NationStates Jolt Archive

Whilst trawling t'interweb and avoiding my Theoderic essay, I found the following article. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/07/do0701.xml)

This is in response to the removal of a Tory MP from his constituency for daring to suggest that Enoch Powell, in saying that immigration will change Britain "irrevocably", was right. Not only was Powell right; immigration has changed Britain irrevocably, but this reflects a disturbing trend in politics, one raised by the article excellently. Anything concerning immigration is immediatly invested with racial connotations that serve only to cloud the judgement of all concerned and avert attention away from the statistical practicalities of immigration. This also reminded of a number of fairly anonymous left-wing posters on NSG, mainly Greater Trostia, who seems to be a hive mind of the more rabid Guardian readers on the internet, but all the same, I think it illuminates a disturbing trend. That and the fact the MP, and Simon Heffer, are correct of course.

...This also reminded of a number of fairly anonymous left-wing posters on NSG, mainly Greater Trostia, who seems to be a hive mind of the more rabid Guardian readers on the internet, but all the same...
:confused:

So do you have any brilliant suggestions on who would do the jobs that immigrants currently do as Britons are unwilling to work for those wages? Or is a "functioning economy" not important for Britain do you think?

Powell from memory went on about 'rivers of blood' - this has not happened so no he wasn't right; he was just trying to appeal to the racist voters in his constituency simply to get elected.

Powell from memory went on about 'rivers of blood' - this has not happened so no he wasn't right; he was just trying to appeal to the racist voters in his constituency simply to get elected.

Have you ever actually read the speech, or, for that matter the article? I assume not, hence, I really see no reason to dignofy you with an answer if you can't do me the courtesy of reading the article cited before responding.

Yet. I'd put money on racial tensions boiling over at some point in the next decade or so.

The point is that Powell was inflaming racial tensions trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. He is regarded as a rather shabby political figure both by us Guardian readers as well as by tories (this is why he ended up in the Ulster Unionists - he did the Conservatives a great deal of electoral harm by his statements).

Have you ever actually read the speech, or, for that matter the article? I assume not, hence, I really see no reason to dignofy you with an answer if you can't do me the courtesy of reading the article cited before responding.

I remember him making it - were you even born?

Nice after the fact post editing by the way.

Powell from memory went on about 'rivers of blood' - this has not happened so no he wasn't right; he was just trying to appeal to the racist voters in his constituency simply to get elected.

No he didn't. He quoted Virgil, from the Aenied if memory serves. Not, I imagine, that you have an education of sufficient quality to be familiar with Virgil and the Aenied, and thus context in which the quotation should be set.

No he didn't. He quoted Virgil, from the Aenied if memory serves. Not, I imagine, that you have an education of sufficient quality to be familiar with Virgil and the Aenied, and thus context in which the quotation should be set.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

No he didn't. He quoted Virgil, from the Aenied if memory serves. Not, I imagine, that you have an education of sufficient quality to be familiar with Virgil and the Aenied, and thus context in which the quotation should be set.

It is known as the rivers of blood speech - and flaming me with guesses about my education won't make up the ignorance of your youth.

I remember him making it - were you even born?

Nice after the fact post editing by the way.

Really? Clearly not well enough to actually get the details correct though?

Ho hum, old age does dim the memory I suppose.:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

Many thanks. Have you actually read the Aenied, or are we destined to spend the next few posts with you circumventing the issue?

Really? Clearly not well enough to actually get the details correct though?

Ho hum, old age does dim the memory I suppose.:)

How is "I see the river tiber foaming with much blood" not saying anything about rivers of blood?

Many thanks. Have you actually read the Aenied, or are we destined to spend the next few posts with you circumventing the issue?

Yes I have.

I just finished reading the article and the speech.

The speech is racist, as it blatantly and explicitly equates immigration with the destruction of the UK. Therefore the article is wrong.

I would agree that immigration has changed the UK, and all I can say is: Thank god.

Many thanks. Have you actually read the Aenied, or are we destined to spend the next few posts with you circumventing the issue?

It is Aeneid, by the way. Young people today...

It is known as the rivers of blood speech - and flaming me with guesses about my education won't make up the ignorance of your youth.

So it is, colloquially. Unfortunately, popular misconceptions and the ignorance of the masses are not a basis upon which to predicate an argument.

What kind of screwed up, twisted parents name their kid "Enoch".

What kind of screwed up, twisted parents name their kid "Enoch".

