Today's most viewed
| TOP STORIES |  | | | | | | | FEATURES | | | | | | MAYOR NEWS | | | | TRAVEL | | | | COMPETITIONS | | |
|
|
|
BNP member: 'I'm here to stay'
 |
| City Hall |
The BNP member of the London Assembly has launched an angry tirade at the first meeting of the Assembly.
Richard Barnbrook, who represents Barking and Dagenham and won the party's first seat at City Hall, told the other members "I'm here and I'm here to stay" at this morning's meeting.
The far-right politician is facing a boycott from the mainstream parties and has been warned to step back from promoting the British National Party's racist agenda.
Candidates from other parties walked out as he started his victory speech last weekend and staff at City Hall from ethnic minorities are reportedly reluctant to work with him.
"I don't care if I received one vote or a thousand - I'm here and I'm here to stay," the 47-year-old former artist angrily told the Assembly today.
He said that if other members continued to make comments about him he would have "no qualms going straight to the English Standards Board".
"I'm here to work for London with Londoners," he added.
Mr Barnbrook secured 5.3 per cent of the vote in last week's election, narrowly passing the five per cent required
3:02pm Friday 9th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: M McAndrew, Watford on 5:28pm Fri 9 May 08
So the BNP must "step back" from promoting its "racist" policies, must it ? I take it that means stop defending the right of the indigeneous British to keep their own identity and their own culture, and exposing what the Labour, LibDem and Conservative parties are all doing to turn our once wonderful country into a dirty, crowded, chaotic, crime-ridden South American-type melting pot ?
Perhaps some Lab-Lib-Con members will one day admit what a dreadful thing they have been doing to their own country and their own people, but I doubt the BNP will ever give up the fight. They are our last hope.
So the BNP must "step back" from promoting its "racist" policies, must it ? I take it that means stop defending the right of the indigeneous British to keep their own identity and their own culture, and exposing what the Labour, LibDem and Conservative parties are all doing to turn our once wonderful country into a dirty, crowded, chaotic, crime-ridden South American-type melting pot ?
Perhaps some Lab-Lib-Con members will one day admit what a dreadful thing they have been doing to their own country and their own people, but I doubt the BNP will ever give up the fight. They are our last hope.
Posted by: David, London on 5:46pm Fri 9 May 08
I think the Labour members should not to be corrupt and give public money to their friends like many of the the last Labour lot. Have they been warned if they get caught they could go to prison?.
I think the Labour members should not to be corrupt and give public money to their friends like many of the the last Labour lot. Have they been warned if they get caught they could go to prison?.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 12:37am Sat 10 May 08
[quote]So the BNP must "step back" from promoting its "racist" policies, must it ? I take it that means stop defending the right of the indigenous British to keep their own identity and their own culture, and exposing what the Labour, LibDem and Conservative parties are all doing to turn our once wonderful country into a dirty, crowded, chaotic, crime-ridden South American-type melting pot ?[/quote]
Nah ,what they are probably referring to when discussing bnp racist policies, are policies like the bnp advocating the removal of millions of British citizens(repatriatio
n) on grounds of ethnicity, now they may fool you by dressing this policy up as "defending the rights of indigenous people" but I am quite certain most reasonably educated 12 year olds can see through this and realise it is just plain and simple fascism.
As for your belief that our society will descend into chaos, unless we allow the bnp to save us.......Oh look!! what is that pink thing flying past my window!!!
I must admit though, I did find Barnbrook`s assembly speech quite amusing , he claimed about 3 times that he would help the people of London regardless of their creed or colour.....Not exactly in line with his party`s "repatriation" policy......Oh well so much for them being the only party that tell the truth.
So the BNP must "step back" from promoting its "racist" policies, must it ? I take it that means stop defending the right of the indigenous British to keep their own identity and their own culture, and exposing what the Labour, LibDem and Conservative parties are all doing to turn our once wonderful country into a dirty, crowded, chaotic, crime-ridden South American-type melting pot ?
Nah ,what they are probably referring to when discussing bnp racist policies, are policies like the bnp advocating the removal of millions of British citizens(repatriatio
n) on grounds of ethnicity, now they may fool you by dressing this policy up as "defending the rights of indigenous people" but I am quite certain most reasonably educated 12 year olds can see through this and realise it is just plain and simple fascism.
As for your belief that our society will descend into chaos, unless we allow the bnp to save us.......Oh look!! what is that pink thing flying past my window!!!
I must admit though, I did find Barnbrook`s assembly speech quite amusing , he claimed about 3 times that he would help the people of London regardless of their creed or colour.....Not exactly in line with his party`s "repatriation" policy......Oh well so much for them being the only party that tell the truth.
Posted by: derrick, A Once Great Land on 12:47am Sat 10 May 08
How Dare Londoners have the effrontery to democratically elect someone to represent them who the Lib/Lab/Con trick cartel politicians do not approve of!
How Dare Londoners have the effrontery to democratically elect someone to represent them who the Lib/Lab/Con trick cartel politicians do not approve of!
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 1:02am Sat 10 May 08
[quote]How Dare Londoners have the effrontery to democratically elect someone to represent them who the Lib/Lab/Con trick cartel politicians do not approve of![/quote]
Just goes to show, that democracy in Britain is alive and well I suppose...
...Shame for Richard that the rest of his colleagues, in City Hall are also exercising their democratic rights and want nothing to do with him, but apparently all is well ,as Richard does not mind being a "lone wolf" or is that lone leper???
How Dare Londoners have the effrontery to democratically elect someone to represent them who the Lib/Lab/Con trick cartel politicians do not approve of!
Just goes to show, that democracy in Britain is alive and well I suppose...
...Shame for Richard that the rest of his colleagues, in City Hall are also exercising their democratic rights and want nothing to do with him, but apparently all is well ,as Richard does not mind being a "lone wolf" or is that lone leper???
Posted by: Croyboy on 1:35am Sat 10 May 08
"...staff at City Hall from ethnic minorities are reportedly reluctant to work with him."
Really! What about the fact that many of the ethnic majority are reluctant to live with [italic]them[/italic]?
"...staff at City Hall from ethnic minorities are reportedly reluctant to work with him."
Really! What about the fact that many of the ethnic majority are reluctant to live with
them?
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 2:38am Sat 10 May 08
Yeh, but from what I hear it doesnt stop at ethnic minorities within city hall, apparently nobody there wants anything to do with him....No doubt this is due to some kind of LibLabCon conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Yeh, but from what I hear it doesnt stop at ethnic minorities within city hall, apparently nobody there wants anything to do with him....No doubt this is due to some kind of LibLabCon conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Posted by: xcess, watford on 6:48am Sat 10 May 08
"No doubt this is due to some kind of Lib-Lab-Con conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Maybe its Ken Livingstone and what he/his party stands for that appalls people hence the bnp got in?
The thing is if 30 million people in this country voted for a bnp government,the other 30 million would cry foul.Obviousley whatever the bnp policies,they worked and its no different to labour promising to make the world a better place and then sending it into chaos
Why is it that every time a bnp man gets in anywhere,the rest shout foul,its about time politicians listened to the people that elected them rather than feathering their nest and ramping up the pensions.
Look at the waste of space we have for an MP in Watford(Claire Ward Lab)She is on maternity leave since Christmas and cant vote on important issues,representing her electorate,yet as soon as a camera from the local rag shows up she happily poses with baby...it makes you sick
So in a nutshell im APPALLED by this LABOUR party and all it stands for.....
"No doubt this is due to some kind of Lib-Lab-Con conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Maybe its Ken Livingstone and what he/his party stands for that appalls people hence the bnp got in?
The thing is if 30 million people in this country voted for a bnp government,the other 30 million would cry foul.Obviousley whatever the bnp policies,they worked and its no different to labour promising to make the world a better place and then sending it into chaos
Why is it that every time a bnp man gets in anywhere,the rest shout foul,its about time politicians listened to the people that elected them rather than feathering their nest and ramping up the pensions.
Look at the waste of space we have for an MP in Watford(Claire Ward Lab)She is on maternity leave since Christmas and cant vote on important issues,representing her electorate,yet as soon as a camera from the local rag shows up she happily poses with baby...it makes you sick
So in a nutshell im APPALLED by this LABOUR party and all it stands for.....
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 6:39pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote]"No doubt this is due to some kind of Lib-Lab-Con conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Maybe its Ken Livingstone and what he/his party stands for that appalls people hence the bnp got in?
The thing is if 30 million people in this country voted for a bnp government other 30 million would cry foul.Obviousley whatever the bnp policies,they worked and its no different to labour promising to make the world a better place and then sending it into chaos
Why is it that every time a bnp man gets in anywhere,the rest shout foul,its about time politicians listened to the people that elected them rather than feathering their nest and ramping up the pensions.
Look at the waste of space we have for an MP in Watford(Claire Ward Lab)She is on maternity leave since Christmas and cant vote on important issues,representing her electorate,yet as soon as a camera from the local rag shows up she happily poses with baby...it makes you sick
So in a nutshell im APPALLED by this LABOUR party and all it stands for.....[/quote]
I wouldn't exactly call 5.3 % of the vote and one representative on the GLA "getting in"....Were you under the impression that Boris Johnson was the bnp candidate...LMFAO.
BTW for the bnp to ever get 30 mill votes at a general election they would only need to show, a mere 15625%(ballpark) improvement on their best previous effort, highly likely I`m sure.
"No doubt this is due to some kind of Lib-Lab-Con conspiracy/trick or ....And nothing at all to do with the fact that the majority of Londoners are appalled by what his party really stand for.
Maybe its Ken Livingstone and what he/his party stands for that appalls people hence the bnp got in?
The thing is if 30 million people in this country voted for a bnp government other 30 million would cry foul.Obviousley whatever the bnp policies,they worked and its no different to labour promising to make the world a better place and then sending it into chaos
Why is it that every time a bnp man gets in anywhere,the rest shout foul,its about time politicians listened to the people that elected them rather than feathering their nest and ramping up the pensions.
Look at the waste of space we have for an MP in Watford(Claire Ward Lab)She is on maternity leave since Christmas and cant vote on important issues,representing her electorate,yet as soon as a camera from the local rag shows up she happily poses with baby...it makes you sick
So in a nutshell im APPALLED by this LABOUR party and all it stands for.....
I wouldn't exactly call 5.3 % of the vote and one representative on the GLA "getting in"....Were you under the impression that Boris Johnson was the bnp candidate...LMFAO.
BTW for the bnp to ever get 30 mill votes at a general election they would only need to show, a mere 15625%(ballpark) improvement on their best previous effort, highly likely I`m sure.
Posted by: Croyboy on 3:00am Sun 11 May 08
Yogi wrote:[quote]I wouldn't exactly call 5.3 % of the vote and one representative on the GLA "getting in"....Were you under the impression that Boris Johnson was the bnp candidate...LMFAO.
[/quote]
Is this the same Yogi (Still, apparently, laughing his fat posterior off) who was assuring me on another thread that BNP policies never attract more than 0.7% of the electorate? Oops, looks like people are starting to vote the "wrong" way, Yogi!
As for their chances in a general election, who knows how well they'd do with all the money - often from shady sources, and that from the taxpayer, which they give themselves - availible to the Lib/Lab/Con-men?
Referring to Barnbrook, Yogi wrote:[quote]nobody there wants anything to do with him....No doubt this is due to some kind of LibLabCon conspiracy/trick...[/quote]
A "conspiracy"? Well, if you mean the serving members of establishment parties are all doing very well for themselves, thank you, and see no reason why they should rock the boat, then yes, a "conspiracy" in the legal sense of the word.
Yogi wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call 5.3 % of the vote and one representative on the GLA "getting in"....Were you under the impression that Boris Johnson was the bnp candidate...LMFAO.
Is this the same Yogi (Still, apparently, laughing his fat posterior off) who was assuring me on another thread that BNP policies never attract more than 0.7% of the electorate? Oops, looks like people are starting to vote the "wrong" way, Yogi!
As for their chances in a general election, who knows how well they'd do with all the money - often from shady sources, and that from the taxpayer, which they give themselves - availible to the Lib/Lab/Con-men?
Referring to Barnbrook, Yogi wrote:
nobody there wants anything to do with him....No doubt this is due to some kind of LibLabCon conspiracy/trick...
A "conspiracy"? Well, if you mean the serving members of establishment parties are all doing very well for themselves, thank you, and see no reason why they should rock the boat, then yes, a "conspiracy" in the legal sense of the word.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 9:08pm Sun 11 May 08
[quote]Is this the same Yogi (Still, apparently, laughing his fat posterior off) who was assuring me on another thread that BNP policies never attract more than 0.7% of the electorate? Oops, looks like people are starting to vote the "wrong" way, Yogi[/quote]
I think you will find that I have previously stated the bnp have never managed to attract more than o.7% of the vote at a [bold]general election[/bold],actually less than 0.5% of the electorate, obviously we all know they have sporadically achieved better results in certain local elections, but seemingly when it comes to the crunch(general election) they tend to fail dismally.
[quote]As for their chances in a general election, who knows how well they'd do with all the money - often from shady sources, and that from the taxpayer, which they give themselves - available to the Lib/Lab/Con-men?[/quote]
I suppose this is in some way similar to us never knowing, whether if given the same amount of money Arsenal fc have at their disposal, could Barnet fc compete for the premiership, but as Barnet do not attract the same level of public support as Arsenal it is unlikely that Barnet will ever amass the kind of revenue needed to compete with the big boys. Do you think Barnet fc also have grounds to accuse Arsenal, Man U and Chelsea of a conspiracy or trick?
[quote]A "conspiracy"? Well, if you mean the serving members of establishment parties are all doing very well for themselves, thank you, and see no reason why they should rock the boat, then yes, a "conspiracy" in the legal sense of the word.[/quote]
I think I am grasping how this works now, any person/party who disagrees or shows distaste for the bnp or far right in general, is guilty of either trickery or conspiracy.I must admit this is quite a good concept...When you can`t win, just cite opponent`s trickery or conspiracy, as being the reason.
Is this the same Yogi (Still, apparently, laughing his fat posterior off) who was assuring me on another thread that BNP policies never attract more than 0.7% of the electorate? Oops, looks like people are starting to vote the "wrong" way, Yogi
I think you will find that I have previously stated the bnp have never managed to attract more than o.7% of the vote at a
general election,actually less than 0.5% of the electorate, obviously we all know they have sporadically achieved better results in certain local elections, but seemingly when it comes to the crunch(general election) they tend to fail dismally.
As for their chances in a general election, who knows how well they'd do with all the money - often from shady sources, and that from the taxpayer, which they give themselves - available to the Lib/Lab/Con-men?
I suppose this is in some way similar to us never knowing, whether if given the same amount of money Arsenal fc have at their disposal, could Barnet fc compete for the premiership, but as Barnet do not attract the same level of public support as Arsenal it is unlikely that Barnet will ever amass the kind of revenue needed to compete with the big boys. Do you think Barnet fc also have grounds to accuse Arsenal, Man U and Chelsea of a conspiracy or trick?
A "conspiracy"? Well, if you mean the serving members of establishment parties are all doing very well for themselves, thank you, and see no reason why they should rock the boat, then yes, a "conspiracy" in the legal sense of the word.
I think I am grasping how this works now, any person/party who disagrees or shows distaste for the bnp or far right in general, is guilty of either trickery or conspiracy.I must admit this is quite a good concept...When you can`t win, just cite opponent`s trickery or conspiracy, as being the reason.
Posted by: Croyboy on 2:04am Mon 12 May 08
Speaking of non-establishment parties, Yogi wrote:
[quote]we all know they have sporadically achieved better results in certain local elections, but seemingly when it comes to the crunch(general election) they tend to fail dismally.[/quote]
I'm not sure I'd choose the term "fail dismally", it's more a matter of not being able to match the funds of the Lib/Lab/Con-men, and are thus unable to contest every constituency. That being the case, many potential supporters either don't vote, or are resigned to voting for second best.
BTW, I'm afraid, Yogi, that matters concerning football clubs - including their "public support" (whatever that means!) - is [italic]terra incognita[/italic] to me.
Yogi wrote:[quote]
I think I am grasping how this works now, any person/party who disagrees or shows distaste for the bnp or far right in general...[/quote]
No, you're not "grasping how this works". I'm, for one, am not the slightest bit interested in the far left, far right, or anything in between. But I [bold]do[/bold] want my country in general and home-town in particular back from the hordes that have invades us. To that end I'll vote "far" anything, including fascist, communist,vegetarian
, or Methodist.
Speaking of non-establishment parties, Yogi wrote:
we all know they have sporadically achieved better results in certain local elections, but seemingly when it comes to the crunch(general election) they tend to fail dismally.
I'm not sure I'd choose the term "fail dismally", it's more a matter of not being able to match the funds of the Lib/Lab/Con-men, and are thus unable to contest every constituency. That being the case, many potential supporters either don't vote, or are resigned to voting for second best.
BTW, I'm afraid, Yogi, that matters concerning football clubs - including their "public support" (whatever that means!) - is
terra incognita to me.
Yogi wrote:
I think I am grasping how this works now, any person/party who disagrees or shows distaste for the bnp or far right in general...
No, you're not "grasping how this works". I'm, for one, am not the slightest bit interested in the far left, far right, or anything in between. But I
do want my country in general and home-town in particular back from the hordes that have invades us. To that end I'll vote "far" anything, including fascist, communist,vegetarian
, or Methodist.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 10:01pm Mon 12 May 08
[quote]I'm not sure I'd choose the term "fail dismally", it's more a matter of not being able to match the funds of the Lib/Lab/Con-men, and are thus unable to contest every constituency. That being the case, many potential supporters either don't vote, or are resigned to voting for second best.
BTW, I'm afraid, Yogi, that matters concerning football clubs - including their "public support" (whatever that means!) - is terra incognita to me.[/quote]
Well when people like yourself and the bnp themselves are constantly trying to tell us, that people sharing their far right views are in the majority, then I would say when they manage votes totaling less than 0.5% of the electorate at gen election then surely this must be considered as "failing dismally".
As for my reference to football clubs, I was just trying to point out that the spending power of a football club is directly linked to the amount of "public support" they receive, i.e gate receipts, merchandising, demand for tv coverage and so on. Just as the election funds of a political party are also directly linked to public support, going on 2005 election results the Labour Party has 50 times the support of the bnp , with this information in mind it is probable that Labour cash donations are 50 times higher than that of the bnp.
Basically what I am trying to say is that like Barnet fc, for the bnp to expand their financial clout they must expand their "public support".
I really cannot see how this is a trick or a conspiracy.
[quote]No, you're not "grasping how this works". I'm, for one, am not the slightest bit interested in the far left, far right, or anything in between. But I do want my country in general and home-town in particular back from the hordes that have invades us. To that end I'll vote "far" anything, including fascist, communist,vegetarian
, or Methodist[/quote] .
You may not be interested in far right , far left etc, etc, but the fact is,[bold] all[/bold] of the views I have seen you express on this site are certainly far right views.
As for you being prepared to vote for a communist or fascist party if you believe they will deliver your vision of an "all indigenous Britain". Then maybe you are just one of these people who would bite their own nose off to spite their face.
I'm not sure I'd choose the term "fail dismally", it's more a matter of not being able to match the funds of the Lib/Lab/Con-men, and are thus unable to contest every constituency. That being the case, many potential supporters either don't vote, or are resigned to voting for second best.
BTW, I'm afraid, Yogi, that matters concerning football clubs - including their "public support" (whatever that means!) - is terra incognita to me.
Well when people like yourself and the bnp themselves are constantly trying to tell us, that people sharing their far right views are in the majority, then I would say when they manage votes totaling less than 0.5% of the electorate at gen election then surely this must be considered as "failing dismally".
As for my reference to football clubs, I was just trying to point out that the spending power of a football club is directly linked to the amount of "public support" they receive, i.e gate receipts, merchandising, demand for tv coverage and so on. Just as the election funds of a political party are also directly linked to public support, going on 2005 election results the Labour Party has 50 times the support of the bnp , with this information in mind it is probable that Labour cash donations are 50 times higher than that of the bnp.
Basically what I am trying to say is that like Barnet fc, for the bnp to expand their financial clout they must expand their "public support".
I really cannot see how this is a trick or a conspiracy.
No, you're not "grasping how this works". I'm, for one, am not the slightest bit interested in the far left, far right, or anything in between. But I do want my country in general and home-town in particular back from the hordes that have invades us. To that end I'll vote "far" anything, including fascist, communist,vegetarian
, or Methodist
.
You may not be interested in far right , far left etc, etc, but the fact is,
all of the views I have seen you express on this site are certainly far right views.
As for you being prepared to vote for a communist or fascist party if you believe they will deliver your vision of an "all indigenous Britain". Then maybe you are just one of these people who would bite their own nose off to spite their face.
Posted by: Croyboy on 3:31am Tue 13 May 08
Yogi wrote:[quote]Well when people like yourself and the bnp themselves are constantly trying to tell us, that people sharing their far right views are in the majority... [/quote]
That does seem a reasonable conclusion to come to: just ask ordinary people their opinion of immigration. ...Also, if - for example - the BNP don't put up a candidate in 75% of the constituencies in a general election, what sort of overall percentage would you [italic]expect[/italic] them to get?
Yogi wrote:[quote]all of the views I have seen you express on this site are certainly far right views.[/quote]
I can't help but wonder about your preoccupation with labelling the views of others as "left", "right" etc. Of what significance is it, anyway? But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too. So what?
[quote]As for you being prepared to vote for a communist or fascist party if you believe they will deliver your vision of an "all indigenous Britain"...[/quote]
Forgive me, Yogi, but where did you get the "all indigenous Britain" (your quotes)bit from? It's not something I've ever said. I merely hold the common-sense view that mass immigration has not been in the interest of the British people.
Yogi wrote:
Well when people like yourself and the bnp themselves are constantly trying to tell us, that people sharing their far right views are in the majority...
That does seem a reasonable conclusion to come to: just ask ordinary people their opinion of immigration. ...Also, if - for example - the BNP don't put up a candidate in 75% of the constituencies in a general election, what sort of overall percentage would you
expect them to get?
Yogi wrote:
all of the views I have seen you express on this site are certainly far right views.
I can't help but wonder about your preoccupation with labelling the views of others as "left", "right" etc. Of what significance is it, anyway? But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too. So what?
As for you being prepared to vote for a communist or fascist party if you believe they will deliver your vision of an "all indigenous Britain"...
Forgive me, Yogi, but where did you get the "all indigenous Britain" (your quotes)bit from? It's not something I've ever said. I merely hold the common-sense view that mass immigration has not been in the interest of the British people.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 11:27pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote]That does seem a reasonable conclusion to come to: just ask ordinary people their opinion of immigration. ...[/quote]
I prefer to believe mass opinion and solid evidence ie general election results, rather than the anecdotal findings of a few.
[quote]Also, if - for example - the BNP don't put up a candidate in 75% of the constituencies in a general election, what sort of overall percentage would you expect them to get?[/quote]
As I explained earlier ,IMO it is not because of any conspiracy that the bnp lack enough suitable candidates to enable them to be represented in more areas, or that they do not have large enough election coffers to pose any serious threat, these are just the realities of being a minor league political party.
As for your question of ,how well would the bnp do if they were represented in more constituencies, I suppose the same question could be asked by the UKIP , the Green Party or the DUP all parties that "polled" better results than the bnp in the last gen election.
But as this question is so hypothetical, and the onus is on themselves to be better represented ,could be why these parties do not bother asking this question.
[quote] can't help but wonder about your preoccupation with labelling the views of others as "left", "right" etc. Of what significance is it, anyway?[/quote]
Rather than being preoccupied with anything, I would prefer to say, I just speak as I find and given that nearly all of your posts here are in some way or another anti-immigrants/ immigration, I would say my classification of your views(far right) is quite accurate.
The fact that you seem to take umbrage at being "labelled" far right, is quite amusing given your views.
[quote]But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too. So what?[/quote]
So what?.....LMFAO.
Ghandi fought for a non violent Indian independence from an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler,not a typically far right goal. Whereas you would like to see the removal of immigrants and their descendants from a by and large indigenously governed country, an ideal widely accepted as being far right.
So for you to imply that if your views are far right, then Ghandi`s views must be too, is laughable and just further evidence of your deluded state of mind.
[quote]Forgive me, Yogi, but where did you get the "all indigenous Britain" (your quotes)bit from? It's not something I've ever said. I merely hold the common-sense view that mass immigration has not been in the interest of the British people.[/quote]
Well you advocate the removal of immigrants and their descendants from this country, so can you enlighten me as to what would be left, other than an "all indigenous" population were your vision ever to be realised? Oh and BTW there is a slight difference between being opposed to mass immigration and advocating "repatriation".
That does seem a reasonable conclusion to come to: just ask ordinary people their opinion of immigration. ...
I prefer to believe mass opinion and solid evidence ie general election results, rather than the anecdotal findings of a few.
Also, if - for example - the BNP don't put up a candidate in 75% of the constituencies in a general election, what sort of overall percentage would you expect them to get?
As I explained earlier ,IMO it is not because of any conspiracy that the bnp lack enough suitable candidates to enable them to be represented in more areas, or that they do not have large enough election coffers to pose any serious threat, these are just the realities of being a minor league political party.
As for your question of ,how well would the bnp do if they were represented in more constituencies, I suppose the same question could be asked by the UKIP , the Green Party or the DUP all parties that "polled" better results than the bnp in the last gen election.
But as this question is so hypothetical, and the onus is on themselves to be better represented ,could be why these parties do not bother asking this question.
can't help but wonder about your preoccupation with labelling the views of others as "left", "right" etc. Of what significance is it, anyway?
Rather than being preoccupied with anything, I would prefer to say, I just speak as I find and given that nearly all of your posts here are in some way or another anti-immigrants/ immigration, I would say my classification of your views(far right) is quite accurate.
The fact that you seem to take umbrage at being "labelled" far right, is quite amusing given your views.
But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too. So what?
So what?.....LMFAO.
Ghandi fought for a non violent Indian independence from an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler,not a typically far right goal. Whereas you would like to see the removal of immigrants and their descendants from a by and large indigenously governed country, an ideal widely accepted as being far right.
So for you to imply that if your views are far right, then Ghandi`s views must be too, is laughable and just further evidence of your deluded state of mind.
Forgive me, Yogi, but where did you get the "all indigenous Britain" (your quotes)bit from? It's not something I've ever said. I merely hold the common-sense view that mass immigration has not been in the interest of the British people.
Well you advocate the removal of immigrants and their descendants from this country, so can you enlighten me as to what would be left, other than an "all indigenous" population were your vision ever to be realised? Oh and BTW there is a slight difference between being opposed to mass immigration and advocating "repatriation".
Posted by: Croyboy on 3:25am Wed 14 May 08
Yogi: much as I'd enjoy taking your argument apart piece by piece - as I'm wont to do - I regret that I'm still at the Ends of the Earth, and am consequently posting under difficulties. I shall thus restrict myself to a few points.
[quote]The fact that you seem to take umbrage at being "labelled" far right, is quite amusing given your views.[/quote]
No, it's not that I "take umbrage" (Sticks & stones, and all that!), it's just that it seems an irrelevancy. "So what?" is the obvious question. I therefore wonder why you should bother to waste your time, that's all.
[quote]Ghandi fought for a non violent Indian independence from an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler[/quote]
Are you saying I [italic]am[/italic] promoting violence?
And as for "an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler", the states in India under direct British rule were well-known for being [italic]less[/italic] opressive than those left to the not-so-gentle mercies of native rulers. And "undemocratic"? Compared with what exactly in Asia at that time? ...Or now!
"immigrant ruler"? Surely "foreign ruler"? How many Brits actually immigrated there? ...As opposed to the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here! Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been [italic]that[/italic] bad, could it?
Lastly, your "all indigenous Britain" looks for all the world as though you're quoting from me. How you choose to interpret another's views is up to you, but it is [italic]not[/italic] board etiquette quote falsely.
Yogi: much as I'd enjoy taking your argument apart piece by piece - as I'm wont to do - I regret that I'm still at the Ends of the Earth, and am consequently posting under difficulties. I shall thus restrict myself to a few points.
The fact that you seem to take umbrage at being "labelled" far right, is quite amusing given your views.
No, it's not that I "take umbrage" (Sticks & stones, and all that!), it's just that it seems an irrelevancy. "So what?" is the obvious question. I therefore wonder why you should bother to waste your time, that's all.
Ghandi fought for a non violent Indian independence from an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler
Are you saying I
am promoting violence?
And as for "an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler", the states in India under direct British rule were well-known for being
less opressive than those left to the not-so-gentle mercies of native rulers. And "undemocratic"? Compared with what exactly in Asia at that time? ...Or now!
"immigrant ruler"? Surely "foreign ruler"? How many Brits actually immigrated there? ...As opposed to the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here! Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been
that bad, could it?
Lastly, your "all indigenous Britain" looks for all the world as though you're quoting from me. How you choose to interpret another's views is up to you, but it is
not board etiquette quote falsely.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 6:48pm Wed 14 May 08
[quote]Yogi: much as I'd enjoy taking your argument apart piece by piece - as I'm wont to do - I regret that I'm still at the Ends of the Earth, and am consequently posting under difficulties. I shall thus restrict myself to a few points.[/quote]
LOL...Yogi breathes a sigh of relief ;-)
[quote]No, it's not that I "take umbrage" (Sticks & stones, and all that!), it's just that it seems an irrelevancy. "So what?" is the obvious question. I therefore wonder why you should bother to waste your time, that's all.[/quote]
Well if you offer no challenge to my classification of your views , why do you waste time constantly admonishing said classifications.
[quote]Are you saying I am promoting violence?[/quote]
No, I was actually just pointing out that Ghandi advocated not using violence under any circumstance.
Whereas I`m sure you have previously stated that if implementing "repatriation" or a bnp government meant civil war, it would be a "worthwhile consequence".
So this would imply that you are not totally against violence, well not quite to the point that Ghandi was anyway. LOL
[quote]And as for "an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler", the states in India under direct British rule were well-known for being less oppressive than those left to the not-so-gentle mercies of native rulers. And "undemocratic"? Compared with what exactly in Asia at that time? ...Or now!
"immigrant ruler"? Surely "foreign ruler"? How many Brits actually immigrated there? ...As opposed to the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here! Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been that bad, could it?[/quote]
I have no interest in debating the merits or flaws of any past or present Asian government, but I will clarify my earlier statement. Firstly, English Dictionary definition of "oppressed";
[italic]People who are oppressed are treated cruelly or are prevented from having the same opportunities, freedom, and benefits as others.[/italic]
I am quite certain under British rule the native people of India were not afforded the same opportunities, freedoms and benefits than that of the British settlers in their country. Feel free to challenge this point.
Secondly, English Dictionary definition of "democratic";
[italic]relating to a country, organization, or system in which leaders are chosen or decisions are made by voting[/italic]
I think you will find under British rule, native Indians had no vote regarding leadership or in fact anything else in their country.
As for whether it was an "immigrant" or "foreign" government, in this instance I don't think it makes much difference to my argument which of these words are used , so if it makes you happy ,I will amend my original statement to ;
Ghandi fought for a non violent independence from a foreign, oppressive, undemocratic ruler.
Now if you can [bold]seriously[/bold] challenge the factual content of this statement,please let me know.
Lastly, your "all indigenous Britain" looks for all the world as though you're quoting from me. How you choose to interpret another's views is up to you, but it is not board etiquette quote falsely.
The quotation marks you make reference to were used just to put emphasis on "certain" words, rather than being used to "falsely quote you".
But given that you would like to see immigrants and their descendants removed from this country, I am interested to know what would be left apart from an "all indigenous" population if your vision was to come to fruition.
Yogi: much as I'd enjoy taking your argument apart piece by piece - as I'm wont to do - I regret that I'm still at the Ends of the Earth, and am consequently posting under difficulties. I shall thus restrict myself to a few points.
LOL...Yogi breathes a sigh of relief ;-)
No, it's not that I "take umbrage" (Sticks & stones, and all that!), it's just that it seems an irrelevancy. "So what?" is the obvious question. I therefore wonder why you should bother to waste your time, that's all.
Well if you offer no challenge to my classification of your views , why do you waste time constantly admonishing said classifications.
Are you saying I am promoting violence?
No, I was actually just pointing out that Ghandi advocated not using violence under any circumstance.
Whereas I`m sure you have previously stated that if implementing "repatriation" or a bnp government meant civil war, it would be a "worthwhile consequence".
So this would imply that you are not totally against violence, well not quite to the point that Ghandi was anyway. LOL
And as for "an oppressive, undemocratic, immigrant ruler", the states in India under direct British rule were well-known for being less oppressive than those left to the not-so-gentle mercies of native rulers. And "undemocratic"? Compared with what exactly in Asia at that time? ...Or now!
"immigrant ruler"? Surely "foreign ruler"? How many Brits actually immigrated there? ...As opposed to the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here! Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been that bad, could it?
I have no interest in debating the merits or flaws of any past or present Asian government, but I will clarify my earlier statement. Firstly, English Dictionary definition of "oppressed";
People who are oppressed are treated cruelly or are prevented from having the same opportunities, freedom, and benefits as others.
I am quite certain under British rule the native people of India were not afforded the same opportunities, freedoms and benefits than that of the British settlers in their country. Feel free to challenge this point.
Secondly, English Dictionary definition of "democratic";
relating to a country, organization, or system in which leaders are chosen or decisions are made by voting
I think you will find under British rule, native Indians had no vote regarding leadership or in fact anything else in their country.
As for whether it was an "immigrant" or "foreign" government, in this instance I don't think it makes much difference to my argument which of these words are used , so if it makes you happy ,I will amend my original statement to ;
Ghandi fought for a non violent independence from a foreign, oppressive, undemocratic ruler.
Now if you can
seriously challenge the factual content of this statement,please let me know.
Lastly, your "all indigenous Britain" looks for all the world as though you're quoting from me. How you choose to interpret another's views is up to you, but it is not board etiquette quote falsely.
The quotation marks you make reference to were used just to put emphasis on "certain" words, rather than being used to "falsely quote you".
But given that you would like to see immigrants and their descendants removed from this country, I am interested to know what would be left apart from an "all indigenous" population if your vision was to come to fruition.
Posted by: Croyboy on 3:53am Fri 16 May 08
Yogi wrote[quote]
Well if you offer no challenge to my classification of your views , why do you waste time constantly admonishing said classifications.[/quote]
No, you've still got it wrong: I was "admonishing" (Extending your vocabulary, Yogi? That's nice!) - if anything - your apparent [italic]need[/italic] to classify them: there's a subtle difference.
[quote]I`m sure you have previously stated that if implementing "repatriation" or a bnp government meant civil war, it would be a "worthwhile consequence".[/quote]
I don't recall using that expression, but if I did, then it was probably a recognition of one possibility: at independence there was in effect a civil war in India too, of course. ...And the non-violent Ghandi, who had been imprisoned by the British, was murdered by an Indian.
Ah, thank you for the definition of "oppressed", especially the bit "People who are...prevented from having the same opportunities, freedom, and benefits as others." Like just about every country on earth for most of recorded history, you mean? It would certainly apply to working-class English people in Victorian times.
Context, Yogi, [bold]context[/bold]!
And "British settlers"? In [italic]India[/italic]? ...They must have been pretty few and far between! I think you've got a very dodgy "fact" there.
[quote]The quotation marks you make reference to were used just to put emphasis on "certain" words...[/quote]
Please note that the usual way of showing emphasis is to use italics.
Yes, I personally[italic]would[/italic] like to see the great bulk of immigrants and their descendants removed from this country, but this does not mean - and I have never said - "every last one", so any talk of an "all indigenous" population is sheer fantasy.
Yogi wrote
Well if you offer no challenge to my classification of your views , why do you waste time constantly admonishing said classifications.
No, you've still got it wrong: I was "admonishing" (Extending your vocabulary, Yogi? That's nice!) - if anything - your apparent
need to classify them: there's a subtle difference.
I`m sure you have previously stated that if implementing "repatriation" or a bnp government meant civil war, it would be a "worthwhile consequence".
I don't recall using that expression, but if I did, then it was probably a recognition of one possibility: at independence there was in effect a civil war in India too, of course. ...And the non-violent Ghandi, who had been imprisoned by the British, was murdered by an Indian.
Ah, thank you for the definition of "oppressed", especially the bit "People who are...prevented from having the same opportunities, freedom, and benefits as others." Like just about every country on earth for most of recorded history, you mean? It would certainly apply to working-class English people in Victorian times.
Context, Yogi,
context!
And "British settlers"? In
India? ...They must have been pretty few and far between! I think you've got a very dodgy "fact" there.
The quotation marks you make reference to were used just to put emphasis on "certain" words...
Please note that the usual way of showing emphasis is to use italics.
Yes, I personally
would like to see the great bulk of immigrants and their descendants removed from this country, but this does not mean - and I have never said - "every last one", so any talk of an "all indigenous" population is sheer fantasy.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 6:06pm Fri 16 May 08
[quote]I don't recall using that expression, but if I did, then it was probably a recognition of one possibility: at independence there was in effect a civil war in India too, of course. ...And the non-violent Ghandi, who had been imprisoned by the British, was murdered by an Indian.[/quote]
Lets get back on track a little , the reason we are discussing Ghandi and Colonial India is because, you claimed that if I believed your ideals were "far right", then I must adopt the same view of Ghandis.
So, at the risk of sounding repetitive I will reiterate my position.
Ghandi, fought for a non violent, independence from an oppressive, undemocratic ruler, whereas you are advocating the removal of immigrants/descendan
ts from a democratic indigenously governed country.
I don't believe there are many similarities if any, between Ghandi`s ideals and your own(expressed here,anyway), Ghandi campaigned for equality and democracy for all persons in India, you simply want rid of non indigenous persons from England...
Equality, is not something usually associated with the far right.
"Repatriation" on the other hand ,I think we can safely say is a far right vision.
[quote]Ah, thank you for the definition of "oppressed", especially the bit "People who are...prevented from having the same opportunities, freedom, and benefits as others." Like just about every country on earth for most of recorded history, you mean? It would certainly apply to working-class English people in Victorian times.
Context, Yogi, context![/quote]
Are you challenging my claim, that British colonial rule in India was "oppressive" to the natives, or just nonsensically waffling?
Oh and thanks for educating me to the fact that this was not the only oppressive regime in "recorded history"....Although I don't remember implying that it was.
As for British people being oppressed in Victorian times, at least I suppose ,they had the luxury of being oppressed by their own government rather than a foreign one, eh?
[quote]And "British settlers"? In India? ...They must have been pretty few and far between! I think you've got a very dodgy "fact" there.[/quote]
I don't remember making any claims as to the number of "British settlers" there were in Colonial India, but it is [bold]fact[/bold] that there [bold]were[/bold] British settlers and it is also [bold]fact[/bold] that they enjoyed a much privileged lifestyle compared with that of the native people....So before suggesting that my claimed facts are "dodgy", I recommend you actually research said "facts" first.
Try reading the book "Empire Families" if you require any further proof of "British Settlers", if this isn`t enough evidence, let me know I`m sure I can provide further links that prove my "dodgy" fact, is in fact, factual. LOL
[quote]Please note that the usual way of showing emphasis is to use italics.[/quote]
Now, I know you are an English language expert....So it pains me to point out, that it is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with the rules of Standard Written English to use quotation marks to put "emphasis" on selected "word/s" and not usually considered unusual....Hehe!(I can provide evidence, that this is the case, if required).
[quote]Yes, I personallywould like to see the great bulk of immigrants and their descendants removed from this country, but this does not mean - and I have never said - "every last one", so any talk of an "all indigenous" population is sheer fantasy.[/quote]
Well, whether you would like to see the removal of all or just the "great bulk" of immigrants from this country,the likelihood of either happening IMO is not a million miles away from being "pure fantasy".
I don't recall using that expression, but if I did, then it was probably a recognition of one possibility: at independence there was in effect a civil war in India too, of course. ...And the non-violent Ghandi, who had been imprisoned by the British, was murdered by an Indian.
Lets get back on track a little , the reason we are discussing Ghandi and Colonial India is because, you claimed that if I believed your ideals were "far right", then I must adopt the same view of Ghandis.
So, at the risk of sounding repetitive I will reiterate my position.
Ghandi, fought for a non violent, independence from an oppressive, undemocratic ruler, whereas you are advocating the removal of immigrants/descendan
ts from a democratic indigenously governed country.
I don't believe there are many similarities if any, between Ghandi`s ideals and your own(expressed here,anyway), Ghandi campaigned for equality and democracy for all persons in India, you simply want rid of non indigenous persons from England...
Equality, is not something usually associated with the far right.
"Repatriation" on the other hand ,I think we can safely say is a far right vision.
Ah, thank you for the definition of "oppressed", especially the bit "People who are...prevented from having the same opportunities, freedom, and benefits as others." Like just about every country on earth for most of recorded history, you mean? It would certainly apply to working-class English people in Victorian times.
Context, Yogi, context!
Are you challenging my claim, that British colonial rule in India was "oppressive" to the natives, or just nonsensically waffling?
Oh and thanks for educating me to the fact that this was not the only oppressive regime in "recorded history"....Although I don't remember implying that it was.
As for British people being oppressed in Victorian times, at least I suppose ,they had the luxury of being oppressed by their own government rather than a foreign one, eh?
And "British settlers"? In India? ...They must have been pretty few and far between! I think you've got a very dodgy "fact" there.
I don't remember making any claims as to the number of "British settlers" there were in Colonial India, but it is
fact that there
were British settlers and it is also
fact that they enjoyed a much privileged lifestyle compared with that of the native people....So before suggesting that my claimed facts are "dodgy", I recommend you actually research said "facts" first.
Try reading the book "Empire Families" if you require any further proof of "British Settlers", if this isn`t enough evidence, let me know I`m sure I can provide further links that prove my "dodgy" fact, is in fact, factual. LOL
Please note that the usual way of showing emphasis is to use italics.
Now, I know you are an English language expert....So it pains me to point out, that it is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with the rules of Standard Written English to use quotation marks to put "emphasis" on selected "word/s" and not usually considered unusual....Hehe!(I can provide evidence, that this is the case, if required).
Yes, I personallywould like to see the great bulk of immigrants and their descendants removed from this country, but this does not mean - and I have never said - "every last one", so any talk of an "all indigenous" population is sheer fantasy.
Well, whether you would like to see the removal of all or just the "great bulk" of immigrants from this country,the likelihood of either happening IMO is not a million miles away from being "pure fantasy".
Posted by: Croyboy on 6:42am Sat 17 May 08
Yogi wrote[quote]I don't believe there are many similarities if any, between Ghandi`s ideals and your own...[/quote]
I never said anything about "Ghandi's ideals" (plural): I only spoke of "wanting my country back", as did Ghandi. I never suggested our situations were similar apart from that. I did feel, however, moved to expound just a little on British India, when you chose to take the dreary old flagellant's line of "Oh, God, were't we awful!" ...Actually, taken in context (Remember that, Yogi?), "we" did a pretty good job. Maybe you missed my not altogether rhetorical question above regarding "the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here. Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been [italic]that[/italic] bad, could it?"
Yogi wrote[quote]Are you challenging my claim, that British colonial rule in India was "oppressive"...[/quote]
Yes. Two-thirds of India was ruled through native proxies (Isn't that mentioned in "Empire Families"?), where ordinary people had far fewer or [italic]no[/italic] rights. In the areas under direct British rule Indians could, and did, take the British administration and institutions to court, where it was generally recognised they'd get just treatment. ...Try [italic]that[/italic] in a Third-World country today!
As for British "settlers", the very word summons up lands such as South Africa, Canada, and Australia. How many actual "settlers" were there, beyond merchants, planters, missionaries, and civil servants? [italic]Do[/italic] tell!
(I suppose if there were very many, Lahore
would have an English mayor, rather than
Leicester's having an Indian one!)
Yogi wrote [quote]you simply want rid of non indigenous persons from England...[/quote]
I simply don't want to be swamped.
[quote]...it pains me to point out, that it is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with the rules of Standard Written English to use quotation marks to put "emphasis" on selected "word/s" and not usually considered unusual...[/quote]
Sort of: if one is indeed using "Written English" (handwriting), then there are occasions when it would be acceptable, because one doesn't have the facility of employing italics, unlike here. Also, Yogi, ever wondered [italic]why[/italic] those little above-the-line commas are called "quotation marks"? [bold]Yes![/bold] ...'Cos they mark words as having been [bold]quoted[/bold]! ("Hehe!" etc.)
[quote]Well, whether you would like to see the removal of all or just the "great bulk" of immigrants from this country,the likelihood of either happening IMO is not a million miles away from being "pure fantasy".[/quote]
Mm, wonder how many German Jews in the 1920s thought something similar?
Yogi wrote
I don't believe there are many similarities if any, between Ghandi`s ideals and your own...
I never said anything about "Ghandi's ideals" (plural): I only spoke of "wanting my country back", as did Ghandi. I never suggested our situations were similar apart from that. I did feel, however, moved to expound just a little on British India, when you chose to take the dreary old flagellant's line of "Oh, God, were't we awful!" ...Actually, taken in context (Remember that, Yogi?), "we" did a pretty good job. Maybe you missed my not altogether rhetorical question above regarding "the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here. Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been
that bad, could it?"
Yogi wrote
Are you challenging my claim, that British colonial rule in India was "oppressive"...
Yes. Two-thirds of India was ruled through native proxies (Isn't that mentioned in "Empire Families"?), where ordinary people had far fewer or
no rights. In the areas under direct British rule Indians could, and did, take the British administration and institutions to court, where it was generally recognised they'd get just treatment. ...Try
that in a Third-World country today!
As for British "settlers", the very word summons up lands such as South Africa, Canada, and Australia. How many actual "settlers" were there, beyond merchants, planters, missionaries, and civil servants?
Do tell!
(I suppose if there were very many, Lahore
would have an English mayor, rather than
Leicester's having an Indian one!)
Yogi wrote
you simply want rid of non indigenous persons from England...
I simply don't want to be swamped.
...it pains me to point out, that it is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with the rules of Standard Written English to use quotation marks to put "emphasis" on selected "word/s" and not usually considered unusual...
Sort of: if one is indeed using "Written English" (handwriting), then there are occasions when it would be acceptable, because one doesn't have the facility of employing italics, unlike here. Also, Yogi, ever wondered
why those little above-the-line commas are called "quotation marks"?
Yes! ...'Cos they mark words as having been
quoted! ("Hehe!" etc.)
Well, whether you would like to see the removal of all or just the "great bulk" of immigrants from this country,the likelihood of either happening IMO is not a million miles away from being "pure fantasy".
Mm, wonder how many German Jews in the 1920s thought something similar?
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 6:41pm Sat 17 May 08
[quote]I never said anything about "Ghandi's ideals" (plural): I only spoke of "wanting my country back", as did Ghandi. I never suggested our situations were similar apart from that. I did feel, however, moved to expound just a little on British India, when you chose to take the dreary old flagellant's line of "Oh, God, were't we awful!" ...Actually, taken in context (Remember that, Yogi?), "we" did a pretty good job. Maybe you missed my not altogether rhetorical question above regarding "the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here. Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been that bad, could it?"[/quote]
You tried to suggest that anyone deeming your "vision" as "far right" must also take the same view of Ghandis, implying that, what you would like to happen in this country and what Ghandi fought for in his, are somehow the same thing. Which for the reasons I have already given,is pure nonsense.
As for your take on colonial India, you seem to make it sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives, the fact is the natives were viewed as inferior beings and treat as such, and the only real concern of the British, was simply that of lining their pockets. Perhaps it is fitting that a few million or so people of Asian origin should reap the benefits of living in Britain, seeing as their not too distant ancestors helped to substantially fatten Empire coffers, for very little reward to themselves.
[quote]As for British "settlers", the very word summons up lands such as South Africa, Canada, and Australia. How many actual "settlers" were there, beyond merchants, planters, missionaries, and civil servants? Do tell![/quote]
I made no mention of numbers,my claim was that it was [bold]fact[/bold] that there [bold]were[/bold] British settlers in Colonial India. You claimed this was a "very dodgy fact".
After being presented with evidence of said settlers, you now resort to mumbo jumbo rantings, that because I used the word "settlers" this made you think of Australia and Canada, and confused you as to the meaning of the word "settler"?
I suggest consultation with a dictionary may clear this one up.
[quote]Sort of: if one is indeed using "Written English" (handwriting), then there are occasions when it would be acceptable, because one doesn't have the facility of employing italics, unlike here. Also, Yogi, ever wondered why those little above-the-line commas are called "quotation marks"? Yes! ...'Cos they mark words as having been quoted! ("Hehe!" etc.)[/quote]
I know you are somewhat stuck in the past, but in modern day Written English(handwritten or typed), it is perfectly acceptable and quite common to see the use of quotation marks in instances other than when denoting a quotation.
[quote]Mm, wonder how many German Jews in the 1920s thought something similar?[/quote]
Yeh that`s true!
I wouldn`t recommend holding your breath though!!
I never said anything about "Ghandi's ideals" (plural): I only spoke of "wanting my country back", as did Ghandi. I never suggested our situations were similar apart from that. I did feel, however, moved to expound just a little on British India, when you chose to take the dreary old flagellant's line of "Oh, God, were't we awful!" ...Actually, taken in context (Remember that, Yogi?), "we" did a pretty good job. Maybe you missed my not altogether rhetorical question above regarding "the huge numbers from the Indian sub-continent who have flocked here. Obviously the colonial experience couldn't have been that bad, could it?"
You tried to suggest that anyone deeming your "vision" as "far right" must also take the same view of Ghandis, implying that, what you would like to happen in this country and what Ghandi fought for in his, are somehow the same thing. Which for the reasons I have already given,is pure nonsense.
As for your take on colonial India, you seem to make it sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives, the fact is the natives were viewed as inferior beings and treat as such, and the only real concern of the British, was simply that of lining their pockets. Perhaps it is fitting that a few million or so people of Asian origin should reap the benefits of living in Britain, seeing as their not too distant ancestors helped to substantially fatten Empire coffers, for very little reward to themselves.
As for British "settlers", the very word summons up lands such as South Africa, Canada, and Australia. How many actual "settlers" were there, beyond merchants, planters, missionaries, and civil servants? Do tell!
I made no mention of numbers,my claim was that it was
fact that there
were British settlers in Colonial India. You claimed this was a "very dodgy fact".
After being presented with evidence of said settlers, you now resort to mumbo jumbo rantings, that because I used the word "settlers" this made you think of Australia and Canada, and confused you as to the meaning of the word "settler"?
I suggest consultation with a dictionary may clear this one up.
Sort of: if one is indeed using "Written English" (handwriting), then there are occasions when it would be acceptable, because one doesn't have the facility of employing italics, unlike here. Also, Yogi, ever wondered why those little above-the-line commas are called "quotation marks"? Yes! ...'Cos they mark words as having been quoted! ("Hehe!" etc.)
I know you are somewhat stuck in the past, but in modern day Written English(handwritten or typed), it is perfectly acceptable and quite common to see the use of quotation marks in instances other than when denoting a quotation.
Mm, wonder how many German Jews in the 1920s thought something similar?
Yeh that`s true!
I wouldn`t recommend holding your breath though!!
Posted by: Croyboy on 9:45am Sun 18 May 08
Yogi wrote[quote]As for your take on colonial India, you seem to make it sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives.[/quote]
Do I? Then you must have misread my post. But I can certainly tell you from one who was there (not me) that the Indians treated other Indians far worse than the British ever did.
[quote]I made no mention of numbers,my claim was that it was fact that there were British settlers in Colonial India. You claimed this was a "very dodgy fact".
[/quote]
I'm sure you [italic]wouldn't[/italic] mention numbers, because both you and I know they'd be so small as to be meaningless, therefore it [italic]is[/italic] a "very dodgy fact" as I said, because it's thrown in to mislead the unaware or less informed (Or maybe the latter is [italic]you[/italic]!)
And yes, the word "settlers" tends to make one (not only me) think of such lands as Australia and Canada, impying as it does those who go abroad with the intention of staying for ever: how many Brits did this apply to in the case of India? Go on, Yogi, give us a number!
BTW, if you want a big-boy's book on the subject of things colonial, try Jan Morris's [italic]Pax Britannica[/italic].
[quote]...it is perfectly acceptable and quite common to see the use of quotation marks in instances other than when denoting a quotation.[/quote]
Yes, Yogi, but not in the way [italic]you[/italic] used them previously.
Consider: The "president" gave the order himself.
i.e. Someone purporting to be the president.
v. The [italic] president[/italic] gave the order himself.
i.e. Not anyone else.
See the difference?
(Get a big-boy's book on English too!)
Yogi wrote
As for your take on colonial India, you seem to make it sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives.
Do I? Then you must have misread my post. But I can certainly tell you from one who was there (not me) that the Indians treated other Indians far worse than the British ever did.
I made no mention of numbers,my claim was that it was fact that there were British settlers in Colonial India. You claimed this was a "very dodgy fact".
I'm sure you
wouldn't mention numbers, because both you and I know they'd be so small as to be meaningless, therefore it
is a "very dodgy fact" as I said, because it's thrown in to mislead the unaware or less informed (Or maybe the latter is
you!)
And yes, the word "settlers" tends to make one (not only me) think of such lands as Australia and Canada, impying as it does those who go abroad with the intention of staying for ever: how many Brits did this apply to in the case of India? Go on, Yogi, give us a number!
BTW, if you want a big-boy's book on the subject of things colonial, try Jan Morris's
Pax Britannica.
...it is perfectly acceptable and quite common to see the use of quotation marks in instances other than when denoting a quotation.
Yes, Yogi, but not in the way
you used them previously.
Consider: The "president" gave the order himself.
i.e. Someone purporting to be the president.
v. The
president gave the order himself.
i.e. Not anyone else.
See the difference?
(Get a big-boy's book on English too!)
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 2:09pm Sun 18 May 08
[quote]Do I? Then you must have misread my post.[/quote]
I don`t think so.
Your actual quote was;
" But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too"
Are you trying to say , that there is no implication in this statement, that you and Ghandi share a common goal, and that the reader cannot classify one of you as "far right" without the other?
[quote]But I can certainly tell you from one who was there (not me) that the Indians treated other Indians far worse than the British ever did.[/quote]
And your point is?
It is ok to for a foreign government to severely oppress the natives of a country, if the regime is less oppressive than an indigenous government would be?
[quote]I'm sure you wouldn't mention numbers, because both you and I know they'd be so small as to be meaningless, therefore it is a "very dodgy fact" as I said, because it's thrown in to mislead the unaware or less informed (Or maybe the latter is you!) And yes, the word "settlers" tends to make one (not only me) think of such lands as Australia and Canada, impying as it does those who go abroad with the intention of staying for ever: how many Brits did this apply to in the case of India? Go on, Yogi, give us a number![/quote]
Firstly, Collins English Dictionary definition of a "settler";
[italic]a person who settles in a new country or a colony [/italic]
Doesn`t seem to be any mention of time scale/limit.
Secondly, it is totally irrelevant to the accuracy of my claimed fact, how many British settlers there were, it is the same as saying, bnp general election voters don't actually exist, because they made up less 0.5% of the electoral population in 2005.
It is utterly and totally ridiculous to dispute the "existence" of a group, because you believe(correctly or not)that they were few in numbers.
So I would suggest regarding this matter you are the one making "very dodgy" statements. And the fact that you even got yourself into the position of disputing the existence of Brit settlers in India, would suggest you may wish to include yourself, when talking of the "less informed" regarding this subject.
Finally, as your admonishment of my claimed fact(re; Brit settlers in India)seems to be rapidly if unfoundedly gathering momentum, here is another little tit bit for you:
Quoting from George Orwell, himself a 2nd generation British settler in Colonial India;
"the attraction of India (and more recently Kenya, Nigeria, etc.) for the lower-upper-middle class [is that] in India, with cheap horses, free shooting, and hordes of black servants, it was so easy to play at being a gentleman" . Indeed, in pursuit of gentility, respectability, and social status, many Britons throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries found their way to the Indian subcontinent.
Now Mr Orwell claims that [bold]many[/bold] Britons relocated to India.....Whereas the Croyboy, speaking on the existence of British settlers in India, says;
[quote]I'm sure you wouldn't mention numbers, because both you and I know they'd be so small as to be meaningless[/quote]
Hmmmm.......who to believe?? George Orwell.... or the far more knowledgeable and well informed croyboy??? LMFAO!!!!!!
The words "shot", "to" and "pieces" spring to mind.
[quote]BTW, if you want a big-boy's book on the subject of things colonial, try Jan Morris's Pax Britannica.[/quote]
Perhaps you will consider consultation with your "big boy books" before disputing my "facts" in the future.
[quote]Yes, Yogi, but not in the way you used them previously.
Consider: The "president" gave the order himself.
i.e. Someone purporting to be the president.
v. The president gave the order himself.
i.e. Not anyone else.
See the difference?
(Get a big-boy's book on English too!)[/quote]
As with many other things, I don't take your criticism of my use of quotation marks or anything else concerning the English language too seriously, seeing as in the past you have demonstrated difficulty in understanding the meaning of quite simple English words, such as "poll" and "election"!!
Maybe it`s time you take some of your own advice and.......Crack open the Big Boy books!!!
Do I? Then you must have misread my post.
I don`t think so.
Your actual quote was;
" But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too"
Are you trying to say , that there is no implication in this statement, that you and Ghandi share a common goal, and that the reader cannot classify one of you as "far right" without the other?
But I can certainly tell you from one who was there (not me) that the Indians treated other Indians far worse than the British ever did.
And your point is?
It is ok to for a foreign government to severely oppress the natives of a country, if the regime is less oppressive than an indigenous government would be?
I'm sure you wouldn't mention numbers, because both you and I know they'd be so small as to be meaningless, therefore it is a "very dodgy fact" as I said, because it's thrown in to mislead the unaware or less informed (Or maybe the latter is you!) And yes, the word "settlers" tends to make one (not only me) think of such lands as Australia and Canada, impying as it does those who go abroad with the intention of staying for ever: how many Brits did this apply to in the case of India? Go on, Yogi, give us a number!
Firstly, Collins English Dictionary definition of a "settler";
a person who settles in a new country or a colony
Doesn`t seem to be any mention of time scale/limit.
Secondly, it is totally irrelevant to the accuracy of my claimed fact, how many British settlers there were, it is the same as saying, bnp general election voters don't actually exist, because they made up less 0.5% of the electoral population in 2005.
It is utterly and totally ridiculous to dispute the "existence" of a group, because you believe(correctly or not)that they were few in numbers.
So I would suggest regarding this matter you are the one making "very dodgy" statements. And the fact that you even got yourself into the position of disputing the existence of Brit settlers in India, would suggest you may wish to include yourself, when talking of the "less informed" regarding this subject.
Finally, as your admonishment of my claimed fact(re; Brit settlers in India)seems to be rapidly if unfoundedly gathering momentum, here is another little tit bit for you:
Quoting from George Orwell, himself a 2nd generation British settler in Colonial India;
"the attraction of India (and more recently Kenya, Nigeria, etc.) for the lower-upper-middle class in India, with cheap horses, free shooting, and hordes of black servants, it was so easy to play at being a gentleman" . Indeed, in pursuit of gentility, respectability, and social status, many Britons throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries found their way to the Indian subcontinent.
Now Mr Orwell claims that
many Britons relocated to India.....Whereas the Croyboy, speaking on the existence of British settlers in India, says;
I'm sure you wouldn't mention numbers, because both you and I know they'd be so small as to be meaningless
Hmmmm.......who to believe?? George Orwell.... or the far more knowledgeable and well informed croyboy??? LMFAO!!!!!!
The words "shot", "to" and "pieces" spring to mind.
BTW, if you want a big-boy's book on the subject of things colonial, try Jan Morris's Pax Britannica.
Perhaps you will consider consultation with your "big boy books" before disputing my "facts" in the future.
Yes, Yogi, but not in the way you used them previously.
Consider: The "president" gave the order himself.
i.e. Someone purporting to be the president.
v. The president gave the order himself.
i.e. Not anyone else.
See the difference?
(Get a big-boy's book on English too!)
As with many other things, I don't take your criticism of my use of quotation marks or anything else concerning the English language too seriously, seeing as in the past you have demonstrated difficulty in understanding the meaning of quite simple English words, such as "poll" and "election"!!
Maybe it`s time you take some of your own advice and.......Crack open the Big Boy books!!!
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 2:49pm Sun 18 May 08
Apologies, a very small part of the George Orwell quote, for some reason was omitted....So rather than risk being accused of "misquotation", here is exactly how it should of read;
[quote]the attraction of India (and more recently Kenya, Nigeria, etc.) for the lower-upper-middle class[is that] in India, with cheap horses, free shooting, and hordes of black servants, it was so easy to play at being a gentleman" . Indeed, in pursuit of gentility, respectability, and social status, many Britons throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries found their way to the Indian subcontinent.[/quote]
Apologies, a very small part of the George Orwell quote, for some reason was omitted....So rather than risk being accused of "misquotation", here is exactly how it should of read;
the attraction of India (and more recently Kenya, Nigeria, etc.) for the lower-upper-middle class in India, with cheap horses, free shooting, and hordes of black servants, it was so easy to play at being a gentleman" . Indeed, in pursuit of gentility, respectability, and social status, many Britons throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries found their way to the Indian subcontinent.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 2:53pm Sun 18 May 08
[quote]the attraction of India (and more recently Kenya, Nigeria, etc.) for the lower-upper-middle class[bold](is that)[/bold] in India, with cheap horses, free shooting, and hordes of black servants, it was so easy to play at being a gentleman" . Indeed, in pursuit of gentility, respectability, and social status, many Britons throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries found their way to the Indian subcontinent.Quote | Report[/quote]
the attraction of India (and more recently Kenya, Nigeria, etc.) for the lower-upper-middle class(is that) in India, with cheap horses, free shooting, and hordes of black servants, it was so easy to play at being a gentleman" . Indeed, in pursuit of gentility, respectability, and social status, many Britons throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries found their way to the Indian subcontinent.Quote | Report
Posted by: Croyboy on 3:50am Tue 20 May 08
Yogi wrote [quote] Are you trying to say , that there is no implication in this statement, that you and Ghandi share a common goal, and that the reader cannot classify one of you as "far right" without the other? [/quote]
However, I was clearly referring to your claiming that I made "colonial India...sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives". I repeat, if that's the impression you got, you must have misread my post.
[quote]And your point is?
It is ok to for a foreign government to severely oppress the natives of a country, if the regime is less oppressive than an indigenous government would be?[/quote]
One point is that British India [italic]wasn't[/italic] oppressive relatively speaking - and "relatively" is an important word here. Examples:
1/ Would you prefer to be an "oppressed" Rhodesian native, or a "free" Zimbabwean?
2/ An "oppressed" native of British Burma, or a "free" Myamarese?
Please Yogi, don't affect such boorish, politically-correct (but ultimately phoney!) idealism at the expense of others. Try asking those who are/were there.
Thank you for the definition of "settler", but I stand by what I said as regarding the [italic]implication[/italic] of the word: one who goes abroad with the intention of staying for ever. (cf "settled community")
[quote]...it is totally irrelevant to the accuracy of my claimed fact, how many British settlers there were, it is the same as saying[/quote]
Okay, agreed!
There were Jews in the Nazi party (a fact), but don't you think it would be highly misleading to blow this "fact" up out of all proportion? I can't answer for you, of course, but any reasonable person would surely agree. India was not a land that was "settled" by British immigrants in any (sane) accepted meaning or understanding of the word. Again, ask anyone from the sub-continent how many "British settlers" live or lived in their area. I trust you'll take [italic]their[/italic] word for it!
[quote]Mr Orwell claims that many Britons relocated to India....[/quote]
"Many" relative to what? ...The numbers of people from the sub-continent who have settled [italic]here[/italic]? Now that [italic]would[/italic] be something! Also, how many stayed post-independence? (Yes, that [italic]is[/italic] relevant, because I can't see people of British descent flocking back from Aussie if it went completely its own way tomorrow.)
[quote]Perhaps you will consider consultation with your "big boy books" before disputing my "facts" in the future.[/quote]
No need. I don't comment of things I know nothing about, and I also employ logic and common sense when I make my points - and [italic]those[/italic], I'm afraid, you are either endowed with...or not!
[quote]As with many other things, I don't take your criticism of my use of quotation marks or anything else concerning the English language too seriously...quote]
Pity, maybe you should. "You can lead a horse to water..."
Yogi wrote Are you trying to say , that there is no implication in this statement, that you and Ghandi share a common goal, and that the reader cannot classify one of you as "far right" without the other?
However, I was clearly referring to your claiming that I made "colonial India...sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives". I repeat, if that's the impression you got, you must have misread my post.
And your point is?
It is ok to for a foreign government to severely oppress the natives of a country, if the regime is less oppressive than an indigenous government would be?
One point is that British India
wasn't oppressive relatively speaking - and "relatively" is an important word here. Examples:
1/ Would you prefer to be an "oppressed" Rhodesian native, or a "free" Zimbabwean?
2/ An "oppressed" native of British Burma, or a "free" Myamarese?
Please Yogi, don't affect such boorish, politically-correct (but ultimately phoney!) idealism at the expense of others. Try asking those who are/were there.
Thank you for the definition of "settler", but I stand by what I said as regarding the
implication of the word: one who goes abroad with the intention of staying for ever. (cf "settled community")
...it is totally irrelevant to the accuracy of my claimed fact, how many British settlers there were, it is the same as saying
Okay, agreed!
There were Jews in the Nazi party (a fact), but don't you think it would be highly misleading to blow this "fact" up out of all proportion? I can't answer for you, of course, but any reasonable person would surely agree. India was not a land that was "settled" by British immigrants in any (sane) accepted meaning or understanding of the word. Again, ask anyone from the sub-continent how many "British settlers" live or lived in their area. I trust you'll take
their word for it!
Mr Orwell claims that many Britons relocated to India....
"Many" relative to what? ...The numbers of people from the sub-continent who have settled
here? Now that
would be something! Also, how many stayed post-independence? (Yes, that
is relevant, because I can't see people of British descent flocking back from Aussie if it went completely its own way tomorrow.)
Perhaps you will consider consultation with your "big boy books" before disputing my "facts" in the future.
No need. I don't comment of things I know nothing about, and I also employ logic and common sense when I make my points - and
those, I'm afraid, you are either endowed with...or not!
As with many other things, I don't take your criticism of my use of quotation marks or anything else concerning the English language too seriously...quote]
Pity, maybe you should. "You can lead a horse to water..."
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 5:57pm Tue 20 May 08
[quote]However, I was clearly referring to your claiming that I made "colonial India...sound as if it was some kind of charitable crusade by the Brits, with their priority being improving the lives of the natives". I repeat, if that's the impression you got, you must have misread my post.[/quote]
Ok , but looking at your statement of :
[quote]" But then, if wanting my country back is "far right", then I suppose Gandhi was - according to the Wisdom of Yogi - "far right" too"[/quote]
Do you disagree that this statement
strongly implies that, the reader must accept that if your views are far right then so were Ghandi's?
[quote]One point is that British India wasn't oppressive relatively speaking - and "relativ
