BNP say "send Gurkhas home"
Discussion
In an interview on 5 Live yesterday morning, Nick Griffin said that the Gurkhas were nothing more than mercinaries and didn't deserve the right to settle here.
Later in the interview he said England international footballers Rio Ferdinand, Theo Walcott and David James were not English.
Sums up the BNP. Despite all their protests to the contrary, they are a nazi organisation. Given a platform on national radio their leader couldn't muster even a thin veneer of credibility.
Besides, David James is so rubbish in goal he can only be English.
Later in the interview he said England international footballers Rio Ferdinand, Theo Walcott and David James were not English.
Sums up the BNP. Despite all their protests to the contrary, they are a nazi organisation. Given a platform on national radio their leader couldn't muster even a thin veneer of credibility.
Besides, David James is so rubbish in goal he can only be English.
Disco_Dale said:
In an interview on 5 Live yesterday morning, Nick Griffin said that the Gurkhas were nothing more than mercinaries and didn't deserve the right to settle here.
Later in the interview he said England international footballers Rio Ferdinand, Theo Walcott and David James were not English.
Sums up the BNP. Despite all their protests to the contrary, they are a nazi organisation. Given a platform on national radio their leader couldn't muster even a thin veneer of credibility.
Besides, David James is so rubbish in goal he can only be English.
I'd welcome them with open arms if........for every Gurhka that we admitted a member of the BNP was exportedLater in the interview he said England international footballers Rio Ferdinand, Theo Walcott and David James were not English.
Sums up the BNP. Despite all their protests to the contrary, they are a nazi organisation. Given a platform on national radio their leader couldn't muster even a thin veneer of credibility.
Besides, David James is so rubbish in goal he can only be English.
Zod said:
Could we have the views of some of our resident racist cocks BNP supporters, please?
I doubt there were ever more than a handful of "resident" members on here to be honest.Certainly there was an influx of suspiciously low post count supporters in the last 12 months, particularly in the last few months of the old P+P.
My bet is this was due to some sort of organised campaign by card carrying members to try and infiltrate forums where they hoped their views might find some sympathy.
Happily, Pistonheads had them banged to rights pretty quickly....and they ran away.
It may be that the nature of PH means right of centre views are the norm, but theres a big difference between that and supporting the BNP.
Saw Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics interview Griffin yesterday.Only a short interview but Neil gave Griffin a good grilling. Griffin is obviously improving his act, Neil couldnt really get him to say something completely outrageous.
His position on the holocaust was; Yes it happened, I was wrong about it in the past. On ethnics it was yes, they are civicly (sp?) British, but not natively British. On Ghurkas he said it was all about numbers, no objection to small numbers coming in.
Now, the question is, does anyone really believe him?
His position on the holocaust was; Yes it happened, I was wrong about it in the past. On ethnics it was yes, they are civicly (sp?) British, but not natively British. On Ghurkas he said it was all about numbers, no objection to small numbers coming in.
Now, the question is, does anyone really believe him?
s2art said:
Saw Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics interview Griffin yesterday.Only a short interview but Neil gave Griffin a good grilling. Griffin is obviously improving his act, Neil couldnt really get him to say something completely outrageous.
His position on the holocaust was; Yes it happened, I was wrong about it in the past. On ethnics it was yes, they are civicly (sp?) British, but not natively British. On Ghurkas he said it was all about numbers, no objection to small numbers coming in.
Now, the question is, does anyone really believe him?
Does anyone believe any politician?His position on the holocaust was; Yes it happened, I was wrong about it in the past. On ethnics it was yes, they are civicly (sp?) British, but not natively British. On Ghurkas he said it was all about numbers, no objection to small numbers coming in.
Now, the question is, does anyone really believe him?
At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest, is it not true that the Gurkhas sign up for service on a contract that explicitly states that they are to return home when finishing service?
I believe the average wage there is also something like £400 a year, as opposed to £16,000 when signing up for service - hence massive competition for places (something like 100 applicants for each post). Are there not also continuing benefits for them when they return to Nepal?
If my understanding of the above points is correct, it seems to me that arguing the Gurkhas should be allowed citizenship when they signed up willingly on the explicit grounds that they wouldn't receive it and are rewarded handsomely for it (relatively) seems a bit over the top.
Now obviously these people are fighting, and sometimes dieing, courageously (by all accounts) in service to our country, but it strikes me that there is only a subtle difference between them and the mercenaries that went to Iraq to work in "protection" jobs for the US government as contractors. They know the risks and are attracted by the money. The fact that they do a courageous job of it to my mind doesn't change the terms of their contract.
Having said that, I don't really have any strong views on it as, having seen them working as security guards in mine and other buildings, I believe that they're exactly the kind of people we want to attract to this country, I just think that the argument used to support their immigration is flawed.
I believe the average wage there is also something like £400 a year, as opposed to £16,000 when signing up for service - hence massive competition for places (something like 100 applicants for each post). Are there not also continuing benefits for them when they return to Nepal?
If my understanding of the above points is correct, it seems to me that arguing the Gurkhas should be allowed citizenship when they signed up willingly on the explicit grounds that they wouldn't receive it and are rewarded handsomely for it (relatively) seems a bit over the top.
Now obviously these people are fighting, and sometimes dieing, courageously (by all accounts) in service to our country, but it strikes me that there is only a subtle difference between them and the mercenaries that went to Iraq to work in "protection" jobs for the US government as contractors. They know the risks and are attracted by the money. The fact that they do a courageous job of it to my mind doesn't change the terms of their contract.
Having said that, I don't really have any strong views on it as, having seen them working as security guards in mine and other buildings, I believe that they're exactly the kind of people we want to attract to this country, I just think that the argument used to support their immigration is flawed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff