UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

handpaper

1,290 posts

202 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
So Kippers are linking the two. Not me. Perhaps by ignoring the post I pointed to (which is after all only on the previous page) you are being disingenuous? Or are you just confused as usual?

But rather than trying to concentrate on one small detail you will answer the question, is your issue with uncontrolled immigration from the EU, or the already controlled immigration from non-EU, or both?

Simple enough question surely for you to cope with?
JAL, Kippers != UKIP.
Assigning to a party the views and attitudes of some of its supporters has been covered before, on this thread and others.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not in a manifesto or similar official party document (e.g. "Policies for People"), trying to paint it as such is dishonest.


don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
don4l said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
. And how will controlled immigration stop problems such as that in Rotherham?
Strawman alert!!!!

Have UKIP said that controlled immigration will help curb child sex gangs?

No, they haven't... So, why on Earth are you asking this in a UKIP thread? Are you a bit confused, or are you being disingenuous?

You would be better off putting your question to your Common Purpose friends.
Well your Kipper friends seem to. For example as I explicitly stated on the previous page, Digga linked the two:

Digga said:
Of the people to whom immigration is their primary issue of concern, neither Labour, who opened the borders in the late 90s, or the Conservatives, who provided weak opposition to this action and have done little since to redress the matter, are if interest. There is no longer any trust. Actions, or lack of them, have spoken louder than any words and the bigotgate type responses to previously voiced concerns will not be forgotten. For those who live in areas affected by some of the worst side effects of current policy - Rotherham etc. - there is no doubt who they feel let down by.
So Kippers are linking the two. Not me. Perhaps by ignoring the post I pointed to (which is after all only on the previous page) you are being disingenuous? Or are you just confused as usual?

But rather than trying to concentrate on one small detail you will answer the question, is your issue with uncontrolled immigration from the EU, or the already controlled immigration from non-EU, or both?

Simple enough question surely for you to cope with?
Do you think that you have said something that is relevant to my question?

Here is the question again:-

don4l said:
Have UKIP said that controlled immigration will help curb child sex gangs?
Nigel has actually said that we would probably take more immigrants from the Indian sub-continent if we left the EU.

You come across as a typical leftie hypocrite.

You are the one who tried to link immigration with child sexual abuse. I did not do this.

You did.


Well done.


JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Let me make this clear. UKIP are not represented on this thread. Kippers are. I said Kippers had linked the two items, not that UKIP had. And I have quoted one Kipper as an example. Go back and check what I said. So stop misquoting me and answer the ***** very simple questoon

JustAnotherLogin said:
is your issue with uncontrolled immigration from the EU, or the already controlled immigration from non-EU, or both?

Simple enough question surely for you to cope with?
  • for the sake of absolute clarity even with those whose iq does not exceed their waist size, "your" in that context means you, Kippers on this thread, not UKIP as an organisation which to the best of my knowledge does not have a formal representation here
Or must we conclude that you are avoiding the question deliberately?

jogon

2,971 posts

157 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
  • for the sake of absolute clarity even with those whose iq does not exceed their waist size, "your" in that context means you, Kippers on this thread, not UKIP as an organisation which to the best of my knowledge does not have a formal representation here
Or must we conclude that you are avoiding the question deliberately?
Again, as you admit yourself, you insult the supporters not the party, you cannot change the way certain people feel or think as they are impulsive and any attempts to explain rationally are met with suspicion. Once you finally turn purple it is very hard to consider anything else.

dandarez

13,244 posts

282 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
Let me make this clear. UKIP are not represented on this thread. Kippers are. I said Kippers had linked the two items, not that UKIP had. And I have quoted one Kipper as an example. Go back and check what I said. So stop misquoting me and answer the ***** very simple questoon

JustAnotherLogin said:
is your issue with uncontrolled immigration from the EU, or the already controlled immigration from non-EU, or both?

Simple enough question surely for you to cope with?
  • for the sake of absolute clarity even with those whose iq does not exceed their waist size, "your" in that context means you, Kippers on this thread, not UKIP as an organisation which to the best of my knowledge does not have a formal representation here
Or must we conclude that you are avoiding the question deliberately?
Why is it that those who denigrate and refer to IQs always appear as if they are talking to themselves?

Mind you, looking at your above response, it's very likely that you are. hehe

handpaper

1,290 posts

202 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
Drat. Double post, ignore.



Edited by handpaper on Saturday 20th December 04:49

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
  • for the sake of absolute clarity even with those whose iq does not exceed their waist size, "your" in that context means you, Kippers on this thread, not UKIP as an organisation which to the best of my knowledge does not have a formal representation here
Or must we conclude that you are avoiding the question deliberately?
Dear me! we are wriggling, aren't we?

Just so that we stay on topic, I will quote you again.

You said:
And how will controlled immigration stop problems such as that in Rotherham?
Once again, I ask you why you think that this is related to UKIP?

Labour's policy of uncontrolled immigration may, or may not have contributed to the "problems" in Rotheram. Labour's policies which promoted multiculturism definitely played a part in Rotheram's problems.

You really should apologise.

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
is your (Kippers') issue: with uncontrolled immigration from the EU; or the already controlled immigration from non-EU; or both?

Or must we conclude that you are avoiding the question deliberately?

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
don4l said:
Once again, I ask you why you think that this is related to UKIP?

Labour's policy of uncontrolled immigration may, or may not have contributed to the "problems" in Rotheram. Labour's policies which promoted multiculturism definitely played a part in Rotheram's problems.

You really should apologise.
What is UKIP's solution to this problem?

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
don4l said:
Once again, I ask you why you think that this is related to UKIP?

Labour's policy of uncontrolled immigration may, or may not have contributed to the "problems" in Rotheram.
Labour's policies which promoted multiculturism definitely played a part in Rotheram's problems.
That's actually the point, what's the Rotherham issue was immigration related, it was not an immigration problem persay, it was one of political dogma and turning a blind eye to something that showed up the policy of multiculturism for what it actually was/is.

Greg66 said:
What is UKIP's solution to this problem?
good question?

Not pandering to PC ethnically sensitive issues would be a good start don't you think?

(as in it should make zero difference what origin/background a person is from to how they are dealt with when doing criminal acts.)

the risk here is that you then get accused of racial profiling and picking on groups because of their race/origin - how many times do we still hear the accusation that the Met is institutionally racist?, yes, I am sure it probably was 30 years ago, but now, no, it's just another stick used to whack them with when things don't go your way.

No different to the Mark Duggan case, nothing racial about it, he was a nasty wannabe gangster, but that's not stopped all kinds of people trying to make out he was some kind of saint slain by overzealous Police.

Much as I have derided the Police at times, at the end of the day, this kind of stuff is caused by our political leaders setting the wrong tone.

another example is the quote from DCI Paul Barnard, (the head of the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit) “The fact is 92 per cent of all ATM fraud we see in this country is committed by Romanian nationals.”

yet any mention of this brings out cries of racism etc.

Crime is Crime, and should be dealt with being blind to the ethnic origins of the perpetrator.

Another aspect of this is the blind eye turned to the political/celebrity establishment, ie, Savill, Cyril Smith, etc. Just how many more are there out there that have been swept under the carpet?













allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
Were the perpetrators of the Rotherham abuse immigrants? Or just Muslims?

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
Were the perpetrators of the Rotherham abuse immigrants? Or just Muslims?
Good question,

five men of Pakistani heritage is the way they are referred to.


allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
Good question,

five men of Pakistani heritage is the way they are referred to.
This isn't necessarily aimed at you per se, however is it reasonable or accurate to link this behaviour predominantly to the religion of the perpetrators ahead of, for example, their cultural values? I doubt being muslim makes you any more likely to be a rapist than being an MP or BBC personality leads you to being a child abuser.

