What's Italian for 'kipper? Anti-migrant stunt goes awry.
Discussion
FredClogs said:
Kippers, the quickest route to a super mono cultural society, which it appears is what you want as multiculturism seems such an anathema to you, would be a single federal super Europe.
stating you abhor multiculturalism and yet supporting isolationist politics which relies on distinct cultural identities to create division seems a touch hypocritical and confused.
So you agree then as i have being saying all alongstating you abhor multiculturalism and yet supporting isolationist politics which relies on distinct cultural identities to create division seems a touch hypocritical and confused.
that the EU hates people we aren't white
So better we leave and then we can judge people on what they can bring to the UK instead of the country they were born in
I am glad we agree
McWigglebum4th said:
So you agree then as i have being saying all along
that the EU hates people we aren't white
So better we leave and then we can judge people on what they can bring to the UK instead of the country they were born in
I am glad we agree
because culture is all about skin colour with you isn't it?that the EU hates people we aren't white
So better we leave and then we can judge people on what they can bring to the UK instead of the country they were born in
I am glad we agree
always comes back to pigmentation with you people.
WinstonWolf said:
You and so many of your ilk are prejudiced. The more I read of your mealy mouthed slurs the more I realise you simply don't possess the intellect to raise the debate beyond 'cos racist, innit'.
Try and debate the issues without smear by association, I don't think you can.
Winston, please stop digging, you couldn't figure out that he was perfectly aware that he did post that. Your comprehension of simple English is worse than mine. And I have, some, excuse. Please, it's getting cringe worthy. You really should do less of thinking, it doesn't appear that you have equipment to do so. Try and debate the issues without smear by association, I don't think you can.
I often judge people based on who they choose to associate with. It's very normal and common thing. If you are free to chose your associations, shouldn't you be judged by them?
If I'm not mistaken, which I could be, they were associated with National Front of Bulgaria, weren't they? If I'm wrong about this I have no problem admitting my error and apologizing to kippers.
league67 said:
WinstonWolf said:
You and so many of your ilk are prejudiced. The more I read of your mealy mouthed slurs the more I realise you simply don't possess the intellect to raise the debate beyond 'cos racist, innit'.
Try and debate the issues without smear by association, I don't think you can.
Winston, please stop digging, you couldn't figure out that he was perfectly aware that he did post that. Your comprehension of simple English is worse then mine. And I have, some, excuse. Please, it's getting cringe worthy. You really should do less of thinking, it doesn't appear that you have equipment to do so. Try and debate the issues without smear by association, I don't think you can.
I often judge people based on who they choose to associate with. It's very normal and common thing. If you are free to chose your associations, shouldn't you be judged by them?
If I'm not mistaken, which I could be, they were associated with National Front of Bulgaria, weren't they? If I'm wrong about this I have no problem admitting my error and apologizing to kippers.
WinstonWolf said:
league67 said:
WinstonWolf said:
You and so many of your ilk are prejudiced. The more I read of your mealy mouthed slurs the more I realise you simply don't possess the intellect to raise the debate beyond 'cos racist, innit'.
Try and debate the issues without smear by association, I don't think you can.
Winston, please stop digging, you couldn't figure out that he was perfectly aware that he did post that. Your comprehension of simple English is worse then mine. And I have, some, excuse. Please, it's getting cringe worthy. You really should do less of thinking, it doesn't appear that you have equipment to do so. Try and debate the issues without smear by association, I don't think you can.
I often judge people based on who they choose to associate with. It's very normal and common thing. If you are free to chose your associations, shouldn't you be judged by them?
If I'm not mistaken, which I could be, they were associated with National Front of Bulgaria, weren't they? If I'm wrong about this I have no problem admitting my error and apologizing to kippers.
You were using stfu, when you were shown that your comment didn't make sense. Worse, you don't have conviction to stand by your post, but tried sneaky delete, as if it wasn't sneaky you'd simply apologize. You are desperate for a change, which I can understand, if your living standards are falling while everyone else's are quickly rising. You compare NF to Churchill, while even most ardent kippers are glancing over stupidity of that post, hoping that it'll go away. You can't figure out that bv was perfectly aware that he did post that message in the same way that you couldn't figure my post was rephrase of Guam's.
Your perceived loyalty, in addition to above, is stopping you from gaining any sense of perspective. In the same way that people who believe that they were cured by water with memory, are oblivious to the ridiculousness (is it a word?) of such claim. I really hope that this helps, but I doubt it.
league67 said:
Well, thank you, for thinking that my post was eloquent. It doesn't happen often, but it's certainly appreciated. If you realized that my point was that you are simple (I really can't find better or more accurate word), you are welcome. Let me sum it up for you;
You were using stfu, when you were shown that your comment didn't make sense. Worse, you don't have conviction to stand by your post, but tried sneaky delete, as if it wasn't sneaky you'd simply apologize. You are desperate for a change, which I can understand, if your living standards are falling while everyone else's are quickly rising. You compare NF to Churchill, while even most ardent kippers are glancing over stupidity of that post, hoping that it'll go away. You can't figure out that bv was perfectly aware that he did post that message in the same way that you couldn't figure my post was rephrase of Guam's.
