BS: The BNP conundrum

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 01:29 PM

Paragraphs 12 to 14 posted intact.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 01:34 PM

Butter and Cheese, just look at the page I linked to.
My cut and paste started with the heading to para 12, and continued to the end of para 14.
I added "Briefing notes supplied by Migration Watch" at the bottom.

It is a lie that I selectively edited.
Now do you know who tells the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: GUEST,jenny brampton
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 02:02 PM

Don... " Go to Google Maps, and choose the "Satellite terrain option". You will see the British Isles as seen from an orbiting satellite. Zoom in until the shape and size of the towns is just discernible." Google earth pictures are at least 5 years old, and out of date. Have you not noticed?

JB

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 02:03 PM

That is exactly my point Keith

On a subject about which you clearly know nothing, you go to the website of an anti-immigration website and clip a sentence that sounds good to your prejudices and your viewpoint.

You told people that "The government changed the rules in June 1997 to permit marriage to be used as a means of immigration."

When that statement is completely incorrect and you only had to go to a more factual and impartial article by a third-party adviser on the same website - that is to say you only needed (as I did) actually to read the related briefing notes - to discover that your information was a lie.

I accused you of going out on the internet looking for lies to bring back and propagate to others.

That accusation stands proven.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 02:08 PM

I'm not pointing the finger Keith A of Hertford, not at you, not at anyone, I'm simply asking the questions Who tells the truth? Who tells the lies?
Why should I believe you and not someone else and why should I believe someone else and not you?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 02:18 PM

B and C

Figures from the Office for National Statistics or the National Audit Office are authoritative. Likewise the UN and the OECD. This list is not exhaustive or exclusive.

Anything in the newspapers is an opinion and is tainted. You need to take it under advisement. If an article quotes sources, go and check the sources and read them thoroughly then take a view. This applies to the Telegraph as much as the Guardian. If it's in the Daily Mail or Expresss then it is never truthful.

Think tanks, pressure groups, research foundations are ALWAYS selling their own position and are never ímpartial. That said they do some good research and analysis at times and you need to examine anything they say and ignore the opinions and seek out the facts; again by diligently checking their quoted sources.

Take the immigration watch thing. It is pressure group. Keith never got the first page which is basically "Why we hate immigrants".

Subsequent briefing notes have some useful information, like the briefing note about marriage/immigration law which was written for them by a legal academic.

I am happy to take people on in their own terms of reference - like exposing the lie that Keith found by reference to another part of the same source. Generally I prefer argument based on NAO, ONS, OECD and UN data.

My sources today have been the ONS and NAO (oh, and the UK Border Agency) and I have provided all the links.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 02:29 PM

thanks for mentioning the word sources.
alot of people get their info from newsparps, tv news or even friends who have read this or that.
while we may remain sceptical about the things we hear, it often sticks somewhere in our heads and after a period of time we forget our waryness and start to think of it as fact.

this is where is starts getting dangerous, if we admit to ourselves that we have got things wrong, it also means that the person who told us this stuff have got it wrong.
we cannot abide the thought of being lied to, or being taken in by liers so we discount everything else we hear, tus the head in the sand.
alot of people haven't got time to go rooting for the truth, or are like me and just can't be bothered.

so thankyou to you all for making the effort to educate me and others.

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:15 PM

Totally off-topic, I know, but as an example of the shit we're forced to swallow every day by papers and pressure groups, remember how we all *know* that the EU legislated against straight bananas?

Well it was always bollocks. The EU set down how "Extra Class" bananas (for which traders were charging the public more money) had to be perfect examples of the species without abnormal shape or curvature. Class 1 could be a bit ragged, Class 2 a bit more shabby, Class 3...etc.

There never was a law against the poor old bananas. But eurosceptics have used it for years to bash the EU. All anyone had to do was read...Reg 2257/94

I always say to anyone; if something you read or hear really gets you wound up and pissed off, just do some research - it often turns out be untrue or not so bad.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:35 PM

Thank you for the admission Keith. You started off about "unprecedented immigration". If that wasn't fear, what was it?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:25 PM

""I note that Keith has not accepted my invitation to reject one of the troll's expression of respect effected principally because Keith is British. That is somewhat disappointing.""

Check again Richard, and I believe you will find a post in which he unequivocally rejects not just one, but ALL.

I don't think I was hallucinating......

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:38 PM

Thanks to EmmaB for initiating it, and other intelligent and informed contributors - including 'Devils Advocates' like Gervase - this is becoming for me, the least frustrating and most interesting and informative of the "BNP" threads to date.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:40 PM

""Google earth pictures are at least 5 years old, and out of date. Have you not noticed?""

Is it then your contention that in the last five years it would have been remotely possible to put more than a minute proportion of that green under houses, And, had it been possible, how come we still have a housing shortage?

Your posts started out ridiculous, and have gone downhill since. Please don't interrupt the grown-ups until you have some sensible comment.

The level of intelligence of BNP supporters is abysmal.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:44 PM

Good to have you 'on board' too Crow Sister
It's good to have an open discussion about controversial subjects

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:45 PM

Is no one shocked at what Royston has done?
He has falsely accused me and is using it as evidence that I am a devious BNP mole!
Anyone who cares about the truth please look back.
07.06AM gervase asks for figures.
07.50AM I post with a simple, unedited cut and paste that provided them.
The paragraphs are numbered and anyone can see that I am being honest.
Here is the page link again.
You can see why I chose paragraphs 12 to 14.
They provided the figures requested.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:48 PM

so you've given us all these statistics, now what?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:50 PM

Keith,

I didn't accuse you of fasely editing anything.

I accused you of setting out to find lies or half-truths that you like the sound of and bringing those lies and half truths here in order to mislead people.

That accusation stands proven.

You went, you found lies and half truths and you brought them here.

Simple as.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:53 PM

proven..your case wouldn't stand up in court. Proven, more like your point of view

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:54 PM

Richard,
" You started off about "unprecedented immigration". If that wasn't fear, what was it? "

It was an observation Richard.

What was my "admission" that you thanked me for?

Thanks for that stuff about my lantern jaw and steely eyes BTW.
I did not think they showed up on my Mudcat pics.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:57 PM

I do not get it.
I found some figures that someone asked for, and posted them as found.
Which of those actions was wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:00 PM

No B and C

Keith found two claims.

1. The government changed the rules in June 1997 to permit marriage to be used as a means of immigration.

That is not true. At best it is a half-truth. The real truth is even on the same website, but Keith preferred the lie.

2. That 2007 Immigration was 25 times greater than at any point in our history.

Keith repeated the 2nd lie and he was very happy about that one. But even in earlier evidence from Keith (from the BBC), we saw that the truth was that 2007 levels were at the most 6 or 9 times greater than the annual average 1945-1970.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:09 PM

"I accused you of setting out to find lies or half-truths that you like the sound of and bringing those lies and half truths here in order to mislead people"

Lies? The site gives sources for all the figures.
Half truths? Just the whole of paras 12,13,14.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:12 PM

What was wrong Keith, is that somebody asked you for facts.

You went to an anti-immigration group and you found their lies.

You didn't check the lies because you liked them, they suited you.

Then you delivered them here and, no doubt feeling proper chuffed with yourself, you presented them to others as fact.

You are wrong on so many levels.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:21 PM

Keith said "Norman,Sam and similar Guests, do not even try to ingratiate or associate yourselves with me.
We have nothing in common.
You are not welcome here"

I do not see that as an assertion that Keith does not wish to be respected for being British.

Is it, Keith? Is it true that on its own, being British is not ground for being respected?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:24 PM

Royston, I can clear this one up.
You posted
2. That 2007 Immigration was 25 times greater than at any point in our history.

Keith repeated the 2nd lie and he was very happy about that one. But even in earlier evidence from Keith (from the BBC), we saw that the truth was that 2007 levels were at the most 6 or 9 times greater than the annual average 1945-1970.


The lower BBC figure was for the year 2000 not 2007, and only accounted for asylum seekers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/short_history_of_immigration.stm

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:28 PM

Yes Richard, it is true,IMO, that being British alone does not deserve respect.
Happy?

Royston, your whole complaint against me then is that you regard Migration Watch figures as lies?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:41 PM

Richard, do pipe down - you're becoming tedious and have added little of substance these past 50 posts.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:48 PM

Keith,

The point is a small one, but the figures aren't cleared up by your recent post. The figures are wrong and can't be cleared up. We are only talking about BBC figures 1945-1970 -v- Immigration watch's 2007 numbers.

Yes, my complaint against you is that Immigration Watch propagate a mish mash of lies and half-truths and that you fall for it and are complicit in spreading them, when it only takes 5 minutes and a simple act of will to scrutinise the claims and see them for what they are. My general complaint is that you have failed to question a lot of things that you *think* you know. You're not alone.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:59 PM

As an interested lurker on this thread, with all due respect, I think that you, Gervase, should speak for yourself (regarding your opinion as to whether Richard Bridge or anyone else has added substance to this thread).

I particularly liked Richard's 29 Sep 09 - 08:31 AM post, especially these sentences:

"Additionally, he posted as if we were one of the most densely poulated areas in the world - but in fact produced a skewed comparison by weasel wording. Normally as a lawyer I would respect the talent if not integrity of a fellow weasel, but here it was both transparent and unworthy."

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: GUEST,MBSGeorge - New web connection
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:59 PM

At risk of starting all the hassle against me again, I would just like to state that I have been on the receiving end of more fascism from certain contributers here because of my BNP membership than I have seen within the BNP.

If you expect people to side against the BNP try being less fascist yourselves.

Personally I am NOT racist in any way, shape, or form. I cannot and WILL not speak for others.

MBS George

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:02 PM

It's interesting that my post came at the exact same time as George's.

George, if you are "Personally...NOT racist in any way, shape, or form", why were you a candidate for a party that IS racist, and why have you not publicly disavowed yourself from any association with that party?

As a Black person, I'm more than casually interested in your response.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Lox
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:03 PM

"I have been on the receiving end of more fascism ..."

You mean opposing viewpoints.

You have never been on the receiving end of fascism.



"I cannot and WILL not speak for others."


Except when you represent the BNP in an election. At that point you speak for the BNP and for the people who vote for them.



All you have to do is educate yourself about the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: MBSGeorge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:07 PM

Azizi

Any party has to change as it grows and I believe that the good bits will stay and the not so good bits will be phased out. I was purely interested in housing, benefit, childcare and employment. None of the other parties had anything covering these and still don't.

MBS George

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:07 PM

who watches Migrationwatch?

"Oxford university students have challenged demography Professor David Coleman.
Coleman is co-founder of the anti-immigration pressure group Migration Watch, and a long-term member and sometime office-holder in the Eugenics Society and its successor the Galton Institute (thus renamed because the word eugenics, unsurprisingly, shocks).

Coleman's figures on the many millions of immigrants who might come to Britain are catchy, clever PR stuff.
They are, of course, gleefully picked up by the British National Party and by the tabloids.

The BNP's website, to "end on a cheery note", refers to "our friends at the immigration-reform think tank Migration Watch" and describes Coleman as "a very distinguished demographer whom we trust".

Migration Watch also penetrates into more respectable parts of the media. Both Coleman and his co-founder Sir Andrew Green make frequent appearances in the media, including the BBC. Green was even one of three "expert witnesses" to a parliamentary investigation into the removal of asylum seekers.

The students' aim is to bring out into the open the nature of Coleman's opinions. Coleman, until their intervention, did not refer to his membership of the Galton Institute in his media appearances on immigration. The Migration Watch website contains no mention of eugenics or its founder, Sir Francis Galton."

Migrant InfoSource

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: MBSGeorge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:10 PM

Lox if you call being told where i can and cannot go within this country by certain contributers not fascism get your head read! I am a single mother and having myself and my child threatened is certainly not my idea of fun!

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:16 PM

At the risk of profound reductionism, it strikes me that anxieties about the commonly perceived detrimental social and economic effects of high levels of economic migration, tend far too often be automatically conflated with racism and antipathy towards people of other races.
I see this as a wrongful presumption.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:20 PM

Bum, I was composing a longer post, but buggered it up. Eh oh.. Bed time.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:29 PM

George, I consider your attempt to miminize what you euphemistically call the "not so good parts" of the BNP is shameful.

The BNP is a RACIST organization that is aligned with other racist organizations worldwide.

Have you not watched this YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw "Griffin + KKK Terrorist" and read this summary:

"BNP chairman Nick Griffin speaks to an audience of American Nationalists alongside convicted fraudster David Duke of the blatantly Nazi American terrorist group the KKK, who have been responsible for dozens of savage killings and hate crimes in the USA.

In his speech Nick Griffin confirms that BNP strategy is to re-package and "sell" BNP ideas to British voters. Nick Griffin confirms that, instead of using traditional far-right slogans about terror, hate, authoritarianism and violence, the new BNP strategy is to use "saleable words" like "freedom, security, identity, democracy" instead, while reassuring his (small) pro-KKK audience that the BNP's secret and real beliefs are still "your ideas too".

Nick Griffin admits that the long-term BNP goal of forcibly expelling all non-White Britons from the their homes is, for the time being, best served by "being rather more subtle" - because in the short-term, the BNP being HONEST about their real beliefs would get his party "absolutely nowhere". BNP chairman Nick Griffin dreams of a day when the BNP will "control the British broadcasting media", and when British people will (as a result) have been tricked into electing the BNP. In other words BNP chairman Nick Griffin dreams of a day when HE will control the British media, and when British people will have been tricked into electing HIM."

-snip-

Even if it were true-and I don't think it is-that "none of the other parties had anything covering housing, benefit, childcare and employment and still don't", to align yourself with such a hate full party is beyond naivete, and selfishness.

If you align yourself with racists, and support what they are doing, than you are a racist.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Lox
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:02 PM

"Lox if you call being told where i can and cannot go within this country by certain contributers not fascism get your head read! I am a single mother and having myself and my child threatened is certainly not my idea of fun!"


George.

I am a single parent.

I live at a confidential address because my ex partners drug dealers threatened to come and get me if I didn't give my daughter up.


Fear of actual violence is a horrific thing.


As a single parent living in inner city London and having lived in the midlands, I know for a fact that Single parents are looked after well in this country.

We are given every opportunity to change our lot and if we don't wish to we will be supported until such time as we do unconditionally.

For the record I have chosen to change my lot and I am not on income support but changing my life with superb frontline support from the state.

Its the same for all of us.

"Lox if you call being told where i can and cannot go within this country by certain contributers not fascism get your head read!"

A few empty threats from a bunch of old folkies is not fascism.


You've been shown piles of evidence about who the BNP are, including videos of the BNP leader saying we should use the Navy sink the boats of refugees in the med, as well as of him denying the holocaust and teaching the KKK how to lie and make racism look acceptable so as to fool voters.


I don't know why you are ignoring it.


There are none so deaf as wwill not heaar, nor so blind as will not see.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:13 PM

I feel the need to clarify the last sentence of my post to George:

George, when you align yourself with racists you are supporting what they do, and -in so doing- you are therefore a racist yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:45 PM

Threatening someone (I don't care who it is) on the internet is so sad and so pathetic. I wonder how these people who do issue threats would stand up face to face? I may not agree with what you say, but I won't stand by and have you threatened either, no matter who you are.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:46 PM

"Personally I am NOT racist in any way, shape, or form. I cannot and WILL not speak for others."

When you decided to run for public office as a BNP member you agreed to speak for others. That's why folks vote. They vote to have a voice. The BNP people who voted for you voted figuring you were on board with that idea.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:49 PM

good point crow sister,
i wonder whether there would be uproar if the population of northern town had to move down south to find work, or the other way round?
if that were to happen, would people be worried about the housing? would they be worried that whoever it was that was coming in would get better wages?
would there be this paranoia that the invaders were getting all the jobs?

i would like to think the reaction would be exactly the same as they are towards the migrants.

who the fuck do you think you are coming here, taking all the housing, our benefits, our jobs. swapping parts of our towns with 'your lot'.

just to expand on an idea.

night all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 02:24 AM

Sorry, who's being threatened here? I see Azizi and anyone who is black, homosexual, disabled or just 'different' in the UK being threatened by the neo-Nazi bile of the BNP. George, on the other hand, has merely been called a racist. Which - given the fact that she stood for election for the BNP - is probably true. No-one has threatened her.

As for lacking guts; I would like the opportunity to talk calmly and rationally with her, face to face, to find out just why she feels the need to identify with racists, and why she refuses to condemn racism and criminality within the BNP. To that end I've asked her questions that she consistently refuses to answer. That's gutless.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 03:04 AM

Royston,
I posted those figures in good faith.
You say they are lies, but you are quick to use that word.
I have only ever made to statements here, and for them you called me a liar and much else.
I said that current levels of immigration are unprecedented.
You now only dispute whether it is by 7 times or 25.
And I said England was almost the most crowded country.

You, like Migration watch, have said there should be a limit, so that can not be racist can it?
You only differ on what that limit should be.
They advocate a balance between inward and outward migration.
Is that racist?

I have found no racist statement on the site.
Have you?
Can anyone please?
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 03:31 AM

"If you expect people to side against the BNP try being less fascist yourselves."

George, your futile attempts to turn the tables are truly pathetic. People are siding against the BNP and in large numbers - as your Fuehrer Griffin has admitted. And what is his solution? To offer anyone taking out life membership of the BNP a limited edition signed photograph of himself. LOL! I expect it will be a very limited edition.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 03:32 AM

Thank you Keith.

To turn now to immigration.

1.   Even if it was at unprecedented levels in mid 2007, is it not true that it is now NOT at unprecedented levels so that the projections referred to in the Telegraph article linked to are thereby undermined?

2.   Discrimination comes in two kinds, direct and indirect. Direct discrimination is (for example) "This job is for men only". THat is direct sex discrimination. Indirect discrimination is the application of a criterion that is less likely to be capable of satisfaction by the discriminee - for example "Must be capable of lifting a full barrel of beer above the head" (unless that is a genuine occupational requirement).   Therefore the statement "there are too many immigrants" is indirectly racially discriminatory in itself, and teh burden of proof that a restriction on immigration is not racially discriminatory lies on the discriminator. It is accordingly for MigrationWatch to show that it is not tending to discriminate on racial grounds.

3.   The BNP list of places that it would automatically put on a stop list is directly discriminatory.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 03:57 AM

Please read my posts more carefully Keith.

I said that we have limited and restricted immigration to this country - we have always had limited and restricted immigration - so you are wrong and you are lying when you continue to say that we need limits. We already have them.

I also explained that we now operate a points based system whereby only migrants who are (a)necessary or beneficial or (b)have family ties to this couuntry AND (c) can support themselves and their families. In that system there is no limit on total numbers, and that it is a good thing.

Do, it is a lie to say or suggest that there are no immigration controls in this country. To say we need controls is to suggest that there are none at present.

It is a lie to say that immigration is increasing, it is falling and falling dramatically.

It is a lie to keep pointing to those 2007 statistics and to claim that they indicate what is happening now and what will happen in the future.

When did I ever say that it was racist to talk about immigration and how we control or regulate it? It is only racist to say, as does the BNP, that black or brown skinned immigrants will be denied entry whilst white skinned africans (like their child-murdering friend Lambertus Nieuwhof) will be invited to join the new apartheid state in Europe - of the BNP should get power.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 03:59 AM

Richard
1 There has been a drop in net immigration this year, probably due to recession so probably temporary.
If down it is not unprecedented because it was bigger last year.
(Am I going too fast?)
It is still bigger than it was in the 50s or earlier..

2 If it is not discriminatory to say that there should be a limit, how can it be discriminatory to say if that limit has been exceeded?

3 I am not and do not defend BNP

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 04:03 AM

Royston, I have not lied.
I know that there are controls and limits.
It is just that some people think the limit should be reduced.
Migration Watch and Balanced Migration think there should be a balance.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 04:06 AM

Keith,

You really need to stay off the Migration Watch website. Do you never learn?

I said - read my posts - that they are an anti-immigration pressure group which uses lies and half truths to "prove" their own agenda.

I did not say that you would find racist comments on their website, that is the point, they use subtle lies. Evidently too subtle for you, old chap.

As Emma pointed out, the person behind Migration Watch is a senior figure in the Eugenics movement - 'Eugenics' is a belief system that says certain racial and genetic groups are inherently superior to others and that natural evolution needs help - social policies that promote the 'master' races and that limit or reduce or hold back the 'lower' races.

Hitler was a Eugenicist. It was what motivated the 'lebensborn' projects and the holocaust.

That is all you need to know about Migration Watch's agenda.