BNP wins seats

[AgentAxeman 175]

Source?

 

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!

 

[Guest alex]

Source?

 

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!

 

I said it needs to come from a reputable source for me to give it much creedence. I also said I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, however. So you've slightly misconstrued what I was saying. You may well take it at face value, but I don't.

[AgentAxeman 175]

Source?

 

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.

[AgentAxeman 175]

I said it needs to come from a reputable source for me to give it much creedence. I also said I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, however. So you've slightly misconstrued what I was saying. You may well take it at face value, but I don't.

 

 

my bad, i misread your post it would seem.

[Guest alex]

What fucks me off is the government say in that Beeb piece that they're not happy about the ruling but then declined to say why.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'm not sure that the personal siutation and motivations of the Danish/Somali family where based upon their reading of EU law either.

[AgentAxeman 175]

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

[Happy Face 29]

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.

 

Galloway?

 

[AgentAxeman 175]

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.

 

Galloway?

 

 

 

 

too many to mention Happy

[Renton 21448]

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

 

[Guest alex]

Melanie Phillips used to write for The Guardian and The Observer before she started hating Muslims btw.

[NJS 4375]

The "outrageous" article on the Somalian on the BBC mentions the kids are Danish citizens so have a right to reside and be educated here which is the base issue - would you like to see the Mother deported and the kids left alone or deport them to a country they might not have lived in before?

[NJS 4375]

Melanie Phillips used to write for The Guardian and The Observer before she started hating Muslims btw.

 

She's also an anti-science religious fuckwit.

 

I'd have had her jailed for her part in the MMR scare.

[Guest alex]

Melanie Phillips used to write for The Guardian and The Observer before she started hating Muslims btw.

 

She's also an anti-science religious fuckwit.

 

I'd have had her jailed for her part in the MMR scare.

It was quite amusing on Question Time when she said there was no evidence of climate change only for Marcus Brigstock to reel off a list of things that suggested otherwise. She said that didn't provide conclusive proof or similar so he pointed out the difference between conclusive proof and evidence. I also think a couple as ugly as her and Joshua Rozenberg having kids is tantamount to child abuse.

[Renton 21448]

Melanie Phillips used to write for The Guardian and The Observer before she started hating Muslims btw.

 

She's also an anti-science religious fuckwit.

 

I'd have had her jailed for her part in the MMR scare.

 

There was an anti-MMR opinion piece in the Sunday Sun a few weeks back, propogating the autism myth and singing Wakefield's praises. The author (Mike Kelly) then had the nerve to suggest that there must be something in it as the issue had been 'rumbling on' for 12 years. He obviously couldn't see the irony in his comment. Anyway, it motivated me enough to send an e-mail to him and his editors (remains unanswered), and cancel my subscription (I got it for the football). It's hard not to despise some journalists, they seemingly don't give a shit about abusing their position of power and the consequences this has.

 

That Melanie Phillips article is genuinely funny imo though. How can anyone with any objectivity take that piece seriously?

[Sonatine 11329]

The BNP's view of a perfect England

 

[Park Life 71]

Melanie Phillips used to write for The Guardian and The Observer before she started hating Muslims btw.

 

She's also an anti-science religious fuckwit.

 

I'd have had her jailed for her part in the MMR scare.

 

She's evil.

[AgentAxeman 175]

That Melanie Phillips article is genuinely funny imo though. How can anyone with such a level of denial take that piece seriously?

 

 

fyp

 

[AgentAxeman 175]

The BNP's view of a perfect England

 

 

 

 

haven't seen that one. personnally, i didn't see anything wrong with that film whatsoever!!

 

[LeazesMag 0]

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

 

 

what a wanker you are. Aren't you going to tell us you educated views then

[Renton 21448]

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

 

 

what a wanker you are. Aren't you going to tell us you educated views then

 

My view is that this article is laughable. Obviously that make me a wanker in your eyes. Never mind, I haven't got time to waste arguing with a senile bairn, as I've told you countless times before.

[LeazesMag 0]

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

 

 

what a wanker you are. Aren't you going to tell us you educated views then

 

My view is that this article is laughable. Obviously that make me a wanker in your eyes. Never mind, I haven't got time to waste arguing with a senile bairn, as I've told you countless times before.

 

indeed you have, but you came back didn't you

 

I think it is a good article by the way. You can continue your state of denial, in your brainwashed state.

[Renton 21448]

indeed you have, but you came back didn't you

 

I think it is a good article by the way. You can continue your state of denial, in your brainwashed state.

 

That figures, it's telling you what you want to hear. Doesn't stop it being complete and utter unsubstantiated bullshit though, anyone with a modicum of objectivity could tell you that.

 

For the record Leazes I share many of your views on immigration and only last month you actually agreed with me that the burqa should be banned in public places (I don't think you noticed who you were quoting). You don't notice things because of your blind prejudice it seems.

 

Even if I can get past your incessant, childish name-calling, what's the point in discussing literally anything with you? You really believe your viewpoint is infallible ('Im right, as always'), you don't listen to, or understand, anyone else's point of view, and you base all your assertions on your vast 'life experience' whilst slagging off anyone who has had an academic education (regardless of what it was in or where it was).

 

I want to keep posting here but I don't want any communication with you for the mentioned reasons, is that so hard for you to understand? Just ignore me ffs.

[AgentAxeman 175]

indeed you have, but you came back didn't you

 

I think it is a good article by the way. You can continue your state of denial, in your brainwashed state.

 

That figures, it's telling you what you want to hear. Doesn't stop it being complete and utter unsubstantiated bullshit though, anyone with a modicum of objectivity could tell you that.

 

For the record Leazes I share many of your views on immigration and only last month you actually agreed with me that the burqa should be banned in public places (I don't think you noticed who you were quoting). You don't notice things because of your blind prejudice it seems.

 

Even if I can get past your incessant, childish name-calling, what's the point in discussing literally anything with you? You really believe your viewpoint is infallible ('Im right, as always'), you don't listen to, or understand, anyone else's point of view, and you base all your assertions on your vast 'life experience' whilst slagging off anyone who has had an academic education (regardless of what it was in or where it was).

 

I want to keep posting here but I don't want any communication with you for the mentioned reasons, is that so hard for you to understand? Just ignore me ffs.

 

 

Renton, did you even bother to read the article?

 

 

"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."

 

 

I think theres an awful lot of substance there for an 'unsubstantiated' piece.

 

also, i find it laughable that you seem to believe that you are some form of datum point for objectivity and anyone else who disagrees with this level of said objectivity is some form of fruitloop.

 

"You really believe your viewpoint is infallible ('Im right, as always'), you don't listen to, or understand, anyone else's point of view".

 

tbh, that sounds an awful lot like yourself when you're on your high horse.

[NJS 4375]

AA - the supposition that mass immigration was a deliberate policy meant to increase multicultarism is speculative bollocks - thats what we're dismissing.

 

Even if one gobshite minister said that, do you really think Blair sat down in 97 and said "What this country really needs is more third world immigrants which of course everyone will welcome"?

 

I'd also guess the "3 million" is shite - its certainly is from a net point of view and will no doubt include Europeans and other "acceptable" races.