Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".
How about the other parties?
As media scrutiny on UKIP's candidates, members and donors intensifies,
the party has released a list of councillors and candidates from other
parties who have found themselves in various scandals yet have been ignored
by the mainstream media.
The list includes a Conservative who stole £150,000 from a pensioner with
Alzheimers, a former Conservative councillor found guilty of child sex
crimes, a Labour candidate who is a convicted fraudster, and a Liberal
Democrat councillor convicted of 'racially aggravated assault'.
The councillors and candidates named by the party a

John Morgan, Conservative councillor on Vale of White Horse District
Council : Convicted of stealing £150,000 from Beryl Gittens, who had
alzheimers, between 2004 and 2012.
Danny Mayzes, Conservative councillor on Tendring District Council:
Tweeted that the film Machete, which figures violent vigilantes patrolling
the US/Mexico border, showed how to deal with immigration.
David Whittaker, former Conservative councillor on Isle of Wight
Council:"Found guilty of two charges of causing or inciting a child to
engage in sexual activity, sexual activity with a child, and engaging in
sexual activity while in the presence of a child."
Dr Peter Moseley, Conservative candidate for South Kesteven District
Council: Formerly an activist in the hard right British National Party,
selected to contest a safe Conservative seat.
Nilgun Canver, Labour councillor on Haringey Borough Council: A former
cabinet member on Haringey Borough Council who was convicted of lying to the
police over a car crash involving her son.
Yogalingam Dayanamby, Labour candidate for Harrow Borough
Council:Convicted of defrauding the council to which he is seeking election.
Stephen Fenwick, former Liberal Democrat (now independent) councillor on
Sutton Borough Council: Convicted of "racially aggravated assault" in a
railway station pub. Has resigned the Lib Dem whip and now sits as an
independent.
Ajit Atwal, Liberal Democrat councillor on Derby City Council: Refused
to resign after posting a picture on Twitter posing with an AK-47 rifle.

Media scrutiny on UKIP has intensified this week following numerous
allegations relating to the behaviour of various candidates and party
activists.
In a statement accompanying the list, the party says:

"UKIP thanks to the national media, all other political parties and
various trade union- and government-funded lobby groups for the immense
amount of work they have put in, to undertake the Stasi-style 'scrutiny' of
the Facebook pages and Twitter feeds of UKIP's 2,200 local election
candidates - a substantial task which must be costing someone a bundle - and
assures them that every offensive remark reported to us will be considered
seriously by our National Executive Committee's disciplinary committee."

You left out our ex Lib dem leader in Kingston.
However, its time to decide what racism is, and whether people other than
English white persons can be it.
I know some people who were born here who are black feel that some other
black or non white folk, use what is described as 'the race card' to
frighten officials into giving them preferential treatment.
Now OK so I've played the Blind card a few times myself, but I do feel
that there as many non whites who feel everyone not their race or culture
are out to get them and act like they are the enemy, as there are the other
way around.
What some people need is a non threatening discussion over all this so we
can see the wood for the trees. Bringing up wrongdoings by various people
who should have known better is not helpful, and often not even relevant to
this discussion.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".
How about the other parties?
As media scrutiny on UKIP's candidates, members and donors intensifies,
the party has released a list of councillors and candidates from other
parties who have found themselves in various scandals yet have been
ignored by the mainstream media.
The list includes a Conservative who stole £150,000 from a pensioner with
Alzheimers, a former Conservative councillor found guilty of child sex
crimes, a Labour candidate who is a convicted fraudster, and a Liberal
Democrat councillor convicted of 'racially aggravated assault'.
The councillors and candidates named by the party a

John Morgan, Conservative councillor on Vale of White Horse District
Council : Convicted of stealing £150,000 from Beryl Gittens, who had
alzheimers, between 2004 and 2012.
Danny Mayzes, Conservative councillor on Tendring District Council:
Tweeted that the film Machete, which figures violent vigilantes patrolling
the US/Mexico border, showed how to deal with immigration.
David Whittaker, former Conservative councillor on Isle of Wight
Council:"Found guilty of two charges of causing or inciting a child to
engage in sexual activity, sexual activity with a child, and engaging in
sexual activity while in the presence of a child."
Dr Peter Moseley, Conservative candidate for South Kesteven District
Council: Formerly an activist in the hard right British National Party,
selected to contest a safe Conservative seat.
Nilgun Canver, Labour councillor on Haringey Borough Council: A former
cabinet member on Haringey Borough Council who was convicted of lying to
the police over a car crash involving her son.
Yogalingam Dayanamby, Labour candidate for Harrow Borough
Council:Convicted of defrauding the council to which he is seeking
election.
Stephen Fenwick, former Liberal Democrat (now independent) councillor
on Sutton Borough Council: Convicted of "racially aggravated assault" in a
railway station pub. Has resigned the Lib Dem whip and now sits as an
independent.
Ajit Atwal, Liberal Democrat councillor on Derby City Council: Refused
to resign after posting a picture on Twitter posing with an AK-47 rifle.

Media scrutiny on UKIP has intensified this week following numerous
allegations relating to the behaviour of various candidates and party
activists.
In a statement accompanying the list, the party says:

"UKIP thanks to the national media, all other political parties and
various trade union- and government-funded lobby groups for the immense
amount of work they have put in, to undertake the Stasi-style 'scrutiny'
of the Facebook pages and Twitter feeds of UKIP's 2,200 local election
candidates - a substantial task which must be costing someone a bundle -
and assures them that every offensive remark reported to us will be
considered seriously by our National Executive Committee's disciplinary
committee."

On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".
....

Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so
it would be surprising if they did not attract racists.

Colin Bignell

On 02/05/14 09:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
However, its time to decide what racism is, and whether people other than
English white persons can be it.

Racism is, like climate denialism, a term used by the left to shut down
rational debate on a subject where their idealism gives a nonsensical
answer.

"I said I used to be proud to be British and he said then you were a
racist".

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 10:28, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".
...

Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so
it would be surprising if they did not attract racists.


I really didn't have you pegged as as ignorant as that, Colin.

On both statements



Colin Bignell



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Fri, 02 May 2014 11:47:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".

Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so
it would be surprising if they did not attract racists.

I really didn't have you pegged as as ignorant as that, Colin.

On both statements

Given that UKIP seemingly refuse to publish a manifesto to replace the
"drivel" they stood behind in 2010, it's really only fair to go by the
pronouncements of their candidates and representatives to attempt to
divine what policies they have - other, of course, than refusing a
referendum on EU membership.

And, you have to admit, when those pronouncements apparently come from
people unsure whether Dudley is "a black country" or in _the_ black
country, it's difficult to be particularly impressed...

On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".

I don't believe that UKIP as an organisation is 'racist' although - like
other parties - they have a few maverick members who express views not
aligned to the party line.

In my view, they *do* have legitimate concerns about immigration - which
has nothing whatever to do with racism - but it convenient for their
detractors to call it racism in order to discredit them.

The concerns are about the rights (mostly bestowed by the EU) of a
virtually unlimited number people not born in the UK to come and work
here - and the effect which that has on our infrastructure and jobs scene.

The sooner these issues are addressed seriously rather than by name
calling, the better in my view.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Fri, 02 May 2014 12:38:28 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

The concerns are about the rights (mostly bestowed by the EU) of a
virtually unlimited number people not born in the UK to come and work
here - and the effect which that has on our infrastructure and jobs
scene.

Despite the fact that those rights were voted on in a referendum, and
apply equally to UK citizens - in fact, there are more UK citizens living
elsewhere in the EU than citizens of other EU countries living in the UK.

So, should the UK follow the "Norwegian" or "Swiss" approaches to
migration, iyho?

On 02/05/2014 12:27, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 11:47:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".

Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so
it would be surprising if they did not attract racists.

I really didn't have you pegged as as ignorant as that, Colin.

On both statements

Given that UKIP seemingly refuse to publish a manifesto to replace the
"drivel" they stood behind in 2010, it's really only fair to go by the
pronouncements of their candidates and representatives to attempt to
divine what policies they have - other, of course, than refusing a
referendum on EU membership.

And, you have to admit, when those pronouncements apparently come from
people unsure whether Dudley is "a black country" or in _the_ black
country, it's difficult to be particularly impressed...

In the days before smoke control laws,it was both.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 09:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
However, its time to decide what racism is, and whether people other than
English white persons can be it.

Racism is, like climate denialism, a term used by the left to shut down
rational debate on a subject where their idealism gives a nonsensical
answer.

"I said I used to be proud to be British and he said then you were a
racist".

More likely proud to be English unless the press were around.

Being scared of the next village is nothing new. Or country. Or race. Just
something one would hope civilisation would overcome.

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 2 May 2014 10:28:43 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:

Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".

...



Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so
it would be surprising if they did not attract racists.

Whatever the curent government do or don't do that ****es off the general public is a good thing for an opposition party to pander to, it's just that UKIP seem to be partically good at this, not that it's hard to point out the errors of the current govenrment or the idiocy of the labour policies.

On Friday, 2 May 2014 13:12:01 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/05/14 09:24, Brian Gaff wrote:

However, its time to decide what racism is, and whether people other than

English white persons can be it.



Racism is, like climate denialism, a term used by the left to shut down

rational debate on a subject where their idealism gives a nonsensical

answer.



"I said I used to be proud to be British and he said then you were a

racist".



More likely proud to be English unless the press were around.



Being scared of the next village is nothing new. Or country. Or race. Just

something one would hope civilisation would overcome.

Civilisation needs to come first though. In the 30s people were pretty scared of the rise of fascism, some got of their ares and did something others kept quite and did nothing. Some are worried today over whats going on today so to keep them quite we call them racists and anything else that can be done to keep them from being heard.

On 02/05/2014 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 10:28, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".
...

Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so
it would be surprising if they did not attract racists.


I really didn't have you pegged as as ignorant as that, Colin.

On both statements

I can't see that wanting to leave the EU can be driven by anything other
than xenophobia. There is certainly no good basis for leaving. Similarly
for their stance on immigration. This country owes a lot to previous
generations of immigrants, from the Huguenots (a proportionately much
larger influx than we see today) onwards.

As for the racists, are you saying they won't be attracted to any party
that has xenophobic policies?

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 02 May 2014 12:49:40 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

Despite the fact that those rights were voted on in a referendum,

Not by me.

Is there some kind of minimum frequency with which you think every past
agreement should be re-confirmed by a referendum?

On Fri, 02 May 2014 12:48:53 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

But also, where's the clear blue water between the parties ? All have
the same stance on the EU, for example.

No, they don't.

The Tories have promised an in/out referendum if they form the next Gov't.
The LibDems are very pro.
Labour? Well, frankly, I'm not sure they know.

What if UKIP win the next election, but have a minority of the vote?
That's happened at every single general election since 1900, bar two. Yet

UKIP would take that _minority_ support as approval to leave the EU -
membership of which was supported by a majority at a referendum - to
leave the EU without any further consultation.

On Fri, 02 May 2014 14:00:13 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

As for the racists, are you saying they won't be attracted to any party
that has xenophobic policies?

Just look at the utterly unsavoury company UKIP keeps in the European
Parliament's "Europe of Freedom and Democracy" group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_..._and_Democracy

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Civilisation needs to come first though. In the 30s people were pretty
scared of the rise of fascism, some got of their ares and did something
others kept quite and did nothing.

Really? There were plenty in the UK that supported it. And even more in
Germany.

--
*WHERE DO FOREST RANGERS GO TO "GET AWAY FROM IT ALL?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/05/14 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Civilisation needs to come first though. In the 30s people were pretty
scared of the rise of fascism, some got of their ares and did something
others kept quite and did nothing.

Really? There were plenty in the UK that supported it. And even more in
Germany.

largely because they were even MORE scared of communism, which turned
out to be not such a stupid fear to have after all.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/2014 14:00, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2014 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 10:28, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".
...

Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so
it would be surprising if they did not attract racists.


I really didn't have you pegged as as ignorant as that, Colin.

On both statements

I can't see that wanting to leave the EU can be driven by anything other
than xenophobia. There is certainly no good basis for leaving. Similarly
for their stance on immigration. This country owes a lot to previous
generations of immigrants, from the Huguenots (a proportionately much
larger influx than we see today) onwards.

As for the racists, are you saying they won't be attracted to any party
that has xenophobic policies?

I agree up to a point, but the recent immigration from Eastern Europe
has been unprecedented and uncontrolled.

As a result it has had a profound effect on housing and other
infrastructure and salaries.

The Huguenot immigration into England was a net 40,000 at a time when
the population was 3 - 4 million. There was lots of space with little
government interference from building houses and minimal infrastructure
to affect.

Over the last 10 years we have seem more immigration as a proportion to
the existing population than the isolated Huguenot influx.

On 02/05/14 14:00, Nightjar wrote:
I can't see that wanting to leave the EU can be driven by anything other
than xenophobia. There is certainly no good basis for leaving.

What an extraordinary statement.

Extraordinary in terms of everything everybody else is saying on BOTH
sides of the argument.

There are very good reasons to leave and some good ones to stay. None of
them are xenophobic.

You seem to think leaving the EU is somehow akin to leaving Europe and
Europeans and building an invisible wall of prejudice round the country
and pretending to be N Korea.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 14:05, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 12:49:40 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

Despite the fact that those rights were voted on in a referendum,

Not by me.

Is there some kind of minimum frequency with which you think every past
agreement should be re-confirmed by a referendum?

No but there should be some sort of minimum level of support a policy
has to have before it is NOT reconsidered by a referendum.

UKIP is trying to place the issue of EU membership on the agenda and its
succeeding despite the efforts of people to hand wave it away with
'xenophobia' 'racism' and 'little englander' type slurs.

So, do you think that if - as is being predicted - UKIP actually return
the most MEPS of ANY party to the EU, we should not have a reasonable
debate on those issues that drive the desire to re-examine our
relationship with a body, the president of whom no one has heard or
voted for?


If that debate is not had, it will continue to fester and there will be
suspicion that as UKIP blandly state, the other parties are lying to
you and don't want to tell you the truth?

And there will be a heavy price to pay for that.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Friday, 2 May 2014 13:48:53 UTC+1, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 05:36:30 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:



On Friday, 2 May 2014 10:28:43 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:

On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:



Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".



...







Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so

it would be surprising if they did not attract racists.



Whatever the curent government do or don't do that ****es off the

general public is a good thing for an opposition party to pander to,

it's just that UKIP seem to be partically good at this, not that it's

hard to point out the errors of the current govenrment or the idiocy of

the labour policies.



But also, where's the clear blue water between the parties ? All have the
same stance on the EU, for example.

I don;t think they have the same stance.


It's akin to going into a shop wanting (say) C&B beans. Shop only stocks
Heinz. Go to another shop. Same. And a third. Same again. These 3 shops
can hardly start complaining, if a fourth shop opens up selling Heinz
beans, and takes custom from the other 3.

What if that shop buys C&B beans and puts a Heinz label on that how will you know until after you've brought them cooked and tasted them ?

On 02/05/2014 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 14:00, Nightjar wrote:
I can't see that wanting to leave the EU can be driven by anything other
than xenophobia. There is certainly no good basis for leaving.

What an extraordinary statement.

Extraordinary in terms of everything everybody else is saying on BOTH
sides of the argument.

There are very good reasons to leave and some good ones to stay. None of
them are xenophobic.

I don't consider any of the reasons advanced for leaving to be good
reasons, which only leaves not liking foreigners having a say in what we do.

You seem to think leaving the EU is somehow akin to leaving Europe and
Europeans and building an invisible wall of prejudice round the country
and pretending to be N Korea.

I can't help but feel that is exactly what Nigel Farage would like to
do. I don't trust him. I don't trust his motives. I certainly don't
trust him to tell us anything other than what he thinks people want to
hear. Probably the only politician I have ever trusted less is Tony Blair.

Colin Bignell

On 02/05/14 14:07, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 12:48:53 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

But also, where's the clear blue water between the parties ? All have
the same stance on the EU, for example.

No, they don't.

The Tories have promised an in/out referendum if they form the next Gov't.
The LibDems are very pro.
Labour? Well, frankly, I'm not sure they know.

What if UKIP win the next election, but have a minority of the vote?
That's happened at every single general election since 1900, bar two. Yet

UKIP would take that _minority_ support as approval to leave the EU -
membership of which was supported by a majority at a referendum - to
leave the EU without any further consultation.

I don't think that UKIP could, on current geographical levels, win the
most seats in 2015 without the most votes.

Neither do I think that, unlike other parties in the past, they would
take say 38% of the vote as an automatic mandate to implement unilateral
action.


I think it would be far more likely they would use initially such few
powers as a national government has left to block and delay EU
legislations, and maybe even break a few EU rules and get fined, and
refuse to pay up, and use the access to media they would have, and the
access to top people in banking and commerce to thrash out an exit from
the EU (but if course not Europe) with full consent of the majority of
the people of this country.

Winning the election would the chance to say why and to demonstrate at
every turn, the government cant act, because the EU dictates.

UKIP in government would be the party of opposition to the EU in Europe,
and if it could get enough votes in a popular referendum to leave - 60%
maybe, then it would leave.

It would be pointless to simply leave and then realise that a reversal
of political fortunes would see us back in again.

UKIP in government is not the end game, but it is 'perhaps the beginning
of the end'.

The end game as far as UKIP are concerned is when a whole political
system is so discredited that another one has to be constructed in its
place, and obligingly the current disgraceful attacks by the other three
parties are demonstrating quite clearly to an increasing number of
people that UKIP have more than a small point when they describe them as
rotten to the core.

In the end UKIP probably represents a real threat to the continued
existence of the EU. They are by far and away the most popular and most
moderate Eurosceptic party. Britain will I suspect show the rest of
Europe how to either modify the EU until it is unrecognisable, or
destroy it completely, if it proves unable to reform itself.

It is hopeless to negotiate with the EU unless you have a negotiating
position that consists in stripping it of 30% of its income and 70% of
it's credibility by leaving it. And meaning it, and having a popular
mandate to do it and full support of the banking and corporate community
in so doing.

That has to be where UKIP sit down with the EU and talk terms.

Or sit down with other European nations and promise financial assistance
and trade deals if they too, leave. The republic of Ireland would be a
good place to start.

If Marine Le Pen gets ahold of France - not that I like her politics
much - she is someone we should do business with as well.


And the Scandinavians and the swiss, who are less in than out already.

Japan too, is a country we should be doing more business with, and
Canada and Australia.

In the end, once the lies and bull**** and narrow self interests are
stripped way there is either on balance a very good reason why we should
leave the EU, or why we should not.

UKIP I am sure would say, that its job is to strip away the lies and the
bull**** and expose the narrow self interest, in order that that debate
can be had,. After that, its up to the people to decide.

Right now, they don't have the choice. And a hell of a lot of them are
going to be putting their crosses in a box saying 'we want that choice'
even if they don't actually believe leaving the EU (but not Europe) is
actually necessarily the best thing.

Id say the centre ground in Britain is 'well we know all politicians are
lying scum, and maybe UKIP isn't quite so bad, but will we be worse off
if we leave?'

UKIPS task is not to win elections, though that helps, its to answer
that question and show why on balance the answer is 'no, you will in
time be far better off if we leave unless the EU absolutely changes its
spots.'

If Cameron said, and I could believe a word of it, that he would if
elected with am overall majority, immediately take us out of the EU,
then he would win the next election.

It remains to be seen whether Farage can on a slightly more moderate line.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 15:02, Jethro_uk wrote:
UKIP would take that_minority_ support as approval to leave the EU -
membership of which was supported by a majority at a referendum - to
leave the EU without any further consultation.
In that light, we've had lots of unpopular policies foisted on us by
minority governments.

+1.

Including going into the 'common market' in the first place.

We thought we were signing a trade deal.

WE ended up being part of someone elses superstate.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Friday, 2 May 2014 14:00:13 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2014 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/05/14 10:28, Nightjar wrote:

On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:

Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".

...



Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so

it would be surprising if they did not attract racists.





I really didn't have you pegged as as ignorant as that, Colin.



On both statements



I can't see that wanting to leave the EU can be driven by anything other
than xenophobia.

I can it's caleld £55 million or more a day or you just don;t want your tax money goign to MEPs inflated saleries or you don't like the biases deciasions the EU makes.

There is certainly no good basis for leaving.

I might not want to leave but I would like to see things change.


Similarly
for their stance on immigration. This country owes a lot to previous
generations of immigrants,

Some of those previous immigrants are the most vocal about the country not being swanped with eastern europeans who ARE very racist especailly agains blacks and muslims in particualar.
Just becuse you see racism as black against white that doesn't equate to British against immigrants.


from the Huguenots (a proportionately much
larger influx than we see today) onwards.

Not to sure that's true or even relivant.
We cerianly stoped the Nazis from bring their ideas to the UK, and theres those immigrants that want to bring in female genital mutation, and those that do want shira law and practice it.


As for the racists, are you saying they won't be attracted to any party
that has xenophobic policies?

For me that would depend on whether *I* considered the policies xenophobic or not.
Do you see the banning of forced marriages as a xenophobic policy I DO NOT ?

On 02/05/14 14:09, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 14:00:13 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

As for the racists, are you saying they won't be attracted to any party
that has xenophobic policies?

Just look at the utterly unsavoury company UKIP keeps in the European
Parliament's "Europe of Freedom and Democracy" group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_..._and_Democracy


" Mike Nattrass also left the EFD, albeit on other grounds than
Sinclaire, stating that "I don't share the same principles of some of
the Group, on balance, the majority of the Group want to stay in the EU
and I've always believed that we should leave.""

So its the people who want to stay in that are unsavoury is it?

And UKIP who want to get out, who are tainted by their company.

With arguments like that, perhaps you should learn to read.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 15:02, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2014 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 14:00, Nightjar wrote:
I can't see that wanting to leave the EU can be driven by anything other
than xenophobia. There is certainly no good basis for leaving.

What an extraordinary statement.

Extraordinary in terms of everything everybody else is saying on BOTH
sides of the argument.

There are very good reasons to leave and some good ones to stay. None of
them are xenophobic.

I don't consider any of the reasons advanced for leaving to be good
reasons, which only leaves not liking foreigners having a say in what we
do.


I think the xenophobe here is you.

Id be p[perfectly happy having any foreigner have a say in what we do,
like the current BoE Canadian, as long as..

- we can sack him/her if he/she ballses it up.
- its not only his/her say so that counts.

Unfortunately where the EU is concerned neither condition exists.

Its not the foreignness, its the democratic unaccountability.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 14:05, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 12:49:40 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

Despite the fact that those rights were voted on in a referendum,

Not by me.

Is there some kind of minimum frequency with which you think every past
agreement should be re-confirmed by a referendum?

No but there should be some sort of minimum level of support a policy
has to have before it is NOT reconsidered by a referendum.

UKIP is trying to place the issue of EU membership on the agenda and its
succeeding despite the efforts of people to hand wave it away with
'xenophobia' 'racism' and 'little englander' type slurs.

So, do you think that if - as is being predicted - UKIP actually return
the most MEPS of ANY party to the EU, we should not have a reasonable
debate on those issues that drive the desire to re-examine our
relationship with a body, the president of whom no one has heard or
voted for?

No-one has voted for our Prime Minsiter, either.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Friday, 2 May 2014 14:16:09 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

whisky-dave wrote:

Civilisation needs to come first though. In the 30s people were pretty

scared of the rise of fascism, some got of their ares and did something

others kept quite and did nothing.



Really? There were plenty in the UK that supported it. And even more in

Germany.

What about Spain and the spanish cival war ?




--

*WHERE DO FOREST RANGERS GO TO "GET AWAY FROM IT ALL?"



Dave Plowman London SW

To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/05/14 15:22, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 07:20:38 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

I can it's caleld £55 million or more a day or you just don;t want your
tax money goign to MEPs inflated saleries or you don't like the biases
deciasions the EU makes.

I promise you now. If we were to leave the EU, you would not be a penny
better off. Not immediately. And not after one year, or ten.

Is that like Cast Iron Dave's promise that a conservative government if
it happened post 2010 would have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

And since you have NO idea what whisky-dave does for a living, you
cannot possibly make that predictions. He might be better off, if he's a
shipping agent handling far east goods. He might be much worse of if he
is an MEP.

I am sorry. That is proof by assertion of the most blatant and
ridiculous form.

Bankers and economists are absolutely arguing behind closed doors as to
what the effects of Brexit might be, The first one is that overall all
other things being equal, the net payment (after deducting income from
the EU) to the EU that goes to prop up corrupt governments in small
places would be available to the UK to dispose of as it sees fit.,


Of course manifestly all other things would not be equal. And that's why
there is a lot of serious discussion going on behind the scenes.

UKIPS point that we are paying a lot for something that gives us no net
benefit we couldn't get anyway, is a pretty powerful one.

If the EU decided to cut its nose off to spite its face then the net
loser might very well be Europe, not the UK, we are one of the largest
economies in Europe, and the EU depends on us for its existence.

British exit could be the end of the EU, and they know it. Germany
hasn't the stomach to pay for all of Europe on its own. Although its
always be happy to RUN it.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Friday, 2 May 2014 15:02:13 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2014 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/05/14 14:00, Nightjar wrote:

I can't see that wanting to leave the EU can be driven by anything other

than xenophobia. There is certainly no good basis for leaving.



What an extraordinary statement.



Extraordinary in terms of everything everybody else is saying on BOTH

sides of the argument.



There are very good reasons to leave and some good ones to stay. None of

them are xenophobic.



I don't consider any of the reasons advanced for leaving to be good
reasons, which only leaves not liking foreigners having a say in what we do.

Why should that be a bad thing ?. We allow (within reason) women to dress how they wish and I think it should stay that way.


You seem to think leaving the EU is somehow akin to leaving Europe and
Europeans and building an invisible wall of prejudice round the country
and pretending to be N Korea.



I can't help but feel that is exactly what Nigel Farage would like to

do.

So he'll devorce his german wofe will he and then deport the royal family for being german.


I don't trust him. I don't trust his motives. I certainly don't
trust him to tell us anything other than what he thinks people want to
hear.

Is that so difernt from teh vast majority of polititions ?


Probably the only politician I have ever trusted less is Tony Blair.

for me MaggieT would top that list.

On Friday, 2 May 2014 15:22:53 UTC+1, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 07:20:38 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:



I can it's caleld £55 million or more a day or you just don;t want your

tax money goign to MEPs inflated saleries or you don't like the biases

deciasions the EU makes.



I promise you now. If we were to leave the EU, you would not be a penny

better off. Not immediately. And not after one year, or ten.

Well I don;t believe that can you say why you think that way.
Are you saying I won't be able to buy brie and all I'll have is cheddar in my sandwiches.

On 02/05/14 15:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 15:18:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If Cameron said, and I could believe a word of it, that he would if
elected with am overall majority, immediately take us out of the EU,
then he would win the next election.

Only Cameron - and big business backing the Tories - doesn't want us out
of the EU. Which is why I have my doubts about any "referendum" after the
next election.

Can you see any Euro*sceptic* candidates for leader of the
Conservatives ? Funny that.

As I have said elsewhere, the Tories are trying desperately to serve two
masters. One the one hand the vested interests of big business, who want
the UK in the EU. One the other hand, the voters - a sizeable number of
whom (the blue rinse, Major Bufton-tuftons) want us out.

However, the telling fact is that the Eurosceptics haven't had the nerve
(but they have had the sense) to risk their lot outside the Conservative
party. Which means, despite all the hot air, maybe they realise anti-EU
support isn't the vote winner it's being touted as.

Also, as UKIP have demonstrated, it seems the anti-EU vote also attracts
a rather nasty strain of bigotry.

Any more than Labour?

Mrs Duffy...?

Look with the BNP/EDL a spent force of course the 'send them all back
where they came from' brigade if they vote at all are probably going to
vote UKIP or Labour and of course a LOT of ex tories who have joined
SPECIFICALLY to embarrass UKIP just before an election will be attracted.

That doesn't mean that's what the party is about.


And you know it.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 15:31, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 14:05, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 12:49:40 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

Despite the fact that those rights were voted on in a referendum,

Not by me.

Is there some kind of minimum frequency with which you think every past
agreement should be re-confirmed by a referendum?

No but there should be some sort of minimum level of support a policy
has to have before it is NOT reconsidered by a referendum.

UKIP is trying to place the issue of EU membership on the agenda and its
succeeding despite the efforts of people to hand wave it away with
'xenophobia' 'racism' and 'little englander' type slurs.

So, do you think that if - as is being predicted - UKIP actually return
the most MEPS of ANY party to the EU, we should not have a reasonable
debate on those issues that drive the desire to re-examine our
relationship with a body, the president of whom no one has heard or
voted for?

No-one has voted for our Prime Minsiter, either.

On the contrary actually I did, by voting for his party at the last
election. A mistake I won't make again.

Not that it changed much, but in essence the people of this country
voted for 'anyone but Brown' and they got instead Cameron AND Clegg.

And now the realise they too are marginally incapable of doing anything
except what the EU tells them to.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Really? There were plenty in the UK that supported it. And even more in
Germany.

largely because they were even MORE scared of communism, which turned
out to be not such a stupid fear to have after all.

Only the likes of you would compare dictatorships.

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
The Huguenot immigration into England was a net 40,000 at a time when
the population was 3 - 4 million. There was lots of space with little
government interference from building houses and minimal infrastructure
to affect.

Didn't stop them building everything on top of one another in towns,
though. ;-)

--
*A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/05/14 15:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 15:40:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/05/14 15:22, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 07:20:38 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

I can it's caleld £55 million or more a day or you just don;t want
your tax money goign to MEPs inflated saleries or you don't like the
biases deciasions the EU makes.

I promise you now. If we were to leave the EU, you would not be a penny
better off. Not immediately. And not after one year, or ten.

Is that like Cast Iron Dave's promise that a conservative government if
it happened post 2010 would have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

And since you have NO idea what whisky-dave does for a living, you
cannot possibly make that predictions. He might be better off, if he's a
shipping agent handling far east goods. He might be much worse of if he
is an MEP.

I am sorry. That is proof by assertion of the most blatant and
ridiculous form.

Bankers and economists are absolutely arguing behind closed doors as to
what the effects of Brexit might be, The first one is that overall all
other things being equal, the net payment (after deducting income from
the EU) to the EU that goes to prop up corrupt governments in small
places would be available to the UK to dispose of as it sees fit.,


Of course manifestly all other things would not be equal. And that's why
there is a lot of serious discussion going on behind the scenes.

UKIPS point that we are paying a lot for something that gives us no net
benefit we couldn't get anyway, is a pretty powerful one.

If the EU decided to cut its nose off to spite its face then the net
loser might very well be Europe, not the UK, we are one of the largest
economies in Europe, and the EU depends on us for its existence.

British exit could be the end of the EU, and they know it. Germany
hasn't the stomach to pay for all of Europe on its own. Although its
always be happy to RUN it.

I was making a rather cynical point that it's so rare for government
savings to actually materialise in taxpayers pockets as to be impossible.

That's because you haven;t lived in anything other than modern times I
suspect.

The Triumph Of Blair was to encapsulate the principle that if anything
is wrong the government will take another tenner off you to pay fir £5
of solution that doesn't work that you could have done yourself for £0.50p

And now a generation knows no different



Expenditure expands to account for all income when it comes to
governments.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You seem to think leaving the EU is somehow akin to leaving Europe and
Europeans and building an invisible wall of prejudice round the country
and pretending to be N Korea.

Which is exactly what many want. And to stick their head in the sand.

--
*A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/05/14 16:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

UKIP would take that _minority_ support as approval to leave the EU -
membership of which was supported by a majority at a referendum - to
leave the EU without any further consultation.

There's never been a referendum on membership of the EU as it is now.
In 1975 it was the EEC. And AIUI that's all that Grocer Heath promised
it would be.

It was certainly all we understood it to be at the time, whether or not
he explicitly promised it/was blackmailed into doing it/whatever.

I was far too busy to vote on something I didn't then understand.

One of the best description of the Referendum Party, and then the UKIP
positions on Europe is he

http://www.jamescarver.org.uk/blog.php?id=11

James Carver is a Cambridge economist who worked for the Financial
Services authority.

"Harold Wilson, after campaigning in the 1974 General Election on the
basis of wanting to renegotiate our terms of EEC entry, gave us a
referendum. The referendum was on whether or not we were happy with the
€œrenegotiated terms€� to approve Britains 1973 entry into the EEC under
the Treaty of Rome. In fact there were no changes at all to the terms of
entry, and the treaty itself was unchanged.

He strongly advised the country to vote YES, giving so called €œtrade€�
reasons, and directly reassuring us that there would be no loss of
sovereignty. This we did, on a low vote of only 47%. There has never
been another referendum in the last 38 years. Now, nobody below the age
of 56 has ever had the chance to vote in a referendum on how this
country should be governed."



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.