[quote]300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I spent all of last year in the UK so I am not that out of touch (was in London not Manchester)
Are you comfortable voting for the BNP given their links to the European Nazi party, facist terrorist groups and holocaust denial etc? I can fully understand your issues with the Tories and Labour but voting for a total scumbag like Griffen would not be something that I could countenance.
I have met the local BNP MP
He is sound out being right wing is going to draw alot of nut jobs, but for me i’d rather put one of them in than put some fucking wanker who only comes to Manchester during voting week.
It’s not just the un-employed that are voting for them, Manchester is seriously losing it’s identity. So they want what the normal English people want.
Less Johnny Foreigner PLEASE.
As my dad says, i never knew when i sent aid to Somalia, they’d come all the way to the UK to thank me and stay here permanently [/quote]
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I spent all of last year in the UK so I am not that out of touch (was in London not Manchester)
Are you comfortable voting for the BNP given their links to the European Nazi party, facist terrorist groups and holocaust denial etc? I can fully understand your issues with the Tories and Labour but voting for a total scumbag like Griffen would not be something that I could countenance.
I have met the local BNP MP
He is sound out being right wing is going to draw alot of nut jobs, but for me i’d rather put one of them in than put some fucking wanker who only comes to Manchester during voting week.
It’s not just the un-employed that are voting for them, Manchester is seriously losing it’s identity. So they want what the normal English people want.
Less Johnny Foreigner PLEASE.
As my dad says, i never knew when i sent aid to Somalia, they’d come all the way to the UK to thank me and stay here permanently
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.[/quote]
He hasn’t said anything racist, he just doesn’t like immigration. He has a right to not like immigration.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.
He hasn’t said anything racist, he just doesn’t like immigration. He has a right to not like immigration.[/quote]
Thank you and WTF ?
Because i don’t want English people to be a minority in their OWN COUNTRY i’m racist ???
You sure your from Manchester ???
If you were i dunno how your not AGREEING with me…
I work and hang with people who are not of English descent, that doesn’t mean i still cannot be proud of my country and wish to have it not turned into so politically correct we can’t even celebrate Christmas without being hounded for it.
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.
He hasn’t said anything racist, he just doesn’t like immigration. He has a right to not like immigration.
Thank you and WTF ?
Because i don’t want English people to be a minority in their OWN COUNTRY i’m racist ???
You sure your from Manchester ???
If you were i dunno how your not AGREEING with me…
I work and hang with people who are not of English descent, that doesn’t mean i still cannot be proud of my country and wish to have it not turned into so politically correct we can’t even celebrate Christmas without being hounded for it.
[/quote]
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I totally agree that the anti terrorism laws are a joke. The first person arrested under them was an old man who stood up and shouted abuse during a labour party conference.
Also the incitement to racial hatred laws are wrong there should be freedom of speach and freedom of the press.
Those are both things that I agree are wrong with Britain. Interestingly a lot of this type of legislation seems to have been copied from US laws.
To which US laws regarding “the incitement to racial hatred” (or lack of “freedom of speach and freedom of the press”) do you refer?.
Title 7 of the Civil rights act 1964
18 U.S.C �??�??�??�??�??�?�§ 2101
18 U.S.C. �??�??�??�??�??�?�§ 245
You do not know what you are talking about.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
To circumvent limitations on congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause imposed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases, the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which had been interpreted by the courts as a broad grant of congressional power. Once the Act was implemented, its effects were far reaching and had tremendous long-term impacts on the whole country. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Powers given to enforce the bill were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years.
Title VII
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. �??�??�??�??�?�§ 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. �??�??�??�??�?�§ 2000e-2[21]).
Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[22]
In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between sex and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the “essence” or “central mission of the employer’s business,” and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on sex (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer’s preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the “unlawful employment practice” for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[citation needed]
There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:
Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
Native American Tribes
Religious groups performing work connected to the group’s activities, including associated education institutions;
Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. �??�??�??�??�?�§ 2000e-4[21]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Every state, except Arkansas and Alabama maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for more than 19 weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.[citation needed]
In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal is a notable Title VII case relating to sexual harassment that was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1986 the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998). Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act[23] , Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
Again you post a wall of text without understanding it. You must be about 0-100 on facts by now.
Title VII is one of the bits of legislation that is used to prosecute so called hate speech as employers can be prosecuted for tolerating hate speech by their employees.
You posted a couple of numbers with nothing to put them into context with the point that you are trying to make. Then you want to act like we are idiots because we don’t know the relevant case law and know exactly what you are refferring to. That’s bullshit. If you can’t support what you are saying with actual examples don’t waste our time.
I was asked a simple question as to which laws. I answered. If you are too dense to do a google search for them then sorry. btw, this line of argument was considered by you to be good enough for push
So you are equating a law that is clearly intended to stop workplace discrimination (including by other employees) with whatever British law allows for a woman to be charged for something she said in her own home?
Firstly she was in a place of work and secondly I wasn’t equating anything, I was answering a question.[/quote]
No the complainant was not in her place of work. She was in a bed and breakfast that the couple who have been arrested ran out of their home.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.
He hasn’t said anything racist, he just doesn’t like immigration. He has a right to not like immigration.
Thank you and WTF ?
Because i don’t want English people to be a minority in their OWN COUNTRY i’m racist ???
You sure your from Manchester ???
If you were i dunno how your not AGREEING with me…
I work and hang with people who are not of English descent, that doesn’t mean i still cannot be proud of my country and wish to have it not turned into so politically correct we can’t even celebrate Christmas without being hounded for it.
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.[/quote]
What the ???
No based on where they were born. That’s the MAIN reason for the rise of BNP in Manchester, families are being pushed off the housing list to give them to asylum seekers and others, due to goverment bylaws.
So to re-iterate ENGLISH born people are NOT GETTING HOMES so they can be given to NON- ENGLISH people because of our idiotic governments non existent immigration policies and roll out the red carpet to bend over for the idiotic EU.
If thats racist then mate your logic is severely screwy. Since when is it racist to look after your OWN countrymen first, guests second ???
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Yep look what they did in Northern Ireland, even when the Catholics were outnumbering the Protestants they still managed to get enough of them in to swing the vote.
Cockney seriously you are NOT seeing what people who live in the UK see. [/quote]
Cockney is suffering from a condition known as cognitive dissonance. So what he does is he rationalizes information that conflicts with his beliefs. Reasoning with him is not possible. Unfortunately Britain and the EU has a lot of people just like him so he is able to find like minded individuals who will support his rationalizations.
[quote]
Already there are skin head people popping up and asian nutter groups. Police are ruunning out of ways to deal with all the freaking nutter clerics telling US IN THE UK we are all going to die WHILE GETTING AID FROM THE UK.[/quote]
The Labour government is fully to blame for the civil unrest that is now boiling to the surface. For decades now they have engaged is racial policies which walk all over the indiginous peoples. When anyone has raised even reasonable or legitimate concerns about the racial policies going against them they have been denounced as a racist. Since most people are not racist and see racism as wrong, this accusation has been very effective in quashing debate. Now however that tactic has lost it’s effectiveness so now all the years of suppressed dissent are boiling over and they can’t do anything to stop it.
Having double standards on the enforcement of incitement laws I am sure has been the kick n the ass that has pushed things over the edge. ie I have seen video of muslim clerics riding through London in a van with a loudspeaker calling for homosexuals to be thrown off of tall buildings while the police stand by and do nothing. If a non-muslim saying similar or even less severe things about homosexuals would be arrested.
[quote]
We won’t need any 9/11 it’s already starting to pop and crackle over here with all the heat in the air. All it needs now is a spark and there will be mass riots going on. [/quote]
I can believe that. Nulabour has really pushed peoples backs against the wall.
