In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...moting-EU.html
nk

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the rights
of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax pusposes. And
pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1 billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine*

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

On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...moting-EU.html
nk

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the rights
of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax pusposes. And
pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1 billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...moting-EU.html

nk

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights
of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And
pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1 billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!


The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out that
the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less than 0.5%
of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses they claim
to represent spend that little on publicity?

--
Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 12 August 2015 15:50:00 UTC+1, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...moting-EU.html

nk

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights
of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And
pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1 billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!


The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out that
the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less than 0.5%
of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses they claim
to represent spend that little on publicity?

Is 0.5% really that little for publicity and communication ?

On 12/08/2015 16:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 August 2015 15:50:00 UTC+1, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...moting-EU.html

nk

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights
of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And
pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1 billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!


The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out that
the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less than 0.5%
of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses they claim
to represent spend that little on publicity?

Is 0.5% really that little for publicity and communication ?

GlaxoSmithKline spends about 10% of its budget on advertising, which I
would consider to be fairly average for business, although it does
depend rather upon the sector.

--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 12/08/2015 16:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 August 2015 15:50:00 UTC+1, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...moting-EU.html


nk

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights
of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And
pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1
billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he
lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!


The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out that
the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less than 0.5%
of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses they claim
to represent spend that little on publicity?

Is 0.5% really that little for publicity and communication ?

GlaxoSmithKline spends about 10% of its budget on advertising, which I
would consider to be fairly average for business, although it does
depend rather upon the sector.


Having been in a sucessfull business which spent less than .001% of
it's budget on advertising, the EU is just a wasteful propaganda machine.

On Wednesday, 12 August 2015 16:20:54 UTC+1, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 12/08/2015 16:09, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 August 2015 15:50:00 UTC+1, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...moting-EU.html

nk

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights
of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And
pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1 billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!


The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out that
the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less than 0.5%
of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses they claim
to represent spend that little on publicity?

Is 0.5% really that little for publicity and communication ?

GlaxoSmithKline spends about 10% of its budget on advertising, which I
would consider to be fairly average for business, although it does
depend rather upon the sector.

I didn't know the EU was a business that needed advertising.
Do I have a choice of them or someone else like I do when buying asprin or other product ?

The point I was making is how just 0.5% is a small amount so just forget about it as it's insignificant. Isn't £30k even less significant than 0.5% of the EU budget.

http://www.wineware.co.uk/blog/mps-d...e-rackets_250/
I wish I could but in an expense claim as long as it's a low %age it's ignored seems to be the attitude.

The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out that
the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less than 0.5%
of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses they claim
to represent spend that little on publicity?

So where did you dream up the 0.5%?
Making up numbers again!

harry wrote:

The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out that
the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less than 0.5%
of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses they claim
to represent spend that little on publicity?

So where did you dream up the 0.5%?
Making up numbers again!

Translate .5% of taxes into $s.

On 12/08/2015 19:59, harry wrote:

The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out that
the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less than 0.5%
of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses they claim
to represent spend that little on publicity?

So where did you dream up the 0.5%?

EU Budget for 2015 EUR 142.6 billion. Advertising spend, according to
Business for Britain, EUR 664 miliion = 0.465%


--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...moting-EU.html


nk

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights
of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And
pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1 billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he lives
in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!


The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out that
the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less than 0.5%
of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses they claim
to represent spend that little on publicity?


That's 100% too much!

On 12/08/2015 15:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Menace-Brussel

s-produced-series-sinister-propaganda-cartoons-promoting-EU.html

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1 billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he
lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!

The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out
that the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less
than 0.5% of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses
they claim to represent spend that little on publicity?

Why should they spend anything at all on publicity.

It is the same as the reason for the formation of the Ministry of
Information in WW1; if they didn't do it the opposition would be the
only voice heard.

--
Colin Bignell

En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

So who is the EU at war with, again?

Greece?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On 12/08/15 16:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 12/08/2015 15:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Menace-Bruss

els-produced-series-sinister-propaganda-cartoons-promoting-EU.html

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1
billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he
lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!

The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out
that the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less
than 0.5% of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses
they claim to represent spend that little on publicity?

Why should they spend anything at all on publicity.

It is the same as the reason for the formation of the Ministry of
Information in WW1; if they didn't do it the opposition would be the
only voice heard.

So who is the EU at war with, again?

The citizens of Europe, of course.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 12/08/2015 16:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 12/08/2015 15:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Menace-Bruss

els-produced-series-sinister-propaganda-cartoons-promoting-EU.html

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1
billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he
lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!

The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out
that the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less
than 0.5% of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses
they claim to represent spend that little on publicity?

Why should they spend anything at all on publicity.

It is the same as the reason for the formation of the Ministry of
Information in WW1; if they didn't do it the opposition would be the
only voice heard.

So who is the EU at war with, again?

It is more that certain organisations are at war with the EU.

--
Colin Bignell

On 12/08/15 16:23, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 12/08/2015 16:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 12/08/2015 15:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Menace-Bruss


els-produced-series-sinister-propaganda-cartoons-promoting-EU.html

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1
billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he
lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!

The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out
that the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less
than 0.5% of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses
they claim to represent spend that little on publicity?

Why should they spend anything at all on publicity.

It is the same as the reason for the formation of the Ministry of
Information in WW1; if they didn't do it the opposition would be the
only voice heard.

So who is the EU at war with, again?

It is more that certain organisations are at war with the EU.

Dont be silly. The EU is the organization's friend...

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 12/08/2015 15:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 12/08/2015 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/15 14:41, jake wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Menace-Bruss

els-produced-series-sinister-propaganda-cartoons-promoting-EU.html

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Except of course for the owner. Registered as French for tax
pusposes. And pays no UK tax.

Jonathan Harmsworth has a personal fortune estimated at over 1
billion
pounds. So obviously too poor to pay his way in the country he
lives in.
But a perfect model for his readers - a true hypocrite.

But is the thing true? That's the point.

to hell with the message, shoot the messenger!

The messenger being a group of Eurosceptics, who fail to point out
that the amount being spent on publicity and communication is less
than 0.5% of the total EU budget. I wonder how many of the businesses
they claim to represent spend that little on publicity?

Why should they spend anything at all on publicity.

It is the same as the reason for the formation of the Ministry of
Information in WW1; if they didn't do it the opposition would be the
only voice heard.

So who is the EU at war with, again?


Us! Remember Colin and Adrian wish to be told how to live and breathe by
Brussels.

On 12/08/2015 22:39, Capitol wrote:
....
Us! Remember Colin and Adrian wish to be told how to live and breathe by
Brussels.

As I have pointed out on several occasions, there is very little EU
legislation that we would not have passed in similar form, even if we
had not been in the EU. What we would not have introduced is mainly
because it is irrelevant to us, such as the olive growing regulations.

--
Colin Bignell

En el artículo , jake
escribió:

But is the thing true? That's the point.

It is. It's been regularly covered in Private Eye. if it had been
untrue, the magazine would have been sued out of existence.

I'm not sure it's Harmsworth that has the French country pile and is
registered non-dom to avoid tax though - I think that may actually be
Dacre, the editor. Still a ****, nonetheless, and features regularly in
the Eye.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:56:38 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Is there something wrong with doing that?

Umm, yes, there's actually one hell of a lot wrong in putting one group
of people first because of where they and/or their (grand)parents
happened to be born and the colour of their skin.

And I mean ethically and morally, not just it quite rightly being illegal
to do so, of course.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:56:38 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Is there something wrong with doing that?

Umm, yes, there's actually one hell of a lot wrong in putting one group
of people first because of where they and/or their (grand)parents
happened to be born and the colour of their skin.

And I mean ethically and morally, not just it quite rightly being illegal
to do so, of course.

Just how are things in Lala land these days?

On 12/08/15 15:11, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:56:38 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Is there something wrong with doing that?

Umm, yes, there's actually one hell of a lot wrong in putting one group
of people first because of where they and/or their (grand)parents
happened to be born and the colour of their skin.


Ok then, I take it you will be leaving your house and gifting it to a
couple of Somali families who cant even speak english then?

If not, you are a hypocrite.

And I mean ethically and morally, not just it quite rightly being illegal
to do so, of course.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:47:06 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Is there something wrong with doing that?

Umm, yes, there's actually one hell of a lot wrong in putting one group
of people first because of where they and/or their (grand)parents
happened to be born and the colour of their skin.

Just where, in the above, does it talk about putting one group of people
first.

That'll be the bit about "looking out for the rights of the white
English", then, with the inherent corollary that that particular group
somehow has more rights to look out for.

BTW, I note that you've just added somewhere around another 22m people to
the original population being discussed, a 52% increase at one stroke...

And, actually, in response to what you say, there's nothing wrong with
putting, in Britain, British citizens' rights ahead of those of
foreigners. Just like all other countries do.

Well, yes, there is. It's illegal in every single EU country to do so.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:47:06 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Is there something wrong with doing that?

Umm, yes, there's actually one hell of a lot wrong in putting one group
of people first because of where they and/or their (grand)parents
happened to be born and the colour of their skin.

Just where, in the above, does it talk about putting one group of people
first.

That'll be the bit about "looking out for the rights of the white
English", then, with the inherent corollary that that particular group
somehow has more rights to look out for.

BTW, I note that you've just added somewhere around another 22m people to
the original population being discussed, a 52% increase at one stroke...

And, actually, in response to what you say, there's nothing wrong with
putting, in Britain, British citizens' rights ahead of those of
foreigners. Just like all other countries do.

Well, yes, there is. It's illegal in every single EU country to do so.

Better send the thought police around to the majority of the population
then.

On 13/08/15 07:30, Richard wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:47:06 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Is there something wrong with doing that?

Umm, yes, there's actually one hell of a lot wrong in putting one group
of people first because of where they and/or their (grand)parents
happened to be born and the colour of their skin.

Just where, in the above, does it talk about putting one group of people
first.

That'll be the bit about "looking out for the rights of the white
English", then, with the inherent corollary that that particular group
somehow has more rights to look out for.

BTW, I note that you've just added somewhere around another 22m people to
the original population being discussed, a 52% increase at one stroke...

And, actually, in response to what you say, there's nothing wrong with
putting, in Britain, British citizens' rights ahead of those of
foreigners. Just like all other countries do.

Well, yes, there is. It's illegal in every single EU country to do so.

Better send the thought police around to the majority of the population
then.

Better still, it removes the whole idea of there being a European Union
at all, by definition Europe is just a place where all and any citizens
of the world are free to come and live and do anything else they want.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Is there something wrong with doing that?

No. But snipping the whole point of a post is.

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Is there something wrong with doing that?

No. But snipping the whole point of a post is.

So are you saying that: "Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of
patriotism, looking out for the rights of the white English." was an
irrelevancy in your post? If so, one might wonder why you put it in.

If you were in the least interested in what I was saying, you'd have read
my post fully.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, try management *

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
If you were in the least interested in what I was saying, you'd have
read my post fully.

If you'd attacked the message rather than the messenger I might have
done. But no. Easier just to bash the Mail.

It's both The Mail and harry who selected this 'message'. It didn't come
from God.

And if the EU had discovered a way of ending world poverty at a stroke,
both The Mail and harry would have found fault with it.

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

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

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:07:46 +0000, Huge wrote:

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the
rights of the white English.

Is there something wrong with doing that?

In the eyes of the Left, yes.

I'm not "the left", but...

It's the job of the white English to be guilty and pay taxes. That's
it.

Umm, no. Just the same as anybody else. No more, no less.

They have no rights, they are entitled no respect, their complaints are
to be ignored, indeed derided as racist, sexist and bourgeois. Anything
they desire is automatically suspect.

Umm, no. Just the same as anybody else. No more, no less.

The Daily Mail is still vile arsewipe, though.

Well, we agree on something, at least.

En el artículo , Huge
escribió:

The Daily Mail is still vile arsewipe, though.

What he said.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On 12/08/15 15:07, Huge wrote:
On 2015-08-12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , jake
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:14:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nace-Brussels-
produced-series-sinister-propaganda-cartoons-promoting-EU.html
nk

Ah. The Mail again. That bastion of patriotism, looking out for the rights
of the white English.

Is there something wrong with doing that?

In the eyes of the Left, yes. It's the job of the white English to be guilty
and pay taxes. That's it. They have no rights, they are entitled no respect,
their complaints are to be ignored, indeed derided as racist, sexist and
bourgeois. Anything they desire is automatically suspect.

The Daily Mail is still vile arsewipe, though.


Precisely. WHMG is the lefts main weapon. White Heterosexual Male Guilt.

Everybody hates a winner...right?


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.