Some sort of 'little Englander' racists, who never shut their traps about the glories of empire and civillising the "darkies" with hot lead.....at a wild guess.

Have you ever actually read the speech, or, for that matter the article? I assume not, hence, I really see no reason to dignofy you with an answer if you can't do me the courtesy of reading the article cited before responding.
I've read the speech. And I'm not impressed. His examples of "everyday people" sound like people who have (perhaps unfairly, but nonetheless understandably) been ostracised for their prejudices and who are blaming everyone else without acknowledging their own faults.

His main problem seems to be that he sees the American Immigrant population and shudders at the thought. And I don't get it. Why should I care that in 20 years time the people of Great Britain will predominantly be people who are not Great British now? History is bunk; cultural identity even more so. If anything, it is the stubbornly English habit of being stuck in the past that seems to be the main driving force of it.

Now this doesn't mean he isn't right about the British people being a load of Racist, Backwards, Inbred Snobs. But given that I don't think that's what he was trying to say, perhaps saying that "He Was Right" is pushing the boundaries of "Right" to their extremes.

Some sort of 'little Englander' racists, who never shut their traps about the glories of empire and civillising the "darkies" with hot lead.....at a wild guess.

The very same Enoch Powell who attacked his own party, in the commons, in 1959, for the brutal treatment of Mau Mau detainees in Kenya, and thus risk his own political career? The very same Powell who reached interpretor standard in Urdu such was his love for India?

Or is this the vilified Enoch Powell of popular misconception whom every half-baked and half-educated pseudo-intellectual fop strings upon alongside Hitler as the great boogeymen of the twentieth century?

What kind of screwed up, twisted parents name their kid "Enoch".

Given he was born around the turn of the century, I would dismiss this as moronic. Enoch was a popular name at the time.

I've read the speech. And I'm not impressed. His examples of "everyday people" sound like people who have (perhaps unfairly, but nonetheless understandably) been ostracised for their prejudices and who are blaming everyone else without acknowledging their own faults.

His main problem seems to be that he sees the American Immigrant population and shudders at the thought. And I don't get it. Why should I care that in 20 years time the people of Great Britain will predominantly be people who are not Great British now? History is bunk; cultural identity even more so. If anything, it is the stubbornly English habit of being stuck in the past that seems to be the main driving force of it.

Now this doesn't mean he isn't right about the British people being a load of Racist, Backwards, Inbred Snobs. But given that I don't think that's what he was trying to say, perhaps saying that "He Was Right" is pushing the boundaries of "Right" to their extremes.

You quote a statement from Henry Ford, that esteemed intellectual, as opposed to Henry Ford the tediously prosaic industrialist, and expect me to take you seriously?

History is of every significance; it presents us with the lodestars by which we guide and direct the present.

So, again. How would you recommend proceeding without immigrant labour?

The very same Enoch Powell who attacked his own party, in the commons, in 1959, for the brutal treatment of Mau Mau detainees in Kenya, and thus risk his own political career? The very same Powell who reached interpretor standard in Urdu such was his love for India?

Or is this the vilified Enoch Powell of popular misconception whom every half-baked and half-educated pseudo-intellectual fop strings upon alongside Hitler as the great boogeymen of the twentieth century?

I quote from his speech....

Powell argued that although "many thousands" of immigrants wanted to integrate, he contended that the majority did not and that some had vested interests in fostering racial and religious differences "with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population"

Total shite.

Powell said that all citizens should be equal before the law but that:
"This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendants should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to an inquisition as to his reasons and motives for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another".[6]

He further argued that those journalists who urged the government to pass anti-discrimination laws were "of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it". Powell said that such legislation would be used to discriminate against the indigenous population and that it would be like "throwing a match on to gunpowder".[7] Powell described what he thought the position of the indigenous population would be:

........what a complete and utter wankstain.

But on the bright side, he is dead. Thus, nothing lasts forever.

So, again. How would you recommend proceeding without immigrant labour?

I would not, completely. I would, however, remove welfare from real British citizens if they are able bodied and of working age and choose not to work, given that the labour filled by mass immigration is of the sort unemployed British citizens could fulfill satisfactorily.

I have nothing against professional, selective immigration; it is sensible. What is not is mass, unregulated immigration upon the scale seen from the 1950's to the present. It is unpopular, impractical, and places a strain upon public services that is not outweighed by the economic contributions most mass migrants make.

I would not, completely. I would, however, remove welfare from real British citizens if they are able bodied and of working age and choose not to work, given that the labour filled by mass immigration is of the sort unemployed British citizens could fulfill satisfactorily.

I have nothing against professional, selective immigration; it is sensible. What is not is mass, unregulated immigration upon the scale seen from the 1950's to the present. It is unpopular, impractical, and places a strain upon public services that is not outweighed by the economic contributions most mass migrants make.

I assume that you have some proof of this as the general consensus I've been hearing is that legal migrant workers are currently providing a massive boost to the economy.

It's hardly surprising that The Blessed Chris doesn't think that Enoch Powell was a racist given that he is one himself :)

You quote a statement from Henry Ford, that esteemed intellectual, as opposed to Henry Ford the tediously prosaic industrialist, and expect me to take you seriously?

History is of every significance; it presents us with the lodestars by which we guide and direct the present.
Don't give me that. It was a statement, not a quotation, which remains true regardless of who said it and when. History is a specific form of mythology; the stories we construct from the fragments of the memories of those who went before us and the skewed perspectives of our own encounters. Nothing more or less than that, and of equal value to any literary tale or religious myth that we care to construct off the top of our heads. We act on the basis of what we can do in the here and now to make things better, not to echo what others did in the past.

Besides, you didn't address the core question I asked. Why should it matter if the population of Britain in 20 years is predominantly composed of people who are not currently British? I see no reason to assume that it is of even the most remote importance that present day "Britishness" is "retained".

I would not, completely. I would, however, remove welfare from real British citizens if they are able bodied and of working age and choose not to work, given that the labour filled by mass immigration is of the sort unemployed British citizens could fulfill satisfactorily.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any statistics to back up this theory? Especially as the British workers would have to be paid more money.

I have nothing against professional, selective immigration; it is sensible. What is not is mass, unregulated immigration upon the scale seen from the 1950's to the present. It is unpopular, impractical, and places a strain upon public services that is not outweighed by the economic contributions most mass migrants make.

Although I suppose one advantage of that form of immigration is that it weeds out the sort of common rabble that you would prefer not exist, but the sad thing is, it's the common rabble that are the ones that the country needs coming in most. A doctor or a professor isn't going to build homes and roads, serve you food or clean your toilet for low low wages.

Don't give me that. It was a statement, not a quotation, which remains true regardless of who said it and when. History is a specific form of mythology; the stories we construct from the fragments of the memories of those who went before us and the skewed perspectives of our own encounters. Nothing more or less than that, and of equal value to any literary tale or religious myth that we care to construct off the top of our heads. We act on the basis of what we can do in the here and now to make things better, not to echo what others did in the past.

Besides, you didn't address the core question I asked. Why should it matter if the population of Britain in 20 years is predominantly composed of people who are not currently British? I see no reason to assume that it is of even the most remote importance that present day "Britishness" is "retained".

Well of course you don't, I doubt you are even British. I, being English, and, in that home counties middle England way bloody proud of it, do. I see greta merits in what vestiges of English culture and society remain, and hence see no reason to immolate them at the altar of multi-culturalism, a notion that has been a mediocre failure at best wherever it has been implemented.

As for a quotation; no piece of literature can, or should, escape its provenance. Henry Ford is a quintissentially prosaic, materialistic industrialist who looked only to the obstacles that beset his feet rather than aiming for the stars. I daresay you find such pragmatic tedium of appeal; I, however, happen to think that history, and the mistakes of the past, are of immense value. As it happens, so do most politicians, Tony Blair being an exception that only confirms my faith in history.

It's hardly surprising that The Blessed Chris doesn't think that Enoch Powell was a racist given that he is one himself :)

He wasn't, and neither, for that matter, am I. However, if you cannot take the time to read the article, or listen to reason, I'm not about to waste time on you.

He wasn't, and neither, for that matter, am I. However, if you cannot take the time to read the article, or listen to reason, I'm not about to waste time on you.

I read the article and the speech. He's racist.

Well of course you don't, I doubt you are even British. I, being English, and, in that home counties middle England way bloody proud of it, do. I see greta merits in what vestiges of English culture and society remain, and hence see no reason to immolate them at the altar of multi-culturalism, a notion that has been a mediocre failure at best wherever it has been implemented.

I being British, English to be exact have to say I disagree. What does it matter? More importantly why does it matter?

As to the failure of multiculturalism, you are aware that this Island of ours has been multicultural since at least the time the romans left, yes?

He wasn't, and neither, for that matter, am I. However, if you cannot take the time to read the article, or listen to reason, I'm not about to waste time on you.

I remember you fearing that one day Britain would have a black prime minister. You're a racist.

He wasn't, and neither, for that matter, am I. However, if you cannot take the time to read the article, or listen to reason, I'm not about to waste time on you.

Powell was a racist. Why else would he have made the "rivers of blood" speech against anti-racism legislation?

Oh, don't give me the whole learning Urdu thing either, he did that because it was his ambition to become viceroy of India and he thought it would further his aims, not because he had some deep connection to the Indian people.

Edit: Still not shown that immigrants are a drain on social services outweighing their benefit to society.

Whilst trawling t'interweb and avoiding my Theoderic essay, I found the following article. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/07/do0701.xml)
Well, better than the Mail, I suppose. marginally.

This is in response to the removal of a Tory MP from his constituency for daring to suggest that Enoch Powell, in saying that immigration will change Britain "irrevocably", was right.
If you really want a good thread, get your facts straight:

An unrepentant Conservative parliamentary candidate stepped down last night after a storm of protest over his remarks that Enoch Powell was right to make his notorious "rivers of blood speech" on the effects of immigration in Britain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2205296,00.html

Note the bolded part. He's a candidate for a parliamentary election, not an MP. Nobody's constituents are being denied their choice of MP. And that makes a huge difference. The Conservative party has every right to decide who stands under their name in any constituency. And, thank god, they don't want outright racists smearing it. At least, not too much.

Not only was Powell right; immigration has changed Britain irrevocably,
How did I know you'd say that?

but this reflects a disturbing trend in politics, one raised by the article excellently. Anything concerning immigration is immediatly invested with racial connotations that serve only to cloud the judgement of all concerned and avert attention away from the statistical practicalities of immigration.
From everybody's favourite paper:

Mr Hastilow's departure came only days after Tory leader David Cameron was praised by equality chief Trevor Phillips for "deracialising" the immigration debate.


The head of the new Equality and Human Rights Commission hailed a speech by Mr Cameron last week as a turning point. "For the first time in my adult life I heard a party leader clearly attempting to deracialise the issue of immigration," he added.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=491643&in_page_id=1770

Wrong.

This also reminded of a number of fairly anonymous left-wing posters on NSG, mainly Greater Trostia, who seems to be a hive mind of the more rabid Guardian readers on the internet, but all the same, I think it illuminates a disturbing trend. That and the fact the MP, and Simon Heffer, are correct of course.
And the point of that swipe is?

Powell was a racist. Why else would he have made the "rivers of blood" speech against anti-racism legislation?

Oh, don't give me the whole learning Urdu thing either, he did that because it was his ambition to become viceroy of India and he thought it would further his aims, not because he had some deep connection to the Indian people.

Edit: Still not shown that immigrants are a drain on social services outweighing their benefit to society.

Because Powell was simply expressing a very justifiable fear that mass, unrestricted immigration would not lead to integration, rather it would induce racial tensions and feelings of antipathy from both ethnic migrants and natives. As it happens, he has been proven quite right, and thus, if this renders him racist, I really do pity your grasp of semantics.

Because Powell was simply expressing a very justifiable fear that mass, unrestricted immigration would not lead to integration, rather it would induce racial tensions and feelings of antipathy from both ethnic migrants and natives. As it happens, he has been proven quite right, and thus, if this renders him racist, I really do pity your grasp of semantics.

Sorry? Do we live in the same country? Please show how it has been 'proven quite right'.

I remember you fearing that one day Britain would have a black prime minister. You're a racist.
And saying he's emigrate if he did.

Well of course you don't, I doubt you are even British. I, being English, and, in that home counties middle England way bloody proud of it, do. I see greta merits in what vestiges of English culture and society remain, and hence see no reason to immolate them at the altar of multi-culturalism, a notion that has been a mediocre failure at best wherever it has been implemented.
My question, shamelessly ctrl-v'd for your reminding, was "Why should it matter if the population of Britain in 20 years is predominantly composed of people who are not currently British?" You've just asserted that there exists some reason. So far, this reason appears to be a sense of pride in itself, which alone carries no water. If the only thing a project has going for it is that people believe in it (rather than that it has a particular vision, that it has a great idea or methodology, that its people are talented and innovative or the like) then not only is this belief misplaced, but its supporters are clearly delusional.

And in answer to your doubts, I am officially British, have been so from birth as a result of having British parents. If not for fear of identity theft, I'd be quite happy to show you a birth certificate and passport to that effect. But all that means to me is as another way of categorising people for organisational purposes. It has no value or purpose beyond where I live and work (and to whom I contribute my time and resources in order to maintain public services, which, I note, you reject on principle) because as far as I can tell, national pride serves no role other than to give xenophobes a vent for their own failings and vindictive urges (which, I might add, would no longer be a problem if they didn't care so much about the past).

As for a quotation; no piece of literature can, or should, escape its provenance. Henry Ford is a quintissentially prosaic, materialistic industrialist who looked only to the obstacles that beset his feet rather than aiming for the stars. I daresay you find such pragmatic tedium of appeal; I, however, happen to think that history, and the mistakes of the past, are of immense value. As it happens, so do most politicians, Tony Blair being an exception that only confirms my faith in history.
Tony Blair, an Exception? Hah. The man is even more historically obsessive than the rest of them; changing the Labour party into a bloody clone Thatcher movement because of it. If you're really using New Labour as a confirmation of your belief in History then I now have confirmation that your devotion to history is blinding you to the reality of the present.

And speaking of tedium, by venerating history, you resign yourself to repeating and reliving it. If every action you do is governed by what other people have already done, you're going to make the same mistakes they did. Over and Over again. And guess what? That's exactly what "most politicians" do. Just look at our current political climate, hovering on the edge of a bloody police state after our yielding to the demands of "Security". How many times do we have to relive this ridiculous series of events?

Make no mistake about it; our complacency in allowing the past to walk all over us will change. It will be made to change. And I'll do it myself if I have to.

My question, shamelessly ctrl-v'd for your reminding, was "Why should it matter if the population of Britain in 20 years is predominantly composed of people who are not currently British?" You've just asserted that there exists some reason. So far, this reason appears to be a sense of pride in itself, which alone carries no water. If the only thing a project has going for it is that people believe in it (rather than that it has a particular vision, that it has a great idea or methodology, that its people are talented and innovative or the like) then not only is this belief misplaced, but its supporters are clearly delusional.

And in answer to your doubts, I am officially British, have been so from birth as a result of having British parents. If not for fear of identity theft, I'd be quite happy to show you a birth certificate and passport to that effect. But all that means to me is as another way of categorising people for organisational purposes. It has no value or purpose beyond where I live and work (and to whom I contribute my time and resources in order to maintain public services, which, I note, you reject on principle) because as far as I can tell, national pride serves no role other than to give xenophobes a vent for their own failings and vindictive urges (which, I might add, would no longer be a problem if they didn't care so much about the past).


Tony Blair, an Exception? Hah. The man is even more historically obsessive than the rest of them; changing the Labour party into a bloody clone Thatcher movement because of it. If you're really using New Labour as a confirmation of your belief in History then I now have confirmation that your devotion to history is blinding you to the reality of the present.

And speaking of tedium, by venerating history, you resign yourself to repeating and reliving it. If every action you do is governed by what other people have already done, you're going to make the same mistakes they did. Over and Over again. And guess what? That's exactly what "most politicians" do. Just look at our current political climate, hovering on the edge of a bloody police state after our yielding to the demands of "Security". How many times do we have to relive this ridiculous series of events?

Make no mistake about it; our complacency in allowing the past to walk all over us will change. It will be made to change. And I'll do it myself if I have to.

Hehh he didn't answer my questions along the same lines either.

Sorry? Do we live in the same country? Please show how it has been 'proven quite right'.

Race and immigration wouldn't be the issue they were if the policies of the 50's and 60's had been a success, would it?

And saying he's emigrate if he did.

I'm going to do so anyway, why not if that is the case?

Race and immigration wouldn't be the issue they were if the policies of the 50's and 60's had been a success, would it?

That doesn't answer the question. However immigration is, has and always will be an issue anywhere you live, and by issue I don't mean it will always cause racial tensions.

What racial tensions are you talking about? Specifically in Britain?

Because Powell was simply expressing a very justifiable fear that mass, unrestricted immigration would not lead to integration, rather it would induce racial tensions and feelings of antipathy from both ethnic migrants and natives. As it happens, he has been proven quite right, and thus, if this renders him racist, I really do pity your grasp of semantics.

Did you read the same speech I did? It was blatantly racist. Like the bit about projected population figures, which concludes with this:

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?"

No. That is the natural and rational first question if you assume that all immigration is inherently bad. Which you would only assume if you were extremely xenophobic, i.e. racist.

And you have yet to show that racial tensions and feelings of antipathy have been induced by mass, unrestricted immigration.

And saying he's emigrate if he did.

And thus becoming an immigrant. You've got to love irony.

And thus becoming an immigrant. You've got to love irony.

He was one for a while, he moved to Australia to take up a post as a professor of Greek at Sydney University in 1937.

Because Powell was simply expressing a very justifiable fear that mass, unrestricted immigration would not lead to integration, rather it would induce racial tensions and feelings of antipathy from both ethnic migrants and natives. As it happens, he has been proven quite right,

He has my ass. Whens the last time there was black on white trouble in London? Most of what happened in the 1980's was between non-whites and the Police, due not in any small part to the attitude of the forces in question.

Enoch Powell was simply a racist. End of story, and that of the Tory MP Nigel Hastilow was wrong in saying that Powell had been proven right.

By the way Blessed Chris is one of your post u mention that ur being English, and, in that home counties middle England way bloody proud of it, do. I see greta merits in what vestiges of English culture and society remain, and hence see no reason to immolate them at the altar of multi-culturalism, a notion that has been a mediocre failure at best wherever it has been implemented.

Remember that in all chance if u go back in history u find out that's a good chance that your from a multi-culturalism union, either that of the Romans, the vikings (Scandavian), or that of Normans (Northern France).

Also u go on about Powell was simply expressing a very justifiable fear that mass, unrestricted immigration would not lead to integration, rather it would induce racial tensions and feelings of antipathy from both ethnic migrants and natives. As it happens, he has been proven quite right, and thus, if this renders him racist, I really do pity your grasp of semantics.

By that i persume you mean that of the main riots in May - June 2001, that of mainly the Oldham and Bradford Roits.

The Bradford riots has been proven that it started due to that of confrontation between the Anti-Nazi League and far right groups such as the National Front.

The Oldham Riot occured many due to that of very poor housing and council services that most of the Asian Community had moved to into Oldham, during the 50/60's. Mainly that of Glodwick, Werneth and further neighbouring areas.
So the council gave that of large amount of money in improvement grants to improve these areas, which some of the White community (BNF fans), saw as unfair to the poor white areas nearby, that they believed weren't receiving their fair share.
When in reality the white communites of Oldham were receiving improvement grants nearly three times than that going to the Asian Community areas.
There had also been numerous attacks by white gangs on Asians, and reprisal by Asians gangs on whites for a few years before the Riot, that have never been really mentioned by the press.
Along with other numerous things caused hate feeling amongs the Asians and the white community (helped by that of arrival of certain people of the National Front and BNP, just a few weeks before the Riot kicked off).

Blessed Chris before u say i don't know what i talking about in the Oldham case.
I tell u abit about myself i'm of English / Scottish Hertiage, have tracked the history of my family to around 1630. I lived in Oldham for all 28 years of my life (9 years in Werneth and the rest in Chadderton)

He was one for a while, he moved to Australia to take up a post as a professor of Greek at Sydney University in 1937.

I had no idea The Blessed Chris was quite so old.

I had no idea The Blessed Chris was quite so old.


No, just his Thesaurus....

No, just his Thesaurus....

Actually, smart-arse, Chris has the 2005 edition of the "Awkward Pretentious Thesaurus". He's a modern man.

I'm going to do so anyway, why not if that is the case?
Don't wriggle out of it. You didn't say that when you decided to go on on your racist tirade, neither did you say that when defending it. Nor is there any way of infering it.

meh. :rolleyes:

I would love to be outraged, but I'd emigrate if the UK elected a black prime minister, so I feel that would be a tad hypocritical.

Actually, smart-arse, Chris has the 2005 edition of the "Awkward Pretentious Thesaurus". He's a modern man.

Yeah. Do they have people with thesauruses in the flame warriors site?

He's not an MP he was a prospective candidate for a parliamentary seat.

I had no idea The Blessed Chris was quite so old.

Must read full posts. :(

Still waiting for Chris to provide proof that immigrants are taking more from modern British society than they are contributing. I have a feeling that I could be in for a long wait.

Must read full posts. :(

Still waiting for Chris to provide proof that immigrants are taking more from modern British society than they are contributing. I have a feeling that I could be in for a long wait.

He seems to answer any questions with nothing other than personal attacks - so I do not think there is any hope of evidence or even reasoned argument.

He seems to answer any questions with nothing other than personal attacks - so I do not think there is any hope of evidence or even reasoned argument.
Maybe that is his response. Maybe that's what he means by "British Culture".