[quote]
You have just as much access to info as Sifu I FREAKING LIVE HERE. Right in the middle of North Manchester i think i have a better idea to be quite honest ! [/quote]
It doesn’t matter with Cock, he just shuts out or rationalizes any information that contradicts with his beliefs, that is why he has cognitive dissonance. He could live with you and go through the same things you go through and he would still not see what you see.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Yep look what they did in Northern Ireland, even when the Catholics were outnumbering the Protestants they still managed to get enough of them in to swing the vote.
Cockney seriously you are NOT seeing what people who live in the UK see.
Already there are skin head people popping up and asian nutter groups. Police are ruunning out of ways to deal with all the freaking nutter clerics telling US IN THE UK we are all going to die WHILE GETTING AID FROM THE UK.
We won’t need any 9/11 it’s already starting to pop and crackle over here with all the heat in the air. All it needs now is a spark and there will be mass riots going on.
You have just as much access to info as Sifu I FREAKING LIVE HERE. Right in the middle of North Manchester i think i have a better idea to be quite honest !
Where abouts in North Manchester? I used to live in Fallowfield so I know all about racial tensions in Manchester from walking through Rusholme during Eid.
If you think the racial tension is anything new just look at the Oldham Riots in 2001 or the Brixton Riots in 1981. Christ, you want to talk rioting in the Manchester area you can go back to the Peterloo riots in 1819.
I don’t want anyone to think that I believe the UK is some kind of utopia of racial harmony however the reason that we have boiling tensions at the moment is far more to do with higher levels of unemployment than anything else.[/quote]
This is a classic case of Cock rationalizing to support his cognitive dissonance. What is happening today in Britain is a lot more than just people being pissed off over the economy. They had good reasons to be angry even before the economy tanked. The collapse of the economy has merely laid bare all that has been going on ever since Labour got back in power.
Back in 1981 I had friends who participated in the riots. What is going on today is not the same.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I spent all of last year in the UK so I am not that out of touch (was in London not Manchester)
Are you comfortable voting for the BNP given their links to the European Nazi party, facist terrorist groups and holocaust denial etc? I can fully understand your issues with the Tories and Labour but voting for a total scumbag like Griffen would not be something that I could countenance.[/quote]
I had never heard of the European Nazi Party so I spent some time doing google searches for them. I couldn’t find anything about them. This is just another one of your bullshit exagerated or made up claims about the BNP.
Griffen is no worse than Cameron, Frown or Bliar but he is a lot more honest.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I spent all of last year in the UK so I am not that out of touch (was in London not Manchester)
Are you comfortable voting for the BNP given their links to the European Nazi party, facist terrorist groups and holocaust denial etc? I can fully understand your issues with the Tories and Labour but voting for a total scumbag like Griffen would not be something that I could countenance.
I have met the local BNP MP
He is sound out being right wing is going to draw alot of nut jobs, but for me i’d rather put one of them in than put some fucking wanker who only comes to Manchester during voting week.
It’s not just the un-employed that are voting for them, Manchester is seriously losing it’s identity. So they want what the normal English people want.
Less Johnny Foreigner PLEASE.
As my dad says, i never knew when i sent aid to Somalia, they’d come all the way to the UK to thank me and stay here permanently
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.[/quote]
Fuck you and your calling people racists. Who the hell are you to be judging people? You buggered off to a staunch Roman Catholic, Christian country where you don’t have to worry about being stuck in a sharia state. You have no right to be calling people racists just because they don’t want to their family to have to live under sharia law.
There is no other people on this planet who would be happy to have massive numbers of foreigners move into their homeland that their family has lived in for generations and displace them.
NuLabour has flooded areas like Manchester with immigrants while acting like the people who have lived there for generations don’t exist. It is not racist for people who are being displaced like that to say “hey what about us”.
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.[/quote]
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.[/quote]
Yes THIS.
I have no issue with people coming to work here, god knows theres enough lazy English people who won’t but when they start to push THEIR views on what should and shouldn’t be acceptable starts grating on people.
As the ooollldd saying went and it bears repeating many times.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I totally agree that the anti terrorism laws are a joke. The first person arrested under them was an old man who stood up and shouted abuse during a labour party conference.
Also the incitement to racial hatred laws are wrong there should be freedom of speach and freedom of the press.
Those are both things that I agree are wrong with Britain. Interestingly a lot of this type of legislation seems to have been copied from US laws.
To which US laws regarding “the incitement to racial hatred” (or lack of “freedom of speach and freedom of the press”) do you refer?.
Title 7 of the Civil rights act 1964
18 U.S.C �??�??�??�??�??�??�?�§ 2101
18 U.S.C. �??�??�??�??�??�??�?�§ 245
You do not know what you are talking about.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
To circumvent limitations on congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause imposed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases, the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which had been interpreted by the courts as a broad grant of congressional power. Once the Act was implemented, its effects were far reaching and had tremendous long-term impacts on the whole country. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Powers given to enforce the bill were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years.
Title VII
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. �??�??�??�??�??�?�§ 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. �??�??�??�??�??�?�§ 2000e-2[21]).
Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[22]
In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between sex and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the “essence” or “central mission of the employer’s business,” and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on sex (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer’s preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the “unlawful employment practice” for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[citation needed]
There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:
Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
Native American Tribes
Religious groups performing work connected to the group’s activities, including associated education institutions;
Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. �??�??�??�??�??�?�§ 2000e-4[21]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Every state, except Arkansas and Alabama maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for more than 19 weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.[citation needed]
In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal is a notable Title VII case relating to sexual harassment that was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1986 the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998). Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act[23] , Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
Again you post a wall of text without understanding it. You must be about 0-100 on facts by now.
Title VII is one of the bits of legislation that is used to prosecute so called hate speech as employers can be prosecuted for tolerating hate speech by their employees.
You posted a couple of numbers with nothing to put them into context with the point that you are trying to make. Then you want to act like we are idiots because we don’t know the relevant case law and know exactly what you are refferring to. That’s bullshit. If you can’t support what you are saying with actual examples don’t waste our time.
I was asked a simple question as to which laws. I answered. If you are too dense to do a google search for them then sorry. btw, this line of argument was considered by you to be good enough for push
So you are equating a law that is clearly intended to stop workplace discrimination (including by other employees) with whatever British law allows for a woman to be charged for something she said in her own home?
Firstly she was in a place of work and secondly I wasn’t equating anything, I was answering a question.
No the complainant was not in her place of work. She was in a bed and breakfast that the couple who have been arrested ran out of their home. [/quote]
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.
He hasn’t said anything racist, he just doesn’t like immigration. He has a right to not like immigration.
Thank you and WTF ?
Because i don’t want English people to be a minority in their OWN COUNTRY i’m racist ???
You sure your from Manchester ???
If you were i dunno how your not AGREEING with me…
I work and hang with people who are not of English descent, that doesn’t mean i still cannot be proud of my country and wish to have it not turned into so politically correct we can’t even celebrate Christmas without being hounded for it.
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
What the ???
No based on where they were born. That’s the MAIN reason for the rise of BNP in Manchester, families are being pushed off the housing list to give them to asylum seekers and others, due to goverment bylaws.
So to re-iterate ENGLISH born people are NOT GETTING HOMES so they can be given to NON- ENGLISH people because of our idiotic governments non existent immigration policies and roll out the red carpet to bend over for the idiotic EU.
If thats racist then mate your logic is severely screwy. Since when is it racist to look after your OWN countrymen first, guests second ???
[/quote]
Your last statement is the very definition of racism, treating people differently based on where they are from.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I spent all of last year in the UK so I am not that out of touch (was in London not Manchester)
Are you comfortable voting for the BNP given their links to the European Nazi party, facist terrorist groups and holocaust denial etc? I can fully understand your issues with the Tories and Labour but voting for a total scumbag like Griffen would not be something that I could countenance.
I had never heard of the European Nazi Party so I spent some time doing google searches for them. I couldn’t find anything about them. This is just another one of your bullshit exagerated or made up claims about the BNP.
Griffen is no worse than Cameron, Frown or Bliar but he is a lot more honest. [/quote]
Sorry I should have been clearer I should have actually typed European (and American) Facist and Nazi parties. In each country it is typically called something different and the base ideologies of who they hate vary dependent on circumstances but at route they are groups of people who stir up attention based on espousing hatred against whichever group seems to be the easiest target.
Obviously at the moment in many countries this is Islam. Islam is a slam dunk easy target. ‘They’ flew planes into the twin towers and put bombs on buses and the tube.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Yep look what they did in Northern Ireland, even when the Catholics were outnumbering the Protestants they still managed to get enough of them in to swing the vote.
Cockney seriously you are NOT seeing what people who live in the UK see.
Already there are skin head people popping up and asian nutter groups. Police are ruunning out of ways to deal with all the freaking nutter clerics telling US IN THE UK we are all going to die WHILE GETTING AID FROM THE UK.
We won’t need any 9/11 it’s already starting to pop and crackle over here with all the heat in the air. All it needs now is a spark and there will be mass riots going on.
You have just as much access to info as Sifu I FREAKING LIVE HERE. Right in the middle of North Manchester i think i have a better idea to be quite honest !
Where abouts in North Manchester? I used to live in Fallowfield so I know all about racial tensions in Manchester from walking through Rusholme during Eid.
If you think the racial tension is anything new just look at the Oldham Riots in 2001 or the Brixton Riots in 1981. Christ, you want to talk rioting in the Manchester area you can go back to the Peterloo riots in 1819.
I don’t want anyone to think that I believe the UK is some kind of utopia of racial harmony however the reason that we have boiling tensions at the moment is far more to do with higher levels of unemployment than anything else.
This is a classic case of Cock rationalizing to support his cognitive dissonance. What is happening today in Britain is a lot more than just people being pissed off over the economy. They had good reasons to be angry even before the economy tanked. The collapse of the economy has merely laid bare all that has been going on ever since Labour got back in power.
Back in 1981 I had friends who participated in the riots. What is going on today is not the same. [/quote]
So your friends were as easily manipulated by the NF and BNP stirring up shit as you are. Figures.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I spent all of last year in the UK so I am not that out of touch (was in London not Manchester)
Are you comfortable voting for the BNP given their links to the European Nazi party, facist terrorist groups and holocaust denial etc? I can fully understand your issues with the Tories and Labour but voting for a total scumbag like Griffen would not be something that I could countenance.
I have met the local BNP MP
He is sound out being right wing is going to draw alot of nut jobs, but for me i’d rather put one of them in than put some fucking wanker who only comes to Manchester during voting week.
It’s not just the un-employed that are voting for them, Manchester is seriously losing it’s identity. So they want what the normal English people want.
Less Johnny Foreigner PLEASE.
As my dad says, i never knew when i sent aid to Somalia, they’d come all the way to the UK to thank me and stay here permanently
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.
Fuck you and your calling people racists. Who the hell are you to be judging people? You buggered off to a staunch Roman Catholic, Christian country where you don’t have to worry about being stuck in a sharia state. You have no right to be calling people racists just because they don’t want to their family to have to live under sharia law.
There is no other people on this planet who would be happy to have massive numbers of foreigners move into their homeland that their family has lived in for generations and displace them.
NuLabour has flooded areas like Manchester with immigrants while acting like the people who have lived there for generations don’t exist. It is not racist for people who are being displaced like that to say “hey what about us”.[/quote]
I hardly ran off to Mexico to get away from Islam. I moved here because there were good economic opportunities and I could create a good life for my family here.
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.[/quote]
If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.
All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.
All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.[/quote]
Dude what is wrong with you ???
Wtf aristocratics families ???
WHAT has that to do with having better rights for your CITIZENS than GUESTS ???
You are plain looney i can see why you went to Mexico !
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.[/quote]
Objection:
I would take great umbrage if my American children were denied the choice to move to the US if they so wanted, despite the being born in Spain and Sweden respectively. You may wish to note that your logic would exclude many children of American servicemen as well.
Now you usually make sense, even when I don’t agree with you, so I rather think this was a slip of the pen.