AgentAxeman

Galloway? too many to mention Happy

Yet more reasons why people are flocking towards BNP policy in droves......... At last we know the truth: Labour despises anyone who loves Britain, its values and its history Of all the issues of concern to the public, immigration is possibly the most explosive - and the one about which the most lies are continuing to be told. During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing three million. Ministers claim that immigration policy has been driven principally to help the economy. They have always denied that they actually set out deliberately to change the ethnic composition of the country. Well, now we know for a certainty that this is not true. The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society - and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought. Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime. The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter. He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 - in response to increasing public uproar - government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration. The 'driving political purpose' of this policy, wrote Neather, was 'to make the UK truly multicultural' - and one subsidiary motivation was 'to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'. Ministers, however, went to great lengths to keep their real intentions secret from the public - with, said Neather, a ' paranoia' that these would reach the media - since they knew their core white working-class voters would react very badly. Accordingly, a report about immigration by a government advisory unit, which formed the core of a landmark speech in 2000 announcing the loosening of border controls, went through several drafts before it was finally published - and the Government's true intentions about changing Britain into a multicultural society were removed from the final version. After revealing all this, Neather subsequently tried to backtrack, saying that his views had been twisted out of all recognition by the media. They hadn't been. Nevertheless, Jack Straw, who was Home Secretary at the time the immigration policy was changed, said he had read press reports of Neather's remarks with incredulity since they were 'the reverse of the truth'. Now we know, however, that they were indeed the truth. We know this only because details of the advisory unit's report which were excised from the final published version - just as Neather said - have been emerging into the public domain through Freedom of Information requests. The pressure group MigrationWatch obtained an early draft which revealed that the Government's intention was to encourage mass immigration for 'social objectives' - in other words, to produce a more ethnically diverse society - but that on no fewer than six occasions this phrase was excised from the final version, published some three months later. Now we further discover, from what was removed from seemingly another early draft, that the aim was not just to implement this policy of mass immigration without the knowledge or consent of the British people. It was done in the full knowledge that the people actually wanted immigration reduced. And we also discover that those who expressed such concerns were dismissed with utter contempt as racists - and it was further suggested that ministers should manipulate public opinion in an attempt to change people's attitudes. Well, they have certainly tried to do that by hanging the disgusting label of 'racism' round the neck of anyone who dares voice such concerns. Thus the eminent and decent Labour MP Frank Field found himself smeared as a racist for daring to suggest that the rate of immigration should be reduced. What bullying arrogance. The real prejudice is surely to believe that opposition to mass migration can never be based on any reasonable objection. The implications of this covert policy are quite staggering. Ministers deliberately set out to change the cultural and ethnic identity of this country in secret. They did this mainly because they hated what Britain was, a largely homogeneous society rooted in 1,000 years of history. They therefore set out to replace it by a totally new kind of multicultural society - and one in which the vast majority of newcomers could be expected to vote Labour. They set out to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. They set out to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. And they then had the gall to declare that to have love for or pride in that authentic British identity, and to want to protect and uphold it, was racist. So the very deepest feelings of people for their country were damned as bigotry, for which crime they were to have their noses rubbed in mass immigration until they changed their attitudes. They set out to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions What an appalling abuse of power. Yet even now they are denying that this is what they did. Yesterday, the Immigration Minister Phil Woolas blustered that the advisory unit report had not been accepted by ministers at the time. But the fact is that mass immigration actually happened. The only thing ministers hadn't accepted was that the truth about their intentions should be revealed to the public. Surreally, Mr Woolas further claims that the Government has brought immigration down. But the reductions he is talking about have taken place on the separate issue of asylum. The impact of the Government's new points scheme upon the record rate of immigration growth has been negligible. The truth is that these early drafts of the advisory unit's report have blown open one of the greatest political scandals of the Labour years. At no stage did Labour's election manifestos make any reference to a policy of mass immigration nor the party's aim of creating a multicultural society. What we have been subjected to is a deliberate deception of the voters and a gross abuse of democracy. There could scarcely be a more profound abuse of the democratic process than to set out to destroy a nation's demographic and cultural identity through a conscious deception of the people of that nation. It is an act of collective national treachery. Now we face imminently another General Election. And now we know that in their hearts, Labour politicians hold the great mass of the public, many of them their own voters, in total contempt as racist bigots - all for wanting to live in a country whose identity they share. There could hardly be a more worthy issue for the Conservative Party to leap upon. Yet their response is muted through their own visceral terror of appearing racist. The resulting despair over the refusal of the mainstream parties to address this issue threatens to drive many into the arms of the British National Party. If that happens, the fault will lie not just with Labour's ideological malice and mendacity, but with the spinelessness of an entire political class. source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...es-history.html

my bad, i misread your post it would seem.

The BNP's website No wink required tbh correct. im not afraid to gaze at 'the dark side' every once in a while. it provides balance... Providing balance would be providing the link, thereby letting everyone know you were quoting a BNP blog. You've only admitted it because I've rumbled you. ??? not certain about that. if i'd provided the link people would have dismissed it out of hand without reading it because it's alledgedly 'racist'. and lets face it, its not exactly the kind of story the mainstream would carry is it? and its not a blog (ie. a personal diary), its a news story. dont dismiss it quite so readily. I dismissed it after reading the first sentence without knowing which far right loons had published it. EDIT: and if it's not the kind of story the mainstream media report....why does the BNP story reference other news reports? dont know. you'd better ask them i would guess. maybe its from a local rag and not one of the mainstream. and if you only read the 1st sentence, how did you see that??? Nah, it's all over the BBC...they just don't use the emotive language... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8532868.stm and I went back and read some more. must admit that i hadnt seen that. i guess that why they reference 'other news reports' and then like any self respecting political party they've just sexed it up a bit to match their political aims. its still a disgrace (imo) that the eu can dictate to british courts who can reside in this country when the courts are only following the eu rules in the 1st place.

The BNP's website No wink required tbh correct. im not afraid to gaze at 'the dark side' every once in a while. it provides balance... Providing balance would be providing the link, thereby letting everyone know you were quoting a BNP blog. You've only admitted it because I've rumbled you. ??? not certain about that. if i'd provided the link people would have dismissed it out of hand without reading it because it's alledgedly 'racist'. and lets face it, its not exactly the kind of story the mainstream would carry is it? and its not a blog (ie. a personal diary), its a news story. dont dismiss it quite so readily. I think you should always provide a link if you're quoting a story like that because you'd have to be incredibly naive not to take something from the BNP website without a massive dose of salt. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand because I know people abuse the system etc. and I agree that can make people vote BNP in certain circumstances. I'd really have to get the story from a more reputable source to give it much creedence. I think it was pretty misleading saying saying "its shite like this bitch who are winning votes for the BNP....." when it came from their site. Tbh, I'd have more respect for you if you came out and said you supported them but you're obviously a bit embarrassed about even admitting to reading their site which I find to be quite telling. good response. Im not certain i would call myself a bnp supporter as im not a member and ive never voted for them. however, theres a couple of policies they have which i agree with strongly. you say it needs to come from a 'reputable source', quite honestly that just bollocks. Im aware that news releases from political parties should be treated with a degree of skepticism but if i followed the logic you dictate here then i would need to instantly dismiss any news release from any political party. I like the fact you think im embarrassed, quite funny indeed. trying to play the 'shaming card' doesnt work with me bud!

The BNP's website No wink required tbh correct. im not afraid to gaze at 'the dark side' every once in a while. it provides balance... Providing balance would be providing the link, thereby letting everyone know you were quoting a BNP blog. You've only admitted it because I've rumbled you. ??? not certain about that. if i'd provided the link people would have dismissed it out of hand without reading it because it's alledgedly 'racist'. and lets face it, its not exactly the kind of story the mainstream would carry is it? and its not a blog (ie. a personal diary), its a news story. dont dismiss it quite so readily. I dismissed it after reading the first sentence without knowing which far right loons had published it. EDIT: and if it's not the kind of story the mainstream media report....why does the BNP story reference other news reports? dont know. you'd better ask them i would guess. maybe its from a local rag and not one of the mainstream. and if you only read the 1st sentence, how did you see that???

So the democratic promise of a public option, which they used as a platform to get elected, was a lie.....which is all the article is saying. No comment is made on the rights or wrongs of that public option. Come on Happy. its not like the 1st time its ever happened is it? No, but a lot of people still seem to have faith in Obama for some reason. didnt you know?? he the new messiah!!! (cue all the "he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy" gags)

The BNP's website No wink required tbh correct. im not afraid to gaze at 'the dark side' every once in a while. it provides balance... Providing balance would be providing the link, thereby letting everyone know you were quoting a BNP blog. You've only admitted it because I've rumbled you. ??? not certain about that. if i'd provided the link people would have dismissed it out of hand without reading it because it's alledgedly 'racist'. and lets face it, its not exactly the kind of story the mainstream would carry is it? and its not a blog (ie. a personal diary), its a news story. dont dismiss it quite so readily.

The BNP's website No wink required tbh correct. im not afraid to gaze at 'the dark side' every once in a while. it provides balance...

So the democratic promise of a public option, which they used as a platform to get elected, was a lie.....which is all the article is saying. No comment is made on the rights or wrongs of that public option. Come on Happy. its not like the 1st time its ever happened is it?

Isn't handwringing an excessive expression of distress? Seems to apply to you and Axeman more than anyone else. not distress bud, disgust

Happy Birthday!

Not quite LM, its shite like this bitch who are winning votes for the BNP..... Final proof that the European Union has destroyed British sovereignty has come with the ruling by the European Court of Justice that a blatant benefits scrounger from Somalia must be allowed to stay in Britain — simply because she draws benefits here. The woman, named as Nimco Hassan Ibrahim in news reports, tried to claim housing assistance after she and her husband, named as a “Mr Yusuf” failed to qualify for right of residence in Britain. As Mr Yusuf had somehow earlier contrived to obtain Danish nationality, he counted as a “migrant worker from another EU country” which immediately gave him right of residence. His wife there also qualified for residence in the UK, along with their four children who also have Danish nationality. After working in Britain for a whole five months, Mr Yusuf claimed incapacity benefit after claiming he was unable to work. He was however declared fit for work in March 2004, whereupon he immediately left Britain. Mr Yusuf’s departure meant that his wife and children no longer qualified for the conditions of lawful residence. This did not stop her from simply claiming benefits from the state courtesy of the British taxpayer for everything — housing, food, clothing, healthcare and so on. The blatancy of the swindle was too much even for the rotten three-party-but-one-policy-controlled Harrow council, which rejected her claim on the obvious grounds that only people with a right of residence under EU law could apply for benefits. Ms Ibrahim appealed the decision, claiming that as her children’s “primary carer” she should be allowed to stay on in Britain and qualify for state handouts. The case was finally heard in the European Court of Justice today — which ordered Britain’s Appeal Court to find in Ms Ibrahim’s favour. Note the directness of the decision: the highest British court was ordered to rule in the appellant’s favour, despite the fact that she broke the EU’s own regulations on migrant workers. The ruling means that British courts no longer have the right to decide on legal matters within Britain. The EU Court ruling means that Ms Ibrahim will now be able to claim thousands of pounds in benefits from the British taxpayers each month — an amount, when totalled, comes to more than the average British workingman’s monthly income. The ruling has now set a precedent which means that anyone from anywhere will be able to claim benefits in Britain as long as they can show that they are physically present in this country and rely on those benefits to live from day-to-day.

I haven't got one but after reading the reviews I'm well tempted to get one when my contracts up next month. Might be probing yer (oooer missus) fer information in the next couple of weeks Wacky.

Richard Dannett was on the radio this morning saying that we have a stronger military presence now than we did at the start of the 82 conflict. Thing is, what IS the Argie's military capability these days? I mean if they're having finacial problems have they been maintaining their military? I know our forces have been decreased to a ridiculous state but if we didn't stop them should they invade we'd be even more of a laughing stock in the world's view than we already are. ... and would it affect us having Jonas and Colo? Hmmm... iirc Ossie Ardiles left the country at the time of the falklands. i suppose it would get them off the wage bill for that time............ best not tell dekka or mike that eh?

Congratulations bud!!

Wah pedal is now sold (sorry Tom)

Hiccy Burpday! All the best bud!

Shouting and screaming to get people to do what you want is, for me, a direct subsitute for charm, charisma and the powers of persuasion (i'm not saying i have any of those btw). Our Prime Minister should be all that, Brown may have had the ambition and the desire for the top job but for me is the perfect example of the Peter Principle. This principle states that everyone is promoted to their level of incompetence. Brown was a good chancellor but not Prime Minister material. Good HR development people will tell you that everyone needs to understand that there is a ceiling above which you should not rise. Not everyone CAN be the CEO of a company, very few have the requisite characteristics. The problem in politics is that there is no HR department to assess personal ability for the top role. Sorry Chez but he wasn't. Agree with everything thing else tho...

Pm'd ya!

Exactly what it says on the tin............ (SOLD): Morley Pro Series PWA Wah Pedal. Couple of scratches but works perfectly and has a lovely sound. This pedal was discontinued in '98 so are getting a little scarce now. Bargain at £35 For Sale: Fender PT-10 Tuner Pedal c/w original box. Again, a couple of scratches but has never let me down. Selling only due to an upgrade. - £15 Will leave these on for a week or so before they get put on evilbay. Thanks for looking!

Hughton is the man that needs replacing once we go up and you will see a difference. Only Carroll and Routledge havent had REGULAR PL or top league experience out of our 1st team tbh. Routledge played a full season for crystal palace in the prem in 2005 i believe. was really good aswell for them as i recall. I thought that but wasnt sure, that and how much he played for spurs. Only backs my point that our 1st team by majority has the basis for a good PL team. Of course we neeed quality additions though. By good i mean lower mid-table. Top 4 = Brilliant 5-8 = Very good 9-12 = Good 13-16 = Decent 17-20 = Poor Just my opinion...that team + GOOD manager + Financial backing = Good team Just my opinion agree with all of your sentiments but tbf Routledge broke his foot(?) in his 1st pre season for spurs and that set him back big time. added to that you had the emergence of Aaron Lennon who was on fire that season. not saying he's a brilliant player (Routledge) but i reckon he's a low to mid prem level player easily which is pretty much the best we can hope for atm.

Hughton is the man that needs replacing once we go up and you will see a difference. Only Carroll and Routledge havent had REGULAR PL or top league experience out of our 1st team tbh. Routledge played a full season for crystal palace in the prem in 2005 i believe. was really good aswell for them as i recall.

The "human rights" you mock so easily are exactly what gives you the right to hold and express your views. The weren't handed down from on high - they had to be fought for over centuries. Now you want to chuck them away because you're scared of women in veils. I am quite aware of the fact I have human rights, and how and why. I've said this before though, nobody has 100% freedom of speech, you have to accept laws and certain responsibilities in life. Women in veils ? Don't make me laugh, they are saying they will bomb us unless we let them do as they like. That is not freedom of speech, it should be a jail offence and a deportation order to another country as such that suits their beliefs. You are aware a bombers use them as disguises aren't you ? If a bomber hid his bomb in a kids football would you insist we ban the game and deport* anyone that plays. *love how you're still holding the diametrically opposed opinions that other countries are going to gladly take in thousands of British deportees....while insisting Britain should clamp down on asylum. It holds up for wummery, but not real life. no, but i would deport the fucka who hid the bomb edit: after a lengthy and physically horiffic internment of course far too many of these geeky student types think time in the slammer should be "therapy" ie a holiday camp. 16 hours a day of rock bashing wouldn't do them any harm at all. not certain if i would call gaol a holiday camp but i agree with the sentiment that it should be more of a 'punishment' as aposed to a 'rehabilitation'.

The "human rights" you mock so easily are exactly what gives you the right to hold and express your views. The weren't handed down from on high - they had to be fought for over centuries. Now you want to chuck them away because you're scared of women in veils. I am quite aware of the fact I have human rights, and how and why. I've said this before though, nobody has 100% freedom of speech, you have to accept laws and certain responsibilities in life. Women in veils ? Don't make me laugh, they are saying they will bomb us unless we let them do as they like. That is not freedom of speech, it should be a jail offence and a deportation order to another country as such that suits their beliefs. You are aware a bombers use them as disguises aren't you ? If a bomber hid his bomb in a kids football would you insist we ban the game and deport* anyone that plays. *love how you're still holding the diametrically opposed opinions that other countries are going to gladly take in thousands of British deportees....while insisting Britain should clamp down on asylum. It holds up for wummery, but not real life. no, but i would deport the fucka who hid the bomb edit: after a lengthy and physically horiffic internment of course