Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

I assume you are trying to differentiate between UKIP the party and UKIP's members. A number of the latter have very clearly engaged in racist antics, which is shown in the video. The key point is that in some cases they have also been allowed to stand as candidates.

I don't think they have any racist policies or present as a racist party. I do think it is a fact that they have attracted racist members and that this was initially condoned by the party, before they later reinvented themselves as mainstream. The documentary gives an insight into that process from the perspective of some of those involved.

Ok so we agree UKIP don't have racist policies. Thank you. That's all I was asking.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

bmw535i said:

///ajd said:

I've given you two examples but you seem to think they're OK and not xenophobic/racist. I'm not sure what your definition of racism or xenophobia is in that case. What crosses the line?

The lady in the video at 30:00 really couldn't be any clearer - if you think what she says is OK then I think we can draw conclusions as to what side of the fence you sit on.

You can draw whatever conclusion you like, but if you can show me a UKIP racist policy which you claim there are, I'd happily agree they have them.

Are you happy with what she says?

Is this not "racist antics"?

Are they OK for you?

Is it a racist policy as you state there are?

[chrispmartha]

bmw535i said:

chrispmartha said:

Well done k I'll concede that the question was front loaded yet still Mr Farage made this statement, which you said was reasonable

In that link

"In a statement following the interview he said: "Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door"

Yes, entirely reasonable to stand by your original statement in the context it was asked. Why did the person asking the question focus on Romanians?

That's not what you said though, you said the above words spoken by Mr Farage were reasonable or are you backtracking?

I don't know why the reported mentioned Romanians, you would have to ask her/him anything else would be speculation and I know that's not on.

[chrispmartha]

bmw535i said:

chrispmartha said:

So what's wrong with Bulgarians and Romanians to come to the UK?

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, provided it's controlled and they are here to benefit the U.K.

So would you agree the poster was hot air?

[anonymous-user]

chrispmartha said:

bmw535i said:

chrispmartha said:

Well done k I'll concede that the question was front loaded yet still Mr Farage made this statement, which you said was reasonable

In that link

"In a statement following the interview he said: "Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door"

Yes, entirely reasonable to stand by your original statement in the context it was asked. Why did the person asking the question focus on Romanians?

That's not what you said though, you said the above words spoken by Mr Farage were reasonable or are you backtracking?

I don't know why the reported mentioned Romanians, you would have to ask her/him anything else would be speculation and I know that's not on.

Yes I think it's reasonable to be concerned if a group of Romanian men moved in next door and it's entirely reasonable to say so if you're asked that specific question. It would be dishonest to reply any differently.

I only ask because you tried to make out it was Nigel who focused on Romanians, but it wasn't.

[anonymous-user]

chrispmartha said:

So would you agree the poster was hot air?

No.

[chrispmartha]

bmw535i said:

chrispmartha said:

So would you agree the poster was hot air?

No.

What would you say it was?

[anonymous-user]

chrispmartha said:

What would you say it was?

A poster saying the EU was going to allow Bulgarians and Romanians to come to the UK.

Did the date of issue coincide with the lifting on restrictions for those two countries?

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

bmw535i said:

I do remember watching the documentary when it first aired. I don't think UKIP have any racist policies or have engaged in racist antics.

UKIP rule book:

J.3.5 All Party members shall refrain from any posting expressing racist, homophobic, xenophobic or otherwise discriminatory views.

I.6 Membership is not available to anyone who is or has previously been a member of the British National Party, the National Front, the UK First party, the English Defence League, the British Freedom Party, British People’s Party and the Britain First Party (or any other parties or organisations later added to the proscribed list). Any applications made from people who are or have been members of these organisations will be refused, and any subscriptions collected will be refunded. By making an application for membership, the applicant certifies that he is not and has never been a member of either of these parties.

Do any of the other main political parties have these rules?

Do any other parties need them to the same extent? Why do the UKIPs need them, are they acknowledging they are a magnet for those with 'dubious' views? Now why might that be?

And why did they bend their own rules for Martin - ex National Front - as below?

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/ukip-candi...

Are the rules just to wave at the media?

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

Do any other parties need them to the same extent? Why do the UKIPs need them, are they acknowledging they are a magnet for those with 'dubious' views? Now why might that be?

And why did they bend their own rules for Martin - ex National Front - as below?

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/ukip-candi...

Are the rules just to wave at the media?

The link says he joined before the rules came in.

[alfie2244]

///ajd said:

Do any other parties need them to the same extent? Why do the UKIPs need them, are they acknowledging they are a magnet for those with 'dubious' views? Now why might that be?

And why did they bend their own rules for Martin - ex National Front - as below?

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/ukip-candi...

Are the rules just to wave at the media?

Twistier than a twisty thing ain't ya!........ Honestly is that really the best you can do? No forget that of course it is.........silly me.

"was an active member of the National Front more than three decades ago"

"I categorically state that my NF membership was a bad decision and one that I sincerely regret."

"He was also a member of the Conservative party in Ramsgate for 15 years, during which time he stood in various local council elections."

"He joined the party long before the rule came in and it would be contrary to natural justice to backdate it and apply it to him."

[sidicks]

alfie2244 said:

Twistier than a twisty thing ain't ya!........ Honestly is that really the best you can do? No forget that of course it is.........silly me.

"was an active member of the National Front more than three decades ago"

"I categorically state that my NF membership was a bad decision and one that I sincerely regret."

"He was also a member of the Conservative party in Ramsgate for 15 years, during which time he stood in various local council elections."

"He joined the party long before the rule came in and it would be contrary to natural justice to backdate it and apply it to him."

Yes! HTH...

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

sidicks said:

bmw535i said:

I do remember watching the documentary when it first aired. I don't think UKIP have any racist policies or have engaged in racist antics.

UKIP rule book:

J.3.5 All Party members shall refrain from any posting expressing racist, homophobic, xenophobic or otherwise discriminatory views.

I.6 Membership is not available to anyone who is or has previously been a member of the British National Party, the National Front, the UK First party, the English Defence League, the British Freedom Party, British People’s Party and the Britain First Party (or any other parties or organisations later added to the proscribed list). Any applications made from people who are or have been members of these organisations will be refused, and any subscriptions collected will be refunded. By making an application for membership, the applicant certifies that he is not and has never been a member of either of these parties.

Do any of the other main political parties have these rules?

And why did they bend their own rules for Martin - ex National Front - as below?

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/ukip-candi...

I don't know specifically why they bent the rules, and don't really give a sh*ite, but a quick scan of the article gives a number of clues.

I guess tolerance and a sense of fairness and forgiveness doesn't feature in some remainers heads, despite their pleas for tolerance from others.

Hey ho!

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

I don't know specifically why they bent the rules, and don't really give a sh*ite, but a quick scan of the article gives a number of clues.

I guess tolerance and a sense of fairness and forgiveness doesn't feature in some remainers heads, despite their pleas for tolerance from others.

Hey ho!

The rules didn't exist when he joined. Nothing to forgive here.

I don't think this debate on racism and the one on immigration a few days ago have gone as the remainers planned

[///ajd]

It may have been 30 years ago for Martin, but the National Front is quite a club to join.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(UK)

lovelyNationalFront said:

Ideologically characterised as extreme or far-right, the NF has been described as Neo-Nazi and fascist by political scientists. The party is ethnic nationalist, and espouses the view that only white people should be citizens of the United Kingdom. It calls for an end to non-white migration into the UK and the compulsory deportation of settled non-white populations from the country. It promotes biological racism, calling for global racial separatism and condemning mixed race relationships. It promotes economic protectionism, Euroscepticism, and a transformation away from liberal democracy, while its social policies oppose feminism and LGBT rights. Only whites are permitted membership of the party.

It does sound a tiny bit racist.

Do you think he is fully "cured"? Or just pretending in order to present an acceptable front?

[don'tbesilly]

bmw535i said:

don'tbesilly said:

I don't know specifically why they bent the rules, and don't really give a sh*ite, but a quick scan of the article gives a number of clues.

I guess tolerance and a sense of fairness and forgiveness doesn't feature in some remainers heads, despite their pleas for tolerance from others.

Hey ho!

The rules didn't exist when he joined. Nothing to forgive here.

I don't think this debate on racism and the one on immigration a few days ago have gone as the remainers planned

A very quick google reveals that:

Heale was a member of the NF for more than a year in the 70's.
On leaving the NF, Heale became a member of the Tory party, and was a member for 20 years.
Heale ended his relationship with the Tories when he defected to UKIP.

One has to wonder whether Heale was an *alleged racist whilst a Tory, if he was, why did the Tories allow an *alleged racist to be a member of the Tory party, and for twenty years?

• Can anyone prove he was a racist?

I don't know, nor really care, but I guess now the above is revealed, the Tories are racist as are UKIP, and I support UKIP, and am also a racist because I've typed UKIP!

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

bmw535i said:

don'tbesilly said:

I don't know specifically why they bent the rules, and don't really give a sh*ite, but a quick scan of the article gives a number of clues.

I guess tolerance and a sense of fairness and forgiveness doesn't feature in some remainers heads, despite their pleas for tolerance from others.

Hey ho!

The rules didn't exist when he joined. Nothing to forgive here.

I don't think this debate on racism and the one on immigration a few days ago have gone as the remainers planned

A very quick google reveals that:

Heale was a member of the NF for more than a year in the 70's.
On leaving the NF, Heale became a member of the Tory party, and was a member for 20 years.
Heale ended his relationship with the Tories when he defected to UKIP.

One has to wonder whether Heale was an *alleged racist whilst a Tory, if he was, why did the Tories allow an *alleged racist to be a member of the Tory party, and for twenty years?

• Can anyone prove he was a racist?

I don't know, nor really care, but I guess now the above is revealed, the Tories are racist as are UKIP, and I support UKIP, and am also a racist because I've typed UKIP!

Do you think anyone who was in the NF should be in mainstream politics?

Do you think people that join the NF are racist?

Can you become a reformed racist?

What do you think attracted him to UKIP?

[///ajd]

bmw535i said:

don'tbesilly said:

I don't know specifically why they bent the rules, and don't really give a sh*ite, but a quick scan of the article gives a number of clues.

I guess tolerance and a sense of fairness and forgiveness doesn't feature in some remainers heads, despite their pleas for tolerance from others.

Hey ho!

The rules didn't exist when he joined. Nothing to forgive here.

I don't think this debate on racism and the one on immigration a few days ago have gone as the remainers planned

No, its been much more revealing than I expected.

[alfie2244]

don'tbesilly said:

A very quick google reveals that:

Heale was a member of the NF for more than a year in the 70's.
On leaving the NF, Heale became a member of the Tory party, and was a member for 20 years.
Heale ended his relationship with the Tories when he defected to UKIP.

One has to wonder whether Heale was an *alleged racist whilst a Tory, if he was, why did the Tories allow an *alleged racist to be a member of the Tory party, and for twenty years?

• Can anyone prove he was a racist?

I don't know, nor really care, but I guess now the above is revealed, the Tories are racist as are UKIP, and I support UKIP, and am also a racist because I've typed UKIP!

Hope you don't mind me adding:

"While in the Conservative Party I was Chairman of Northwood Ward for seven years and Chairman of Ramsgate Conservtives for one year, I stood for them in Northwood Ward in the local elections, twice, and also in the Northwood and Eastcliff KCC Division. I confirmed my previous NF membership to the selection committee and was endorsed by both local Party and Jonathan Aitken."

So as you say, the question must be asked.....are the Tories racist especially as considering, unlike UKIP, they don't have rules stopping members of racist parties such as NF, EDL etc joining the Tory party?

[don4l]

chrispmartha said:

So what's wrong with Bulgarians and Romanians to come to the UK?

Your roads are full. Your water resevoirs are empty. Your airports are at full capacity. Your railways are creaking at the seams. You don't have enough houses, and the countryside is disappearing under a sea of concrete.

Also, you don't have enough electricity generation capacity. The lights are due to go out soon.