Playing to the galleries with a broad brush approach is at best inaccurate and at worst dangerous for society. I make no apologies whatsoever for invoking Godwin when I say we should think very, very carefully before being led into tarring whole religious groups with stigmas they neither deserve nor reflect.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
This isn't necessarily aimed at you per se, however is it reasonable or accurate to link this behaviour predominantly to the religion of the perpetrators ahead of, for example, their cultural values? I doubt being muslim makes you any more likely to be a rapist than being an MP or BBC personality leads you to being a child abuser.
be careful...

it's more a cultural problem, seated in their interpretation of their religion.

it's not that their culture promotes/supports such behaviour, (quite the opposite) the problem is that because of their cultural rules over sex, they look elsewhere (as well as perceiving white girls of zero value).




FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
Crime is Crime, and should be dealt with being blind to the ethnic origins of the perpetrator.

Another aspect of this is the blind eye turned to the political/celebrity establishment, ie, Savill, Cyril Smith, etc. Just how many more are there out there that have been swept under the carpet?
This is the key. The investigation should go where the evidence leads. If there is a connection or profile available which helps to identify the modus operandi of the criminals then take that on board and use it to stop and, where necessary, punish criminal behaviour together with rehabilitation.

Regardless of fear or favour. Crime is crime. Letting one group off allows the "but they were throwing stones first" defence.

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
I've had a slightly surreal experience this afternoon.

Every Saturday I go out for a walk with a group of people. We usually do around 6 miles.

Today somebody brought a guest, and I was sort of assigned to look after them.

We had been chatting for about half an hour when it became apparent that he was very knowledgeable about journalism.

So, I asked him if he worked in journalism. He replied that he used to, but not any more.

Naturally I asked him what he was doing now. Apparently he is an MEP.

So I asked him the obvious question. "Do you think that Daniel Hannan is going to jump ship?"

His reply was:-"Well, you have asked the right person."

At this point I recalled when we were introduced. "Daniel, this is don4L. don4L, this is Daniel."

Doh!




If you don't know who Daniel is, then you should watch the following YouTube:-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs



Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
Cool!

So what was the answer?

AmitG

3,272 posts

159 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
don4l said:
Naturally I asked him what he was doing now. Apparently he is an MEP.

So I asked him the obvious question. "Do you think that Daniel Hannan is going to jump ship?"

His reply was:-"Well, you have asked the right person."

At this point I recalled when we were introduced. "Daniel, this is don4L. don4L, this is Daniel."

Doh!
So was it a yes or a no smile

I seem to recall he wrote some strong stuff about staying with the Conservatives.

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
Cool!

So what was the answer?
There wasn't an answer.

It is difficult to explain, but this was a social outing.

It wasn't anything like a Newsnight interview. So, although I would have liked to get back to the question, we never did.

As soon as I realised who I was talking to, I asked him if I could shake his hand, and I congratulated him on his "Gordon Brown" speech. He accepted my handshake willingly. TBH, I suspect that he was surprised that someone had even heard of him, yet alone had seen his brilliant speech.

He struck me as being remarkably modest, as well as being remarkably intelligent.

steveT350C

6,728 posts

160 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
don4l said:
I've had a slightly surreal experience this afternoon.

Every Saturday I go out for a walk with a group of people. We usually do around 6 miles.

Today somebody brought a guest, and I was sort of assigned to look after them.

We had been chatting for about half an hour when it became apparent that he was very knowledgeable about journalism.

So, I asked him if he worked in journalism. He replied that he used to, but not any more.

Naturally I asked him what he was doing now. Apparently he is an MEP.

So I asked him the obvious question. "Do you think that Daniel Hannan is going to jump ship?"

His reply was:-"Well, you have asked the right person."

At this point I recalled when we were introduced. "Daniel, this is don4L. don4L, this is Daniel."

Doh!




If you don't know who Daniel is, then you should watch the following YouTube:-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
Wow don4l!

I do hope if I was in your situation I would have recognised him. I do follow him on twitter so see his pic every day. smile

Was he the unassuming, intelligent, English gentleman that I believe him to be?



TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED