Race Equality Council vice-chair fears cultural tensions after Chingford man's £500,000 donation to BNP

Afzal Malik

Afzal Malik Buy this photo

First published in Waltham Forest
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

The vice-chairman of Waltham Forest Race Equality Council fears a man’s £500,000 donation to the BNP will increase divisions in the borough.

Alfred Starmore, 77, of Buxton Road in Chingford, gave the party its largest ever donation after leaving his entire life savings to the controversial political group, amounting to £290,000, while the party recently sold his three-bed flat for £200,000, which he had bequeathed to them.

The BNP plans to use the money to fund a bolstered campaign at the next general election, after a poor showing in 2010 when it received just 1.9 per cent of the vote.

Afzal Malik slammed the news, saying the revitalised campaign could raise cultural tensions in Waltham Forest.

He said: “This is bad news for community relations. I have lived here for many years and over that time Waltham Forest has become a multicultural place to live.

“People coming from India and Pakistan, they’re peaceful and they have contributed to the prosperity of the borough and the country.

“The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.”

Conservative group deputy leader Cllr Michael Lewis, who represents Chingford Green ward, also slammed the BNP and said it would never do well in Waltham Forest.

He said: “We as a party and Waltham Forest as a whole completely oppose what they stand for.

"They will have no luck in Chingford or the borough, they’ve always done very badly.

“They are racist. But we live in a free country and people can express their views, whatever they are.”

Mr Starmore had no living relatives, and was widely considered a recluse when he passed away in October 2011.

The BNP’s London spokesman, Steve Squire, said: “We honestly didn’t think it was as much as that. It’s double our largest donation. He’s given us the tools to carry on.

“Naturally we were delighted that he was so generous. We’re not in debt now. It’s fantastic.”

The BNP, which denies it is racist, said they paid for Mr Starmore’s funeral, as he had been a member of the party for more than 30 years.

The party even claimed that leader Nick Griffin attended the service at Chingford Mount Cemetery to pay his respects.

Comments (104)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:09pm Wed 17 Apr 13

bakers arms says...

BNP is a party in terminal decline and £500k isn't going to change that.
BNP is a party in terminal decline and £500k isn't going to change that. bakers arms
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Wed 17 Apr 13

Cornbeefur says...

So if Mr Malik's organisation received a similar amount from a local resident, he would undertake to return the legacy in the name of cultural harmony?
So if Mr Malik's organisation received a similar amount from a local resident, he would undertake to return the legacy in the name of cultural harmony? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Wed 17 Apr 13

chingford lad says...

The last time I looked this was a free Country, not so for many Asian Countries.
The last time I looked this was a free Country, not so for many Asian Countries. chingford lad
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Wed 17 Apr 13

Sam Hain says...

"Mr Starmore had no living relatives".Well, that's something to be thankful for I suppose.
"Mr Starmore had no living relatives".Well, that's something to be thankful for I suppose. Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

7:56am Thu 18 Apr 13

leyton_man says...

How does the Vice Chair feel about the upcoming Noor Ul Islam football matches to raise money for poor Muslims in East London?
Could these donations create divisions too?
How does the Vice Chair feel about the upcoming Noor Ul Islam football matches to raise money for poor Muslims in East London? Could these donations create divisions too? leyton_man
  • Score: 0

9:46am Thu 18 Apr 13

royster40 says...

This so called political party is not wanted in this Borough and not wanted in this country. Griffin will lose his European seat soon and then they will disappear for good we hope!!
This so called political party is not wanted in this Borough and not wanted in this country. Griffin will lose his European seat soon and then they will disappear for good we hope!! royster40
  • Score: 0

11:01am Thu 18 Apr 13

chrisscooper says...

@Royster , A slight correction to your text, it should read "I hope" , ta .
@Royster , A slight correction to your text, it should read "I hope" , ta . chrisscooper
  • Score: 0

11:07am Thu 18 Apr 13

the dame says...

A man has every right to leave his money to whom he chooses whether it is a popular decision or not. Please let him rest in peace.
A man has every right to leave his money to whom he chooses whether it is a popular decision or not. Please let him rest in peace. the dame
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Thu 18 Apr 13

sks101 says...

Afzal malik equality , i bet the women at his local mosque think thats a joke.
He so grumpy looking because he might not be able to bring his village to chingford.
I see the liberal fascists want to tell us now who to leave our money to when we die.
Dont forget to "Google" Labour 25
Afzal malik equality , i bet the women at his local mosque think thats a joke. He so grumpy looking because he might not be able to bring his village to chingford. I see the liberal fascists want to tell us now who to leave our money to when we die. Dont forget to "Google" Labour 25 sks101
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Thu 18 Apr 13

sks101 says...

bakers arms wrote:
BNP is a party in terminal decline and £500k isn't going to change that.
labour £8 million in debt.
conservatives 5.5 million in debt.
liberals £3.2 million in debt.
ukip £120,000 in debt.
BNP 1/2 million in the bank.

not much else you can say really,
you get what you vote for.
[quote][p][bold]bakers arms[/bold] wrote: BNP is a party in terminal decline and £500k isn't going to change that.[/p][/quote]labour £8 million in debt. conservatives 5.5 million in debt. liberals £3.2 million in debt. ukip £120,000 in debt. BNP 1/2 million in the bank. not much else you can say really, you get what you vote for. sks101
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Thu 18 Apr 13

sks101 says...

Sam Hain wrote:
"Mr Starmore had no living relatives".Well, that's something to be thankful for I suppose.
So you support white genocide then?
[quote][p][bold]Sam Hain[/bold] wrote: "Mr Starmore had no living relatives".Well, that's something to be thankful for I suppose.[/p][/quote]So you support white genocide then? sks101
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Uther Aurelius says...

“People coming from India and Pakistan, they’re peaceful and they have contributed to the prosperity of the borough and the country" Time to take the rose tinted spectacles off I think; because by and large we all know this isn't the case.
“People coming from India and Pakistan, they’re peaceful and they have contributed to the prosperity of the borough and the country" Time to take the rose tinted spectacles off I think; because by and large we all know this isn't the case. Uther Aurelius
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Someone leaves the BNP 1/2 a million quid.
.
Their business. Nobody Else's.
.
The BNP are a racist party? No. A couple of years back the EHRC took them to court. The BNP won.
.
People should get used to the idea that WHITE people are as entitled to political representation as non-white people. Get over it.
.

As for raising cultural tensions. Look at the crime rate, look at the unfair laws we have imposed upon us (positive discrimination). That raises cultural tensions. Not too bothered about that are we?
.
"Waltham Forest has become a multicultural place to live. " At least you had a choice. Nobody asked us about multiculturalism.
.
No referendum on that one.

"The donation could be used to create divisions here."
.

It could also be used to give political representation to the most under-represented section of this country. WHITES.

"Waltham Forest as a whole completely oppose what they stand for. " Do they know you speak for them? All of them? Really?
.

"...we live in a free country and people can express their views,"
.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. You are free to say only what the politically correct agree with. And only that.
Someone leaves the BNP 1/2 a million quid. . Their business. Nobody Else's. . The BNP are a racist party? No. A couple of years back the EHRC took them to court. The BNP won. . People should get used to the idea that WHITE people are as entitled to political representation as non-white people. Get over it. . As for raising cultural tensions. Look at the crime rate, look at the unfair laws we have imposed upon us (positive discrimination). That raises cultural tensions. Not too bothered about that are we? . "Waltham Forest has become a multicultural place to live. " At least you had a choice. Nobody asked us about multiculturalism. . No referendum on that one. "The donation could be used to create divisions here." . It could also be used to give political representation to the most under-represented section of this country. WHITES. "Waltham Forest as a whole completely oppose what they stand for. " Do they know you speak for them? All of them? Really? . "...we live in a free country and people can express their views," . I wouldn't be too sure about that. You are free to say only what the politically correct agree with. And only that. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

This guy leaves his money to the political party of his choice. We should respect his right to do this.
.

Contrast this with some politicians who just help themselves.
.

----------
Labour25 "is" well worth a read, also google "Liars, buggers and thieves" a blog that is well worth a read.
.

"Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White",
.

"Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White countries for everybody". Why??????
This guy leaves his money to the political party of his choice. We should respect his right to do this. . Contrast this with some politicians who just help themselves. . ---------- Labour25 "is" well worth a read, also google "Liars, buggers and thieves" a blog that is well worth a read. . "Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White", . "Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White countries for everybody". Why?????? HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Thu 18 Apr 13

stickmanny says...

To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both.

All the best,

A self-hating white man
To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both. All the best, A self-hating white man stickmanny
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Uther Aurelius wrote:
“People coming from India and Pakistan, they’re peaceful and they have contributed to the prosperity of the borough and the country" Time to take the rose tinted spectacles off I think; because by and large we all know this isn't the case.
Quite so Uther Aurelius. Not all of them are bad, by any means.

Try searching for " Violence Against Whites " and ask yourself why the media doesn't report many of these crimes?

--------------------
---------

"They say they're anti-racist. What they are is anti-White."
[quote][p][bold]Uther Aurelius[/bold] wrote: “People coming from India and Pakistan, they’re peaceful and they have contributed to the prosperity of the borough and the country" Time to take the rose tinted spectacles off I think; because by and large we all know this isn't the case.[/p][/quote]Quite so Uther Aurelius. Not all of them are bad, by any means. Try searching for " Violence Against Whites " and ask yourself why the media doesn't report many of these crimes? -------------------- --------- "They say they're anti-racist. What they are is anti-White." HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Perhaps The vice-chairman of Waltham Forest Race Equality Council would like to tell us how many White British born Christians his organisation has represented and how many White British born Christians actually work for his organisation?
Perhaps The vice-chairman of Waltham Forest Race Equality Council would like to tell us how many White British born Christians his organisation has represented and how many White British born Christians actually work for his organisation? HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

He's free to give his money to whoever he wants. We are also free to call him an idiot for where he gave it.

Good that someone mentioned the EHRC. Seems pretty daft to claim a victory against them....

http://www.equalityh
umanrights.com/news/
2010/march/amended-b
np-constitution-rule
d-indirectly-discrim
inatory/

"We're not racist we just have it in our constitution that you must be against mixed race relationships and support the relocation of ethnic minorities either abroad or to different parts of the UK"

Some people seem to get a little confused about the difference between being free to say something and freedom from being called a moron for what you just said.
He's free to give his money to whoever he wants. We are also free to call him an idiot for where he gave it. Good that someone mentioned the EHRC. Seems pretty daft to claim a victory against them.... http://www.equalityh umanrights.com/news/ 2010/march/amended-b np-constitution-rule d-indirectly-discrim inatory/ "We're not racist we just have it in our constitution that you must be against mixed race relationships and support the relocation of ethnic minorities either abroad or to different parts of the UK" Some people seem to get a little confused about the difference between being free to say something and freedom from being called a moron for what you just said. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Perhaps The vice-chairman of Waltham Forest Race Equality Council would like to tell us how many White British born Christians his organisation has represented and how many White British born Christians actually work for his organisation?
You seem awfully obsessed with colour for someone who says he isn't racist...
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: Perhaps The vice-chairman of Waltham Forest Race Equality Council would like to tell us how many White British born Christians his organisation has represented and how many White British born Christians actually work for his organisation?[/p][/quote]You seem awfully obsessed with colour for someone who says he isn't racist... Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

stickmanny wrote:
To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both.

All the best,

A self-hating white man
There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children"

We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities.

Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it.

PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both. All the best, A self-hating white man[/p][/quote]There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children" We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities. Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it. PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem? HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both.

All the best,

A self-hating white man
There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children"

We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities.

Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it.

PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?
Skin-colour doesn't come into it....

Define if you would "WHITE" Children without bringing Skin colour into it.

Oh PS The definition of racism since you're such a stickler.... "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others"

I am intrigued as to how you will argue that skin colour is not a hereditary factor on which you have chosen to discriminate.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both. All the best, A self-hating white man[/p][/quote]There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children" We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities. Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it. PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?[/p][/quote]Skin-colour doesn't come into it.... Define if you would "WHITE" Children without bringing Skin colour into it. Oh PS The definition of racism since you're such a stickler.... "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others" I am intrigued as to how you will argue that skin colour is not a hereditary factor on which you have chosen to discriminate. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Perhaps The vice-chairman of Waltham Forest Race Equality Council would like to tell us how many White British born Christians his organisation has represented and how many White British born Christians actually work for his organisation?
You seem awfully obsessed with colour for someone who says he isn't racist...
You should re-read the posting Alan. You couldn't possibly say "awfully obsessed" from such a posting.

Perhaps you should wait for an answer to the question asked, before making such a statement.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: Perhaps The vice-chairman of Waltham Forest Race Equality Council would like to tell us how many White British born Christians his organisation has represented and how many White British born Christians actually work for his organisation?[/p][/quote]You seem awfully obsessed with colour for someone who says he isn't racist...[/p][/quote]You should re-read the posting Alan. You couldn't possibly say "awfully obsessed" from such a posting. Perhaps you should wait for an answer to the question asked, before making such a statement. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Perhaps The vice-chairman of Waltham Forest Race Equality Council would like to tell us how many White British born Christians his organisation has represented and how many White British born Christians actually work for his organisation?
You seem awfully obsessed with colour for someone who says he isn't racist...
You should re-read the posting Alan. You couldn't possibly say "awfully obsessed" from such a posting.

Perhaps you should wait for an answer to the question asked, before making such a statement.
Why what would the answer to your question have to do with the fact that you keep mentioning "White" and skin colour and then claiming not to be obsessed with race?

I've reread your posting (and indeed the next one). You keep mentioning White skin which is a genetic trait.

In fact in six replies you've mentioned it in every single one...

It's almost like you're a little fixated on it. One could say that you seem to think skin colour is a really important factor...
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: Perhaps The vice-chairman of Waltham Forest Race Equality Council would like to tell us how many White British born Christians his organisation has represented and how many White British born Christians actually work for his organisation?[/p][/quote]You seem awfully obsessed with colour for someone who says he isn't racist...[/p][/quote]You should re-read the posting Alan. You couldn't possibly say "awfully obsessed" from such a posting. Perhaps you should wait for an answer to the question asked, before making such a statement.[/p][/quote]Why what would the answer to your question have to do with the fact that you keep mentioning "White" and skin colour and then claiming not to be obsessed with race? I've reread your posting (and indeed the next one). You keep mentioning White skin which is a genetic trait. In fact in six replies you've mentioned it in every single one... It's almost like you're a little fixated on it. One could say that you seem to think skin colour is a really important factor... Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both.

All the best,

A self-hating white man
There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children"

We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities.

Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it.

PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?
Skin-colour doesn't come into it....

Define if you would "WHITE" Children without bringing Skin colour into it.

Oh PS The definition of racism since you're such a stickler.... "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others"

I am intrigued as to how you will argue that skin colour is not a hereditary factor on which you have chosen to discriminate.
I specify WHITE because it is "they" that are being ignored and treated as second class. Denied the same rights as others.

If it were all, I would have said all. It is not all. So it is imperative that section being discriminated against is identified.

How many organisations are you aware of, in this country, are there to help whites as opposed to those set-up to help non-whites?

How many organisations can you think of with the word "black" in their name as opposed to the word white?


"Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White." Ain't that the truth?
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both. All the best, A self-hating white man[/p][/quote]There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children" We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities. Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it. PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?[/p][/quote]Skin-colour doesn't come into it.... Define if you would "WHITE" Children without bringing Skin colour into it. Oh PS The definition of racism since you're such a stickler.... "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others" I am intrigued as to how you will argue that skin colour is not a hereditary factor on which you have chosen to discriminate.[/p][/quote]I specify WHITE because it is "they" that are being ignored and treated as second class. Denied the same rights as others. If it were all, I would have said all. It is not all. So it is imperative that section being discriminated against is identified. How many organisations are you aware of, in this country, are there to help whites as opposed to those set-up to help non-whites? How many organisations can you think of with the word "black" in their name as opposed to the word white? "Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White." Ain't that the truth? HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both.

All the best,

A self-hating white man
There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children"

We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities.

Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it.

PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?
Skin-colour doesn't come into it....

Define if you would "WHITE" Children without bringing Skin colour into it.

Oh PS The definition of racism since you're such a stickler.... "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others"

I am intrigued as to how you will argue that skin colour is not a hereditary factor on which you have chosen to discriminate.
I specify WHITE because it is "they" that are being ignored and treated as second class. Denied the same rights as others.

If it were all, I would have said all. It is not all. So it is imperative that section being discriminated against is identified.

How many organisations are you aware of, in this country, are there to help whites as opposed to those set-up to help non-whites?

How many organisations can you think of with the word "black" in their name as opposed to the word white?


"Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White." Ain't that the truth?
There you go classifying a group on the basis of skin colour again.

Can you provide a single instance of a person being discriminated against because of their white skin? I mean look at all those non-whites in the cabinet right now oppressing people holding all the power.

As a white British national I know that I have it pretty darn lucky. I don't have to deal with the irrational prejudice of people such as yourself who can't even understand why to single out a group of people on the basis of their skin colour is racist.

How "White" is white enough for you?

The idiocy behind saying there are more organisations with black in the title is almost too much stupid to bother with but I have a coffee so why not. You know there are a lot more support organisations with the word children in the title than Adult. Do you think that's because Adults are second class citizens? Or perhaps in the real world it's because Children need more support than Adults.

I could have used Women and Men in that example, or Elderly versus Middle Aged. There is no charity organisation called "Help The Middle Aged". Why is that. Because the Middle Aged don't need help.

I'm Anti-racist. I'm not Anti-White. I don't judge people on their appearance. I judge them on their actions.

If you think you can define a persons behaviour and actions on the basis of their skin colour you are a racist. It is that simple.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both. All the best, A self-hating white man[/p][/quote]There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children" We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities. Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it. PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?[/p][/quote]Skin-colour doesn't come into it.... Define if you would "WHITE" Children without bringing Skin colour into it. Oh PS The definition of racism since you're such a stickler.... "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others" I am intrigued as to how you will argue that skin colour is not a hereditary factor on which you have chosen to discriminate.[/p][/quote]I specify WHITE because it is "they" that are being ignored and treated as second class. Denied the same rights as others. If it were all, I would have said all. It is not all. So it is imperative that section being discriminated against is identified. How many organisations are you aware of, in this country, are there to help whites as opposed to those set-up to help non-whites? How many organisations can you think of with the word "black" in their name as opposed to the word white? "Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White." Ain't that the truth?[/p][/quote]There you go classifying a group on the basis of skin colour again. Can you provide a single instance of a person being discriminated against because of their white skin? I mean look at all those non-whites in the cabinet right now oppressing people holding all the power. As a white British national I know that I have it pretty darn lucky. I don't have to deal with the irrational prejudice of people such as yourself who can't even understand why to single out a group of people on the basis of their skin colour is racist. How "White" is white enough for you? The idiocy behind saying there are more organisations with black in the title is almost too much stupid to bother with but I have a coffee so why not. You know there are a lot more support organisations with the word children in the title than Adult. Do you think that's because Adults are second class citizens? Or perhaps in the real world it's because Children need more support than Adults. I could have used Women and Men in that example, or Elderly versus Middle Aged. There is no charity organisation called "Help The Middle Aged". Why is that. Because the Middle Aged don't need help. I'm Anti-racist. I'm not Anti-White. I don't judge people on their appearance. I judge them on their actions. If you think you can define a persons behaviour and actions on the basis of their skin colour you are a racist. It is that simple. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both.

All the best,

A self-hating white man
There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children"

We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities.

Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it.

PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?
Skin-colour doesn't come into it....

Define if you would "WHITE" Children without bringing Skin colour into it.

Oh PS The definition of racism since you're such a stickler.... "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others"

I am intrigued as to how you will argue that skin colour is not a hereditary factor on which you have chosen to discriminate.
I specify WHITE because it is "they" that are being ignored and treated as second class. Denied the same rights as others.

If it were all, I would have said all. It is not all. So it is imperative that section being discriminated against is identified.

How many organisations are you aware of, in this country, are there to help whites as opposed to those set-up to help non-whites?

How many organisations can you think of with the word "black" in their name as opposed to the word white?


"Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White." Ain't that the truth?
There you go classifying a group on the basis of skin colour again.

Can you provide a single instance of a person being discriminated against because of their white skin? I mean look at all those non-whites in the cabinet right now oppressing people holding all the power.

As a white British national I know that I have it pretty darn lucky. I don't have to deal with the irrational prejudice of people such as yourself who can't even understand why to single out a group of people on the basis of their skin colour is racist.

How "White" is white enough for you?

The idiocy behind saying there are more organisations with black in the title is almost too much stupid to bother with but I have a coffee so why not. You know there are a lot more support organisations with the word children in the title than Adult. Do you think that's because Adults are second class citizens? Or perhaps in the real world it's because Children need more support than Adults.

I could have used Women and Men in that example, or Elderly versus Middle Aged. There is no charity organisation called "Help The Middle Aged". Why is that. Because the Middle Aged don't need help.

I'm Anti-racist. I'm not Anti-White. I don't judge people on their appearance. I judge them on their actions.

If you think you can define a persons behaviour and actions on the basis of their skin colour you are a racist. It is that simple.
Reply to Alan

"If you think you can define a persons behaviour and actions on the basis of their skin colour you are a racist. "

"There you go classifying a group on the basis of skin colour again."

Objecting to being treated as second class citizens is not racist. That's a matter of civil rights. But the group that is being treated as a second class citizens needs to be identified. Otherwise who are we talking about?

There are times when we have to do this.

When was the last time you took issue with someone who described themselves or their group/s as say "black, brown" or whatever? We hear this all the time in the media/tv... Yet nobody, ever takes issue with them.

So when did you last take issue?

Suppose I made a posting about say black civil rights or black equal rights, would you make the same claims as to racism then?

Hmm. I wonder.

"How "White" is white enough for you?" What????? Please don't attribute this to me.

"idiocy" Please don't be abusive to me. I haven't been abusive to you. It's about equality. Treating everyone the same. What's good for one is good for another.

It's the way I was brought up. To believe that we are all equal.

If the government isn't prepared to prohibit "all" people setting up organisations based around their ethnicity then they shouldn't ban any.

Not allow some but not others. That's the problem. That's not fair.

Personally I would ban "all" such organisations or allow "all" such organisations.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both. All the best, A self-hating white man[/p][/quote]There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children" We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities. Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it. PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?[/p][/quote]Skin-colour doesn't come into it.... Define if you would "WHITE" Children without bringing Skin colour into it. Oh PS The definition of racism since you're such a stickler.... "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others" I am intrigued as to how you will argue that skin colour is not a hereditary factor on which you have chosen to discriminate.[/p][/quote]I specify WHITE because it is "they" that are being ignored and treated as second class. Denied the same rights as others. If it were all, I would have said all. It is not all. So it is imperative that section being discriminated against is identified. How many organisations are you aware of, in this country, are there to help whites as opposed to those set-up to help non-whites? How many organisations can you think of with the word "black" in their name as opposed to the word white? "Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White." Ain't that the truth?[/p][/quote]There you go classifying a group on the basis of skin colour again. Can you provide a single instance of a person being discriminated against because of their white skin? I mean look at all those non-whites in the cabinet right now oppressing people holding all the power. As a white British national I know that I have it pretty darn lucky. I don't have to deal with the irrational prejudice of people such as yourself who can't even understand why to single out a group of people on the basis of their skin colour is racist. How "White" is white enough for you? The idiocy behind saying there are more organisations with black in the title is almost too much stupid to bother with but I have a coffee so why not. You know there are a lot more support organisations with the word children in the title than Adult. Do you think that's because Adults are second class citizens? Or perhaps in the real world it's because Children need more support than Adults. I could have used Women and Men in that example, or Elderly versus Middle Aged. There is no charity organisation called "Help The Middle Aged". Why is that. Because the Middle Aged don't need help. I'm Anti-racist. I'm not Anti-White. I don't judge people on their appearance. I judge them on their actions. If you think you can define a persons behaviour and actions on the basis of their skin colour you are a racist. It is that simple.[/p][/quote]Reply to Alan "If you think you can define a persons behaviour and actions on the basis of their skin colour you are a racist. " "There you go classifying a group on the basis of skin colour again." Objecting to being treated as second class citizens is not racist. That's a matter of civil rights. But the group that is being treated as a second class citizens needs to be identified. Otherwise who are we talking about? There are times when we have to do this. When was the last time you took issue with someone who described themselves or their group/s as say "black, brown" or whatever? We hear this all the time in the media/tv... Yet nobody, ever takes issue with them. So when did you last take issue? Suppose I made a posting about say black civil rights or black equal rights, would you make the same claims as to racism then? Hmm. I wonder. "How "White" is white enough for you?" What????? Please don't attribute this to me. "idiocy" Please don't be abusive to me. I haven't been abusive to you. It's about equality. Treating everyone the same. What's good for one is good for another. It's the way I was brought up. To believe that we are all equal. If the government isn't prepared to prohibit "all" people setting up organisations based around their ethnicity then they shouldn't ban any. Not allow some but not others. That's the problem. That's not fair. Personally I would ban "all" such organisations or allow "all" such organisations. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Reply to Alan

"Can you provide a single instance of a person being discriminated against because of their white skin? I mean look at all those non-whites in the cabinet right now oppressing people holding all the power."

I take the point about the cabinet.

But, what do you call "positive discrimination"?

I call it discrimination. And who is discriminated against?

Are you aware that there are jobs, here in Britain, that are advertised abroad and never see the light of day in our job centres?
Reply to Alan "Can you provide a single instance of a person being discriminated against because of their white skin? I mean look at all those non-whites in the cabinet right now oppressing people holding all the power." I take the point about the cabinet. But, what do you call "positive discrimination"? I call it discrimination. And who is discriminated against? Are you aware that there are jobs, here in Britain, that are advertised abroad and never see the light of day in our job centres? HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both.

All the best,

A self-hating white man
There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children"

We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities.

Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it.

PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?
Skin-colour doesn't come into it....

Define if you would "WHITE" Children without bringing Skin colour into it.

Oh PS The definition of racism since you're such a stickler.... "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others"

I am intrigued as to how you will argue that skin colour is not a hereditary factor on which you have chosen to discriminate.
I specify WHITE because it is "they" that are being ignored and treated as second class. Denied the same rights as others.

If it were all, I would have said all. It is not all. So it is imperative that section being discriminated against is identified.

How many organisations are you aware of, in this country, are there to help whites as opposed to those set-up to help non-whites?

How many organisations can you think of with the word "black" in their name as opposed to the word white?


"Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White." Ain't that the truth?
There you go classifying a group on the basis of skin colour again.

Can you provide a single instance of a person being discriminated against because of their white skin? I mean look at all those non-whites in the cabinet right now oppressing people holding all the power.

As a white British national I know that I have it pretty darn lucky. I don't have to deal with the irrational prejudice of people such as yourself who can't even understand why to single out a group of people on the basis of their skin colour is racist.

How "White" is white enough for you?

The idiocy behind saying there are more organisations with black in the title is almost too much stupid to bother with but I have a coffee so why not. You know there are a lot more support organisations with the word children in the title than Adult. Do you think that's because Adults are second class citizens? Or perhaps in the real world it's because Children need more support than Adults.

I could have used Women and Men in that example, or Elderly versus Middle Aged. There is no charity organisation called "Help The Middle Aged". Why is that. Because the Middle Aged don't need help.

I'm Anti-racist. I'm not Anti-White. I don't judge people on their appearance. I judge them on their actions.

If you think you can define a persons behaviour and actions on the basis of their skin colour you are a racist. It is that simple.
Reply to Alan

"If you think you can define a persons behaviour and actions on the basis of their skin colour you are a racist. "

"There you go classifying a group on the basis of skin colour again."

Objecting to being treated as second class citizens is not racist. That's a matter of civil rights. But the group that is being treated as a second class citizens needs to be identified. Otherwise who are we talking about?

There are times when we have to do this.

When was the last time you took issue with someone who described themselves or their group/s as say "black, brown" or whatever? We hear this all the time in the media/tv... Yet nobody, ever takes issue with them.

So when did you last take issue?

Suppose I made a posting about say black civil rights or black equal rights, would you make the same claims as to racism then?

Hmm. I wonder.

"How "White" is white enough for you?" What????? Please don't attribute this to me.

"idiocy" Please don't be abusive to me. I haven't been abusive to you. It's about equality. Treating everyone the same. What's good for one is good for another.

It's the way I was brought up. To believe that we are all equal.

If the government isn't prepared to prohibit "all" people setting up organisations based around their ethnicity then they shouldn't ban any.

Not allow some but not others. That's the problem. That's not fair.

Personally I would ban "all" such organisations or allow "all" such organisations.
I notice you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of all this discrimination.

"But the group that is being treated as a second class citizens needs to be identified."

""How "White" is white enough for you?" What????? Please don't attribute this to me."

You identify a group as defined by their whiteness. Then you don't want to define that means.

I think you'll find also that "All" organisations are allowed. The only ones that aren't allowed are the ones that discriminate on the basis of race or gender or sexual persuasion.

You are quite able to set up a group around anything you want. When you start to discriminate and persecute against others that is the problem.

Treating everyone the same involves not requiring them to believe that there is a thing such as "Mixed marriage".

I treat your idea as idiotic because I believe it to be idiotic. I don't care whether you are black,white, male female or a talking robot. I would call your idea idiotic.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: To give a stuff about the colour of anyone's skin, white or otherwise, you've got to be seriously stupid, rascist, or most likely both. All the best, A self-hating white man[/p][/quote]There is nothing wrong, stupid or racist (not "rascist") about wanting to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children" We owe our children that. We should all want our children to have the same rights and be as equally valued as the minorities. Skin colour as you mention, doesn't come into it. PS Why are you a self-hater? Have you sought help with this problem?[/p][/quote]Skin-colour doesn't come into it.... Define if you would "WHITE" Children without bringing Skin colour into it. Oh PS The definition of racism since you're such a stickler.... "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others" I am intrigued as to how you will argue that skin colour is not a hereditary factor on which you have chosen to discriminate.[/p][/quote]I specify WHITE because it is "they" that are being ignored and treated as second class. Denied the same rights as others. If it were all, I would have said all. It is not all. So it is imperative that section being discriminated against is identified. How many organisations are you aware of, in this country, are there to help whites as opposed to those set-up to help non-whites? How many organisations can you think of with the word "black" in their name as opposed to the word white? "Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White." Ain't that the truth?[/p][/quote]There you go classifying a group on the basis of skin colour again. Can you provide a single instance of a person being discriminated against because of their white skin? I mean look at all those non-whites in the cabinet right now oppressing people holding all the power. As a white British national I know that I have it pretty darn lucky. I don't have to deal with the irrational prejudice of people such as yourself who can't even understand why to single out a group of people on the basis of their skin colour is racist. How "White" is white enough for you? The idiocy behind saying there are more organisations with black in the title is almost too much stupid to bother with but I have a coffee so why not. You know there are a lot more support organisations with the word children in the title than Adult. Do you think that's because Adults are second class citizens? Or perhaps in the real world it's because Children need more support than Adults. I could have used Women and Men in that example, or Elderly versus Middle Aged. There is no charity organisation called "Help The Middle Aged". Why is that. Because the Middle Aged don't need help. I'm Anti-racist. I'm not Anti-White. I don't judge people on their appearance. I judge them on their actions. If you think you can define a persons behaviour and actions on the basis of their skin colour you are a racist. It is that simple.[/p][/quote]Reply to Alan "If you think you can define a persons behaviour and actions on the basis of their skin colour you are a racist. " "There you go classifying a group on the basis of skin colour again." Objecting to being treated as second class citizens is not racist. That's a matter of civil rights. But the group that is being treated as a second class citizens needs to be identified. Otherwise who are we talking about? There are times when we have to do this. When was the last time you took issue with someone who described themselves or their group/s as say "black, brown" or whatever? We hear this all the time in the media/tv... Yet nobody, ever takes issue with them. So when did you last take issue? Suppose I made a posting about say black civil rights or black equal rights, would you make the same claims as to racism then? Hmm. I wonder. "How "White" is white enough for you?" What????? Please don't attribute this to me. "idiocy" Please don't be abusive to me. I haven't been abusive to you. It's about equality. Treating everyone the same. What's good for one is good for another. It's the way I was brought up. To believe that we are all equal. If the government isn't prepared to prohibit "all" people setting up organisations based around their ethnicity then they shouldn't ban any. Not allow some but not others. That's the problem. That's not fair. Personally I would ban "all" such organisations or allow "all" such organisations.[/p][/quote]I notice you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of all this discrimination. "But the group that is being treated as a second class citizens needs to be identified." ""How "White" is white enough for you?" What????? Please don't attribute this to me." You identify a group as defined by their whiteness. Then you don't want to define that means. I think you'll find also that "All" organisations are allowed. The only ones that aren't allowed are the ones that discriminate on the basis of race or gender or sexual persuasion. You are quite able to set up a group around anything you want. When you start to discriminate and persecute against others that is the problem. Treating everyone the same involves not requiring them to believe that there is a thing such as "Mixed marriage". I treat your idea as idiotic because I believe it to be idiotic. I don't care whether you are black,white, male female or a talking robot. I would call your idea idiotic. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Reply to Alan

"Can you provide a single instance of a person being discriminated against because of their white skin? I mean look at all those non-whites in the cabinet right now oppressing people holding all the power."

I take the point about the cabinet.

But, what do you call "positive discrimination"?

I call it discrimination. And who is discriminated against?

Are you aware that there are jobs, here in Britain, that are advertised abroad and never see the light of day in our job centres?
I call positive discrimination illegal as does the UK Equality Act of 2010.

So it's already illegal.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: Reply to Alan "Can you provide a single instance of a person being discriminated against because of their white skin? I mean look at all those non-whites in the cabinet right now oppressing people holding all the power." I take the point about the cabinet. But, what do you call "positive discrimination"? I call it discrimination. And who is discriminated against? Are you aware that there are jobs, here in Britain, that are advertised abroad and never see the light of day in our job centres?[/p][/quote]I call positive discrimination illegal as does the UK Equality Act of 2010. So it's already illegal. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Reply to Alan.

"I call positive discrimination illegal as does the UK Equality Act of 2010."

Yet it continues. Employers have even specified that applicants be of a specific ethnicity. No prosecutions.

Legal/illegal, makes no difference. Still have it.

There are plenty of businesses where the workforce consists of a single ethnicity. Particularly in areas with a large ethnic population. Nobody arresting them.

Seems it's ok for them to favour their own.

"Treating everyone the same involves not requiring them to believe that there is a thing such as "Mixed marriage""

Odd. There are, I am led to believe, members of the BNP who are in mixed marriages. In fact, it is so.

"You identify a group as defined by their whiteness. Then you don't want to define that means." My people.

Do you complain when, for example, Dianne Abbott speaks up for her people, the black community, do you call her a racist?

Or is it just members of the indigenous population that you abuse?

If they can speak up for their people, then why not us?
Reply to Alan. "I call positive discrimination illegal as does the UK Equality Act of 2010." Yet it continues. Employers have even specified that applicants be of a specific ethnicity. No prosecutions. Legal/illegal, makes no difference. Still have it. There are plenty of businesses where the workforce consists of a single ethnicity. Particularly in areas with a large ethnic population. Nobody arresting them. Seems it's ok for them to favour their own. "Treating everyone the same involves not requiring them to believe that there is a thing such as "Mixed marriage"" Odd. There are, I am led to believe, members of the BNP who are in mixed marriages. In fact, it is so. "You identify a group as defined by their whiteness. Then you don't want to define that means." My people. Do you complain when, for example, Dianne Abbott speaks up for her people, the black community, do you call her a racist? Or is it just members of the indigenous population that you abuse? If they can speak up for their people, then why not us? HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Thu 18 Apr 13

stickmanny says...

Please tell us who 'your people' are.

Where did they originate from?
Please tell us who 'your people' are. Where did they originate from? stickmanny
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Reply to Alan.

"I call positive discrimination illegal as does the UK Equality Act of 2010."

Yet it continues. Employers have even specified that applicants be of a specific ethnicity. No prosecutions.

Legal/illegal, makes no difference. Still have it.

There are plenty of businesses where the workforce consists of a single ethnicity. Particularly in areas with a large ethnic population. Nobody arresting them.

Seems it's ok for them to favour their own.

"Treating everyone the same involves not requiring them to believe that there is a thing such as "Mixed marriage""

Odd. There are, I am led to believe, members of the BNP who are in mixed marriages. In fact, it is so.

"You identify a group as defined by their whiteness. Then you don't want to define that means." My people.

Do you complain when, for example, Dianne Abbott speaks up for her people, the black community, do you call her a racist?

Or is it just members of the indigenous population that you abuse?

If they can speak up for their people, then why not us?
"Legal/Illegal makes no difference" makes quite a bit of difference it means its illegal. If you had any solid evidence of this you could take it to a court of law. Sue the firm in question if you have been discriminated against. The courts are overflowing with such cases. Oh hang on that isn't the case because it isn't happening as some kind of epidemic of anti-white across the country. You paint a bizarre picture of an apartheid state against white people that simply goes against the facts. Repeated studies show that the same CV submitted to jobs with a "ethnic" sounding name receives fewer interview
offers.

Business in areas where the entire population is mostly from a single ethnic group sometimes have all the employees from that group? That is truly shocking. Next thing you'll be telling me that a business in Newcastle has a whole bunch of Geordies working for it. I bet if you did a survey of the country and sought to find out what the most common ethnic group was in businesses with all employees of a single ethnic group was it would be White British people. That supposed point of proof is laughable.

As to the mixed marriage bit clearly you aren't interested in the BNP constitution....

Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again.

Given that she was born in London her people are the people of London and by extension the UK. She is older than I am and therefore has more claim to be British than me having been so for longer. She has probably paid more taxes than I have.

You keep referring to "them", grouping people on the basis of skin colour. That is why you are a racist.

I don't "abuse" the indigenous population. Only those who spread hate. I don't care what your skin colour is or your religion is.

Everyone can speak up for their people you just aren't allowed to discriminate against others. Get over it.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: Reply to Alan. "I call positive discrimination illegal as does the UK Equality Act of 2010." Yet it continues. Employers have even specified that applicants be of a specific ethnicity. No prosecutions. Legal/illegal, makes no difference. Still have it. There are plenty of businesses where the workforce consists of a single ethnicity. Particularly in areas with a large ethnic population. Nobody arresting them. Seems it's ok for them to favour their own. "Treating everyone the same involves not requiring them to believe that there is a thing such as "Mixed marriage"" Odd. There are, I am led to believe, members of the BNP who are in mixed marriages. In fact, it is so. "You identify a group as defined by their whiteness. Then you don't want to define that means." My people. Do you complain when, for example, Dianne Abbott speaks up for her people, the black community, do you call her a racist? Or is it just members of the indigenous population that you abuse? If they can speak up for their people, then why not us?[/p][/quote]"Legal/Illegal makes no difference" makes quite a bit of difference it means its illegal. If you had any solid evidence of this you could take it to a court of law. Sue the firm in question if you have been discriminated against. The courts are overflowing with such cases. Oh hang on that isn't the case because it isn't happening as some kind of epidemic of anti-white across the country. You paint a bizarre picture of an apartheid state against white people that simply goes against the facts. Repeated studies show that the same CV submitted to jobs with a "ethnic" sounding name receives fewer interview offers. Business in areas where the entire population is mostly from a single ethnic group sometimes have all the employees from that group? That is truly shocking. Next thing you'll be telling me that a business in Newcastle has a whole bunch of Geordies working for it. I bet if you did a survey of the country and sought to find out what the most common ethnic group was in businesses with all employees of a single ethnic group was it would be White British people. That supposed point of proof is laughable. As to the mixed marriage bit clearly you aren't interested in the BNP constitution.... Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. Given that she was born in London her people are the people of London and by extension the UK. She is older than I am and therefore has more claim to be British than me having been so for longer. She has probably paid more taxes than I have. You keep referring to "them", grouping people on the basis of skin colour. That is why you are a racist. I don't "abuse" the indigenous population. Only those who spread hate. I don't care what your skin colour is or your religion is. Everyone can speak up for their people you just aren't allowed to discriminate against others. Get over it. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

stickmanny wrote:
Please tell us who 'your people' are.

Where did they originate from?
Ask that of a foreigner and it's racist.

Now what off Abbott?
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: Please tell us who 'your people' are. Where did they originate from?[/p][/quote]Ask that of a foreigner and it's racist. Now what off Abbott? HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Thu 18 Apr 13

stickmanny says...

Harry you are a rascist.
Harry you are a rascist. stickmanny
  • Score: 0

8:07pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
Please tell us who 'your people' are.

Where did they originate from?
Ask that of a foreigner and it's racist.

Now what off Abbott?
"Of" Abbott. I know you're a stickler for spelling...

It's not racist to ask a foreigner where they originated from. It's racist to imply that someone like Dianne Abbott is not British because of her skin colour.

It's very simple...
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: Please tell us who 'your people' are. Where did they originate from?[/p][/quote]Ask that of a foreigner and it's racist. Now what off Abbott?[/p][/quote]"Of" Abbott. I know you're a stickler for spelling... It's not racist to ask a foreigner where they originated from. It's racist to imply that someone like Dianne Abbott is not British because of her skin colour. It's very simple... Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Thu 18 Apr 13

stickmanny says...

Oh he's a spellist as well? I'm in trouble then

Or do I get off because I'm white?!
Oh he's a spellist as well? I'm in trouble then Or do I get off because I'm white?! stickmanny
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

" Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. "

No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.
" Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. " No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Thu 18 Apr 13

stickmanny says...

Are you going to base your entire belief system on a quote from Daine Abbott?

You're still a racist.
Are you going to base your entire belief system on a quote from Daine Abbott? You're still a racist. stickmanny
  • Score: 0

8:25pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
" Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. "

No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.
"No". I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.

You have done nothing else but refer to indigenous people and White Skin. Therefore when you say "No she did" that would be incorrect because you have. Her referring to her ethnicity in a positive way is not the same as her referring to another ethnic group in a negative way. That is what you have been doing.

It is as stupid as making derogatory remarks on the basis of a person's eye colour.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: " Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. " No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.[/p][/quote]"No". I don't think you understand the meaning of that word. You have done nothing else but refer to indigenous people and White Skin. Therefore when you say "No she did" that would be incorrect because you have. Her referring to her ethnicity in a positive way is not the same as her referring to another ethnic group in a negative way. That is what you have been doing. It is as stupid as making derogatory remarks on the basis of a person's eye colour. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
" Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. "

No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.
"No". I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.

You have done nothing else but refer to indigenous people and White Skin. Therefore when you say "No she did" that would be incorrect because you have. Her referring to her ethnicity in a positive way is not the same as her referring to another ethnic group in a negative way. That is what you have been doing.

It is as stupid as making derogatory remarks on the basis of a person's eye colour.
I haven't made any derogatory remarks.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: " Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. " No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.[/p][/quote]"No". I don't think you understand the meaning of that word. You have done nothing else but refer to indigenous people and White Skin. Therefore when you say "No she did" that would be incorrect because you have. Her referring to her ethnicity in a positive way is not the same as her referring to another ethnic group in a negative way. That is what you have been doing. It is as stupid as making derogatory remarks on the basis of a person's eye colour.[/p][/quote]I haven't made any derogatory remarks. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

stickmanny wrote:
Are you going to base your entire belief system on a quote from Daine Abbott?

You're still a racist.
No. It has far more to do with people like yourself than her.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: Are you going to base your entire belief system on a quote from Daine Abbott? You're still a racist.[/p][/quote]No. It has far more to do with people like yourself than her. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
" Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. "

No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.
"No". I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.

You have done nothing else but refer to indigenous people and White Skin. Therefore when you say "No she did" that would be incorrect because you have. Her referring to her ethnicity in a positive way is not the same as her referring to another ethnic group in a negative way. That is what you have been doing.

It is as stupid as making derogatory remarks on the basis of a person's eye colour.
I haven't made any derogatory remarks.
I haven't used the term "White Skin".

You did.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: " Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. " No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.[/p][/quote]"No". I don't think you understand the meaning of that word. You have done nothing else but refer to indigenous people and White Skin. Therefore when you say "No she did" that would be incorrect because you have. Her referring to her ethnicity in a positive way is not the same as her referring to another ethnic group in a negative way. That is what you have been doing. It is as stupid as making derogatory remarks on the basis of a person's eye colour.[/p][/quote]I haven't made any derogatory remarks.[/p][/quote]I haven't used the term "White Skin". You did. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
" Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. "

No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.
"No". I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.

You have done nothing else but refer to indigenous people and White Skin. Therefore when you say "No she did" that would be incorrect because you have. Her referring to her ethnicity in a positive way is not the same as her referring to another ethnic group in a negative way. That is what you have been doing.

It is as stupid as making derogatory remarks on the basis of a person's eye colour.
I haven't made any derogatory remarks.
I haven't used the term "White Skin".

You did.
"People should get used to the idea that WHITE people are as entitled to political representation as non-white people. Get over it."

That's you not using the term earlier.

Please explain how white people don't have white skin....
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: " Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. " No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.[/p][/quote]"No". I don't think you understand the meaning of that word. You have done nothing else but refer to indigenous people and White Skin. Therefore when you say "No she did" that would be incorrect because you have. Her referring to her ethnicity in a positive way is not the same as her referring to another ethnic group in a negative way. That is what you have been doing. It is as stupid as making derogatory remarks on the basis of a person's eye colour.[/p][/quote]I haven't made any derogatory remarks.[/p][/quote]I haven't used the term "White Skin". You did.[/p][/quote]"People should get used to the idea that WHITE people are as entitled to political representation as non-white people. Get over it." That's you not using the term earlier. Please explain how white people don't have white skin.... Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
" Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. "

No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.
"No". I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.

You have done nothing else but refer to indigenous people and White Skin. Therefore when you say "No she did" that would be incorrect because you have. Her referring to her ethnicity in a positive way is not the same as her referring to another ethnic group in a negative way. That is what you have been doing.

It is as stupid as making derogatory remarks on the basis of a person's eye colour.
I haven't made any derogatory remarks.
I haven't used the term "White Skin".

You did.
"People should get used to the idea that WHITE people are as entitled to political representation as non-white people. Get over it."

That's you not using the term earlier.

Please explain how white people don't have white skin....
As I said. I never used the term, it wasn't important to me.

It was to you though.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: " Dianne Abbott's people? There you go classifying people on the basis of race again. " No she did. Remember "West Indian mums"? Just for one.[/p][/quote]"No". I don't think you understand the meaning of that word. You have done nothing else but refer to indigenous people and White Skin. Therefore when you say "No she did" that would be incorrect because you have. Her referring to her ethnicity in a positive way is not the same as her referring to another ethnic group in a negative way. That is what you have been doing. It is as stupid as making derogatory remarks on the basis of a person's eye colour.[/p][/quote]I haven't made any derogatory remarks.[/p][/quote]I haven't used the term "White Skin". You did.[/p][/quote]"People should get used to the idea that WHITE people are as entitled to political representation as non-white people. Get over it." That's you not using the term earlier. Please explain how white people don't have white skin....[/p][/quote]As I said. I never used the term, it wasn't important to me. It was to you though. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Reply to Alan and stickmanny :use of the word "White"

We are encouraged to use such terms by the authorities and others. There are many, many examples where we are asked for this information, I'm sure you know them. I will give just one example.

If you go here =>

http://www.equalityh
umanrights.com/about
-us/jobs/senior-proc
urement-business-par
tner/

you will see details of a job with the EHRC along with an "Equality monitoring form".

On the form it asks for details of the applicants nationality, ethnicity and skin colour.

Yep it definitely uses the word "white".

Now, either they feel that it's important to them or they are, by your definition, racist.

We are encouraged to use such terms by the authorities. They ask about to "skin colour". How does that affect ones ability to do the job???

So what is your problem with people using these terms?

Ever wondered what they do with this information?

By the way. Have you ever considered how it would improve relations by not using abusive terms to people such as racist etc?

Just because you have heard something you don't like.
Reply to Alan and stickmanny :use of the word "White" We are encouraged to use such terms by the authorities and others. There are many, many examples where we are asked for this information, I'm sure you know them. I will give just one example. If you go here => http://www.equalityh umanrights.com/about -us/jobs/senior-proc urement-business-par tner/ you will see details of a job with the EHRC along with an "Equality monitoring form". On the form it asks for details of the applicants nationality, ethnicity and skin colour. Yep it definitely uses the word "white". Now, either they feel that it's important to them or they are, by your definition, racist. We are encouraged to use such terms by the authorities. They ask about to "skin colour". How does that affect ones ability to do the job??? So what is your problem with people using these terms? Ever wondered what they do with this information? By the way. Have you ever considered how it would improve relations by not using abusive terms to people such as racist etc? Just because you have heard something you don't like. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

Simple question.

"Why do you refer to Dianne Abbott as them"

You discriminate people on the basis of skin colour in every post you make.

Another simple question.

"Why do you do that?"

If someone was born here, educated here and pays taxes here why do you classify them as different from you.

You have dodged all of these questions the whole way.

Why do they ask about skin colour? To ensure that people are not discriminating. This concept seems a little hard for you to grasp.
Simple question. "Why do you refer to Dianne Abbott as them" You discriminate people on the basis of skin colour in every post you make. Another simple question. "Why do you do that?" If someone was born here, educated here and pays taxes here why do you classify them as different from you. You have dodged all of these questions the whole way. Why do they ask about skin colour? To ensure that people are not discriminating. This concept seems a little hard for you to grasp. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

10:23pm Thu 18 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Simple question.

"Why do you refer to Dianne Abbott as them"

You discriminate people on the basis of skin colour in every post you make.

Another simple question.

"Why do you do that?"

If someone was born here, educated here and pays taxes here why do you classify them as different from you.

You have dodged all of these questions the whole way.

Why do they ask about skin colour? To ensure that people are not discriminating. This concept seems a little hard for you to grasp.
"Why do you refer to Dianne Abbott as them" Lazy probably. Why nit pick over such things? Do you ask the same sort of nit picking questions of any other ethnicity? I suspect not.

Any idea why the Milibands were referred to the as two posh white boys?

"If someone was born here, educated here and pays taxes here why do you classify them as different from you."

They class themselves as different. Otherwise there wouldn't be any demand for minority rights. They are capitalising on those differences.

They wouldn't have demanded quotas, their own organisations and such things. They would be content with the same ones as ourselves.

The use of abusive language towards our people also shows they perceive themselves as different.

And don't tell me you are not aware of such hateful language directed at our people.

"Why do they ask about skin colour? To ensure that people are not discriminating. This concept seems a little hard for you to grasp"

Have you any idea of the ethnic make up of their employees?

I think you will find they are discriminating.

And please don't be abusive. I haven't been abusive to you.

"You have dodged all of these questions" Take a look at the questions you have dodged.

Please answer a question for me. Why is multiculturalism is enforced upon western countries and only western countries?

What's wrong with non-western countries?
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: Simple question. "Why do you refer to Dianne Abbott as them" You discriminate people on the basis of skin colour in every post you make. Another simple question. "Why do you do that?" If someone was born here, educated here and pays taxes here why do you classify them as different from you. You have dodged all of these questions the whole way. Why do they ask about skin colour? To ensure that people are not discriminating. This concept seems a little hard for you to grasp.[/p][/quote]"Why do you refer to Dianne Abbott as them" Lazy probably. Why nit pick over such things? Do you ask the same sort of nit picking questions of any other ethnicity? I suspect not. Any idea why the Milibands were referred to the as two posh white boys? "If someone was born here, educated here and pays taxes here why do you classify them as different from you." They class themselves as different. Otherwise there wouldn't be any demand for minority rights. They are capitalising on those differences. They wouldn't have demanded quotas, their own organisations and such things. They would be content with the same ones as ourselves. The use of abusive language towards our people also shows they perceive themselves as different. And don't tell me you are not aware of such hateful language directed at our people. "Why do they ask about skin colour? To ensure that people are not discriminating. This concept seems a little hard for you to grasp" Have you any idea of the ethnic make up of their employees? I think you will find they are discriminating. And please don't be abusive. I haven't been abusive to you. "You have dodged all of these questions" Take a look at the questions you have dodged. Please answer a question for me. Why is multiculturalism is enforced upon western countries and only western countries? What's wrong with non-western countries? HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

7:12am Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

The fact that you choose to refer to Dianne Abbott as not "one of your people" and one of "them" is not nit picking.

"They" classify themselves as different.

Organisations that you highlight exist to counter such discriminating attitudes. But then we've been over this earlier. You choose to ignore.

You then refer to "their" abusive language towards "our people".

Define who they are.

You again are categorising a section of the British community by skin colour and using "lazy" classification. People are not abusiveness or pleasant because of their skin colour.

I have not avoided any of your questions.

You are just unable to grasp the simple concept of the difference between the phrases

"He's got ginger hair"

"All ginger haired people are lazy"

Classification is not the same as discrimination.
The fact that you choose to refer to Dianne Abbott as not "one of your people" and one of "them" is not nit picking. "They" classify themselves as different. Organisations that you highlight exist to counter such discriminating attitudes. But then we've been over this earlier. You choose to ignore. You then refer to "their" abusive language towards "our people". Define who they are. You again are categorising a section of the British community by skin colour and using "lazy" classification. People are not abusiveness or pleasant because of their skin colour. I have not avoided any of your questions. You are just unable to grasp the simple concept of the difference between the phrases "He's got ginger hair" "All ginger haired people are lazy" Classification is not the same as discrimination. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

7:36am Fri 19 Apr 13

pan says...

This whole article is nonsense, old news and designed to whip up tension when there is no real problem.

UKIP hold many similar views to the BNP yet no one seems bothered by them? Is that because they need to build up a new party to oppose later as and when it suites? The General elections are not that far away. The BNP is no longer a credible electoral threat to the establishment.

In fact at many opportunities Griffin has posed with as many ethnic minorities as he can get to stand with him for photos in a bid to keep popularity.
This whole article is nonsense, old news and designed to whip up tension when there is no real problem. UKIP hold many similar views to the BNP yet no one seems bothered by them? Is that because they need to build up a new party to oppose later as and when it suites? The General elections are not that far away. The BNP is no longer a credible electoral threat to the establishment. In fact at many opportunities Griffin has posed with as many ethnic minorities as he can get to stand with him for photos in a bid to keep popularity. pan
  • Score: 0

9:26am Fri 19 Apr 13

Dave Jones says...

Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?
Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing? Dave Jones
  • Score: 0

9:30am Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

Dave Jones wrote:
Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?
Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?
[quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?[/p][/quote]Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you? Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

9:47am Fri 19 Apr 13

sks101 says...

In 1996 diane abbott said that "blond blue eyed finnish nurses should not even get a job in the NHS!
hows that for racism ?
In 1996 diane abbott said that "blond blue eyed finnish nurses should not even get a job in the NHS! hows that for racism ? sks101
  • Score: 0

9:52am Fri 19 Apr 13

sks101 says...

Alan is complicit in the genocide of the indigenous londoner and now supporting the genocide of the rest of the indigenous british.

google "genocide".
Alan is complicit in the genocide of the indigenous londoner and now supporting the genocide of the rest of the indigenous british. google "genocide". sks101
  • Score: 0

9:55am Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

sks101 wrote:
In 1996 diane abbott said that "blond blue eyed finnish nurses should not even get a job in the NHS!
hows that for racism ?
I believe the actual quote was more accurately that she said 'blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls' in her local hospital in east London were unsuitable as nurses because they had 'never met a black person before'

It was in the context of fully trained nurses being deported from the UK whilst at the same time paying more to import nurses from Scandinavia.

I'm not sure what exactly you're angling at though. You don't have to be white to be a racist. You just have to have irrational prejudices. It's very equal opportunity that way...
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: In 1996 diane abbott said that "blond blue eyed finnish nurses should not even get a job in the NHS! hows that for racism ?[/p][/quote]I believe the actual quote was more accurately that she said 'blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls' in her local hospital in east London were unsuitable as nurses because they had 'never met a black person before' It was in the context of fully trained nurses being deported from the UK whilst at the same time paying more to import nurses from Scandinavia. I'm not sure what exactly you're angling at though. You don't have to be white to be a racist. You just have to have irrational prejudices. It's very equal opportunity that way... Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

9:59am Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

sks101 wrote:
Alan is complicit in the genocide of the indigenous londoner and now supporting the genocide of the rest of the indigenous british.

google "genocide".
I think you just revealed the true level of your stupidity.

The indigenous Londonders left quite a while ago. About 61 AD. I think they're all dead now...
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: Alan is complicit in the genocide of the indigenous londoner and now supporting the genocide of the rest of the indigenous british. google "genocide".[/p][/quote]I think you just revealed the true level of your stupidity. The indigenous Londonders left quite a while ago. About 61 AD. I think they're all dead now... Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

10:28am Fri 19 Apr 13

sks101 says...

Alan,so you think to discriminate against someone of blond hair and blue eyes to the point that they should not work is not racist ?

Alan is in complete denial.and a supporter of white genocide.
Dont expect me to come back to someone who supports the extinction of my family and people.
Alan,so you think to discriminate against someone of blond hair and blue eyes to the point that they should not work is not racist ? Alan is in complete denial.and a supporter of white genocide. Dont expect me to come back to someone who supports the extinction of my family and people. sks101
  • Score: 0

10:46am Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

sks101 wrote:
Alan,so you think to discriminate against someone of blond hair and blue eyes to the point that they should not work is not racist ?

Alan is in complete denial.and a supporter of white genocide.
Dont expect me to come back to someone who supports the extinction of my family and people.
Does that mean you'll stop talking absolute nonsense? The world is a better place!

I think that bringing in foreign nurses at higher cost when there a local nurses available is a bad idea.

Are you in favour of replacing local nurses with foreigners? Sounds like you are complicit in the genocide of Londoners.....
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: Alan,so you think to discriminate against someone of blond hair and blue eyes to the point that they should not work is not racist ? Alan is in complete denial.and a supporter of white genocide. Dont expect me to come back to someone who supports the extinction of my family and people.[/p][/quote]Does that mean you'll stop talking absolute nonsense? The world is a better place! I think that bringing in foreign nurses at higher cost when there a local nurses available is a bad idea. Are you in favour of replacing local nurses with foreigners? Sounds like you are complicit in the genocide of Londoners..... Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

11:42am Fri 19 Apr 13

sks101 says...

we are talking about diane abbott 's racist comments towards white people try to stay on the subject and stop the transference.
we are talking about diane abbott 's racist comments towards white people try to stay on the subject and stop the transference. sks101
  • Score: 0

11:45am Fri 19 Apr 13

sks101 says...

I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi
le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.?
is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?
I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.? is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place? sks101
  • Score: 0

11:48am Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

sks101 wrote:
we are talking about diane abbott 's racist comments towards white people try to stay on the subject and stop the transference.
No you are talking about half of Dianne Abbott's comments and ignoring the context. I'm talking about the entire comment.

Try reading ALL the words.

As I said before even if she was being racist so what? You don't have to be white to be a racist. You just have to have irrational prejudices.

It's very equal opportunity that way...

Go on say something about genocide now. Where are they hiding all the bodies?
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: we are talking about diane abbott 's racist comments towards white people try to stay on the subject and stop the transference.[/p][/quote]No you are talking about half of Dianne Abbott's comments and ignoring the context. I'm talking about the entire comment. Try reading ALL the words. As I said before even if she was being racist so what? You don't have to be white to be a racist. You just have to have irrational prejudices. It's very equal opportunity that way... Go on say something about genocide now. Where are they hiding all the bodies? Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

sks101 wrote:
I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi

le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.?
is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?
I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black.

I'm surprised he manages to find any white girls given what you're saying about them all being affected by the genocide...
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.? is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?[/p][/quote]I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. I'm surprised he manages to find any white girls given what you're saying about them all being affected by the genocide... Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Fri 19 Apr 13

tjm01 says...

Mr Malik says:
The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.”

Note the use of the words "could be used to create divisions" followed by "the community can overcome these difficulties,surely any donation to any political party "could" have the same effect, and that being the case the people of Waltham Forest would remain strong and generally support the variety of cultures we have
Mr Malik says: The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.” Note the use of the words "could be used to create divisions" followed by "the community can overcome these difficulties,surely any donation to any political party "could" have the same effect, and that being the case the people of Waltham Forest would remain strong and generally support the variety of cultures we have tjm01
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Fri 19 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?
Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?
"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?"

We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism.

Therefore forced.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?[/p][/quote]Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?[/p][/quote]"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Fri 19 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

sks101 wrote:
Alan is complicit in the genocide of the indigenous londoner and now supporting the genocide of the rest of the indigenous british.

google "genocide".
I would also suggest you google the "eight stages of genocide". And see what proceeds the actual genocide.
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: Alan is complicit in the genocide of the indigenous londoner and now supporting the genocide of the rest of the indigenous british. google "genocide".[/p][/quote]I would also suggest you google the "eight stages of genocide". And see what proceeds the actual genocide. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?
Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?
"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?"

We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism.

Therefore forced.
Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism.

The requirement for people to be treated equally?
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?[/p][/quote]Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?[/p][/quote]"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.[/p][/quote]Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally? Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Fri 19 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

tjm01 wrote:
Mr Malik says:
The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.”

Note the use of the words "could be used to create divisions" followed by "the community can overcome these difficulties,surely any donation to any political party "could" have the same effect, and that being the case the people of Waltham Forest would remain strong and generally support the variety of cultures we have
Whenever an organisation is set up for a single ethnicity or religious following.

That has to create division.

There are thousands of these organisations. OK when some do it, though not all.
[quote][p][bold]tjm01[/bold] wrote: Mr Malik says: The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.” Note the use of the words "could be used to create divisions" followed by "the community can overcome these difficulties,surely any donation to any political party "could" have the same effect, and that being the case the people of Waltham Forest would remain strong and generally support the variety of cultures we have[/p][/quote]Whenever an organisation is set up for a single ethnicity or religious following. That has to create division. There are thousands of these organisations. OK when some do it, though not all. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
sks101 wrote:
Alan is complicit in the genocide of the indigenous londoner and now supporting the genocide of the rest of the indigenous british.

google "genocide".
I would also suggest you google the "eight stages of genocide". And see what proceeds the actual genocide.
Yes you should read it. It says how important it is not to classify people into "us and them". In fact thats stage 1.

You might want to work on that....

http://www.genocidew
atch.org/aboutgenoci
de/8stagesofgenocide
.html?3e3ea140

Would you consider the BNP as a party "that actively promote tolerance and understanding". They very clearly aren't and hence they are a prime cause of stage 1 of your eight steps of genocide.

Therefore by your own linked article the gentleman who decided to donate his money to the BNP is guilty of initiating genocide.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: Alan is complicit in the genocide of the indigenous londoner and now supporting the genocide of the rest of the indigenous british. google "genocide".[/p][/quote]I would also suggest you google the "eight stages of genocide". And see what proceeds the actual genocide.[/p][/quote]Yes you should read it. It says how important it is not to classify people into "us and them". In fact thats stage 1. You might want to work on that.... http://www.genocidew atch.org/aboutgenoci de/8stagesofgenocide .html?3e3ea140 Would you consider the BNP as a party "that actively promote tolerance and understanding". They very clearly aren't and hence they are a prime cause of stage 1 of your eight steps of genocide. Therefore by your own linked article the gentleman who decided to donate his money to the BNP is guilty of initiating genocide. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Fri 19 Apr 13

ClifftonX says...

I understand there is an organisation called the "Black Police Association" or siem such name. Would Alan and the rest of his ilk consider a "White Police Association"? So, why is that not racist?

On the issue of race, how many of the world's great inventions (motor car, nuclear fission, discovery of DNA, discovery of penicliln etc., etc., ) and the great paintings, works of architecture, sculptures, have not been by white, anglo-saxon (or their descendents) men?
I understand there is an organisation called the "Black Police Association" or siem such name. Would Alan and the rest of his ilk consider a "White Police Association"? So, why is that not racist? On the issue of race, how many of the world's great inventions (motor car, nuclear fission, discovery of DNA, discovery of penicliln etc., etc., ) and the great paintings, works of architecture, sculptures, have not been by white, anglo-saxon (or their descendents) men? ClifftonX
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Fri 19 Apr 13

stickmanny says...

@Harry et al

Give up the 'My people' BS. Most 'white' people think your attitude stinks. Most of them are not with you. That should be telling you something.

Your arguments are being torn apart by Alan without you even realising.

Come back when you've got an education.
@Harry et al Give up the 'My people' BS. Most 'white' people think your attitude stinks. Most of them are not with you. That should be telling you something. Your arguments are being torn apart by Alan without you even realising. Come back when you've got an education. stickmanny
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
tjm01 wrote:
Mr Malik says:
The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.”

Note the use of the words "could be used to create divisions" followed by "the community can overcome these difficulties,surely any donation to any political party "could" have the same effect, and that being the case the people of Waltham Forest would remain strong and generally support the variety of cultures we have
Whenever an organisation is set up for a single ethnicity or religious following.

That has to create division.

There are thousands of these organisations. OK when some do it, though not all.
They only create division if their teachings and instruction teach or instruct divisions.

There is a group of runners running in the London Marathon called "Sikhs In The City". They are raising money for charities and victims of the Boston Marathon. By your logic they must be creating division.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tjm01[/bold] wrote: Mr Malik says: The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.” Note the use of the words "could be used to create divisions" followed by "the community can overcome these difficulties,surely any donation to any political party "could" have the same effect, and that being the case the people of Waltham Forest would remain strong and generally support the variety of cultures we have[/p][/quote]Whenever an organisation is set up for a single ethnicity or religious following. That has to create division. There are thousands of these organisations. OK when some do it, though not all.[/p][/quote]They only create division if their teachings and instruction teach or instruct divisions. There is a group of runners running in the London Marathon called "Sikhs In The City". They are raising money for charities and victims of the Boston Marathon. By your logic they must be creating division. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Fri 19 Apr 13

tjm01 says...

Don't want to get caught up in this he said she said black/white thread(although Alan makes some excellent points), the B.N P will aways be seen as a racist organiastion, and will aways attract idiots who will use any excuse to cause mayhem, lets see how much of the £500k is left in the kitty in say four weeks time, remember a fool and his money
Don't want to get caught up in this he said she said black/white thread(although Alan makes some excellent points), the B.N P will aways be seen as a racist organiastion, and will aways attract idiots who will use any excuse to cause mayhem, lets see how much of the £500k is left in the kitty in say four weeks time, remember a fool and his money tjm01
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Fri 19 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
sks101 wrote:
I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi


le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.?
is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?
I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black.

I'm surprised he manages to find any white girls given what you're saying about them all being affected by the genocide...
"I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. "

The problem with that one, is that the powers that be insist that blacks can't be racist.

Which, of course, is nonsense but the effect of which they are rarely even charged never mind convicted of racism.

Contrast that when a white man is charged, they have no hesitation in looking for evidence of racism.

The law shouldn't discriminate in this way.

"Blind justice"? I don't think so. The law is not colour blind if the perpetrator happens to be white.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.? is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?[/p][/quote]I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. I'm surprised he manages to find any white girls given what you're saying about them all being affected by the genocide...[/p][/quote]"I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. " The problem with that one, is that the powers that be insist that blacks can't be racist. Which, of course, is nonsense but the effect of which they are rarely even charged never mind convicted of racism. Contrast that when a white man is charged, they have no hesitation in looking for evidence of racism. The law shouldn't discriminate in this way. "Blind justice"? I don't think so. The law is not colour blind if the perpetrator happens to be white. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

ClifftonX wrote:
I understand there is an organisation called the "Black Police Association" or siem such name. Would Alan and the rest of his ilk consider a "White Police Association"? So, why is that not racist?

On the issue of race, how many of the world's great inventions (motor car, nuclear fission, discovery of DNA, discovery of penicliln etc., etc., ) and the great paintings, works of architecture, sculptures, have not been by white, anglo-saxon (or their descendents) men?
I don't want to burst your bubble but the foundations of modern mathematics came from the Arabian peninsula.

The great works of architecture... got to love those crazy Anglo-Saxon pyramids, those amazing Anglo-Saxon Mayan temples etc. etc.

Are you claiming that white people are innately more intelligent than other races? That would be racist.

I thought there already was a "White Police Association" in general for years it was simply known as "The Met"
[quote][p][bold]ClifftonX[/bold] wrote: I understand there is an organisation called the "Black Police Association" or siem such name. Would Alan and the rest of his ilk consider a "White Police Association"? So, why is that not racist? On the issue of race, how many of the world's great inventions (motor car, nuclear fission, discovery of DNA, discovery of penicliln etc., etc., ) and the great paintings, works of architecture, sculptures, have not been by white, anglo-saxon (or their descendents) men?[/p][/quote]I don't want to burst your bubble but the foundations of modern mathematics came from the Arabian peninsula. The great works of architecture... got to love those crazy Anglo-Saxon pyramids, those amazing Anglo-Saxon Mayan temples etc. etc. Are you claiming that white people are innately more intelligent than other races? That would be racist. I thought there already was a "White Police Association" in general for years it was simply known as "The Met" Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
sks101 wrote:
I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi



le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.?
is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?
I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black.

I'm surprised he manages to find any white girls given what you're saying about them all being affected by the genocide...
"I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. "

The problem with that one, is that the powers that be insist that blacks can't be racist.

Which, of course, is nonsense but the effect of which they are rarely even charged never mind convicted of racism.

Contrast that when a white man is charged, they have no hesitation in looking for evidence of racism.

