Maybe not FTP but this has been a great, adult, mature and reasoned debate by everyone involved on this thread. I must say I am surprised it has done so well.
The notion of preserving ones own traditional culture is very fluid. I suppose bear baiting, serfdom, and public executions were all once part of an embedded culture, and the bowmen at Agincourt were fighting to preserve such activities. Now apparantly chicken tikka masala is the nations favourite food, i don't know if Indian restaurants have driven 'traditional' fish and chips out of existence....fish and chips have only been going about 130 years anyway.
Our language is very welcoming of 'foreign' words, 'pajamas' being Indian for example. language and culture moves and changes with the times. Is it possible to stick a pin into a moment and say...'Thats British Culture' (I believe Nick Griffin would like to pin it down to 1948)?
There are benefits to cross cultural interchange that we enjoy....Arabic doctors influenced the improved treatment of the sick when learned about during the times of the Crusades for example. If the BNP are standing up for Britishness, and British culture do they really know what they mean by that? They often talk of values such as tolerance, free speech, fair play, Democracy, Christianity....but there terms are elusive too.....the easy route to defining what is meant by those things is often to declare that it boils down to whiteness...hence attacks on non-white people. Extremists in other places are often very much the same, with targets defined by the existence of 'other' groups rather than by individual behaviour.
I am depressed by this thread because I fear for a polarised society, where separate groups are exploited by extremists.
In fact I have no problem with people applying for asylum through the correct process. I do however believe that people that are in this country illegally should not be roaming the streets. They should be held in a remote location, as in Australia until their claims have been checked then either deported or granted temporary access. The terms of this access would also have restrictions. Having to report to some sort of parol officer and completing some kind of voluntary work to cover their cost of living would be good.
And why should you have a problem.
I think it is part of our tradition that we offer asylum and a good thing.
Doesn't mean I don't think it couldn't be handled better and more quickly as it would be better for everyone. It would cost us less, real asylum seekers would get themselves sorted sooner and any bogus applicants could be removed.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]I am depressed by this thread because I fear for a polarised society, where separate groups are exploited by extremists.
I hear what you are saying Seth, but this thread has actually encouraged me in that it has lasted for a while and not degenerated into the usual mess that political threads have fallen into in the past.
[cite]Posted By: FTP[/cite]In fact I have no problem with people applying for asylum through the correct process. I do however believe that people that are in this country illegally should not be roaming the streets.
FTP, the problem is, most of the people who are here illegally aren't asylum seekers. They're people who've come in on tourist or student visas, and have overstayed after the visa has expired.
my view is that society is less racist, less homophobic and more open to different experiences (food, etc) than it was when I was a teenager in the 1970s.
Could you guys all sit down and iron out the differences between yourselves, form a party (The Valley Party sounds good) and I'll vote for you. Everything I want for my country has addressed in this thread. I watched last nights programme with interest and not being a political animal I prefer to steer clear of this sort debate, but I have learn't a bit today so thanks for that.
Initially a bit worried, I watched the question time last night wondering if Nick Griffin was going to come up with a coherent argument so profoundly watertight, well formed and reasonably put together that the entire basis of British and world politics would be turned upside down as the country sat back, staggered at the enormity of his intellect.
Fortunately this didn't happen.
Now, I will hold my hands up and state that politically I am a liberal, a social democrat, that's where I stand. Also, I find Mr Griffin a repugnant human being though I think the BBC did the right thing in giving him an opportunity to respond and air his views. I fully expected to be enraged to the point of distraction, swearing at the TV and grinding my teeth but as the programme went on, I found I was less enraged and actually quite relieved. Nick Griffin is clearly a complete idiot.
As the programme progressed and Griffin answered questions put to him he seemed utterly at a loss, isolated, a fish out of water. I kind of felt sorry for him, he really does not have a clue. Far from being annoyed with his views I found myself thinking.."is that it? Is that really the best argument you can come up with?" The one thing that sticks in my mind is that he seems to base his entire political philosophy on the notion that 17000 years ago, there was once an indigenous pure British race, and are therefore entitled to inherit the idea of nation that didn't exist 17000 years ago. Griffin is the kid at the back of the class that just doesn't get it so throws rubbers around when the teacher isn't looking.
