Neo-Nazis threaten Liverpool race riots if Mayor Joe Anderson cancels city centre march

10:49, 9 August 2015
By Sophie McCoid

"


649 Shares

Share


Tweet


+1


LinkedIn











Joe Anderson was sent a letter from National Action





Far-right neo-Nazis threatened to cause race riots in Liverpool in a sinister letter to Mayor Joe Anderson.

White supremacist group National Action has threatened that the city “will go up in flames” if a racist march through its streets is banned.

In the letter directly addressed to the Liverpool Mayor, and seen by the ECHO, the group promises violent retribution if their planned ‘White Man March’ next Saturday is not allowed to go ahead.

The hate-filled letter states: “God help you and your Liverpool vision if you interfere with our God given right of public expression and freedom of speech.

“We look forward to a National Action-packed weekend of ethnically-enriched chaos and mayhem. We may even pay you a visit if things are played against us. It’s in your hands.”

The letter ends: “Only Bullets Will Stop Us!”




The threatening blackmail letter from National Action Group to Liverpool. Racist thugs. #loveworldinoneCity pic.twitter.com/bbSIQgWjLB
— Joe Anderson (@joeforliverpool) August 9, 2015

Much as I cant stand Anderson he must act to stop this

http://national-action.info/

White Jahad

                                                                                      – Gerry Gable, Searchlight

You're right, it's imperative they are stopped.

Mush as you cannot stand this Nems?
Please, you are the scum that incites this hate against asylum seekers and migrants that come here.

Cuchulain wrote:Mush as you cannot stand this Nems?
Please, you are the scum that incites this hate against asylum seekers and migrants that come here.

Go and read what I actually said before you comment
I said As much as I can't stand Anderson

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Mush as you cannot stand this Nems?
Please, you are the scum that incites this hate against asylum seekers and migrants that come here.

Go and read what I actually said before you comment
I said As much as I can't stand Anderson

You are nazi scum, that is all I need to know, as you would deny people coming here off the most hateful reasons/

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:

Go and read what I actually said before you comment
I said As much as I can't stand Anderson

You are nazi scum, that is all I need to know, as you would deny people coming here off the most hateful reasons/

I am Nazi scum?!
You know you are not right in the head don't you?

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


You are nazi scum, that is all I need to know, as you would deny people coming here off the most hateful reasons/

I am Nazi scum?!
You know you are not right in the head don't you?

Simple equation Nems/
You either are for people migrating here or not.
Its not me that has problems but scum like you.
You once had big breasts, now saggy, that sadly men went for and never met a man that loved you for who you were. It made you very bitter and it shows every time you post

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:

I am Nazi scum?!
You know you are not right in the head don't you?

Simple equation Nems/
You either are for people migrating here or not.
Its not me that has problems but scum like you.
You once had big breasts, now saggy, that sadly men went for and never met a man that loved you for who you were. It made you very bitter and it shows every time you post

you are going into a meltdown again aren't you?
Closely followed by a barrage of abuse followed by snivelling excuses and apologies.
Have you decided on your new name yet?

Hahahahaha

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Simple equation Nems/
You either are for people migrating here or not.
Its not me that has problems but scum like you.
You once had big breasts, now saggy, that sadly men went for and never met a man that loved you for who you were. It made you very bitter and it shows every time you post

you are going into a meltdown again aren't you?
Closely followed by a barrage of abuse followed by snivelling excuses and apologies.
Have you decided on your new name yet?

Hahahahaha

Oh my the pathetic racist has to use poor tactics.
So lets ask again, do you care to allow people into this country no matter their plight Nems?
Have you learnt to love yet?

Ask Nems about helping migrants Ben, she thinks they are all scum

Do as you're told Ben.

Raggamuffin wrote:Do as you're told Ben.

Yet anther christian apologist bullshit.
If they were Muslims, would rags have any reservations?
No

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Do as you're told Ben.

Yet anther christian apologist bullshit.
If they were Muslims, would rags have any reservations?
No

About what?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Yet anther christian apologist bullshit.
If they were Muslims, would rags have any reservations?
No

About what?

Can you not understand apologist bullshit that you Christians believe in/

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

About what?

Can you not understand apologist bullshit that you Christians believe in/

Like what?

Okay okay! Can we keep the debates polite if possible please guys?
Someone's breasts have nothing whatsoever to do with this debate

Dont say I didnt warn you a long time back, when I said ...god help you when the right get people that can actually THINK in their ranks.

nor forget that I told you just who's fault it will be if they get any sort of prominance.....

eddie wrote:Okay okay! Can we keep the debates polite if possible please guys?
Someone's breasts have nothing whatsoever to do with this debate

Amazing how Didge always makes a sexual references to women when he's on a meltdown.  Weird doesn't begin to cover it.

Dear Liverpool,

Let the idiots speak and instead do this:

eddie wrote:Okay okay! Can we keep the debates polite if possible please guys?
Someone's breasts have nothing whatsoever to do with this debate

Could you not address the person who made that comment? He's out of control.

So anyway, back to the topic.

I gather that the march itself is legal and it's not actually banned, it's just that the people organising it seem to expect some heavy-handed police presence. It seems a bit strange to send a letter in advance to say what would happen if that's the case.

I presume there will indeed be a heavy police presence because of the threats, or the march itself might be banned, so the purpose of the letter was clearly not a straightforward as it appears. The entire letter is in this article.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/neo-nazis-threaten-liverpool-race-9819733

Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, back to the topic.

I gather that the march itself is legal and it's not actually banned, it's just that the people organising it seem to expect some heavy-handed police presence. It seems a bit strange to send a letter in advance to say what would happen if that's the case.

I presume there will indeed be a heavy police presence because of the threats, or the march itself might be banned, so the purpose of the letter was clearly not a straightforward as it appears. The entire letter is in this article.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/neo-nazis-threaten-liverpool-race-9819733

The contents of that letter scare me. They are acknowledging they will be outnumbered on the day, but it's the intent to target ethnic areas to stir up racial hatred that is going to be impossible to police.

sooner or later........

"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal. "

Enoch Powell April 20th 1968

Continued mass immigration against the wishes of the British people, is the problem!

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, back to the topic.

I gather that the march itself is legal and it's not actually banned, it's just that the people organising it seem to expect some heavy-handed police presence. It seems a bit strange to send a letter in advance to say what would happen if that's the case.

I presume there will indeed be a heavy police presence because of the threats, or the march itself might be banned, so the purpose of the letter was clearly not a straightforward as it appears. The entire letter is in this article.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/neo-nazis-threaten-liverpool-race-9819733

The contents of that letter scare me. They are acknowledging they will be outnumbered on the day, but it's the intent to target ethnic areas to stir up racial hatred that is going to be impossible to police.

But why give a heads up at all Nems? It's all very odd.

These far left nationalist socialists do sound like a potentially violent and dangerous group... although plenty of money coming in from foreign backers!?

Aren't they talking about being against foreigners...!?

It would be very interesting and telling to find out who the foreign backers are...?


Or maybe they are just another straw man creation for argument against anyone Who is against mass immigration...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:

The contents of that letter scare me. They are acknowledging they will be outnumbered on the day, but it's the intent to target ethnic areas to stir up racial hatred that is going to be impossible to police.

But why give a heads up at all Nems? It's all very odd.

Sorry, only just saw this post.
I think it's all publicity. If the march goes ahead or not it's generating publicity. If they do as they claim and commit targeted acts to stir up hatred. The situation could very easily get out of control.

Tommy Monk wrote:These far left nationalist socialists do sound like a potentially violent and dangerous group... although plenty of money coming in from foreign backers!?

Aren't they talking about being against foreigners...!?

It would be very interesting and telling to find out who the foreign backers are...?


Or maybe they are just another straw man creation for argument against anyone Who is against mass immigration...

I think you will find the backers are all white and non Muslim.

This letter could have been sent from anyone, couldn't it!?


Couldn't it also have been from someone who is totally against the march going ahead, and trying to stir up trouble etc...!?


I smell a rat here... living in a big straw man!!!

Nems wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:These far left nationalist socialists do sound like a potentially violent and dangerous group... although plenty of money coming in from foreign backers!?

Aren't they talking about being against foreigners...!?

It would be very interesting and telling to find out who the foreign backers are...?


Or maybe they are just another straw man creation for argument against anyone Who is against mass immigration...

I think you will find the backers are all white and non Muslim.

Is there any more info on that?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Nems wrote:

I think you will find the backers are all white and non Muslim.

Is there any more info on that?

Not as yet. It's gone very quiet.

Tommy Monk wrote:This letter could have been sent from anyone, couldn't it!?


Couldn't it also have been from someone who is totally against the march going ahead, and trying to stir up trouble etc...!?


I smell a rat here... living in a big straw man!!!

What about this Nems?

Enoch Powell was wrong -- anybody who frets that much about the "white man" being enslaved by the "black man" is not a decent person, he's a silly little ninny. Let people like that leave, it would be better for your country's gene pool not to have idiots like that propagating their idiocy.

That's simply ridiculous, like if Obama were to hear me say that I'm just so afraid that Sharia law will be implement across the United States and for him to insist that my fears must be taken seriously.

Only 3 percent of the British population is black, and I'm sure it was even less than that when Powell spouted that idiocy.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Enoch Powell was wrong -- anybody who frets that much about the "white man" being enslaved by the "black man" is not a decent person, he's a silly little ninny. Let people like that leave, it would be better for your country's gene pool not to have idiots like that propagating their idiocy.

That's simply ridiculous, like if Obama were to hear me say that I'm just so afraid that Sharia law will be implement across the United States and for him to insist that my fears must be taken seriously.

Only 3 percent of the British population is black, and I'm sure it was even less than that when Powell spouted that idiocy.

Narrow-minded people are always dangerous.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Enoch Powell was wrong -- anybody who frets that much about the "white man" being enslaved by the "black man" is not a decent person, he's a silly little ninny. Let people like that leave, it would be better for your country's gene pool not to have idiots like that propagating their idiocy.

That's simply ridiculous, like if Obama were to hear me say that I'm just so afraid that Sharia law will be implement across the United States and for him to insist that my fears must be taken seriously.

Only 3 percent of the British population is black, and I'm sure it was even less than that when Powell spouted that idiocy.

Well said and back 100%

Right have to go.

Have fun

Powell didn't make the claim... he repeated what one of his constituents said to him and the views of huge numbers of the electorate.

Tommy Monk wrote:Powell didn't make the claim... he repeated what one of his constituents said to him and the views of huge numbers of the electorate.

He lent validity to it by repeating it from his office. He, the constituent and any others who agreed must have fallen out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down

His job, as an MP, is to listen to and voice the views of his constituents and The electorate in an honest, open and unbiased way.


He also mentions numerous letters received by people voicing similar concerns and unhappiness about the immigration that was being allowed by govt but without any mandate or electoral consultation or consent... and he mentions how the people writing in were too afraid to put their names and addresses on the letters.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:This letter could have been sent from anyone, couldn't it!?


Couldn't it also have been from someone who is totally against the march going ahead, and trying to stir up trouble etc...!?


I smell a rat here... living in a big straw man!!!

What about this Nems?

Who though Tommy and why.?

Tommy Monk wrote:His job, as an MP, is to listen to and voice the views of his constituents and The electorate in an honest, open and unbiased way.

... and to evaluate as to whether their views are valid or not.

He also mentions numerous letters received by people voicing similar concerns and unhappiness about the immigration that was being allowed by govt but without any mandate or electoral consultation or consent... and he mentions how the people writing in were too afraid to put their names and addresses on the letters.

I bet they jump on furniture at the sight of a mouse, too

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:His job, as an MP, is to listen to and voice the views of his constituents and The electorate in an honest, open and unbiased way.

... and to evaluate as to whether their views are valid or not.

He also mentions numerous letters received by people voicing similar concerns and unhappiness about the immigration that was being allowed by govt but without any mandate or electoral consultation or consent... and he mentions how the people writing in were too afraid to put their names and addresses on the letters.

I bet they jump on furniture at the sight of a mouse, too

Enoch's concerns about mass immigration were at odds with his position in the delegations that travelled to the Caribbean and beyond to encourage people to move to England.

It matters not...the point is simple....

the rise of far right groups, using immigration as their flag is squarely the fault of the liberalist lefty. with their "open door policy"

and please do feel free to dismiss old enoch without understanding one word of what he said.....

you might like to read his points about integration for a start...
valid then and even more so now....
only of course the liberalist lefty has grown even more slippery and now blames the immigrants failure to integrate on the populace of the country, instead of its real cause.....

Nems, anyone could have written this letter... if it even really exists... just as this group could even be a contrived load of politically motivated straw man bullshit...


THe British people are overwhelmingly against mass immigration, have always been against It and have had it continually forced upon us without consultiation or consent.


The BNP were deliberately behaving as obnoxious racists and The media carried out a deliberate policy to demonise anyone with a legitimate view against mass immigration as one of them.


SAme with the EDL...


Neither worked...


IS this group just another orchestrated attempt?

victorismyhero wrote:It matters not...the point is simple....

the rise of far right groups, using immigration as their flag is squarely the fault of the liberalist lefty. with their "open door policy"

and please do feel free to dismiss old enoch without understanding one word of what he said.....

you might like to read his points about integration for a start...
valid then and even more so now....
only of course the liberalist lefty has grown even more slippery and now blames the immigrants failure to integrate on the populace of the country, instead of its real cause.....

I don't dismiss Enoch. But I am interested in what led to his apparent change of opinion. I think he spoke a lot of sense especially in regard to the feelings held by ordinary men and women. But it is a fact that he went overseas to encourage migrants to Britain. But what made him change his mind?

victorismyhero wrote:It matters not...the point is simple....

the rise of far right groups, using immigration as their flag is squarely the fault of the liberalist lefty. with their "open door policy"

and please do feel free to dismiss old enoch without understanding one word of what he said.....

you might like to read his points about integration for a start...
valid then and even more so now....
only of course the liberalist lefty has grown even more slippery and now blames the immigrants failure to integrate on the populace of the country, instead of its real cause.....

What's so odd to me about this entire line of reasoning is that "liberalist lefty" stuff is usually associated with collectivism, statism, etc. -- the notion that the group is more important than the individual. And immigration restrictions are all about the group telling individuals where they get to plant their own feet, as though certain parts of this planet are only for particular types of people.

There couldn't be an idea less collectivist than saying, "Live where you want but don't hurt others and you'll be left in peace." That's practically the definition of rugged individualism!

Liverpool is a fantastic city that gave so much to the wealth of this nation over many generations.
It deserves better than to have these clowns running amok in it.

Scumbags

victorismyhero wrote:It matters not...the point is simple....

the rise of far right groups, using immigration as their flag is squarely the fault of the liberalist lefty. with their "open door policy"

and please do feel free to dismiss old enoch without understanding one word of what he said.....

you might like to read his points about integration for a start...
valid then and even more so now....
only of course the liberalist lefty has grown even more slippery and now blames the immigrants failure to integrate on the populace of the country, instead of its real cause.....

So you are saying the rise in the 1930's for far right groups was the liberalist left and had nothing to do with eocnomic situations and events in history like the First World War? Sorry Victor you are giving the worst excuses for the rise of nationalism and it is far right groups that play on economic situation where they gain the support and this time is no different. The fact is the vast majority of immigrants have integrated and to say they have not is pandering to far right drivel/ I understand what Powel said very well and he was a blithering idiot who also pandered to fear. His points on integration were nothing more than racist nonsense. As seen none of his predictions have even come true. What we find is that anytime there is an economic down turn there is those who look to scapegoat others and a classic example of this in history is that of the plight of the Jews.

 In this country we have seen so many different groups used as scapegoats throughout history due to cultural pessimists. Whether they be Catholics, Jews, Blacks, Irish, Muslims, as at some point they have all been sterotyped and blamed. It is people themselves that buy into the absurd hate filled message of others that believe this nonsense. This is not to say a country does not have problems, but it is the far right that sows the seeds of hate. So I disagree that the rise of any far right group is the problem of the Liberalist left. The rise is due to fear, hate and economic down turn and the poor reasoning to blame others when things are difficult eonomically. How do the far right gain support? Fear plain and simple and sadly people buy into that bullshit. You are in fact excusing the hate used for that rise which alsways happens during an economic down turn of which the EU has not recovered from yet.

Irn Bru wrote:Liverpool is a fantastic city that gave so much to the wealth of this nation over many generations.
It deserves better than to have these clowns running amok in it.

Scumbags

Exactly right, if Liverpool in its great days had turned away immigrants, you'd have to kiss this goodbye:



... unless you think a guy named McCartney was native British