Race realism grows - BBC says "Why should the British have to change their ways" shock!
Robert Henderson
the subject of national identity and the end of multiculturalism.
Many of the callers were unambiguously anti-immigrant and particularly
resolute in their objections to Islam (they would not have got one air
even six months ago).
Even more interesting was Worricker's behaviour. At one point he said to
one of the more aggressive Muslim callers who was pushing the "The
British must change to accommodate us" line "Why should the British do
that?".
The only studio guests were both Muslim (no white English, pro-English
guests, natch - things do not change all at once ). When one of them
interjected to someone criticising Islam with "Do we have to listen to
this crap?" he was met by Worricker saying "Let him finish". A
stunned Muslim studio presence silence ensued as the BBC's usual liberal
bigot cringing appeasement of Muslims failed to work. RH
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
MikeinCamden
che guevara
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>The Radio 5 phone-in of 5 April hosted by Julian Worricker addressed
>the subject of national identity and the end of multiculturalism.
>
>Many of the callers were unambiguously anti-immigrant and particularly
>resolute in their objections to Islam (they would not have got one air
>even six months ago).
>
>Even more interesting was Worricker's behaviour. At one point he said to
>one of the more aggressive Muslim callers who was pushing the "The
>British must change to accommodate us" line "Why should the British do
>that?".
>
>The only studio guests were both Muslim (no white English, pro-English
>guests, natch - things do not change all at once ). When one of them
>interjected to someone criticising Islam with "Do we have to listen to
>this crap?" he was met by Worricker saying "Let him finish". A
>stunned Muslim studio presence silence ensued as the BBC's usual liberal
>bigot cringing appeasement of Muslims failed to work. RH
'the times the are a-changing' (R Zimmerman, 1960s summat)
'and merrily i say so, tra la la' (Che, April 5th 2004)
now for my plan: those who don't like it here should be ordered to apply
to emigrate to a muslim country of their choice. if they decline to do
so, they should be shipped to currently uninhabited scottish islands,
where we will have erected for them a mini muslim town or village, but
where they will still be subjected to UK law.
i can't think of a better plan.
oh, and those who burn the union jack and chant that bin liner's on his
way should be clapped up inside. with bliar for company.
and no, i am of the centre, usually centre left, but i saw all this shit
coming long-ish ago. a very astute former diplomatic warned me of it in
the 1980s.
che
Maria
Knickers. Why should Scotland have to put up with them? Why not deport
them to wherever their origins are?
Robert Henderson
<mikein...@aol.com> writes
>When things change they tend to change suddenly
In politics it is two steps forward one step back most of the time. Then
one reaches the tipping point and BANG. RH
>- the paradigm shift concept.
--
che guevara
<ivegot6kidsooerhowt...@ntlworld.com> writes
their origins may well be....England.
they can make hand-sewn haggis bags for the wee scottish fellahs and be
forced to pray to allah every 5 seconds, 24/7.
--
che
che guevara
<mikein...@aol.com> writes
>When things change they tend to change suddenly - the paradigm shift concept.
blink and you'll miss this one.
the nutters have really cooked their bleedin goose now.
--
che
Energumen
news:VizfEJAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <20040405091055...@mb-m17.aol.com>, MikeinCamden
> <mikein...@aol.com> writes
> >When things change they tend to change suddenly
>
> In politics it is two steps forward one step back most of the time. Then
> one reaches the tipping point and BANG. RH
>
> >- the paradigm shift concept.
What is really needed is someone who is demonstrably and obviously not a
fascist and not a racist to come out strongly against multiculturalism. That
was why Pim Fortuyn sent shivers down the spine of the powers that be. As an
openly (some may even say vulgarly open) gay with people of a different
colour in positions of power in his party he just wouldn't go into that
"mindless nazi" pigeon hole.
Whether anyone agrees with such a person isn't the point, it is that their
existence forces the debate to finally begin. It stops people (on both
sides) from simply following a script and forces people to justify their
views from first principles.
Energumen
news:aZecc.30194$Y%6.36...@wards.force9.net...
> "Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VizfEJAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <20040405091055...@mb-m17.aol.com>, MikeinCamden
> > <mikein...@aol.com> writes
> > >When things change they tend to change suddenly
> >
> > In politics it is two steps forward one step back most of the time. Then
> > one reaches the tipping point and BANG. RH
> >
> > >- the paradigm shift concept.
>
> What is really needed is someone who is demonstrably and obviously not a
> fascist and not a racist to come out strongly against multiculturalism.
That
> was why Pim Fortuyn sent shivers down the spine of the powers that be. As
an
> openly (some may even say vulgarly open) gay with people of a different
> colour in positions of power in his party he just wouldn't go into that
> "mindless nazi" pigeon hole.
>
> Whether anyone agrees with such a person isn't the point, it is that their
> existence forces the debate to finally begin. It stops people (on both
> sides) from simply following a script and forces people to justify their
> views from first principles.
>
...and that includes the cardboard cut-out racist types too.
Robert Henderson
<ener_...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> In politics it is two steps forward one step back most of the time. Then
>> one reaches the tipping point and BANG. RH
>>
>> >- the paradigm shift concept.
>
>What is really needed is someone who is demonstrably and obviously not a
>fascist and not a racist to come out strongly against multiculturalism. That
>was why Pim Fortuyn sent shivers down the spine of the powers that be. As an
>openly (some may even say vulgarly open) gay with people of a different
>colour in positions of power in his party he just wouldn't go into that
>"mindless nazi" pigeon hole.
>
>Whether anyone agrees with such a person isn't the point, it is that their
>existence forces the debate to finally begin. It stops people (on both
>sides) from simply following a script and forces people to justify their
>views from first principles.
Exactly. RH
David Platt
Robert Henderson wrote:
> The Radio 5 phone-in of 5 April hosted by Julian Worricker addressed
> the subject of national identity and the end of multiculturalism.
>
> Many of the callers were unambiguously anti-immigrant and particularly
> resolute in their objections to Islam (they would not have got one air
> even six months ago).
People, and even the 'lovies' in the media it seems are finally waking
up to what has been unfolding in front of their faces for so many years.
The crux of the matter now is, is there still time to reverse the trend,
how do you tell millions that it's time to go home without causing chaos?
Maybe we already have been told the answer to this by a great statesman
back in 1968, who was ridiculed for his sage advice.
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
Bwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
Take to the bloody streets then.
I am fucking sick and tired of seeing all you wimps whining like a
bunch of fairies on UKPM.
JRP
David Platt
j...@somewhere.com wrote:
> Bwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
>
> Take to the bloody streets then.
>
> I am fucking sick and tired of seeing all you wimps whining like a
> bunch of fairies on UKPM.
You are the only wimpy fairy here, you prancing poof.
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>
>
Why are you not on the streets "taking your country" back?
Chickenshit.
JRP
David Platt
j...@somewhere.com wrote:
> Why are you not on the streets "taking your country" back?
>
> Chickenshit.
You have my email address. Lets arange a meeting, and I'll start by
taking you off the streets. You big girls's blouse.
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>
>
Hohohoho.
I am the wrong colour in your eyes.
Chickenshit.
I want to hear about you in the news tomorrow, taking your country
back.
JRP
David Platt
j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>>You have my email address. Lets arange a meeting, and I'll start by
>>taking you off the streets. You big girls's blouse.
>
>
> Hohohoho.
>
> I am the wrong colour in your eyes.
Yeah fuck of you fucking black bastard.
> Chickenshit.
>
> I want to hear about you in the news tomorrow, taking your country
> back.
I'd love to cut your ugly head off and shit down your neck,
you fucking piece of foreign scum.
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>
>
>j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
>>>You have my email address. Lets arange a meeting, and I'll start by
>>>taking you off the streets. You big girls's blouse.
>>
>>
>> Hohohoho.
>>
>> I am the wrong colour in your eyes.
>
>
>Yeah fuck of you fucking black bastard.
You really are a muppet aren't you. Comprehension is not your thing
is it.
>
>> Chickenshit.
>>
>> I want to hear about you in the news tomorrow, taking your country
>> back.
>
>
>I'd love to cut your ugly head off and shit down your neck,
>you fucking piece of foreign scum.
No, you would love to talk about, but you are too chickenshit to do
anything about it.
JRP
David Platt
j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
> You really are a muppet aren't you. Comprehension is not your thing
> is it.
No you are the muppet gungadin, go and make me a curry or something,
then fuck off.
> No, you would love to talk about, but you are too chickenshit to do
> anything about it.
Try me, you have my email address, but then you are too much of a coward.
Stephen Glynn
"MikeinCamden" <mikein...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040405091055...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> When things change they tend to change suddenly - the paradigm shift
concept.
That's not a "paradigm shift". They usually take quite some time to be
accepted -- Copernican astronomy for example or Einstinian physics -- and
properly speaking they only take place in the sciences.
You're think of the Althusserian Marxist idea of an "overdetermined
contradiction". Don't ask me to try to explain what one of those is
because it would take far to long and the idea's the sort of thing that
would only ever occur to a French Marxist post-structuralist philosopher.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 31/03/2004
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>
>
>j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
>>
>> You really are a muppet aren't you. Comprehension is not your thing
>> is it.
>
>
>No you are the muppet gungadin, go and make me a curry or something,
>then fuck off.
It would appear I was spot on.
>> No, you would love to talk about, but you are too chickenshit to do
>> anything about it.
>
>
>Try me, you have my email address, but then you are too much of a coward.
You sound about 12.
Fix your clock shit for brains.
JRP
MikeinCamden
Please.
MikeinCamden
David Platt
j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>>No you are the muppet gungadin, go and make me a curry or something,
>>then fuck off.
>
>
> It would appear I was spot on.
It would apprear you are an ignorant paki troll.
>
> You sound about 12.
>
> Fix your clock shit for brains.
I'd really love to get my hands round your neck.
and squeeze.
David Platt
MikeinCamden wrote:
> Please please. We don't need trouble in fairyland. Diversity within unity.
> Please.
LOL, fairlyland is right!
David Platt
Stephen Glynn wrote:
> You're think of the Althusserian Marxist idea of an "overdetermined
> contradiction". Don't ask me to try to explain what one of those is
> because it would take far to long and the idea's the sort of thing that
> would only ever occur to a French Marxist post-structuralist philosopher.
Oh yes, 'don't ask me to explain what one of those is' because that
might expose the fact that I'm speaking through my backside.
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>
>
>j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
>>>No you are the muppet gungadin, go and make me a curry or something,
>>>then fuck off.
>>
>>
>> It would appear I was spot on.
>
>
>It would apprear you are an ignorant paki troll.
You assumed I was not white, therefore, your comprehension skills are
right up there with nursery kids.
>> You sound about 12.
>>
>> Fix your clock shit for brains.
>
>I'd really love to get my hands round your neck.
>and squeeze.
Hahaha. You could try, but you're too chickenshit.
JRP
David Platt
j...@somewhere.com wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:25:31 -0700, David Platt <pl...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>No you are the muppet gungadin, go and make me a curry or something,
>>>>then fuck off.
>>>
>>>
>>>It would appear I was spot on.
>>
>>
>>It would apprear you are an ignorant paki troll.
>
>
> You assumed I was not white, therefore, your comprehension skills are
> right up there with nursery kids.
You are not white, stop trying to hide behind the invisibility of the
net, you don't even have the courage to print your name.
>>I'd really love to get my hands round your neck.
>>and squeeze.
>
>
> Hahaha. You could try, but you're too chickenshit.
Just give me a chance!
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>>>>>No you are the muppet gungadin, go and make me a curry or something,
>>>>>then fuck off.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It would appear I was spot on.
>>>
>>>
>>>It would apprear you are an ignorant paki troll.
>>
>>
>> You assumed I was not white, therefore, your comprehension skills are
>> right up there with nursery kids.
>
>
>You are not white, stop trying to hide behind the invisibility of the
>net, you don't even have the courage to print your name.
I am not white, I am pinky white, sometime brownish after my two weeks
in France.
>>>I'd really love to get my hands round your neck.
>>>and squeeze.
>>
>>
>> Hahaha. You could try, but you're too chickenshit.
>
>Just give me a chance!
Tell you what, I'll give you a chance when I hear about your taking
your country back.
JRP
Greg Hennessy
>>Yeah fuck of you fucking black bastard.
>
>You really are a muppet aren't you. Comprehension is not your thing
>is it.
>
Ahh, you've finally noticed that of Mr Pratt.
greg
--
Cast in the name of God. Ye not guilty.
Greg Hennessy
>I'd love to cut your ugly head off and shit down your neck,
>you fucking piece of foreign scum.
Can I get tickets ? Most amusing to note the keyboard bravado.
David Platt
j...@somewhere.com wrote:
> I am not white, I am pinky white, sometime brownish after my two weeks
> in France.
Yeah sure you are...
>>>>I'd really love to get my hands round your neck.
>>>>and squeeze.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hahaha. You could try, but you're too chickenshit.
>>
>>Just give me a chance!
>
>
> Tell you what, I'll give you a chance when I hear about your taking
> your country back.
Except you won't be around, you'll be on the slow boat delhi with the
rest of your tribe.
David Platt
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:05:04 +0100, j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Yeah fuck of you fucking black bastard.
>>
>>You really are a muppet aren't you. Comprehension is not your thing
>>is it.
>>
>
>
> Ahh, you've finally noticed that of Mr Pratt.
Hennessey thick as 2 short planks.
David Platt
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:02:23 -0700, David Platt <pl...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'd love to cut your ugly head off and shit down your neck,
>>you fucking piece of foreign scum.
>
>
>
> Can I get tickets ? Most amusing to note the keyboard bravado.
Take your turn, Mr Wimp.
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>
>
>j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
>> I am not white, I am pinky white, sometime brownish after my two weeks
>> in France.
>
>Yeah sure you are...
Yup, I am.
>>>>>I'd really love to get my hands round your neck.
>>>>>and squeeze.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hahaha. You could try, but you're too chickenshit.
>>>
>>>Just give me a chance!
>>
>>
>> Tell you what, I'll give you a chance when I hear about your taking
>> your country back.
>
>Except you won't be around, you'll be on the slow boat delhi with the
>rest of your tribe.
Wot, not firing lines, gas chambers or work camps.
You really are a chickenshit.
JRP
John Bull
<j...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:be6370haar3rjdb05...@4ax.com...
> I am fucking sick and tired of seeing all you wimps whining like a
> bunch of fairies on UKPM.
I don't think Bratt whines that much:-))
David Platt
j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
> Yup, I am.
Pink a poor's boudoire in demenor, but brown as a turd in aspect.
>>>>>>I'd really love to get my hands round your neck.
>>>>>>and squeeze.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hahaha. You could try, but you're too chickenshit.
>>>>
>>>>Just give me a chance!
>>>
>>>
>>>Tell you what, I'll give you a chance when I hear about your taking
>>>your country back.
>>
>>Except you won't be around, you'll be on the slow boat delhi with the
>>rest of your tribe.
>
>
> Wot, not firing lines, gas chambers or work camps.
How about a free one way ticket to the turd world anecstral home of
your ancestry.
> You really are a chickenshit.
You really are on your last legs you unwelcome guest, please go home.
Aramis Gunton
writes
>The crux of the matter now is, is there still time to reverse the
>trend,
>how do you tell millions that it's time to go home without causing chaos?
Heat the tin roof slowly. Eventually only the rabid pussies will be left
hot footing it and they can be justifiably 'put to sleep'
--
Aramis Gunton
Greg Hennessy
>> Ahh, you've finally noticed that of Mr Pratt.
>
>
>Hennessey thick as 2 short planks.
>
Tut tut, is that the best you can do ?
Greg Hennessy
>>>I'd love to cut your ugly head off and shit down your neck,
>>>you fucking piece of foreign scum.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can I get tickets ? Most amusing to note the keyboard bravado.
>
>Take your turn, Mr Wimp.
>
ROTFL! Or what ? Please elucidate. You going to go all violet elizabeth on
us and squeem and squeem until you are thick ?
Maria
wrote:
>
>
>j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>>
>> Yup, I am.
>
>Pink a poor's boudoire in demenor, but brown as a turd in aspect.
Are you p*ssed, perchance?
David Platt
Maria wrote:
>>Pink a poor's boudoire in demenor, but brown as a turd in aspect.
>
>
> Are you p*ssed, perchance?
no, just sick of reading the usual vomit, so throwing up in solidarity.
David Platt
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:39:57 -0700, David Platt <pl...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Ahh, you've finally noticed that of Mr Pratt.
>>
>>
>>Hennessey thick as 2 short planks.
>>
>
>
> Tut tut, is that the best you can do ?
Not the best i can do no, but surely good enough for you smeg.
David Platt
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> ROTFL! Or what ? Please elucidate. You going to go all violet elizabeth on
> us and squeem and squeem until you are thick ?
Stop waving your handbag.
Peter
> The Radio 5 phone-in of 5 April hosted by Julian Worricker addressed
> the subject of national identity and the end of multiculturalism.
>
> Many of the callers were unambiguously anti-immigrant and particularly
> resolute in their objections to Islam (they would not have got one air
> even six months ago).
>
> Even more interesting was Worricker's behaviour. At one point he said to
> one of the more aggressive Muslim callers who was pushing the "The
> British must change to accommodate us" line "Why should the British do
> that?".
>
> The only studio guests were both Muslim (no white English, pro-English
> guests, natch - things do not change all at once ). When one of them
> interjected to someone criticising Islam with "Do we have to listen to
> this crap?" he was met by Worricker saying "Let him finish". A
> stunned Muslim studio presence silence ensued as the BBC's usual liberal
> bigot cringing appeasement of Muslims failed to work. RH
I caught a little of this myself. I have noticed a shift over the past
week or so in the normally pc sensitive BBC. It has not changed completely
though, as an asian identifying 'the muslim problem' as the main challenge
to racial integration during the phone-in was quickly censored by the
muslim contributor. However, the muslim contributor himself was great
overall, calling for support for a british identity and rejection of
multi-culturalism in stark contrast to a pc-obsessed black contributor. I
enjoyed the way the muslim told the truth that muslims were simply more
difficult to integrate into british society due to their emotional
allegiance to, for example, pakistan and islam, than other ethnic groups.
Let's be clear, it is white people who have imposed pc concepts on white
people. Muslims did not instigate this nonsense, but the left-wing british
establishment, using third world peoples as a battering ram against british
national identity. It was gratifying to see a muslim defend britishness.
This is a sad trend, though, that only a gay man, pim fortuyn, and anyone
else who cannot be conveniently branded a right-wing extremist are the only
ones who gain headway in such a debate in the western media. This
underlines the continuing power of political correctness.
Overall I really enjoyed the steady stream of the ordinary white people,
though, who phoned in and voiced serious concerns about political
correctness and multiculturalism, supported by the muslim. This sort of
programme would not have been possible unless the establishment had not
realised that sweeping under the carpet racial tensions and objections to
multiculturalism was no longer effective. Especially with threat of a
muslim bomb in britain ready to rip apart the current consensus. I just
hope it does not take the deaths of british people to disprove the
multicultural model as it stands; I hope the tactical retreat of the forces
of political correctness turns into a major reverse.
Stephen Glynn
"David Platt" <pl...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:4071A4F7...@mail.com...
No, it's "don't ask me because other than saying that it's roughly what
Mike's talking about when he refers to a 'paradigm shift' it's damn near
impossible to explain in under 10 pages and isn't worth the effort".
Essentially Althusser took Freud's idea of an "overdetermined symbol" in
dreams. What's one of those? When analysing his patients' dreams Freud
was stuck by the fact that frequently people had apparently perfectly
mundane dreams about mundane situations in which, for some unknown reason, a
completely normal object -- a table or something -- seemed to have some
enormous and often quite frightening significance. Eventually Freud hit on
the theory that the table or whatever it was didn't actually stand for one
particular thing. Instead it was a point where several completely
different and unconnected strands of unconscious thought coalesced.which is
why it became so important to the dreamer.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of Freud's idea, Althusser tried to use
this concept in political analysis to explain why sometimes apparently
trivial political events or crises which you'd normally expect a state to be
able to accomodate could somehow trigger quite cataclysmic social upheaval.
He argued -- not very convincingly or even comprehensibly at least to my
mind -- that this was because because the political event was in some way
the nexus of various political and economic fault-lines within the society.
I'm not sure that Althusser uses this example but I suppose you could say
that he was referring to something like the assassination of Archduke
Ferdinand at Sarajevo, where an apparently comparatively trivial incident
(well, not for Archduke Ferdinand, of course) had such cataclysmic and
far-reaching effects. Another might be the Indian Mutiny, where the
(apparently false) rumour that the Sepoys had been issued with cartridges
greased with a combination of pork lard and cow grease -- thus upsetting
both the Muslim and the Hindu troops -- and what started as a small mutiny
at Meerut over this turned into a rebellion that almost drove us out of
India.
Aren't you glad I've explained that to you?
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 01/04/2004
David Platt
Stephen Glynn wrote:
> "David Platt" <pl...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4071A4F7...@mail.com...
>
>>
>>Stephen Glynn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're think of the Althusserian Marxist idea of an "overdetermined
>>>contradiction". Don't ask me to try to explain what one of those is
>>>because it would take far to long and the idea's the sort of thing that
>>>would only ever occur to a French Marxist post-structuralist
>>
> philosopher.
>
>>
>>Oh yes, 'don't ask me to explain what one of those is' because that
>>might expose the fact that I'm speaking through my backside.
>>
>
>
> No, it's "don't ask me because other than saying that it's roughly what
> Mike's talking about when he refers to a 'paradigm shift' it's damn near
> impossible to explain in under 10 pages and isn't worth the effort".
>
> Essentially Althusser took Freud's idea of an "overdetermined symbol" in
> dreams. What's one of those? When analysing his patients' dreams Freud
> was stuck by the fact that frequently people had apparently perfectly
> mundane dreams about mundane situations in which, for some unknown reason, a
> completely normal object -- a table or something -- seemed to have some
> enormous and often quite frightening significance. Eventually Freud hit on
> the theory that the table or whatever it was didn't actually stand for one
> particular thing. Instead it was a point where several completely
> different and unconnected strands of unconscious thought coalesced.which is
> why it became so important to the dreamer.
But it's only Freud who believed that it was important to the dreamer,
the dreamer may not have thought it important at all, and it probably
was not important at all. The notion of 'unconscious thought'
coalescing, is hardly scientific.
> Whatever the merits or otherwise of Freud's idea, Althusser tried to use
> this concept in political analysis to explain why sometimes apparently
> trivial political events or crises which you'd normally expect a state to be
> able to accomodate could somehow trigger quite cataclysmic social upheaval.
> He argued -- not very convincingly or even comprehensibly at least to my
> mind -- that this was because because the political event was in some way
> the nexus of various political and economic fault-lines within the society.
sounds good, but means little.
> I'm not sure that Althusser uses this example but I suppose you could say
> that he was referring to something like the assassination of Archduke
> Ferdinand at Sarajevo, where an apparently comparatively trivial incident
> (well, not for Archduke Ferdinand, of course) had such cataclysmic and
> far-reaching effects. Another might be the Indian Mutiny, where the
> (apparently false) rumour that the Sepoys had been issued with cartridges
> greased with a combination of pork lard and cow grease -- thus upsetting
> both the Muslim and the Hindu troops -- and what started as a small mutiny
> at Meerut over this turned into a rebellion that almost drove us out of
> India.
>
> Aren't you glad I've explained that to you?
Not really no.
It's an inconcise way of saying that Freud was reading too much into
symbols that he really knew far less about that he would care to admit,
or in short he was engaging in quasi scientific bottom yodelling.
anone...@spam.nothanks
<ener_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >- the paradigm shift concept.
>
>What is really needed is someone who is demonstrably and obviously not a
>fascist and not a racist to come out strongly against multiculturalism. That
>was why Pim Fortuyn sent shivers down the spine of the powers that be. As an
>openly (some may even say vulgarly open) gay with people of a different
>colour in positions of power in his party he just wouldn't go into that
>"mindless nazi" pigeon hole.
>
>Whether anyone agrees with such a person isn't the point, it is that their
>existence forces the debate to finally begin. It stops people (on both
>sides) from simply following a script and forces people to justify their
>views from first principles.
The debate has been going on for ages. The problem for 'race realists'
is that too many of them are simply full of anger and hate, and
everyone else turns off. Good examples are those people who
1) Argue that the Holocaust didn't happen
2) Want to deport all immigrants
3) Believe that we should return to the 1950s class structure of the
UK
4) Think that gays/women/muslims/pick your own object of hate are evil
All of which views can be found on this newsgroup and are just so
f*cking stupid that the holder is dismissed.
Look at the posters here arguing for this stuff
1) Wotan - nothing more than a clown
2) Platt - probably the stupidest person ever to post to this
newsgroup
3) John Bull - probably the least pleasant and most insecure person
ever to post to this group, vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception
4) Arealman - what more need be said?
5) Henderson - lots of what he writes is fine, I think it was his
letter to Trevor Philips about racial discrimination at the CRE that
was fabulously pointed. But he's also a total nutter, arguing Blair
has persecuted him and the rest.
Then there's Boedicia and Billy and a whole host of others. Be honest
with yourself. Do you really think they are impressive?
anone...@spam.nothanks
>>> I am the wrong colour in your eyes.
>>
>>
>>Yeah fuck of you fucking black bastard.
Does it surprise you that 'race realists' are an ignored minority when
this is the best you can do?
BTW, it's "fuck off"
anone...@spam.nothanks
<cubedr...@cubedrum.doc> wrote:
>>The only studio guests were both Muslim (no white English, pro-English
>>guests, natch - things do not change all at once ). When one of them
>>interjected to someone criticising Islam with "Do we have to listen to
>>this crap?" he was met by Worricker saying "Let him finish". A
>>stunned Muslim studio presence silence ensued as the BBC's usual liberal
>>bigot cringing appeasement of Muslims failed to work. RH
>
>'the times the are a-changing' (R Zimmerman, 1960s summat)
>
>'and merrily i say so, tra la la' (Che, April 5th 2004)
>
>now for my plan: those who don't like it here should be ordered to apply
>to emigrate to a muslim country of their choice. if they decline to do
>so, they should be shipped to currently uninhabited scottish islands,
>where we will have erected for them a mini muslim town or village, but
>where they will still be subjected to UK law.
>
>i can't think of a better plan.
Which is why everyone ignores you
David Platt
anone...@spam.nothanks wrote:
> The debate has been going on for ages. The problem for 'race realists'
> is that too many of them are simply full of anger and hate, and
> everyone else turns off. Good examples are those people who
Listen you fucking thick non entity prick, you don't understand anything
about it.
> 1) Argue that the Holocaust didn't happen
> 2) Want to deport all immigrants
> 3) Believe that we should return to the 1950s class structure of the
> UK
I'll take on item 3, which is the point that the class structure didn't
just magically dissappear just becuase a few immigrants showed up in the
50s. THe cultural change that was happening among whites was something
that was going on independent of immigration and throwing that into the
mix only made the social changes taking place seem more confusing.
But the cultural changes have not eliminated class consiousness.
The fact is that Britain was and is a society who's culture is defined
by class immigrants have no place in this structure and artificial
politically correct pussyfooting around the issue will not do anything
to create a place for them at the table.
David Platt
The best i can do is to leave the whole mess to scum like you,
which I did.
Greg Hennessy
--
Greg Hennessy
>> Tut tut, is that the best you can do ?
>
>Not the best i can do no,
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"
Says it so much better than what I ever could.
greg
John Bull
<anone...@spam.nothanks> wrote in message
news:qei470lrlv4379vas...@4ax.com...
John Bull
"Greg Hennessy" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ftl370p5thvcnnkf2...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:39:57 -0700, David Platt <pl...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Ahh, you've finally noticed that of Mr Pratt.
> >
> >
> >Hennessey thick as 2 short planks.
> >
>
> Tut tut, is that the best you can do ?
Better than any of your diatribe to date:-))
John Bull
<anone...@spam.nothanks> wrote in message
news:e4j4701kqj1hlt4oe...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:05:04 +0100, j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
> >>> I am the wrong colour in your eyes.
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah fuck of you fucking black bastard.
>
> Does it surprise you that 'race realists' are an ignored minority
That'll probably explain Howard's speech in Bolton then:-))
John Bull
"Peter" <peter_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a6r6lfnd0wi2.jjt5biwme8hy$.dlg@40tude.net...
Peter!, I am a thorough going bastard according to some people on this NG,
thank fuck, my message is getting across:-))
I would however like to shake your hand for a superbly considered and
written piece!
The race realists are finally making their mark upon this world, even the
darkies are beginning to see the light.
Strange then that so many posters on this ng can't, maybe they'll be the
rats who won't escape the sinking ship, I do hope so:-))
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I want to know why I haven't received a mention.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Stephen Glynn
Well, exactly. Freud's theory was dubious in the first place unless you
see it as a form of medititation that somehow helped him and his patients
understand what their problems were. That I'm prepared to accept just as
I'm prepared to accept acupunture works at times without necessarily
accepting the theory that goes with it. Althusser then took this dubious
theory competely out of context and tried to apply it to society with the
aid of another very dubious theory to try to explain why at times certain
apparently quite minor upheavals have such massive consequences. It
certainly didn't help that he did it in academic French, a language in which
it's fatally easy to write pages of very elegant and completely meaningless
prose.
John Bull
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:c4u3uu$2k7p22$1...@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de...
He's a nonentity, it's so obvious:-))
Robert Henderson
anone...@spam.nothanks writes
>5) Henderson - lots of what he writes is fine, I think it was his
>letter to Trevor Philips about racial discrimination at the CRE that
>was fabulously pointed. But he's also a total nutter, arguing Blair
>has persecuted him and the rest.
>
The Individual
MAGAZINE OF THE SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAl FREEDOM
Editor: PAUL ANDERTON
Edition: No. 27, February 1999. ISSN 1357-6429.
Published by The Society for Individual Freedom
EDITORIAL
In this edition of The Individual we publish, in the first article, a
disturbing account of injustice and, if anything even more disturbing,
an example of long-term indifference to it by the major media. The
basic evidence has been carefully examined by several responsible
people and we can publish this without any fear of libel or other legal
action. Only a 'tacit conspiracy' among the major media can have
prevented one or more of them publicising this evidence any time during
the past two years.
The most likely explanation (or excuse) for this is the possibility,
even likelihood that anyone even discussing the original subject
matter will be accused of racism '. This, together with child
pornography or drug abuse, is routinely used as a universal
'discussion suppressant'. The mere possibility of such accusation,
irrespective of any factual or rational considerations, is enough to
strike fear into the hearts of editors and proprietors.
In contrast 'cultural diversity' and 'multiculturalism' is supposed to
be unquestionably and uncritically supported. But if anybody notes
that some strange cultural habit is apparently confined to a certain
'ethnic minority' and observes it in any but the most fulsome
approval, then cultural diversity rapidly metamorphoses into racism.
Fortunately The Individual, being entirely independent of advertising
or proprietorial interference, is under no such constraints.
Paul Anderton
THE THIRD WAY OF JUSTICE?
by Paul Anderton
On the 13 March 1997 Tony and Cherie Blair tried to have a certain
Robert Henderson put in prison. Through Belgravia police, they
attempted, but comprehensively failed, to have him prosecuted for
three separate criminal offences, namely common assault and
breaches of the Malicious Communications and Race Relations Acts. After
the failure to have Mr Henderson prosecuted, Special Branch
(definitely) and MI5 (possibly) were set to spy on him.
The background to this situation is that in July 1995 a specialist
cricket magazine, Wisden Cricket Monthly (WCM), published an article
by Robert Henderson entitled 'Is It in the Blood?'. This addressed the
question of race and culture and its influence on sporting
performance. It caused all immense outcry in the media. They all
sensationalised and misrepresented the content of the article to which
Mr Henderson was allowed no meaningful or unedited reply to this
misrepresentation. The upshot of the media vilification and his
inability publicly to reply was that he was left with the public tag of
racist, which in 1990s Britain is a synonym for Nazi. From that point
onwards he could get no justice from any quarter. The Blairs went to
the police after Mr Henderson had written to them seeking their
assistance to obtain redress for both the misrepresentation by the
media and the failure to act by bodies such as the Press Complaints
Commission, and also for the subsequent alleged misbehaviour towards
him of his MP, Frank Dobson, and the (black) Labour MP, Diane Abbott.
He wrote to Mrs Blair only as a last resort after Tony Blair had
persistently refused to address his complaints over a period often
months.
In the aftermath of "Is It in the Blood?', Frank Dobson refused to take
up any of Mr Henderson's complaints against the media in any way
despite the fact that these complaints were precisely those which an MP
should address, namely matters of general public interest.
Diane Abbott sent Mr Henderson an unsolicited letter in which she got
on her anti-racist high horse about "Is It in the Blood?'. In view of
her later statements about "blue eyed blond Finns" this letter
contained such hypocritical gems as 'You show no appreciation of
acceptable terminology and mores' and 'As an ex-journalist who still
dabbles, I believe that we have a duty to write on a subject we know
about. And if we are not fully conversant with the topic, to undertake
the necessary research.'
As may be concluded from the failure of the police even to interview Mr
Henderson, his letters to the Blairs contained no threat, gross abuse,
or obscenity. They were short in length and reasonable in number. (He
sent Tony Blair 9 letters over ten months, his wife 4. The combined
text of the letters to Tony Blair totalled 2675 words: to Cherie Blair
755 words.) He wrote so often only because of the persistent failure
of the Blairs to address his complaints. The only racial references in
the letters were to publicly reported instances of racism within the
Labour Party. Moreover, he only raised those matters after Frank Dobson
had gratuitously called him a racist, and Diane Abbott had sent him
the letter mentioned above.
Mr Henderson only discovered that the Blairs had been to the police
through a lurid and apparently libellous Mirror story of 25/3/97
headlined "Pest Targets Blairs". This falsely accused him of having
committed a criminal offence against the Blairs, of being a dangerous
racist and of having the mentality of a stalker. It further stated that
the Blairs had attempted to lay criminal charges against him and that
their complaints were studied by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
It also claimed that Special Branch had been asked to keep an eye on
him. The Mirror story cited Labour HQ and Scotland Yard as its
sources. Mr Henderson obtained fuller details of the Blairs' complaint
using the provisions of the Data Protection Act (DPA). These produced a
printout of data held at Belgravia Police station. This data confirms
the part of the Mirror story which deals with the involvement of the
Police, the CPS and Special Branch . It also shows that the Blairs
attempted to have him prosecuted on the three charges mentioned above,
that the CPS rejected all the complaints in short order, that the
Blairs considered and rejected civil action to gag him, and that the
security services were appointed to spy on him.
The complaint of common assault is literally absurd. Assault by words
alone issued verbally is an offence unknown to English law, let alone
assault by the written word alone.
The Malicious Communications Act requires there to be one or more of
the following: sustained and gross abuse, gross obscenity, or
illegitimate threats or libels amounting to criminal libel. The CPS's
remarkably rapid rejection of the complaints (on the same day that
they were referred) shows that Mr Henderson did not engage in such
behaviour. Interestingly, Mrs Blair had recent legal experience in the
area of contentious correspondence.
The referral under the Race Relations Act (RRA) was simply sinister.
The part of the act under which charges were considered is Section 70
which runs: A person commits an offence if (a) he publishes or
distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting;
or (b) he uses in any public place or at any public meeting words which
are threatening, abusive or insulting , in a case where having regard
to all the circumstances, hatred is likely to be stirred up against any
racial group in Great Britain by the matter or words in question.
The Blairs went to the police after Mr Henderson had written to them
seeking their assistance to obtain redress for both the
misrepresentation by the media and the failure to act by bodies such
as the Press Complaints Commission
The reason that the definition cannot logically be stretched to cover
such instances is that the Act does not distinguish in its general
provisions between racial or cultural groups, ie everyone is equal
before the law. Ergo, that which is legal for blacks and Asians to
refer to must be legal for whites to mention. Robert Henderson's
letters to the Blairs only contained complaints about publicly
reported instances of acts of anti-white racism perpetrated by black
Labour MPs and complaints from Asians of white-sponsored racism within
Labour constituency parties. By definition, they could not have
constituted an offence.
To the manifest absence of criminal behaviour on Mr Henderson' s part
may be added the truly incredible fact that the complaints were
brought six weeks after his last letter to Tony Blair and two weeks
after his last letter to Cherie Blair. Therefore, it was not a
continued correspondence which prompted the complaint to the police.
Why then did the Blairs make a complaint? Consider these facts. The
Blairs went to the police shortly after Mr Henderson began circulating
copies of his correspondence with them, Frank Dobson, and Diane Abbott
to the media and the Tory party. This correspondence showed Blair to
be both arrogant and unwilling to discipline his own MPs; Dobson to be
straightforwardly refusing to do his duty as his MP (presumably for
party and ideological reasons); and Abbott to be hypocritical. There
was also the incredibly unpleasant and dangerous (for Labour) fact
that he was pointing to the racist mote in Labour's eye. A very
different picture from that of the New Moral Labour Party which Blair
had assiduously built. That Blair should consider getting himself
involved in three criminal case s during the most important six weeks
of his life (the pre-1997 General Election period) shows how much he
feared these facts being made public.
Since they went to the police in March 1997, the Blairs have refused to
answer his complaints and enquiries to them about their behaviour and
the Mirror article in any way. They have failed to take criminal or
civil action against him since the publication of the Mirror story,
despite the fact that they know that he has given a very wide
distribution to accusations against them which if untrue would be
massively libellous. Both Mr Henderson's MP, Frank Dobson, and the
Labour Party General Secretaries, Tom Sawyer and Mary McDonagh, have
refused to investigate his complaints against either the Blairs or the
Labour Party Mirror informants.
The Mirror staff have refused either to defend their story or allow Mr
Henderson an opportunity to reply. The Mirror editor, Piers Morgan,
has admitted in a letter to the PCC that he does not have any letters
to substantiate his story.
The full extent of Mr Henderson's efforts to enlist the help of those
in a position of power or influence can be seen from the accompanying
table. The uniformity of response has been complete. Not one of the
individuals or organisations he has contacted has been willing even to
meet him to discuss the matter, let alone take up his case. Perhaps the
most extraordinary part of the affair is the utter failure of the
media to take up the story.
Consider what they have universally ignored since March 1997. The
Mirror story is sensational both in content and presentation. It
involved the man who was almost certain to become Prime Minister. A
general election campaign was about to commence. Yet not one newspaper
or broadcaster took up the story or approached him. Nor, despite the
most immense efforts, has he been able to elicit any overt media
interest either before or since the election.
What could the media have done without any fear of libel suits from the
Blairs? They could have approached Mr Henderson for an interview. They
could have run after the Mirror story. They could have pursued the
involvement of Labour HQ and the Police.
Blair could also have been asked the following questions without
running the risk of libel:
Why did he wait for six weeks after Mr Henderson' s last letter to him
before going to the police?
Having attempted to have Mr Henderson prosecuted for criminal offences,
why did he never take civil action - with its much lower standard of
proof -against him?
How could two such experienced lawyers as the Blairs be so mistaken
about the validity of their complaints that the CPS rejected them on
the day they we re referred to them?
Mr Henderson has hard evidence (seen by myself) that further action
will be taken against him when Blair feels it safe to do so. The B
Belgravia police printout contains two seemingly banal phrases. The
first is "[Blair] did not wish, with an election looming to start
collecting evidence against an irritant like Henderson "; the second:
"There is no further action to take at present by officers from
Belgravia".
Consider those statements against these facts. The only contact Mr
Henderson has ever had with the Blairs is by letter. The only evidence
the police had were his letters. The CPS had summarily refused the
Blairs' complaints. He was officially guilty of no crime. Therefore,
the police by definition had no legitimate reason to investigate him
further. The same general objection applies to the use of the security
services to spy on him. So why the suggestion that further action might
be taken in future?
Mr Henderson also has evidence of the Blairs' political motivation in
making the complaints against him and their personal animosity towards
him. A letter from Bob Farley of the Metropolitan Police's DPA
administration office states that the Blairs made these statements on
the Belgravia Police record: that Mr Henderson had "far right-wing
views" (political motivation based on the false premise that Mr
Henderson is an extreme right-winger) and "an irritant like Henderson"
(personal animosity).
The most sinister aspect of this affair is the manner in which the
justice system has failed. From the Crown Prosecution Service and
the police Mr Henderson believes that he has met with nothing but
wilful obstruction in his attempts to investigate exactly what
happened - the police essentially refuse to correspond with him, while
the CPS engages in unending prevarication. Moreover, the complaints he
has made to the police have been treated in a manner which ranges from
the wilfully incompetent to the unreservedly corrupt. The most blatant
maladministration of justice is the Metropolitan Police's refusal to
record a complaint against the Mirror and an unnamed police source.
The Mirror has admitted in writing to the PCC that they received
information about the Blairs' complaints against him from a police
officer in circumstances which can only have been illegitimate. The Met
have refused to record the complaint. The Police Complaints Authority
claim that they cannot act unless a complaint is recorded. The logic
of this is that the police can get rid of any complaint by the simple
procedure of not recording it.
Equally worryingly, when Mr Henderson has tried to get solicitors to
take up the case, every single one has refused, either on the grounds
that they are too busy or that Cherie Blair works for them.
The bottom line is that while Blair remains as Prime Minister, Mr
Henderson is effectively without the protection of the law. Is this
what we all might expect in the future from Tony Blair's New Labour
'Third Way' Britain?
A longer account of the Henderson case appears at -
http://freespace.virgin.net/
Individuals and Organisations who refused help
POLITICS
All current Tory MPs (164) - Each Cabinet Minister - Two dozen Labour
"rebels" - Paddy Ashdown
The Leaders of every minority Commons Party Independent MP Martin Bell
Several dozen ex MPs
A dozen cross-bench Lords
The Speaker
JUSTICE
The DPP
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner
The Head of Special Branch
Each Law Lord
The Crown Prosecution Service
The Metropolitan Police
The Metropolitan Police Committee
The Interception of Canonisations Tribunal
The Security Service Tribunal
THE MEDIA
All National Newspapers
The Press Complaints Commission
The BBC- ITN- Channel 4
John Birt (BBC Director General) Each BBC Governor
The Broadcasting Complaints Commission
OTHER ORGANISATIONS
Justice - Liberty - The Freedom Association - Charter 88
>Then
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
pencil
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote
> THE THIRD WAY OF JUSTICE?
>
> by Paul Anderton
>
> On the 13 March 1997 Tony and Cherie Blair tried to have a certain
> Robert Henderson put in prison.
Yes, I've read this before. It is an interesting tale. Why do you think they
did this?
Robert Henderson
<pencil...@ntlworld.com> writes
The only rational explanation is they thought my circulation of the
letters to the media and the Tory Party in March 1997 would affect
Labour's election chances - Blair was anticipating a narrow win before
the May 1 landslide. Here is something I wrote about Blair's likely
motivation.
Why did the Blairs go to the police?
Robert Henderson
Any party going into an election cannot afford to have its
leader embroiled in matters which personally discredit him.
In the recent election it was unusually important for Labour
to keep their leader's nose clean, because since his
election as leader Blair had engaged in what can only be
described as a cult of personality. Even more to the point,
the Labour party had not merely permitted this cult of
personality, but embraced it as their central policy.
Labour's election strategy can be summed up in two phrases
'Time for a change' and 'Blair can be trusted'. This was an
immensely risky ploy because it placed all Labour's electoral
eggs in one basket. Blair discredited equalled Labour loses
the election, because their determination to make this
election as policy free a campaign as was possible left the
party with nothing to fall back on beyond the electorate's
weariness with conservative rule, something which probably
would have been overridden by any serious doubts about Blair
as leader.
There was also the fact that Blair is very poor when placed
under pressure - a fact tacitly recognised by Labour in their
highly disciplined efforts to keep him away from hostile
questioning during the campaign. It is doubtful whether he
would have stood up well to questions about the Mirror
article and our previous correspondence.
By March 1997 I had been in correspondence with Blair for a
year. He had persistently failed to act upon my serious
complaints about two Labour MPs, Frank Dobson (my MP) and
Diane Abbott. In addition I had raised with Blair various
anti-white statements made by Keith Vaz and Bernie Grant.
All these matters Blair simply ignored. He was even unwilling
to state the Labour position on ostensibly unembarrassing
topics such as media misbehaviour and self-regulating bodies
like the PCC.
As the election approached Blair was aware that I was
circulating to the national media and Central Office copies
of the letters I had sent to him and the cursory replies
dispatched to me by his private office. Blair could not be
sure that the media would not use the material against him.
Indeed, based on the normal behaviour of mediafolk, he would
have had every reason to believe that the media would take
up the story in a big way. He had even greater reason to
believe the conservatives would use it.
In addition to his own misbehaviour, Blair had several other
serious matters to worry about. First, Frank Dobson was a
senior Labour figure who had refused to act upon complaints
from me which were precisely those an MP is meant to take
up, namely matters of general and serious public
importance. Moreover, because Dobson had been incautious
enough to make his ideological bias against me clear in his
letters to me, it was obvious that the man was failing to do
his duty as my MP for disreputable reasons and had,
consequently, made a mockery of the idea that an MP
represents all his constituents impartially regardless of
their politics.
Second, and probably most importantly, I was pressing Blair
on the subject which terrifies politicians above all else in
modern Britain, namely race.
When I first approached Dobson in 1995 it was in connection
with the media response to an article I had written in Wisden
Cricket Monthly entitled 'Is it in the blood?' This dealt
with the question of immigrants of all races in the England
cricket team. Though cautiously written, it provoked a
tarantella of media anti-racist posturing with me (natch)
cast in the role of Nazi.
Suspecting that Dobson would find it difficult to act for me,
both for ideological reasons and because of the nature of his
constituency which contains a large ethnic component, I made
it clear in my initial approach that I did not expect him to
defend my ideas, merely my right to express them. However,
Dobson could not resist the temptation to show what a
stalwart anti-racist he is. Accordingly he expressed his
disgust for what he imagined were my ideas in his first
letter to me, then gratuitously called me a racist when I
went to see him. It was this behaviour which provoked me into
pointing out the racist behaviour within his own party such
as the disputes over the selection of Asian candidates in
Glasgow and Bethnal Green on the white side and the
anti-white statements of Vaz, Grant and Diane Abbott on the
coloured side.
Diane Abbott had also given me a personal reason to write to
first Dobson then Blair. After the publication of 'Is it in
the blood?' she sent me an unsolicited letter in which she
got on her anti-racist high horse. In view of her later
statements about "blue eyed blond Finns' this contained such
hypocritical gems as 'You show no appreciation of acceptable
terminology and mores' and 'As an ex-journalist who still
dabbles, I believe that we have duty to write on a subject we
know about. And if we are not fully conversant with the topic
to undertake the necessary research.' Both Blair and Dobson
refused to address the issue of Miss Abbott's hypocrisy
towards me and her failure to answer my letters.
As the election got under way Blair was faced with the very
real prospect of either the media or the conservatives taking
up my story. Neither he nor his party could afford to let
that happen because of Blair's pivotal role in the Labour
campaign. Blair was left with three options. The first was
to legally silence me for the duration. The second to
intimidate me. The third to discredit me so thoroughly that
neither the rest of the media nor the conservative party
would touch me.
The normal way of preventing someone from speaking or
publishing is by injunction. However, this was out of the
question because an attempt to gain an injunction, even if
successful, would have drawn attention to something nasty in
the Labour woodshed. It could also have required Blair to
appear in court. In addition, as I was raising matters of
general political interest with Blair rather than engaging in
matters which might be libellous, it is highly unlikely that
an injunction would have been obtained for the duration of
the campaign. That being so, Blair was left with the options
of attempting to have me charged with a criminal offence or
of issuing a writ for libel against me. As the latter course
would have attracted many of the disadvantages of an
injunction and could have had embarrassing and expensive
repercussions if the suit was dropped, he turned to an
attempt at having a criminal charge brought against me,
either by a complaint made by his wife or by himself.
If the Mirror story is correct in the matter of police and
CPS involvement, Blair or his wife went to the police (at
Belgravia police station I have discovered) with the
intention of having me charged with an offence relating to
our correspondence. This would have made my correspondence
with the Blairs and any other correspondence connected to it
sub judice. Then neither the media nor his political
opponents could have used my story until court proceedings
were underway, which would, of course, have been after the
election. Doubtless any charge would have been dropped after
election to save Blair from going into the witness box. As
this was to be a criminal charge brought by the Crown, no
costs would have fallen on Blair if he gave up the case. Nor
would he have had to issue any apology to me.
Blair's problem in persuading the CPS to bring a criminal
charge was twofold. Firstly, assault was a nonstarter
because under English law words alone cannot constitute an
assault. (I had at no time attempted to physically approach
either of the Blairs or speak with them on the phone).
Secondly, my letters contained no threats or obscene
language. Ergo no charges could be brought for those reasons.
The CPS refuse to give me any details of what happened after
the papers were submitted to them by Belgravia police, but it
is reasonable to conclude that the CPS told Blair that no
charges could be brought because no offences had been
committed. He was then left with the second and third
options, namely to intimidate and discredit me. The
consequence was the Mirror article.
The Mirror story is a clear attempt to both intimidate and
discredit me. The intimidation comes from the references to
the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and Special Branch.
The discrediting is done by phrases such as "graphic racist
filth", "gutter language", "the mentality of a stalker" and
the claims that I have bombarded the Blairs with dozens of
threatening letters. All of this is given credibility by the
references to the police, the CPS and Special Branch.
Since the Mirror story was published I have written to the
Blairs, Frank Dobson, Peter Mandelson, Alistair Campbell
(ex-political editor of The Mirror and Blair's press
secretary) Keith Vaz, Diane Abbott, Bernie Grant, the DPP,
Sir Paul Condon (Metropolitan police commissioner), the head
of Special Branch and the officer in charge at Belgravia
police station. Only Dobson, Abbott and Campbell have
directly answered my letters. The head of Special Branch and
the officer in charge at Belgravia Police station have done
so through a third party. The others, including the Blairs,
refuse to answer in any way.
The answers I have received all studiously avoid answering
the questions posed in my letters, This silence extends to
refusals to tell me the name of the person who made the
complaint against me at Belgravia police station and to
confirm or deny whether papers were sent to the DPP. Most
tellingly, none will deny outright their involvement in or
knowledge of the genesis of the story. The editor of the
Mirror, Piers Morgan, also refuses to confirm or deny the
involvement in the story of senior members of the Labour
party. Innocent men do not refuse to issue denials.
In addition to the behaviour described above, there is also
the fact that the story was printed by the Mirror. If it had
been any other paper, I might have accepted that it was done
without Blair's knowledge. But not the Mirror, which is once
become once again the Labour house journal. Moreover,
Alistair Campbell is the ex-political editor of the Mirror.
One fact about the Mirror article's genesis is
incontrovertible. The story must have originated from within
the Labour party and originated from either Blair or someone
close to Blair. Why? Only Blair or a close associate would
have had access to all the information in the Mirror story.
Imagine you are on a jury in a civil court case. Where would
you judge that the balance of probability lies? That Blair
knew nothing about the story or that he was its instigator?
j...@somewhere.com
<peter_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Overall I really enjoyed the steady stream of the ordinary white people,
>though,
How do you know they were white?
I thought you were listening to Radio 5?
JRP
Stephen Glynn
A few points, though.
First -- and I keep on asking this question, and never get a satisfactory
answer -- what do people mean when they talk about "multiculturalism" and
"integration"? I think I know what I mean by the terms, which is
essentially getting on with your own life and letting other people get on
with theirs. If their beliefs or cultural background or whatever lead
them to do something that might be perfectly acceptable where they come from
but isn't acceptable here then they've got problems and might be very well
advised to move somewhere where these cultural practices are more
acceptable, whether it's driving on the right-hand-side of the road or
whatever else. I don't, by the way, buy into the idea that "honour
killings", for example, are particularly "culturally acceptable" anywhere
even though they might be acceptable to particular groups with a culture.
But that's neither here nor there, since they definitely aren't "culturally
acceptable" here and we've got perfectly good laws about murder. But if
someone wants to walk down the road wearing a headscarf or a burkha then why
get vexed about it? She certainly don't cause anything like the disruption
to civil society that loonies in saffron robes cause by dancing up and down
Oxford Street chanting "hari Krishna" and creating traffic jams.
Second, you're jumbling up ethnicity, culture and religion. Clearly a
Muslim from Nigeria hasn't got much in common ethnically with a Muslim from
Malaysia. His culture probably doesn't have much in common with the
Malaysian's either. And, as we can see at the moment in Iraq people from
the same ethnic group and culture who share the same religion -- Islam --
don't necessarily see eye to eye about whether you should be a Sunni or a
Shia Muslim any more than Catholics and Protestants in NI necessarily get on
particularly well with each other. That, btw, is a dispute that's cast in
religious terms even though it's obviously about the things people usually
fight over -- territory, money and power. Similarly, I'm willing to bet
that grudge many Muslims have against Western countries in general and the
USA in particular isn't so much about religion as about American foreign and
economic policy.
This gets you into very dangerous territory when you start talking about the
"threat of a Muslim bomb in Britain today". Sorry, but wouldn't you think
that an Iraqi was looking at it from the wrong point of view if he started
complaining that the US and the UK had been dropping "Christian bombs" on
his country? It certainly used to get my Parish Priest quite riled when
the press here used to refer to "Irish Catholics" planting bombs on the not
unreasonable grounds that he'd certainly never done such a thing and,
moreover, the Church has very firm views on the subject of murder.
I've seen something like this a couple of times before. I didn't like it
then and I don't like it now. Once was when I lived in the States around
the time of the Iranian hostages crisis. A chum of mine, an Indian (as in
from Bombay rather than Native American) who was working over there on
contract used to get threatening phone calls in the middle of the night from
clowns who'd apparently decided he was Iranian and wanted to tell him to
release the hostages PDQ or face the consequences. Great fun,
particularly since his wife and young daughter were living in the same
apartment. And, as he said, even if he had been Iranian or even a Muslim
it wasn't very likely that he'd either got American hostages stashed
somewhere or that he could phone up the Ayatollah and ask him to the
hostages go. Similarly just after the Brighton Bombings a colleague of
mine, a perfectly harmless accountant from County Clare, used to get no end
of stick when he walked into a pub and ordered a drink in an Irish accent or
even sat on the tube reading the Irish Times. And again, he started really
worrying and understandably getting very pissed off when his wife started
getting scared to go shopping on her own because of the reaction she got as
soon as she opened her mouth.
Lastly, "political correctness". This is something I've never understood.
Most of the time it seems to be what I, being somewhat old-fashioned,
consider common courtesy. If someone objects to a particular term then
don't use it unless you intend to offend them. Someone recently posted
here as an example of "political correctness" a series of "preferred
phrases" that a social services department in Canada had come up with. OK,
some of them were rather convoluted. But it got me thinking about one of my
best friends, who was in a car smash some years ago that's made quite a mess
of her legs. She doesn't like the term "cripple" because she finds it
rather insulting. More importantly, since her job means she has to do a
lot of international travelling she's always having to explain to airlines,
hotels and clients what her various mobility problems involve. As far as
she's concerned it doesn't really help BA, the Hilton Hotel chain or her
clients to know that she's "a cripple" but it does help everyone concerned
if they know precisely what special arrangements she wants making to
accommodate her mobility problems ("yes, I can manage 100 yards or so with
my sticks but much further than that and I'm afraid I need a wheelchair.
Can you arrange one locally or should I bring my collapsible one? Yes, I
can make it to check-in and the departure lounge on my own but I will need a
chair to get me to boarding at Heathrow Terminal 3 when the flight's
called").
Seems to me that "political correctness" is all too often a term that people
invent to cover something that they fear might upset someone completely
unreasonably and then somehow assume the world is full of completely
unreasonable people who want to impose "polticial correctness" without ever
stopping to think "hang on, have I ever met such a person?". It's a bit
like these Islamic fundamentalists who want to turn us all into Muslims.
All I can say is that the Jehovah's Witnesses seem a damn sight more
energetic about trying to convert people than do the Muslims, at least
anywhere I've ever been in the UK.
j...@somewhere.com
He was stalking them.
JRP
David Platt
Greg Hennessy wrote:
>
> "vying with Platt for the largest gap
> between capability and self perception"
>
>
>
> Says it so much better than what I ever could.
Saying things much better than you ever could is a simple task.
John Bull
<j...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:jam57055n6e8glmon...@4ax.com...
That is a Slander, I do hope Bob sues the arse off you:-)
Maria
I wish someone would sue the arse off me.
John Bull
"Maria" <ivegot6kidsooerhowt...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:4072fc21...@News.Individual.NET...
No matter what you look like:-)))
Greg Hennessy
Yes, something for you to aspire to.
greg
--
j...@somewhere.com
<babydriver...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On the 13 March 1997 Tony and Cherie Blair tried to have a certain
>> >> Robert Henderson put in prison.
>> >
>> >Yes, I've read this before. It is an interesting tale. Why do you think
>they
>> >did this?
>>
>> He was stalking them.
>
>That is a Slander, I do hope Bob sues the arse off you:-)
I look forward to him trying.
JRP
anone...@spam.nothanks
wrote:
>>> Tut tut, is that the best you can do ?
>>
>>Not the best i can do no,
>
>"vying with Platt for the largest gap
>between capability and self perception"
>
>
>
>Says it so much better than what I ever could.
Why, thank you. You're a gentleman and a scholar
Peter
From what they said. Calling them assumptions would be pedantic, as you
can judge on more than visual information.
John Bull
<anone...@spam.nothanks> wrote in message
news:vno570pnegbnsu7s8...@4ax.com...
Peter
>
> A few points, though.
>
> Second, you're jumbling up ethnicity, culture and religion. Clearly a
> Muslim from Nigeria hasn't got much in common ethnically with a Muslim from
> Malaysia. His culture probably doesn't have much in common with the
> Malaysian's either. And, as we can see at the moment in Iraq people from
> the same ethnic group and culture who share the same religion -- Islam --
> don't necessarily see eye to eye about whether you should be a Sunni or a
> Shia Muslim any more than Catholics and Protestants in NI necessarily get on
> particularly well with each other. That, btw, is a dispute that's cast in
> religious terms even though it's obviously about the things people usually
> fight over -- territory, money and power. Similarly, I'm willing to bet
> that grudge many Muslims have against Western countries in general and the
> USA in particular isn't so much about religion as about American foreign and
> economic policy.
>
> This gets you into very dangerous territory when you start talking about the
> "threat of a Muslim bomb in Britain today". Sorry, but wouldn't you think
> that an Iraqi was looking at it from the wrong point of view if he started
> complaining that the US and the UK had been dropping "Christian bombs" on
> his country? It certainly used to get my Parish Priest quite riled when
> the press here used to refer to "Irish Catholics" planting bombs on the not
> unreasonable grounds that he'd certainly never done such a thing and,
> moreover, the Church has very firm views on the subject of murder.
The point is a fair one, but I think it shows some naivete about muslims.
Islam is an ideology similar to communism, including prescriptive measures
for the organisation of the state, behaviour of individuals etc - concepts
such as democracy are negated. Religious fervour is fused with the islamic
ideology, though, due to the belief in God and seeing rewards in the
afterlife, unlike communism which only saw reward in this life. This
produces much more fanaticism and is why muslims from nigeria and malaysia
have more in common than you would like to admit. Islam teaches muslims to
subordinate their own cultural idenity and nationality the same way
communists rejected these things. Muslims call each other brothers because
of their political and religous homogeneity, including for many belief in
the idea of a worldwide islamic nation.
Apart from bush's crusade gaffe, what basis do muslims have for saying
christian bombs? If they said jewish bombs, I can definitely see they have
a point, however.
>
> I've seen something like this a couple of times before. I didn't like it
> then and I don't like it now.
see above.
>
> Lastly, "political correctness". This is something I've never understood.
> Most of the time it seems to be what I, being somewhat old-fashioned,
> consider common courtesy.
If it was as simple as that, why would disciplinary and sometimes legal
measures be taken against those who are sometimes 'rude'? It is more a way
of creating over-sensitivity with the aim of pushing certain agendas such
as disability rights, gay rights, positive discrimination where the demands
get more and more extreme.
>
> like these Islamic fundamentalists who want to turn us all into Muslims.
> All I can say is that the Jehovah's Witnesses seem a damn sight more
> energetic about trying to convert people than do the Muslims, at least
> anywhere I've ever been in the UK.
>
No, many want to bypass the 'attempt at conversion' stage and go straight
to the killing.
David Platt
Greg Hennessy wrote:
>>>Says it so much better than what I ever could.
>>
>>Saying things much better than you ever could is a simple task.
>
>
>
> Yes, something for you to aspire to.
I can't set my sights that low.
BOEDICIA
>change their ways" shock!
>From: anone...@spam.nothanks
>Date: 4/5/04 11:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <qei470lrlv4379vas...@4ax.com>
>Look at the posters here arguing for this stuff
>1) Wotan - nothing more than a clown
>2) Platt - probably the stupidest person ever to post to this
>newsgroup
>3) John Bull - probably the least pleasant and most insecure person
>ever to post to this group, vying with Platt for the largest gap
>between capability and self
>perception
>4) Arealman - what more need be said?
>5) Henderson - lots of what he writes is fine, I think it was his
>letter to Trevor Philips about racial discrimination at the CRE that
>was fabulously pointed. But he's also a total nutter, arguing Blair
>has persecuted him and the rest.
>Then there's Boedicia and Billy and a whole host of others. Be honest
>with yourself. Do you really think they are impressive?
Compared to you we are all geniuses.
>From: anonentity
It suits you, never change it.
Greg Hennessy
ROTFL! Pratt manages to contradict itself in the space of two posts.