I could go on and on about the things wrong with Griffins views, but I really can't be bothered. You see, I'd like to thank the BBC for giving Griffin an opportunity for the whole country to hear what he has to say, no amount of anti-BNP campaigning, protesting or assassination would have the effect of actually hearing what Griffin has to say, a little man of poor intellect, little skill in terms of public speaking, a complete in ability to form a coherent argument, ugly, stupid, this man is no Hitler. I doubt he'd be able to organise a proverbial piss up in a proverbial brewery let alone an invasion of Poland.
Nope, I'm not worried, his type were sorted out with a rope around their neck in Nuremberg the last time around.
Very interesting reading this debate with some good points made from different standpoints - and still civil - well done all.
A couple of points:
Repatriation (apart from the possible exception of 'newly arrived' 1st generation immigrants) is simply, a non-starter. Even Griffin (dense, as he obviously is) must realise this in his heart of hearts. How would you work out who stayed and who didn't? Simple answer - you couldn't. We are where we are and we have to learn to live together because no-one is going to get 'sent back' to anywhere. It ain't happening, because when push comes to shove the British public would simply not let it happen. I truly believe that.
I think that the problem (and the rise of the BNP) is down to a sense of grievance on behalf of the native population (and yes, I do mean indigenous and you know exactly what I mean). They have seen their culture denigrated as worthless and shameful and, by comparison, other's cultures lauded as wonderful and worth celebrating. That is just not sensible if you want to achieve racial harmony.
One case, mentioned by Griffin last night was actually true and regards the stopping of funded walk leaders in the Lakes because the participants were 'too white'. Other examples include the criticism of 'the proms' in the same vein. No-one would criticise the Notting Hill carnival as 'too black' for example. Are indigenous people not allowed to have anything that relates to their culture any more, whereas it's OK for others of a different ethnicity? Unfortunately, decisions have been made by some of those in power that it is acceptable to act prejudicially in the name of racial harmony. Are they really so stupid as not to realise that all this does is increase racial disharmony? A sense of grievance is created which leads to resentment and sometimes mutates into blaming those they believe are having it all their own way. This sense of grievance is misplaced as it is not those people who are making these stupid decisions.
A very salient point made here is that, when you talk to those of minorities who are apparently 'offended' by indigenous persons celebrating their own culture, you find that they are not at all. Often they are mystified and amused in equal measure that it has been arbritarily decreed that this is how 'they' feel. The reason for it is usually that someone (usually an indigenous Guardian reading type with the intelligence and insight of a woodlouse) has become offended on their behalf. If they would just stop this kind of ridiculous thing happening and we learned as a society to treat all of our cultures on an equal basis, then the BNP and Griffin will disappear quicker than you can say 'positive discrimination'.
PS: When people say 'there is no such thing as indigenous' what they really mean is 'I am allowed an ethnic identity, but you are not'. This also irritates people and increases the sense of injustice. I heard this said by non-indigenous people on QT last night and I found it personally insulting. Would you honestly say that to a member of any other ethnic group? I don't think so. You can have your identity, but I also want mine if that's alright with you. No-one need resent the other. It really is that simple.
This youtube clip is the one that was mentioned on the program last night, where Nick Griffin spoke on the same platform as a former leader of the KKK. It is clear that their attempts to appear more moderate are just a front to get more votes, but their real aim of a totally white Britain hasn't really changed at all.
GH all main parties are broad church's. They are an amalgam of views, values and ideals. I think you firstly have to rule out voting for any party whose core values are fundamentally different to your own.
I could never vote for the BNP. Their values are just fundamentally different to mine. My fear would be that they ever come to power because most liberal minded people such as myself, anybody whose ethnicity they didn't like, anybody whose sexual orientation they didn't like would all be in peril.
As for other parties, well most floating voters vote for parties that most closely meet their values and more importantly their aspirations. I think for traditional Labour voters, that is a dilemma but not one I share.
Bigstemmara best post of the day. Why don't we merge Charlton Life with the most popular Millwall message board and increase diversity regardless of impact on current Charlton Life culture? Perhaps there is a Charlton Life culture we would prefer to preserve. Not saying the Charlton Life culture is fixed or is not an amalgum of diverse posters and will never change but it's a reflection of where we are now. Of course you might deny such culture exists - fair enough - but you cannot deny others' the right to recognise whatever culture they genuinely perceive.
Too many posts to read now, so I am sorry and I have probably missed some good points. I will go over it all later as it is a good debate.
On the subject of the Indigenous Brits, my view is that they are any person who has British ancestry going back to the late middle ages, and whilst Britain has had successive waves of immigrants since then they have all been from the same basic ethnic origin i.e. northern European. The Saxons DID settle here in large numbers, as did the Angles and Jutes from northern Germany and Denmark. Most place names in southern and eastern England are of Saxon origin. Very few Romans stayed in Britain when Rome crashed, those that remained were mostly Britons that had adopted the Roman way of life.
Henry, some local councils do not allow folk to celebrate Christmas and some corporations, they are asked not to put up decorations and cards in case it offends ethnic minorities. They do not put traditional Christmas imagery up around the streets for the same reason but will then spend thousands on displys for Dilawi [sic]. When the World Cup was on, Bradford (I think) Council banned taxis from flying St Georges flags in case it caused offence, the list goes on and on and you know it, insane political correctness that benefits nobody and causes resentment.
As a few posts on here say, the problems in modern Britain are more about the drastic changes that have happened over the last 40 years. the traditional way of life has been changed and very little is done to get it back, in fact if you complain you are called racist and how wrong is that ? The mass immigration happening now is wrong and bad, too many cultures cannot mix. We need a certain amount of immigration but those that come here should respect our way of life and our religious values and not try to change Britain into a version of their own homeland. If anybody is offended by a St Georges flag or a Union Jack then my advice would be don't go to Britain where they are the national flags.
There is a real problem with extremist Muslims and I apologise to the genuine, peaceful Muslims but there is so much evidence of plans to turn the UK into a Muslim state. They protest in ways we would never be allowed to get away with, they cause tension and they make no secret of their hatred of Christains and what should happen to us.
Poles come here, work hard, pay taxes, don't cause any problems on the whole, no problem. Hindu and Sikh Indians are the same, Chinese folk work hard, they might not integrate all that much but we can all live together. West Indians are part of our community now and have fitted in best of all, they have what I would call "become British", there has been some flashpoints with the youth but I think that is all mainly in the past. When you see young West Indians standing side by side with white youth in the EDL you know.
A vote for the BNP, as I have done, is a protest vote to tell the mainstream parties to wake up and sort this immigration mess out because it is only going to get worse. Jack Straw is a complete twat, I have no faith in Labout at all, the Tories will have to change drastically and David Cameron is a not the man for that. Lib/Dem...irrelevant! UKIP, I don't know. Who else?
Something has got to happen before this country explodes because a lot of anger is simmering just below the surface!
We have been here for a long time, we built this country, why should we have to change to suit immigrants?
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]PS: When people say 'there is no such thing as indigenous' what they really mean is 'I am allowed an ethnic identity, but you are not'.
But that's a false distinction. The problem with all these discussions is you have to make sure that everyone concerned is using the same terms in the same way. I'm assuming you, like me, are white British. That's your ethnicity, and no-one is saying you can't have one. Indigenous gets used in several different ways. If we're using the "born here" definition, then Chris Powell is indigenous but John Robinson isn't, but I doubt that's what the BNP mean. If we're using the "descended from the original inhabitants of the land" definition, it gets horribly complicated due to Britain's history of conquest and colonisation, and the fact you'd need to be able to trace back several thousand years, which is just not going to be possible. That's why they're arguing that talking about indigenous British people is meaningless.
" it gets horribly complicated due to Britain's history of conquest and colonisation, and the fact you'd need to be able to trace back several thousand years, which is just not going to be possible"
Apparently it is possible now. I just looked up references on the modern genetics stuff that Bonny Greer talked about, and got somewhat carried away. It's massively complicated and I don't pretend to understand it all, indeed most of it, but we apparently share most of our DNA markers with the Basques. Where the Basques got their DNA from is even more interesting. Ice ages and Neanderthals and NHA's (near human adaptations). Not quite sure where it all leaves us, but for anyone who prides themselves on the Anglo-Saxon bit, there are some nasty surprises.
The following is just a small sample of the genetic investigations.
"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory... ...75-95% of British and Irish (genetic) matches derive from Iberia...Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the Britain and Ireland have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."
It was the labour party who very recently used terms like "British jobs for British people" and" the white working class" not the BNP. It was Straw and 2 Jags who said at various times that the English dont exist. Itr was and IS part of the labour policy to devolve power to NI/Wales / Scotalnd and split what was England into regions therefore England would effectively not exist------------- even at the last PM question time Brown was asked about pole tax and said "develution has meant more power to the people of NI/Wales/Scotland -------- and London". They say giving England its own Parliament would split the Union ???? and of course they havnt already. They have never had any answer to the Midlotheian question and just hope it goes away.
Jack Straw has no answers to his partys betrayl (sic) of England or his partys horrendous record of imigration at ANY price.
A darling of the left Billy Bragg also calls for England to have an assembly , strange though he sees it made up first of regions !!! really Billy wonder where you get that idea from.
maybe part of British-ness is tolerance of other cultures/systems etc and just maybe the so called left-liberals should start to realise it was along time ago that many others look on this tolerance now as a total weekness.
How is it that Labour spouted that an illigal imigrant is deported every 12 seconds but they dont know how many are here ? then was forced to admit due to imigation lwayers there has been less than 2 thousand deported? how is it that a illigal imigrant caught once sent home then returns here ,is then paid to go back to Iran. He marries a UK woman , smuggles him self back into the UK , is caught working illigally but after he is represented by immigration lawyers is allowed to go free ?
How is it 6/7 years after the last amnesty on iliigal imigrants Borris thinks we should have another one ? Loverly jubbleeeeeee so all illigals get here find a human rights/imigration lawyer , dont worry abour geting caught 7 years down the line wooooppppppppppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee they are British.
No real idea what being British or English is but i tell you what it isnt its not being given a British passport by the showerofshit Labour Government. Its just like shippings flag of convieance(sic)
It doesn't get horribly complicated, Ali. I, like most 'English' people, am descended from an Anglo-Scandinavian stock that has become more an Anglo-Celtic mix over time. That's what I call 'indigenous'. This culture (which has assimilated bits and bats of other mostly European cultures such as , e.g the Heugenots over the years) has been largely dominant for a very long time - in fact, until the later 20th century and the era of mass non-European immigration. It has nothing to do with 'purity' (which is an illogical concept) or exclusivity. You have your ethnicity, I have mine. Simple.
Why do I have to spell it out? No-one else has to justify who they are and where they come from. Why should I?
To simply try and pretend that me and many others of my background do not exist is the root of the problem and the reason that many are voting for idiots like Griffin.
At the risk of repeating myself - all I want is equality, pure and simple.
Wow, this thread is intense but it's interesting to me that this hasn't turned into a slanging match. What did Churchill say about fanatics, somethibg about the fact they will never change their mind and they never change the subject. That's griffin and his cronies. Immigration is generally celebrated here apart from, in the majority, by the first nations. I mentioned to a first nation friend of mine that immigration is a hot topic in the UK and he just laughed at me.
Stilladdicted, the study that you are quoting there is controversial and contradicted by other studies. I am not saying it must be wrong, it's just that its conclusions are not widely supported amongst anthropologists, e.g:
'A study was made of 100 English people by Piercy et al. and published in 1993, the data from which has been incorporated into later studies. In 2001 a team led by Jim Wilson published a paper on the differing male and female roles during cultural transmission in the British Isles. A paper published in 2002 by Michael Weale of University College London focussed on the Anglo-Saxon invasion. They sampled seven small towns across central England and North Wales in comparison with samples from Friesland and Norway, to look for evidence of immigration from the continent. They examined three population processes: simple splitting with subsequent divergence, single mass migration, and continuous background migration. They produced a genetic distance map that showed significant differences between the English and Welsh samples, with the Friesland sample clustering with the former. They concluded that mass Anglo-Saxon migration was the most likely event, by default.'