The law shouldn't discriminate in this way.

"Blind justice"? I don't think so. The law is not colour blind if the perpetrator happens to be white.
Now you're just talking absolute nonsense. The law does not discriminate racism on the basis of the colour of the defendant.

You should try reading the law some time. Or perhaps provide a single case report where a judge says a person of any other colour cannot be racist.

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Abdullah_el
-Faisal

Presumably that judge didn't get the memo?

Start dealing in fact not your bizarre fiction.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.? is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?[/p][/quote]I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. I'm surprised he manages to find any white girls given what you're saying about them all being affected by the genocide...[/p][/quote]"I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. " The problem with that one, is that the powers that be insist that blacks can't be racist. Which, of course, is nonsense but the effect of which they are rarely even charged never mind convicted of racism. Contrast that when a white man is charged, they have no hesitation in looking for evidence of racism. The law shouldn't discriminate in this way. "Blind justice"? I don't think so. The law is not colour blind if the perpetrator happens to be white.[/p][/quote]Now you're just talking absolute nonsense. The law does not discriminate racism on the basis of the colour of the defendant. You should try reading the law some time. Or perhaps provide a single case report where a judge says a person of any other colour cannot be racist. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Abdullah_el -Faisal Presumably that judge didn't get the memo? Start dealing in fact not your bizarre fiction. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Fri 19 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
tjm01 wrote:
Mr Malik says:
The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.”

Note the use of the words "could be used to create divisions" followed by "the community can overcome these difficulties,surely any donation to any political party "could" have the same effect, and that being the case the people of Waltham Forest would remain strong and generally support the variety of cultures we have
Whenever an organisation is set up for a single ethnicity or religious following.

That has to create division.

There are thousands of these organisations. OK when some do it, though not all.
They only create division if their teachings and instruction teach or instruct divisions.

There is a group of runners running in the London Marathon called "Sikhs In The City". They are raising money for charities and victims of the Boston Marathon. By your logic they must be creating division.
Not my logic Alan. And the name of the white organisations are?

Well they aren't allowed. And should anyone attempt to represent whites they are subjected to abuse and discrimination by the establishment and media and people like yourself.

Do this to non-white organisations at your peril.

Not a level playing field at all. But why do you support this inequality?
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tjm01[/bold] wrote: Mr Malik says: The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.” Note the use of the words "could be used to create divisions" followed by "the community can overcome these difficulties,surely any donation to any political party "could" have the same effect, and that being the case the people of Waltham Forest would remain strong and generally support the variety of cultures we have[/p][/quote]Whenever an organisation is set up for a single ethnicity or religious following. That has to create division. There are thousands of these organisations. OK when some do it, though not all.[/p][/quote]They only create division if their teachings and instruction teach or instruct divisions. There is a group of runners running in the London Marathon called "Sikhs In The City". They are raising money for charities and victims of the Boston Marathon. By your logic they must be creating division.[/p][/quote]Not my logic Alan. And the name of the white organisations are? Well they aren't allowed. And should anyone attempt to represent whites they are subjected to abuse and discrimination by the establishment and media and people like yourself. Do this to non-white organisations at your peril. Not a level playing field at all. But why do you support this inequality? HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
tjm01 wrote:
Mr Malik says:
The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.”

Note the use of the words "could be used to create divisions" followed by "the community can overcome these difficulties,surely any donation to any political party "could" have the same effect, and that being the case the people of Waltham Forest would remain strong and generally support the variety of cultures we have
Whenever an organisation is set up for a single ethnicity or religious following.

That has to create division.

There are thousands of these organisations. OK when some do it, though not all.
They only create division if their teachings and instruction teach or instruct divisions.

There is a group of runners running in the London Marathon called "Sikhs In The City". They are raising money for charities and victims of the Boston Marathon. By your logic they must be creating division.
Not my logic Alan. And the name of the white organisations are?

Well they aren't allowed. And should anyone attempt to represent whites they are subjected to abuse and discrimination by the establishment and media and people like yourself.

Do this to non-white organisations at your peril.

Not a level playing field at all. But why do you support this inequality?
"Not my logic"

Previous comment...

"Whenever an organisation is set up for a single ethnicity or religious following.That has to create division"

Please can you decide. Does it have to create division or doesn't it.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tjm01[/bold] wrote: Mr Malik says: The donation could be used to create divisions here. But the community can overcome these difficulties, Waltham Forest is strong and people generally support the variety of cultures we have.” Note the use of the words "could be used to create divisions" followed by "the community can overcome these difficulties,surely any donation to any political party "could" have the same effect, and that being the case the people of Waltham Forest would remain strong and generally support the variety of cultures we have[/p][/quote]Whenever an organisation is set up for a single ethnicity or religious following. That has to create division. There are thousands of these organisations. OK when some do it, though not all.[/p][/quote]They only create division if their teachings and instruction teach or instruct divisions. There is a group of runners running in the London Marathon called "Sikhs In The City". They are raising money for charities and victims of the Boston Marathon. By your logic they must be creating division.[/p][/quote]Not my logic Alan. And the name of the white organisations are? Well they aren't allowed. And should anyone attempt to represent whites they are subjected to abuse and discrimination by the establishment and media and people like yourself. Do this to non-white organisations at your peril. Not a level playing field at all. But why do you support this inequality?[/p][/quote]"Not my logic" Previous comment... "Whenever an organisation is set up for a single ethnicity or religious following.That has to create division" Please can you decide. Does it have to create division or doesn't it. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Fri 19 Apr 13

stickmanny says...

Quote:

Do this to non-white organisations at your peril.

Not a level playing field at all. But why do you support this inequality?

A good question but really one for you - why would 'white' people support the interests of 'non-whites' in the way that you see it?

Are we self haters, as I alluded to earlier? What possible other answer could there be? I cannot think of one.
Quote: Do this to non-white organisations at your peril. Not a level playing field at all. But why do you support this inequality? A good question but really one for you - why would 'white' people support the interests of 'non-whites' in the way that you see it? Are we self haters, as I alluded to earlier? What possible other answer could there be? I cannot think of one. stickmanny
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Fri 19 Apr 13

HarryGreen says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
sks101 wrote:
I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi




le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.?
is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?
I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black.

I'm surprised he manages to find any white girls given what you're saying about them all being affected by the genocide...
"I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. "

The problem with that one, is that the powers that be insist that blacks can't be racist.

Which, of course, is nonsense but the effect of which they are rarely even charged never mind convicted of racism.

Contrast that when a white man is charged, they have no hesitation in looking for evidence of racism.

The law shouldn't discriminate in this way.

"Blind justice"? I don't think so. The law is not colour blind if the perpetrator happens to be white.
Now you're just talking absolute nonsense. The law does not discriminate racism on the basis of the colour of the defendant.

You should try reading the law some time. Or perhaps provide a single case report where a judge says a person of any other colour cannot be racist.

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Abdullah_el

-Faisal

Presumably that judge didn't get the memo?

Start dealing in fact not your bizarre fiction.
All too often a non-white defendant will get a non-custodial sentence where a white receives a custodial sentence.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.? is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?[/p][/quote]I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. I'm surprised he manages to find any white girls given what you're saying about them all being affected by the genocide...[/p][/quote]"I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. " The problem with that one, is that the powers that be insist that blacks can't be racist. Which, of course, is nonsense but the effect of which they are rarely even charged never mind convicted of racism. Contrast that when a white man is charged, they have no hesitation in looking for evidence of racism. The law shouldn't discriminate in this way. "Blind justice"? I don't think so. The law is not colour blind if the perpetrator happens to be white.[/p][/quote]Now you're just talking absolute nonsense. The law does not discriminate racism on the basis of the colour of the defendant. You should try reading the law some time. Or perhaps provide a single case report where a judge says a person of any other colour cannot be racist. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Abdullah_el -Faisal Presumably that judge didn't get the memo? Start dealing in fact not your bizarre fiction.[/p][/quote]All too often a non-white defendant will get a non-custodial sentence where a white receives a custodial sentence. HarryGreen
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
sks101 wrote:
I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi





le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.?
is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?
I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black.

I'm surprised he manages to find any white girls given what you're saying about them all being affected by the genocide...
"I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. "

The problem with that one, is that the powers that be insist that blacks can't be racist.

Which, of course, is nonsense but the effect of which they are rarely even charged never mind convicted of racism.

Contrast that when a white man is charged, they have no hesitation in looking for evidence of racism.

The law shouldn't discriminate in this way.

"Blind justice"? I don't think so. The law is not colour blind if the perpetrator happens to be white.
Now you're just talking absolute nonsense. The law does not discriminate racism on the basis of the colour of the defendant.

You should try reading the law some time. Or perhaps provide a single case report where a judge says a person of any other colour cannot be racist.

http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/Abdullah_el


-Faisal

Presumably that judge didn't get the memo?

Start dealing in fact not your bizarre fiction.
All too often a non-white defendant will get a non-custodial sentence where a white receives a custodial sentence.
Proof of this statement?

None. The statistics of sentencing prove exactly the opposite.

E.g.

Mooney, J. and Young, J. Social Exclusion and Criminal Justice: Ethnic communities and stop and search in North London. Available: www.malcolmread.co.u
k/JockYoung/policing
_ethnic_minorities.p
df

Try using actual facts.
[quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: I wonder what Alan has to say about the black,raping,pedophi le,racist from Edmonton. that only rapes and abuses white girls and gets away without being charged with racism.? is that what he wants in Waltham forest? is that what he means by a better place?[/p][/quote]I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. I'm surprised he manages to find any white girls given what you're saying about them all being affected by the genocide...[/p][/quote]"I'd say he's a racist raping pedophile who happens to be black. " The problem with that one, is that the powers that be insist that blacks can't be racist. Which, of course, is nonsense but the effect of which they are rarely even charged never mind convicted of racism. Contrast that when a white man is charged, they have no hesitation in looking for evidence of racism. The law shouldn't discriminate in this way. "Blind justice"? I don't think so. The law is not colour blind if the perpetrator happens to be white.[/p][/quote]Now you're just talking absolute nonsense. The law does not discriminate racism on the basis of the colour of the defendant. You should try reading the law some time. Or perhaps provide a single case report where a judge says a person of any other colour cannot be racist. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Abdullah_el -Faisal Presumably that judge didn't get the memo? Start dealing in fact not your bizarre fiction.[/p][/quote]All too often a non-white defendant will get a non-custodial sentence where a white receives a custodial sentence.[/p][/quote]Proof of this statement? None. The statistics of sentencing prove exactly the opposite. E.g. Mooney, J. and Young, J. Social Exclusion and Criminal Justice: Ethnic communities and stop and search in North London. Available: www.malcolmread.co.u k/JockYoung/policing _ethnic_minorities.p df Try using actual facts. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

As I know you seem to have trouble reading things the whole way through (The BNP constitution, The steps to genocide to name a couple so far) let me help you out with what the facts say.

White defendants are 6 times LESS likely to receive a lengthy custodial sentence for the same crime.

6 Times.

So that is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you just tried to use as an argument.
As I know you seem to have trouble reading things the whole way through (The BNP constitution, The steps to genocide to name a couple so far) let me help you out with what the facts say. White defendants are 6 times LESS likely to receive a lengthy custodial sentence for the same crime. 6 Times. So that is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you just tried to use as an argument. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Dave Jones says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?
Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?
"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.
Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?
David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?[/p][/quote]Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?[/p][/quote]"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.[/p][/quote]Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?[/p][/quote]David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster. Dave Jones
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

Dave Jones wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?
Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?
"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.
Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?
David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.
Again I ask. What has been forced on you? What legal act has been forced upon you?

By the way the russians are from the Caucaus region. They are the quite literal definition of "Caucasian".

Indigenous.... This is true the original Brits perished many thousands of years ago.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?[/p][/quote]Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?[/p][/quote]"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.[/p][/quote]Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?[/p][/quote]David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.[/p][/quote]Again I ask. What has been forced on you? What legal act has been forced upon you? By the way the russians are from the Caucaus region. They are the quite literal definition of "Caucasian". Indigenous.... This is true the original Brits perished many thousands of years ago. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Fri 19 Apr 13

sks101 says...

Alan is a dinosaur, the most stupid person on here his education was a complete left wing brainwashing success.
I have noticed that anyone who is not brainwashed like alan needs an education and according to him is thick,
Alan is a dinosaur, the most stupid person on here his education was a complete left wing brainwashing success. I have noticed that anyone who is not brainwashed like alan needs an education and according to him is thick, sks101
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Fri 19 Apr 13

mdj says...

Well, if the indigenous Britons have disappeared,can someone explain why there's an Eglwys Bresbyteriaidd just off the Green Man roundabout?

'The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago..'
This is news to many of us: check out the Punch cartoons of Irishmen from the late nineteenth century - the people the then Prime Minister Lord Salisbury could raise a laugh from a crowd by comparing to Hottentots.
In Henry Vlll's time 10% of London's population was German-born; more than few must have caught a girl's eye and settled down.
About 60,000 French Huguenots poured into this country in the late 17th century; that would be comparable to a million Ugandan Asians in terms of time scale.
At the end of the 19th century several hundred thousand Jews poured into the eastern ports, and met the usual warm welcome.

I guess that the issue we can all agree on today ( I hope) is willingness to assimilate; that's something the Anglo-Saxons never felt the need for, judging by results, but then neither did those ancestors of mine they pushed westwards.
Well, if the indigenous Britons have disappeared,can someone explain why there's an Eglwys Bresbyteriaidd just off the Green Man roundabout? 'The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago..' This is news to many of us: check out the Punch cartoons of Irishmen from the late nineteenth century - the people the then Prime Minister Lord Salisbury could raise a laugh from a crowd by comparing to Hottentots. In Henry Vlll's time 10% of London's population was German-born; more than few must have caught a girl's eye and settled down. About 60,000 French Huguenots poured into this country in the late 17th century; that would be comparable to a million Ugandan Asians in terms of time scale. At the end of the 19th century several hundred thousand Jews poured into the eastern ports, and met the usual warm welcome. I guess that the issue we can all agree on today ( I hope) is willingness to assimilate; that's something the Anglo-Saxons never felt the need for, judging by results, but then neither did those ancestors of mine they pushed westwards. mdj
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

sks101 wrote:
Alan is a dinosaur, the most stupid person on here his education was a complete left wing brainwashing success.
I have noticed that anyone who is not brainwashed like alan needs an education and according to him is thick,
Education. Yes you should try it. Start by reading things. Start by actually having evidence for your claims.

To prove I'm stupid all you have to do is provide any evidence for your claims. If you choose to make claims that are easily verifiable as false then your claims are stupid.

All you're doing is succeeding in proving that if people with white skin have superior intelligence then people like yourself are doing a very good job of hiding it.
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: Alan is a dinosaur, the most stupid person on here his education was a complete left wing brainwashing success. I have noticed that anyone who is not brainwashed like alan needs an education and according to him is thick,[/p][/quote]Education. Yes you should try it. Start by reading things. Start by actually having evidence for your claims. To prove I'm stupid all you have to do is provide any evidence for your claims. If you choose to make claims that are easily verifiable as false then your claims are stupid. All you're doing is succeeding in proving that if people with white skin have superior intelligence then people like yourself are doing a very good job of hiding it. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

12:29am Sat 20 Apr 13

sks101 says...

my level of education says more about the left wing educators than it does about me.
my level of education says more about the left wing educators than it does about me. sks101
  • Score: 0

7:43am Sat 20 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

sks101 wrote:
my level of education says more about the left wing educators than it does about me.
Always someone else's fault...
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: my level of education says more about the left wing educators than it does about me.[/p][/quote]Always someone else's fault... Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

9:43am Sat 20 Apr 13

Dave Jones says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?
Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?
"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.
Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?
David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.
Again I ask. What has been forced on you? What legal act has been forced upon you? By the way the russians are from the Caucaus region. They are the quite literal definition of "Caucasian". Indigenous.... This is true the original Brits perished many thousands of years ago.
What has been forced upon me and other indigenous Brits is a situation where we are liable to become dispossessed of our native homeland, just as the indigenous peoples of Australia, North America and other lands have. I have no issue with individual immigrants but unfortunately for all of us - including them - they are being politicised, used as political pawns by the global elites to divide and rule, by passing race laws which prevent free speech, and using political correctness (ie cultural Marxism) to gag establishment figures from telling the truth - all aided and abetted by the media. Homosexual rights and feminism are all part of the same process. Note well: officially, Racism = Power + Prejudice. Even if the last few generations are being actively brainwashed to remove "prejudice" (ie their inbuilt survival instinct), Racism will still be endemic whilst we retain "Power". That has to go and then basic arithmetic predicts our demise (clue: millions in the Third World want to come here and our elites are letting them in) QED.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?[/p][/quote]Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?[/p][/quote]"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.[/p][/quote]Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?[/p][/quote]David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.[/p][/quote]Again I ask. What has been forced on you? What legal act has been forced upon you? By the way the russians are from the Caucaus region. They are the quite literal definition of "Caucasian". Indigenous.... This is true the original Brits perished many thousands of years ago.[/p][/quote]What has been forced upon me and other indigenous Brits is a situation where we are liable to become dispossessed of our native homeland, just as the indigenous peoples of Australia, North America and other lands have. I have no issue with individual immigrants but unfortunately for all of us - including them - they are being politicised, used as political pawns by the global elites to divide and rule, by passing race laws which prevent free speech, and using political correctness (ie cultural Marxism) to gag establishment figures from telling the truth - all aided and abetted by the media. Homosexual rights and feminism are all part of the same process. Note well: officially, Racism = Power + Prejudice. Even if the last few generations are being actively brainwashed to remove "prejudice" (ie their inbuilt survival instinct), Racism will still be endemic whilst we retain "Power". That has to go and then basic arithmetic predicts our demise (clue: millions in the Third World want to come here and our elites are letting them in) QED. Dave Jones
  • Score: 0

10:18am Sat 20 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

Dave Jones wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?
Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?
"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.
Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?
David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.
Again I ask. What has been forced on you? What legal act has been forced upon you? By the way the russians are from the Caucaus region. They are the quite literal definition of "Caucasian". Indigenous.... This is true the original Brits perished many thousands of years ago.
What has been forced upon me and other indigenous Brits is a situation where we are liable to become dispossessed of our native homeland, just as the indigenous peoples of Australia, North America and other lands have. I have no issue with individual immigrants but unfortunately for all of us - including them - they are being politicised, used as political pawns by the global elites to divide and rule, by passing race laws which prevent free speech, and using political correctness (ie cultural Marxism) to gag establishment figures from telling the truth - all aided and abetted by the media. Homosexual rights and feminism are all part of the same process. Note well: officially, Racism = Power + Prejudice. Even if the last few generations are being actively brainwashed to remove "prejudice" (ie their inbuilt survival instinct), Racism will still be endemic whilst we retain "Power". That has to go and then basic arithmetic predicts our demise (clue: millions in the Third World want to come here and our elites are letting them in) QED.
Edited version:"I'm really annoyed that I'm not allowed to discriminate against people who aren't white straight males. The only way I can survive is if I suppress anyone who is a woman, gay, or not white"

That's not multiculturalism. That's basic human rights.

Get over it.

Save the fiction around millions of foreigners from the third world. Immigration quotas are already in place for all non EU countries.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?[/p][/quote]Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?[/p][/quote]"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.[/p][/quote]Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?[/p][/quote]David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.[/p][/quote]Again I ask. What has been forced on you? What legal act has been forced upon you? By the way the russians are from the Caucaus region. They are the quite literal definition of "Caucasian". Indigenous.... This is true the original Brits perished many thousands of years ago.[/p][/quote]What has been forced upon me and other indigenous Brits is a situation where we are liable to become dispossessed of our native homeland, just as the indigenous peoples of Australia, North America and other lands have. I have no issue with individual immigrants but unfortunately for all of us - including them - they are being politicised, used as political pawns by the global elites to divide and rule, by passing race laws which prevent free speech, and using political correctness (ie cultural Marxism) to gag establishment figures from telling the truth - all aided and abetted by the media. Homosexual rights and feminism are all part of the same process. Note well: officially, Racism = Power + Prejudice. Even if the last few generations are being actively brainwashed to remove "prejudice" (ie their inbuilt survival instinct), Racism will still be endemic whilst we retain "Power". That has to go and then basic arithmetic predicts our demise (clue: millions in the Third World want to come here and our elites are letting them in) QED.[/p][/quote]Edited version:"I'm really annoyed that I'm not allowed to discriminate against people who aren't white straight males. The only way I can survive is if I suppress anyone who is a woman, gay, or not white" That's not multiculturalism. That's basic human rights. Get over it. Save the fiction around millions of foreigners from the third world. Immigration quotas are already in place for all non EU countries. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Sat 20 Apr 13

Dave Jones says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?
Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?
"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.
Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?
David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.
Again I ask. What has been forced on you? What legal act has been forced upon you? By the way the russians are from the Caucaus region. They are the quite literal definition of "Caucasian". Indigenous.... This is true the original Brits perished many thousands of years ago.
What has been forced upon me and other indigenous Brits is a situation where we are liable to become dispossessed of our native homeland, just as the indigenous peoples of Australia, North America and other lands have. I have no issue with individual immigrants but unfortunately for all of us - including them - they are being politicised, used as political pawns by the global elites to divide and rule, by passing race laws which prevent free speech, and using political correctness (ie cultural Marxism) to gag establishment figures from telling the truth - all aided and abetted by the media. Homosexual rights and feminism are all part of the same process. Note well: officially, Racism = Power + Prejudice. Even if the last few generations are being actively brainwashed to remove "prejudice" (ie their inbuilt survival instinct), Racism will still be endemic whilst we retain "Power". That has to go and then basic arithmetic predicts our demise (clue: millions in the Third World want to come here and our elites are letting them in) QED.
Edited version:"I'm really annoyed that I'm not allowed to discriminate against people who aren't white straight males. The only way I can survive is if I suppress anyone who is a woman, gay, or not white" That's not multiculturalism. That's basic human rights. Get over it. Save the fiction around millions of foreigners from the third world. Immigration quotas are already in place for all non EU countries.
To Alan _1976 : you are incapable of sustaining a logical, coherent argument; typical of your type and a waste of time. Bye.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?[/p][/quote]Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?[/p][/quote]"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.[/p][/quote]Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?[/p][/quote]David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.[/p][/quote]Again I ask. What has been forced on you? What legal act has been forced upon you? By the way the russians are from the Caucaus region. They are the quite literal definition of "Caucasian". Indigenous.... This is true the original Brits perished many thousands of years ago.[/p][/quote]What has been forced upon me and other indigenous Brits is a situation where we are liable to become dispossessed of our native homeland, just as the indigenous peoples of Australia, North America and other lands have. I have no issue with individual immigrants but unfortunately for all of us - including them - they are being politicised, used as political pawns by the global elites to divide and rule, by passing race laws which prevent free speech, and using political correctness (ie cultural Marxism) to gag establishment figures from telling the truth - all aided and abetted by the media. Homosexual rights and feminism are all part of the same process. Note well: officially, Racism = Power + Prejudice. Even if the last few generations are being actively brainwashed to remove "prejudice" (ie their inbuilt survival instinct), Racism will still be endemic whilst we retain "Power". That has to go and then basic arithmetic predicts our demise (clue: millions in the Third World want to come here and our elites are letting them in) QED.[/p][/quote]Edited version:"I'm really annoyed that I'm not allowed to discriminate against people who aren't white straight males. The only way I can survive is if I suppress anyone who is a woman, gay, or not white" That's not multiculturalism. That's basic human rights. Get over it. Save the fiction around millions of foreigners from the third world. Immigration quotas are already in place for all non EU countries.[/p][/quote]To Alan _1976 : you are incapable of sustaining a logical, coherent argument; typical of your type and a waste of time. Bye. Dave Jones
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Sat 20 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

Dave Jones wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
HarryGreen wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Dave Jones wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?
Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?
"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.
Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?
David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.
Again I ask. What has been forced on you? What legal act has been forced upon you? By the way the russians are from the Caucaus region. They are the quite literal definition of "Caucasian". Indigenous.... This is true the original Brits perished many thousands of years ago.
What has been forced upon me and other indigenous Brits is a situation where we are liable to become dispossessed of our native homeland, just as the indigenous peoples of Australia, North America and other lands have. I have no issue with individual immigrants but unfortunately for all of us - including them - they are being politicised, used as political pawns by the global elites to divide and rule, by passing race laws which prevent free speech, and using political correctness (ie cultural Marxism) to gag establishment figures from telling the truth - all aided and abetted by the media. Homosexual rights and feminism are all part of the same process. Note well: officially, Racism = Power + Prejudice. Even if the last few generations are being actively brainwashed to remove "prejudice" (ie their inbuilt survival instinct), Racism will still be endemic whilst we retain "Power". That has to go and then basic arithmetic predicts our demise (clue: millions in the Third World want to come here and our elites are letting them in) QED.
Edited version:"I'm really annoyed that I'm not allowed to discriminate against people who aren't white straight males. The only way I can survive is if I suppress anyone who is a woman, gay, or not white" That's not multiculturalism. That's basic human rights. Get over it. Save the fiction around millions of foreigners from the third world. Immigration quotas are already in place for all non EU countries.
To Alan _1976 : you are incapable of sustaining a logical, coherent argument; typical of your type and a waste of time. Bye.
Bye!
[quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Jones[/bold] wrote: Malik talks about Waltham Forest becoming a multicultural place and the BNP "creating divisions" there, but fails to mention that in our alleged democracy, there has never been a vote or mandate given or even sought by any establishment political party to impose this divisive multiculturalism and multiracialism upon the UK. Hence any "divisions" in Waltham Forest society are as a result of of successive government policies in allowing immigration to continue unchecked, and the fault of the media in giving false impressions of the BNP's policies. As far as the usual accustions of "racism" go, it's worth remembering we are talking about preferences and freedom of choice in a free society - or is that the point we are all missing?[/p][/quote]Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?[/p][/quote]"Can you explain what this divisive multiculturalism is that you are referring to that has been legally forced upon you?" We were never asked if we wanted multiculturalism. Therefore forced.[/p][/quote]Forced how? What are you calling multiculturalism. The requirement for people to be treated equally?[/p][/quote]David Jones here - the "diverse multicultralism" has been ILLEGALLY forced upon us because it was never voted on. Malik says it's divisive. it is by definition - no multiracial, or multicultural, society is peaceful and stable - just look at what happened in the US when a couple of Russian Muslims plant bombs, also same in the UK. The UK was racially homogeneous until about 30 or 40 years ago, and now indigenous Brits are in a minority in London, Leicester, B'ham etc, Disaster.[/p][/quote]Again I ask. What has been forced on you? What legal act has been forced upon you? By the way the russians are from the Caucaus region. They are the quite literal definition of "Caucasian". Indigenous.... This is true the original Brits perished many thousands of years ago.[/p][/quote]What has been forced upon me and other indigenous Brits is a situation where we are liable to become dispossessed of our native homeland, just as the indigenous peoples of Australia, North America and other lands have. I have no issue with individual immigrants but unfortunately for all of us - including them - they are being politicised, used as political pawns by the global elites to divide and rule, by passing race laws which prevent free speech, and using political correctness (ie cultural Marxism) to gag establishment figures from telling the truth - all aided and abetted by the media. Homosexual rights and feminism are all part of the same process. Note well: officially, Racism = Power + Prejudice. Even if the last few generations are being actively brainwashed to remove "prejudice" (ie their inbuilt survival instinct), Racism will still be endemic whilst we retain "Power". That has to go and then basic arithmetic predicts our demise (clue: millions in the Third World want to come here and our elites are letting them in) QED.[/p][/quote]Edited version:"I'm really annoyed that I'm not allowed to discriminate against people who aren't white straight males. The only way I can survive is if I suppress anyone who is a woman, gay, or not white" That's not multiculturalism. That's basic human rights. Get over it. Save the fiction around millions of foreigners from the third world. Immigration quotas are already in place for all non EU countries.[/p][/quote]To Alan _1976 : you are incapable of sustaining a logical, coherent argument; typical of your type and a waste of time. Bye.[/p][/quote]Bye! Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Sat 20 Apr 13

Leytonstonia says...

The BNP are a bunch of unelectable, mouth-breathing, wingnuts. There's even a reasonable chance that the BNP was created by the intelligence services as a 'honey trap' to make the loonier factions of the Right easier to keep tabs on. I wonder what they'll spend the money on? A gigantic, racist cake?
The BNP are a bunch of unelectable, mouth-breathing, wingnuts. There's even a reasonable chance that the BNP was created by the intelligence services as a 'honey trap' to make the loonier factions of the Right easier to keep tabs on. I wonder what they'll spend the money on? A gigantic, racist cake? Leytonstonia
  • Score: 0

10:35am Sun 21 Apr 13

sks101 says...

A hard working class londoner and indigenous brit leaves 1/2million to the BNP, are any of you multicultural freaks
going to leave the labour party money in your will so they can carry on with the white genocide?
The left just don't get the indigenous brit and our total rejection of brainwashing. its why our boys don't do so well at schools they biologically/subcons
ciously reject indoctrination.
A hard working class londoner and indigenous brit leaves 1/2million to the BNP, are any of you multicultural freaks going to leave the labour party money in your will so they can carry on with the white genocide? The left just don't get the indigenous brit and our total rejection of brainwashing. its why our boys don't do so well at schools they biologically/subcons ciously reject indoctrination. sks101
  • Score: 0

10:46am Sun 21 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

sks101 wrote:
A hard working class londoner and indigenous brit leaves 1/2million to the BNP, are any of you multicultural freaks going to leave the labour party money in your will so they can carry on with the white genocide? The left just don't get the indigenous brit and our total rejection of brainwashing. its why our boys don't do so well at schools they biologically/subcons ciously reject indoctrination.
Literacy, the scientific method and the requirement for evidence when formulating an argument . Now all being subconsciously rejected because of racial superiority.

I love how the inability to provide backing of arguments equals immunity from brainwashing.

The Dunning Kruger effect in full glory on this set of comments.
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: A hard working class londoner and indigenous brit leaves 1/2million to the BNP, are any of you multicultural freaks going to leave the labour party money in your will so they can carry on with the white genocide? The left just don't get the indigenous brit and our total rejection of brainwashing. its why our boys don't do so well at schools they biologically/subcons ciously reject indoctrination.[/p][/quote]Literacy, the scientific method and the requirement for evidence when formulating an argument . Now all being subconsciously rejected because of racial superiority. I love how the inability to provide backing of arguments equals immunity from brainwashing. The Dunning Kruger effect in full glory on this set of comments. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Sun 21 Apr 13

G Sladden says...

To the people who write that ‘nobody asked us about multiculturalism’, I would answer that nobody asked us about an awful lot of other issues. Parliamentary democracy means that we elect our representatives who take decisions on our behalf. The vast majority of people in this country vote either Conservative or Labour: both these parties are very much in favour of mass immigration irrespective of what they may say to us on this topic. Conservatives want high levels of immigration as they need cheap labour for their businessmen supporters and for a declining economy to be propped up in this way for as long as possible. Labour absolutely needs the immigrants vote: without it, it is finished. Plus Labour white, middle class, guilt ridden elites love prolonged sessions of self-flagellating over Britain's colonial past.
So, there is no going back on this issue. No matter how bad things will get. It’s a lost cause.
You can always move: over 600,000 British white people have abandoned London in the last 10 years. There are still forgotten parts of the country where the population is almost 100 per cent white.
To the people who write that ‘nobody asked us about multiculturalism’, I would answer that nobody asked us about an awful lot of other issues. Parliamentary democracy means that we elect our representatives who take decisions on our behalf. The vast majority of people in this country vote either Conservative or Labour: both these parties are very much in favour of mass immigration irrespective of what they may say to us on this topic. Conservatives want high levels of immigration as they need cheap labour for their businessmen supporters and for a declining economy to be propped up in this way for as long as possible. Labour absolutely needs the immigrants vote: without it, it is finished. Plus Labour white, middle class, guilt ridden elites love prolonged sessions of self-flagellating over Britain's colonial past. So, there is no going back on this issue. No matter how bad things will get. It’s a lost cause. You can always move: over 600,000 British white people have abandoned London in the last 10 years. There are still forgotten parts of the country where the population is almost 100 per cent white. G Sladden
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Sun 21 Apr 13

sks101 says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
sks101 wrote:
A hard working class londoner and indigenous brit leaves 1/2million to the BNP, are any of you multicultural freaks going to leave the labour party money in your will so they can carry on with the white genocide? The left just don't get the indigenous brit and our total rejection of brainwashing. its why our boys don't do so well at schools they biologically/subcons ciously reject indoctrination.
Literacy, the scientific method and the requirement for evidence when formulating an argument . Now all being subconsciously rejected because of racial superiority.

I love how the inability to provide backing of arguments equals immunity from brainwashing.

The Dunning Kruger effect in full glory on this set of comments.
Your the one that suffers from D.K
Why would you bother to even to come on this thread?
the white global population is at 8% keep on supporting white genocide alan
one day we will get you and your's into a human rights court under the UN indigenous peoples laws.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: A hard working class londoner and indigenous brit leaves 1/2million to the BNP, are any of you multicultural freaks going to leave the labour party money in your will so they can carry on with the white genocide? The left just don't get the indigenous brit and our total rejection of brainwashing. its why our boys don't do so well at schools they biologically/subcons ciously reject indoctrination.[/p][/quote]Literacy, the scientific method and the requirement for evidence when formulating an argument . Now all being subconsciously rejected because of racial superiority. I love how the inability to provide backing of arguments equals immunity from brainwashing. The Dunning Kruger effect in full glory on this set of comments.[/p][/quote]Your the one that suffers from D.K Why would you bother to even to come on this thread? the white global population is at 8% keep on supporting white genocide alan one day we will get you and your's into a human rights court under the UN indigenous peoples laws. sks101
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Sun 21 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

sks101 wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
sks101 wrote:
A hard working class londoner and indigenous brit leaves 1/2million to the BNP, are any of you multicultural freaks going to leave the labour party money in your will so they can carry on with the white genocide? The left just don't get the indigenous brit and our total rejection of brainwashing. its why our boys don't do so well at schools they biologically/subcons ciously reject indoctrination.
Literacy, the scientific method and the requirement for evidence when formulating an argument . Now all being subconsciously rejected because of racial superiority.

I love how the inability to provide backing of arguments equals immunity from brainwashing.

The Dunning Kruger effect in full glory on this set of comments.
Your the one that suffers from D.K
Why would you bother to even to come on this thread?
the white global population is at 8% keep on supporting white genocide alan
one day we will get you and your's into a human rights court under the UN indigenous peoples laws.
You might want to have a browse of the UN charter of human rights first before whizzing along to the court. You don't have to read far. Only article 1.

"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin "

You might want to read the steps to genocide helpfully provided earlier too. Again you only have to get to step 1 to see that organisations that promote discrimination are the first step.

You can give your money wherever you want. It's a free country. Personally I would leave my money to a medical research charity or some such organisation that is interested in the promotion of hope not hate.
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: A hard working class londoner and indigenous brit leaves 1/2million to the BNP, are any of you multicultural freaks going to leave the labour party money in your will so they can carry on with the white genocide? The left just don't get the indigenous brit and our total rejection of brainwashing. its why our boys don't do so well at schools they biologically/subcons ciously reject indoctrination.[/p][/quote]Literacy, the scientific method and the requirement for evidence when formulating an argument . Now all being subconsciously rejected because of racial superiority. I love how the inability to provide backing of arguments equals immunity from brainwashing. The Dunning Kruger effect in full glory on this set of comments.[/p][/quote]Your the one that suffers from D.K Why would you bother to even to come on this thread? the white global population is at 8% keep on supporting white genocide alan one day we will get you and your's into a human rights court under the UN indigenous peoples laws.[/p][/quote]You might want to have a browse of the UN charter of human rights first before whizzing along to the court. You don't have to read far. Only article 1. "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin " You might want to read the steps to genocide helpfully provided earlier too. Again you only have to get to step 1 to see that organisations that promote discrimination are the first step. You can give your money wherever you want. It's a free country. Personally I would leave my money to a medical research charity or some such organisation that is interested in the promotion of hope not hate. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Sun 21 Apr 13

E-ten trifles says...

Well that article induced a lot of racist bile, as a 'white' Londoner of Irish, Scottish and Asian descent well done Alan (and others) for Standing up for the majority of Londoners who respect and enjoy a multicultural society.
Well that article induced a lot of racist bile, as a 'white' Londoner of Irish, Scottish and Asian descent well done Alan (and others) for Standing up for the majority of Londoners who respect and enjoy a multicultural society. E-ten trifles
  • Score: 0

9:48am Mon 22 Apr 13

sks101 says...

multiculturalism is a code word for genocide of the indigenous people.

why don't you promote enriching Africa with a waves of white people or Chinese or India with african's or israel with Arab and non jews,how about saudi Arabia with a load of hard drinking jocks and irish? and tell them there racist if they complain,see how tolerant they would be!
multiculturalism is a code word for genocide of the indigenous people. why don't you promote enriching Africa with a waves of white people or Chinese or India with african's or israel with Arab and non jews,how about saudi Arabia with a load of hard drinking jocks and irish? and tell them there racist if they complain,see how tolerant they would be! sks101
  • Score: 0

10:01am Mon 22 Apr 13

sks101 says...

Suggest you watch this link below!



http://youtu.be/faNg
e-o0V-k
Suggest you watch this link below! http://youtu.be/faNg e-o0V-k sks101
  • Score: 0

11:12am Mon 22 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

You should read this link...

http://www.huffingto
npost.com/2012/01/27
/intelligence-study-
links-prejudice_n_12
37796.html

Probably explains your fondness for anachronistic cartoons as an explanation of the world...
You should read this link... http://www.huffingto npost.com/2012/01/27 /intelligence-study- links-prejudice_n_12 37796.html Probably explains your fondness for anachronistic cartoons as an explanation of the world... Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Mon 22 Apr 13

sks101 says...

The Huffington post hahahaha
talk about negative reporting, tell you what you put up one link to something positive they have reported on about the BNP and then i will read your link.

and as for cartoons any thing creative in my opinion is worth supporting, did you enjoy the irony about the indigenous native american indian becoming a minority and now facing extinction you genocidal lunatic.
The Huffington post hahahaha talk about negative reporting, tell you what you put up one link to something positive they have reported on about the BNP and then i will read your link. and as for cartoons any thing creative in my opinion is worth supporting, did you enjoy the irony about the indigenous native american indian becoming a minority and now facing extinction you genocidal lunatic. sks101
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Mon 22 Apr 13

Alan_1976 says...

sks101 wrote:
The Huffington post hahahaha
talk about negative reporting, tell you what you put up one link to something positive they have reported on about the BNP and then i will read your link.

and as for cartoons any thing creative in my opinion is worth supporting, did you enjoy the irony about the indigenous native american indian becoming a minority and now facing extinction you genocidal lunatic.
Ah yes the well reasoned argument once again. I wont read something because they say nasty things about the BNP. I guess that explains Your Narrow mindedness as that would exclude pretty much all non-nutcase literature. Would you prefer the link to the original Psychology research paper or did a psychologist once say something nasty about you? Or is all scientific peer reviewed work now part of a left Wong agenda too.

I particularly enjoyed the fact that the video had Admiral Nelson leading a fleet of British boats hundreds of years before he was born to America.

I also enjoyed how the creator deleted every comment that pointed out what a huge inaccurate pile of school playground discussion it was.

You keep using genocide without actually understanding the process. You still haven't actually read the 8 steps to genocide which includes step 1 organisations such as the BNP and relays how they need to be quashed. Yet still you use it as backing your argument. Maybe someone can make you a cartoon..
[quote][p][bold]sks101[/bold] wrote: The Huffington post hahahaha talk about negative reporting, tell you what you put up one link to something positive they have reported on about the BNP and then i will read your link. and as for cartoons any thing creative in my opinion is worth supporting, did you enjoy the irony about the indigenous native american indian becoming a minority and now facing extinction you genocidal lunatic.[/p][/quote]Ah yes the well reasoned argument once again. I wont read something because they say nasty things about the BNP. I guess that explains Your Narrow mindedness as that would exclude pretty much all non-nutcase literature. Would you prefer the link to the original Psychology research paper or did a psychologist once say something nasty about you? Or is all scientific peer reviewed work now part of a left Wong agenda too. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the video had Admiral Nelson leading a fleet of British boats hundreds of years before he was born to America. I also enjoyed how the creator deleted every comment that pointed out what a huge inaccurate pile of school playground discussion it was. You keep using genocide without actually understanding the process. You still haven't actually read the 8 steps to genocide which includes step 1 organisations such as the BNP and relays how they need to be quashed. Yet still you use it as backing your argument. Maybe someone can make you a cartoon.. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Tue 23 Apr 13

e10biker says...

I personally have no time for the BNP, but I also have no time for any extremist group of any type.

But we live in a free state and the right of an individual to hold a view and donate to a political cause has to be upheld.

As long as the Group is not responsible for terrorists or violence behaviour. We have to accept that people will have political views that many will not find palatable.

Afzal Malik part of your job should be to engage with all ethnic groups and organisations.In Waltham Forest there are many groups across the political and ethnic spectrum including the BNP that I dont agree with. Do we start banning them all?

Where do we stop?
I personally have no time for the BNP, but I also have no time for any extremist group of any type. But we live in a free state and the right of an individual to hold a view and donate to a political cause has to be upheld. As long as the Group is not responsible for terrorists or violence behaviour. We have to accept that people will have political views that many will not find palatable. Afzal Malik part of your job should be to engage with all ethnic groups and organisations.In Waltham Forest there are many groups across the political and ethnic spectrum including the BNP that I dont agree with. Do we start banning them all? Where do we stop? e10biker
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree