On Oct 20, 6:37 pm, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:09 pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
I've never heard of them... heard of him though.

http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/history.php

Fortunately their FAQ runs along the lines of
1. Are you Nazis?
2. Are you sure you're not Nazis?
3. So you're definitely not Nazis then?

If the incumbent politicians would stop sucking up to ethnics and
other assorted minorities (eg Red Kens latest wheeze about special
courses for ethnic minorities to get them into black cabs - so wheres
the course for getting more English driving minicabs then?) then these
parties wouldn't keep popping up would they?

B003

You mean if the mainstream parties were more openly Nazi, there
wouldn't be a need for small Nazi parties?

It worked in 1979 when Thatcher came out and stole the NF vote.

I haven't yet found the bit where they propose executing train
spotters, but it's probably in there somewhere.

On Oct 20, 7:24 pm, MIG wrote:
You mean if the mainstream parties were more openly Nazi, there
wouldn't be a need for small Nazi parties?

It worked in 1979 when Thatcher came out and stole the NF vote.

Oh give it a rest. Chucking about the word "nazi" at anyone who has
right wing views is 6th form politics at is most pathetic. Grow up.

B2003

On Oct 21, 12:31 pm, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 20, 7:24 pm, MIG wrote:

You mean if the mainstream parties were more openly Nazi, there
wouldn't be a need for small Nazi parties?

It worked in 1979 when Thatcher came out and stole the NF vote.

Oh give it a rest. Chucking about the word "nazi" at anyone who has
right wing views is 6th form politics at is most pathetic. Grow up.


Who did that? I didn't respond to your chucking about phrases like
"sucking up to ethnics" by accusing you of anything. I was referring
to your comments about what mainstream parties should do to prevent
small far-right parties popping up.

Your suggestion seems to be that they should suck up the far right
more than they do, thereby annexing their niche.

I think that that is the problem and that they should suck up the the
far right less than they do, because when the mainstream whips up
hysteria about asylum seekers or whatever it is this week, it gives
credibility to these loonies. I hope that's clear.

On Oct 21, 12:56 pm, MIG wrote:
Who did that? I didn't respond to your chucking about phrases like
"sucking up to ethnics" by accusing you of anything. I was referring
to your comments about what mainstream parties should do to prevent
small far-right parties popping up.

Your suggestion seems to be that they should suck up the far right
more than they do, thereby annexing their niche.

So which bit of "stop sucking up to ethnics" = "suck up to the far
right"? Or is anyone or anything in your right-on multi-culti world
who doesn't approve of treating minorities as special cases a nazi?
The far right only get *any* vote because they pick up on issues that
concern a large amount of people though this simple fact seems to be
lost on the dozy armchair socialists who decry them.

I think that that is the problem and that they should suck up the the
far right less than they do, because when the mainstream whips up
hysteria about asylum seekers or whatever it is this week, it gives
credibility to these loonies. I hope that's clear.

Not really. As for whipping up hesteria, go visit any part of london
now and see how much Polish you can hear. You think thats a good thing
while we still have 2 milllion on the dole? Anyway ,I always find it
amusing when lefty types bang on about nazis, since the irony of their
spiritual heartland , the USSR, being allied with Hitler until 1941
always seems to be lost on them.

B2003

On Oct 21, 3:51 pm, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:56 pm, MIG wrote:

Who did that? I didn't respond to your chucking about phrases like
"sucking up to ethnics" by accusing you of anything. I was referring
to your comments about what mainstream parties should do to prevent
small far-right parties popping up.

Your suggestion seems to be that they should suck up the far right
more than they do, thereby annexing their niche.

So which bit of "stop sucking up to ethnics" = "suck up to the far
right"? Or is anyone or anything in your right-on multi-culti world
who doesn't approve of treating minorities as special cases a nazi?
The far right only get *any* vote because they pick up on issues that
concern a large amount of people though this simple fact seems to be
lost on the dozy armchair socialists who decry them.



Yes the issues are real. One thing the Nazis were known for was
scapegoating specific groups for genuine problems that affect people.

The problems stay the same, like housing and health, but the
scapegoats change.

So do you think it's a good or bad thing that far right parties get
votes by blaming asylum-seekers or Poles, while the actual problems
are not addressed? I thought initially you were suggesting that it
was bad.

On Oct 21, 4:23 pm, MIG wrote:
So do you think it's a good or bad thing that far right parties get
votes by blaming asylum-seekers or Poles, while the actual problems
are not addressed? I thought initially you were suggesting that it

Just a thought - perhaps they are part of the problem. Housing for
example doesn't magically appear when 300,000 poles suddenly rock up
not to mention all the others. But you go back to your dreamworld and
don't let reality trouble you. This isn't the forum for this anyway.

B2003

On Oct 22, 9:30 am, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 21, 4:23 pm, MIG wrote:

So do you think it's a good or bad thing that far right parties get
votes by blaming asylum-seekers or Poles, while the actual problems
are not addressed? I thought initially you were suggesting that it

Just a thought - perhaps they are part of the problem. Housing for
example doesn't magically appear when 300,000 poles suddenly rock up
not to mention all the others. But you go back to your dreamworld and
don't let reality trouble you. This isn't the forum for this anyway.

Try and think a little about the reality facing people targeted by the
Nazi groups and think again about whether you want to give them
respectability. You are preparing the ground for them.

The railway related term is "no platform".

Interesting I'm sure, but could the OP explain why he chose this newsgroup
for this subject...

Paul

On Oct 21, 4:26 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Interesting I'm sure, but could the OP explain why he chose this newsgroup
for this subject...

Paul

Presumably it means that Garry Bushell is in favour of state control
of an integrated transport system, with greater use of light railways,
trams, cycle-ways and pedestrian friendly areas.

Paul Scott wrote:

Interesting I'm sure, but could the OP explain why he chose this
newsgroup for this subject...

The Mayor is the boss of Transport for London.