Friday OT: The Reckless rise of UKIP!
Comments
-
BigMat wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:BigMat wrote:Thornberry tweet was ill advised - regardless of what was intended, it can easily be construed as a "rolling eyes" type sneer at the electorate. Never a good idea on the eve of an election. I think she was sacked for the sheer stupidity of creating such a sh*tstorm when the Tories should have been taking a kicking at the hands of the press, rather than because the actual content was so bad.
Presumably it's a reflection of the UK's wider class snobbery than hers necessarily.
That a picture without any inflammatory caption is considered a sneer is more to do with readers being snobby about what's in the picture and projecting that back on the tweeter... I suspect.
Maybe - it could be taken as a "that's a bit chav" comment, but also as a "the locals here are flag waving nationalists, we've got no chance". Would the latter have been a job-saving explanation? Probably not.
It could be neither.
Therein lies the issue.
It genuinely interests me that class is so ingrained in the UK that things like waving a st. Geroge's cross and having a white van parked outside are such big class signifiers that the mere act of a middle class politician taking a picture of it and sharing it on twitter becomes an act of class sneering and snobbishness.
There's so much going on. You need to take into account the class of the MP, the signifiers of the flags & the white van, and the type of house it is (presumably a new build on some kind of estate - another signifier), and then the context of the elections where UKIP has done well, which in itself has a number of class and social connotations too, let alone the party the MP is part of, etc etc etc.
To my half foreign mind it's bloody crazy.
Try explaining it to any foreign friends you have in other countries. It's not easy!
The more I think about it, the more it's public class anxiety being projected back onto the MP, rather than anything necessarily sneery or not from the MP.
FWIW, look through her other twitter pictures. Gives a bit more context...
Would the response be the same if Mr Reckless tweeted the same picture? or an EDL member for that matter?0 -
If you don't understand this stuff, how can you moderate a forum?
For example, do you understand that DDD's comments are blatantly racist?0 -
-
BigMat wrote:I think she was sacked for the sheer stupidity of creating such a sh*tstorm when the Tories should have been taking a kicking at the hands of the press, rather than because the actual content was so bad.
It probably wouldn't have been a massive issue if Miliband hadn't sacked her thereby putting the issue beyond doubt.Kinesis Racelite 4s disc
Kona Paddy Wagon
Canyon Roadlite Al 7.0 - reborn as single speed!
Felt Z85 - mangled by taxi.0 -
MrSweary wrote:BigMat wrote:I think she was sacked for the sheer stupidity of creating such a sh*tstorm when the Tories should have been taking a kicking at the hands of the press, rather than because the actual content was so bad.
It probably wouldn't have been a massive issue if Miliband hadn't sacked her thereby putting the issue beyond doubt.
I agree with that 100%. Irrespective of the tweet and its meaning, Miliband failed there - he panicked a threw her under a bus. He made a bad-ish situation worse2015 Cervelo S3
2016 Santa Cruz 5010
2016 Genesis Croix de Fer0 -
I forgot this website is filled with rose tinted saddle wearers who like to sit in a circle and sing kumbaya...
For old times sake, I'll bite...vermin wrote:For example, do you understand that DDD's comments are blatantly racist?
Do you understand the meaning of the word racist? Please point out where I have been racist?
Pointing out that a right wing party - based in a Country where 87.2% of its population are white British - has been created to appeal to the largest ethnic group within that Country is not racist. It is stating fact.
Going further and stating that it is a concern because said right wing party has the (somewhat infectious) potential (key word there) to appeal to just about every white British person irrespective of class [and I now wish to add age and gender] (a huge definable factor in the UK). Is not being racist.
You cheapen the meaning of the term 'racism' when you bandy it around so casually. If you have truly experienced (physically and emotionally) true racism, true racial hatred then you wouldn't do so. If you have, shame on you.
I honestly think that the irresponsible ignorance (and intolerance) of the left - who simply refused to discuss the issue of ethnicity, nationality and immigration and label anyone who wanted to as racist - is a large reason why we are where we are and why groups like UKIP have found a voice that is being heard (increasingly so). People had concerns, wanted to have the discussion were refused the right and so are now acting out their frustrations with the same level of intolerance they were originally greeted with. Would it actually surprise anyone to learn that many UKIP supporters aren't racists but are people* who are frustrated because their feelings were dismissed by the last two Governments (more so with the Blair/Brown) and when they tried to voice these concerns were shouted down as racists?
I would go as far as to say that forcing others to ignore the subject (both the positives and negatives) of ethnicity, race, cultural and immigration is in itself insulting/prejudice because you are denying identifiable groups the right to recognition.
*Now who are these people that have turned to UKIP?
[And breath]Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I forgot this website is filled with rose tinted saddle wearers who like to sit in a circle and sing kumbaya...
For old times sake, I'll bite...vermin wrote:For example, do you understand that DDD's comments are blatantly racist?
Do you understand the meaning of the word racist? Please point out where I have been racist?
Pointing out that a right wing party - based in a Country where 87.2% of its population are white British - has been created to appeal to the largest ethnic group within that Country is not racist. It is stating fact.
May as well too.For old times sake, I'll bite...
No. When you say that UKIP has been created to appeal to white people then you're wrong.
UKIP has been created to appeal to a certain subset of the British population, which will likely include more white people than non white.
That is not the same as saying that it has the potential to appeal to all white British people.
They do not appeal to me. They do not appeal to Vermin. They do not have the potential to appeal to either of us unless they change their policies to something that would make them a completely different party.
The BNP and NF before them have the same potential to appeal to me as they do to you DDD. Which is to say they do not and will not unless they change so much as to be unrecognisable.
What it seems you're trying to say is that UKIP has the likelihood of appealing to more white British people than non white British people. That's evidently true, but it's not what you've actually said.0 -
-
SEMANTICS. You are saying the same thing but in a much longer sentence.dhope wrote:
No. When you say that UKIP has been created to appeal to white people then you're wrong.
UKIP has been created to appeal to a certain subset of the British population, which will likely include more white people than non white.
They do not appeal to me. They do not appeal to Vermin. They do not have the potential to appeal to either of us unless they change their policies to something that would make them a completely different party.
This is what I had originally wrote:
"The vote worries me, it seems that any of the three parties do not know what to do with UKIP as the party seemingly has the potential to appeal to just about every white British person irrespective of class"
Now the bits I've underlined allow for exceptions such as you and Vermin and others. See. Others words/phrases that achieve this: "mostly" "some but not all"
They don't have the same potential as UKIP. UKIP presents itself as a legitimate party with a legitimate issue. The BNP and NF were all about hating on non-whites.The BNP and NF before them have the same potential to appeal to me as they do to you DDD. Which is to say they do not and will not unless they change so much as to be unrecognisable.
Yes it is I just wrote it differently. You and others decided to take offense.What it seems you're trying to say is that UKIP has the likelihood of appealing to more white British people than non white British people. That's evidently true, but it's not what you've actually said.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
In that case, you might aswell say they have the potential to appeal to anyone of voting age, including yourself.DonDaddyD wrote:This is what I had originally wrote:
"The vote worries me, it seems that any of the three parties do not know what to do with UKIP as the party seemingly has the potential to appeal to just about every white British person irrespective of class"
Now the bits I've underlined allow for exceptions such as you and Vermin and others. See. Others words/phrases that achieve this: "mostly" "some but not all"
If that's not the case, what is about Vermin, DHope and myself (all of whom appear to abhor their policies) that means UKIP have the potential to appeal to us and not to you? Sounds like we're all British, so it can't be that...Pannier, 120rpm.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
SEMANTICS. You are saying the same thing but in a much longer sentence.dhope wrote:
No. When you say that UKIP has been created to appeal to white people then you're wrong.
UKIP has been created to appeal to a certain subset of the British population, which will likely include more white people than non white.
Yes, SEMANTICS. The meaning of logic and language. It's pretty relevant when you say things like 'the potential to appeal to virtually all'.
You said 'virtually all, irrespective of class'
that is completely different to 'a subset of, which will likely include more'
With 'virtually all' then you've included me and Vermin in that group. We're going to take offense if we feel that UKIP policies are short sighted, xenophobic, tabloid driven drivel.
Seriously. This is actually an important part of framing an argument.
If we interchange an implied minority for 'virtually all' then suddenly virtually all marriages between mixed race couples will fail and virtually all black kids will turn to crime.
Are you offended yet? Why? It's just semantics. Pfft, you chose to be offended.0 -
andrewc3142 wrote:They have changed the debate in the sense that the other parties (except the Greens) are spouting the same xenophobic nonsense.
Now UKIP need to address the issue that their policies are based on half-truths and smears, lacking any real basis in fact. They need to spell out the disaster that leaving the EU would be for the UK, the collapse of the NHS and the agricultural sector that would follow from their immigration policies.
You do realise that the green party also call for an in/out referendum? That if by some disaster they were voted in, they could result in a similar end-game to UKIP?FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
They don't have the same potential as UKIP. UKIP presents itself as a legitimate party
Oh please.
UKIP now has (according to its leader) a manifesto comprising 2 things: (i) the EU (against), (ii) grammar schools (for).
That's it. The whole manifesto and all the detailed policy. There is nothing else.
Doesn't even cover the back of a fag packet.
A legitimate party running for office in European and UK elections? No, not really.0 -
jds_1981 wrote:andrewc3142 wrote:They have changed the debate in the sense that the other parties (except the Greens) are spouting the same xenophobic nonsense.
Now UKIP need to address the issue that their policies are based on half-truths and smears, lacking any real basis in fact. They need to spell out the disaster that leaving the EU would be for the UK, the collapse of the NHS and the agricultural sector that would follow from their immigration policies.
You do realise that the green party also call for an in/out referendum? That if by some disaster they were voted in, they could result in a similar end-game to UKIP?
Yes I do, and I disagree with them about that. I'm not arguing for the Greens (although the way things are going with Labour there might not be much other choice). But, to their credit, at least they are not taking part in the other parties' full-speed charge to the extreme right.0 -
andrewc3142 wrote:They don't have the same potential as UKIP. UKIP presents itself as a legitimate party
Oh please.
UKIP now has (according to its leader) a manifesto comprising 2 things: (i) the EU (against), (ii) grammar schools (for).
That's it. The whole manifesto and all the detailed policy. There is nothing else.
Doesn't even cover the back of a fag packet.
A legitimate party running for office in European and UK elections? No, not really.
I posted their current working manifesto highlights a page or two back. Rather more than two policies.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
http://www.ukip.org/issuesFCN 9 || FCN 50 -
Without wishing to appear pedantic, they describe these as policy announcements made at the Doncaster Conference. Not really a manifesto and still plenty of time for Nige to make up his mind whether they are drivel or not.
After all, Reckless made some policy announcement recently about repatriation that was denied the next morning since apparently he was making up policy when he was a bit tired, poor thing.
As far as I can find, their official 2014 manifesto (in that it is described as such) is:
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5308a93901925b5b09000002/attachments/original/1398869254/EuroManifestoLaunch.pdf?1398869254
Summarised as: EU (against).
Couldn't see anything about grammar schools though.
Nige's own view on the difference between policy announcements and manifesto policy (and the status of the manifesto UKIP candidates ran for office on in 2010) is clear from this rather entertaining clip, although he his unfortunately allowed to rather gloss over the fact that the dafter policies that he denies were on the website were in fact set out in links from the official UKIP site:
http://www.lbc.co.uk/ukip-manifesto-was-drivel-written-by-idiot-says-farage-849190 -
Other than the EU and immigrants (they want none of both) there is nothing that the voters of UKIP can agree on
I'm hoping that come the General Election is when then they are forced to to declare their hand on their views and it will cause ructions within the party once their proposals are scrutinized
There was a great expression in one of the Sunday's - the empty-headed led by the foul-minded2015 Cervelo S3
2016 Santa Cruz 5010
2016 Genesis Croix de Fer0 -
This is what I think has been done with what I have written:
[An example] Something I've written, which is arguably true:
"Ethnic minorities are a problem in this Country when they are not accepted by the ethnic majority. Minorities can find themselves pushed to the outer edges of society and presented with limited job opportunities and this can limit their social mobility.
The only part of the above some have chosen to read and then accuse me of being racist:
"Ethnic minorities are a problem in this Country."
It's this approach that has given UKIP a voice, people have wanted to discuss the issue (of immigration and the above for that matter) in full, but the sheer utterance of the words ethnicity and race makes some people stupidly uncomfortable, defensive and fall back accusations like racism (and they are no better than UKIP IMO). Ever has the phrase, attack the argument not the person been more poignant than in UKIP's case, but until that discussion is had, in full, UKIPs voice will get louder.TGOTB wrote:
In that case, you might aswell say they have the potential to appeal to anyone of voting age, including yourself.DonDaddyD wrote:This is what I had originally wrote:
"The vote worries me, it seems that any of the three parties do not know what to do with UKIP as the party seemingly has the potential to appeal to just about every white British person irrespective of class"
Now the bits I've underlined allow for exceptions such as you and Vermin and others. See. Others words/phrases that achieve this: "mostly" "some but not all"
If that's not the case, what is about Vermin, DHope and myself (all of whom appear to abhor their policies) that means UKIP have the potential to appeal to us and not to you? Sounds like we're all British, so it can't be that...
That's silly, I, an ethnic minority would vote for a right wing party who has the subject of immigration at the top of their agenda and contains/ed members who use phrases like "Bongo Bongo land". Yes, that party certainly is going to think positively about my particular demographic should they ever get into power. Just like the Tories did when they were proper Tories in the 80s and early 90s.
I've said it before, if UKIP got into power and dealt with EU immigration what would they do next. What comes after BREXIT? I'll let you into a secret, a lot of ethnic minorities - certainly those who were able to vote at anytime between the 60s - 80s - absolutely would not vote Conservative, even if politically they were quite Conservative themselves. I've even been told (not just by black people but people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds who are old enough to remember the 60s - 80s and definitely those who were actual immigrants), never to vote Conservative. It's like pre-programming: you're a minority you vote Labour, Lib-Dem (when they were a mostly socialist party) or don't vote .
Now, having said that, the British citizen in me - and certainly after the course of this conversation - does find something appealing about UKIP. I've said before they have that infectious populist approach (like Boris Johnson and Jeremy Clarkson for that matter) and, you know what, they do have a point on many of the issues they raise.
If I had to be completely honest if I was a white person I'd be a little bit more receptive. However, the first and last thing that switches me off from UKIP is that I am an ethnic minority (you may not share or even have that perspective). The stuff in the middle is my intelligence to see that there is very little depth to their policies (financially, practically and ethically unworkable) and scratch beneath the veneer of their populist prejudices is nothing but bigotry.
All I can do is be honest.dhope wrote:You said 'virtually all, irrespective of class'
that is completely different to 'a subset of, which will likely include more'
'Virtually all' is not the same as 'all'
It allows for exceptions like yourself and vermin, which is why I struggle to understand the offence.If we interchange an implied minority for 'virtually all' then suddenly virtually all marriages between mixed race couples will fail and virtually all black kids will turn to crime.
What do the statistics say? Then lets look at the circumstances that influence this.
I face this at work all the time. 8 years ago in some circles NHS mental services were saying things like if you are black you are more likely to suffer from a mental health condition :shock: . Years of fighting this misconception and its been demonstrated that actually there is a disproportionate percentage of black people in mental health services compared to the percentage of black people in the population.
In addition, things like a lack of education, some ethnic cultural beliefs about mental health, social practices that are more commonly found amongst people living in socially deprived areas has proven to be contributing factors. And that it's not just 'black people' but if you compare the percentage of white people who share these influencing factors with black people compared to those who don't (more affluent, lets say) you will also see a higher correlation. So what does this do? It changes the mentality towards black people in mental health services, it challenges the approach and creates new ones with better results, it educates the industry to challenge the real issues and deliver a more suitable service.
That's what separating the personal feelings, looking at things objectively and having a full and frank conversation achieves.
So if you ask me about mixed race relationships failing I'd say yeah, in my small circle I've observed the same. All relationships have the potential to fail but I would want to understand if there are any trends as to why mixed race ones do (for obvious reasons). I have done, sometimes its cultural, so I explained to Mrs D that I can't eat meat and two veg all the time with no spice, so she learned how to make jerk chicken and now lets me listen to bass heavy music at least once a month.
As for young black boys, there was this experiment once; they took a mediocre (black) boy from a failing inner city London school and put him in a top school where he was 'the only one'. The results were remarkable. Now, obviously kids have different abilities, but I've long since thought that there is a negative culture that is adopted by some inner city kids that holds them back. Depending on circumstances some are able to remove themselves from this culture and others are swallowed up by it. But in all things there are exceptions to the rule; I once knew a girl that went to a very well to do private school and when her parents went on holiday she spent the money left her on cocaine - She's a heroin addicted prostitute now.
I'll repeat:
That's what separating the personal feelings, looking at things objectively and having a full and frank conversation achieves.Are you offended yet? Why? It's just semantics. Pfft, you chose to be offended.
So no, where there is reasonable discussion to be had then no I am not going to be offended. Dismissing what I have to say and calling me as a racist, when clearly that isn't the case, is where offense can be taken.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:dhope wrote:You said 'virtually all, irrespective of class'
that is completely different to 'a subset of, which will likely include more'
'Virtually all' is not the same as 'all'
It allows for exceptions like yourself and vermin, which is why I struggle to understand the offence.
No, it doesn't. Again, you need to pick the language you use more carefully. You linked to the dictionary earlier - use it to look up the meaning of virtual. 'Virtually all' implies that Vermin or I are outliers, statistical aberrations. We're not, we're part of an established group - whether it's a minority or a majority I don't know.
All means 100%. Yep.
Virtually all doesn't mean "all but those that are not".
Virtually all means as near as makes no difference. So, roughly speaking, those that are 3 standard deviations from the mean. 0.3% of the white British population or 1 in every 333 people. That's evidently complete rubbish or there wouldn't even be a debate about whether UKIP were a problem. If 332/333 felt that UKIP had the potential to appeal to them then this thread wouldn't have reached 5 posts, let alone 5 pages.DonDaddyD wrote:dhope wrote:If we interchange an implied minority for 'virtually all' then suddenly virtually all marriages between mixed race couples will fail and virtually all black kids will turn to crime.
What do the statistics say? Then lets look at the circumstances that influence this.
It's alright, I don't need you to debunk it, I picked an inflammatory statement as a way of illustrating how being careless with terms can produce some offensive statements pretty quickly.
</GCSE stats>0 -
dhope wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:dhope wrote:You said 'virtually all, irrespective of class'
that is completely different to 'a subset of, which will likely include more'
'Virtually all' is not the same as 'all'
It allows for exceptions like yourself and vermin, which is why I struggle to understand the offence.
No, it doesn't. Again, you need to pick the language you use more carefully. You linked to the dictionary earlier - use it to look up the meaning of virtual. 'Virtually all' implies that Vermin or I are outliers, statistical aberrations. We're not, we're part of an established group - whether it's a minority or a majority I don't know.
All means 100%. Yep.
Virtually all doesn't mean "all but those that are not".
Virtually all means as near as makes no difference. So, roughly speaking, those that are 3 standard deviations from the mean. 0.3% of the white British population or 1 in every 333 people. That's evidently complete rubbish or there wouldn't even be a debate about whether UKIP were a problem. If 332/333 felt that UKIP had the potential to appeal to them then this thread wouldn't have reached 5 posts, let alone 5 pages.
Have you ever thought this? Literally, take a step away from the PC, look in the mirror and say the following.
"So what if UKIP has demonstrated a potential to appeal to virtually all within the largest ethnic demographic group (white people) in this country. That does not mean that all, some or even the majority (leaving less than 1%) will actually support them".
Didn't work did it?dhope wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:dhope wrote:If we interchange an implied minority for 'virtually all' then suddenly virtually all marriages between mixed race couples will fail and virtually all black kids will turn to crime.
What do the statistics say? Then lets look at the circumstances that influence this.
It's alright, I don't need you to debunk it, I picked an inflammatory statement as a way of illustrating how being careless with terms can produce some offensive statements pretty quickly.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DDD - you're as wrong as frenchfighter in the Ronde van Vlaanderen thread... :roll:0
-
DonDaddyD wrote:So what if UKIP has demonstrated a potential to appeal to virtually all within the largest ethnic demographic group (white people) in this country. That does not mean that all, some or even the majority (leaving less than 1%) will actually support them
Swap out 'potential' with 'intention' and you're getting close. But it changes the meaning completely.
Though I'd still dispute that they ever intend to waste their time focusing on mine or my friends' votes. There's easier pickings to be had.0 -
dhope wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:So what if UKIP has demonstrated a potential to appeal to virtually all within the largest ethnic demographic group (white people) in this country. That does not mean that all, some or even the majority (leaving less than 1%) will actually support them
Swap out 'potential' with 'intention' and you're getting close. But it changes the meaning completely.
Though I'd still dispute that they ever intend to waste their time focusing on mine or my friends' votes. There's easier pickings to be had.
I think that if you asked all of the people in Britain the question "Does UKIP have the potential to appeal to you?", the vast majority of people, regardless of skin colour, would say "No, UKIP has no potential whatsoever to appeal to me".
If you then broke the results of that survey down into skin colours, I think that vast majority of white people would also say "No, UKIP has no potential whatsoever to appeal to me".
For that reason, I think DDD is wrong in fact.
DDD has, unfortunately, identified a group by skin colour (or a race) and applied a generalisation to that group. The generalisation is that the people in that group would share a characteristic that I believe is abhorent. Were someone to acuse me of sharing that characteristic (supporting the policies of UKIP and the attitudes, beliefs and actions of its members), I would be offended and I would take it as defamatory to my character. I am a member of that group. Because the generalisation is insulting and defamatory and has been applied to a group identified by skin colour, that is racist.0 -
Wow.vermin wrote:
DDD has, unfortunately, identified a group by skin colour (or a race) and applied a generalisation to that group. The generalisation is that the people in that group would share a characteristic that I believe is abhorent. Were someone to acuse me of sharing that characteristic (supporting the policies of UKIP and the attitudes, beliefs and actions of its members), I would be offended and I would take it as defamatory to my character. I am a member of that group. Because the generalisation is insulting and defamatory and has been applied to a group identified by skin colour, that is racist.
Ferguson, you could argue that that was a racially charged situation.
Malky Mackay - racist.
Stephen Lawrence, racist attack by racists.
Calling a person a derogative term based on their race - racist.
Claiming that a person or group of people may support a particular political party over another person/group of people based on their ethnicity, when said political party's main existence is appeal to a particular ethnic group. Does not, in my mind, equate to racism.
However, you may feel about the party itself, not all the people who support UKIP are racists. The party doesn't actually support any racist policies. It is not some great insult to support or claim that someone supports UKIP. You may not agree with the party, neither do I. But get some perspective. Your intolerance and quick to take offend stance is exactly why UKIP has gained momentum.
UKIP does not appeal to ethnic minorities in this Country. FACT. It could, might, does and has the potential to appeal to the ethnic majority of this Country. As individual you can choose whether it does or doesn't.
The Country needs to get its head pulled out of its a*se.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:UKIP does not appeal to ethnic minorities in this Country. FACT.
I know where you're coming from, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that minorities are necessarily pro-immigration.0 -
notsoblue wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:UKIP does not appeal to ethnic minorities in this Country. FACT.
I know where you're coming from, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that minorities are necessarily pro-immigration.
Whoa, I didn't say that minorities are pro-immigration. Far from it.
That's the thing from the discussions I've had many ethnic minorities won't support UKIP because of the immigration stance - many share the same view but because the belief is held that it wouldn't be in their interest to vote UKIP based on their ethnicity.
(As I said previously; many are Conservative, politically, but would never vote Tory in this country)Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Isn't Winston Mackenzie a UKIP supporter?2015 Cervelo S3
2016 Santa Cruz 5010
2016 Genesis Croix de Fer0 -
Hasn't Winston Mackenzie supported all the other main parties at some point in his life?WarrenG wrote:Isn't Winston Mackenzie a UKIP supporter?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Yes - just read his Wiki page - I think he may have sustained some heavy blows to his head during his boxing career2015 Cervelo S3
2016 Santa Cruz 5010
2016 Genesis Croix de Fer0 -
Presumably Warren G's politics is all about the need to regulate and is probably a bit compromised because he shot the sherrif....
So take it with a pinch of salt
. 0
