muslim to preach hatred against Christians?"[/i] then examples of foreign Muslims being knowingly allowed into Britain to preach hatred against Christians, are very thin on the ground.
Wasn't that Sheikh Bakree ???? tolerated for a while after calling for the execution of the Prime minister - I'm struggling to remember the details
Berm Bandit - did you mean Abu Qatada?
Abu Hamza.........Sheikh Bakree ? Abu Qatada?
OK so basically we are looking at examples of foreign (or not so foreign) Muslims which the authorities have quite rightly, taken action against .....expelled, imprisoned, whatever.
How does that in anyway justify allowing a foreigner from the Netherlands to come here so that he can stir up trouble ?
ernie_lynch, what's the difference between tolerating hateful speech just because it happens [i]after[/i] the speaker has landed, and letting in a guy because words he has used in the past have been judged to be hateful?
Even if we can suppose he will say the same things again once in the country, the [i]type[/i] of toleration appears to be essentially the same.
In any case, whereas the blond guy does seem quite off-putting, as far as I have heard, he has never talked in violent terms about his subject (radical Islamists) the way radical Islamists have been known to talk about... well... pretty much anyone who isn't a radical Islamist.
But if I'm wrong, I will take that back.
Berm Bandit - did you mean Abu Qatada?
Nope definately mean Abu Hamza al-Masari.
As I understand, Abu Hamza is wanted in Yemen in connection with bomb plots - not for preaching hatred
Bit of a wriggle there if you don't mind me saying so Ernie. Please quote the names of at least three people who are wanted for blowing people up on the basis that they liked them very much indeed. In return I shall ride my bike naked around my local forest for one hour, obviously on the basis that you reciprocate should you be unable to do so.
hi guys, new to the forum
this is some deep shit you guys are talking here, very enlightening.
almost like a modern day history lesson.
he has never talked in violent terms about his subject (radical Islamists) the way radical Islamists have been known to talk about... well... pretty much anyone who isn't a radical Islamist.
He doesn't seem to draw much, if any, of a distinction between terrorists and Muslims. If he does then he's astonishingly bad at expressing it. And the reason his film stops short of advocating violence against Muslims is pretty obvious - he'd be charged with inciting religious hatred (which has happened anyway).
He doesn't really have anything to say apart from condemning Islam as an irredeemably violent religion - based on the actions of a handful of its supporters, some cherry-picked verses from the Koran, and the actions of a couple of political regimes whose human rights abuses are widely known and condemned, usual by organisations such as Amnesty who don't resort to offending several million followers of a religion. Even if you accept that his polemic is somehow meant with the best of intentions, I can't see what it offers in the way of constructive solutions.
I once saw a documentary about "Sheikh" Bakree. At one point, he was walking through an HMV with the film crew and interviewer when he passed a cardboard cutout of the "Spice Girls". He simpered at the camera and said:
"Who are these spicy whimmen? They must be arrested immediately!"
Musical considerations apart - what a ridiculous little gnome he is... 🙄