BNP leader to appear on Question Time

Penn

O'Morris wrote: »

The whole show was about Nick Griffin though. They chose to change the format so that most of the questions would be put to him. If they were going to allow members of the audience to spend the entire programme putting questions to him they should at least given him a chance to answer those questions.

How did they change the format? The majority of people wanted to ask questions about the BNP and Nick Griffin. But they couldn't just have Nick Griffin answering all those questions. Thats what Question Time is. People ask a question which is then discussed by a panel of experts. The other panellists had every right to answer some of the questions and give their opinion.

If the show was only Nick Griffin answering peoples questions, then that would be a change in format of the show, and that would have been wrong.

The Minister wrote: »

Tbh, that question was designed to highlight his bigotry. It was a jab at him in another form.

It was a valid question which would have been asked on any other episode of Question Time, as it had generated a lot of publicity and complaints etc. Nick Griffin could have given a much shorter answer, but in fairness, he buried himself because he completely went off on a tangent with his answer, talking about how people find two men kissing in public uncomfortable (I can't remember the exact words he used, but it was along those lines). That had nothing to do with Stephen Gately's death or the article in question.

bonkey

O'Morris wrote: »

They can be British but they can't be ethnically British. They're not indigenous to the British Isles. For the same reason a white Australian can't become an Australian aborigine because he's not indigenous to Australia. His roots are in a different continent.

I notice you say continent, not country there.

This is important, because the English are predominanly Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Normans...coming from France and Germany as they did.

Including all of the British, and not just the English, we'll also have good representation from the Danes, the Norse, the Celts, the Breton French...

...In fact, its pretty damned tough to find any British who's roots were in Britain.

Britain, incidentally, is in no way unique in this regard.

Those Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Danes, Norse, Celts and Bretons who came to Britain....their indiginous roots weren't in Anglia, Saxony, Jutland, Normandy, Denmark, Norway, Ireland or Brittany.

So when we talk about "indigenous"...just how long do you have to have roots in a country before you can claim to have indigenous roots? Or is it some sort of convenient "continental" thing....that Germans and French can be indigenous British, but Indians, Egyptians or Moroccans couldn't.

Britain has always been a melting-pot of various cultures...or at least for as long as we have any sort of historical and archeological records for.

The argument regarding cultural "invasion" is, therefore, somewhat of a straw man. It is, effectively, someone drawing a line in the sand and saying that while the process is one that has been going on for centuries and therefore integral to the culture, it should be stopped because some state that process has reached is desirable to them.

Nodin

O'Morris wrote: »

The BNP does contain some racists but I don't think it would be fair to call the party itself racist. I think it would be more accurate to describe their outlook as racialist rather than racist. It's more about being pro-white and pro-British than about being anti-black or anti-foreigner. There are a lot of good people in the party who are motivated by patriotism rather than hatred. .

You can paint zebra stripes on a dog, but its still a dog.

O'Morris wrote: »

It was nowhere near normal. I've watched Question Time before and I've never seen anyone subjected to that level of abuse..

Whens the last time a leader of an openly racist party was on?

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not just the colour of someone's skin. Racial differences run much deeper than skin colour. It has much more to do with ancestry - about where people's roots lie. ..

Half arsed pseudo scientific nonsense.

O'Morris wrote: »

I want Ireland to remain white and I'm not a racist...

I've news for ye....

bonkey

O'Morris wrote: »

A racist is someone who treats people of a different race with less respect than he treats people of his own race.
A racialist is someone who treats people with respect regardless of their race but who still identifies strongly with his own race and nation and who is committed to seeing that nation and race survive into the future. The BNP are racialist, not racist.

I would argue that Discrimination based on race is sufficient grounds to be considered racist.

For example...what is the BNPs attitude to a French person living in Britain? Does it matter if that French person is indigenous to Western Europe, is Moroccan in origin, or indeed had their roots in French Guyana?

What about the Germans (given that the Queen herself has her roots there)? Only "German Germans"?

If discrimination is being made based on ethnicity, thats racist, not racialist.

junder

while a nations culture is indeed the product of thousands of years of cultral evolution an individuals culture is no more then learned behaviour passed on to them, for example if a 'british' or 'irish' white new born baby was raised by the zulus in africa it would be zulu, it would have no genetic disposition to develop a 'British' or 'Irish' cultral idenity of its own back

O'Morris

wes wrote:

No, insteads it will be "voluntary". The mere suggesstion of removing people from a country based on there skin colour is farcical, regardless of whether it is voluntary or not.

It's not about removing people from the country, it's about encouraging them to return to their ancestral homelands and giving them the financial support to help them to do it. It's entirely voluntary and so there's no pressure on them to do anything against their will.

wes wrote:

I honestly don't get the obsession, with a single aspect of a person, like skin colour, its bizare.

It's not about the skin colour, it's about ethnicity. The BNP are opposed to large-scale immigration from eastern Europe even though the eastern Europeans have the same colour skin as the indigenous British.

wes wrote:

who seem to think only "White" people can be proper British people.

I don't think it's a question of people being white. I think their attitude is that only people with strong roots in Britain can claim to call themselves proper British people.

wes wrote:

Also, go far back enough and everyone is related, for example Iranians, North Indians, and some Europeans, share a common ancestry if you go far back enough.

We share a common ancestor with the chimps as well and the amount of genetic difference between us and the other primates is very small.

wes wrote:

Great, so tell who are the "whites"? Do you mean all light skinned people?

No, I mean Irish people. The indigenous Irish people are white and so preserving an Ireland of Irish people means preserving an Ireland of white people.

wes wrote:

As for racialists and racists, they differences between the 2 groups tend not to amount to much.

A racialist is motivated mainly by love for his own race while the racist is motivated mainly by hatred for other races. I think that's a major difference. I think the racists in the BNP are massively outnumbered by the racialists.

O'Morris

bonkey wrote:

This is important, because the English are predominanly Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Normans...coming from France and Germany as they did.

Not true. The genetic evidence shows that the English, along with the Irish, Scottish and Welsh are of predominantly pre-Celtic stock. The 19th century romantic myth about the Irish being mainly of Celtic descent and being oppressed by people of mainly Anglo-Saxon descent has been shown to be without much foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles

Stephen Oppenheimer has recently argued that neither Anglo-Saxons nor Celts may have had much impact on the genetics of the inhabitants of the British Isles, and that British ancestry can mostly be traced back to ancient peoples similar to the modern-day Basques instead.[7] Current estimates of the genetic contribution of Anglo-Saxon migrants range from less than 10,000 to as many as 200,000. A recent study by a team from the Department of Biology at UCL based on computer simulations indicate that an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England provides a plausible explanation for a high-degree of continental male-line ancestry in England.[8]

There are strong Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian strains in the British and Irish populations but the total contribution is much less than 50% for the population as a whole. We're mainly the descendants of the original settlers of these islands.

bonkey wrote:

...In fact, its pretty damned tough to find any British who's roots were in Britain.

Completely untrue.

Taken from the wikipedia entry I linked to above:

… 75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia … Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples …

There was a programme on RTE about this a few months ago that examined the genetic origins of the Irish people and that found that we were, along with the Basques, members of the indigenous, pre-Indo-European population of Europe. The myth of the Irish being a nation of immigrants is contradicted by the genetic evidence. Ireland has never been the nation of immigrants that we are now.

bonkey wrote:

So when we talk about "indigenous"...just how long do you have to have roots in a country before you can claim to have indigenous roots?

A few generations at least.

bonkey wrote:

Or is it some sort of convenient "continental" thing....that Germans and French can be indigenous British, but Indians, Egyptians or Moroccans couldn't.

A Frenchman or German can't become indigenous but he can fit in more easily to the native population.

bonkey wrote:

Britain has always been a melting-pot of various cultures...or at least for as long as we have any sort of historical and archeological records for.

That's because the numbers of immigrants in the past were small compared with the numbers of today and so they were easily absorbed into the native population. It was easier to assimilate previous waves of immigrants as well because they came from the same corner of the world and they were culturally and racially similar to the native population. Even saying that though, in Ireland's case it took centuries before the Vikings and the Normans were fully assimilated into the native population. The Vikings were still a distinct group in the country at the time of the Norman invasion and Norman-descended people were still a distinct group in the country right up to the time of Cromwell. We're still trying to assimilate the Scots who came here during the 17th century.

bonkey wrote:

It is, effectively, someone drawing a line in the sand and saying that while the process is one that has been going on for centuries

The process has not being going on for centuries though. Large-scale immigration into Britain has only been going on for the last fifty years. In Ireland it started less than a decade ago. What's happening now is not part of a process that has been going on for centuries.

bonkey wrote:

it should be stopped because some state that process has reached is desirable to them.

Exactly. Most Europeans are happy with the traditional ethnic makeup of their countries and they don't want to see it change. What's wrong with that?

bonkey wrote:

For example...what is the BNPs attitude to a French person living in Britain?

I think their attitude is probably the same as their attitude towards people of any other European nationality. They'd have them before they'd have the Muslims or the Africans or Asians but they don't want to see too many of them either.

I notice you gave an example of a Frenchy rather than of a Pole or a Lithuanian. Do you realise that the BNP are opposed to mass immigration from eastern Europe and that (as mentioned on Question Time) concern over the scale of the unplanned-for influx since EU enlargement is one of the things that has driven the increase in support for the party? If your point was that the BNPers only seem to have a problem with dark-skinned immigrants then you have to ask why they're not overlooking the white-skinned immigrants from Eastern Europe.

bonkey wrote:

Does it matter if that French person is indigenous to Western Europe, is Moroccan in origin, or indeed had their roots in French Guyana?

I think it does matter but I think it's more a question of numbers than of anything else. I'm sure if given the choice most Europeans would rather their immigrants were European rather than African or Asian but at the same time I think people have a problem with large-scale immigration of people from anywhere outside of their borders - regardless of the skin colour of those immigrants.

Nodin wrote:

Whens the last time a leader of an openly racist party was on?

The BNP is not an openly racist party.

Nodin wrote:

Half arsed pseudo scientific nonsense.

It's not pseudo-science, it's almost a fact.

Hippo

I can hardly believe someone would actually post this nonsense.

Nodin

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not about removing people from the country, it's about encouraging them to return to their ancestral homelands and giving them the financial support to help them to do it. It's entirely voluntary and so there's no pressure on them to do anything against their will.
.

And why do they want to do this?

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think it's a question of people being white. I think their attitude is that only people with strong roots in Britain can claim to call themselves proper British people. .

So the 4th generation descendants of a West Indian family can't have "strong roots in Britain"?

O'Morris wrote: »

No, I mean Irish people. The indigenous Irish people are white and so preserving an Ireland of Irish people means preserving an Ireland of white people. .

And would happen if an Irish person had children with an African immigrant.....?

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not pseudo-science, it's almost a fact..

Well, when it grows up and qualifies as a real one, get back to me.

OldJay

O'Morris wrote: »

The BNP is not an openly racist party

Tosh.
Any political party that forbids non-white members is an openly racist party.

deadhead13

O'Morris wrote: »

The BNP is not an openly racist party.

The reasons the BNP are not as overtly racist as it once was, was clearly spelled out in Nick Giffin's statement quoted here and on Question Time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw

Which more than suggests that the party's more "reasonable" recent policies are in fact a cynical facade to make the BNP more "saleable" and that its core goals and ideals are the same as ever. His attempted explanation of that quote were risible.

Other quotes fom Mr Griffen :

On the holocaust - "I am well aware the orthodox opinion is that 6 million jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lameshades. Orthodox opinion also once held the view that the earth was flat...I have reached the conclusion that the "extermination" tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extermely profitable lie, and latter day witch-hysteria".

"Yes, Adolf Hilter went to far. His legacy is the biggest problem the BNP has to deal with. It just creates a bad image".

On Mein Kampf - "I most enjoyed the chapter on propaganda and organisation, there are some really useful idea there".

"There is a strong direct link from Oswald Mosley to me".

"When the crunch comes power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate"

His notions of "British aborigines" are based on a Book by Stephen Oppenheimer called "The origins of the British". The Author completely rejects Griffens conclusions..

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/10/nick-griffins-bad-science.html

Penn

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not about removing people from the country, it's about encouraging them to return to their ancestral homelands and giving them the financial support to help them to do it. It's entirely voluntary and so there's no pressure on them to do anything against their will.

Okay, so what about this? Do you believe that Irish people currently living abroad should be "encouraged" to come back to Ireland? Irish people living legally in other countries, with good paying jobs, should they be "encouraged" to uproot, and move back to a country where they might struggle to get jobs? My cousin has been living in China for over 2 years. He's in a good job, working on fantastic building projects, has a girlfriend over there (an American girl), has many friends etc. Should he be made to come back here, while she is "encouraged" to go back to America?

PaulieD

deadhead13 wrote: »

The reasons the BNP are not as overtly racist as it once was, was clearly spelled out in the Nick Giffin's statement quoted here and on Question Time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw

Which more than suggests that the party's more "reasonable" recent policies are in fact a cynical facade to make the BNP more "saleable" and that its core goals and ideals are the same as ever. His attempted explanation of that quote were risible.

Other qoutes fom Mr Griffen :

On the holocaust - "I am well aware the orthodox opinion is that 6 million jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lameshades. Orthodox opinion also once held the view that the earth was flat...I have reached the conclusion that the "extermination" tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extermely profitable lie, and latter day witch-hysteria".

"Yes, Adolf Hilter went to far. His legacy is the biggest problem the BNP has to deal with. It just creates a bad image".

On Mein Kampf - "I most enjoyed the chapter on propaganda and organisation, there are some really useful idea there".

"There is a strong direct link from Oswald Mosley to me".

"When the crunch comes power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate"

His notions of "British aborigines" are based on a Book by Stephen Oppenheimer called "The origins of the British". The Author completely rejects Griffens conclusions..

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/10/nick-griffins-bad-science.html

Sweet Jaysus, thats pretty damning.

g5fd6ow0hseima

After watching Nick Griffin on question time, I began to think about the idea of religious tolerance. When you think about it, those of other religions come to places like the UK and Ireland are are free to practise their faith openly, yet if one looks at the native societies of the very communities the BNP 'oppose', the same cannot be said.

People who come to the UK from intolerant and backward countries which, for example, actually ban women from driving cars are obviously going to cause serious concern among large sections of the 'native' British community. Therefore, it is easy to understand why the support levels for the BNP have subsequently risen. This is something which, sadly, was not addressed on the show due to the other participants ganging up on Griffin. IF they allowed him due time, they wouldnt have ****ed themselves over - it would have been very interesting to hear what the audience would have had to say about the issue of tolerance or self-righteousness amongst immigrant communities for example - sadly though, its just further support for the BNP.

marco_polo

From a scientific point of view the concept of races has almost no validity whatsoever.

"Confusions About Human Races
By R.C. Lewontin
Published on: Jun 07, 2006

R.C. Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard University, has written a number of books and articles on evolution and human variation, including Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA and The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment

....

There are four facts about human variation upon which there is universal agreement. First, the human species as a whole has immense genetic variation from individual to individual. Any two unrelated human beings differ by about 3 million distinct DNA variants.

Second, by far the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations, within the French, within the Kikuyu, within the Japanese. There is diversity from population to population in how much genetic variation each contains, depending upon how much immigration into the population has occurred from a variety of other groups and also on the size of the population. The United States, with a very large population whose ancestors came from all over the earth including the original inhabitants of the New World, is genetically very variable whereas small populations of local Amazonian tribes are less genetically variable, although they are by no means genetically uniform. Despite the differences in amount of genetic variation within local populations, the finding that on the average 85% of all human genetic variation is within local populations has been a remarkably consistent result of independent studies carried out over twenty-five years using data from both proteins and DNA."

Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” between the French and the Ukrainians, between the Kikuyu and the Ewe, between the Japanese and the Koreans. The remaining variation, about 6% to 10% of the total human variation is between the classically defined geographical races that we think of in an everyday sense as identified by skin color, hair form, and nose shape. This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races. Into which “race” do the Hindi and Urdu speakers of the Indian sub-continent fall? Should they be grouped with Europeans or with Asians or should a separate race be assigned to them? Are the Lapps of Finland and the Hazari of Afghanistan really Europeans or Asians? What about Indonesians and Melanesians? Different biologists have made different assignments and the number of “races” assigned by anthropologists and geneticists has varied from 3 to 30.

PaulieD

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Okay, so what about this? Do you believe that Irish people currently living abroad should be "encouraged" to come back to Ireland? Irish people living legally in other countries, with good paying jobs, should they be "encouraged" to uproot, and move back to a country where they might struggle to get jobs? My cousin has been living in China for over 2 years. He's in a good job, working on fantastic building projects, has a girlfriend over there (an American girl), has many friends etc. Should he be made to come back here, while she is "encouraged" to go back to America?

If any Irish citizen is illegally in a foreign country, they should be deported. If an Irish citizen is a failed asylum seekers in a foreign country, they should be deported. If any Irish citizen is milking the benefit sytem in a foreign country, they should be deported. If an Irish citizen breaks the law of a foreign country, they should be deported. But of course, the opposite should also ring true.;)

Penn

PaulieD wrote: »

If any Irish citizen is illegally in a foreign country, they should be deported. If an Irish citizen is a failed asylum seekers in a foreign country, they should be deported. If any Irish citizen is milking the benefit sytem in a foreign country, they should be deported. If an Irish citizen breaks the law of a foreign country, they should be deported. But of course, the opposite should also ring true.;)

Exactly. I completely agree, anyone breaking the law like that should be deported. Whether its Irish people in other countries, or foreign people in Ireland. My cousin and his girlfriend aren't breaking any laws though. They have full Visas and were recruited by the same company over there, thats how they met. But they aren't Chinese. So should they be deported?

PaulieD

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

So should they be deported?

Thats up to the Chinese.

Nodin

Juliette Narrow Rust wrote: »

After watching Nick Griffin on question time, I began to think about the idea of religious tolerance. When you think about it, those of other religions come to places like the UK and Ireland are are free to practise their faith openly, yet if one looks at the native societies of the very communities the BNP 'oppose', the same cannot be said.

So?

wes

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not about removing people from the country, it's about encouraging them to return to their ancestral homelands and giving them the financial support to help them to do it. It's entirely voluntary and so there's no pressure on them to do anything against their will.

Ancestral homelands are an interesting concept. To the best of my knowledge, my ancestral homelands would include, Kashmir, parts of Northen India and Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, which one should I return to? I don't speak any of the languages spoken there, I only have a basic working knowledge of some of the cultures. Why would I (or others like me) leave?

Also, a program to get rid of ethnic minorities, even on a voluntary basis is racists, and even with it being voluntary, would make ethnic minorities feel unwelcome. Then there is the problem if little or no ethnic minorities leave. What then? If a pure "White" society can't be achieved by asking the ethnic minorities to go home nicely doesn't work, what then?

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not about the skin colour, it's about ethnicity. The BNP are opposed to large-scale immigration from eastern Europe even though the eastern Europeans have the same colour skin as the indigenous British.

Alright fair enough, then its ethnicity. You do realize, that ethnic differences, are basically inconsequential right? Basically, regardless of ethnicity, people aren't really that different.

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think it's a question of people being white. I think their attitude is that only people with strong roots in Britain can claim to call themselves proper British people.

What are a strong roots then? I would say living, working, and having a family are strong roots. Why does where someone ancestors lived matter? Shouldn't we judge a individual based on there own merits?

O'Morris wrote: »

We share a common ancestor with the chimps as well and the amount of genetic difference between us and the other primates is very small.

Yes, and between different ethnicity there is virtually no genetic differences. We are all Human, we can reproduce between all races, and are a single species. The difference you perceive are artificially created by ourselves.

O'Morris wrote: »

No, I mean Irish people. The indigenous Irish people are white and so preserving an Ireland of Irish people means preserving an Ireland of white people.

At no time in history has there ever been a pure "race". My own ancestry, includes Indian, Afghan, Kashmiri, and Iranian. You will find that most Irish people will be similarly mixed between different groups. Everyone is already mixed. So your precious racial purity never actually existed in the first place. So its can't preserved, as it doesn't exist.

O'Morris wrote: »

A racialist is motivated mainly by love for his own race while the racist is motivated mainly by hatred for other races. I think that's a major difference. I think the racists in the BNP are massively outnumbered by the racialists.

TBH, I find the term racialists, to be a ridiculous one. The BNP are racists, trying to invent a new term to hide this (actually change the meaning of a pre-exising one), won't work.

Here btw, is a definition of racialism:

From thefreedictionary.com:

ra·cial·ism (rsh-lzm)
n.
1.
a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.
2. Chiefly British Variant of racism.

OldJay

Being lectured on racial 'values' by a racist/xenophobe/bigot is akin to being told how to drive by a taxi driver.

KaiserMc

Why can these people say this without being labeled 'racist' .

More Cultures = more conflict

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJvCcd5y-lI

wes

KaiserMc wrote: »

Why can these people say this without being labeled 'racist' .

They aren't member of a racial supremacist party maybe, like say the BNP. Having said that, if they are saying the same crap as the BNP, then they are clearly racist.

KaiserMc wrote: »

More Cultures = more conflict

We manage to get into all kinds of conflicts over pretty much anything, like say Footbal for instance. Its something we are rather good at as a species.

Dannyboy83

Funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk&feature=player_embedded

OldJay

KaiserMc wrote: »

Why can these people say this without being labeled 'racist' .

More Cultures = more conflict

Do explain the "culture" that is under threat from all "non-indigenous" people then . . .

Nodin

KaiserMc wrote: »

More Cultures = more conflict

In which case London would have been destroyed decades ago....

wes

Nodin wrote: »

In which case London would have been destroyed decades ago....

Well according to Nick Griffin, it has been ethnically cleansed, but no one else can remember it happening for some reason. I think it may have been the pod people what done it.

OldJay

wes wrote: »

Well according to Nick Griffin, it has been ethnically cleansed, but no one else can remember it happening for some reason. I think it may have been the pod people what done it.

If you're referring to the Question Time appearance, he actually used (well, abused really) the word 'genocide'. Not ethnic cleansing. Even worse.

PaulieD

Nodin wrote: »

In which case London would have been destroyed decades ago....

The ghettos of London are absolute hell holes. Bombing them would cause millions of euro worth of improvements.;)

Hey Nodin, add the UK to the list of countries who pay foreigners to leave.

Labour offers Failed Asylum Seekers £6,000 to return to Zimbabwe

Cash and aid repatriation packages worth up to £6,000 are to be offered to failed asylum seekers to go home voluntarily to Zimbabwe, the Home Office announced today.

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, indicated at the same time that the first steps would be taken this autumn towards forcibly returning more than 10,000 failed asylum seekers who fled Robert Mugabe's regime.

Woolas said in a written ministerial statement that the enhanced cash package was intended to encourage failed asylum seekers to return voluntarily, "but where they choose not to do so we are bound to take steps, over time, to enforce the law".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/29/zimbabwe-failed-asylum-seekers-cash

Nodin

PaulieD wrote: »

The ghettos of London are absolute hell holes. Bombing them would cause millions of euro worth of improvements.

Ghettoes are generally regarded as hell holes wherever they are.

Are you trying to make some half arsed point? It's coming up short at least a quarter of an arse at the moment.

PaulieD wrote: »

Hey Nodin, add the UK to the list of countries who pay foreigners to leave.

Labour offers Failed Asylum Seekers £6,000 to return to Zimbabwe

Thats wonderful. I mean, what possible grounds would anyone have for claiming asylum to avoid living in Zimbabwe.....