Farage Tells Paxman He Has A Problem With Romania And It's Ok To Be Homophobic If You're Old

So Les, now you are trying the same waffle.



if a man targets boys to abuse then he is a homosexual.

eddie wrote:I'm sorry I can't buy the notion that people weren't  more racist and homophobic years ago!
Even my grandparents generation (my grandparents excluded though I might add!) were far less tolerant of different nationalities etc.
So how can it be that the men lying in those graves (rest their souls) were not even more so??

Truly confused.

They probably were, that wasn't my point. There are scores of other things important to people during and immediately after the war. A major RW party like the UKIP would not have been desirable 'just because' they shared the racism and homophobia of the time.

The British public rejected conservatism in 1945 in favour of socialism.

Tommy Monk wrote:So Les, now you are trying the same waffle.



if a man targets boys to abuse then he is a homosexual.

Just answer the question if you can-

A man has a wife; but abuses a boy- is he homosexual or heterosexual?

eddie wrote:I'm sorry I can't buy the notion that people weren't  more racist and homophobic years ago!
Even my grandparents generation (my grandparents excluded though I might add!) were far less tolerant of different nationalities etc.
So how can it be that the men lying in those graves (rest their souls) were not even more so??

Truly confused.

Well, my Grandad was involved in Cable Street. My Dad just managed to avoid getting beaten up by Mosley's gang. My grandparents came from the East End of London, where just about every race under the sun lived, and my Nan would knock your head off if you were nasty about other races, or if people were derogatory about 'queers' as gays were known in those days. Loveliest people in the world she used to say. And that was normal Edds. When I lived with my grandparents it was on an old council estate in Wandsworth, where everyone helped everyone else. There were Jewish people, Greeks (lots of Greeks), Turks, etc etc etc and Wandsworth was full of people from Jamaica. Frank Bruno lived round the corner, little bugger he was. I think you have a very funny view of what people were like. Mosley was destroyed by ordinary people because he was racist, people despised him.

Says I was brought up in London in 1970! I lived there for sixteen years lol so I know exactly what it was like!
People were racist!!! Absolutely they were!

I have no idea why you'd say they wasn't tbh.
My area was cosmopolitan enough but I can tell you most of my friend's parents were racist! I was the talk of the town for dating a black guy and one of the guys I hung around with was gay and bullied mercilessly!!!

I am not sure where you lived but.....pfffffff! It sure wasn't like that from what I remember!

Not to mention the programmed on TV!!!
Are you kidding me????

eddie wrote:Says I was brought up in London in 1970! I lived there for sixteen years lol so I know exactly what it was like!
People were racist!!! Absolutely they were!

I have no idea why you'd say they wasn't tbh.
My area was cosmopolitan enough but I can tell you most of my friend's parents were racist! I was the talk of the town for dating a black guy and one of the guys I hung around with was gay and bullied mercilessly!!!

I am not sure where you lived but.....pfffffff! It sure wasn't like that from what I remember!

Not to mention the programmed on TV!!!
Are you kidding me????

No, I'm not kidding you Eddie, I don't know what part of London you were brought up, but that was Wandsworth in the 1960s. I'm not saying there were no racists, I'm saying there were not more than there are now.

Sassy the sixties were rife with racism against blacks as were the seventies.
I lived in Hackney.

Actually thinking about it, it was an all-white area and the first boy who was mixed race moved in and no adults liked him!

Sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:Says I was brought up in London in 1970! I lived there for sixteen years lol so I know exactly what it was like!
People were racist!!! Absolutely they were!

I have no idea why you'd say they wasn't tbh.
My area was cosmopolitan enough but I can tell you most of my friend's parents were racist! I was the talk of the town for dating a black guy and one of the guys I hung around with was gay and bullied mercilessly!!!

I am not sure where you lived but.....pfffffff! It sure wasn't like that from what I remember!

Not to mention the programmed on TV!!!
Are you kidding me????

No, I'm not kidding you Eddie, I don't know what part of London you were brought up, but that was Wandsworth in the 1960s.   I'm not saying there were no racists, I'm saying there were not more than there are now.  

That might just be your area. I mean I'm one of the youngest posters here; but even in my life time where I'm from I've noticed the massive decline in racism and homophobia even from many people I know over the past 20+ years.

When I was around 10 till the end of high school most people I knew showed varying levels of homophobia, some more extreme, and racist comments were far too common. Now both are much less heard and people who seemed to hold such views in the past do not anymore.

That's in my experience living in Greater Manchester.

Eilzel wrote:

Sassy wrote:

No, I'm not kidding you Eddie, I don't know what part of London you were brought up, but that was Wandsworth in the 1960s.   I'm not saying there were no racists, I'm saying there were not more than there are now.  

That might just be your area. I mean I'm one of the youngest posters here; but even in my life time where I'm from I've noticed the massive decline in racism and homophobia even from many people I know over the past 20+ years.

When I was around 10 till the end of high school most people I knew showed varying levels of homophobia, some more extreme, and racist comments were far too common. Now both are much less heard and people who seemed to hold such views in the past do not anymore.

That's in my experience living in Greater Manchester.

I think sassy lived in a bubble lol
Or didn't live there long enough perhaps to really notice it??

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11405

Just one article


Seriously, I chat to girls from my old school on Facebook regularly and they remember it all!

And that's my point about the men in those graves.
They would be racist and would possibly have voted UKIP!

eddie wrote:Sassy the sixties were rife with racism against blacks as were the seventies.
I lived in Hackney.

Not everywhere. There were more black people than white in Wandsworth, and the youth group I went to had every colour and creed. Yes, there was racism, but I think the racism now carries more hatred and is much more bigotted. Then is was mainly due to ignorance and as people got to know one another it faded. Now, the very things that Mosley espoused that ordinary people stamped on, are being touted by mainline political parties. As for the East End, it was always made up of hugely mixed races, it's where people landed and found their feet from way back, hundreds of years. It's where people fleeing Nazi Germany came.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

That might just be your area. I mean I'm one of the youngest posters here; but even in my life time where I'm from I've noticed the massive decline in racism and homophobia even from many people I know over the past 20+ years.

When I was around 10 till the end of high school most people I knew showed varying levels of homophobia, some more extreme, and racist comments were far too common. Now both are much less heard and people who seemed to hold such views in the past do not anymore.

That's in my experience living in Greater Manchester.

I think sassy lived in a bubble lol
Or didn't live there long enough perhaps to really notice it??

Possibly, maybe Sass's family just associated with better people who knows; but it certainly seems to me from what I hear from older family members and the general consensus on this is that people were much more prejudiced in the past- Sass must have got lucky haha

eddie wrote:Says I was brought up in London in 1970! I lived there for sixteen years lol so I know exactly what it was like!
People were racist!!! Absolutely they were!

I have no idea why you'd say they wasn't tbh.
My area was cosmopolitan enough but I can tell you most of my friend's parents were racist! I was the talk of the town for dating a black guy and one of the guys I hung around with was gay and bullied mercilessly!!!

I am not sure where you lived but.....pfffffff! It sure wasn't like that from what I remember!

Not to mention the programmed on TV!!!
Are you kidding me????

Got to say I agree with you Edds. My Grandparents and all their friends were very racist, and to be honest there were no black/asian people in this area in their era. The only foreign people my grandad would speak good of were the Gurkhas.

Even going back to when I was at primary school there was just one Sikh in the whole of the school, and he and his family found it very difficult to integrate into the local community.

eddie wrote:http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11405

Just one article


Seriously, I chat to girls from my old school on Facebook regularly and they remember it all!

And that's my point about the men in those graves.
They would be racist and would possibly have voted UKIP!

Possibly, but not really.

Again Eds you are ignoring the hundreds of other factors that go into a vote.

I tend to think in the 1940s people actually bothered to take notice of what politicians stood for. And UKIP stand for a lot of Right Wing economic capitalist excess.

This kind of politics was rejected in 1945 when socialist Attlee and Labour were voted in and the Conservatives under Churchill were rejected.

People wouldn't have voted a party JUST because they were bigoted- a lot more would have gone into it than that, and in anycase the Tories and Labour were no better back then.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

I think sassy lived in a bubble lol
Or didn't live there long enough perhaps to really notice it??

Possibly, maybe Sass's family just associated with better people who knows; but it certainly seems to me from what I hear from older family members and the general consensus on this is that people were much more prejudiced in the past- Sass must have got lucky haha

No Les, I just lived in an area that had very high immigrant levels, so people accepted one another. And my grandfather, though 6'7" and a builder, was one of natures gentlement and fought discrimination, against any type of underclass all his life, and so did my Nan. My Nan was half Maltese and could not stand people being put down because of their race.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

I think sassy lived in a bubble lol
Or didn't live there long enough perhaps to really notice it??

Possibly, maybe Sass's family just associated with better people who knows; but it certainly seems to me from what I hear from older family members and the general consensus on this is that people were much more prejudiced in the past- Sass must have got lucky haha

Notices like this werent even illegal until after the race relations act

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11405

Just one article


Seriously, I chat to girls from my old school on Facebook regularly and they remember it all!

And that's my point about the men in those graves.
They would be racist and would possibly have voted UKIP!

Possibly, but not really.

Again Eds you are ignoring the hundreds of other factors that go into a vote.

I tend to think in the 1940s people actually bothered to take notice of what politicians stood for. And UKIP stand for a lot of Right Wing economic capitalist excess.

This kind of politics was rejected in 1945 when socialist Attlee and Labour were voted in and the Conservatives under Churchill were rejected.

People wouldn't have voted a party JUST because they were bigoted- a lot more would have gone into it than that, and in anycase the Tories and Labour were no better back then.

Possibly les, we will never know. I still think race issues would've been high on their agenda tbh.

Sassy wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Possibly, maybe Sass's family just associated with better people who knows; but it certainly seems to me from what I hear from older family members and the general consensus on this is that people were much more prejudiced in the past- Sass must have got lucky haha

No Les, I just lived in an area that had very high immigrant levels, so people accepted one another.   And my grandfather, though 6'7" and a builder, was one of natures gentlement and fought discrimination, against any type of underclass all his life, and so did my Nan.   My Nan was half Maltese and could not stand people being put down because of their race.  

Sassy people NOW are living in an area with high immigrant levels but that's become a problem as I reckon it was back then!
Your grandparents sound lovely and liberal, as were mine luckily enough, but with all,due respect, we're not just taking about your grandparents.
Your grandmother was possibly more tolerant because of her mixed heritage.

I've no idea how you can't even remember the TV shows and general feeling that was about???

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Possibly, but not really.

Again Eds you are ignoring the hundreds of other factors that go into a vote.

I tend to think in the 1940s people actually bothered to take notice of what politicians stood for. And UKIP stand for a lot of Right Wing economic capitalist excess.

This kind of politics was rejected in 1945 when socialist Attlee and Labour were voted in and the Conservatives under Churchill were rejected.

People wouldn't have voted a party JUST because they were bigoted- a lot more would have gone into it than that, and in anycase the Tories and Labour were no better back then.

Possibly les, we will never know. I still think race issues would've been high on their agenda tbh.

I don't think they'd have been an issue. Immigration on a big scale was about to hit but hadn't just yet (and was required in any case at the time); and even so as Nems points out racism was totally ok at the time. As you say we'll never know but the Right Wing economics of the Tories then and UKIP today were not wanted in 1945, the evidence is in the election result that year.

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:

No Les, I just lived in an area that had very high immigrant levels, so people accepted one another.   And my grandfather, though 6'7" and a builder, was one of natures gentlement and fought discrimination, against any type of underclass all his life, and so did my Nan.   My Nan was half Maltese and could not stand people being put down because of their race.  

Sassy people NOW are living in an area with high immigrant levels but that's become a problem as I reckon it was back then!
Your grandparents sound lovely and liberal, as were mine luckily enough, but with all,due respect, we're not just taking about your grandparents.
Your grandmother was possibly more tolerant because of her mixed heritage.

I've no idea how you can't even remember the TV shows and general feeling that was about???

Of course I can remember the TV shows.   I also remember that Alf Garnett, who was the racist one, was derided, even in the programme.    And in 'Love thy Neighbour' the coloured fella (didn't he end up in Eastenders, he was gorgeous when he was young) always had the upper hand and the white fella looked a bit of a twit.

Wandworth had a particularly high Jamaican population.   It had gone through it's problems back in the 50s, but by the 60s people were jogging along together and there were quite a lot of West India cafes.    As I say, there were also plenty of Greeks and Turks.   My Nan was always trying to marry me off to a lovely Greek lad!

Both my Grandad and my Dad were very political, my Grandad campaigned for the Labour Party and my Dad for the Conservatives, and we all used to argue and debate all the time, but immigration was never on their agenda.

Hmmm was Alf Garnet derided? Perhaps by his daughter but the point still got across didn't it? It was still allowed to be said!

Anyhow I'm off to bed, night peeps xx

Night Eds.   And Alf was definitely the one who looked an idiot.   The bloke who played him, who was an extremely good actor, used to get hate mail.

.....

Most episodes give Garnett something he'll hate – Labour, a Scouser for a son-in-law, scroungers – and let him run with it in a series of continual arguments.

Catchphrases like 'it stands to reason' became commonplace as Garnett exploded onto the screen in 1965 like Enoch Powell's Golem.

Most people got it – that he was everything wrong with the nation in one man. A few diehard racists never got it, and thought he was just telling it like it was, much to Speight's despair.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/tilldeathusdopart/

Vote UKIP

Cheers for the publicity

After all, it's the kind of publicity that UKIP are so very adapt at getting, the kind that makes them look toss pots.

Sassy wrote:After all, it's the kind of publicity that UKIP are so very adapt at getting, the kind that makes them look toss pots.

Both them and Jeremy Clarkson...anything will do, the worse the better!

One day they may well look back and cringe

Loudmouth lowlife racist scum.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
Wrong,it shows 22-30% of victims are boys
Stop diverging the thread anyway with your bile please, this is about how clearly Nigel has clearly racial poor views against Romanians based off criminals gangs now, using poor association as an argument, thus demonizing a whole nation off this.

Wrong dodge, it says they are child abusers who target only boys.

been here before and you are wrong:

60-70% of child sex offenders target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex.

eddie wrote:I'm sorry I can't buy the notion that people weren't  more racist and homophobic years ago!
Even my grandparents generation (my grandparents excluded though I might add!) were far less tolerant of different nationalities etc.
So how can it be that the men lying in those graves (rest their souls) were not even more so??

Truly confused.

I grew up in the 70's in London also, I do not think it was rife throughout but was rife in certain areas, where communities bordered each other, yes there was racism alright and had to deal with it first hand myself and with friends, but the one saving grace here was schools we all stuck together in mine. No doubt people were behind closed doors just as plenty of others I met were not racist in any shape or form, many people worked with migrants or as stated went to school with them. So faced racism badly in some schools and the work place, but these areas helped break down racial barriers. There were problems with the NF, but in fact many immigrant communities found greater cohesion with local people when it was mixed. It was to me where there was little immigration where the worst racism was to be found.

The point is it was not just British soldiers that dies to defend this country and to use view of those British who fought and died alongside many foreign people fighting for this nation is to me so degrading and disgusting by UKIP, it should be stated as such. To use a different era in time where there was a real threat of invasion, not immigration, to claim the same is happening in comparison is yet again disgusting from those in UKIP who did this, yet again playing on fear, as if immigration is the same fear actually felt by those under threat from invasion by Nazi Germany. It does not even compare

Didge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Didge - who does this right now in England?

Oh, and who did it before them?

lol

No idea Andy you tell me?

You and every other Englishman knows.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Didge wrote:



No idea Andy you tell me?

You and every other Englishman knows.

Still no idea.

Every, really?

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:So Les, now you are trying the same waffle.



if a man targets boys to abuse then he is a homosexual.

Just answer the question if you can-

A man has a wife; but abuses a boy- is he homosexual or heterosexual?

Still avoiding this Twonky?

I think we all know why- kind of blows your dumb association fallacy out the water eh   

Joy Division wrote:

Sassy wrote:After all, it's the kind of publicity that UKIP are so very adapt at getting, the kind that makes them look toss pots.

Both them and Jeremy Clarkson...anything will do, the worse the better!

One day they may well look back and cringe

Loudmouth lowlife racist scum.

Keep calm and vote UKIP

Joy Division wrote:

Sassy wrote:After all, it's the kind of publicity that UKIP are so very adapt at getting, the kind that makes them look toss pots.

Both them and Jeremy Clarkson...anything will do, the worse the better!

One day they may well look back and cringe

Loudmouth lowlife racist scum.

No they won't.
They are proud of being loudmouth racist scum.

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, two men is not a real marriage,

Can you please elaborate on this one belief of yours and say in a transparent way,WHY you believe this to be so??

Two people love each other,why does it matter what gender they are?

Why do some posters throw around the word "scum" do they think it makes them look clever? Because someone has a different viewpoint to them they call them "scum" don't understand it'

nicko wrote:Why do some posters throw around the word "scum"  do they think it makes them look clever?  Because someone has a different viewpoint to them they call them "scum" don't understand it'

I quoted JD,I probably wouldn't have used it of my own accord.

That being said I think racist homophobes are repulsive individuals so I shall say that in future instead of 'scum'

 ::ftlcheer:: ::ftlcheer:: 

FluffyBunny wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, two men is not a real marriage,

Can you please elaborate on this one belief of yours and say in a transparent way,WHY you believe this to be so??

Two people love each other,why does it matter what gender they are?

Wasting your time fluffybum, I've asked this question a million times   

nicko wrote:Why do some posters throw around the word "scum"  do they think it makes them look clever?  Because someone has a different viewpoint to them they call them "scum" don't understand it'

We should also ask BA that one Nicko.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Both them and Jeremy Clarkson...anything will do, the worse the better!

One day they may well look back and cringe

Loudmouth lowlife racist scum.

Keep calm and vote UKIP

   

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Wrong dodge, it says they are child abusers who target only boys.

been here before and you are wrong:
60-70% of child sex offenders target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex.

Now you are saying exactly what I was saying and still trying to tell me I'm wrong!!!


What a bellemd!


Earlier you tried to twist it, saying the percentages were of victims and whether they were boys or girls.


But it isn't, it is percentages of abusers as I was saying and as you now admit.





And I have explained my view on homosexuality plenty of times before, it is not normal or natural behaviour, so should not be normalized by being elevated in status and be seen as the same as what is normal and natural being man/woman coupling, and marriage.


It is not the same and should not be treated as such.


It is something that should be tolerated, and people should not be persecuted for it.




There are a couple of good arguments for civil partnerships from a financial point of view and that is where it should have stayed.



Civil partnerships have all the same legal/financial standings as marriage, and If gays wanted to have a CP and tell people they were married then that is up to them.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
been here before and you are wrong:
60-70% of child sex offenders target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex.

Now you are saying exactly what I was saying and still trying to tell me I'm wrong!!!


What a bellemd!


Earlier you tried to twist it, saying the percentages were of victims and whether they were boys or girls.


But it isn't, it is percentages of abusers as I was saying and as you now admit.





And I have explained my view on homosexuality plenty of times before, it is not normal or natural behaviour, so should not be normalized by being elevated in status and be seen as the same as what is normal and natural being man/woman coupling, and marriage.


It is not the same and should not be treated as such.


It is something that should be tolerated, and people should not be persecuted for it.




There are a couple of good arguments for civil partnerships from a financial point of view and that is where it should have stayed.



Civil partnerships have all the same legal/financial standings as marriage, and If gays wanted to have a CP and tell people they were married then that is up to them.

Well the situation now is really the same. Gay people are legally recognized as married; the few who choose not accept that are allowed to do so.

Eilzel wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Just answer the question if you can-

A man has a wife; but abuses a boy- is he homosexual or heterosexual?

Still avoiding this Twonky?

I think we all know why - kind of blows your dumb association fallacy out the water eh   

 

THE old Twinky "Tommy Monk" isn't just an ignorant fool who never seems to know whether he's coming or going...

The silly git's a complete imbecile ~ I would place that twonk's I.Q. at somewhere around 60-70 !

And THAT'S on a good day..   

I see Tommy still has not given a good reason why two blokes should not marry..and he is doing what he does best...running away again!!

Honestly Tommy, stand and argue a good case if you have one!

It isn't the same,, it shouldn't be elevated to same status as normal man/woman couples.
And that question above, obviously if a man targets only boys for abuse in a homosexual way, then they are definately homosexuals.
But I'm pretty sure that if we had the figures, they would show that the overwhelming majority of those who target only boys aren't married to a woman......!!!!
And fleakeeper, you are an irrelevant troll and couldn't be further from the truth!!!!!

JD, I have explained my views.

Tommy Monk wrote:JD, I have explained my views.

Tbh Tommy,folk may try and to make you see things differently , but you are standing up for what you think is right and wrong,,,

And what I think matters at the end of the day is that although you are against homosexuality..I don't think your the sort who would make homophobic remarks to gay people in the street or in any way show them hatred.

Very sensible post JD.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
been here before and you are wrong:
60-70% of child sex offenders target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex.

Now you are saying exactly what I was saying and still trying to tell me I'm wrong!!!
What a bellemd!
Earlier you tried to twist it, saying the percentages were of victims and whether they were boys or girls.
But it isn't, it is percentages of abusers as I was saying and as you now admit.
And I have explained my view on homosexuality plenty of times before, it is not normal or natural behaviour, so should not be normalized by being elevated in status and be seen as the same as what is normal and natural being man/woman coupling, and marriage.
It is not the same and should not be treated as such.
It is something that should be tolerated, and people should not be persecuted for it.
There are a couple of good arguments for civil partnerships from a financial point of view and that is where it should have stayed.
Civil partnerships have all the same legal/financial standings as marriage, and If gays wanted to have a CP and tell people they were married then that is up to them.

Yet again this shows you lied, because it does not state men and as seen women are also offenders and as seen heterosexual paedos also attack boys and yes I can show the percentage of those who are victims which is also a third are boys, you though went off a claim stating it was men, which as like UKIP always do is a lie.


Here this may help you understand what you are talking about shows it has nothing to do with homosexuality.


Paedophiles' Brains Are 'Tuned' To The Faces Of Children, Study Says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/21/paedophile-brains_n_5362659.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

More huff and puff.....


The figures are defined by about 30% of child abusers target only boys.


I reckon over 99% of those are men and homosexuals.

Tommy Monk wrote:More huff and puff.....


The figures are defined by about 30% of child abusers target only boys.


I reckon over 99% of those are men and homosexuals.

So now you change your view to what I stated it was that around a third of boys are abused, but not that you can define who is abusing them and as seen now scientists are all huff and puff are they and what you reckon counts for jack shit being as you are a complete ignoramus, with an agenda for promoting hate towards homosexuals

No, the figures are defined by amount who target only boys, only girls and targeting both boys and girls.




And about a third of child abusers are men who target only boys in a homosexual way, ie, homosexuals!!!!




While homosexuals only make up probably less than 1% of general population.