Labours contept for democracy.

[Wildcat]

Earlier on you were using a youtube clip of Nick Griffin, here's one of a Mulsim MP declaring his hopes that one day all MP's will be Muslim and so will the Prime-minister http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1LXahun7zo

 

I take it you accept that clip literally as well.

 

What makes you think the Griffin clip should not be taken literally?

 

Do you think this article from Nick Griffin is some sort of metaphor too?

 

This is so blindingly obvious that it shouldn’t even need saying, but there are still a few who confuse shouting hardline slogans with steady commitment to getting ourselves into a position in which we can put our principles into practice. Politics is always the art of the possible, so we must judge every policy by one simple criterion: Is it realistically possible that a decisive proportion of the British people will support it? If not, then to scale down our short-term ambitions to a point at which the answer becomes ‘yes’ is not a sell-out, but the only possible step closer to our eventual goal. To do otherwise is not principle, but irresponsibility, and irresponsibility is a luxury we must learn to do without on the long march from the political fringe to the mainstream.

 

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Politics/Griffin.html

 

What sort of metaphor is it when Nick Griffin talks about using saleable words and keeping their true beliefs and policies from the public which in Griffin's own words "positively petrifies ordinary voters"?

[DragonofAna]

I think that you have concentration issues. If you listen to all of the clip, Shahid doesn't declare his hope that one day all MPs will be Muslim. Indeed, he very clearly says the opposite.

 

The clip that I posted of Griffin and Duke showed the BNP leadership's true colours. Your clip just underlines the success, so far, of multiculturalism. Thanks for that.

 

Woohoo - glad I will not be around to see that happen. Blooming muslim pm. Scary thought. It's bad enough having all the scots running around telling the English what to do. Sheesh! I'll wave to the immigrants as I abandon Britain if I am around when that happens.

[Streamline]

I think that you have concentration issues. If you listen to all of the clip, Shahid doesn't declare his hope that one day all MPs will be Muslim. Indeed, he very clearly says the opposite.

 

What he actually says that some day no MP's shall be Muslim does he?

 

I know he suddenly realises there maybe journalists in the hall and changes his tune.

 

Quite a dodgy character by all accounts is he not?

[DragonofAna]

What makes you think the Griffin clip should not be taken literally?

 

Do you think this article from Nick Griffin is some sort of metaphor too?

 

 

 

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Politics/Griffin.html

 

It seems common sense and common practice. You start off with a manifesto that begins change and see how it goes, and then at the next election you put forward an advancement on that manifesto towards your eventual goals. If the manifesto is unacceptable to the public then you do not get into power. Not sure what you are getting at. All parties do this.

[Guest sibon]

What he actually says that some day no MP's shall be Muslim does he?

 

 

 

 

I think you've got a bit mixed up.

 

No surprise there, then.

[DragonofAna]

I think that you have concentration issues. If you listen to all of the clip, Shahid doesn't declare his hope that one day all MPs will be Muslim. Indeed, he very clearly says the opposite.

 

The clip that I posted of Griffin and Duke showed the BNP leadership's true colours. Your clip just underlines the success, so far, of multiculturalism. Thanks for that.

 

I think you've got a bit mixed up.

 

No surprise there, then.

 

Sorry but its you who is confused - by your own post. Bold - the opposite of wanting all mps to be muslim is indeed wanting no mps to be muslim.

[Streamline]

What makes you think the Griffin clip should not be taken literally?

 

Do you think this article from Nick Griffin is some sort of metaphor too?

 

 

 

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Politics/Griffin.html

 

What sort of metaphor is it when Nick Griffin talks about using saleable words and keeping their true beliefs and policies from the public which in Griffin's own words "positively petrifies ordinary voters"?

 

 

Ah yes I'm sure most people are aware that Labour promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but that never happened. We have one of the other posters attempting to justify what a Muslim MP intentions were and then we have people like you spreading your opinion as if it is fact on this very forum.

 

You lie, you spin, provide duff links and obfuscate and you think we don't notice?

[DragonofAna]

Ah yes I'm sure most people are aware that Labour promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but that never happened. We have one of the other posters attempting to justify what a Muslim MP intentions were and then we have people like you spreading your opinion as if it is fact on this very forum.

 

You lie, you spin, provide duff links and obfuscate and you think we don't notice?

 

We don't notice cos we is fick. You is either a sheep or you is fick. Don't you understand? Are you fick or somefink?

[Streamline]

We don't notice cos we is fick. You is either a sheep or you is fick. Don't you understand? Are you fick or somefink?

 

Worse than that Dragon, I am sub-human acording to Trevor Phillips of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, is that an oxymoron or ironic I forget?

[Wildcat]

As usual choose which and what you want to see. If you read the rest of the notes you would see that it states they were all migrants. British born migrants out and back - meaning those migrants all add up. Or to put it simply you have to take the 77 off the 110 meaning only how many left? Try again.

Also check out the definition of British Migrant.

And please stop twisting what is stated just to justify your wrong conclusions.

I have rejected nothing that was stated as fact in this document. And fact is all I have quoted as fact. If you cannot read on and see the if this happens and if this is true statements then I can suggest specsavers.

 

I quoted the whole notes section relating to whatever point it was you were making, apart from the first sentence because it didn't add anything.

 

There is nothing further to read on, in the notes section

 

And no it doesn't say they are all British migrants it says in full:

 

Data are not yet available to break down total international migration for the year to mid-2006 by country of birth. The most recent figures relate to the 2005 calendar year. They show a net inflow of 296,000 foreign-born migrants, a net outflow of 111,000 UK-born migrants and therefore an overall net inflow of 185,000 for the calendar year as a whole. 77,000 UK-born migrants returned to live in the UK after a year or more abroad.

 

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf

 

Also so what? This doesn't even relate to claim that the reference was backing up which was the £6 billion increase to the economy through population growth. Arguing the immigration figures should be higher expands on the positive impact of immigration to the economy.

 

You have also said the data is based on the LPS. No where in the document does it say that. The reference there takes me to UK Statistics website where it tells me the data they use is from a combination of the LPS and the ONS’s major household survey.

 

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/UpdatedFAQs.pdf

 

You seem well practiced in the techniques of denialism. Seize on an irrelevant detail and then try to create confusion to justify ignoring the conclusions and the argument being made.