what is Englishness?
DR. Boris
How do you define Englishness?
Fact 1/ There is no such thing as an English race. The English are
essentially a mixture of many different subgroups emananting from the
European mainland. Before the Romans came here we were essentially a Celtic
people occupying the whole of the UK mainland. After we were Romanised there
were succesive infusions of many different peoples, Angles, Saxons, Jutes
etc. The Norman conquest bought yet another influx of European blood. When
people talk of their pride at being English (in terms of race), they are
therefore in error. Excluding peoples from this country on the basis of
their race is therefore not a valid argument.
Fact 2/ The history of England is essentially a history of the various
monarchs and ruling classes. To say that our society is founded on
democratic principles and liberty for all is unfounded. A feudal system was
in place before the Normans came here and continued afterwards. The only
change here was in monarchy and a new ruling class of Norman barons.
The Magna Carta gave more power to Norman barons and was never intended to
provide a voice for the lesser individuals of this nation. The English civil
war unlike the French did not result in people power. Most of those in
parliament at the time were almost exclusively from middle
class/aristocratic backgrounds, essentially again another shift in power
from monarchy to ruling class. Only in the past few hundred years have we
seen a shift towards true democracy.
Dr. Boris
Zer0
"DR. Boris" <andrew.g...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
In other words, we're a pack of mongrels where the big dogs rule. Well, I'm top
drawer, mate, and won't have any truck with the sort of 'democracy' New Labour's
trying to dish out.
Zer0
------
New Labour's a failure
gra...@ntlworld.com
<andrew.g...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>This one is for Billy.
>How do you define Englishness?
>
>Fact 1/ There is no such thing as an English race. The English are
>essentially a mixture of many different subgroups emananting from the
>European mainland. Before the Romans came here we were essentially a Celtic
>people occupying the whole of the UK mainland. After we were Romanised there
>were succesive infusions of many different peoples, Angles, Saxons, Jutes
>etc. The Norman conquest bought yet another influx of European blood. When
>people talk of their pride at being English (in terms of race), they are
>therefore in error. Excluding peoples from this country on the basis of
>their race is therefore not a valid argument.
>Fact 2/ The history of England is essentially a history of the various
>monarchs and ruling classes. To say that our society is founded on
>democratic principles and liberty for all is unfounded. A feudal system was
>in place before the Normans came here and continued afterwards. The only
>change here was in monarchy and a new ruling class of Norman barons.
>The Magna Carta gave more power to Norman barons and was never intended to
>provide a voice for the lesser individuals of this nation. The English civil
>war unlike the French did not result in people power. Most of those in
>parliament at the time were almost exclusively from middle
>class/aristocratic backgrounds, essentially again another shift in power
>from monarchy to ruling class. Only in the past few hundred years have we
>seen a shift towards true democracy.
>
>
>Dr. Boris
>
I agree with the above but since you mention democracy,could you
define it please.
Grandad
If I am to love my country, let it first be lovable!
Lucky Larry
You approach the immigration desk,
You Andrew Gilfillan start to perspire copiously in the airconditioned hall.
Why?
Because you have no nationality, you are not English, you are not British,
you are not anything.
You will be rejected.
DR. Boris <andrew.g...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8qnkqi$6pn$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
pencil
Doc, how do you define englishness - or are you suggesting no such thing exists?
doc said :
When people talk of their pride at being English (in terms of race), they are
therefore in error. Excluding peoples from this country on the basis of
their race is therefore not a valid argument.
pencil asks :
Not valid? - according to what/whose criteria?
doc said :
Only in the past few hundred years have we
seen a shift towards true democracy.
pencil asks :
"True democracy"? What's that?
How_zat?
Boris" <andrew.g...@nottingham.ac.uk> stating:
>This one is for Billy.
>How do you define Englishness?
>
>Fact 1/ There is no such thing as an English race.
Perhaps not quite correct.. Many people regard their race
as defined by their birth place. For example those born in
england are often regarded as english. Those born within
the british isles as british etc.
How_zat?
billy
"DR. Boris" <andrew.g...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8qnkqi$6pn$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
> How do you define Englishness?
>
*******************************************************
What constitutes Englishness and the character stemming from
this arises from the fact of England giving the world its sport.
This is an invention essentially English and has no parallel in any
other country.
It is a sport characterised by certain attributes:
It has a system of rules and a concept of fair play; and for it to
operate effectively it must also embody the concept of calm acceptance
of the game's state of play - and even the prospect of defeat - but,
at the same time, holding on to the idea that a defeat is not a
finality but an opportunity to learn from the defeat - and fight the
"battle" on another day.
These ideas are unique to the English character; but this concept of
calmly and
firmly sticking to the rules can put the English at a disadvantage in
many situations - yet they still stick to the rules.
You see this in the EU. One commentator said of the English:
"Regarding EU rules: the English play cricket whereas the other
nations play what appears to be a dirty game of scrum football."
The recent ban on English beef by the French and Germans are a case in
point. The English have bent over backwards to stick to the rules,
whereas - as we all well know - others have bent them to suit their
own convenience.
Another instance: When the Indians were kicked out of Uganda, India
absolutely refused to give the dispossessed a home. England took them
in at cost and disadvantage to this country - out of a sense of
"obligation".
Although these aspects of the English character can be a seen as a
weakness which other people may be prone to exploit, it is also the
source of great strength. For instance: The impulse to abide by rules
(for example, the rules of law and of majority opinion) make the
English instinctively the most law-abiding people in the world and the
inventors of Parliamentary Democracy.
It also produced the first codified declaration of Human rights in the
Magna
Carta of 1215 and the later Bill of Rights in 1689 - on which the
American declaration was based.
Another illustration of the English character relates to the incident
of Dunkirk:
When the French army collapsed, there was no alternative but to
retreat. This was done in an orderly manner but fighting fiercely (as
the pursuing German Commanders admitted) to establish a perimeter at
Dunkirk.
There, the troops on the beach were heavily dive-bombed and
continually under fire, but showed hardly and signs of panic or
scrambling for a place in the rescue boats.
If you see the films of the episode, you will see orderly lines of men
waiting for boats - even whilst being machine-gunned by German
planes.
(The English also showed the same calmness as their 5,000 heavily
outnumbered troops at Agincourt, faced the 15,000 heavily armoured
French knights.)
In the minds of the men at Dunkirk was not the panic of defeat, but
the idea
that this match might be lost, but there would be another one to
"play", later.
What is known as the "Miracle of Dunkirk" consisted of shipping an
army of over
300,000 men back to Britain to fight the next stage in the contest;
and this
could only be done with men not inclined to panic or be filled with a
sense
of hopelessness and defeat.
In a Dunkirk situation, other nations would have had their men
fanatically fight
to the suicidal destruction of every last man (or panic and run).
Both options, to the English mind, would have been as daft as throwing
away
your cricket gear in a panic petulance because you have lost a match.
How would you play the next match without equipment?
This aspect of the English character might explain lack of "success"
in sport: this because it is seen as a *sport* and a defeat in this is
something not to be unduly upset about; so they still adopt a largely
amateurish attitude towards its activity.
Many nations pour massive amounts of State money into ensuring
"national honour and success", the English give nothing - and still
expect most to do what amateurs have always done: i.e. do it at their
own expense and in their own time, for the "fun of it".
The capacity to accept a seeming defeat without a sense of defeat is
why the Nation never capitulated - even in what seemed like a hopeless
situation, post-Dunkirk - but went on to prepare for the next match -
i.e. The Battle of Britain.
This - the most crucial battle ever fought for world freedom - was
fought over the fields of England. The English took the brunt of and
provided most of the resources for the victory: One which even Stalin
admitted "bought time for other countries to resist". And a battle
which America's General George C. Marshall declared was "the great
factor in the salvage of our civilisation".
But England is the land which sent out its Seamen to scatter the
Spanish Fleet - aimed at subduing England - to the four winds. It did
the same at Trafalger to those with ambitions to subdue Europe.
It is the land of Chaucer and Shakespeare; of Newton and Davy; of
Crompton and Cartwright; of Faraday and Babbage; and multitudes of
other remarkable people of literature, science and invention.
The English have given the World its main international language;
virtually all of its sport; parliamentary democracy; the first Bill of
Rights; and within
the heart of England, the modern world was born.
So this is the peaceful and law abiding English. People who are not
daunted by defeat but live to fight another day; and - as history
shows - eventually wins that day.
It also represents a character essentially described in Shakespeare's
Henry V:
"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and
humility.
But when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action
of the
tiger: Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood. Disguise fair nature
with
hard-favoured rage."
But there is also the love of the land and the roots one feels they
have in the land, which makes a person English.
If that person can stand on the brow of a hill - anywhere in England
(be it in the Yorkshire Dales, the Cotswolds or the rolling
countryside of Devon) and look across the green fields and hedgerows
to a village clustering around a Saxon church; and feel as one with
the people who worked the fields and were laid to rest in the church-
yard - over all those hundreds of years - then one is English.
It is the land of Housman's "Shropshire Lad" and its songs; of
Vaughan Williams' music "The Lark Ascending".
It is the land of the bluebell, English Lavender and hawthorn
may-blossom and the oak. It is a land that when one returns from
abroad, one always hears echoes in the mind of Shakespeares words:
"This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."
If you have English ancestry and can feel an intense pride when
contemplating all of this, then you are English.
If you have not, and cannot, then you are not.
regards, billy
********************************************
JHS
The Great Charter. On behalf of the Anglo-Saxons?
The Norman Kings didn't think much of England they
used it to raise armies to keep their precious
lands in 'France'. This burden became to much for the
Norman barons and so you get your Charter after a
civil war.
martin
.
> It is the land of Housman's "Shropshire Lad" and its songs; of
> Vaughan Williams' music "The Lark Ascending".
A stranger would develop a very poor opinion of
English music if he or she listened solely to VW's efforts.
His music is very over rated, being so slow and monotonous,
and he would not get played if he was not
of English descent. What about Edward Elgar or even Arnold Bax?
As for poets, Housman is a real non-entity. English poets more
worth reading than him would probably reach three figures.
What about Milton? (Different planet.) Or Chaucer? (Another Universe.)
abelard
typed:
>A stranger would develop a very poor opinion of
>English music if he or she listened solely to VW's efforts.
>His music is very over rated, being so slow and monotonous,
no wonder bonehead goes for it...
web site at www.abelard.org - new, doc....mechanics of inflation.
..also logic and much more....over 400 doc. requests daily
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Watts
eserve.co.uk> writes
>It has a system of rules and a concept of fair play; and for it to
>operate effectively it must also embody the concept of calm acceptance
>of the game's state of play - and even the prospect of defeat - but,
>at the same time, holding on to the idea that a defeat is not a
>finality but an opportunity to learn from the defeat - and fight the
>"battle" on another day.
Hmm. I heard an interesting snippet on the news this evening. The
British Olympic competitor in the decathlon was 4th. The guy who got
the gold only did so because an ex-gold medal winner (a black British
athlete, Daley Thompson) advised him that he could appeal against a
judges decision which would have disqualified him. He won his appeal
and kept his gold, thus depriving the British competitor of a Bronze
medal.
We might expect that the good old English would applaud this triumph of
sportsmanship and justice. Not so, said the commentator. The team
would consider Daley's action nothing short of treason!
--
Roger Watts
billy
"martin" <r...@raymond34.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8qvgp9$kmq$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> .
> > It is the land of Housman's "Shropshire Lad" and its songs; of
> > Vaughan Williams' music "The Lark Ascending".
>
>
> English music if he or she listened solely to VW's efforts.
> His music is very over rated, being so slow and monotonous,
> of English descent. What about Edward Elgar or even Arnold Bax?
>
> As for poets, Housman is a real non-entity. English poets more
> worth reading than him would probably reach three figures.
> What about Milton? (Different planet.) Or Chaucer? (Another
Universe.)
>
martin, it is all a question of taste.
However, the fact is there is enough excellent English music and
literature to suit all tastes and the vast spread of culture a person
wishes to express.
To me, Vaughan William's "Lark Ascending" conjures up evocative images
of the Norfolk misty spread in an early morning - when the sun has
nearly banished the mist and the lark ascends with its exhilarating
tune.
Housman in his Shropshire Lad conjures up evocative images of rural
England just before World War One and an Englishness stemming from
that which persists down the ages.
I never for one moment suggested these were exclusively and the only
expressions of Englishness. I could not list everything but only give
examples out of a vast spread.
Obviously, Milton and Chaucer are way up front, as is Sir Edward Elgar
and his "Pomp and Circumstances" (the most stirring music every
written by anyone - anywhere).
Also and in another mood: Sir Arnold Bax's "The Garden of Fand" and
"Tintagel" - stirring the blood in your veins in another way.
The point is:
I know what Englishness is. I feel it in my veins when I see the
English countryside, and its Norman and Anglo-Saxon churches and read
their ancient inscriptions, and read the literature and hear the music
such as you describe.
Regards,
billy
*********************************
billy
"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r0yhVCAF...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> >operate effectively it must also embody the concept of calm
acceptance
> >of the game's state of play - and even the prospect of defeat -
but,
> >at the same time, holding on to the idea that a defeat is not a
> >finality but an opportunity to learn from the defeat - and fight
the
> >"battle" on another day.
>
> British Olympic competitor in the decathlon was 4th. The guy who
got
> the gold only did so because an ex-gold medal winner (a black
British
> athlete, Daley Thompson) advised him that he could appeal against a
> judges decision which would have disqualified him. He won his
appeal
> and kept his gold, thus depriving the British competitor of a Bronze
> medal.
>
> We might expect that the good old English would applaud this triumph
of
> sportsmanship and justice. Not so, said the commentator. The team
> would consider Daley's action nothing short of treason!
> --
> Roger Watts
In this age governed by the mad religion of multiculturalism, there
are all sorts of confusions and conflicting loyalties.
No-one any longer can discern where various people's loyalties reside.
A typical example of this was the Aborigine women in the Australian
team who draped herself in the Australian *and* an Aboriginal flag.
Where does her loyalties really lie?
However, if all the English team were truly English, perhaps we would
be able to form a proper judgement as to their reaction in the case
you mentioned.
regards, billy
********************************
Roger Watts
eeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:r0yhVCAF...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8qtb94$v8l$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
><jo...@billy100.fre
>> eserve.co.uk> writes
>> >operate effectively it must also embody the concept of calm
>acceptance
>> >of the game's state of play - and even the prospect of defeat -
>but,
>> >at the same time, holding on to the idea that a defeat is not a
>> >finality but an opportunity to learn from the defeat - and fight
>the
>> >"battle" on another day.
>>
>> British Olympic competitor in the decathlon was 4th. The guy who
>got
>> the gold only did so because an ex-gold medal winner (a black
>British
>> athlete, Daley Thompson) advised him that he could appeal against a
>> judges decision which would have disqualified him. He won his
>appeal
>> and kept his gold, thus depriving the British competitor of a Bronze
>> medal.
>>
>> We might expect that the good old English would applaud this triumph
>of
>> sportsmanship and justice. Not so, said the commentator. The team
>> would consider Daley's action nothing short of treason!
>> --
>> Roger Watts
>********************************
>In this age governed by the mad religion of multiculturalism, there
>are all sorts of confusions and conflicting loyalties.
>No-one any longer can discern where various people's loyalties reside.
Alas, Billy, the world has never been the black and white illusion you
maintain. But, if you watched the Olympics this morning, I wonder if
you have any illusions where the loyalties of the black athletes who won
three relay golds for the USA lie? And why they should be any different
to the loyalties of the white athletes who won medals for the USA?
>A typical example of this was the Aborigine women in the Australian
>team who draped herself in the Australian *and* an Aboriginal flag.
>Where does her loyalties really lie?
I'm sure she has no doubt that she is an Australian. Perhaps what she
objects to is having a flag imposed on her by immigrants who did their
best to wipe her ancestors out - who, being immigrants, I suppose by
your definition are *not* Australians.
>However, if all the English team were truly English, perhaps we would
>be able to form a proper judgement as to their reaction in the case
Qualifications for being British (in this case) are laid down by the
IOC. I would be interested in what qualifications *you* would lay down.
How many generations back would you go? What percentage of
'Englishness' would you demand? (You'd still be left with problem of
defining Englishness). Would you impose differentials on what type of
'non-Englishness' allowed?
Maybe we should use your criteria of love of Vaughan-Williams and
Houseman? That should narrow it down a bit. I doubt we'd even have 4
young men who could *run* 400m!
--
Roger Watts
'Droid
>
> In article <8r4snb$26j$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.fr
> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >********************************
> >In this age governed by the mad religion of multiculturalism, there
> >are all sorts of confusions and conflicting loyalties.
> >No-one any longer can discern where various people's loyalties reside.
>
> Alas, Billy, the world has never been the black and white illusion you
> maintain. But, if you watched the Olympics this morning, I wonder if
> you have any illusions where the loyalties of the black athletes who won
> three relay golds for the USA lie? And why they should be any different
> to the loyalties of the white athletes who won medals for the USA?
>
> >A typical example of this was the Aborigine women in the Australian
> >team who draped herself in the Australian *and* an Aboriginal flag.
> >Where does her loyalties really lie?
>
> I'm sure she has no doubt that she is an Australian. Perhaps what she
> objects to is having a flag imposed on her by immigrants who did their
> best to wipe her ancestors out - who, being immigrants, I suppose by
> your definition are *not* Australians.
I wonder if billy would object to one our athletes simultaneously carrying the
Union and English flags. Does that also show a conflict of loyalty, or rather
the recognition of a loyalty to both the overall nation and a smaller group
within the nation?
'Droid
Yorkist
Roger Watts wrote in message ...
>In article <8qtb94$v8l$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.fre
>eserve.co.uk> writes
>>It has a system of rules and a concept of fair play; and for it to
>>operate effectively it must also embody the concept of calm acceptance
>>of the game's state of play - and even the prospect of defeat - but,
>>at the same time, holding on to the idea that a defeat is not a
>>finality but an opportunity to learn from the defeat - and fight the
>>"battle" on another day.
>
>British Olympic competitor in the decathlon was 4th. The guy who got
>the gold only did so because an ex-gold medal winner (a black British
>athlete, Daley Thompson) advised him that he could appeal against a
>judges decision which would have disqualified him. He won his appeal
>and kept his gold, thus depriving the British competitor of a Bronze
>medal.
>
>We might expect that the good old English would applaud this triumph of
>sportsmanship and justice. Not so, said the commentator. The team
>would consider Daley's action nothing short of treason!
>--
>Roger Watts
You neglected to mention that 'our' Daley was working for the winner.
Maybe sportsmanship was not a factor.
David Jones
> I wonder if billy would object to one our athletes simultaneously carrying
the
> Union and English flags. Does that also show a conflict of loyalty, or
rather
> the recognition of a loyalty to both the overall nation and a smaller
group
> within the nation?
>
> 'Droid
He's just mad. Ignore him.
billy
"'Droid" <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39D65287...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> Roger Watts wrote:
> >
> > In article <8r4snb$26j$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
<jo...@billy100.fr
> > eeserve.co.uk> writes
>
Droid the Void:
Yes I would object to two flags. One cannot serve two masters.
In the case of that much over-rated half white Aboriginal woman: who
will she support when the inevitable conflicts occurs between
Aborigines and white Australian?
Which flag will she toss aside; and - in doing so - please no-one.
regards, billy
*****************************
billy
> In article <8r4snb$26j$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
<jo...@billy100.fr
> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >news:r0yhVCAF...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> ><jo...@billy100.fre
> >> eserve.co.uk> writes
>
> Qualifications for being British (in this case) are laid down by the
> IOC. I would be interested in what qualifications *you* would lay
down.
> How many generations back would you go? What percentage of
> 'Englishness' would you demand? (You'd still be left with problem
of
> defining Englishness). Would you impose differentials on what type
of
> 'non-Englishness' allowed?
>
> Maybe we should use your criteria of love of Vaughan-Williams and
> Houseman? That should narrow it down a bit. I doubt we'd even have
4
> young men who could *run* 400m!
> --
> Roger Watts
Watts who is not even 15 Watts, intellectually.
I have no problem whatsoever in defining English. I have done it
constantly in this NG - particularly in a recent reply to "What is
Englishness" whose parts you have quoted.
I think that is detailed enough for any definition and leaves no
uncertainties.
If it so happens that we do not have 4 men to run 400m, I would rather
be represented by a failed Englishman than a successful African.
I cannot make any identification with an African because they are not
of my kind. They represent Africans whatever name they take. And in
Africa is where they belong.
If you wish to know how one can *become* English, it is as follows:
If I were a person from, say, the Indian Subcontinent who had
emigrated to England, my first aim would be to Anglicise. I would
recognise that, I, myself, was existentially Indian; and therefore
unable to look across the fields of England to the symbolic village
mentioned in the first posting; thereby to feel "as one with the
people who
had worked the fields and were laid to rest in the churchyard - over
those hundreds of years."
If my first name happened to be Jagdip, I would change it to James,
and if my second name was Patel, I would change it to Peterson. I
would renounce all allegiance to India and transfer my affections and
loyalties to England. I would
study English culture, traditions and history, to become more versed
in these than the average English person.
To paraphrase the words of the Biblical Ruth, I would say to England:
"Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where thy people
die, will I die - and there will I be buried."
A major concern would be for my children to become English. Therefore,
I would seek an English person to partner so that they (the resulting
children) could claim English ancestry. They could then look across
the fields to the symbolic village and feel as one with its people. In
this way, the Indian aspect would completely fade and Englishness is
what they would feel.
They would then avoid feeling forever strangers in a land in which
they live half heartedly, and to which they feel they do not fully
belong.
Of course, this suggestion would be met with horror by those preaching
the "virtues" of diversity and the non-integration it implies.
To use again a Biblical maxim: "If a house be divided against itself,
it cannot stand."
The divisiveness implicit in the doctrine of diversity goes against
that common sense.
Any Nation's "house" needs unity and harmony and
the allegiance of all its inhabitants to common ideals, values and
beliefs, to produce unity and harmony.
To pretend otherwise is to be a follower of false fashion - doomed to
fail and produce great grief in the process of its failure.
regards, billy
*********************************
'Droid
>
> "'Droid" <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:39D65287...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> > Roger Watts wrote:
> > >
> <jo...@billy100.fr
> > > eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
So one is unable to be loyal to both Britain and England? As for the athlete it
would seem that she would support the Aborigines. But what is the problem? It is
as pointless as asking whether you would support the Scotland or England when
addressing the subject of your loyalty to Britain.
'Droid
'Droid
> Of course, this suggestion would be met with horror by those preaching
> the "virtues" of diversity and the non-integration it implies.
> To use again a Biblical maxim: "If a house be divided against itself,
> it cannot stand."
I wish you would make up your mind. You can't seem to decide whether to attack
multiculturalism for encouraging the co-existence of different cultures (as in
this case) or for encouraging a single homogeneous "brown" culture. You can't
have it both ways.
'Droid
billy
Droid the Void:
With your nose stuck into your book of statistics, you cannot see the
implications.
In the case of the Aboriginal woman, her action is one which contains
no sense.
The tension between the Aboriginal and the white Australians can never
be reconciled.
The white Australians have made a grave error in trying to soften
Aboriginal resentment in allowing the mentioned act of dual flags and
giving massive prominence to the Aboriginal people in the Olympic
opening ceremony - as I indicated in my posting: "White Australia's
Cultural Cringe."
If I was an Aboriginal, I would tear the white Australians apart.
I would stress they have admitted a wrong and by this they have
admitted the Aboriginal have prime claim on the country.
The Russians have a saying:
"There can be no apology without restitution."
Using this, I would make claims on everything:
That sacred mountain; that sacred burial ground; that sacred tribal
meeting place; that sacred river; that sacred tribal land; those
sacred hills; that sacred beach; those sacred forests; and so on and
so on. I would leave the whites with barely an acre of ground to stand
on.
Of course, the white Australians whose fathers had developed land out
of barren bush and turned it into great productiveness will be peed
off and highly resentful with each Aboriginal claim. However, if I was
an Aboriginal, I would say it is their problem and they should be glad
to make restitution. If they cannot do this with good grace and accept
the handing over of stolen land, it proves the original wickedness of
the whites - which is still continuing.
Now:
What the white Australians *should* have done in their Olympic
ceremony was to tell the truth and kick out all the crippling
Political Correctness:
They should have portrayed a barren and undeveloped land occupied by
stone-age people with a primitive culture which had just managed to
achieve bare subsistence level and offered nothing to human progress
and understanding.
Then the ceremony should have show a magnificent sailing ship
representing the enormous influx of British energy, enterprise and
capital, which - starting just over two hundred years ago - made that
once barren country able to hold the Olympic games with such
sophistication.
The Aboriginal should then be told they were fortunate the most
energetic, inventive and remarkable people the world had ever
produced - the British - came to offer the opportunity for them to
escape out of the stone-age and live in the forefront of the modern
age (started by British inventiveness and energies).
They can either drop their false grievance and take up the
opportunities the land now offers, or, otherwise, take to the bottle -
as many do - and fade away.
regards, billy
******************************
billy
Droid the Void:
I have made up my mind.
I do not want nations within a nation, which multiculturalism
implies - with all the inbuilt tensions this inevitably creates.
Nor do I want the browning of the English face - with the loss of
identity that implies.
What I want is a unified nation composed of people who have a
"likeness".
You could not get a clearer statement of policy than that.
That is the way it was before the irresponsible and traitorous action
of politicians who made it otherwise - against the will of the British
people.
regards, billy
*******************************
BOEDICIA
>From: "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk>
>Date: Wed, Oct 4, 2000 13:19 EDT
>Message-id: <8rfpf2$e11$3...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>
>> > Droid the Void:
>> > Yes I would object to two flags. One cannot serve two masters.
>> > In the case of that much over-rated half white Aboriginal woman:
>who
>> > will she support when the inevitable conflicts occurs between
>> > Aborigines and white Australian?
Once again we see the problems of
the half breed. The athlete in question
looks in the mirror and sees the jutting jaw
and other Abo features and even though
she obviously has white genes, her
loyalty is to the obvious. So it is with the
mixed race of of Britain and already
those of white/black pairings are
committing more than their share of
crimes.
matth...@my-deja.com
"billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> However, the fact is there is enough excellent English music and
> literature to suit all tastes and the vast spread of culture a person
> wishes to express.
Rubbish. Find me an english author that talks zen or taoism as well as
Lao Tzu. Not one.
cheers
matt
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul Hyett
view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>Once again we see the problems of
>the half breed. The athlete in question
>looks in the mirror and sees the jutting jaw
>and other Abo features and even though
>she obviously has white genes, her
>loyalty is to the obvious.
i.e. Australia?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
billy
<matth...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8rklbu$7ep$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8r2jcg$pos$4...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > However, the fact is there is enough excellent English music and
> > literature to suit all tastes and the vast spread of culture a
person
> > wishes to express.
>
> Rubbish. Find me an english author that talks zen or taoism as well
as
> Lao Tzu. Not one.
>
> cheers
>
> matt
>
Matt the Prat,
It is just as well we have no English authors who deal with such
rubbish.
The English are too pragmatic to give any space to such vague
nonsense.
I thought that trash went out of the English scene when the Beatles
rumbled the giggling, bottom patting, guru who ripped them off. Also
when the Loony Left, drug hyped hippies faded away.
What makes me proud of being English is we follow pragmatic policies
base on common sense and practical value.
regards, billy
*************************
Roger Watts
eserve.co.uk> writes
>Yes I would object to two flags. One cannot serve two masters.
In the *real* world, as opposed to the cloud cuckoo land you seem to
inhabit, we face divided loyalties all the time. Most of us resolve
them.
>In the case of that much over-rated half white Aboriginal woman
You gave her as an example - someone who wins gold medals in successive
Olympics in as competitive an event as women's athletics can hard be
said to be over-rated.
>: who
>will she support when the inevitable conflicts occurs between
>Aborigines and white Australian?
....conflicts only made inevitable by people like you.
>Which flag will she toss aside; and - in doing so - please no-one.
>regards, billy
>*****************************
>
>
>
>
--
Roger Watts
Roger Watts
eserve.co.uk> writes
>
>"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:G+jKHCAE...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
><jo...@billy100.fr
>> eeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:r0yhVCAF...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
>> ><jo...@billy100.fre
>> >> eserve.co.uk> writes
> >
>> Qualifications for being British (in this case) are laid down by the
>> IOC. I would be interested in what qualifications *you* would lay
>down.
>> How many generations back would you go? What percentage of
>> 'Englishness' would you demand? (You'd still be left with problem
>of
>> defining Englishness). Would you impose differentials on what type
>of
>> 'non-Englishness' allowed?
>>
>> Maybe we should use your criteria of love of Vaughan-Williams and
>> Houseman? That should narrow it down a bit. I doubt we'd even have
>4
>> young men who could *run* 400m!
>> --
>> Roger Watts
>*****************************
>Watts who is not even 15 Watts, intellectually.
Even one watt(s) is sufficient to read the shallowness and hypocrisy of
your pitiful racism.
>I have no problem whatsoever in defining English. I have done it
>constantly in this NG - particularly in a recent reply to "What is
>Englishness" whose parts you have quoted.
>I think that is detailed enough for any definition and leaves no
>uncertainties.
What you have defined is 'your' opinion of Englishness. All of us have
our own. It is fluid, it changes with the generations, with what the
establishment likes to persuade us it might be - usually when they want
us to die for some cause 'they' have espoused.
I saw a TV programme recently on the 'Irish traditional' dance
phenomenon of Riverdance. The dance came to Ireland from English
settlers which, in turn, was imported from French court dancing. Then
Irish peasants vulgarised it. The church ( of Rome, remember) then
decided that all the flailing of arms was too sexually suggestive so the
arms were held to the side. Irish- Americans (how can such divided
loyalties exist, I wonder?) then refined it further. Now the Irish
think of it as part of their cultural heritage.
>If it so happens that we do not have 4 men to run 400m, I would rather
>be represented by a failed Englishman than a successful African.
>I cannot make any identification with an African because they are not
>of my kind.
Billy, I cannot make any identification with *you* - my definition of
Englishness includes tolerance (although I don't think we have any
monopoly). To me, *you* are an alien.
> They represent Africans whatever name they take. And in
>Africa is where they belong.
>If you wish to know how one can *become* English, it is as follows:
>If I were a person from, say, the Indian Subcontinent who had
>emigrated to England, my first aim would be to Anglicise. I would
>recognise that, I, myself, was existentially Indian; and therefore
>unable to look across the fields of England to the symbolic village
>mentioned in the first posting; thereby to feel "as one with the
>people who
>had worked the fields and were laid to rest in the churchyard - over
>those hundreds of years."
>If my first name happened to be Jagdip, I would change it to James,
>and if my second name was Patel, I would change it to Peterson. I
>would renounce all allegiance to India and transfer my affections and
>loyalties to England. I would
>study English culture, traditions and history, to become more versed
>in these than the average English person.
You mean, like the English settlers in Asia, and Africa did? No, Billy,
you have already told us that you approve of people going to foreign
lands, inhabited by others, maintaining their own culture and imposing
it on others - often seeking to wipe the indigenous culture out. How
many immigrants to Australia have aboriginal names? You are an almighty
hypocrite.
>To paraphrase the words of the Biblical Ruth, I would say to England:
>"Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where thy people
>die, will I die - and there will I be buried."
>A major concern would be for my children to become English. Therefore,
>I would seek an English person to partner so that they (the resulting
>children) could claim English ancestry.
then have someone like you or Henderson take one look at them and say
that no-one with a brown skin can represent England
>They could then look across
>the fields to the symbolic village
*your* symbol. Most people don't spend their time gazing at cemeteries
(having intimations of your mortality, Billy?) and there are precious
few of those villages left.
>and feel as one with its people. In
>this way, the Indian aspect would completely fade and Englishness is
>what they would feel.
>They would then avoid feeling forever strangers in a land in which
>they live half heartedly, and to which they feel they do not fully
>belong.
I wonder who they get that impression from?
>Of course, this suggestion would be met with horror by those preaching
>the "virtues" of diversity and the non-integration it implies.
As I've said before, Billy, you go around with your eyes only tuned in
to seeing brown faces. Our culture is continuously changing, even in
places where no brown faces are seen. The world is changing more rapidly
than ever before. If anyone has a gripe, maybe it should the
inhabitants of the non-western world who watch their culture disappear
in the face of globalising capitalism.
>To use again a Biblical maxim: "If a house be divided against itself,
>it cannot stand."
It sickens me to see racists like you and BooBoo quoting from the holy
book which says 'All men are created equal in the sight of God'
>The divisiveness implicit in the doctrine of diversity goes against
>that common sense.
>Any Nation's "house" needs unity and harmony and
>the allegiance of all its inhabitants to common ideals, values and
>beliefs, to produce unity and harmony.
>To pretend otherwise is to be a follower of false fashion - doomed to
>fail and produce great grief in the process of its failure.
Failure? Oh, Billy, Billy. Which is most successful nation on earth?
The United States. A nation of immigrants - a nation of diversity - a
nation of 'hyphenated Americans - a nation whose nationals wander the
world looking for their 'roots'.
Yes, there is conflict. Yes, they have turmoil but it is a vibrant
nation that will, in the end, be far more successful that any turgid
state of Billy-clones gazing at 'their' forefathers under the sod and
living in a never-never land of thatched cottages with hollyhocks,
confining their reading to Houseman and listening to Vaughan-Williams.
Eating a diet of grisly stew, soggy dumplings and cabbage boiled to a
pulp. Potatoes are out of course, nasty foreign things.
--
Roger Watts
pencil
the holy
book which says 'All men are created equal in the sight of God'
pencil says :
yes, but not in the eyes of men.
billy
> In article <8ragk4$3ek$4...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
<jo...@billy100.fre
> eserve.co.uk> writes
> >Yes I would object to two flags. One cannot serve two masters.
>
> In the *real* world, as opposed to the cloud cuckoo land you seem to
> inhabit, we face divided loyalties all the time. Most of us resolve
> them.
>
> >In the case of that much over-rated half white Aboriginal woman
>
> You gave her as an example - someone who wins gold medals in
successive
> Olympics in as competitive an event as women's athletics can hard
be
> said to be over-rated.
>
> >: who
> >will she support when the inevitable conflicts occurs between
> >Aborigines and white Australian?
>
> ....conflicts only made inevitable by people like you.
>
***********************************
Roger - who is intellectually less than 5 Watts:
Not conflict made by me but conflicts made by the nature of human
nature.
You Loony Left Multiculturalist should reflect on this:
Why do you think it is that the Jews have clung to their Jewishness
over the many centuries wherever they went?
Why did they not just merge with the populations of each country they
entered and become an indistinguishable part of that population?
Why did they suffer the persecutions and antagonisms they did over the
centuries when it would have been so easy for them to merge and take
on the identity of the people of the country they entered?
Why do the Tamils resist the way they do? Why do the Romany and
Gypsies resist a loss of their identity?
Why was there such vicious ethnic cleansing - amongst people who had
lived side by side under the force of British rule - when India became
independent?
Why are the Basques doing what they are doing?
Why are the Palestinians insisting on a separate identity?
Why is the situation such as it is in Northern Ireland?
Why the mayhem in the Balkans? Why do the Serbs insist on being Serbs
and the Albanians on being Albanians?
What is wrong with these people?
I will tell you what is wrong with them:
They are being human. They want an identity to which they can relate
and which represents the identity of their ancestors. They want a
sense of belonging to like-minded people of a shared origin
They are tribal; possessing the instinct which nature shaped into
their being to preserve the species.
That is the instinct you Marxist idiots try to suppress at your peril;
because it will keep surfacing. And the more it is repressed, the
greater the force behind its resurfacing (as they found out in
Russia).
It is seen all around wherever one looks.
It is only the idiotic Marxist/Socialist like yourself who refuse to
see it because it conflicts with your pie in the sky nonsense.
You will create mayhem; and your misguided good intentions will pave
the road to hell.
regards, billy
*********************************
billy
> In article <8ragk5$3ek$5...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
<jo...@billy100.fre
> eserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:G+jKHCAE...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <8r4snb$26j$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> ><jo...@billy100.fr
> >> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >> >
> >> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:r0yhVCAF...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> >> >> In article <8qtb94$v8l$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> >> ><jo...@billy100.fre
> >> >> eserve.co.uk> writes
> > >
>
rather
> >be represented by a failed Englishman than a successful African.
>
> >I cannot make any identification with an African because they are
not
> >of my kind.
>
> Billy, I cannot make any identification with *you* - my definition
of
> Englishness includes tolerance (although I don't think we have any
> monopoly). To me, *you* are an alien.
>
Therefore,
> >I would seek an English person to partner so that they (the
resulting
> >children) could claim English ancestry.
>
> then have someone like you or Henderson take one look at them and
say
> that no-one with a brown skin can represent England
>
> >They could then look across
> >the fields to the symbolic village
>
> *your* symbol. Most people don't spend their time gazing at
cemeteries
> (having intimations of your mortality, Billy?) and there are
precious
> few of those villages left.
>
> >Any Nation's "house" needs unity and harmony and
**********************************
Roger less than 5 Watts:
There is no intolerance in saying one would rather be represented by
one's own people than those who belong to another people.
If an African won in sport for Africa, I would cheer that person to
the high heavens - even if he had defeated an Englishman.
However, I would not cheer that African if he won for England. He
would not represent me because I am not an African.
In the case of America, they would be more successful if the Africans
in their midst did not exist in their midst. The fact that they do
exist represents an enormous social cost and source of tension which
is getting progressively worse with no solution in sight.
I will not take up your daft comment about food, but I will take up
your comment about the countryside by quoting a very perceptive
American (Bill Bryson) who is more English than you are because he
loves the Englishness of England's countryside far more than you do.
In the introduction to the book "The English Landscape" he states (and
I quote):
"The landscape of England is, almost everywhere, eminently accessible.
People feel a closeness to it - an affinity that I don't think other
people do for their lands. Such a close and familiar relationship with
the landscape is, to an American like myself, all but
unimaginable...You are very lucky in England. Sometimes by intent,
more often by happy accident, generations of quite and diligent toil
has endowed you with one of the loveliest, most park-like and fetching
landscapes the world has ever known. The real work is all done. All
that is required is that you look after it."
(end of quote)
I came across this book and its introduction containing the quote only
recently and well after I wrote my posting regarding my feelings for
the English landscape and how that denotes an aspect of Englishness.
When I read his observation I remarked: "Good on yer, Bill Bryson.
Spoken like an Englishman.
Your view is obviously a Blairite horror of a hated countryside
because it was the "home" of Squires and Aristocrats who hunted foxes.
The Blairite "vision" is of a vast, multicultural, Council Estate from
Hadrian's Wall to the tip of Land's End - and by this "Socialist
vista" wipe out the "offence" of the English Countryside.
If your lot get their way, that is exactly what will happen.
However, I do my bit by voluntary work for the Woodland Trust, and
protect my bit of woodland near my home which has been worked by
Englishmen even before Norman times. And if you are really English and
walk through that wood, you can feel its "spirit" which Bill Bryson -
the American - would well and truly understand (but not you).
Do not bring any of your English hating mob which you represent near
it; because I will cut you down like a coppiced tree. Your pernicious
view will be left as a stump which will never grow again.
regards, billy
*****************************
matth...@my-deja.com
"billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > However, the fact is there is enough excellent English music and
> > > literature to suit all tastes and the vast spread of culture a
>>> person wishes to express.
> >
> > Rubbish. Find me an english author that talks zen or taoism as well
>> as Lao Tzu. Not one.
> It is just as well we have no English authors who deal with such
> rubbish.
Ho hum. You said above that english authors covered 'all tastes'.
Not 'all tastes that I, billy, find appealing'. And you were wrong.
> The English are too pragmatic to give any space to such vague
> nonsense.
Au contraire. Lots of english people have used similar ideas - e.g
Bertrand Russell and his work with Wittgenstein.
> I thought that trash went out of the English scene when the Beatles
> rumbled the giggling, bottom patting, guru who ripped them off.
He was of Hindu origin. Zen is Japanese, from China and before that
northern India. But Hinduism is pantheistic, and Zen is not theistic.
They're quite different.
> What makes me proud of being English is we follow pragmatic policies
> base on common sense and practical value.
Given your poor understanding of zen, you're hardly in a position to
judge its practical value
Roger Watts
>> In article <8ragk4$3ek$4...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
><jo...@billy100.fre
>> eserve.co.uk> writes
>> >Yes I would object to two flags. One cannot serve two masters.
>>
>> In the *real* world, as opposed to the cloud cuckoo land you seem to
>> inhabit, we face divided loyalties all the time. Most of us resolve
>> them.
>>
>> >In the case of that much over-rated half white Aboriginal woman
>>
>> You gave her as an example - someone who wins gold medals in
>successive
>> Olympics in as competitive an event as women's athletics can hard
>be
>> said to be over-rated.
>>
>> >: who
>> >will she support when the inevitable conflicts occurs between
>> >Aborigines and white Australian?
>>
>> ....conflicts only made inevitable by people like you.
>>
> > Roger Watts
>***********************************
>Roger - who is intellectually less than 5 Watts:
Even if I was 5 terawatts, Billy, it would be insufficient to penetrate
the fog between your ears that passes for a brain.
>Not conflict made by me but conflicts made by the nature of human
>nature.
>You Loony Left Multiculturalist should reflect on this:
This is rich. Do you have *any* understanding of political theory or do
you just believe that throwing epithets vaguely assumed to be
disparaging will serve as an argument? You are the one pushing the
collectivist view that the individual must abandon his personal freedom
in the interests of the state - remember how you claimed you would
change your name, your religion, marry a local, conform to the
prevailing culture? Reminds me of Bulgaria, under the communists, who
made all the Muslims change their names.
>Why do you think it is that the Jews have clung to their Jewishness
>over the many centuries wherever they went?
>Why did they not just merge with the populations of each country they
>entered and become an indistinguishable part of that population?
>Why did they suffer the persecutions and antagonisms they did over the
>centuries when it would have been so easy for them to merge and take
>on the identity of the people of the country they entered?
>Why do the Tamils resist the way they do? Why do the Romany and
>Gypsies resist a loss of their identity?
>Why was there such vicious ethnic cleansing - amongst people who had
>lived side by side under the force of British rule - when India became
>independent?
>Why are the Basques doing what they are doing?
>Why are the Palestinians insisting on a separate identity?
>Why is the situation such as it is in Northern Ireland?
>Why the mayhem in the Balkans? Why do the Serbs insist on being Serbs
>and the Albanians on being Albanians?
>What is wrong with these people?
Congratulations! You have made an excellent case for people not
changing their culture just to conform to others' ideas of what it
should be - i.e. multiculturalism. As you say, it is human nature.
>I will tell you what is wrong with them:
>They are being human.
>They want an identity to which they can relate
>and which represents the identity of their ancestors. They want a
>sense of belonging to like-minded people of a shared origin
>They are tribal; possessing the instinct which nature shaped into
>their being to preserve the species.
Their species is human, Billy.
>That is the instinct you Marxist idiots try to suppress at your peril;
Bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........
*Who* is trying to suppress multiculturalism? We 'Marxists'? Get your
party card tovarich.
>because it will keep surfacing. And the more it is repressed, the
>greater the force behind its resurfacing (as they found out in
>Russia).
That's right, the more you try to force people to conform, the more they
will retreat into their ghetto - so stop doing it!
>It is seen all around wherever one looks.
>It is only the idiotic Marxist/Socialist like yourself who refuse to
>see it because it conflicts with your pie in the sky nonsense.
>You will create mayhem;
If you ever go out, Billy, to parties and so on, and in the unlikely
event that a friend's wife has a bit too much too drink and starts a
mild flirtation, don't complain if mayhem erupts and her husband bottles
you - after all it will the inevitable natural reaction to another
natural action - it's all human nature - live with it.
If one of your female relatives fancies a wander in the park - a natural
enough desire - don't complain if she's raped, she was asking for it.
it wasn't the rapist's fault. Perhaps you should insist she is always
accompanied by a man and in full purdah!
If you are wandering along, enjoying your fish and chips and a hungry
man knocks you on the head, your widow shouldn't complain - it was only
human nature - you shouldn't have flaunted the food.
--
Roger Watts
Roger Watts
eserve.co.uk> writes
>rogerwatts said :
>the holy
>book which says 'All men are created equal in the sight of God'
>
> yes, but not in the eyes of men.
>
why thank you - for stating what is sadly all too obvious in this ng.
>
--
Roger Watts
Roger Watts
eeserve.co.uk> writes
>There is no intolerance in saying one would rather be represented by
>one's own people than those who belong to another people.
The intolerance lies in saying that those who live in our country, were
born in our country, pay taxes in our country and who have British
passports cannot be 'our people' because they have black skins.
>If an African won in sport for Africa,
Africa is not a country.
>I would cheer that person to
>the high heavens - even if he had defeated an Englishman.
So, a traitor!
>In the case of America, they would be more successful if the Africans
>in their midst did not exist in their midst. The fact that they do
>exist represents an enormous social cost and source of tension which
>is getting progressively worse with no solution in sight.
There are several assertions here, which are not backed up by any facts.
How do you know that the USA would be better off if they had not had the
labour of 'Africans'? Is the tension worse today that it was, say, 50
years ago? Of course it may be worse than before 'them darkies started
getting uppity'.
>I will not take up your daft comment about food,
You raised the issue of food. I would say that it is a far more
important aspect of 'culture' than, say, poetry.
> but I will take up
>your comment about the countryside by quoting a very perceptive
>American (Bill Bryson) who is more English than you are
A) By your idea of nationalism, in this case he is not to be trusted.
B) if you read some of his other books, you will see he also cannot be
trusted because he *does* say some very critical things about the USA.
> because he
>loves the Englishness of England's countryside far more than you do.
C) you have no idea how much I love the English countryside - I just
don't live a world of chocolate box covers.
>In the introduction to the book "The English Landscape" he states (and
>I quote):
>"The landscape of England is, almost everywhere, eminently accessible.
>People feel a closeness to it - an affinity that I don't think other
>people do for their lands. Such a close and familiar relationship with
>the landscape is, to an American like myself, all but
>unimaginable...You are very lucky in England. Sometimes by intent,
>more often by happy accident, generations of quite and diligent toil
>has endowed you with one of the loveliest, most park-like and fetching
>landscapes the world has ever known. The real work is all done. All
>that is required is that you look after it."
I wonder why he made the last comment. Is that because, for the
majority of Englishmen, the countryside is an alien place - fine to be
seen from behind a car window - but not be stepped in?
>(end of quote)
>I came across this book and its introduction containing the quote only
>recently and well after I wrote my posting regarding my feelings for
>the English landscape and how that denotes an aspect of Englishness.
>When I read his observation I remarked: "Good on yer, Bill Bryson.
>Spoken like an Englishman.
I recommend to you another view of the countryside - 'Kilvert's Diary'
is an excellent, intimate view of life from a curate in the Welsh
borders 130 years ago. Kilvert loved the country but had none of your
illusions. Farm workers dying in poverty in damp, dark hovels contrast
to his social life of archery on the big house lawns. Parishioners
feeding him their last bread (and too proud to be turned down) when he
dines on multi-course banquets in the evening. This was the culture in
the *real* English countryside. Call *him* a socialist - I dare you!
>Your view is obviously a Blairite horror of a hated countryside
>because it was the "home" of Squires and Aristocrats who hunted foxes.
It is true I have no great love of those who put themselves above me
because of some accident of birth, but fortunately the countryside is a
great deal more than that. I never said I hated the English
countryside, just that I see no reason to say it has a great or
monopolistic part in my 'culture'. I might as well say I'll limit it to
Dartmoor, or Weardale, to the Thames Valley or the Golden Valley - why
should my culture be limited by county or national boundaries?
>The Blairite "vision" is of a vast, multicultural, Council Estate
Somehow, I don't think Blair's 'vision' includes council estates!
>from
>Hadrian's Wall to the tip of Land's End - and by this "Socialist
>vista"
Nor has his vista much to do with socialism.
>wipe out the "offence" of the English Countryside.
You really have fallen for this 'Countryside Alliance' apology for fox -
hunting, haven't you? I bet you tip your forelock to the squire as he
sends you to march on Downing Street.
IMHO, and it is only my opinion, the greatest threat to this countryside
we love so much comes not from townies, but from landowners themselves.
Vast swathes of our countryside have been changed out of all recognition
by the uprooting of hedges, the felling of lone trees, draining of ponds
in the pursuit of agri-business.
You assume, that because something is traditional as, I accept, fox
hunting is, it should therefore not be subject to the same scrutiny that
all other aspects of our lives should be. Let's go back to bear-
baiting, dog and cock fighting. Let's not punish men for digging out
badgers for the purpose of dogs tearing them to pieces! Come to that,
let's revive the good old English tradition of burning or drowning old
women - all in the interests of our culture!
>If your lot get their way, that is exactly what will happen.
I don't think I have a 'lot'.
>However, I do my bit by voluntary work for the Woodland Trust,
Well, I suppose Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler loved
dogs.
>and
>protect my bit of woodland near my home which has been worked by
>Englishmen even before Norman times. And if you are really English and
>walk through that wood, you can feel its "spirit" which Bill Bryson -
>the American - would well and truly understand (but not you).
Well, perhaps I might prefer to feel the 'spirit' of it's Roman, Celtic,
Saxon or Viking owner instead. Do you *know* that it's never been worked
by a 'foreigner' - would your 'spirit' recoil if it had? We can all
dream. Blake had a dream. He tried to imagine how it would be if the
founder of what is a major contributor to our culture - unfortunately
(from your perspective) a foreigner and a Semite at that - had actually
been here. He actually wishes that he could transport this 'foreign'
culture directly to Britain. You - you'd have made sure that Christ
immediately became a Druid.
>Do not bring any of your English hating mob which you represent
You bigots just don't get it do you? I don't hate any nation. I try to
judge people on their merits, not their skin colour. And, despite the
sometimes despicable treatment by people like you, the vast majority of
immigrants don't hate the English either. Sometimes the actions of
people like you make me feel ashamed to be British, but I console myself
that most of us espouse tolerance or at least try to.
> near
>it; because I will cut you down like a coppiced tree.
Yes, I suppose you would - did you say somewhere that it would not be
you who would cause the mayhem? But it would not be your fault - just
the fault of those with brown faces daring to gaze upon your daydream -
serves them right.
>Your pernicious
>view will be left as a stump which will never grow again.
Take the Country off the front and you have the initials S.A.
very appropriate.
--
Roger Watts
Lucky Larry
hate any nation. I try to
> judge people on their merits, not their skin colour. And, despite the
> sometimes despicable treatment by people like you, the vast majority of
> immigrants don't hate the English either. Sometimes the actions of
> people like you make me feel ashamed to be British, but I console myself
> that most of us espouse tolerance or at least try to.
>
> > near
> >it; because I will cut you down like a coppiced tree.
>
> Yes, I suppose you would - did you say somewhere that it would not be
> you who would cause the mayhem? But it would not be your fault - just
> the fault of those with brown faces daring to gaze upon your daydream -
> serves them right.
>
> >Your pernicious
> >view will be left as a stump which will never grow again.
>
> Take the Country off the front and you have the initials S.A.
> very appropriate.
> --
> Roger Watts
Dear Roger
I suggest you read the following, taking note, that because the ethnicies
involved have brown skin, the term Racism or Racist is not involved, but
rather > ethnic hatred and anti-foreigner sentiment .
To quote Billy Shakespeare: A rose, by any other name , would smell as
sweet.
----------
10/10/00
. World Online press releases
Keep abreast of news about your favourite internet service provider.
more...
7 October 2000
FIVE DIE IN IVORY COAST CLASHES
Tuesday 10 October 2000 6:27pm
Ethnic fighting has flared again in the Ivory Coast, killing five people.
Attackers shot and slit the throats of four IMMIGRANTS from neighbouring
Burkina Faso in a compound near the coastal town of Grand-Bereby, district
official Abaka Assy told the opposition Le Patriote newspaper. A fifth
person has since died of his injuries, Assy said. Ethnic and political
tensions are on the rise in this West African country, which until recently
had a reputation for peacefulness. Junta leader General Robert Guei, who
seized power in a Christmas Eve coup, has been accused of using ETHNIC
HATRED and ANTI-FOREIGNER sentiment to strengthen his grip on power. In the
south west, fighting has flared in recent weeks between the local ETHNIC
Kroumen and Burkinabe IMMIGRANTS. Last month at least 12 people were killed
in ETHNIC clashes and thousands of Burkinabe farmers fled the area for the
port town of San Pedro. Fighting flared again when the local Kroumen refused
to allow the Burkinabes to return to the area, Assy said. Burkinabe farmers
make up about 40% of farm hands on Ivory Coast's cocoa, coffee and rubber
plantations. Last year a similar conflict in the nearby cocoa-growing town
of Tabou led to the EXODOUS(In Serbia this is called Ethnic cleansing) of an
estimated 10,000 Burkinabe farmers back to their home country.
The capitals and bracketed comments are mine.
The words of the report are not!
Roger Watts
<lucky...@fsnnet.co.uk> writes>news:X4yuWKA1O045EwcD@roger-> You bigots just don't get it do you? I don't
>hate any nation. I try to
>> judge people on their merits, not their skin colour. And, despite the
>> sometimes despicable treatment by people like you, the vast majority of
>> immigrants don't hate the English either. Sometimes the actions of
>> people like you make me feel ashamed to be British, but I console myself
>> that most of us espouse tolerance or at least try to.
>>
>> > near
>> >it; because I will cut you down like a coppiced tree.
>>
>> Yes, I suppose you would - did you say somewhere that it would not be
>> you who would cause the mayhem? But it would not be your fault - just
>> the fault of those with brown faces daring to gaze upon your daydream -
>> serves them right.
>>
>> >Your pernicious
>> >view will be left as a stump which will never grow again.
>>
>> Take the Country off the front and you have the initials S.A.
>> very appropriate.
>> --
>> Roger Watts
>
>
>
>I suggest you read the following, taking note, that because the ethnicies
>involved have brown skin, the term Racism or Racist is not involved, but
>rather > ethnic hatred and anti-foreigner sentiment .
>To quote Billy Shakespeare: A rose, by any other name , would smell as
>sweet.
>
Or to misquote....
try 'That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.'
Let me get this straight.
Are you arguing that because people in West Africa kill each other
because they are of different ethnic origins, that makes it OK for us to
do so?
--
Roger Watts
billy
> >> In article <8ragk4$3ek$4...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> ><jo...@billy100.fre
> >> eserve.co.uk> writes
>
> If you ever go out, Billy, to parties and so on, and in the unlikely
> event that a friend's wife has a bit too much too drink and starts a
> mild flirtation, don't complain if mayhem erupts and her husband
bottles
> you - after all it will the inevitable natural reaction to another
> natural action - it's all human nature - live with it.
>
> If one of your female relatives fancies a wander in the park - a
natural
> enough desire - don't complain if she's raped, she was asking for
it.
> it wasn't the rapist's fault. Perhaps you should insist she is
always
> accompanied by a man and in full purdah!
>
> If you are wandering along, enjoying your fish and chips and a
hungry
> man knocks you on the head, your widow shouldn't complain - it was
only
> human nature - you shouldn't have flaunted the food.
> --
> Roger Watts
Yes Roger the blown bulb:
We all know what human nature is like (except you liberal bigots who
avoid looking at it if it contradicts your idiotic ideologies).
Human nature is tribal and that will out as it does all over the
world. This country being no exception as the tribal tensions
increase - as indicated by the Loony Runnymead Trust pronouncements -
which rival the Lawrence Enquiry in its distortions, demands and
insults thrust upon the British people.
This will get worse as the pressures increase with one enquiry after
another to find out why the previous one failed.
In the meantime, you liberal bigots will live in pious hope that we in
this country prove to be superior to all others and build the
multicultural perfection in our green and pleasant land.
This absolute arrogance.
And it will not stay green as the countryside is swallowed up to cater
for the ever expanding immigrant population. Nor will it be pleasant.
regards, billy
*************************
billy
> In article <8rsudv$42v$7...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
<jo...@billy100.fr
> eeserve.co.uk> writes
>
*************************************
I also do not hate any nation - particularly my own.
Why is it a love for one's own nation is immediately translated into a
hate for others and labelled "Racist". You do exactly that and are
therefore a liberal bigot as correctly identified by Robert Henderson.
I am a nationalist who wishes to preserve my nation and I respect all
other nations which want to do the same - and thereby avoid the
certain damage of multi-ethnicity.
They have my deepest regards in that respect and if they wish to keep
hordes of Englishmen out to avoid drastically changing the character
of their nation, so be it and I would admire them for doing it.
However:
Before you go on about the British Empire - as you Marxist do - I will
remind you that the British took barren lands and made them flower
profusely and richly - as in Australia. They also took many people out
of the stone age and welded India into a nation with a continent-wide
and integrated communication system instead of it staying as a
fragmented land of many warring Principalities - with barbaric
practices - as it would have done.
If immigrants did *that* service to my country, I would not even
murmur about their presence.
Instead they do nothing that we could not do ourselves (far better)
and by their presence bring in numerous problems and the dangerous and
intractable element of race.
The just release Runnymead Trust's pernicious insult is a
manifestation of its "racism" in reverse.
You lot encourage that insult to the British people by encouraging
their impertinence in suggesting we should be ashamed to be British.
You are a Liberal Bigot who will destroy this nation and make it a
fragmented "Los Angles" of warring gangs and ghettos.
regards, billy
***************************
Roger Watts
eserve.co.uk> writes
>>news:UvLeDAAQ...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8rsudu$42v$6...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
><jo...@billy100.fr
>> eeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >>> >news:m$sS3BAx9...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
>> >> In article <8ragk4$3ek$4...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
>> ><jo...@billy100.fre
>> >> eserve.co.uk> writes
> >
>> If you ever go out, Billy, to parties and so on, and in the unlikely
>> event that a friend's wife has a bit too much too drink and starts a
>> mild flirtation, don't complain if mayhem erupts and her husband
>bottles
>> you - after all it will the inevitable natural reaction to another
>> natural action - it's all human nature - live with it.
>>
>> If one of your female relatives fancies a wander in the park - a
>natural
>> enough desire - don't complain if she's raped, she was asking for
>it.
>> it wasn't the rapist's fault. Perhaps you should insist she is
>always
>> accompanied by a man and in full purdah!
>>
>> If you are wandering along, enjoying your fish and chips and a
>hungry
>> man knocks you on the head, your widow shouldn't complain - it was
>only
>> human nature - you shouldn't have flaunted the food.
>> --
>> Roger Watts
>*******************************
>Yes Roger the blown bulb:
Wow! Did you really think that up all by yourself? And you can count
back in fives as well! If you carry on like this we'll be able to take
you off the register and put you back in the Infants. Now, just try and
apply a little of this to the matter in hand.....
>We all know what human nature is like (except you liberal bigots who
>avoid looking at it if it contradicts your idiotic ideologies).
Here you go again Billy. You don't argue, you just scatter around terms
you barely understand but think will impress your Mail and Telegraph
reading friends.
>Human nature is tribal and that will out as it does all over the
>world. This country being no exception as the tribal tensions
>increase - as indicated by the Loony Runnymead Trust pronouncements -
>which rival the Lawrence Enquiry in its distortions, demands and
>insults thrust upon the British people.
Ah, you've read all 400 pages, have you? I haven't had the time myself.
I wonder why they think that 'English' has become an exclusive term for
white, and that 'British' may be going the same way? Perhaps they've
been lurking on this ng and reading the Billy and Boadicea duo?
>This will get worse as the pressures increase with one enquiry after
>another to find out why the previous one failed.
>In the meantime, you liberal bigots will live in pious hope that we in
>this country prove to be superior to all others and build the
>multicultural perfection in our green and pleasant land.
>This absolute arrogance.
And your 'solution' is? Let's hear it Billy.
>And it will not stay green as the countryside is swallowed up to cater
>for the ever expanding immigrant population.
Last time I looked Billy, the countryside was being swallowed up with
second homes, not 'immigrants'. Oh, and motorways.
--
Roger Watts
Roger Watts
eserve.co.uk> writes
>>news:X4yuWKA1...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8rsudv$42v$7...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
><jo...@billy100.fr
>> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
>*************************************
>I also do not hate any nation - particularly my own.
>Why is it a love for one's own nation is immediately translated into a
>hate for others and labelled "Racist".
It isn't. Reading your posts is what convinces me you are a racist.
All the examples you give of 'alien' influences are of people with brown
skins. Not long since you were surveying the black/ white couples and
concluding that white girls who married black men must be inferior - and
by implication their partners - most folks would call that racist. And
then you have the hypocrisy to say that, if you were an immigrant, you
would marry an indigenous woman. You complain the your culture is being
altered but refuse to see that the major changes have come from other
white cultures. You ignore the immigration from the past - because it
was white.
> You do exactly that and are
>therefore a liberal bigot as correctly identified by Robert Henderson.
Robert Henderson couldn't correctly identify a turkey on a turkey farm.
He thinks that all the kings horses and all the kings men are out to get
him - and that only one more nudge from him will bring the whole state
crashing down.
>I am a nationalist who wishes to preserve my nation and I respect all
>other nations which want to do the same - and thereby avoid the
>certain damage of multi-ethnicity.
>They have my deepest regards in that respect and if they wish to keep
>hordes of Englishmen out to avoid drastically changing the character
>of their nation, so be it and I would admire them for doing it.
>However:
Aha, something has sunk in then?
>Before you go on about the British Empire - as you Marxist do -
I was a liberal 9 lines up!
> I will
>remind you that the British took barren lands and made them flower
>profusely and richly - as in Australia. They also took many people out
>of the stone age
But perhaps they didn't *want* to have *their* culture changed. How do
you feel when Muslims call ours a godless society which would benefit
from 'protecting' women etc etc, and set about trying to convert you?
>and welded India into a nation with a continent-wide
>and integrated communication system instead of it staying as a
>fragmented land of many warring Principalities - with barbaric
>practices - as it would have done.
At the time, Germany was a fragmented land with many warring
principalities. Japan, until the last decades of the 19th century had
no transport system and no 'civilising' western invasion. Nevertheless
it managed to take on the might of the USA and Britain less than a
century later.
>If immigrants did *that* service to my country, I would not even
>murmur about their presence.
Your delusion is even greater than your hypocrisy.
>Instead they do nothing that we could not do ourselves (far better)
>and by their presence bring in numerous problems and the dangerous and
>intractable element of race.
Once again, you reveal your obsession with race.
>The just release Runnymead Trust's pernicious insult is a
>manifestation of its "racism" in reverse.
>You lot encourage that insult to the British people by encouraging
>their impertinence in suggesting we should be ashamed to be British.
As far as I can tell from the papers, a very minor part of the report is
to suggest that there might be some modification to the written history
of Britain as taught in schools. This is castigated by the Mail/
Telegraph faction as the manifestly Marxist crime of 're-writing
history'. Again these people display their total ignorance. History is
continuously being re-written. Who is to say that it was 'written'
correctly in the first place? If it was wrong, then why is it bad to
're-write' it. I trust that you would rather have our children learn
the truth than a lie. Generally it is written from the perspective of
us as conquerors - you, yourself, above show that from your comments on
the Empire above. It would be just as wrong for it to be written
totally from the perspective of the conquered. I will give you a small
anecdote, which neatly illustrates our level of ignorance:
A group of 10 year old children, currently studying the ancient Greeks,
were discussing morality and the commandment that we should love our
neighbour as ourselves - you know the one Billy. One said perceptively
"If the Greeks had had that commandment (his chronology was impeccable)
then they couldn't have had slaves, could they?". I said "Perhaps, but
there have been slaves since that, haven't there - some of them owned by
Christians". They had no knowledge of that - and it wasn't my place to
enlighten them. But I surely hope that before they leave school they
will at least know that British Christians owned slaves and played a
major role in transporting so many of them.
>You are a Liberal Bigot
My only bigotry, which I will freely admit to, is intolerance of
bigotry.
>who will destroy this nation and make it a
>fragmented "Los Angles" of warring gangs and ghettos.
What makes wars and ghettos, Billy, is intolerant people like you -
whatever their ethnic background.
--
Roger Watts
billy
> In article <8s26u7$das$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
<jo...@billy100.fre
> eserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> In article <8rsudu$42v$6...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> ><jo...@billy100.fr
> >> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >> >
> >> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >> In article <8ragk4$3ek$4...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> >> ><jo...@billy100.fre
> >> >> eserve.co.uk> writes
> > >
Yes Blown Bulb, I did think of your title all by myself because I am
very "bright".
The countryside *is* being swallowed up by immigrants. No playing down
of the facts by funk ridden governments can alter the facts.
In my town, they represent 40,000 and growing. In the country "at
large" they will be proved to represent 5 million and that is equal to
the population of Scotland.
If one assumes (reasonably) something like five people to a family,
that represents 1 million homes which is about the projected building
for the South East, into which most immigrants flood.
My solution is an immediate stop on immigration from any source and a
policy of repatriation and no special accommodation for those already
here.
Those who wish to stay should adopt the mode of integration outlined
in the letter I quoted to you in this thread, on this date - or get
out.
regards, billy
*******************************
billy
***************************
Blown Bulb:
There has been no substantial immigration into this country since 1066
and, even then, that influx only represented 2 per cent of the
population and therefore no deep changes were made to the Englishness
which had been established by that time.
The Normans merged into English culture and added what was of use from
theirs.
In this, English culture survive virtually untouched except for the
advantages of more advanced architecture. However, the Normans were
not very far away from the Englishness in culture in any case: Sharing
the same religion and inheritances from European culture.
Since 1066, no changes have been imposed by essentially alien people
from outside - as it is being done now - but changes came by a
process of cultural evolution. To suggest otherwise is a load of
bollocks.
Up to the period of the substantial alien invasion taking place -
particularly in the 1960s and 70s - the population was virtually
homogenous and without the dangerous tensions of race and rival
cultures introduced by that alien influx.
The danger of this influx has been aptly expressed in the Mad Marxist
Runnymede Trust Report - wherein the aliens on the insulting
consortium are aiming at destroying our identity and replacing it with
one more to their liking.
Perhaps you do not mind this. Perhaps you are an immigrant (or a Mad
Marxist) which explains your complacency.
For your benefit - and for others like you - I will reproduce an
excellent letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph Oct 16th
written by a person who is probably more English than I am because he
values his Englishness as being an acquisition rather than taking it
as a "birth-right" - as I do.
And I quote:
"My ancestors came to Britain about 250 years ago. They survived in
the East End of London through a combination of their own artistic
talents, the workhouse and the charity of religious institutions. They
prospered and married English people and spread around London and,
later, Britain.
"In 1897 my grandfather married a girl from Somerset farming stock,
and my mother was descended from Essex yeomen farmers. My
grandchildren, in addition, have Lancashire, Yorkshire and Scottish
blood in their veins.
"I am lucky to be first English, second British, and with European a
very poor third. My ancestors were Portuguese Jews. Imagine if my
ancestors had emigrated to Germany."
(end of quote)
This letter should be rammed down the throats of the Mad Marxist
Runnymede Trust Loonies and down the throats of people like you.
Notice:
No whining; no demanding changes; no requiring specially
privileges;advantageous quotas and that we should be "policed" by
their committees to make sure we conform to their needs..
The letter writer illustrates a process of adaptation and integration
which *all* immigrants should do if they wish to be part of this
country.
If they do not want to make this effort, they should bloody well
leave.
Whilst they are being stroppy and encouraged to be so by people like
you, they will eventually get nowhere.
I am getting more and more peed off with immigrants and especially
since the Rat-bag Report revealed their long suspected true nature.
regards, billy
**********************************
'Droid
> > In article <8s26u7$das$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> <jo...@billy100.fre
> > eserve.co.uk> writes
> > >
> > >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >> In article <8rsudu$42v$6...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> > ><jo...@billy100.fr
> > >> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> > >> >> > >> >news:m$sS3BAx9...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> > >> >> In article <8ragk4$3ek$4...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> > >> ><jo...@billy100.fre
> > >> >> eserve.co.uk> writes
> > > >
No they won't, but we've been through this before so we'll leave it for the
census.
> If one assumes (reasonably) something like five people to a family,
> that represents 1 million homes which is about the projected building
> for the South East, into which most immigrants flood.
Basic error. The 'immigrant' population at the last census was just over 3
million. Those people were already living in homes: they do not require new
homes. Thus even accepting your hugely inflated figure that means just 200,000
extra homes in 10 years. Currently the proportion of people living on their own
in this country is rising by ~1% of the national population per year: that means
between 300,000 to 600,000 new homes per year (depending on the proportion who
are starting from scratch or starting from a split of some sort).
'Droid
BOEDICIA
>Message-id: <8sklja$7qg$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
>"Roger Watts" <roger@roger-watt
>> Here you go again Billy. You don't argue, you just scatter around
>terms
>> you barely understand but think will impress your Mail and Telegraph
>> reading friends.
I am getting a little tired of hearing
certain newspaper maligned just because
the loony lefties don't care for their content. The Telegraph was voted "Best
paper on the net". FYI. However, that
isn't the point. If you or anyone else
believes that a newspaper has printed
an outright lie, then say so What you lot
object to is the fact that the Telegraph
etc. have the nerve to print the crimes
that are being committed by these
non-white immigrants. You would prefer
that they be hushed up and never made
public.
>> >Human nature is tribal and that will out as it does all over the
>> >world. This country being no exception as the tribal tensions
>> >increase - as indicated by the Loony Runnymead Trust
>pronouncements -
>> >which rival the Lawrence Enquiry in its distortions, demands and
>> >insults thrust upon the British people.
>> Ah, you've read all 400 pages, have you? I haven't had the time
>myself.
In that case, you are hardly in a position
to comment are you?
>> I wonder why they think that 'English' has become an exclusive term
>for
>> white, and that 'British' may be going the same way? Perhaps
>they've been lurking on this ng and reading the Billy and Boadicea duo?
Perhaps it would do them good to lurk on these NG's. They might learn
something.
"English" BTW *does* mean white.
It comes from Anglo, as in "Anglo-Saxon".
Do you know any Anglo-Saxons who are
anything other than white?
>> >This will get worse as the pressures increase with one enquiry
>after
>> >another to find out why the previous one failed.
>> >In the meantime, you liberal bigots will live in pious hope that we
>in
>> >this country prove to be
>superior to all others and build the
>> >multicultural perfection in our green and pleasant land.
>> >This absolute arrogance.
>> And your 'solution' is? Let's hear it Billy.
How about electing people who care
about their race and nation instead of
former members of Communist front organisations such as the CND?
Someone whose Cabinet doesn't consist
of those married to IRA sympathisers.
Someone whose Cabinet doesn't consist
of jews who call the English "racist"
and Scots nits who hate England?
>> Last time I looked Billy, the countryside was being swallowed up
>with
>> second homes, not 'immigrants'. Oh, and motorways.
Ever heard of "Property Speculators"
with funny sounding very un-English names?
>Yes Blown Bulb, I did think of your title all by myself because I am
>very "bright".
>The countryside *is* being swallowed up by immigrants.
Even the speculators were immigrants
who have been kicked out of England
not once, but twice. Find the fool who let them back in and hang him high.
'Droid
>
> >Subject: Re: what is Englishness?
> >From: "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk>
> >Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 12:08 EDT
> >Message-id: <8sklja$7qg$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
> >"Roger Watts" <roger@roger-watt
>
> >> Here you go again Billy. You don't argue, you just scatter around
> >terms
> >> you barely understand but think will impress your Mail and Telegraph
> >> reading friends.
>
> I am getting a little tired of hearing
> certain newspaper maligned just because
> the loony lefties don't care for their content. The Telegraph was voted "Best
> paper on the net". FYI.
Who by? Whoever it was, it does not automatically make the paper unbiased, nor
does it make it 100% accurate, nor an unimpeachable source. All it means is that
in the view of the voters, whoever they were, that it was the best of the lot.
Given the accuracy of the media, and the printed media in particular, it really
isn't saying very much.
> However, that
> isn't the point. If you or anyone else
> believes that a newspaper has printed
> an outright lie, then say so
I have. Take the recent story about the word British being racist and Straw
warmly supporting the report, both of which were false. And all magically
deduced from a few leaked lines which were obviously either wrong when given to
the journalist or mangled by that journalist to make a good story (a very common
practice).
> What you lot
> object to is the fact that the Telegraph
> etc. have the nerve to print the crimes
> that are being committed by these
> non-white immigrants. You would prefer
> that they be hushed up and never made
> public.
I have no objection at all when the facts are correct. My objection on this
score is you thinking that the isolated crimes that get reported are
representative of crime in general. They are not. The very fact that they are
deemed worthy of reporting in the national press in itself determines the crimes
to be far from average.
> >> >Human nature is tribal and that will out as it does all over the
> >> >world. This country being no exception as the tribal tensions
> >> >increase - as indicated by the Loony Runnymead Trust
> >pronouncements -
> >> >which rival the Lawrence Enquiry in its distortions, demands and
> >> >insults thrust upon the British people.
>
> >> Ah, you've read all 400 pages, have you? I haven't had the time
> >myself.
>
> In that case, you are hardly in a position
> to comment are you?
The point is that you feel in a position to comment from across the pond and an
entire continent. So answer the question: have YOU read the report?
> >> I wonder why they think that 'English' has become an exclusive term
> >for
> >> white, and that 'British' may be going the same way? Perhaps
> >they've been lurking on this ng and reading the Billy and Boadicea duo?
>
> Perhaps it would do them good to lurk on these NG's. They might learn
> something.
> "English" BTW *does* mean white.
No it does not, although it could well be said it has white connotations.
> It comes from Anglo, as in "Anglo-Saxon".
> Do you know any Anglo-Saxons who are
> anything other than white?
But it does not mean white. Anglo-Saxons are a small subset of whites and as
such it refers to that group, not whites in general.
> >> Last time I looked Billy, the countryside was being swallowed up
> >with
> >> second homes, not 'immigrants'. Oh, and motorways.
>
> Ever heard of "Property Speculators"
> with funny sounding very un-English names?
Yes, and I've heard of them with very English sounding names too.
'Droid
billy
> billy wrote:
> >
> > "Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:NvaYTAAfWD65Ew$I...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> > > In article <8s26u7$das$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> > <jo...@billy100.fre
> > > eserve.co.uk> writes
> > > >
> > > >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >news:UvLeDAAQ...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> > > >> In article <8rsudu$42v$6...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> > > ><jo...@billy100.fr
> > > >> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > > >> >news:m$sS3BAx9...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> > > >> >> In article <8ragk4$3ek$4...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> > > >> ><jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> > > > >
> > > Roger Watts
> > *******************************
> > Yes Blown Bulb, I did think of your title all by myself because I
am
> > very "bright".
Droid - who, of common sense, is Void.
People being people do not like to live alone. They have a gregarious
instinct and constantly seek companionship.
Those small numbers who wish for some reason to remain alone - when
young - can be easily accommodated in high rise flats in the centre of
cities.
Elderly people who become alone by bereavement are usually and finally
accommodated in place such as "sheltered homes" - like my old aunt who
vacated a house and made it available to others.
There is no need to build "family homes" supported by schools and
facilities for such people - as is being planned in the projected
building requirements.
The suggestion that it is all due to a sudden shift of human nature
where everyone is becoming a Greta Garbo is a load of bollocks.
This is an excuse offered by a government which is wetting its kecks
for fear of the awareness arising that, besides importing people we do
not need and who are creating massive social problems and expense, we
have also to lose valuable and irreplaceable countryside to cater for
their numbers.
This importation will prove to be a consequential 5 million people -
this by the original numbers being expanded by rate of births (over 3
x that of the indigenous people) and illegals.
That number as it will be by 2001 will be equal to the whole of the
population of Scotland inflicted upon us in the space of 40 years:
*There* is your reason for the housing pressure - you twit.
Forget your theorising and just take it as a question of available
space. The immigrants have taken up space for 5 million people - you
idiot.
If they disappeared overnight, they would vacate that amount of
space - you twerp.
Or - conversely - if they had never come, we would have all that space
available - you donkey.
Have you go it, now?
However, I doubt that you will have got it because you have been told
this obvious fact time and time again.
regards, billy
**********************
'Droid
Your social theories all very interesting. However, the fact of the matter is
that the number of people living on their own has been rising by 1% of the
population per year in recent years. Whether they want to do that, whether it is
their nature to do that, and even what age they are is totally irrelevant. The
relevant information is that they ARE doing it. In 1998 28% of households in GB
were single occupancy, split in half between pensioners and those below
pensionable age. It has been rising for 40 years and the trend is continuing.
> Elderly people who become alone by bereavement are usually and finally
> accommodated in place such as "sheltered homes" - like my old aunt who
> vacated a house and made it available to others.
Your aunt cannot be regarded as evidence for usually. In my personal experience
I know of not one single person who moved to any kind of institutional home
after a bereavement. They have all stayed in a normal house, although a minority
did move to a smaller home. Maybe you have some actual figures to back up your
claim, but if it is down to personal experience, my case outnumbers yours in an
approximate ratio of 10:1.
> There is no need to build "family homes" supported by schools and
> facilities for such people - as is being planned in the projected
> building requirements.
> The suggestion that it is all due to a sudden shift of human nature
> where everyone is becoming a Greta Garbo is a load of bollocks.
Who said it was *all* due to that? I never have, even though you tried the very
same lie last time we discussed this. Nor has anyone made the suggestion that
everyone is doing it: 28% of households is still a minority, if a very
significant one.
> This is an excuse offered by a government which is wetting its kecks
> for fear of the awareness arising that, besides importing people we do
> not need and who are creating massive social problems and expense, we
> have also to lose valuable and irreplaceable countryside to cater for
> their numbers.
Most people in this country do not seem to regard the countryside in any way
valuable. Indeed properly planned, there is no need to use very much countryside
at all: there are more than enough brown field sites and empty homes in the
cities, especially in the north. In the south east especially, migration is
indeed probably the major factor, but that is in no way true across the whole
country. Also note I said migration, not immigration, as a large proportion of
the population movement is internal which is why the southeast is experiencing
major problems whilst the north is suffering from the death of communities.
> This importation will prove to be a consequential 5 million people -
> this by the original numbers being expanded by rate of births (over 3
> x that of the indigenous people) and illegals.
It won't. Even if the non-white population did reach that level, which would
represent a 66% rise in 10 years, it would be wrong to represent it all as
importation. People breed.
> That number as it will be by 2001 will be equal to the whole of the
> population of Scotland inflicted upon us in the space of 40 years:
> *There* is your reason for the housing pressure - you twit.
> Forget your theorising
You are the one theorising, going on about how people don't like to live on
their own and a non-white population of 5 million not supported by any figures
anywhere. I am the one who has presented the figures: no theorising, just the
situation as it is. Immigration is *a* reason for housing pressure, but it by no
means the only one. Your propensity to totally ignore the changing internal
situation to try and justify your view that is entirely due to external factors
is illogical.
> and just take it as a question of available
> space. The immigrants have taken up space for 5 million people - you
> idiot.
Non-whites will take up the space of about 3.8 million +- about 0.1 million.
> If they disappeared overnight, they would vacate that amount of
> space - you twerp.
> Or - conversely - if they had never come, we would have all that space
> available - you donkey.
You really must be getting desperate. Twit, idiot, twerp, donkey? I have yet to
see try and make any type of argument without resorting to personal insults. Why
don't you try it for a change: people might just take you a bit more seriously.
> Have you go it, now?
> However, I doubt that you will have got it because you have been told
> this obvious fact time and time again.
The problem with your obvious fact is that you have no figures to support your
immigration figure, you constantly ignore other figures showing the changing
demographics of the nation in terms of occupancy and internal migration and
indeed only your aunt seems to be anything more than personal opinion. It might
also help if you actually debated what I actually say rather than the lies you
try to claim I said.
'Droid
billy
Droid:
I have noted your comments, below, but I will try to make it simple
for you.
People do breed - as you say - and the original importation of
immigrants is expanding because they *do* breed and will, by this,
expand the original massive number of importees to 5 million.
Now a simple example related to space:
We know that immigrants live in houses and because they now occupy
these are probably not demanding other houses except for the fact that
their offspring *will* be demanding numerous houses, imminently.
In the town in which I live - which is a typical immigrant town - they
occupy 20% of the towns area and have a birth rate 3 times that of the
white people.
The town has used up all its building land within its area and is now
pushing into the green belt.
Now, Droid, wipe your mind of all the facts and figures which are
obviously confusing your capacity to see the wood without the trees
standing in the way:
Imagine - if you can - that the 20% land occupation had not happened,
then the town would still have a massive amount of land within its
boundary and would therefore not be pressing on green belt and
demanding expansion of the surrounding villages.
That would be the situation if we had not foolishly imported people
who do no good for the country and only create massive social
problems - one of which is the occupation of valuable space.
regards, billy
**************************************
"'Droid" <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39F0E61F...@netcomuk.co.uk...
'Droid
>
> *****************************
> Droid:
> I have noted your comments, below, but I will try to make it simple
> for you.
> People do breed - as you say - and the original importation of
> immigrants is expanding because they *do* breed and will, by this,
> expand the original massive number of importees to 5 million.
They won't, but again we'll wait for the census.
> Now a simple example related to space:
> We know that immigrants live in houses and because they now occupy
> these are probably not demanding other houses except for the fact that
> their offspring *will* be demanding numerous houses, imminently.
> In the town in which I live - which is a typical immigrant town - they
> occupy 20% of the towns area and have a birth rate 3 times that of the
> white people.
Which town? If the birth rate truely is 3 times that of the white population it
most certainly is not typical of an immigrant town.
> The town has used up all its building land within its area and is now
> pushing into the green belt.
Which should not be allowed. Your town should not be expanding> If there ar enot
enough homes people should be moving to areas where there are more than enough
homes. That is not a problem due to immigrants but a problem due to those people
in charge.
> Now, Droid, wipe your mind of all the facts and figures which are
> obviously confusing your capacity to see the wood without the trees
> standing in the way:
So ignore the facts as they actually are if they don;t fit the world in your
head? Not a hope.
> Imagine - if you can - that the 20% land occupation had not happened,
> then the town would still have a massive amount of land within its
> boundary and would therefore not be pressing on green belt and
> demanding expansion of the surrounding villages.
If your town was run by people who had any sense they would not be expanding in
any case. The problme you describe is alomost entirely a problem in the south
which along with immigration also suffers from two other major problems:
internal migration from the north and the increase in single occupancy homes.
The problem you describe is not one that is seen across Britain, but one of
localised areas, largely in the south-east. The solution to this expansion is
not cutting off immigration as that will not solve the problem, only a minority
of it. The long term solution is to encourage the economy in the north to
firstly prevent further migration south and secondly to encourage migration back
from the south to the north.
As for the countryside, that experiences yet another factor, which is being the
target of a large number of people buying houses as second homes or as an extra
business as holiday homes.
> That would be the situation if we had not foolishly imported people
> who do no good for the country and only create massive social
> problems - one of which is the occupation of valuable space.
The problem may not be as bad, but it would certainly exist, especially in the
countryside as that is not, on the whole, a problem due to population expansion
but increased wealth.
'Droid
Roger Watts
eserve.co.uk> writes
>
>"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:NvaYTAAfWD65Ew$I...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8s26u7$das$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
><jo...@billy100.fre
>> eserve.co.uk> writes
>> >In the meantime, you liberal bigots will live in pious hope that we
>in
>> >this country prove to be superior to all others and build the
>> >multicultural perfection in our green and pleasant land.
>> >This absolute arrogance.
>>
>> And your 'solution' is? Let's hear it Billy.
>>
>cater
>> >for the ever expanding immigrant population.
>>
>with
>> second homes, not 'immigrants'. Oh, and motorways.
>> Roger Watts
>*******************************
>Yes Blown Bulb, I did think of your title all by myself because I am
>very "bright".
Been too liberal with the whitewash on your two short planks, have you?
>My solution is an immediate stop on immigration from any source
So we are to be prisoners in our own land? If one of us wants to marry,
say, a Dutch girl - that's impossible because one assumes the Dutch will
adopt the same policy?
>and a
>policy of repatriation and no special accommodation for those already
>here.
Ah, ethnic cleansing - all is revealed. So let's see what this means
for our famous British culture - that's lasted 1000 years or whatever.
People who have British citizenship - sorry, *some* people who have
British citizenship, are to be expelled. So much for your much touted
British culture of 'fair play'! And if there's nowhere for them to go -
doubtless your thugs will get rid of them. But it won't be Billy's
fault - Oh, no - it's the tribal nature of humans.
But hang on a minute, suppose say, the South Africans decide that
'English' people should be repatriated - will they be allowed in?
Suppose one of them is the product of an Afrikaner/ English marriage -
where will they go? Given the large number of people in the world who
are *not* from the ethnic stock of the country they now live in, I would
guess that the nett result for Britain, even if mixed people could be
sorted, would be an enormous influx ('flood', didn't you say?) of
repatriated ex-patriates - and in fact even less countryside.
>Those who wish to stay should adopt the mode of integration outlined
>in the letter I quoted to you in this thread, on this date - or get
>out.
OK, but then suppose one of us *real* Englishmen decides that we want to
modify our culture? Say I want to become a Buddhist and go around in
saffron robes? Will I be told by your kultur SS that I have to change
or get out? Suppose I decide I prefer Mozart to Vaughan-Williams, will
you threaten me, torture, smash my windows?
What you describe is almost precisely the situation under the Nazis. In
no time at all the final solution would be proposed for all those who
did not comply with Fuhrer Billy's ideal of Englishmen. But Billy would
only be following nature's course. Just like the Jews, we would only
have ourselves to blame is we weren't of the right ethnic stock.
I dare say you may already be framing your 'Holocaust Funk' argument.
Let's not be deterred by the fact that those nasty Germans killed a few
'undesirables'. Have you been watching the history of Britain on TV?
Good old Edward Longshanks - after he had 'borrowed' all the money he
could from the Jews, booted them out and many were murdered - probably
by good old Englishmen - just like you Billy.
You are no different from those mindless thugs who set fire to asylum
hostels and burn women and children to death!
--
Roger Watts
Doug.
Watts <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> writes
I have never heard such a load of bluddy rubbish in all my life.
You want to keep off the substances , matey.
Doug.
BOEDICIA
>Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 19:14 EDT
>Message-id: <HRRnTBAG...@yarlside.demon.co.uk>
>>>"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message.
Billy said -
>>>My solution is an immediate stop on immigration from any source
>>So we are to be prisoners in our own land? If one of us wants to marry,
>>say, a Dutch girl - that's impossible because one assumes the Dutch will
>>adopt the same policy?
>>>and a
>>>policy of repatriation and no special accommodation for those already
>>>here.
"Two thirds of British people say there
are too many immigrants" - Telegraph
Oct. 23rd 2000
Marry an English girl.
>Suppose I decide I prefer Mozart to Vaughan-Williams, will
>>you threaten me, torture, smash my windows?
No we rather like Mozart - Austrian you know.
> Have you been watching the history of Britain on TV?
>>Good old Edward Longshanks - after he had 'borrowed' all the money he
>>could from the Jews,
One might ask why an English king in
his own country, should have borrow money from the jew. Where on earth
did all these "poor" jews get all that
money? I mean, being persecuted and all.
>>You are no different from those mindless thugs who set fire to asylum
>>hostels and burn women and children to death!
>I have never heard such a load of bluddy rubbish in all my life.
>You want to keep off the substances , matey.
>Doug.
Quite. He does seem to protest too
much, doesn't he?
Roger Watts
<boed...@aol.com> writes
>>Subject: Re: what is Englishness?
>>From: "Doug." <D...@yarlside.demon.co.uk>
>>Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 19:14 EDT
>>Message-id: <HRRnTBAG...@yarlside.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>Billy said -
>
>>>>My solution is an immediate stop on immigration from any source
>
>>>So we are to be prisoners in our own land? If one of us wants to marry,
>>>say, a Dutch girl - that's impossible because one assumes the Dutch will
>>>adopt the same policy?
>>>>and a
>>>>policy of repatriation and no special accommodation for those already
>>>>here.
>
>are too many immigrants" - Telegraph
>Oct. 23rd 2000
>
>Marry an English girl.
>
>>>you threaten me, torture, smash my windows?
>
>
>> Have you been watching the history of Britain on TV?
>>>Good old Edward Longshanks - after he had 'borrowed' all the money he
>>>could from the Jews,
>
>One might ask why an English king in
>his own country, should have borrow money from the jew. Where on earth
>did all these "poor" jews get all that
>money? I mean, being persecuted and all.
>
Because he couldn't raise enough money by taxation with provoking a full
scale rebellion. Jews traditionally made money by what we in modern
times call banking - 'Christians' wouldn't dirty their hands with such
things in those days. As we know today, bankers make money.
>>>You are no different from those mindless thugs who set fire to asylum
>>>hostels and burn women and children to death!
>
>>I have never heard such a load of bluddy rubbish in all my life.
>>You want to keep off the substances , matey.
>>Doug.
>
>Quite. He does seem to protest too
>much, doesn't he?
>
>
but then neither of you, it seems, wishes to address either the
morality, or the practicality, of 'Billy's' (final) solution.
Put up or shut up!
--
Roger Watts
billy
It seems it has *not* sunk in even now!
It is unbelievable!
I will try to make it even *more* simple for you to grasp:
My town was invaded in the mid to late 1960s by massive numbers of
Pakistani and Bangledeshi.
The original number was estimated to be around 30,000
They started to occupy the older area of the town, buying up old
property by using loans from the local council.
The indigenous people living in that area started to sell up and move
out to the new developments pushing on the edge of the town area.
Most of the immigrants who came were of child producing age and their
estimated birth-rate is three times that of the English families.
It is not at all unusual to see families of 4 or five very young
children - with one on the way.
Assuming 20,000 of the original number formed "breeding couples" and
assuming that constituted 10,000 couples who have had three children
since, say, 1970.
That would mean 3x10,000 = 30,000 children added to the original
immigrant population which makes the pop now 30,000 + 30,000 added by
birth-rate = 60,000 total.
So: those of immigrant stock in my town has doubled in size since the
original influx. And that is by no means an exaggeration, since the
death rate has not "kicked in" yet as a "balancer" because they were
mostly young people who arrived in the late 60s.
No doubt you would discount the added births because you will say
these are not immigrants. However, they are part of the immigrant
community and are a consequence of the original immigration and must
be seen that way.
So: in my town, the original influx pushed the town to its outer
limits
of available building land and the next move to cater for increase -
especially from the immigrant areas of old property now bursting at
the seams - is into green belt and expanding villages.
I will say it again:
If the immigrants had not arrived, the town would have avoided pushing
to its outer limits from the pressure at its centre - occurring due to
the 1960-70s influx of immigrants.
The land the immigrants now occupy would have been redeveloped as each
property became older and renewed, which will be done in any case -
but instead of the area being peopled by those who had completed their
families at the usual 1.7 children - it became peopled by those
producing at an alarming rate and making an increasing demand for
housing.
If you cannot seen these simple facts, then I will have to give up on
you as one incapable of absorbing the glaringly obvious.
regards, billy
BTW: I heard on the radio today that a survey indicated that most
people interviewed believe the immigrant population represents 20% of
the total population.
The commentator said they were in error because the "true" figure is
around 5%.
I suspect the interviewees have arrived nearer the "true" figure from
using their eyes. The 5% is based on the 1991 estimate and not what
people now perceive.
I reckon the 2001 census will cause alarm if the "true" immigrant
population is revealed - and this not disguised by a large part of it
discounted because of immigrant children born in this country not
being included in the total - as politicians are liable to lean
towards for "the public good" and to avoid "creating tensions".
************************************************
"'Droid" <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39F2D626...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> billy wrote:
> >
> > *****************************
> > Droid:
> > I have noted your comments, below, but I will try to make it
simple
> > for you.
> > People do breed - as you say - and the original importation of
> > immigrants is expanding because they *do* breed and will, by this,
> > expand the original massive number of importees to 5 million.
>
> They won't, but again we'll wait for the census.
>
> > Now a simple example related to space:
> > We know that immigrants live in houses and because they now occupy
> > these are probably not demanding other houses except for the fact
that
> > their offspring *will* be demanding numerous houses, imminently.
> > In the town in which I live - which is a typical immigrant town -
they
> > occupy 20% of the towns area and have a birth rate 3 times that of
the
> > white people.
>
> Which town? If the birth rate truely is 3 times that of the white
population it
> most certainly is not typical of an immigrant town.
>
> > The town has used up all its building land within its area and is
now
> > pushing into the green belt.
>
> Which should not be allowed. Your town should not be expanding> If
there ar enot
> enough homes people should be moving to areas where there are more
than enough
> homes. That is not a problem due to immigrants but a problem due to
those people
> in charge.
>
> > Now, Droid, wipe your mind of all the facts and figures which are
> > obviously confusing your capacity to see the wood without the
trees
> > standing in the way:
>
> So ignore the facts as they actually are if they don;t fit the world
in your
> head? Not a hope.
>
> > Imagine - if you can - that the 20% land occupation had not
happened,
> > then the town would still have a massive amount of land within its
> > boundary and would therefore not be pressing on green belt and
> > demanding expansion of the surrounding villages.
>
> If your town was run by people who had any sense they would not be
expanding in
> any case. The problme you describe is alomost entirely a problem in
the south
> which along with immigration also suffers from two other major
problems:
> internal migration from the north and the increase in single
occupancy homes.
> The problem you describe is not one that is seen across Britain, but
one of
> localised areas, largely in the south-east. The solution to this
expansion is
> not cutting off immigration as that will not solve the problem, only
a minority
> of it. The long term solution is to encourage the economy in the
north to
> firstly prevent further migration south and secondly to encourage
migration back
> from the south to the north.
>
> As for the countryside, that experiences yet another factor, which
is being the
> target of a large number of people buying houses as second homes or
as an extra
> business as holiday homes.
>
> > That would be the situation if we had not foolishly imported
people
> > who do no good for the country and only create massive social
> > problems - one of which is the occupation of valuable space.
>
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>We know that immigrants live in houses and because they now occupy
>these are probably not demanding other houses except for the fact that
>their offspring *will* be demanding numerous houses, imminently.
>In the town in which I live - which is a typical immigrant town - they
>occupy 20% of the towns area and have a birth rate 3 times that of the
>white people.
Billy, as a side issue, immigrants tend to have more people in each
house, so have a create a proportionately lesser impact than an
equivalent number of whites.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Lucky Larry
> Billy, as a side issue, immigrants tend to have more people in each
> house, so have a create a proportionately lesser impact than an
> equivalent number of whites.
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Sorry Paul, I've tried every conceivable alternative, but this paragraph
still makes no sense.
Go and tug at Mommy's apron strings, and ask her to explain.
'Droid
>
> Droid - you really are making me Annoyed:
> It seems it has *not* sunk in even now!
> It is unbelievable!
> I will try to make it even *more* simple for you to grasp:
It is certainly simple, but it is wrong. I can make up anything I want that is
simple, but if it does not fit the facts it is wrong. Unlike the ancient Greeks
I do not place simplicity and beauty of theory above the actual facts. If the
theory does not fit the facts, the theory is wrong.
> My town was invaded in the mid to late 1960s by massive numbers of
> Pakistani and Bangledeshi.
Again, which town?
> The original number was estimated to be around 30,000
> They started to occupy the older area of the town, buying up old
> property by using loans from the local council.
> The indigenous people living in that area started to sell up and move
> out to the new developments pushing on the edge of the town area.
> Most of the immigrants who came were of child producing age and their
> estimated birth-rate is three times that of the English families.
Estimated by whom?
> It is not at all unusual to see families of 4 or five very young
> children - with one on the way.
That depends on where you are.
> Assuming 20,000 of the original number formed "breeding couples" and
> assuming that constituted 10,000 couples who have had three children
> since, say, 1970.
> That would mean 3x10,000 = 30,000 children added to the original
> immigrant population which makes the pop now 30,000 + 30,000 added by
> birth-rate = 60,000 total.
The larger family effect is real, but nationally is nowhere near as big as you
make out. It may be true in your town, but as you constantly name it, it is
impossible to verify.
> So: those of immigrant stock in my town has doubled in size since the
> original influx. And that is by no means an exaggeration, since the
> death rate has not "kicked in" yet as a "balancer" because they were
> mostly young people who arrived in the late 60s.
You at least have that bit right: the immigrant demographic is very much biased
towards working age people.
> No doubt you would discount the added births because you will say
> these are not immigrants.
I wouldn't discount them from the non-white totals, but they are indeed not
immigrants.
> However, they are part of the immigrant
> community and are a consequence of the original immigration and must
> be seen that way.
But that is untrue. Those children brought up here are only partly of the
immigrant community. For the most part they integrate into British society: they
do not act the way they would if they had been brought up in their parent's
native country.
> So: in my town, the original influx pushed the town to its outer
> limits
> of available building land and the next move to cater for increase -
> especially from the immigrant areas of old property now bursting at
> the seams - is into green belt and expanding villages.
Then as I said before your council is idiotic. Such measures are not necessary
and not desirable. If the population is too large people should be encouraged to
move elsewhere.
> I will say it again:
> If the immigrants had not arrived, the town would have avoided pushing
> to its outer limits from the pressure at its centre - occurring due to
> the 1960-70s influx of immigrants.
As a general statement that is untrue. It may be true given your geoiographic
location, but again I don't know because you won't say. The fact is that even
with immigration, towns in the north of this country are shrinking. The problem
is not immigration per se, but the policy of allowing a) immigrants to stay
pretty much where they enter the country and b) not encouraging the northern
economy such that they are also moving south. The problem is not population
pressure nationally, but a localised problem in the south to some extent, but
concentrated in the south east.
> The land the immigrants now occupy would have been redeveloped as each
> property became older and renewed, which will be done in any case -
> but instead of the area being peopled by those who had completed their
> families at the usual 1.7 children - it became peopled by those
> producing at an alarming rate and making an increasing demand for
> housing.
> If you cannot seen these simple facts, then I will have to give up on
> you as one incapable of absorbing the glaringly obvious.
The problem is that your glaringly obvious is just plain wrong. You are so keen
to blame everyone else for the problems in this country that you can't or won't
look to the problems that are internally caused. I have never said that
immigrantion does not contribute, but what I do say is that it is not the only
problem. Despite what you and your ilk seem to think, things will not magically
improve should everyone you want be deported. They are just a useful scapegoat
for your laziness and unwillingness to tackle our own problems.
> regards, billy
> BTW: I heard on the radio today that a survey indicated that most
> people interviewed believe the immigrant population represents 20% of
> the total population.
> The commentator said they were in error because the "true" figure is
> around 5%.
> I suspect the interviewees have arrived nearer the "true" figure from
> using their eyes. The 5% is based on the 1991 estimate and not what
> people now perceive.
The 5% estimate is wrong. It was about 6% in 1991 and won't be all that much
bigger now, because again contary to the scaremongering put about by your side
of the debate the whites are not in danger of extinction and our population is
also still increasing. However, rteading the media one could well imagine the
problme is worse than it is, similarly with crime. For some people the
observation may well be accurate because there are areas where the population
reaches or well exceeds 20%, but nationally it doesn't hold.
> I reckon the 2001 census will cause alarm if the "true" immigrant
> population is revealed - and this not disguised by a large part of it
> discounted because of immigrant children born in this country not
> being included in the total - as politicians are liable to lean
> towards for "the public good" and to avoid "creating tensions".
I take it that as you agree with the 20&% figure you are now uping your
non-white population estimate to the region of 12 million. It is clear just how
restricted your viewpoint is as if you made any effort to travel around the
country you would know that there are huge zones where seeing a non-white face
is highly unusual and then they are often tourists.
'Droid
'Droid
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, billy <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> stated this
> considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
> >these are probably not demanding other houses except for the fact that
> >their offspring *will* be demanding numerous houses, imminently.
> >In the town in which I live - which is a typical immigrant town - they
> >occupy 20% of the towns area and have a birth rate 3 times that of the
> >white people.
>
> house, so have a create a proportionately lesser impact than an
> equivalent number of whites.
In the short term. Those children will eventually move out.
'Droid
billy
> In article <8sklja$7qg$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
<jo...@billy100.fre
> eserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:NvaYTAAfWD65Ew$I...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <8s26u7$das$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> ><jo...@billy100.fre
> >> eserve.co.uk> writes
> >.
> >> >In the meantime, you liberal bigots will live in pious hope that
we
> >in
> >> >this country prove to be superior to all others and build the
> >> >multicultural perfection in our green and pleasant land.
> >> >This absolute arrogance.
> >>
> >> And your 'solution' is? Let's hear it Billy.
> >My solution is an immediate stop on immigration from any source
> So we are to be prisoners in our own land? If one of us wants to
marry,
> say, a Dutch girl - that's impossible because one assumes the Dutch
will
> adopt the same policy?
> >and a
> >policy of repatriation and no special accommodation for those
already
> >here.
>
will
> you threaten me, torture, smash my windows?
>
In
> no time at all the final solution would be proposed for all those
who
> did not comply with Fuhrer Billy's ideal of Englishmen. But Billy
would
> only be following nature's course. Just like the Jews, we would
only
> have ourselves to blame is we weren't of the right ethnic stock.
>
> I dare say you may already be framing your 'Holocaust Funk'
argument.
> Let's not be deterred by the fact that those nasty Germans killed a
few
TV?
> Good old Edward Longshanks - after he had 'borrowed' all the money
he
probably
> by good old Englishmen - just like you Billy.
>
asylum
> hostels and burn women and children to death!
> Roger Watts
******************************************
Watts: You have really blown your bulb.
When my final solution is put into effect, you will be the first one
to experience its impact.
I have never read so much hysteria in all my life.
But getting back to the main subject:
The Germans, for instance, do not grant full German citizenship unless
the applicant can prove German ancestry going back three generations.
The Jews will not accept anyone as a Jew unless they can claim
ancestry going back to Abraham - as far as this can be ascertained.
However:
For our purpose, there are three basic principles we need to
recognise:
1) As in the case of a house so in the case of a country: An open door
policy for all who wish to come through it would be a policy of
disaster.
2) As in the case of a house, so in the case of a country: Harmony and
stability can only exist amongst like-minded people - who are not
arguing about rules and principles all the time.
3) Accepting the obviousness of (1) and (2) the country must have a
policy of who is to be admitted and in what numbers they are to be
admitted.
No-one (unless they are as confused as you) could argue about the
sense of these three points.
So:
Any immigration policy must be based on the above three points viz:
Who should be admitted and therefore granted citizenship should only
be accorded to those who are deemed directly beneficial to this
country and their application should be subjected to the following
points:
1) Have a probationary period of 5 years; during which time any
transgression against the laws of the country will lead to immediate
deportation.
2) On final application for citizenship, the applicant must be of good
health and show an acceptable knowledge of the language and culture of
the country (which includes its law, political processes and history)
and be prepared to make an "oath of allegiance" to the country.
3) Two types of citizenship should be recognises on satisfying (1)
and (2):
a) full citizenship for those who can prove British ancestry.
b) honorary citizenship for those who do not have British ancestry.
(the fact of being born in this country, of foreign parents,
should not automatically confer citizenship but must be subject to
application.)
4) Immigration and therefore citizenship applications would be subject
to prevailing population density. If that approaches or exceed 259
people per square kilometre (the point of discomfort) then immigration
would be
completely restricted except under very extenuating circumstances -
for instance: possessing skills or attributes of obvious use to the
economy of this country.
5) No-one except full British citizens can buy or own land or property
in this country. (They can lease it.)
Obviously, the black and Asian immigrants now in this country who
cannot show British ancestry would be class (b) citizens and liable to
loss of that status and possible deportation if committing offences.
In the case of those wishing to maintain different cultural
expressions:
These can be tolerated as long as they fit in with the main culture
and accept the main culture's dominance.
If you - for instance - wanted to do daft things, such as wearing
saffron robes and chanting all over the place, you may do this as long
as it did not affect public order. What you suggest you want to do
seems quite a harmless lunacy and the sort of thing you probably would
do.
However:
If you were Islamic and started preaching forced marriages and
practising polygamy, then you would get the toe end of an English boot
and be expelled from the country.
And those hypocritical sods who display stickers on their car - such
as "I Love Kashmir" - whilst having deserted that land and taking the
benefits of this - will also be booted out.
Immigrants must conform to the law of the land and its customs (as in
the case of freedom to wed one's own choice and only have one spouse).
No concessions would be made to cultures outside the mainstream
culture.
If people wish, for instance, to have Hal-hal meat, they would have to
import it and provide it for themselves.
All organisations to support the so called interests of immigrants
would receive no public funds.
Organisations such as the recent Runnymede Committee of Commissars
would be told that slandering the British people and their history is
something "up with which we will not put".
They would be told that if they did not like this country's identity
and traditions, they could go elsewhere.
Regarding the "final solution".
Class (b) citizens already here would have no claim on the country's
welfare system and must provide for themselves unless they have made
at least five years unbroken contributions in the form of tax.
These policies - if they were applied - would reduce enormously the
numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers pouring into this "soft touch
and lax rules" country and - if applied previously - we would not be
in the mesh we are in now.
Those who have already entered during the previous time of lunatic
laxness would have to make a formal application for citizenship of
either the class (a) or (b) category. The number granted would depend
on the above mentioned "comfort level" of population and also how
easily or willing the applicants would be to integrate.
Those who did not gain citizenship would have to leave.
Regarding the African question you raised: I do not know who you mean
by that category. If you mean whites of British stock being expelled,
the whole economy of that region would collapse within days. The more
sensible blacks realise that - even in the area now known as Zimbabwe.
I know of no other place having large numbers of whites of that kind
who would be subjected to possible deportation.
For instance, in America and the Commonwealth countries, well over
half the populations would fall within the category of British stock -
if we mean originating from the British Isles - so we need not worry
about that, since they own the country.
What we have to worry about is the tearing apart of our country by
multiculturalism and its overpopulation by policies enter into by
irresponsible or idiotically idealistic politicians.
The already here immigrants should be told that they either integrate
or emigrate.
We will not permit a multicultural society. This country will not be a
house divide. It will be one people under one flag with the loyalty
that implies.
regards, billy
P.S.
Edward Longshank expelled the Jews because they were increasingly
becoming a source of irritation amongst the ordinary English citizens
and had to exist under the protection of the King.
They were completely alien to the English in their beliefs and customs
and their insistence on being "separate and distinct" (a problem the
Jews have always had) made them particularly irritating.
Expelling them did them a favour, since the King found it increasingly
difficult to stop the various outbreaks of disorder rising to pogroms
against them.
For that act sending them out of the country, and under his protection
as they left, Old Edward Longshank should be made a Hero of the Jewish
people.
****************************
Paul Hyett
view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>
>> house, so have a create a proportionately lesser impact than an
>> equivalent number of whites.
>
>In the short term. Those children will eventually move out.
As will all children.
Roger Watts
eeserve.co.uk> writes
>"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:B5f7GBAR...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
>Watts: You have really blown your bulb.
Obviously your knowledge of physics is even weaker than that of
politics, sociology, history and virtually every other aspect of human
knowledge. It's high power that blows bulbs, Billy.
>When my final solution is put into effect, you will be the first one
>to experience its impact.
If you put your solution into effect, we shall *all* feel an enormous
negative impact, believe me.
>I have never read so much hysteria in all my life.
As yes. That's what the Nazis would have liked people who objected to
the 'relocation' of Jews etc. to believe.
>But getting back to the main subject:
>The Germans, for instance, do not grant full German citizenship unless
>the applicant can prove German ancestry going back three generations.
>The Jews will not accept anyone as a Jew unless they can claim
>ancestry going back to Abraham - as far as this can be ascertained.
Yes, let's keep to the subject of *British* policy.
>However:
>For our purpose, there are three basic principles we need to
>recognise:
>1) As in the case of a house so in the case of a country: An open door
>policy for all who wish to come through it would be a policy of
>disaster.
As far as I know, this country has *never* had an 'open door' policy for
immigration - and still doesn't.
>2) As in the case of a house, so in the case of a country: Harmony and
>stability can only exist amongst like-minded people - who are not
>arguing about rules and principles all the time.
Harmony and stability of *this* sort can only lead to stagnation. Many
of the best marriages work between couples who are far from like-minded.
Reasonable people can build on the spark of new ideas. Only the small-
and closed-minded like you find this a problem.
>3) Accepting the obviousness of (1) and (2) the country must have a
>policy of who is to be admitted and in what numbers they are to be
>admitted.
We do have an immigration policy - and we do refuse to admit people who
are determined to stir up trouble - don't ever leave Billy, they might
not let you back in.
>No-one (unless they are as confused as you) could argue about the
>sense of these three points.
>So:
>Any immigration policy must be based on the above three points viz:
>Who should be admitted and therefore granted citizenship should only
>be accorded to those who are deemed directly beneficial to this
>country and their application should be subjected to the following
>points:
>1) Have a probationary period of 5 years; during which time any
>transgression against the laws of the country will lead to immediate
>deportation.
You mean like naturalisation now?
>2) On final application for citizenship, the applicant must be of good
>health and show an acceptable knowledge of the language and culture of
>the country (which includes its law, political processes and history)
>and be prepared to make an "oath of allegiance" to the country.
>3) Two types of citizenship should be recognises on satisfying (1)
>and (2):
>a) full citizenship for those who can prove British ancestry.
>b) honorary citizenship for those who do not have British ancestry.
>(the fact of being born in this country, of foreign parents,
>should not automatically confer citizenship but must be subject to
>application.)
>4) Immigration and therefore citizenship applications would be subject
>to prevailing population density. If that approaches or exceed 259
>people per square kilometre (the point of discomfort) then immigration
>would be
>completely restricted except under very extenuating circumstances -
>for instance: possessing skills or attributes of obvious use to the
>economy of this country.
>5) No-one except full British citizens can buy or own land or property
>in this country. (They can lease it.)
>
Welcome to Fuhrer Billy's police state. If he doesn't think you are
'English' enough, you are out.
Let's leave all this for the moment, since it applies to the future. I
don't necessarily agree with it, since it implies two classes of
citizen. However, I agree that if you apply to join a club, you do so
knowing what the rules are - and you don't have to apply. Once you've
joined, of course, you must have the same rights as all the other
members to change the rules.
>Obviously, the black and Asian immigrants now in this country who
>cannot show British ancestry would be class (b) citizens and liable to
>loss of that status and possible deportation if committing offences.
>
Hold on just a moment. *Obviously*? It's not obvious at all. What
happened to the British sense of fair play you rabbit on about? If the
country has granted someone full citizenship, then it is an act of gross
immorality to revoke that and turn them into something else. Having
been accepted by the club as a full member, you have every right to
expect *exactly* the same treatment as every other member. So these
second class citizens are to be forced to sell their property? Now where
have we heard that sort of thing before?
>In the case of those wishing to maintain different cultural
>expressions:
>These can be tolerated as long as they fit in with the main culture
>and accept the main culture's dominance.
>If you - for instance - wanted to do daft things, such as wearing
>saffron robes and chanting all over the place, you may do this as long
>as it did not affect public order. What you suggest you want to do
>seems quite a harmless lunacy and the sort of thing you probably would
>do.
>However:
>If you were Islamic and started preaching forced marriages
One of the great British freedoms - that you are taking advantage of
here - is to be able to *preach* whatever we want. It's not that long
since the type of forced marriages you talk about were part of *our*
culture.
> and
>practising polygamy,
If you practice polygamy, you break the law and should be subject to the
same rigour of law as every citizen.
>then you would get the toe end of an English boot
>and be expelled from the country.
>And those hypocritical sods who display stickers on their car - such
>as "I Love Kashmir" - whilst having deserted that land and taking the
>benefits of this - will also be booted out.
Another great British freedom lost.
>Immigrants must conform to the law of the land and its customs (as in
>the case of freedom to wed one's own choice and only have one spouse).
>No concessions would be made to cultures outside the mainstream
>culture.
Immigrants must already conform to the law of the land. Can you cite me
a reference to anyone on the ng who suggests that they should not?
>If people wish, for instance, to have Hal-hal meat, they would have to
>import it and provide it for themselves.
Do market forces not rule here? - another great British culture comes
crashing down - bye-bye Adam Smith.
>All organisations to support the so called interests of immigrants
>would receive no public funds.
Why not. Suppose these organisations are set up to help that harmony
that you hold so dear? Do we not live a democracy? Or is that another
part of the much famed British culture that you would destroy in order
to get your way?
>Organisations such as the recent Runnymede Committee of Commissars
>would be told that slandering the British people and their history is
>something "up with which we will not put".
Winston Churchill would have made short shrift of you - he would have
seen you for the Nazi you are.
>They would be told that if they did not like this country's identity
>and traditions, they could go elsewhere.
>Regarding the "final solution".
>Class (b) citizens already here would have no claim on the country's
>welfare system and must provide for themselves unless they have made
>at least five years unbroken contributions in the form of tax.
>
>These policies - if they were applied - would reduce enormously the
>numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers pouring into this "soft touch
>and lax rules" country and - if applied previously - we would not be
>in the mesh we are in now.
>Those who have already entered during the previous time of lunatic
>laxness would have to make a formal application for citizenship of
>either the class (a) or (b) category. The number granted would depend
>on the above mentioned "comfort level" of population and also how
>easily or willing the applicants would be to integrate.
>Those who did not gain citizenship would have to leave.
>
And you call me hysterical?
>Regarding the African question you raised: I do not know who you mean
>by that category. If you mean whites of British stock being expelled,
>the whole economy of that region would collapse within days. The more
>sensible blacks realise that - even in the area now known as Zimbabwe.
>I know of no other place having large numbers of whites of that kind
>who would be subjected to possible deportation.
But you yourself claim Billy that blood is thicker than water. Do you
really suppose that expelling *millions* of 'Africans' and Asians from
this country would not play into the hands of those ethnic cleansers
like you in Africa and Asia? You really are naive! You play right into
Mugabe's hands. There are white people in RSA, Zimbabwe and the whole of
ex-British Central and East Africa, who own property that greedy people
envy and would love to get their hands on, just as greedy people here
would set up the expulsion of those whose businesses they wanted. There
are still people of British ancestry in South Asia and many in Hong
Kong. Longer term stability would be totally overruled by short term
personal gain.
>For instance, in America and the Commonwealth countries,
I take it you mean *white* commonwealth countries.
> well over
>half the populations would fall within the category of British stock -
>if we mean originating from the British Isles - so we need not worry
>about that, since they own the country.
And are those 'owners' going to start using your policies as well and
start 'repatriating' people all across the globe?
>What we have to worry about is the tearing apart of our country by
>multiculturalism
Most of us don't see that it's being torn apart by multiculturalism -
any tearing is being done by your BNP thugs and the inevitable reaction.
It's people like you we have to worry about. You are the problem, not
the solution.
>and its overpopulation by policies enter into by
>irresponsible or idiotically idealistic politicians.
>The already here immigrants should be told that they either integrate
>or emigrate.
>We will not permit a multicultural society.
Ah, the BNP again?
> This country will not be a
>house divide. It will be one people under one flag with the loyalty
>that implies.
>regards, billy
>P.S.
>Edward Longshank expelled the Jews because they were increasingly
>becoming a source of irritation amongst the ordinary English citizens
>and had to exist under the protection of the King.
>They were completely alien to the English in their beliefs and customs
>and their insistence on being "separate and distinct" (a problem the
>Jews have always had) made them particularly irritating.
>Expelling them did them a favour, since the King found it increasingly
>difficult to stop the various outbreaks of disorder rising to pogroms
>against them.
Again, ring any bells - Krystallnacht?
>For that act sending them out of the country, and under his protection
>as they left, Old Edward Longshank should be made a Hero of the Jewish
>people.
>
And of course, before they left he repaid every penny he had borrowed?
--
Roger Watts
billy
You will not give in but keep trotting out the same old statistical
suppositions related to people from the North dashing down the M1 in
hordes to demand housing in the SE (and then becoming hermits, and
living alone).
For a starters: It is difficult to do that, financially, because the
price of a house in the north would not buy a shed in the south.
However, if you refer to the recent Joseph Rowntree study on the
subject, you will find that this "migration" is negligible as far as
the expanding demand for building in the SE.
The cause according to the report is families are choosing to move out
of the cities into surrounding small towns and villages.
It also suggests three factors in order of importance:
High birth rates, immigration and people wishing to live alone.
The whites are not responsible for the high birth rate and immigration
(immigrants are).
They might be responsible for the more dubious supposition of people
becoming hermits. Notice the government has latched on to the last
supposition and are ignoring the more plausible first two (as you
are - being a Leftie).
What the report does not specifically state - but is implicit in the
report as a major factor - is what is happening in my town is what is
happen generally in the SE. i.e: pressure in the centres of towns, due
to immigrants, causing people to "move out".
I wish to announce this subject is now close (since I have now won the
argument on the basis of the Rowntree Report.)
regards, billy
******************************
"'Droid" <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39F4CA00...@netcomuk.co.uk...
Lucky Larry
> In article <8t4fdp$n9v$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.fr
> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:B5f7GBAR...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> >> >> And your 'solution' is? Let's hear it Billy.
> >******************************************
> >Watts: You have really blown your bulb.
>
> Obviously your knowledge of physics is even weaker than that of
> politics, sociology, history and virtually every other aspect of human
> knowledge. It's high power that blows bulbs, Billy.
First of all, they ain't bulbs they are lamps, as in incandescent lamps.
High current can blow a lamp but usually it is down to the transference of
ions from the filament onto the glass, resulting in a thinner cross section
of the filament, over time.
Power which is equated with voltage, does not blow the filament, current
which is declaimed as amperage is the culprit.
The inherent quality of the resistance within the filament becomes greater
as the cross sectional area of the filament decreases in size and shape,
thereby increasing the amperage coursing through the circuit, increasing the
temperature to melting point.
James Watt was a very clever man, who went to school for just one year.
You are most definetly NOT a chip off the old block, bet you went to school
for twelve years.
'Droid
> > In article <8t4fdp$n9v$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.fr
> > eeserve.co.uk> writes
> > >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:B5f7GBAR...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> > >> >> And your 'solution' is? Let's hear it Billy.
> > >******************************************
> > >Watts: You have really blown your bulb.
> >
> > Obviously your knowledge of physics is even weaker than that of
> > politics, sociology, history and virtually every other aspect of human
> > knowledge. It's high power that blows bulbs, Billy.
>
> High current can blow a lamp but usually it is down to the transference of
> ions from the filament onto the glass, resulting in a thinner cross section
> of the filament, over time.
> Power which is equated with voltage, does not blow the filament, current
> which is declaimed as amperage is the culprit.
> The inherent quality of the resistance within the filament becomes greater
> as the cross sectional area of the filament decreases in size and shape,
> thereby increasing the amperage coursing through the circuit, increasing the
> temperature to melting point.
You almost had it right. The total current is constant, the increase is in
current per cross-sectional area that causes the increasing temperature until
finally the filament melts, due as you you say to the gradual evaporation of the
filament. The added complication is turning the things on. At that point the
reistance of metal is lower, the current surges, and the thinnest part of the
filament still having the highest resistance heats up quickest. Resistance
increases with temperature in metals and so that part becomes more resistive
quicker than the rest of the filament. If the filament is thin enough it will
melt before the rest of the filament warms up enough to reduce that initial
current surge, which is why most bulbs blow when you turn them on.
'Droid
Angus McBastard
> The inherent quality of the resistance within the filament becomes greater
> as the cross sectional area of the filament decreases in size and shape,
> thereby increasing the amperage coursing through the circuit, increasing the
> temperature to melting point.
...Ohhh really? Ohm's Law, anyone?
--
It said WinNT 4.0 or better on the box.
So I installed Linux.
Roger Watts
<lucky...@fsnnet.co.uk> writes
>Power which is equated with voltage
Erm...you wanna try that again, Einstein?
--
Roger Watts
BOEDICIA
>Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 12:06 EDT
>Message-id: <8t4fdp$n9v$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>
>"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> So let's see what this
>means for our famous British culture - that's lasted 1000 years or
>whatever.
Egbert reigned from 829. Thought you would like to know that.
snip "what ifs"?
>> OK, but then suppose one of us *real* Englishmen decides that we
>want to
>> modify our culture? Say I want to become a Buddhist and go around
>in
>> saffron robes? Will I be told by your kultur SS that I have to
>change
>> or get out? Suppose I decide I
>prefer Mozart to Vaughan-Williams,
>will you threaten me, torture, smash my windows?
Only if you insist in playing Mendolsohn.
Mozart is O.K. Fine Austrian composer.
>Just like the Jews, we would
>only
>> have ourselves to blame is we weren't of the right ethnic stock.
Are they an ethnic stock? And all this time the loonies in this NG keep
saying
that they are only jews because they
practise Judaism i.e. Sammy Davies Jr.
was a jew. Looked like a negro to me.
>> Good old Edward Longshanks - after he had 'borrowed' all the money
>he could from the Jews,
"Poor" rich jews:)
>Watts: You have really blown your bulb.
I wonder if he's one of those terrorists
who was told to go out and blow up a car
and burnt his lips on the exhaust pipe.
>When my final solution is put into effect, you will be the first one
>to experience its impact.
>I have never read so much hysteria in all my life.
More like loony left B.S.
>The Germans, for instance, do not grant full German citizenship unless
>the applicant can prove German ancestry going back three generations.
Germans can be identified by their names
as well as ancestry. Germany has never granted citizenship just because one
was born in Germany. Many German/Americans returned to Germany
and served in the war on the side of Germany.
>The Jews will not accept anyone as a Jew unless they can claim
>ancestry going back to Abraham - as far as this can be ascertained.
They accept anyone born of a jew mother
as a jew - Murdoch e.g. *That* law
goes back to Abraham and the fact that
although his eldest son was Ishmael,
son of his slave, it was Isaac who
is considered the lawful heir, since
he was born to Sarah, Abraham's wife.
There were no "jews" at the time of
Abraham. *That* word came into effect
after Abraham's grandson, Jacob sired
Judah.
>However:
>For our purpose, there are three basic principles we need to
>recognise:
>1) As in the case of a house so in the case of a country: An open door
>policy for all who wish to come through it would be a policy of disaster.
Especially if they are carriers of T.B.
Leprosy, AIDS, Ebola and the thousand
and one terrible diseases that any of them
are carrying and passing on to the host
people.
>2) As in the case of a house, so in the case of a country: Harmony and
>stability can only exist amongst like-minded people - who are not
>arguing about rules and principles all the time.
Yes. Before you know it Christmas
and Easter will be considered "racist'
by the non-Christians.
>1) Have a probationary period of 5 years; during which time any
>transgression against the laws of the country will lead to immediate
>deportation.
That would certainly cut down on the
present prison populaiton.
>If people wish, for instance, to have Hal-hal meat, they would have to
>import it and provide it for themselves.
Orientals have always mistreated animals.
There is no such thing as a pet in
most of their households. Animals are
to be eaten - all animals including dogs.
>Regarding the African question you raised: I do not know who you mean
>by that category. If you mean whites of British stock being expelled,
>the whole economy of that region would collapse within days. The more
>sensible blacks realise that - even in
>the area now known as Zimbabwe.
Last I heard the dictator Mugabe had
issued a new edict. Most of the white owned farms are now being forced
to harbour squatters who are just waiting
for the whites to be evicted. Where
is CND Tony. Why is he not sending in the
troops to protest this ethnic cleansing?
>We will not permit a multicultural society. This country will not be a
>house divide. It will be one people under one flag with the loyalty that
implies.
>regards, billy
It would also be helpful if all those Scots M.P.'s in Westminster and those in
The Cabinet would shove of back to
Scotland. How many English M.P.'s
are there in Edinburgh?
>P.S.
>Edward Longshank expelled the Jews because they were increasingly
>becoming a source of irritation amongst the ordinary English citizens
>and had to exist under the protection of the King.
They are always getting thrown out of one
country or another. They are pests.
The people of York rose up against them,
not because of their religion, but because
of their obscene business practices.
>They were completely alien to the English in their beliefs and customs
>and their insistence on being "separate and distinct" (a problem the
>Jews have always had) made them particularly irritating.
Nothing has changed.
>For that act sending them out of the country, and under his protection
>as they left, Old Edward Longshank should be made a Hero of the Jewish
>people.
Don't give them any ideas. They have far
too many holidays now which they insist
on taking and getting paid for on top
of the legal holidays they now have.
"You must date only jews"
Joe Lieberman - to his kids.
When you and I say such things, we
are called "racist". - Funny that.
Darryl
They tell me that there are "settlements" in Israel that
a non Jew cannot enter, let alone live in. I thought that
was something that the world deplored when the White south Africaners
practised it in SA. Who dares call the jews "racist"??
Darryl.
Roger Watts
<zar...@one.net.au> writes
I dare say that many people 'dare' call Jews (or at least the Jewish
state of Israel) racist, particularly Palestinians. It all depends how
you define racist. Israel lets in peoples of many colours without
discrimination, provided they are of the Jewish faith. But it won't give
those palestinians who have lived there for generations citizenship.
Discrimination on religious grounds is a very tricky area - I'm not sure
that your example is very close to the apartheid one. I believe it is
possible (if difficult) to convert to Judaism, but it's rather harder to
change your skin colour.
--
Roger Watts
billy
> In article <8t4fdp$n9v$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
<jo...@billy100.fr
> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:B5f7GBAR...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> >> >> And your 'solution' is? Let's hear it Billy.
> >******************************************
> >Watts: You have really blown your bulb.
>
> Obviously your knowledge of physics is even weaker than that of
> politics, sociology, history and virtually every other aspect of
human
**************************
Blown Bulb:
A blown bulb can also result from a weakness in the "filament". You
have the equivalent of a weakness in the filament - as indicated by
the further burst of irresponsible hysteria you expressed below.
However:
The duty of the leaders of any state is to protects the state's
integrity and therefore the security and comfort of its citizens, and
not to concern itself with other countries' problems which do not
affect us.
It is not to take up some idiotic ideology which sacrifices that
principle; and also suffer from Holocaust Funk which paralyses
appropriate action to ensure that security; and allow themselves to be
intimidated by Lefty Loonies who want to hubristically play Jesus
Christ to the world - with taxpayer's money - without the capacity to
perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes and turning water into
wine.
I saw, last night, on BBC 2 news, the case of the Rumanian gypsies who
are flooding into this country. They travel all the way from Rumania,
via Italy and France, to cross the Channel to what they called "the
promised land".
The interviewer went to a village of 16,000 people and found the so
called "head man" declaring every one in the village wished to make
the journey.
The Rumanians were seeing TV documentaries portraying people who had
"made it", which were being watched with wide eyed incredulity by
those preparing to follow in the tracks of the lorries that took those
who had made it to rip-off Britain.
One man who had "made it" had a wife and seven children and said how
he had been given a council house with all expenses paid, £800 a month
and his kids taking up seven places in (an already overcrowded)
school; and being taught English at the taxpayers expense.
Of course, his family will only be registered as *one* asylum seeker
on government statistics since it is the person making the application
for a family who is "registered". This indicates that if a figure of,
say, 80,000 is offered, then the true number is more than likely to be
that figure multiplied by 3.
No wonder we are threatened with the loss of our countryside by
massive house building programmes.
And those who have made it know that once having entered the country
the government is paralysed by Holocaust Funk and the Loony Left who
want to play Jesus Christ. Therefore, those who have "made it" are
hardly ever deported - especially those with families.
The job of our leaders is not to solve Rumania's problems; a country
eager to get rid of its social problems and trouble-makers so they do
nothing to stop their unwanted leaving by whatever means.
Also, the French are eagerly waving them on, across the Channel.
It is obvious the flood represents people on the make - having crossed
half a dozen countries to get here - and should be immediately sent
back.
If we need people, we should generate them from our own stock by
offering incentives for marriage and producing the required numbers of
children.
Strict and responsible policies such as I have suggested would ensure
the sort of rip-off asylum seekers represent and the problems alien
immigrant create could not happen.
However, it is you Loony Left Marxist who ensure these *do* happen;
and
you have not the power of the Jesus Christ you think you are to work
the miracle and stop it turning into the disaster it will eventually
prove to be.
regards, billy
***************************
BOEDICIA
>Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 05:53 EDT
>Message-id: <39f7fe99...@news.one.net.au>
> They tell me that there are "settlements" in Israel that
> a non Jew cannot enter, let alone live in. I thought that
> was something that the world deplored when the White south Africaners
> practised it in SA. Who dares call the jews "racist"??
Tel Aviv is considered jew only. There
are Arabs who work there but don't
live there. Jerusalem has Arab sections
(East) and there is an American Consulate
in that quarter that handles vias for Arabs
only. The Old City is divided into 4
quarters. Jewish - Christian - Armenian
and Muslim. Jaffa is considered an
Arab city. Haifa, jewish. I knew of a case
when a jewish girl married an Arab
and wanted to live on a kibbutz. She
was denied.
The jews IMO *are* racist. They live in
their own neighbourhoods in every city
where they settled throughout the world
and if undesirables (read coloured) move in, they move out. They think
"goys" are stupid and incapable of governing their own countries , which is
why they do their
utmost to obtain government positions
and stand for every public office going.
Arabs are "dirty" and "goys eat
all kinds of filthy food". It is because
their religion, or what they claim as their religion, tells them that they are
"chosen"
by God. Not so, but if they believe it,
then they are going to regard other
races as inferior.
Angus McBastard
It is because
> their religion, or what they claim as their religion, tells them that they are
> "chosen"
> by God. Not so, but if they believe it,
> then they are going to regard other
> races as inferior.
Is this an autobiography, perchance?
Angus
Roger Watts
eeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:qRox8MAK...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8t4fdp$n9v$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
><jo...@billy100.fr
>> eeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:B5f7GBAR...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
>> >> >> And your 'solution' is? Let's hear it Billy.
>> >******************************************
>> >Watts: You have really blown your bulb.
>>
>> Obviously your knowledge of physics is even weaker than that of
>> politics, sociology, history and virtually every other aspect of
>human
>> knowledge. It's high power that blows bulbs.
>**************************
>Blown Bulb:
>A blown bulb can also result from a weakness in the "filament". You
>have the equivalent of a weakness in the filament - as indicated by
>the further burst of irresponsible hysteria you expressed below.
None of which, I notice, you have the power, or wit, to refute.
Instead you lapse into a predictable tirade against asylum seekers,
which is an entirely different matter to the question of what *you*
would do with those people who have been granted British citizenship.
>However:
>The duty of the leaders of any state is to protects the state's
>integrity and therefore the security and comfort of its citizens, and
>not to concern itself with other countries' problems which do not
>affect us.
>It is not to take up some idiotic ideology which sacrifices that
>principle; and also suffer from Holocaust Funk which paralyses
>appropriate action to ensure that security; and allow themselves to be
>intimidated by Lefty Loonies who want to hubristically play Jesus
>Christ to the world - with taxpayer's money - without the capacity to
>perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes and turning water into
>wine.
I think, on the whole, I'd rather attempt to play Jesus Christ than
Adolf Hitler. After all aren't we supposed to follow Christ - be kind to
the needy, helpless etc. I could quote you several chapters of Christ's
words I'm sure. But that sort of Christianity is inconvenient for those
'Christians' like you, isn't it?
>I saw, last night, on BBC 2 news, the case of the Rumanian gypsies who
>are flooding into this country.
Home office statistics show around 8000 people of all nationalities/
month apply for asylum.
> They travel all the way from Rumania,
>via Italy and France, to cross the Channel to what they called "the
>promised land".
>The interviewer went to a village of 16,000 people and found the so
>called "head man" declaring every one in the village wished to make
>the journey.
>The Rumanians were seeing TV documentaries portraying people who had
>"made it", which were being watched with wide eyed incredulity by
>those preparing to follow in the tracks of the lorries that took those
>who had made it to rip-off Britain.
>One man who had "made it" had a wife and seven children and said how
>he had been given a council house with all expenses paid, £800 a month
>and his kids taking up seven places in (an already overcrowded)
>school; and being taught English at the taxpayers expense.
>Of course, his family will only be registered as *one* asylum seeker
If he has been given all that he certainly is not an asylum *seeker*.
They don't get cash.
>on government statistics since it is the person making the application
>for a family who is "registered". This indicates that if a figure of,
>say, 80,000 is offered, then the true number is more than likely to be
>that figure multiplied by 3.
>No wonder we are threatened with the loss of our countryside by
>massive house building programmes.
>And those who have made it know that once having entered the country
>the government is paralysed by Holocaust Funk and the Loony Left
I wonder how those on the right feel about this repeated accusation by
you that they are all uncaring bastards.
>who
>want to play Jesus Christ. Therefore, those who have "made it" are
>hardly ever deported - especially those with families.
Ah, again according to home office statistics only 6% are given asylum
and a further few % get in on appeal. The rest are returned.
>The job of our leaders is not to solve Rumania's problems; a country
>eager to get rid of its social problems and trouble-makers so they do
>nothing to stop their unwanted leaving by whatever means.
Ah yes, trouble makers. That would be the Roma who are undergoing well
publicised persecution by people like you because, of course, they do
not have the 'right' culture.
>Also, the French are eagerly waving them on, across the Channel.
Blame the persecuted, blame Johnny foreigner.
>It is obvious the flood represents people on the make - having crossed
>half a dozen countries to get here - and should be immediately sent
>back.
Most of them are.
>If we need people, we should generate them from our own stock by
>offering incentives for marriage and producing the required numbers of
>children.
Father a long term solution!
>Strict and responsible policies such as I have suggested would ensure
>the sort of rip-off asylum seekers represent and the problems alien
>immigrant create could not happen.
As far as I can see the present government's policy *is* strict and
responsible. It is true, of course, that not all immigrants are stopped
and that some get in illegally. But then a lot of things get into this
country illegally - often brought in by fine upstanding British
citizens.
>However, it is you Loony Left Marxist who ensure these *do* happen;
Me, I'm not in the government. And I'm not a Marxist by any stretch of
the imagination - only your wildly deluded one.
>and
>you have not the power of the Jesus Christ you think you are
No, again I don't even approach your level of self delusion.
>to work
>the miracle and stop it turning into the disaster it will eventually
>prove to be.
>regards, billy
Please don't send me your regards, I don't want them. I find being
regarded an unfeeling, ignorant, Nazi like you extremely distasteful.
What I find most hypocritical is that you vent your spleen on the poor
souls who are the victim, in other countries, of the sort of policies
that you would promote here. Billy look-alikes in Bosnia, Kosovo,
Romania turn on people because they have the 'wrong' culture and force
them out and then Billy blames them for wanting to get out and come
here.
--
Roger Watts
pmro...@my-deja.com
"billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Also, the French are eagerly waving them on, across the Channel.
> It is obvious the flood represents people on the make - having crossed
> half a dozen countries to get here - and should be immediately sent
> back.
I don't normally bother with your posts, but you seem to believe that
we have the worst asylum problem in the EU. This is not the case.
Measured per 1000 of the population Germany, the Netherlands and at
least one other country (I think it was France, but it might have been
Belgium) have a much worse problem than we do.
Secondly you seem to be labouring under a delusion that these
unfortunate people (whether you want them here or not they are still
unfortunate) come her in order to claim benefits. I really doubt if
that's the case - I don't know if you saw the post by Tom Steinberg a
few days ago where we discussed this.
If they were drawn by generous benefit provision they would go to
places where the benefits are high, probably the Scandanavian
countries: Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. Better still, they
could go to Luxembourg, which has the highest living standards in
Europe. You may argue that they wouldn't fit in Luxembourg, but then
you argue that they don't fit here, so I don't see what difference it
makes. You can compare benefit rates online these days, so they could
find out.
I think they come here because they see Britian as a place where they
can get a job, set up a business, and start to earn real money, and
generally have an improved standard of living. Frankly, if I were in
their position, if Rumania was a vibrant economy and Britain a
downtrodden ex-communist state where I had nothing to look forward to
except a life of poverty I would do the same. I can't see why that's so
difficult to understand.
Oh, and you too might benefit from trimming posts before you reply.
--
Member, Fans of the "Desert Peach"
'Subverting the world, one reader at a time.'
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Barton Whoops
>In article <8t9ov4$kbp$4...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Also, the French are eagerly waving them on, across the Channel.
>> It is obvious the flood represents people on the make - having crossed
>> half a dozen countries to get here - and should be immediately sent
>> back.
>
>I don't normally bother with your posts, but you seem to believe that
>we have the worst asylum problem in the EU. This is not the case.
>Measured per 1000 of the population Germany, the Netherlands and at
>least one other country (I think it was France, but it might have been
>Belgium) have a much worse problem than we do.
The UK counts a whole family as ONE application, Germany counts all
the individuals. Witness Wednesdays Newsnight which featured a
Romanian man, his wife and their 8 children, all seeking asylum,
thanking the UK govt for his 'generous salary' - they are counted as
ONE application. This puts the UK well ahead of Germany.
>
>I think they come here because they see Britian as a place where they
>can get a job, set up a business, and start to earn real money, and
>generally have an improved standard of living.
The Romanians featured boasted that the reason they came was 'our
welcoming asylum rules' and the presence of 'many races' in London.
They thought the benefits [or 'salary' as he called it] were very
generous (at least he thanked the British people). Another said that
the benefits were good and could be supplemented by begging and
stealing, and the laws if caught were very lenient.
There are a whole range of reasons for people coming here - almost all
of them 'understandable' - from a genuine fear of brutal persecution
[increasingly small minority] all the way thru to a desire to steal
all they can, or to claim asylum and be immediately granted the full
use of the NHS to treat whatever illness/disease they can't get
treatment for in their own 3rd world country - London now has more TB
cases than any other European city, mainly amongst immigrants, 75% of
new AIDS cases in London are amongst immigrants.
If we are to accept immigrants it must be on OUR terms, not a
self-selecting bunch who come for entirely selfish reasons.
pmro...@my-deja.com
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:48:43 GMT, pmro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >I don't normally bother with your posts, but you seem to believe that
> >we have the worst asylum problem in the EU. This is not the case.
> >Measured per 1000 of the population Germany, the Netherlands and at
> >least one other country (I think it was France, but it might have
been
> >Belgium) have a much worse problem than we do.
In article <39f980ca...@news.giganews.com>,
BW324re...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
> The UK counts a whole family as ONE application, Germany counts all
> the individuals. Witness Wednesdays Newsnight which featured a
> Romanian man, his wife and their 8 children, all seeking asylum,
> thanking the UK govt for his 'generous salary' - they are counted as
> ONE application. This puts the UK well ahead of Germany.
No, sorry, the figures I was quoting come from the EU (Eurostat) which
measures this as individuals per 1000 of the population. They take
extraordinary trouble to measure it the same way in every country,
otherwise the figures would be skewed as you claimed. They aren't.
> The Romanians featured boasted that the reason they came was 'our
> welcoming asylum rules' and the presence of 'many races' in London.
> They thought the benefits [or 'salary' as he called it] were very
> generous (at least he thanked the British people).
I suppose compared with Romanian benefits they are. Compared with
benefits in other countries, they are poor. Added to which that we pay
benefits in the form of vouchers, not money, which must be a burden to
the person who has to do the shopping.
> Another said that
> the benefits were good and could be supplemented by begging and
> stealing, and the laws if caught were very lenient.
I wonder how much of this is true and how much 'received wisdom' (i.e.
lies or misunderstanding). I think the stuff spread in Romania and
other countries about the UK being a promised land should be taken with
a pinch of salt, by us, and even more so by the people it is aimed at.
I wonder where it comes from and whose making money out of it. Probably
those slimy individuals who make money smuggling those people in. The
question here is "who benefits?" And it's clear to me that they do. How
the UK's presence in Romania can do this, I'm not quite sure, because
it's clear that if that story is being spread about it's got a tight
hold on Romanian public consciousness. Pretty lies are infinitely more
attractive than the truth.
> If we are to accept immigrants it must be on OUR terms, not a
> self-selecting bunch who come for entirely selfish reasons.
So you would support the idea of importing people who already have
skills, and not others? I ask because I'm still undecided on this
point, I don't know whether it's better to have people come in who are
a self-selected group of people who come here for reasons which seem
good to them and are likely to be hardworking and entrepreneurial (like
the people rescued from Idi Amin in the 70s) or people who come here
with skills, but in doing so deny their home country the use of those
skills. Are doctors, for instance, or nurses more needed here than in
(say) Romania or India? What about IT professionals? I just wonder.
Barton Whoops
>> The UK counts a whole family as ONE application, Germany counts all
>> the individuals. Witness Wednesdays Newsnight which featured a
>> Romanian man, his wife and their 8 children, all seeking asylum,
>> thanking the UK govt for his 'generous salary' - they are counted as
>> ONE application. This puts the UK well ahead of Germany.
>
>No, sorry, the figures I was quoting come from the EU (Eurostat) which
>measures this as individuals per 1000 of the population. They take
>extraordinary trouble to measure it the same way in every country,
>otherwise the figures would be skewed as you claimed. They aren't.
My apologies. Is there a URL for these figures? I'm not saying I don't
believe you but I would be interested to see them.
>> The Romanians featured boasted that the reason they came was 'our
>> welcoming asylum rules' and the presence of 'many races' in London.
>> They thought the benefits [or 'salary' as he called it] were very
>> generous (at least he thanked the British people).
>
>I suppose compared with Romanian benefits they are. Compared with
>benefits in other countries, they are poor. Added to which that we pay
>benefits in the form of vouchers, not money, which must be a burden to
>the person who has to do the shopping.
There are many other benefits which are given, eg Housing, healthcare,
council services, legal aid etc but I confess I don't know how these
compare. I know Ireland gives £12/person/week;)
>I wonder how much of this is true and how much 'received wisdom' (i.e.
>lies or misunderstanding). I think the stuff spread in Romania and
>other countries about the UK being a promised land should be taken with
>a pinch of salt, by us, and even more so by the people it is aimed at.
>I wonder where it comes from and whose making money out of it. Probably
>those slimy individuals who make money smuggling those people in.
Good point and quite possibly true.
>> If we are to accept immigrants it must be on OUR terms, not a
>> self-selecting bunch who come for entirely selfish reasons.
>
>So you would support the idea of importing people who already have
>skills, and not others? I ask because I'm still undecided on this
>point, I don't know whether it's better to have people come in who are
>a self-selected group of people who come here for reasons which seem
>good to them and are likely to be hardworking and entrepreneurial (like
>the people rescued from Idi Amin in the 70s) or people who come here
>with skills, but in doing so deny their home country the use of those
>skills. Are doctors, for instance, or nurses more needed here than in
>(say) Romania or India? What about IT professionals? I just wonder.
Again a good point. I believe that past immigration policies, esp the
mass immigration of the 50s/60s etc have, at best, been of doubtful
value to this country and even for many of the individuals concerned
and their countries of origin. Some have prospered, like the African
Asians you mention, and undoubtedly contributed economically. I have
no problem with [say] allowing Philippine [sp?] nurses in, until I
look at the state of healthcare in the Philippines and I have to ask
the question 'Do we really need nurses more than they do? Why has our
govt let us get to this point?' Especially true of India of course,
often superbly educated individuals, doctors IT ppl etc, and what do
we do... nick em. In the long term I belive immigration/emigration
cannot be the solution to our or any other countries problems.
Migrating hordes constantly sweeping across the planet are not the
solution, they are a sign of the problem. All immigrants suffer from
dislocation/increased illness/depression whatever their colour/land of
choice.
I strongly believe that the rich countries have a duty to help the
poor ones, even using our military if the local govt f*cks up [ala
Sierra Leone]. As it is, it seems that the rest of the world wants to
get to either Western Europe or N America. We should encourage them to
stay put and build their own countries and do more to help them
achieve that.
Regards.
billy
<pmro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tc4ku$m6j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:48:43 GMT, pmro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >I don't normally bother with your posts, but you seem to believe
that
> > >we have the worst asylum problem in the EU. This is not the case.
> > >Measured per 1000 of the population Germany, the Netherlands and
at
> > >least one other country (I think it was France, but it might have
> been
> > >Belgium) have a much worse problem than we do.
>
> In article <39f980ca...@news.giganews.com>,
> BW324re...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
> > The UK counts a whole family as ONE application, Germany counts
all
> > the individuals. Witness Wednesdays Newsnight which featured a
> > Romanian man, his wife and their 8 children, all seeking asylum,
> > thanking the UK govt for his 'generous salary' - they are counted
as
> > ONE application. This puts the UK well ahead of Germany.
>
> No, sorry, the figures I was quoting come from the EU (Eurostat)
which
> measures this as individuals per 1000 of the population. They take
> extraordinary trouble to measure it the same way in every country,
> otherwise the figures would be skewed as you claimed. They aren't.
>
Rommel,
You are desperately trying to cover a retreat but still trying to
imply you have not lost the battle:
The figures the Home Office gives for asylum seekers show *ONLY* the
one who makes the application.
A person could have a wife and umpteen kids but *ONLY* the person
making the application is given in the figures.
All other European countries list *ALL* included in the application.
UK local authorities are left to determine how many comprises an
application and they get into a hell of a mess.
Because of the "unexpected" costs, Liverpool, for instance, has
withdrawn from the asylum seekers dispersal policy.
Any figures the Home Office gives can be multiplied by 3 - at least.
Eurostat would use Home Office figures.
Where else would thay get them from?
regards, billy
***********************************
billy
<pmro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tbtja$g1l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8t9ov4$kbp$4...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Also, the French are eagerly waving them on, across the Channel.
> > It is obvious the flood represents people on the make - having
crossed
> > half a dozen countries to get here - and should be immediately
sent
> > back.
>
> I don't normally bother with your posts, but you seem to believe
that
> we have the worst asylum problem in the EU. This is not the case.
> Measured per 1000 of the population Germany, the Netherlands and at
> least one other country (I think it was France, but it might have
been
> Belgium) have a much worse problem than we do.
rommel,
I can see from the contents of your post why it is you do not normally
bother with mine. Thank goodness that is the case: I have enough
loonies to contend with.
The implications of your stance is we should have a forever open door
to admit (to quote your words) "these unfortunate people" and thereby
relieve the social problems "these unfortunate people" are creating in
the land of their origin.
No doubt the Rumanian authorities, for instance, would be only too
please - even delighted - about our willingness to do that.
However:
Have you ever thought why it is "these unfortunate people" have such a
bad reputation in their own country?
Perhaps if you lived next door to the type of families the TV
programme portrayed, you might gain some enlightenment. The nearest
you will get to that experience is a horde of so called "travellers"
descending upon your area.
Sarah Sands wrote in the Daily Telegraph about a person representing
your type (and I quote):
"A former neighbour of mine was a vigorous supporter of the council's
policy of social integration. When a large one-parent family moved
next door to him, he welcomed them as a beneficial influence on a
morally bankrupt (i.e. middle-class) district.
"However, after discarded dirty mattresses and fast-food litter
started to pile up outside the house, he moved."
I suspect that neighbour is one of your type and I also suspect that
the Rumanian gypsies are of the type who turn wherever they go into a
crap-heap.
No doubt that is why the decent Rumanians delight in seeing the
gypsies disappear, as made possible by a daft Britain made that way
by people like you.
They even come in the back of lorries all the way from China, when
they get to know the "good news" that Britain has many "sympathetic"
people of your ilk who will be enormously generous with taxpayers
money whilst seeing old people's home close down because of lack of
funds.
However:
Please continue your habit of ignoring my postings. I have enough
Loony Left Marxist/Socialist to contend with without having the
nuisance of a sanctimonious sod.
regards, billy
P.S. regarding asylum numbers, see my other posting in this thread.
*********************************
billy
"Barton Whoops" <BW324re...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:39f980ca...@news.giganews.com...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:48:43 GMT, pmro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <8t9ov4$kbp$4...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Also, the French are eagerly waving them on, across the Channel.
> >> It is obvious the flood represents people on the make - having
crossed
> >> half a dozen countries to get here - and should be immediately
sent
> >> back.
> >
> >I don't normally bother with your posts, but you seem to believe
that
> >we have the worst asylum problem in the EU. This is not the case.
> >Measured per 1000 of the population Germany, the Netherlands and at
> >least one other country (I think it was France, but it might have
been
> >Belgium) have a much worse problem than we do.
>
> The UK counts a whole family as ONE application, Germany counts all
> the individuals. Witness Wednesdays Newsnight which featured a
> Romanian man, his wife and their 8 children, all seeking asylum,
> thanking the UK govt for his 'generous salary' - they are counted as
> ONE application. This puts the UK well ahead of Germany.
>
Barton:
You have it 100% correct. The Home Office only records the person who
makes an application and there is only one applicant required for each
family. The Home Office has only a vague idea of the actual numbers.
Local authorities are therefore left to sort out the mess.
Regards, billy
*************************
billy
Blown Bulb:
The whole question of people coming into this country under whatever
guise is pertinent to the subject.
Also:
I have dealt with the question of what would constitute British
citizenship.
Give me a specific case, if you cannot understand the principle, and I
will tell you what applies in that particular case.
If you have the arrogance to play God (Jesus Christ) then I suggest
you examine its implications. Without the power of miracle, it can be
a dangerous hubris.
In the case of only 6% being granted asylum, then that indicates the
vast majority are on the make. But they know, even if rejected, Jack
the man of Straw's Home Office does not press deportation but asks
them to leave with a polite note - which they ignore.
That is why they come here in droves, because they know the chances of
them being sent back - compared with other countries - is minimal.
I will also reply to another comment of yours, and I quote:
"Billy look-alikes in Bosnia, Kosovo, Romania turn on people because
they have the 'wrong' culture and force them out and then Billy blames
them for wanting to get out and come here."
Does the implications of this comment of yours fail even to penetrate
your Marxist/Socialist thick intellectual skin?
Does it not make even you realise its implicit message about "clash of
cultures".
However, you who believe you can imitate Jesus Christ and think you
have the power to work a miracle (i.e. a mulitcultural society - which
has never come into being anywhere without serious grief) will
obviously ignore the lesson because you believe those who warn and
whom you find "disturbing" represents people who are morally inferior
to your enlightened self who can "change the world" and banish all its
sins.
Even Jesus Christ failed to do that.
*regards*, billy
************************************
pmro...@my-deja.com
BW324re...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
> Is there a URL for these figures? I'm not saying I don't
> believe you but I would be interested to see them.
I don't have a whole URL, but if you search say,
http://www.alltheweb.com/ for "Eurostat" it will take you to the
various Eurostat web pages. You have to be a registered user for some
of the information, but the press releases give basic information about
migration. Do a search under press releases for "migration". Another
useful source for this kind of information is the OECD, and they have
an easily found (if not so easily navigated!) web page.
pmro...@my-deja.com
> >> welcoming asylum rules' and the presence of 'many races' in London.
> >> They thought the benefits [or 'salary' as he called it] were very
> >> generous (at least he thanked the British people).
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:49:06 GMT, pmro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >I suppose compared with Romanian benefits they are. Compared with
> >benefits in other countries, they are poor. Added to which that we
pay
> >benefits in the form of vouchers, not money, which must be a burden
to
> >the person who has to do the shopping.
Barton Whoops wrote:
> There are many other benefits which are given, eg Housing, healthcare,
> council services, legal aid etc but I confess I don't know how these
> compare. I know Ireland gives £12/person/week;)
But the Irish system is fairly similar to ours: they would also have to
have healthcare, housing, etc, etc. I don't know where the £12 a week
comes from, my understanding of the Irish social security system is
that it's basically similar to ours, with a slightly higher rate of
benefits in general.
I don't know precisely what they pay asylum seekers but I wasn't aware
that it was less than they pay anyone else, though I have a feeling
they too may be looking at vouchers. According to the Irish Department
of Social, Community and Family Affairs site they are paid the same
rate of welfare benefits as anyone else and are subject to the same
means and assets tests. <http://www.comhairle.ie/information/Relate%
20June%02000main.html#Rights of asylum seekers>
As far as I'm aware, the only other country in the EU (social security
in the EU is what I'm studying for my Master's degree) which pays in
vouchers is Germany, though I could be wrong.
> As it is, it seems that the rest of the world wants to
> get to either Western Europe or N America. We should encourage them to
> stay put and build their own countries and do more to help them
> achieve that.
I tend to think so, too. It's not that I don't want there to be more
doctors in the NHS, but I'm aware that we're stealing (in effect) an
asset which may be even more vital to their home country. I think we
need to put more effort into persuading them to stay, but how we do
this I confess I don't know.
pmro...@my-deja.com
"billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Rommel,
> You are desperately trying to cover a retreat but still trying to
> imply you have not lost the battle:
> The figures the Home Office gives for asylum seekers show *ONLY* the
> one who makes the application.
And where are you getting these figures from, Billy? Eurostat takes
that into account when preparing its figures.
> Eurostat would use Home Office figures.
> Where else would thay get them from?
Some of their stats do come from local sources, but statisticians
aren't idiots (despite what you may believe) they do know what is
counted and what isn't in the various countries and they do collect
their own informaton as a control. Do check out their site, I'm sure
you'd learn a lot.
pmro...@my-deja.com
"billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I can see from the contents of your post why it is you do not normally
> bother with mine. Thank goodness that is the case: I have enough
> loonies to contend with.
Two compliments in two days, I think it was yesterday RH finally said I
was a 'liberal bigot'. I feel I'm making progress here.
> Have you ever thought why it is "these unfortunate people" have such a
> bad reputation in their own country?
Racism?
> Perhaps if you lived next door to the type of families the TV
> programme portrayed, you might gain some enlightenment.
No, I'm not starting with you the long argument I had with RH when he
accused me of living in a middle class enclave. It's still in
deja.com's archive, you can look it up. Suffice it to say that I live
in a working class area of east London.
pmro...@my-deja.com
pmro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> According to the Irish Department
> of Social, Community and Family Affairs site they are paid the same
> rate of welfare benefits as anyone else and are subject to the same
> means and assets tests. <http://www.comhairle.ie/information/Relate%
> 20June%02000main.html#Rights of asylum seekers>
Looking at the site more carefully, under the Irish system they are
housed 'full board' and given pocket money, which will be where the
I£12 a week comes from I expect. My apologies.
This is what the Irish site says about asylum seekers, "In general,
asylum seekers are not entitled to work. Those who were in the country
in July 1999 and had already been here for a year do have the right to
work [snip reference to work permits]. They are entitled to receive
Supplementary Welfare Allowance (SWA) subject to the usual rules about
means. SWA is the lowest social welfare payment available. They are
also entitled to rent supplement and, possibly, other SWA emergency
payments. Recent arrivals are not receiving SWA directly. Instead, the
government has adopted a policy of "direct provision" which means they
are provided with full board and services and get pocket money every
week.
"Entitlement to SWA is based on legislation. This legislation has not
been changed to reflect the new arrangements and it is not clear that
direct provision meets the requirements, of the legislation. In
general, the children of asylum seekers may attend local schools and
avail of language support services".
BOEDICIA
>Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2000 08:55 EDT
>Message-id: <8teibu$ihh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
In your spare time perhaps you could find out where these "asylum seekers"
are coming from country by country and who is persecuting them. Then it might
be helpful to ask if and when they are planning to return after the persecutors
are no longer in power.
Ireland appears to very generous with
the money they get from the EU
especially since this money comes
mainly from the British taxpayer.
> In general, the children of asylum seekers may attend local schools and
>avail of language support services"
No doubt adding to the size of the
already overcrowded classrooms
and expecting the teachers to speak
all the languages of the persecuted
ones.
National and racial suicide.
pmro...@my-deja.com
boed...@aol.com (BOEDICIA) wrote:
> In your spare time perhaps you could find out where these "asylum
seekers"
> are coming from country by country
You seem to be the one with the spare time, Bo. Suggest you try
Eurostat, do a search on the press releases on the subject "migrant"
or "migration." The figures are there for all to see.
> Ireland appears to very generous with
> the money they get from the EU
> especially since this money comes
> mainly from the British taxpayer.
You're misinformed. Britain is a net contributor, but not to a huge
extent, not as much for instance as Germany, and earns more from it in
increased trade than it costs. Check out the FCO website. This
information is freely available, but obviously you too prefer lies to
truth.
> > In general, the children of asylum seekers may attend local schools
and
> >avail of language support services"
>
> No doubt adding to the size of the
> already overcrowded classrooms
> and expecting the teachers to speak
> all the languages of the persecuted
> ones.
I think the point is that the Irish provide translators and teachers of
English where necessary. And presumably teachers of Irish, too.
> National and racial suicide.
Don't see why it bothers you, they're Irish not British.
billy
<pmro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tegqm$heo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8tea9s$32n$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Rommel,
> > You are desperately trying to cover a retreat but still trying to
> > imply you have not lost the battle:
> > The figures the Home Office gives for asylum seekers show *ONLY*
the
> > one who makes the application.
> > All other European countries list *ALL* included in the
application.
>
> And where are you getting these figures from, Billy? Eurostat takes
> that into account when preparing its figures.
>
> > Eurostat would use Home Office figures.
> > Where else would thay get them from?
>
> Some of their stats do come from local sources, but statisticians
> aren't idiots (despite what you may believe) they do know what is
> counted and what isn't in the various countries and they do collect
> their own informaton as a control. Do check out their site, I'm sure
> you'd learn a lot.
>
Come off it, Rommel. You are certainly not a desert fox - you are not
even a moth eaten stuffed fox.
If Liverpool could not get accurate figures regarding how many people
were involved in the dispersal programme for rip-off asylum seekers -
and were so shocked at the actual numbers, that they had to withdraw
from the scheme because of its unexpected expense - what bloody chance
do you think the devious bureaucrats of Brussels have to get accurate
figures.
Knowing that devious lot, they would be only too eager to take the
Home Office figures because it makes their countries look more
favourable.
You must be a College Kid who still has an idealistic view of the
world.
The Home Office are reluctant to use total figures because such would
cause alarm. In using this expediency of playing down numbers, they
get themselves in one hell of a mess. They have no real idea of actual
numbers and in getting an advantage of playing the figures down in one
way, they suffer in other ways - such as the Liverpool farce.
I hope you grow up and get worldly wise. If you do not, you will do a
lot of damage.
regards, billy
***************************
billy
<pmro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8teh2o$ho4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Rommel:
Again you have to use the word racism. If the Romanians dislike a
crowd of disreputable people who only create nuisance, in the way the
so called travellers do in this country, they are deemed racist.
Like the criminal blacks, it is never the fault of the wrongdoer but
it is all due to "racism" they become the way they are.
People have a choice to be what they are.
but, of course, you Marxist will blame "the system".
However, a closer examination will reveal it certainly *is* the fault
of those who acquire a bad reputation - as it is the fault of the
hordes of travellers we get around my district every so often with
their crime and rubbish.
If people wish to be treated decently they should behave decently and
prove their worth. But if people chose to live like pigs, they will be
seen that way.
You sanctimonious sods like to make your declarations from the moral
heights you have chosen for yourselves - and at no expense or
inconvenience to yourselves.
I have every sympathy for the decent Rumanians who want shut of their
nuisances. The only pity is that sanctimonious sods like yourself
encourage the expelled rubbish to move here and turn our country into
a crap-heap.
regards, billy
********************************
pmro...@my-deja.com
"billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Come off it, Rommel. You are certainly not a desert fox - you are not
> even a moth eaten stuffed fox.
Wrong Rommel.
> You must be a College Kid who still has an idealistic view of the
> world.
<giggle> I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted, I haven't
been taken for a teenager for quite twenty years. My grey hairs salute
you.
> I hope you grow up and get worldly wise. If you do not, you will do a
> lot of damage.
And I get called dangerous in the same post. Better and better.
billy
<pmro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tmdet$hba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8tkflb$cv6$3...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Come off it, Rommel. You are certainly not a desert fox - you are
not
> > even a moth eaten stuffed fox.
>
> Wrong Rommel.
>
> > You must be a College Kid who still has an idealistic view of the
> > world.
>
> <giggle> I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted, I haven't
> been taken for a teenager for quite twenty years. My grey hairs
salute
> you.
Girls giggle - not men
*******************************
>
> > I hope you grow up and get worldly wise. If you do not, you will
do a
> > lot of damage.
>
> And I get called dangerous in the same post. Better and better.
>
You are dangerous without knowing; it because it is attitudes like
yours which will destroy this country. However, with a name like
Rommel, you are probably trying to do what could not be done with
force of arms.
regards, billy
******************************
Roger Watts
I see I'm being upgraded. Tell me Billy, you are always quoting the
bible. Did not Christ say that he wanted us to follow him? Did he not
repeatedly set his disciples examples of how he wanted them to behave?
So why is following Christ's example of tolerance and compassion such a
crime?
>then I suggest
>you examine its implications. Without the power of miracle, it can be
>a dangerous hubris.
>In the case of only 6% being granted asylum, then that indicates the
>vast majority are on the make. But they know, even if rejected, Jack
>the man of Straw's Home Office does not press deportation but asks
>them to leave with a polite note - which they ignore.
>That is why they come here in droves, because they know the chances of
>them being sent back - compared with other countries - is minimal.
OK Billy, your turn to cite the evidence - I gave you the Home office
figures - you say the number of returnees is 'minimal' - prove it!
>
>I will also reply to another comment of yours, and I quote:
>"Billy look-alikes in Bosnia, Kosovo, Romania turn on people because
>they have the 'wrong' culture and force them out and then Billy blames
>them for wanting to get out and come here."
>Does the implications of this comment of yours fail even to penetrate
>your Marxist/Socialist
Sigh!
>thick intellectual skin?
>Does it not make even you realise its implicit message about "clash of
>cultures".
No, what it says to me is what you and others like you have always made
obvious. That bigotry is endemic and that extreme nationalists (like you
and others here) can always play on that to promote misery for others.
>However, you who believe you can imitate Jesus Christ and think you
>have the power to work a miracle (i.e. a mulitcultural society - which
>has never come into being anywhere without serious grief)
There are many multi-cultural societies in the world - indeed most are
in one sense or another. Given long enough, all societies 'come to
serious grief'. You have proclaimed long and loud that our country has
been homogeneous for about 1000 years until recently. So what were the
causes of the numerous civil wars which have stricken us - were the Wars
of the Roses the result of multi-culturalism? As far as I know there
were very few 'Africans' in Europe or indeed much migration of any sort
leading up to the murderous Thirty Years War.
>will
>obviously ignore the lesson because you believe those who warn and
>whom you find "disturbing" represents people who are morally inferior
>to your enlightened self who can "change the world" and banish all its
>sins.
You cannot banish racial bigotry, just as we can't banish murder, rape
etc. Where our approach differs, is that you say you seek to excuse the
crimes such as ethnic cleansing and genocide on the grounds of human
nature and claim that you can prevent it by authoritarian and draconian
measures - measures that just conveniently banish people *you* don't
*like* - like Muslim women.
Your dislike of Muslim women in full purdah is interesting. Have you
considered that the rationale behind this is exactly yours? Rape and
sexual harassment is endemic in men and therefore the solution is to
insist that women are removed from any opportunity to tempt men into
those crimes - whether the women like it or not. You really should
wholeheartedly approve - thought of converting to Islam, Billy?
>Even Jesus Christ failed to do that.
Sadly, on that evidence, Christ has failed pretty miserably all round,
so perhaps Mohammed might be a better bet?
--
Roger Watts
Lucky Larry
So it ain't the fault of the men," it was her clothes yer onour, she waz
gagging for it"
You are so supercilious you almost defy belief.
To misquote you from a post on me, you have a very jaundiced view of women.
- whether the women like it or not. You really should
> wholeheartedly approve - thought of converting to Islam, Billy?
>
> >Even Jesus Christ failed to do that.
>
> Sadly, on that evidence, Christ has failed pretty miserably all round,
> so perhaps Mohammed might be a better bet?
> --
> Roger Watts
Not the brightest bulb on the block.
billy
> In article <8teaa0$32n$4...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
<jo...@billy100.fr
> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:Z2aNV0AO...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <8t9ov4$kbp$4...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> ><jo...@billy100.fr
> >> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >> >
> >> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:qRox8MAK...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> >> >> In article <8t4fdp$n9v$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
> >> ><jo...@billy100.fr
> >> >> eeserve.co.uk> writes
> >> >> >"Roger Watts" <ro...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message
> >> >> >news:B5f7GBAR...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
> >> >> >> >> And your 'solution' is? Let's hear it Billy.
> >> >> >******************************************
> >> >> >Watts: You have really blown your bulb.
> >Blown Bulb:
> >The whole question of people coming into this country under
whatever
> >guise is pertinent to the subject.
> >Also:
> >I have dealt with the question of what would constitute British
> >citizenship.
> >Give me a specific case, if you cannot understand the principle,
and I
> >will tell you what applies in that particular case.
> >If you have the arrogance to play God (Jesus Christ)
>
> I see I'm being upgraded. Tell me Billy, you are always quoting the
> bible. Did not Christ say that he wanted us to follow him? Did he
not
> repeatedly set his disciples examples of how he wanted them to
behave?
> So why is following Christ's example of tolerance and compassion
such a
> crime?
Blown Bulb:
Christ was not the namby-pamby you are trying to make out.
When he perceived actions which he thought threatened the integrity
and stability of that which he held sacred, he took action.
For instance:
When he drove the traders out of the Temple.
Likewise, the influx of immigrants and refugees are threatening the
stability and integrity of this country.
Action should be taken.
regards, billy
****************************
> >In the case of only 6% being granted asylum, then that indicates
the
> >vast majority are on the make. But they know, even if rejected,
Jack
> >the man of Straw's Home Office does not press deportation but asks
> >them to leave with a polite note - which they ignore.
> >That is why they come here in droves, because they know the chances
of
> >them being sent back - compared with other countries - is minimal.
>
> OK Billy, your turn to cite the evidence - I gave you the Home
office
> figures - you say the number of returnees is 'minimal' - prove it!
*******************************
Blown Bulb:
How about this:
Stephen Boys Smith, director general of the Immigration and
Nationality Directorate at the Home office told MPs there were no
reliable figures on how many failed asylum seekers had vanished and
were working illegally in Britain.
"We have no idea of the exact accumulated figures but the numbers will
be very large," he told the Home Office Affairs Select Committee. "It
could be as many as hundreds of thousands of people. Once their
applications for refugee status is turned down, many simply
disappear."
regards, billy
*****************************
> >I will also reply to another comment of yours, and I quote:
> >"Billy look-alikes in Bosnia, Kosovo, Romania turn on people
because
> >they have the 'wrong' culture and force them out and then Billy
blames
> >them for wanting to get out and come here."
That bigotry is endemic and that extreme nationalists (like
you
> and others here) can always play on that to promote misery for
others.
************************
Blown Bulb:
It seems we need a bit more bigotry in the Home Office.
regards, billy
*******************************
>
> There are many multi-cultural societies in the world - indeed most
are
> in one sense or another. Given long enough, all societies 'come to
> serious grief'. You have proclaimed long and loud that our country
has
> been homogeneous for about 1000 years until recently. So what were
the
> causes of the numerous civil wars which have stricken us - were the
Wars
> of the Roses the result of multi-culturalism? As far as I know
there
> were very few 'Africans' in Europe or indeed much migration of any
sort
> leading up to the murderous Thirty Years War.
*****************************
Blown bulb:
If it is possible to have tensions between people who are basically of
the same stock and like-minded, it is dangerous to bring together
people who are *not* of the same stock and are *not* like-minded.
Serious grief can occur.
regards, billy
**************************
>
> You cannot banish racial bigotry, just as we can't banish murder,
rape
> etc. Where our approach differs, is that you say you seek to excuse
the
> crimes such as ethnic cleansing and genocide on the grounds of human
> nature and claim that you can prevent it by authoritarian and
draconian
> measures - measures that just conveniently banish people *you* don't
> *like* - like Muslim women.
**************************
Blown Bulb:
When I see the women of Islam walking around my town clad in black
from head to foot, I think it represents an obscenity and I would far
rather that offence was removed from this country - where it does not
belong.
regards, billy
************************************
>
> Your dislike of Muslim women in full purdah is interesting. Have you
> considered that the rationale behind this is exactly yours? Rape and
> sexual harassment is endemic in men and therefore the solution is to
> insist that women are removed from any opportunity to tempt men into
> those crimes - whether the women like it or not. You really should
> wholeheartedly approve - thought of converting to Islam, Billy?
>
>
> Sadly, on that evidence, Christ has failed pretty miserably all
round,
> so perhaps Mohammed might be a better bet?
> --
> Roger Watts
**************************************
Blown Bulb:
The record of Islam as far as peace and tranquillity is even worse.
Christianity has at least recognised that much of its faults were
transgressing against the fundamental teachings and Christianity has
now "settled down" to apply itself more "carefully".
However, the Islam atrocities *are* in accordance with the teaching of
Islam and are still rampaging today.
We are best sticking with Christianity. It is the most benign of all
the religions.
regards, billy
***************************************
Roger Watts
<ny...@worldonline.co.uk> writes>news:Dy1LkXAB...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Your dislike of Muslim women in full purdah is interesting. Have you
>> considered that the rationale behind this is exactly yours? Rape and
>> sexual harassment is endemic in men and therefore the solution is to
>> insist that women are removed from any opportunity to tempt men into
>> those crimes
>
>So it ain't the fault of the men," it was her clothes yer onour, she waz
>gagging for it"
> You are so supercilious you almost defy belief.
>
There you go again, jumping in with both feet into the water melon. Any
fool could see that I am stating what, in my opinion, is the rationale
behind fundamental Muslim thoughts on the passions aroused in men by
women and how to resolve what they see as a problem.
Billy has the same thought process on removing the threat to disorder
cause by multicultural societies - and that's me giving my view of
Billy's position.
--
Roger Watts
pencil
You cannot banish racial bigotry, just as we can't banish murder, rape
etc. Where our approach differs, is that you say you seek to excuse the
crimes such as ethnic cleansing and genocide on the grounds of human
nature and claim that you can prevent it by authoritarian and draconian
measures - measures that just conveniently banish people *you* don't
pencil reminds :
When one contrasts two opposing views, it is customary to present
both views...you forgot to present your side of this argument...we're
waiting, with baited breath indeed!
BOEDICIA
>Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 10:32 EST
>Message-id: <3a0d...@news.telinco.net>
>v...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk...
wrote.
>Did not Christ say that he wanted us to follow him?
"I come only to The Lost Sheep of The
House of Israel" - Christ.
"Think not that I came to bring peace......"
Christ.
>> So why is following Christ's example of tolerance and compassion
>such a crime?
Save your compassion for the widows
of P.C. Blakelock and the schoolmaster
Lawrence. Not fogetting of course poor
Tony Banks:)
>Blown Bulb:
>How about this:
>Stephen Boys Smith, director general of the Immigration and
>Nationality Directorate at the Home office told MPs there were no
>reliable figures on how many failed asylum seekers had vanished and
>were working illegally in Britain.
"17,000 Asylum Seekers Missing".
Telegraph 13th. May 1998
"Secret Amnesty lets in bogus Asylum
Seekers" - Telegraph 1998
In the above there are over 10,000 cases
dating from before 1993 that are over the 7 year limit.
>"We have no idea of the exact accumulated figures but the numbers will
>be very large," he told the Home Office Affairs Select Committee. "It
>could be as many as hundreds of thousands of people. Once their
>applications for refugee status is turned down, many simply disappear."
>However, the Islam atrocities *are* in accordance with the teaching of
>Islam and are still rampaging today.
>We are best sticking with Christianity. It is the most benign of all the
religions.
>regards, billy
Blown Bulb also seems to prefer
"Festive Embellishments of an Illuminary
Nature" (Northampton) to "Christmas
Lights".
Do you think he lives in "Winterval" Land?