Shame

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed May 13, 2009 6:24 am

:(

Keep brave Gurkhas out of Britain says BNP - mirror.co.uk

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Wed May 13, 2009 6:36 am

I'm glad he has come out and said it.

It may lose the BNP any chances of gaining seats.

His fat gob may just have done us a bit of a favour

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed May 13, 2009 8:44 am

Is being a british subject the same as being a citizen?

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed May 13, 2009 9:09 am

Snowfire;1187959 wrote: I'm glad he has come out and said it.

It may lose the BNP any chances of gaining seats.

His fat gob may just have done us a bit of a favour

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotflwe can only hope eh;)

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed May 13, 2009 9:13 am

flopstock;1188015 wrote: Is being a british subject the same as being a citizen?
Im not totally sure ,, but i think so:o

From 1 January 1949, when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her crown colonies became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

However, UK & Colonies citizens, in common with citizens of other Commonwealth countries, also retained the status of British subject. From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was:

* a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies;

* a citizen of any other Commonwealth country; or

* one of a limited number of "British subjects without citizenship".

In the third category were mainly people born before 1949 in the Republic of Ireland, India and Pakistan who did not acquire citizenship of their country or any other Dominion (in the case of those born in India and Pakistan), or who applied after 1949 for restoration of their British subject status (for those connected with Ireland).

Hence, from 1949 to 1982, a person born in England would have been a British subject and citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, while someone born in Australia, would have been a British subject and citizen of Australia.

British subject - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 am

Keep brave Gurkhas out of Britain says BNP

No surprise there then! :rolleyes:

PS, note the spelling mistake from a national daily paper.

mrsK · Post by **mrsK** » Wed May 13, 2009 2:22 pm

kazalala;1187956 wrote:

:(

Keep brave Gurkhas out of Britain says BNP - mirror.co.uk

We will have them.:-6

Do a swap for the boat people.

Some boatpeople seeking asylum for second time | The Australian

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 13, 2009 2:44 pm

I have mixed feelings about this.

I have to say that in many respects i agree with Nick Griffin that the Gurkha's deserved a good pension in reward for what they did for this country and i don't think he is under-estimating their contribution and public support for them. The BNP do actually support all military. Our Governments should have rewarded them financially far greater they they were so they had a choice to return to Nepal IF THEY WANTED TO.

The BNP Party does have some excellent policies but i think their leader is the wrong man to take them into mainstream. He doesn't seem to have a spin doctor who can write for him.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed May 13, 2009 3:57 pm

kazalala;1188033 wrote: Im not totally sure ,, but i think so:o

From 1 January 1949, when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her crown colonies became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

However, UK & Colonies citizens, in common with citizens of other Commonwealth countries, also retained the status of British subject. From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was:

* a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies;

* a citizen of any other Commonwealth country; or

* one of a limited number of "British subjects without citizenship".

In the third category were mainly people born before 1949 in the Republic of Ireland, India and Pakistan who did not acquire citizenship of their country or any other Dominion (in the case of those born in India and Pakistan), or who applied after 1949 for restoration of their British subject status (for those connected with Ireland).

Hence, from 1949 to 1982, a person born in England would have been a British subject and citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, while someone born in Australia, would have been a British subject and citizen of Australia.

British subject - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm with mrs K We'll have em' !!! how do you turn down a Ghurka. ..........That's just not on, you don't turn down your mates............Especially the ones with the big knives.:-2

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Wed May 13, 2009 4:19 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1188289 wrote: I'm with mrs K We'll have em' !!! how do you turn down a Ghurka. ..........That's just not on, you don't turn down your mates............Especially the ones with the big knives.:-2

Yup ! You dont turn away the very people who stood by your side when things got a bit hairy.. We dont give them a pat on the back and send them back with their last pay packet. We thank them and tell them we owe them our lives and the least we can do is offer them a place to stay

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Thu May 14, 2009 2:53 am

Snowfire;1188309 wrote: Yup ! You dont turn away the very people who stood by your side when things got a bit hairy.. We dont give them a pat on the back and send them back with their last pay packet. We thank them and tell them we owe them our lives and the least we can do is offer them a place to stay

Hear hear!!!:guitarist ( or is it here here?):yh_rotfl

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Thu May 14, 2009 2:58 am

oscar;1188248 wrote: I have mixed feelings about this.

I have to say that in many respects i agree with Nick Griffin that the Gurkha's deserved a good pension in reward for what they did for this country and i don't think he is under-estimating their contribution and public support for them. The BNP do actually support all military. Our Governments should have rewarded them financially far greater they they were so they had a choice to return to Nepal IF THEY WANTED TO.

The BNP Party does have some excellent policies but i think their leader is the wrong man to take them into mainstream. He doesn't seem to have a spin doctor who can write for him.

Here is the link copied and pasted here in case people have not actually went and looked at it, Oscar please dont insult my intelligence by trying to make out he was just trying to get them a bit more money:rolleyes: and its obvious he does not want them here and not the case of give them enough money to live in Nepal IF THEY WANT TO. He blatantly states they shouldnt be allowed to stay.

and no ,, you wouldnt make a good spin doctor:rolleyes::p

Nick Griffin yesterday branded Gurkhas "mercenaries" who should not be allowed to stay in Britain.

The leader of the far-right British National Party said: "We don't think the most overcrowded country in Europe, can realistically say, 'Look, you can all come and all your relatives.'

"When the Gurkhas signed up - frankly as mercenaries - they expected a pension which would allow them to live well in their own country.

"Because of economic development in Nepal, the British Army pension isn't now enough for them to be able to do that. It would be cheaper for us and probably far better for the Gurkhas to say, 'Why don't we just increase your pension so that more of you can live in Nepal rather than coming to Britain?'" Griffin made the comments on Nicky Campbell's BBC Radio 5 Live breakfast show.

Martin Howe, solicitor to the Gurkhas, said: "Nick Griffin is wrong. He does not recognise the depth of feeling around the country that this is a debt of moral honour and gratitude."

Griffin also claimed football stars Rio Ferdinand, Theo Walcott and David James are not English. And when Campbell asked if he would let his daughter bring a black man home, he said: "I would be disappointed."

Swimming maggie · Post by **Swimming maggie** » Thu May 14, 2009 4:43 am

kazalala;1188437 wrote: Hear hear!!!:guitarist ( or is it here here?):yh_rotfl

not sure which it is, but my sentiments exactly:wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu May 14, 2009 5:57 am

kazalala;1188438 wrote: Here is the link copied and pasted here in case people have not actually went and looked at it, Oscar please dont insult my intelligence by trying to make out he was just trying to get them a bit more money:rolleyes: and its obvious he does not want them here and not the case of give them enough money to live in Nepal IF THEY WANT TO. He blatantly states they shouldnt be allowed to stay.

and no ,, you wouldnt make a good spin doctor:rolleyes::p I never said i'd make a good spin doctor.... I said.... he doesn't appear to have one as he has a habit of putting his size 10 straight in his gob.

I also did not say i agreed entirely with him. I said that the army and governments should have paid them far more generously than they ever have. Then they wouls have had a choice weather to live here or return to Nepal.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:02 am

oscar;1188484 wrote: I never said i'd make a good spin doctor.... I said.... he doesn't appear to have one as he has a habit of putting his size 10 straight in his gob.

I also did not say i agreed entirely with him. I said that the army and governments should have paid them far more generously than they ever have. Then they wouls have had a choice weather to live here or return to Nepal.

So he doesnt really mean it all then ? A spin doctor would inform us of what he really means ? Theo Walcott and Rio Ferdinand really are considered British citizens, its just that he didnt quite say it right ? :rolleyes:

He is a racist, neo nazi buffoon and no amount of spin will persuade the public otherwise. Its why they will always be on the fringe and no more

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:24 am

Snowfire;1188490 wrote: So he doesnt really mean it all then ? A spin doctor would inform us of what he really means ? Theo Walcott and Rio Ferdinand really are considered British citizens, its just that he didnt quite say it right ? :rolleyes:

He is a racist, neo nazi buffoon and no amount of spin will persuade the public otherwise. Its why they will always be on the fringe and no more Yes, unfortunately.... there is probably no doubt that he did mean it.

I have commented on the Ghurkha's before in other threads and i have said that the governments have treated them appallingly. I certainly believe they should be considered British citizens and be entitled to what ever they want.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:26 am

oscar;1188501 wrote: Yes, unfortunately.... there is probably no doubt that he did mean it.

I have commented on the Ghurkha's before in other threads and i have said that the governments have treated them appallingly. I certainly believe they should be considered British citizens and be entitled to what ever they want.

There's hope for you yet :sneaky:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:30 am

Snowfire;1188504 wrote: There's hope for you yet :sneaky: No chance... I'm a Daily Mail subscriber :wah:

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:00 am

oscar;1188484 wrote: I never said i'd make a good spin doctor.... I said.... he doesn't appear to have one as he has a habit of putting his size 10 straight in his gob.

I also did not say i agreed entirely with him. I said that the army and governments should have paid them far more generously than they ever have. Then they wouls have had a choice weather to live here or return to Nepal.

My bad

I re read your post and yes it was you saying it and not you saying what you think Nick Griffin meant by his words.. sorry bout that i think i just assumed as the thread is about what he is saying about it

Spin doctor comment,,, my bad again,,, bad joke that is:rolleyes::yh_rotfl but seriously he puts his foot in his gob cos he is saying what he actually thinks:sneaky:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:04 am

kazalala;1188602 wrote: My bad

I re read your post and yes it was you saying it and not you saying what you think Nick Griffin meant by his words.. sorry bout that i think i just assumed as the thread is about what he is saying about it

Spin doctor comment,,, my bad again,,, bad joke that is:rolleyes::yh_rotfl but seriously he puts his foot in his gob cos he is saying what he actually thinks:sneaky: :wah: If he shut the hell up most of the time, the BNP would be supported a great deal more because as with all parties including fringe parties, they do have some excellent policies.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:09 am

oscar;1188611 wrote: :wah: If he shut the hell up most of the time, the BNP would be supported a great deal more because as with all parties including fringe parties, they do have some excellent policies.

Nick Griffin yesterday branded Gurkhas "mercenaries" who should not be allowed to stay in Britain.

The leader of the far-right British National Party said: "We don't think the most overcrowded country in Europe, can realistically say, 'Look, you can all come and all your relatives.'

"When the Gurkhas signed up - frankly as mercenaries - they expected a pension which would allow them to live well in their own country.

"Because of economic development in Nepal, the British Army pension isn't now enough for them to be able to do that. It would be cheaper for us and probably far better for the Gurkhas to say, 'Why don't we just increase your pension so that more of you can live in Nepal rather than coming to Britain?'" Griffin made the comments on Nicky Campbell's BBC Radio 5 Live breakfast show.

Martin Howe, solicitor to the Gurkhas, said: "Nick Griffin is wrong. He does not recognise the depth of feeling around the country that this is a debt of moral honour and gratitude."

Griffin also claimed football stars Rio Ferdinand, Theo Walcott and David James are not English. And when Campbell asked if he would let his daughter bring a black man home, he said: "I would be disappointed."

Dunno...He actually makes a couple of points. Has Britain become the jelly bean jar? How many people can you squeeze into a mini?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:20 am

Raven;1188619 wrote: Nick Griffin yesterday branded Gurkhas "mercenaries" who should not be allowed to stay in Britain.

The leader of the far-right British National Party said: "We don't think the most overcrowded country in Europe, can realistically say, 'Look, you can all come and all your relatives.'

"When the Gurkhas signed up - frankly as mercenaries - they expected a pension which would allow them to live well in their own country.

"Because of economic development in Nepal, the British Army pension isn't now enough for them to be able to do that. It would be cheaper for us and probably far better for the Gurkhas to say, 'Why don't we just increase your pension so that more of you can live in Nepal rather than coming to Britain?'" Griffin made the comments on Nicky Campbell's BBC Radio 5 Live breakfast show.

Martin Howe, solicitor to the Gurkhas, said: "Nick Griffin is wrong. He does not recognise the depth of feeling around the country that this is a debt of moral honour and gratitude."

Griffin also claimed football stars Rio Ferdinand, Theo Walcott and David James are not English. And when Campbell asked if he would let his daughter bring a black man home, he said: "I would be disappointed."

Dunno...He actually makes a couple of points. Has Britain become the jelly bean jar? How many people can you squeeze into a mini? One thing with Nick Griffin is that he is probably the most honest outspoken potential politician there is. Most wait until they are elected before they sneak the nasties in. A little like Labour sneaking in Sharia law.

Of course folk are not going to like a great deal of what Nick Griffin says but he has the balls to say it, even knowing it could lose votes for the BNP and i must give him credit for that. If we were honest, wouldn't we just love all our politicians to be as forthright as him?

I was a member of the Labour Party for years and donated funds to them until i cancelled my membership a year ago. I did a lot of reading about the BNP and Nick Griffin as well as talked to members. The BNP policy on immigration is not just to boot every johnny foriegner out. It is offering them a lump sum of money to return home in a financial position to support themselves in poorer countries. If this seems outrageous to some then, the government in power now.... has proposed exactly the same scheme as the BNP. It's outrageous to some if it comes from the BNP but acceptable if it comes from the Labour gvernment. Then it's a case of 'what a bloody good idea'.

As i was a member of the Labour Party for many years, i have recieved much in the post from them. When i investigated the BNP, i have to say that the letters that were written by Nick Griffin himself were probably the most honest and from the heart pieces of corrospondence that i have seen.

This does not mean to say that i agree with everything he does and says.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:27 am

oscar;1188626 wrote: One thing with Nick Griffin is that he is probably the most honest outspoken potential politician there is. Most wait until they are elected before they sneak the nasties in. A little like Labour sneaking in Sharia law.

Of course folk are not going to like a great deal of what Nick Griffin says but he has the balls to say it, even knowing it could lose votes for the BNP and i must give him credit for that. If we were honest, wouldn't we just love all our politicians to be as forthright as him?

I was a member of the Labour Party for years and donated funds to them until i cancelled my membership a year ago. I did a lot of reading about the BNP and Nick Griffin as well as talked to members. The BNP policy on immigration is not just to boot every johnny foriegner out. It is offering them a lump sum of money to return home in a financial position to support themselves in poorer countries. If this seems outrageous to some then, the government in power now.... has proposed exactly the same scheme as the BNP. It's outrageous to some if it comes from the BNP but acceptable if it comes from the Labour gvernment. Then it's a case of 'what a bloody good idea'.

As i was a member of the Labour Party for many years, i have recieved much in the post from them. When i investigated the BNP, i have to say that the letters that were written by Nick Griffin himself were probably the most honest and from the heart pieces of corrospondence that i have seen.

This does not mean to say that i agree with everything he does and says.

And there was me thinking you had turned a corner :rolleyes: Beyond hope you are

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:28 am

But people dont like the truth. It seems folks just dont like hearing it. I wonder why? Perhaps in the end, thats what is going to get him votes. People know he is telling the truth about things.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:30 am

Snowfire;1188632 wrote: And there was me thinking you had turned a corner :rolleyes: Beyond hope you are Will you pack in in young man :wah:

I said i have to give him credit for being so honest when most MP's wait until they are elected to sneak the nasties in and i said i did not agree with everything he did or said. :p:p The man is capable of being a pillock of the highest order at times.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:52 am

Raven;1188633 wrote: But people dont like the truth. It seems folks just dont like hearing it. I wonder why? Perhaps in the end, thats what is going to get him votes. People know he is telling the truth about things.

I dont know he is telling the truth ,, i dont believe him any more than any other politician

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu May 14, 2009 3:35 pm

According to this Griffin person (see, I can be polite), "the British Army pension isn't now enough for them to be able to do that." is he this fraking nutcase telling us that the British Army pension can't support someone in Nepal?

What does that say about the financial prospects of the UK (especially after we Scots bugger off and take our money with us).

Irrespective of the monetary issue (and all that crap about the labourer being worthy of hos hire) the Gurkhas didn't join the British Army - and it was the British Army, so they can't be mercenaries (mercenaries are a very different thing, see Blackwater - for a pension.