UKIP - What is it they are going to do for you?

is it really any different to militant bin men refusing to handle bagged rubbish unless they get 'danger money'? There are hundreds of people paid to dream up problems for those they supposedly represent and more often than not they're not even close to the group.
In the eighties a very white boss at BBC somehow reached the conclusion that it was more PC to refer to blacks as coloured ... and what a stink that caused among my black friends. Especially me teasing them with 'Stevie Pink' and 'Robbie Purple', they hated it! (but don't worry they always gave out as good as they got). Needless to say, the Beeb were soon forced to change their tune.

 

It exists because interest is haram, Islam doesn't allow credit or interest. You spend within in your means which is why credit isn't allowed and you're not allowed to benefit (make profit) off of borrowing which is why interest is haram. In this country it's very difficult, like my Mum had to take out a mortgage 20 years ago but yeah it's helpful to some.

Islam's a difficult one when living in Watford because people blur the lines between culture and religion. There's a lot of things PAKISTANIS do and 99% of them will be Muslim so people will assume it's a religion thing - understandably.

I personally disagree with The Burka, I hate it, the hijab is fine.

The Quran is up for 'interperation' I suppose.. so some people go to the extreme just like they do in any religion. The ruling itself in very simple terms is to dress modestly when around men unless they are familly etc. People then take 'modestly' to the extreme and cover themselves totally which in my opinion is ridiculous. The hijab is the minimum requirement and serves just fine, long sleeve top and loose clothes (ie not making your t*ts stand out) and you're fine, you fit in perfectly.

Islam doesn't deny sexual attraction, it is written that it completely normal but to prevent affairs and stuff this is the ruling placed.

Like I said earlier, where it gets blurred is firstly with people's interpretations of terms such as 'modestly' and then secondly culture, Pakistani Muslims, Nigerian Muslims, Somalians etc etc.

If there was a petition I'd vote to ban the full face veils 110% it has no place in modern British society. Forget that acid story I hate that argument but I just think the full veil is ridiculous, completely alienates people, it's actually rather spooky to be totally honest and just doesn't belong. I do think the headscarf is and should be perfectly acceptable.

 

Thank god you've posted. I too feel complete uncontrollable sexual arousal at the sight of a woman's hair. Thankfully it looks like I'm not alone - as otherwise I would think that there is something seriously wrong with me.

Edit: When I say a woman's hair I don't mean my mum's, wife's or daughter's just in case I seem like some sort of pervert.

Edit2: Actually I do mean my wife's, just in case I appear like some sort of sexual inadequate.

 

Hijabs and full face veils are defiently more consequential than marks and spencers' policy on employee distribution.

 

Romanians and Bulgarians failed to show up then?

It almost seems as if, contrary to popular belief, that 485m EU citizens don't actually wish to come here and be homeless.

 

Probably because currently our economy is almost as bad as our weather .... mind you they denied all the poles were here for years so don't hold your breath.

 

Lol...

 

This is covered in the Bible too, where usury is prohibited (Hence Jesus turning the lenders out of the Temple). In days of yore, the only people who lent money were jews, because they are allowed by their faith to lend to non-jews. The fact that everyone owed a Jew some money made them a convenient scapegoat for a great many things, and was a major contributor to European anti-semitism.

 

Father Moog.

 

Not sure someone suspecting positive discrimination can be denounced as racist?

TV presenters are difficult to quantify in terms of ability, but to give a sporting example we can use Hashim Amla. When he first came on the scene it was when SA were forced to pick 2/3 non white players (not sure if this is still the case). Anyhow, at the time I remember people suggesting he was only in the team due to the quota system.

Amla has now proved himself to be one of the best batsmen in world cricket - the stats all backing that up. However, the question is when he didn't get credit for his talent early on in his career was that the fault of the people with those thoughts, or was it the fault of those who imposed quotas on the team?

In my opinion, imposing quotas or encouraging positive discrimination makes race relations worse, and increases divisions. Why can't we just get along as equals?

 

There is no such thing as positive discrimination. Discrimination is negative.
Best person for the job / role / position as far as I'm concerned. If they turn out to be a one legged Somali vegitarian transgender pensioner then so what?

 

Depends how much better they were than the rest of the candidates? What if you to install a disability lift for him due to the fact he has one leg? Is he a £1000 better than the other candidates? Doubt it.

 

You do make a valid point however you need to draw the line somewhere.

Places of work of sufficient size have to have disabled access now anyway. Smaller companies should be able to apply for grants where required and practical in my opinion.

 

whatever your political leaning thought this of interest
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...en-and-only-Nigel-Farage-is-profiting.html?fb

 

The legislation for what businesses have to have in terms of disabled access is pretty minimal, and not overly encouraging.

Where I work is just about compliant, but I don't think I'd want to work here if I was wheelchair-bound.

 

http://www.lbc.co.uk/watch-nigel-fa...0-90532#ooid=9paWF4bTrI6_0sJrGSwxr786YuPXrj1P

This is a fantastic interview.

 

Discriminating against BNP members the ****.

 

Geniunely amazing. How can anyone vote for this man? How can he claim not to be racist when he has no problem with German immegrints, but hates Romanian ones? Worries me that people actually want this man in charge of our country.

 

As the newly-designated forum racist, I don't even know where to begin on this thread.

People complain about immigrants here in Texas, but I want to see them trying to cut their own grass when it's 120 degrees outside and they've driven all the Hispanic labor south of the border. I'd love to see all the immigrants in Britain go home, just to see how long it takes everybody to beg for their return once they realize indigenous cheap labor is lazy, uneducated, and self-entitled.

 

The interviewer does well and for all UKIP whinge about 'bias' against them that's the kind of scrutiny you get with success and especially with the kind of rabble the party attracts. Not that it will change the result of the forthcoming election much. People must have their ill defined 'protest vote'.

Funny how it always used to be the lefties that were the complaining ones - Free this person, liberate that one. Now is the right that shouts loudest.

 

Charming candidates, though.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...swearing-at-antiracism-activists-9392147.html

 

Sounds like the Greens were trying to prevent UKIP campaigning from a brief read of the article. Hardly democratic is it? Perhaps they'd be better putting forward their own strong points rather than trying to call UKIP racist?

 

How is protesting undemocratic?

 

Voters come up to UKIP and says "You've got my vote".

Green runs up to voters and harrass them and effectively calls them racist bigots by association.

Seems like voter intimidation and obstruction of canvassing to me unless I have misunderstood the article.

 

In any case what are they protesting about? If they are protesting that UKIP shouldn't be allowed to run in the election because the Greens don't like their policies then that is obviously an afront to democracy.

 

Being upfront with racism?

 

From what has been said on this thread about this interview I was expecting Farage to look like a total t**t.

It doesn't matter what sides of the political spectrum we support, this interview was one of the worst I can remember on a mainstream media outlet.

O'Brien is a condescending, ignorant and patronising p***k. He was rude, not allowing answers, constantly interrupting and was only intent only getting his own views across rather than getting the views of his interviewee.

I dont agree with a lot of what Farage says, but at least he has tried to answer the questions put to him. It was only after O'Brien made the same points over and over again, that Farage tried to move on to the policies... and he remained dignified and polite throughout. I found that refreshing compared with the constant ducking and diving we get from the mainstream politicians.

 

He says that he would feel more uncomfortable with Rumanians living next door to him, alluding to the fact that Rumanians are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime in this Country (muggings and pickpocketing, I believe). But I am certain that a large proportion of people would think the same, even if they didn't admit it. His comments were racist in the same way that I am being sexist and ageist when I worry more about walking amongst a gang of young lads loitering on a street corner, than I would walking through a group of old ladies on a street corner.

 

I don't want to get into an argument, but I don't think you can say you don't want to live next door to a Romanian with no justification and then say 'you know what the difference is'. Stats actually show that only 0.5% of Romanian citizens in the uk have ended up in jail so I'm not sure where your justification is? Funnily enough, 9.5% of UKIP's MEP's have been in prison. I know who I'd rather have as my neighbour.

Edit- also justifying something by saying 'a large number of people would think the same' is ridiculous. A large number of people thought slavery was ok, a large number of people thought Hitler was a great man. Doesn't make them right.

 

Just listened to it myself and I thought Farage dodged virtually every question posed to him, even immediately pointing the finger at other parties. O'Brien was absolutely interrupting Farage, but that was mostly due to Farage dodging a question or trying to change the line of the conversation. Farage was also factually incorrect about a number of things about his own party, such as the status of the Councillor. I accept he might not be intimately aware of the status of every person in his party, but the problem is that contradicted the initial statement despite lack of personal knowledge and then backtracked once it became apparent he was mistaken. Essentially, he wasn't telling the truth because he didn't know what the reality was.

While I think all parties should be held to account for toxic representatives and their actions, a deflection that essentially amounts to "well, they do it too" completely rubs me up the wrong way. That approach really doesn't do anyone any favours.

 

The Met Police say that the Rumanians are the 2nd most arrested foreigners in London, yet have a relatively small number here. A stat that says that only a small % of Rumanians have been in prison is hardly a ringing endorsement when they have only been allowed in for a very short time, is it!

I havn't said Farage is right, I said that he was alluding to a commonly held feeling about Rumanians. I agreed that it was a racist comment. Don't misquote me!

Of course, because many have the same view doesn't make it right, but at least he was being more honest than most.

 

I wish people would stop saying this. It's absolute rubbish. Romanians have been an accession state for a while now and have been 'allowed in' for years under different terms, and then before that were allowed in on similar terms to loads of other non European people were. It's not like the first Romanian to ever come to live in Britain arrived on January 1st of this year.