This could be right, or it could be wrong. These are questions that we probably will never know the answer to. What is undeniable is that whatever the genetic/ethnic mix of the indigenous inhabitants of England, we have until recently shared a broad culture which is as valid as any other.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]DFT, please give some actual example of when people have not been allowed to celebrate Xmas[/quote]
A very quick Google turned this up, there are more examples but I am off out now:
Attempts to downgrade Christmas include Birmingham's 1998 decision to rename it "Winterval" and the South London borough of Lambeth's "winter lights" of 2004 that "reflected a number of religious festivals".
The Red Cross banned Christmas decorations from its shops and, in 2003, High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire refused to allow a church to advertise a carol service in a library for fear of offending other religions.
Church leaders have also expressed fears about attempts to ban Christians from wearing religious symbols.
Earlier this year, the Institute for Public Policy Research, an influential Labour think-tank, published a paper saying: "Even-handedness dictates that we provide public recognition to minority cultures and traditions. "If we are going to continue as a nation to mark Christmas - and it would be very hard to expunge it from our national life even if we wanted to - then public organisations should mark other religious festivals too."
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Why do I have to spell it out? No-one else has to justify who they are and where they come from. Why should I?
I'm not asking you to justify who you are, or where you come from. I'm asking you to explain your use of an anthropological term, which seems to be contrary to the widely accepted definitions.
To simply try and pretend that me and many others of my background do not exist is the root of the problem and the reason that many are voting for idiots like Griffin.
OK, now I am confused. Who's pretending that you don't exist?
At the risk of repeating myself - all I want is equality, pure and simple.
The reason why a lot of people have joined the BNP is because they can see that "equality" is not the main aim anymore - it's superiority. This country bends over backwards to help everybody but it's own people.
Ali, I explained what I meant. How was it contrary to widely accepted definitions? Please explain.
I was not saying that you are saying it does not exist - my original point was that last night on QT there were people saying exactly that, and that is the kind of thing that causes resentment.
At the risk of repeating myself - all I want is equality, pure and simple.
The reason why a lot of people have joined the BNP is because they can see that "equality" is not the main aim anymore - it's superiority. This country bends over backwards to help everybody but it's own people.
Now I'm confused you see what do you mean by "it's own people?"
Citizens?
People who were born here?
People who's parents were born here but they weren't?
People of Irish decent who live here?
People like my friend who's surname is Van Portvliet who are descended from Flemish weavers?
People that fall into DFT's definition.
Im not sure who US are ? im almost sure its not YOU, but it could be THEM. I know its ok to slag US off but its defo racist to slag THEM off. Most of THEM come here to be US. Maybe when them become US we can slag everyone of THEM off !!!!!!!!
Comments
But as you say - Come On You Reds!
Our language is very welcoming of 'foreign' words, 'pajamas' being Indian for example. language and culture moves and changes with the times. Is it possible to stick a pin into a moment and say...'Thats British Culture' (I believe Nick Griffin would like to pin it down to 1948)?
There are benefits to cross cultural interchange that we enjoy....Arabic doctors influenced the improved treatment of the sick when learned about during the times of the Crusades for example. If the BNP are standing up for Britishness, and British culture do they really know what they mean by that? They often talk of values such as tolerance, free speech, fair play, Democracy, Christianity....but there terms are elusive too.....the easy route to defining what is meant by those things is often to declare that it boils down to whiteness...hence attacks on non-white people. Extremists in other places are often very much the same, with targets defined by the existence of 'other' groups rather than by individual behaviour.
I am depressed by this thread because I fear for a polarised society, where separate groups are exploited by extremists.
And why should you have a problem.
I think it is part of our tradition that we offer asylum and a good thing.
Doesn't mean I don't think it couldn't be handled better and more quickly as it would be better for everyone. It would cost us less, real asylum seekers would get themselves sorted sooner and any bogus applicants could be removed.
See you in the Britton Farmhouse everyone.
I hear what you are saying Seth, but this thread has actually encouraged me in that it has lasted for a while and not degenerated into the usual mess that political threads have fallen into in the past.
Fortunately this didn't happen.
Now, I will hold my hands up and state that politically I am a liberal, a social democrat, that's where I stand. Also, I find Mr Griffin a repugnant human being though I think the BBC did the right thing in giving him an opportunity to respond and air his views. I fully expected to be enraged to the point of distraction, swearing at the TV and grinding my teeth but as the programme went on, I found I was less enraged and actually quite relieved. Nick Griffin is clearly a complete idiot.
As the programme progressed and Griffin answered questions put to him he seemed utterly at a loss, isolated, a fish out of water. I kind of felt sorry for him, he really does not have a clue. Far from being annoyed with his views I found myself thinking.."is that it? Is that really the best argument you can come up with?" The one thing that sticks in my mind is that he seems to base his entire political philosophy on the notion that 17000 years ago, there was once an indigenous pure British race, and are therefore entitled to inherit the idea of nation that didn't exist 17000 years ago. Griffin is the kid at the back of the class that just doesn't get it so throws rubbers around when the teacher isn't looking.
I could go on and on about the things wrong with Griffins views, but I really can't be bothered. You see, I'd like to thank the BBC for giving Griffin an opportunity for the whole country to hear what he has to say, no amount of anti-BNP campaigning, protesting or assassination would have the effect of actually hearing what Griffin has to say, a little man of poor intellect, little skill in terms of public speaking, a complete in ability to form a coherent argument, ugly, stupid, this man is no Hitler. I doubt he'd be able to organise a proverbial piss up in a proverbial brewery let alone an invasion of Poland.
Nope, I'm not worried, his type were sorted out with a rope around their neck in Nuremberg the last time around.
A couple of points:
Repatriation (apart from the possible exception of 'newly arrived' 1st generation immigrants) is simply, a non-starter. Even Griffin (dense, as he obviously is) must realise this in his heart of hearts. How would you work out who stayed and who didn't? Simple answer - you couldn't. We are where we are and we have to learn to live together because no-one is going to get 'sent back' to anywhere. It ain't happening, because when push comes to shove the British public would simply not let it happen. I truly believe that.
I think that the problem (and the rise of the BNP) is down to a sense of grievance on behalf of the native population (and yes, I do mean indigenous and you know exactly what I mean). They have seen their culture denigrated as worthless and shameful and, by comparison, other's cultures lauded as wonderful and worth celebrating. That is just not sensible if you want to achieve racial harmony.
One case, mentioned by Griffin last night was actually true and regards the stopping of funded walk leaders in the Lakes because the participants were 'too white'. Other examples include the criticism of 'the proms' in the same vein. No-one would criticise the Notting Hill carnival as 'too black' for example. Are indigenous people not allowed to have anything that relates to their culture any more, whereas it's OK for others of a different ethnicity? Unfortunately, decisions have been made by some of those in power that it is acceptable to act prejudicially in the name of racial harmony. Are they really so stupid as not to realise that all this does is increase racial disharmony? A sense of grievance is created which leads to resentment and sometimes mutates into blaming those they believe are having it all their own way. This sense of grievance is misplaced as it is not those people who are making these stupid decisions.
A very salient point made here is that, when you talk to those of minorities who are apparently 'offended' by indigenous persons celebrating their own culture, you find that they are not at all. Often they are mystified and amused in equal measure that it has been arbritarily decreed that this is how 'they' feel. The reason for it is usually that someone (usually an indigenous Guardian reading type with the intelligence and insight of a woodlouse) has become offended on their behalf. If they would just stop this kind of ridiculous thing happening and we learned as a society to treat all of our cultures on an equal basis, then the BNP and Griffin will disappear quicker than you can say 'positive discrimination'.
PS: When people say 'there is no such thing as indigenous' what they really mean is 'I am allowed an ethnic identity, but you are not'. This also irritates people and increases the sense of injustice. I heard this said by non-indigenous people on QT last night and I found it personally insulting. Would you honestly say that to a member of any other ethnic group? I don't think so. You can have your identity, but I also want mine if that's alright with you. No-one need resent the other. It really is that simple.
I could never vote for the BNP. Their values are just fundamentally different to mine. My fear would be that they ever come to power because most liberal minded people such as myself, anybody whose ethnicity they didn't like, anybody whose sexual orientation they didn't like would all be in peril.
As for other parties, well most floating voters vote for parties that most closely meet their values and more importantly their aspirations. I think for traditional Labour voters, that is a dilemma but not one I share.
Why don't we merge Charlton Life with the most popular Millwall message board and increase diversity regardless of impact on current Charlton Life culture? Perhaps there is a Charlton Life culture we would prefer to preserve. Not saying the Charlton Life culture is fixed or is not an amalgum of diverse posters and will never change but it's a reflection of where we are now. Of course you might deny such culture exists - fair enough - but you cannot deny others' the right to recognise whatever culture they genuinely perceive.
On the subject of the Indigenous Brits, my view is that they are any person who has British ancestry going back to the late middle ages, and whilst Britain has had successive waves of immigrants since then they have all been from the same basic ethnic origin i.e. northern European. The Saxons DID settle here in large numbers, as did the Angles and Jutes from northern Germany and Denmark. Most place names in southern and eastern England are of Saxon origin. Very few Romans stayed in Britain when Rome crashed, those that remained were mostly Britons that had adopted the Roman way of life.
Henry, some local councils do not allow folk to celebrate Christmas and some corporations, they are asked not to put up decorations and cards in case it offends ethnic minorities. They do not put traditional Christmas imagery up around the streets for the same reason but will then spend thousands on displys for Dilawi [sic]. When the World Cup was on, Bradford (I think) Council banned taxis from flying St Georges flags in case it caused offence, the list goes on and on and you know it, insane political correctness that benefits nobody and causes resentment.
As a few posts on here say, the problems in modern Britain are more about the drastic changes that have happened over the last 40 years. the traditional way of life has been changed and very little is done to get it back, in fact if you complain you are called racist and how wrong is that ? The mass immigration happening now is wrong and bad, too many cultures cannot mix. We need a certain amount of immigration but those that come here should respect our way of life and our religious values and not try to change Britain into a version of their own homeland. If anybody is offended by a St Georges flag or a Union Jack then my advice would be don't go to Britain where they are the national flags.
There is a real problem with extremist Muslims and I apologise to the genuine, peaceful Muslims but there is so much evidence of plans to turn the UK into a Muslim state. They protest in ways we would never be allowed to get away with, they cause tension and they make no secret of their hatred of Christains and what should happen to us.
Poles come here, work hard, pay taxes, don't cause any problems on the whole, no problem. Hindu and Sikh Indians are the same, Chinese folk work hard, they might not integrate all that much but we can all live together. West Indians are part of our community now and have fitted in best of all, they have what I would call "become British", there has been some flashpoints with the youth but I think that is all mainly in the past. When you see young West Indians standing side by side with white youth in the EDL you know.
A vote for the BNP, as I have done, is a protest vote to tell the mainstream parties to wake up and sort this immigration mess out because it is only going to get worse. Jack Straw is a complete twat, I have no faith in Labout at all, the Tories will have to change drastically and David Cameron is a not the man for that. Lib/Dem...irrelevant! UKIP, I don't know. Who else?
Something has got to happen before this country explodes because a lot of anger is simmering just below the surface!
We have been here for a long time, we built this country, why should we have to change to suit immigrants?
Every year I hear these stories but no one every seems to have real examples.
Jon Gaunt did about an hour of his show about a Birmingham shopping mail which has "banned Xmas" and how terrible it was.
After yet another "it's terrible, we can't celebrate our culture" caller the manager of shopping mail rang up.
He said they hadn't banned Xmas, The mail was covered in xmas lights, decorations etc and the shops were all selling xmas stuff.
They had just decided not to have a santas grotto as it blocked the shops.
I think people look for excuses to be offended sometimes
Apparently it is possible now. I just looked up references on the modern genetics stuff that Bonny Greer talked about, and got somewhat carried away. It's massively complicated and I don't pretend to understand it all, indeed most of it, but we apparently share most of our DNA markers with the Basques. Where the Basques got their DNA from is even more interesting. Ice ages and Neanderthals and NHA's (near human adaptations). Not quite sure where it all leaves us, but for anyone who prides themselves on the Anglo-Saxon bit, there are some nasty surprises.
The following is just a small sample of the genetic investigations.
"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory... ...75-95% of British and Irish (genetic) matches derive from Iberia...Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the Britain and Ireland have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."
Jack Straw has no answers to his partys betrayl (sic) of England or his partys horrendous record of imigration at ANY price.
A darling of the left Billy Bragg also calls for England to have an assembly , strange though he sees it made up first of regions !!! really Billy wonder where you get that idea from.
maybe part of British-ness is tolerance of other cultures/systems etc and just maybe the so called left-liberals should start to realise it was along time ago that many others look on this tolerance now as a total weekness.
How is it that Labour spouted that an illigal imigrant is deported every 12 seconds but they dont know how many are here ? then was forced to admit due to imigation lwayers there has been less than 2 thousand deported? how is it that a illigal imigrant caught once sent home then returns here ,is then paid to go back to Iran. He marries a UK woman , smuggles him self back into the UK , is caught working illigally but after he is represented by immigration lawyers is allowed to go free ?
How is it 6/7 years after the last amnesty on iliigal imigrants Borris thinks we should have another one ? Loverly jubbleeeeeee so all illigals get here find a human rights/imigration lawyer , dont worry abour geting caught 7 years down the line wooooppppppppppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee they are British.
No real idea what being British or English is but i tell you what it isnt its not being given a British passport by the showerofshit Labour Government. Its just like shippings flag of convieance(sic)
Why do I have to spell it out? No-one else has to justify who they are and where they come from. Why should I?
To simply try and pretend that me and many others of my background do not exist is the root of the problem and the reason that many are voting for idiots like Griffin.
At the risk of repeating myself - all I want is equality, pure and simple.
'A study was made of 100 English people by Piercy et al. and published in 1993, the data from which has been incorporated into later studies. In 2001 a team led by Jim Wilson published a paper on the differing male and female roles during cultural transmission in the British Isles. A paper published in 2002 by Michael Weale of University College London focussed on the Anglo-Saxon invasion. They sampled seven small towns across central England and North Wales in comparison with samples from Friesland and Norway, to look for evidence of immigration from the continent. They examined three population processes: simple splitting with subsequent divergence, single mass migration, and continuous background migration. They produced a genetic distance map that showed significant differences between the English and Welsh samples, with the Friesland sample clustering with the former. They concluded that mass Anglo-Saxon migration was the most likely event, by default.'
This could be right, or it could be wrong. These are questions that we probably will never know the answer to. What is undeniable is that whatever the genetic/ethnic mix of the indigenous inhabitants of England, we have until recently shared a broad culture which is as valid as any other.
A very quick Google turned this up, there are more examples but I am off out now:
Attempts to downgrade Christmas include Birmingham's 1998 decision to rename it "Winterval" and the South London borough of Lambeth's "winter lights" of 2004 that "reflected a number of religious festivals".
The Red Cross banned Christmas decorations from its shops and, in 2003, High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire refused to allow a church to advertise a carol service in a library for fear of offending other religions.
Church leaders have also expressed fears about attempts to ban Christians from wearing religious symbols.
Earlier this year, the Institute for Public Policy Research, an influential Labour think-tank, published a paper saying: "Even-handedness dictates that we provide public recognition to minority cultures and traditions.
"If we are going to continue as a nation to mark Christmas - and it would be very hard to expunge it from our national life even if we wanted to - then public organisations should mark other religious festivals too."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500868/Lets-ALL-celebrate-Christmas-says-Labours-equality-chief.html#ixzz0UmkGtsPv
OK, now I am confused. Who's pretending that you don't exist?
The reason why a lot of people have joined the BNP is because they can see that "equality" is not the main aim anymore - it's superiority. This country bends over backwards to help everybody but it's own people.
I was not saying that you are saying it does not exist - my original point was that last night on QT there were people saying exactly that, and that is the kind of thing that causes resentment.
Now I'm confused you see what do you mean by "it's own people?"
Citizens?
People who were born here?
People who's parents were born here but they weren't?
People of Irish decent who live here?
People like my friend who's surname is Van Portvliet who are descended from Flemish weavers?
People that fall into DFT's definition.
When do "they" become "us"?