Your perceived loyalty, in addition to above, is stopping you from gaining any sense of perspective. In the same way that people who believe that they were cured by water with memory, are oblivious to the ridiculousness (is it a word?) of such claim. I really hope that this helps, but I doubt it.
Top reviewer, would use again A+++ xYou were using stfu, when you were shown that your comment didn't make sense. Worse, you don't have conviction to stand by your post, but tried sneaky delete, as if it wasn't sneaky you'd simply apologize. You are desperate for a change, which I can understand, if your living standards are falling while everyone else's are quickly rising. You compare NF to Churchill, while even most ardent kippers are glancing over stupidity of that post, hoping that it'll go away. You can't figure out that bv was perfectly aware that he did post that message in the same way that you couldn't figure my post was rephrase of Guam's.
Your perceived loyalty, in addition to above, is stopping you from gaining any sense of perspective. In the same way that people who believe that they were cured by water with memory, are oblivious to the ridiculousness (is it a word?) of such claim. I really hope that this helps, but I doubt it.
handpaper said:
longblackcoat said:
Breadvan72 said:
It just keeps getting better: So contrite are UKIP about the racist t
t Lampitt that they have just re broadcast his election spiel in Wales. The TV station said "are you sure?", but UKIP said "yeah, put it on".
You know, I've been giving UKIP the benefit of the doubt. Small party starting up, cut some slack, that sort of thing.t Lampitt that they have just re broadcast his election spiel in Wales. The TV station said "are you sure?", but UKIP said "yeah, put it on".But to re-broadcast something that you absolutely know is wrong ('cos you disowned the muppet in the tape last night) is spectacularly stupid. Either Nige hasn't got a clue what's going on or he thinks people won't notice. Neither of these options are likely to win UKIP any long-term favour.
One phone call from Nigel would/should have stopped any further showing of the clip in its original format. The fact that this phone call clearly wasn't made leads me to conclude that the UKIP top bods didn't consider the section to be a problem. OK, I accept that the policy that this section was taking to hasn't changed, but having an admitted racist who you've already publicly distanced yourself appearing in your PEB simply can't ever be good, in any circumstance.
Or did they think that the British public are a bit thick, and that no-one would notice?
There's a further possibility, which I accept comes from the David Icke School Of Lizardry; maybe they're not all that bothered about Andre Lampitt, and are using him in a dog-whistle way, knowing that many of their recent supporters might espouse views not dissimilar to those so passionately tweeted by the Mad Zimmer. I'd like to think this isn't the case, but you never know.
longblackcoat said:
handpaper said:
longblackcoat said:
Breadvan72 said:
It just keeps getting better: So contrite are UKIP about the racist tt Lampitt that they have just re broadcast his election spiel in Wales. The TV station said "are you sure?", but UKIP said "yeah, put it on".
You know, I've been giving UKIP the benefit of the doubt. Small party starting up, cut some slack, that sort of thing.t Lampitt that they have just re broadcast his election spiel in Wales. The TV station said "are you sure?", but UKIP said "yeah, put it on".But to re-broadcast something that you absolutely know is wrong ('cos you disowned the muppet in the tape last night) is spectacularly stupid. Either Nige hasn't got a clue what's going on or he thinks people won't notice. Neither of these options are likely to win UKIP any long-term favour.
One phone call from Nigel would/should have stopped any further showing of the clip in its original format. The fact that this phone call clearly wasn't made leads me to conclude that the UKIP top bods didn't consider the section to be a problem. OK, I accept that the policy that this section was taking to hasn't changed, but having an admitted racist who you've already publicly distanced yourself appearing in your PEB simply can't ever be good, in any circumstance.
Or did they think that the British public are a bit thick, and that no-one would notice?
There's a further possibility, which I accept comes from the David Icke School Of Lizardry; maybe they're not all that bothered about Andre Lampitt, and are using him in a dog-whistle way, knowing that many of their recent supporters might espouse views not dissimilar to those so passionately tweeted by the Mad Zimmer. I'd like to think this isn't the case, but you never know.
Perhaps Farage realised the Welsh might look at it from the point that this idiot had been expelled?
Seems to have worked very well for UKIP broadcasting it in Wales 'as is'. Wales, where they have no support
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/04/ukip-surge-...
No doubt now you'll be accusing some Welsh of being racist?
Edit
Oops, nearly forgot. The Kipper train is still rolling -
better beware it doesn't turn into HS2.
Edited by dandarez on Saturday 26th April 17:38
Guam said:
You could be correct, alternatively it may be a contractual issue, although I buy space in periodicals, rather than TV there are drop down dead dates for cancellation. depending on how the purchasing was done and the nature of the contract there may have been no time to pull it.
We cant know without sight of the contracts.
You are trying to making excuses, but the facts are against you. The TV station offered to show an edited version of the piece. UKIP said no, go ahead as is.We cant know without sight of the contracts.
Breadvan72 said:
I am amused by how hurt brienflys was and is by the comment. He remembers it years later. Bitter, much? A throwaway remark, but still accurate for a good chunk of UKIP's supporters, as UKIP's own Fora and assorted stories such as the Lampitt one show. Would you prefer "the BNP in blazers"? Some of you 'kippers possibly aren't bigots (although you aren't doing very well on "reasons to object to migration other than because because because"), but you share bedspace with a good chunk of people who are bigots. Perhaps some of you can just hold your noses because you think something (er.....what, exactly?) justifies teaming up with the very worst type of people, but you can't then get cross if others point out whom you have chosen to align yourselves with.
Breadvan72 - I am not surprised to hear that it would amuse you if someone was hurt by something you said. You are mistaken in thinking I am hurt or bitter about a remark you would make on the internet. It stuck in my mind as a good example of someone who attempts to shut down or stifle a debate through insults or attempting to make negative associations which aren't there. I came across it again when I looked back at that thread because when you've stated that people don't attempt to stifle debate, I think it is a reasonable example that they/you do.
I think you may be barking up the wrong tree though, to someone like myself from an immigrant family trying to link UKIP - with whom I broadly agree on controlled immigration, EU waste etc with being akin to supporting a racist party like the BNP, is insulting but not convincing.
I have to say you have managed to amuse me too! When I read the grammatical correction you made - hilarious, the deliberate way you make spelling mistakes then pull others up over their typing or composition is worthy of a full on chuckle
How is saying something that upsets your delicate sensibilities stifling debate? If you don't like it, you are free to comment on it. Oh, you have. Not much debate stifling going on there then. As for badd spoleng, I am as prone to typos as the next person. If I spot them, I correct them. If I don't, I don't. Typing "would of" instead of "would have" is not a spelling mistake. It's a sign of someone who can't be bothered to attempt to communicate in standard English.
You are also missing the point about bigots in UKIP. There are bigots in and supporting UKIP, and to suggest otherwise would be fanciful. It does not follow from this that everyone who supports UKIP is a bigot; but choosing to associate with bigots is, as the term suggests, a matter of choice, not accident. Supporters who are not bigots might also wish to ask themselves why the party that they love attracts so many bigots; but they (the non bigots) seem unwilling to do so.
You are also missing the point about bigots in UKIP. There are bigots in and supporting UKIP, and to suggest otherwise would be fanciful. It does not follow from this that everyone who supports UKIP is a bigot; but choosing to associate with bigots is, as the term suggests, a matter of choice, not accident. Supporters who are not bigots might also wish to ask themselves why the party that they love attracts so many bigots; but they (the non bigots) seem unwilling to do so.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 26th April 17:53
Breadvan72 said:
dandarez said:
Breadvan72 said:
I add that there are schools which teach in French in London. No one goes OMG how shocking about that.
Thought I'd pop back on here to see the latest.Oh dear.
There's no OMG about it because that's nothing new. I was taught French in school in Oxfordshire in the 'sixties!
...
'However, bet they don't teach how to beg on the streets and leave 'merde' everywhere?'
To be moved on by the cops and the merde cleared up by London street cleaners.
Still, keeps them in employment, I suppose?
Breadvan72 said:
How is saying something that upsets your delicate sensibilities stifling debate? If you don't like it, you are free to comment on it. Oh, you have. Not much debate stifling going on there then.
No delicate sensibilities. Debate not stifled. If you read more carefully, I wrote that it was a good example of people attempting to stifle debate. That you are unsuccessful is moot
Your mistake is to assume that I was attempting to stifle debate. You appear to have the typical approach to free expression adopted by the PH rightists. If someone says something that you don't like, that's "attempting to stifle debate". If someone from the loyalist crew says "Shut up, tosser liberal" or similar, that's an example of excellent debating skills.
brenflys777 said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am amused by how hurt brienflys was and is by the comment. He remembers it years later. Bitter, much? A throwaway remark, but still accurate for a good chunk of UKIP's supporters, as UKIP's own Fora and assorted stories such as the Lampitt one show. Would you prefer "the BNP in blazers"? Some of you 'kippers possibly aren't bigots (although you aren't doing very well on "reasons to object to migration other than because because because"), but you share bedspace with a good chunk of people who are bigots. Perhaps some of you can just hold your noses because you think something (er.....what, exactly?) justifies teaming up with the very worst type of people, but you can't then get cross if others point out whom you have chosen to align yourselves with.
Breadvan72 - I am not surprised to hear that it would amuse you if someone was hurt by something you said. You are mistaken in thinking I am hurt or bitter about a remark you would make on the internet. It stuck in my mind as a good example of someone who attempts to shut down or stifle a debate through insults or attempting to make negative associations which aren't there. I came across it again when I looked back at that thread because when you've stated that people don't attempt to stifle debate, I think it is a reasonable example that they/you do.
I think you may be barking up the wrong tree though, to someone like myself from an immigrant family trying to link UKIP - with whom I broadly agree on controlled immigration, EU waste etc with being akin to supporting a racist party like the BNP, is insulting but not convincing.
I have to say you have managed to amuse me too! When I read the grammatical correction you made - hilarious, the deliberate way you make spelling mistakes then pull others up over their typing or composition is worthy of a full on chuckle
Your difficulty with BV seems to stem from the fact that, no matter what's thrown at him, he gives as good as he gets and, not only that, he wallops a lot of you into the long grass repeatedly. If winning the majority of arguments is 'stifling debate', then, yes, BV is stifling debate - but that's not his fault, it's yours for failing to meet his points.
Breadvan72 said:
Your mistake is to assume that I was attempting to stifle debate. You appear to have the typical approach to free expression adopted by the PH rightists. If someone says something that you don't like, that's "attempting to stifle debate". If someone from the loyalist crew says "Shut up, tosser liberal" or similar, that's an example of excellent debating skills.
I disagree.If you can find an example of where I applaud someone saying something similar to your quote I would be surprised.
Saying something I disagree with is fine, it's only the internet after all and a distraction from the more serious matters of cars, motorbikes, aeroplanes and family - not in that order obviously...
I am of the opinion that when someone tries to tar people they disagree with by using a throwaway insult or an unreasonable association that it is an attempt to stifle any debate. If you start a debate about legal aide for instance and posters come into it saying all lawyers are lying thieving scum, here's an example of a dishonest lawyer.... they are not interested in debating the merits of the legal aide, they are trying to close off any debate by insulting anyone associated with it. So if anyone subsequently supports the points made in favour of legal aide they are being associated with the lawyers who have been defined as all lying thieving scum. Clearly this is nonsense. Not all lawyers are bad in my experience. I don't know the number of lawyers in the uk, but UKIP membership is around 36,000. Some will be BNP sympathisers (in UKIP as well as the law society... ) and these are well trumpeted in the media, but I don't feel its reflective of UKIP in general. If I get chance whilst bored I'd be interested to know how many examples of dishonest lawyers can be found per 1000 compared to racist kippers? Without accurate figures I would be making a poor argument to say there is more evidence of law firms attracting the dishonest as workers than there is to support UKIP attracting racists, my opinion on the other hand...
Mr Snap said:
You can hardly criticise BV for trying to stifle debate: He's the OP and, as such, was the one who invited you and everyone else into the debate. That he's stuck with it for 80 odd pages would seem to suggest that he's been more than happy to engage with all comers.
Your difficulty with BV seems to stem from the fact that, no matter what's thrown at him, he gives as good as he gets and, not only that, he wallops a lot of you into the long grass repeatedly. If winning the majority of arguments is 'stifling debate', then, yes, BV is stifling debate - but that's not his fault, it's yours for failing to meet his points.
Fair point about this thread. BV started it with an inaccurate story and it has provoked debate. Your difficulty with BV seems to stem from the fact that, no matter what's thrown at him, he gives as good as he gets and, not only that, he wallops a lot of you into the long grass repeatedly. If winning the majority of arguments is 'stifling debate', then, yes, BV is stifling debate - but that's not his fault, it's yours for failing to meet his points.
On the thread I quoted from, I would stand by the opinion that throwing insults or inaccurate associations is an attempt to stifle debate. It seems to happen a lot when UKIP are mentioned.
Breadvan72 said:
Your mistake is to assume that I was attempting to stifle debate. You appear to have the typical approach to free expression adopted by the PH rightists. If someone says something that you don't like, that's "attempting to stifle debate". If someone from the loyalist crew says "Shut up, tosser liberal" or similar, that's an example of excellent debating skills.
I felt the same when Turbobloke repeatedly posted long lists of individual scientists who spoke out against climate change & the IPCC. Nothing but support for him.I then copy/pasted lists of organisations that support the mainstream scientific views on the matter & was told by several forumites with many thousands of posts between them that I was trolling & a nuisance.
There are some incredibly self-righteous types on here & an awful lot of cock-holding goes on.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff