BS: The BNP conundrum

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:14 AM

Here's a nice pocket comparison tool for politics

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:10 AM

Here's what the border agency says.


So that's settled then: the BNP immigration policy is based on untruth and racialism. On what else do they assert that they have any sensible policies?

Have you noticed that on their websites even their supporters don't like thier policies for a dirigiste economy (curiously, the point at which I might have the most interest in them if I thought them capable).

What about national service? The idea that you can take a bunch of idle thugs into the army for a year or so, and turn them into a bunch of fit active thugs with automatic weapons who will be the only people who can vote? Yes, I can see that one working. Not.

Or the Heath Service - the BNP will repatriate migrants - so removing mostly fit young people with no need for long-term services, at the same time as getting rid of piles of doctors and nurses. Not very convincing.

Any more for any more?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:07 AM

Richard, you were able to tell me that my views were the same as BNP, without me even expressing them.

That was an unpleasant lie for which you have not apologised.

I have directed you to an organisation that reflects my views.

I have had enough abuse and false accusations here.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:00 AM

Here are some facts:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950


Net migration last year fell below natural population growth for the first time for a very long time. Ever since 2007 (the date of the Torygraph article you cite) net immigration has been substantially below the projections you feared.



In fact, as of 28th August this year http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News-By-Industry/Services/Travel/Visa-Power/Net-migration-to-UK-falls-to-lowest-in-five
And before you say "Oh, the Times of India" - it's actually from a Reuters feed.

Come on Keith - tell me how your immigration policy differs from the BNP's. I'll start by assuming you are not planning to sink ships, or throw people out of aeroplanes somewhere over Africa.

Right now, all I see from you on the point is that you don't want Johnny Foreigner here.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 08:51 AM

Richard, I am not debating immigration with you.
Balanced Migration's agenda is easy enough to find.
The MPs who form it would be grossly insulted at the BNP link you seek to make.
Beware of libelling yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 08:46 AM

I do not immediately see anything on the "Balanced Migration" page to which you refer, Keith, that sets out policies, although I do see a set of scare stories.

What are the policies of that group, and how do they differ from those of the BNP?

And how do you propose to change or disapply EU law so as to exclude Eastern European labour?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 08:23 AM

We may be misunderstanding each other on the time period thing.
You said " I specifically suggested that immigration was probably higher in the 1935-1945 period "
If you mean higher than now or any time in the last 15 years then you are wrong.
For someone with such strong views to be so ill informed is amazing to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 07:54 AM

I posted about the current 10-15 year period.
I said the level is unprecedented.
That was true.
I am sorry that you do not approve of the period I chose.

I posted about England.
I said it was about the most densely populated country.
That was true.
I am sorry you do not approve of the country I chose.

I have posted no views about immigration, just those facts.
What I got back was hysterical abuse.
I have been called fool, liar, fantasist and accused of having BNP's racist views on immigration even though I expressed none.

I was a fool, but only for thinking it possible to hold a rational debate on immigration with people like you.

Have this thread to yourselves then.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 07:04 AM

As an aside....
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/DailyBulletin/941304/Royal-British-Legion-rethinks-BNP-donation/0B210C745B16A32205A3D414589B48

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: theleveller
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:44 AM

To base an argument for or against immigration on numbers alone is missing an important factor – population age. The UK population is ageing rapidly; a third of us will be over 55 by 2025. With a declining birthrate from the late 80s to the early 2000s and an increase in women waiting until their 30s and 40s to have children, this poses problems. Who will look after us in our old age? Who will run our essential services? Who will fill the skills gap that we are already experiencing?

Here's a section from a BBC article:
"In a dramatic and unprecedented demographic shift the number of young people is dwindling while the older sector of the population rapidly expands.

The underlying cause is that we are living longer and having fewer children - well below the replacement rate of 2.2 per woman - but the size of the baby boomer generation, who are just starting to retire, is accelerating the trend.

By 2014, projections suggest, over-65-year-olds will overtake the under-16s.

And by 2025, the number of over-60s will have passed the under-25s for the first time. "

For me, the answer is obvious: we need immigrants. Anyone have a better answer?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:32 AM

Keith, it's a ten year spread. I specifically suggested that immigration was probably higher in the 1935-1945 period and in the 50's / '60s baby and immigration booms. If you restrict the time period enough then you can make anything a "record".

The point is that you claimed we are in a "record" or "unprecedented" era of immigration now. The telegraph article, which was a distortion and which you mis-read, is a two years old set of lies.

Now, even the two year old ONS figures you've found show that in the years 1998-2007, the peak immigration rate was in 2004. In 2007, when the Telepgraph wrote their helpful article, the rate was lower than in 2004. So whichever you slice it the Telegraph were lying when they claimed a "record" level in 2007 and you are grossly incorrect to be referring to the same fallacious claim in 2009.

And the wider point is that if you had come here and said that you were worried about what all the facts prove are sharply falling immigration rates in 2009 as compared to 2004-2007 and a large-scale return of migrant workers to their home countries, then we could have had an honest discussion.

However you came here with a load of out-of-date hysteria, mis-understood (I suspect deliberately) data, and you assert that this should be the basis of an adult debate?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:01 AM

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?id=260
Here are the official immigration statistics.
I can find no period with higher figures and nor can you.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:58 AM

Keith,

in response to your 05:52

The 10-15 year projection is of TOTAL POPULATION NUMBER

It is not a graph or dataset or projection about immigration rates.

THERE IS NO COMPARATIVE IMMIGRATION DATA IN THAT ARTICLE.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:54 AM

Keith,

Learn to read. The article only contains ONS statistics about total population growth. The biggest drive in population growth is the birth rate, not immigration. The article contains no data whatever to suggest or prove that there is "record" immigration. It contains no data about overall immigration rates in 2007 or earlier. Therefore it contains no data to support contemporary immigration being at "record" or "unprecedented" levels. That claim is simply spun out of an unrelated dataset.

Refer to my comments about how the press make you think you know something in the Sharia Law thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:52 AM

Royston, I made it clear that by current levels I meant "10-15years"
The ONS figures quoted give figures within that timescale.
I find no period in history with higher figures.
I defy you to find any.

I am not missing or making any point, just stating facts that you keep challenging.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:47 AM

Richard,
1. The facts in the article are impeccable ONS statistics.Which are you challenging?
2. Yes I know. Your point?
3. I was only asked to verify my claim that levels are unprecedented.
In this atmosphere I am going to stick to facts.

Now withdraw your insult and apologise please.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:46 AM

Keith,

In spite of everything, I still overestimated you.

Your telegraph article about "record" immigration contains no support for its own claim, or yours. The "record" or "unprecedented" nature of immigration remains an unsupported throwaway comment.

The article is in any event 2 years old and whatever rate of immigration existed at the time, existed at the height of the economic bubble. We all know that since then a lot of migrant east european citizens have returned home and the article itself specifices that it is that group which was responsible for any notable increase.

Look HERE for some recent home office figures and you will see that the total number of work permit entrants was down 12% on 2008 figures, let alone 2007 figures or earlier, when things were booming.

And, knowing the lies that are spouted about asylum, note that 72% of asylum claims were refused in Q2 2009. Hardly a tidal wave there.

The Telegraph article about "English" population density is as mendacious and spurious as you are. As I have already said, you need to compare eggs with eggs. If you want to compare "England" (a region of a country) then compare it with comparable regions of comparable countries. To compare a region with a whole country is to lie, to distort or just to be plain stupid. You choose.

And you still miss the point. The way to deal with an influx of working taxpayers that need public services is, duh!, to provide more public services! It really is that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:41 AM

My views on immigration are broadly represented by the cross party (MAINSTREAM parties) group of elected parliamentarians called Balanced Migration.
http://www.balancedmigration.com/

That is a million miles from the racist policies of BNP.

Now, unless you can substantiate your disgusting insult, I hope you will do the decent thing and withdraw the statement and apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:35 AM

1. The Torygraph is not necessarily the best source of fact, and the article betrays an obvious spin.

2. However, buried in it: -

"Officials said the higher immigration figures over the next five year took account of the huge influx of workers from eastern Europe."

3. So, Keith, you plan to change EU law how?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:30 AM

Well, Keith, if your views on immigration are not the same as those of the BNP how do they differ?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:27 AM

Ooh! the deletion of Guest Sam H's last post gave me the 100!

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:26 AM

Guest Sam H - go back and read my post and you will see how. Perhaps I should copy your PMs (if you are the same Sam H) over here. I had done you the courtesy of treating your PMs as not for entire copying, but I am content to abandon that (and reserve the right to do so if necessary).

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:25 AM

Royston, I thought you might be interested in this headline.
England is most crowded country in Europe
England has become the most crowded major nation in Europe, official figures have revealed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:08 AM

Royston, this article gives all the ONS statistics to support the headline "Record Immigration sees UK poulation soar."
"Record" in this context means unprecedented.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567068/Record-immigration-sees-UK-population-soar.html

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:55 AM

Richard, that is an outrageous slur.
I challenge and defy you to find any post of mine to justify that insult.

Royston, you have now called me fool and liar.
I posted about England. My post was accurate.Your reply is digusting.

And you still deny that current immigration levels are unprecedented?
That IS foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:44 AM

The reason, Keith, is that I have not yet seen any significant distinction between your views on immigration and those of the BNP.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:36 AM

Keith,

I haven't dropped the challenge on "unprecedented". You are ignoring it. I have asked you to provide evidence that supports your "unprecedented" statement. I can find no evidence. You need to prove your statements, not me.

I actually over-estimated you, believe it or not. I thought that you had the sense to compare like with like figures but I was even wrong about that.

You take the density for England, which is not a "state" or politically organised "country" and you start to compare it with other whole countries. And you wonder why you piss me off?

England, as a region of the UK, contains some major conurbations - London, Midlands, Manchester/Liverpool, Leeds/Bradford - think of them as the "greater" areas of those cities. FFS, over 10% of the UK population lives in Greater London alone. I have to go to work now but for starters I went HERE and found that about 11,000,000 live in the conurbations. That's a heck of a lot of people and it makes the rest of the land-mass pretty bloody empty, you fool.

If you want to look at regions then, taking your fatuous French comparison, you should compare the "England" figure with, say, five French arondissements that include the cities Paris, Marseille, Lyons, Toulouse and Nice.

Your claims are unproven. Your use of figures amounts to lying.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:34 AM

For the most part this is an excellent thread - thank you, Emma.

I posted in a previous BNP thread that I was thinking of discarding my Croes Celtaidd, as these are advertised for sale on the BNP marketing site. (I haven't - just got a shorter chain so the Croes Celtaidd is more evident than previously).

To hear that statues of Owain Glyn Dwr are being dished out defies belief.

I am glad that the BNP is to appear on the gawping-box. Perhaps the oxygen of publicity will be another nail in its coffin.

I too read in today's "Times" that the BNP is on the bones of its arse. Long may this continue.

Love to all from Erica and Bryn

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:05 AM

Blimey Joe, you are up early today!

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:04 AM

Richard, why on earth do you assume that I am in any way supporting BNP policies???????????

Re Sam, I ignored his shit for the shit it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:03 AM

"Sam H" - you are not welcome to post at Mudcat because you have posted under a number of identities. If you can't be honest about who you are, we don't want to hear from you at all.

-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 03:59 AM

The good news - even from the far-right "Times"

Although to be fair I suppose the Times would oppose the BNP since the BNP if elected and if doing as promised would impose "British values" on the Times against its foreign owner, and since the dirigiste economic proposals of the BNP would be contrary to Murdoch's wholly laissez-faire wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 03:50 AM

Keith: even if immigration were a net disbenefit to the UK (which I would deny) the BNP's policies on it are based on racial discrimination, pure and simple.

Look at the list of places from which Griffin proposed to ban all future immigration. Have any of them got a substantial white population (other than an invading oppressor order)?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: theleveller
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 03:36 AM

I've just heard on the news today that Fuehrer Griffin had admitted that his loathsome little party's future is in jeopardy as a result of the opposition that has been generated following their EU election wins. So well done everyone - looks like we're winning the battle against these fasists.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 03:36 AM

And those will of course be a fake Royston and a fake ButterandCheese on LiveJournal - just as SamH (then a member, but who now appears to have dropped his cookie) threatened to me by PM.

Is it any wonder that people cannot and will not take the BNP and its supporters seriously when that is the way they conduct themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 03:30 AM

'Sam Hudson' seems to have reappeared on Facebook, posting more abusive and threatening messages. I've reported and blocked him/her there, but it's a shame the same can't be done here - if there is anything posted on livejournal about Keith I very much doubt that it comes from the people SamH claims.
Personally I think immigration is a legitimate concern for anyone, but because of the way it has been hijacked by neo-Nazi parties, the facts are crucial. People vote BNP because of a perception rather than any hard evidence or tested policy, and they need to be swayed by irrefutable evidence.
As Joe says, people are afraid for their jobs and their physical safety. Yes, we know those fears are misplaced, but it does the voice of reason no favours if anyone merely mentioning them is met with abuse and allegations of dishonesty. Keith is not a racist or a fascist - he is merely articulating what I imagine a huge number of people in Britain feel. If that is simply shouted down and written off as racism or ignorance then the battle against the BNP is probably lost.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 03:05 AM

Royston, can you not challenge me without being abusive?
Am I not always polite to you?
You describe me as "talking shit" and my posts as "fantasies" from my "imagination."
This response is what I said at the start would keep me and others away.
Foolishly, I thought it safe to make simple statements of fact, but no.

You challenged me on two statements.
One was that current levels of immigration are unprecedented in our country's history.
I note that you have dropped that challenge.
I was right and you wrong.
An acknowledgement would be nice.
(I would say that your ignorance of such a fundamental fact undermines your credibility on this subject)

The second was that England is about (meaning near to being) the most densely populated nation on Earth.
This (impeccable) source gives the density for England as 398 per square km last year, and increasing.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090720/text/90720w0078.htm

Unless you can list a large number of comparable countries ahead of us,(I have already given Bangla Desh and S.Korea), then my statement stands as a reasonable description of the hard evidence.
No shit.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 11:49 PM

People are afraid of losing their jobs and homes and personal safety, Richard. Those fears may be irrational and unfounded, but they need to be answered nonetheless. If you are unwilling to give a sympathetic answer, don't blame the "unwashed masses" for listening to the BNP.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 11:32 PM

i couldn't agree with you more joe. we have forgotten how to listen to each other, no matter what class we are in.

we think of ourselves in catagories, us and them.
us, we think and feel one way, them don't think or feel anything about us at all.
so many issues affect us all, no matter what we have or what we were born into.
why is it so hard to imagine that others have the same needs and wants as we do?
joe i am sorry if you had a hard time in the UK, i assume you came as a tourist? why should any person visitor or migrant, feel unwanted unless they have behaved in a way that caused offence?

i hated it when we felt like that and we were only in wales. let alone if i had spent a huge amount of money and travelling time getting to somewhere that i thought would be great fun and welcoming.

onto the subject of people feeling threatened by migrant workers, are they being paid less? so the bosses want to employ them first to save on costs?

i can't rememebr who and i am too damn lazy to find out, made a good point about the worlds companies can relocate to any country where the overheads are cheaper, and people complain when they cannot follow the work.
i have said it before but it is not the workers fault that they are working (if this is true) for less than the locals would, because i assume that even though it is less to us, it is obviously more money to them.
why blame them? it is easier to blame and intimidate them than it is to tackle the real culprits.. the bosses... the government.. the EU.

so maybe before we shout about the wages or that we think migrants are nicking the jobs and undercutting the local workforce, maybe we should try to see the bigger picture?
they are simply people trying to improve their lot in life.

how many of us when buying a new car go for one step up from what we had?
it is the same thing just a bigger scale.
i understand the fear, especially when you live in one of the high immigrant areas, that this country is being taken over, and that you are slowly being pushed out, again you have to look at the bigger picture.

ok i am giong before i reapeat myself too much and end up confusing my poor tiny brain.

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 11:32 PM

Ignorance is voluntary, not in any way admirable or to be pandered to.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 10:32 PM

I've heard racism describe as America's "original sin," and I think there's truth in that. Once upon a time, I thought that America was racist, and the rest of the world not so much so.

Then I lived in Berlin in 1972-73, and I found that Berliners hated the southern Europeans they called "Turks" (no matter what country they came from), and they worried about the "Turks" taking jobs from taxpaying Germans - although the southern Europeans did jobs that native Berliners didn't want to do, I guess I could understand German workers worrying about losing jobs in a recession while "Turks" were still employed. Much of the attitude about "Turks" was racism, but part was a legitimate worry about instability of employment that may (or may not) have been caused by immigrants.

I went to England in 2002, and I always had thought that England was the home of noble, liberal thinking. My preconceptions were shattered from the moment I arrived at Heathrow and found that a good number of the immigration and customs officials were foreign-born, just like in the United States. I found that London was the most ethnically diverse city I have ever encountered. But all was not well - I found working-class, UK-born Londoners who were resentful of the presence of foreigners. Part of their response was indeed racist, and part was legitimate worry about the threat to their employment in hard times.

So, the BNP has capitalized on these legitimate fears (which are admittedly laced with racism). The talk show hosts in the US capitalize on the same fears (which are also laced with racism). Because the BNP and the US talk show hosts are fascist, we liberals tend to discount the fears (and the racism) of the masses, and that's a dangerous thing. Like it or not, we liberals are guilty of elitism, because we have failed to listen to the concerns of the working people. As a result, the fascists have found our Achilles heel.

We'd better take heed.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 09:08 PM

Just putting him in his place, the little snot...now he is forgotten

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 09:06 PM

remember

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 08:57 PM

no, Roger the Dodger, you cut and pasted your own words from on thread to another, showing a complete lack of originality, which is the hallmark of the BNP....and British? a traitor to Britain is more like it.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: GUEST,Roger in Sheffield
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 08:34 PM

I quoted the words of a member who can tie any of you lot in bloody knots, and he's British !

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 08:33 PM

thanks for the link em, i understand that we have deportations now, but what i would like to know is if and when a migrant or assylum seeker breaks are laws, some of which even i have distain for, why do we still pay for their prison stay?
i mean if we want to save money why not just deport them straight after trial? of course this might lead to failiures to ensure justice.

i can see why alot of people speaking a foriegn langauge would want to live close to each other, saftey in numbers, easy communication, shared values.
however what does annoy me is when someone (any nationality) lives in a country long enough to have brought up kids still cannot understand the native langauge of that country, or at least not seem to be making an effort.


i am really sad to see yet another thread be brought down by people who do not wish to disscuss things but want to argue that they know best.
come on, isn't this what we are trying to get past?
should we be trying to out the 'facts' as everyone knows them and to actually expand on knowledge and truth?

i don't mind starting by saying that i thought i was very open minded...until i came on here and discovered alot of the things i thought i knew about immigration and facism, were completely false.
i have learnt alot by reading informative posts that have been written with as little emotion as possible.
i have discovered things about myself that i am unhappy with.

when unsecure people discover this, they stick their heads in the sand and will argue until the ending of the world.
being secure enough to say, i was wrong, you have changed my mind..thankyou, is much more freeing.

so, i cannot name you all, but thanks for educating me in a way that i don't find boring or patronising.


take care all

jade x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 08:26 PM

Guest Roger, I'm new to this, but even I found the original of that post while looking for something else.....I found the original to be pathetic and a bit sad, your's doesn't change my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Lox
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 07:55 PM

Oh and by the way Roger (sam ... helen ... whatever ...),

if you do intend to try and pass yourself off as a new guest, at least try to disguise your writing style a little.

Though I will say thanks for making me laugh.

This is why the BNP has spent the previous 30 years as a laughing stock.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 07:50 PM

Roger is a 'new' guest whose attitudes and speech patterns are strangely familiar from previous incarnations.

I had hoped that discussion amongst members, however diverse and conflicting our opinions, might have continued a little longer without mudcat's resident 'troll'

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Lox
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 07:48 PM

Thanks roger,

We've actually had that exact cut and paste job already on a different thread.

I guesss it isn't your turn with the brain cell tonight.