Bit of a mistake to teach them cricket, though. I guess it does provide us with someone who can beat the Convicts 
LOL!!
I'm quite glad, I make my living off the Indian middle classes and their love for cricket. Infact i'm another prime example of British extortion and a shadow of collonial rule
.I know, we've followed the Nazis with the smoking ban and tried to bring in their their Enabling Act...
How about the riots of a few years ago in bradford?
Please Becky stop with all the tough talk no ones buying it.
Londons schools are 70% non indigenous pupils so not long till British people are the ethnic minority in our own capital city.
andy, you are making the incorrect assumption that British == white. British = British Passport.
All started by a BNP activist stabbing an Asian guy.
If someone points a gun in my face I either legit or fight back, i've never been one to roll over and say "please sir". I take control of my destiny as much as possible. All i'm saying is if the fascists got in, i'd either leg it or fight back.I tried finding linky to support this claim but havnt been able to do so, can you cite a reference please?
..and while Andy's at it perhaps he can show me the figures that prove our country is overrun by Asians.
He can probably find both sets of figures in the same place...
I have found some statistics, but they fall a long way short of andybarsblade's claim.
London, as Britains most ethnically diverse region, has about 40% population who dont identify as White British.
In the London boro's there are 5,103,203 white British people, this is not specifically schools this is total population. The largest minority is Indian (a former colonial state and one with whome we retain close links too much like Canada and Astralia - so you could consider them "friendly non-nationals") 436,993. The next largest minority is Black Africans at 378,933 - mostly from commonwealth nations, followed by Black Caribbean at 343,567. Figures from the National Statistics offices.
By religion it's even less of a "worry" for the xenophobes with 4.1m Christian and 1.1m non-religious persons, and 0.6m who preffered not to say, with the rest spread thingly amongst the other religions.
Whereas in London 71.1% of the population is white British/Irish, outside of London the figure is 90.9% (with 1.27% Irish and 2.66% other).
Although 12% of London's population is Asian, the figure is just 4.57% nationaly. Likewise the 10.9% black population of London is just 2.3% nationally.
We're so under siege aren't we!
EDIT: I would like to state for the record that whilst I am mocking the 'under siege' stance and continued spouting of BNP and fascist xenophobic rhetoric, I am not under any circumstances implying that if the figures where higher that I would be in any way bothered. We're people, we're lower and middle class, let those who seek to keep their stranglehold on power worry about what flag you are born under.
London, as Britains most ethnically diverse region, has about 40% population who dont identify as White British.
In the London boro's there are 5,103,203 white British people, this is not specifically schools this is total population. The largest minority is Indian (a former colonial state and one with whome we retain close links too much like Canada and Astralia - so you could consider them "friendly non-nationals") 436,993. The next largest minority is Black Africans at 378,933 - mostly from commonwealth nations, followed by Black Caribbean at 343,567. Figures from the National Statistics offices.
By religion it's even less of a "worry" for the xenophobes with 4.1m Christian and 1.1m non-religious persons, and 0.6m who preffered not to say, with the rest spread thingly amongst the other religions.
Whereas in London 71.1% of the population is white British/Irish, outside of London the figure is 90.9% (with 1.27% Irish and 2.66% other).
Although 12% of London's population is Asian, the figure is just 4.57% nationaly. Likewise the 10.9% black population of London is just 2.3% nationally.
We're so under siege aren't we!
EDIT: I would like to state for the record that whilst I am mocking the 'under siege' stance and continued spouting of BNP and fascist xenophobic rhetoric, I am not under any circumstances implying that if the figures where higher that I would be in any way bothered. We're people, we're lower and middle class, let those who seek to keep their stranglehold on power worry about what flag you are born under.
Words fail me at this part of your post. No one deserves to die for their views, no matter how abhorent they may be.
There is never, ever, under any circumstances any justification in any way to physically attack let alone murder someone because of verbal provocation. I have to say I'm with andy on this point, (only). The guy should have been done for murder pure and simple and his two sons done for manslaughter. They should all be put in prison for a very long time in my book. There are legal avenues to deal with this kind of situation. Taking the law in to your own hands is not acceptable under any circumstances and should be dealt with severely.
You talk about comparisons, well words are words. Physical violence is physical violence and it's on another level completely. The two are in no way comparable. Murder is murder no matter what the motivation and should IMO be dealt with just as severely in every case.
This is somewhere were I think our law is going down the pan. I hear more and more cases of clear murder being reduced to manslaughter because of "provocation". There is no leway in the letter of the law, in this regard and it's clear to me the law is not being justly applied. There are only two tests for murder and they are intent and premeditation, and the law takes the view that it's imposible to have premeditation without intent. No matter how provoked you are, if you consciously pick up, (premeditation), any form of weapon and kill someone with it, you have murdered them. It can only be manslaughter if you kill in "the heat of the moment" and without the intention to kill.
Oh god no - haha.
Just pointing out that in some parts we are being over-run by Asians
EDIT: woow I missed like a thousand posts by not going to the next page!
Please excuse my previous statement as it was incorrect. The figure is for "inner city" London and its 78%. Dont believe me go take a look for yourself
(While your at it pass through Leicester and Birmingham)Wow. So if we believe Andy, 23% of the population of London are producing 70% of the kids.
Funnily enough i find that preposterous
EDIT. Oh i see he got his facts wrong. Again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London
Ethnic Group Population % of London's population
White 5,209,900 69.4
White British 4,354,700 51.0
White Irish-ancestry 797,700 10
Other White 667,500 8.9
Mixed 259,800 3.5
White and Black Caribbean 75,400 1.0
White and Black African 40,200 0.5
White and South Asian 72,700 1.0
Other Mixed 71,500 1.0
South Asian 982,600 13.1
Indian 491,300 6.5
Pakistani 170,400 2.3
Bangladeshi 170,500 2.3
Other South Asian 150,500 2.0
Black 803,700 10.7
Black Caribbean 325,300 4.3
Black African 415,400 5.5
Other Black 63,000 0.8
East Asian or Other 256,300 3.4
Chinese 111,500 1.5
Other 144,800 1.9
Ethnic Group Population % of London's population
White 5,209,900 69.4
White British 4,354,700 51.0
White Irish-ancestry 797,700 10
Other White 667,500 8.9
Mixed 259,800 3.5
White and Black Caribbean 75,400 1.0
White and Black African 40,200 0.5
White and South Asian 72,700 1.0
Other Mixed 71,500 1.0
South Asian 982,600 13.1
Indian 491,300 6.5
Pakistani 170,400 2.3
Bangladeshi 170,500 2.3
Other South Asian 150,500 2.0
Black 803,700 10.7
Black Caribbean 325,300 4.3
Black African 415,400 5.5
Other Black 63,000 0.8
East Asian or Other 256,300 3.4
Chinese 111,500 1.5
Other 144,800 1.9
It's a seperate depate gezmoor, but I dont personally agree that murder should be penalised so heavily - however what's really at question here is not the merrits of that particular case but whether there is a precedent for minorities to be let off lightly by "playing the race card" when in court.
I do not think this is the case in Britain, because the law is quite implicit that it would be racist (on the victim in this case) to be leanient on the grounds of race. British law is quite clear in this regard, of course there will be applications of the law which are a bit hit and miss, that's the nature of the legal system - but on the whole I hope it is being applied fairly, and that we dont need a new quango to act as oversears to check up on the judges.
I do not think this is the case in Britain, because the law is quite implicit that it would be racist (on the victim in this case) to be leanient on the grounds of race. British law is quite clear in this regard, of course there will be applications of the law which are a bit hit and miss, that's the nature of the legal system - but on the whole I hope it is being applied fairly, and that we dont need a new quango to act as oversears to check up on the judges.
I see what you're getting at, but I don't agree. The guy that killed him shouldn't have done what he did, and deserves to be punished for it, but the BNP man obviously did some horrible things for him to have lashed out the way he did. The BNP guy paid for what he did, but if he hadn't been killed, he deserved a severe punishment if he did enough to bring a man to killing someone. And anyway, your post is #616, so you're obviously the devil.
Oh, and did it say it was just verbal abuse he suffered?I already looked for the figures but couldnt find them (admittedly I did not check the BNP site, I used google). So coule you find them please, and once you have done that i'd then like to hear from you why it is rellevent?
Seriously, what would it matter?
On 22–24 June, there were riots in Burnley; two months previously, there had been riots in Oldham. Tensions rose after the National Front attempted to organize a march in the city which was banned by Home Secretary David Blunkett under the Public Order Act 1986. The Anti Nazi League organised a rally in Centenary Square in the centre of the city, which was allowed to proceed. During the course of the rally, a rumour was spread by some of the marchers that National Front sympathisers were gathering at a pub in the centre of Bradford. A confrontation then occurred outside the pub in the city centre during which a Pakistani man was stabbed. According to the appeal court, this incident almost certainly triggered the riot.[8]
He went to a pub full of National front looking for trouble and found it.
And imo that wasnt what started it, Id say what started it was a city of people being invaded without having a say in it.
Good point. Modern anthropology doesn't even support the concept of race, except for the singular HUMAN Race. Race is a human socio-political construct and has no basis in genetic or biological science.
Maybe they're doing what the founder of American Nazi organisation "The Order" did, and registering themselves as having 10 children as part of a bank scam, despite having none at the time...... Andy?
So you are saying what started it was a march of solidarity against their would-be-tyrants and that they should not have been allowed to march?
We already lost the right to demonstrate outside the houses of parliament (A move I seriously have problems with), now you're saying we should abolish all marches?
What about the town carnival, they have floats and things, is that allowed in Barsblade's Britain?
It's very difficult to read some of the things you say as I find them, personally, quite disgusting. It's difficult for me to hear the level of racism and intollerence that you have brought forth, so i'm ducking out for the rest of the night and doing something else. In the meentime can you get back to answering my previous question and sourcing your statistics? Thanks.
What are you talking about marches for? Im talking about this:
At the time of the riot, Bradford had the second largest population of Asians of any UK city,
To be fair, it's not so much an issue of overall population but population distribution. There is quite clearly a ghetto mentality amongst a majority of the immigrant populations, (both white and non-white). To a large extent it's understandable if only from the point of view of finding "support" from a same language speaker in a foreign country, the brits do it in spain after all. However it does have a tendency to divide communities, especially when there are issues of lack of integration due to cultural or religious differences. Especially when those differences are non negotiable on the part of the immigrant populations, and they make little or no effort to integrate with the "natives", (again like the brits in spain), often putting their kids in to the same local schools resulting in self imposed segregation. When these populations just happen to be of non-european non-white origin it just highlights the lack of integration even more clearly.
On a personal note. As a Londoner I can assure you that I have personally seen school playgrounds with hardly any white faces in some areas, so it's clear where the concept of "being flooded" originates. It may be a non representative sample of the overall population but on an individual experience basis, (which from which most people form their opinions), it is all to easy to see why people feel that way in some areas of London. Anyone that doesn't agree with/believe what I'm saying need only take a trip down to the Aldgate East area of London for example.
http://www.answers.com/topic/newham
http://www.nationmaster.com/en ... -Borough-of-Tower-Hamlets
BNP membership data leaked - whoops!
(982 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG