Traditional Britain Group

Good link John,
are you sure that you posted the correct one?

==================================

==================================

I have not seen such bullshit politically biased reporting for years:

• WE WILL BLAME FOREIGNERS FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S WRONG.
• HONKING BOOBS WILL BE LEGALISED. Only barmaids, not the wife.
• NAZIS will not be prosecuted.

Me neither. But then I haven't heard so much nonsense from a political party for years either. A political party that started off with Immigration policy as its foundation and then added its other policies later, as afterthoughts.

But...there are a lot of good articles on UKIP....

"Clearly, Bloom could have said everything he wanted without the cheap jibes, but is the voter better off knowing that these are the thoughts that rattle around his head before deciding on whether they should vote for Ukip or not?"

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...-questions-about-what-is-acceptable-1.1489773

Few if any of your country folk agree with you. His well-educated, personable and knows his stuff character cut no ice up there.

Yes, many do get sucked in by him. He has an appeal that some can't see beyond or through.

The fruitcake test: UKIP candidates face psychometric testing before being selected ...but Godfrey 'Bongo' Bloom passed


"A 'fruitcake test' has been used by the UK Independence Party to uncover unsuitable characters who might embarrass the party.
Psychometric tests were used to analyse the personalities, reliability and honesty of more than 300 people wanting to run in next year’s European elections.
Experts were called in to prevent a repeat of May’s local elections when UKIP candidates were accused of sexism, racism and homophobia.
But one candidate who passed with flying colours was Godfrey Bloom, the sitting MEP who last week railed against Britain giving aid to ‘Bongo Bongo land’."

"UKIP leader Nigel Farage ordered a shake-up of the party selection process to weed out people with views which risked living up to David Cameron’s infamous claim that the party was a ‘bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’.
A professional recruitment company was hired to oversee the process, ahead of elections to the European Parliament in May 2014."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tion--Godfrey-Bloom-passed.html#ixzz2brRrHHAm

Wrong: withdrawal from the EU.

Thats the official line.

Wrong again!

From Wikipedia [emphasis mine]:

and

That is the official line......obviously.

Actually here is more the truth. On and from the founder, Alan Sked:

Sked left Ukip in 1997 after being dismayed over infiltration by right-wingers. “I have never had anything to do with Ukip since except criticising all the time because when I founded it, it was a democrat central mainstream party with no prejudices against anybody,” he says. “And then suddenly Farage and his friends turned it into a far-right and what I think is an extremist and racist party. Farage at one stage told me that his father had been a candidate of the National Front. And he wanted his father and other former National Front candidates to be Ukip candidates. And I said, ‘Forget about it, it’s never gonna happen, you got no chance, we are just not having these people in the party including your father.’ At that point Farage said to me, ‘Alan you needn’t worry about the ****** vote. The nig nogs would never vote for us.’ I was astonished — I thought really?”


"To say Sked sounds less than enthusiastic about the present leadership of the Ukip would be an understatement. In the course of the interview he described Farage as a “nasty piece of work”, “always drunk”, “racist and right-wing”, and “one-man cult” who dominates Ukip “like Stalin dominated the Communist Party”."

http://gulfnews.com/about-gulf-news...kip-s-founder-and-staunchest-critic-1.1190334

However the current high level of immigration does need to be addressed, it is a major issue which is causing problems for the NHS, social support and schooling in many areas of the UK.

The strategy used by the main parties discriminates against people "like you", in favour of a free for all, open door policy for the whole of the EU.

That is the problem.

Exactly. There are a few " I am alright jacks" about.

In a dark corner of the Fil/Brit internet forums is a guy who had brought his wife across to the UK, gained ILR etc who was comfortable on a lorry driving income of about £50,000 a year (so he said) and he had this " I am alright jack approach". He wanted to see the higher tier of £23000 brought in and not the £18600 that eventually came in. And he was all for UKIP and their policies including their immigration policies. As he felt that th UK was over run with immigrants and there was only so much in the coffers and that it had to be brought under control. So he put it about, subtly yet still obviously, that he was okay but f*ck the rest of you. Ironically his marriage is now in tatters and his wife has virtually kicked him out of his house in the UK, all but denying him access to their 2 kids. Karma eh?

Another chap that struts around the same forum like a rooster on speed and also periodically visits here, is a staunch advocate of UKIP policy (quite possibly a fully paid up member by the sounds of it). He frequently posts on the merits of UKIP and their policies and in particular their immigration policies. He has a relationship with a Filipina and guess what, he plans to move over there so he is quite comfortable with UKIPS policy on UK immigration. However, he may want to come back to the UK one day after they marry and have kids. I can just imagine, in my minds eye, Farage greeting him and his family at Heathrow with a grin on his face and a pint in his hand saying in his eloquent and affable style "sorry mate, we are full up, dont you know and cant allow anymore in". What Karma that would turn out to be!

Okay some who are fervent supporters of UKIP may never want to or need to return to the UK and thus can afford to selfishly align with UKIP immigration policy. But some, on the other hand might find themselves in a different position. Think again before beating the drum for UKIP. If you don't give a stuff for your fellow forum members then at least consider that contrary to your current wishes, you may indeed want to return one day. Many do. Look at Meathersgate for example, who has left in the past but always returns believing everytime that this is the last time (is that true Andrew?)

For those who are quite happy to foist UKIP on the rest of us, have a read of the lines of their Immigration policy. What does it say? What is not written into their policy? What are they thinking underneath and saying in between the lines. We know they are closet racists, we know what they are thinking despite many an attempt to zip it, there is enough evidence about and we can read what they are not saying in their policy. What else can one conclude about how they would manage immigration if they got half a chance!

There are one or two chaps out there that say "well of course you know that there is an immigration problem and something has to be done". Well yes, I think most are well aware of that. There is a problem. But it is the solution to the problem that's the issue. UKIPS way is not the way except for the "I am alright jacks"

Oh, so Dr Alan Sked's real reason for forming the United Kingdom Independence Party was purely xenophobic and not, as he maintains, to campaign for withdrawal from the EU, was it? I am sure he bows to your superior knowledge on the matter.

The Problem is not the levels of immigration of spouses and children from non-EEA areas which are actually quite low and manageable but the larger number of visas being granted to immigrants' parents, siblings and other family members, particularly from certain Commonwealth countries. If there is to be a suspension of immigration, it should in respect of this latter group. As to the wider question of EU migration, that was never really a real problem - other than a perceived one by right-wingers - and certainly not in the early post-Maastricht days because those who migrated here did take-up jobs and become productive members of society. However, with the admission of some of the poorest, former Soviet Bloc countries all that changes: Britain is viewed as being the land of milk and honey and faces an onslaught of out-of-work, unskilled people from those countries with their (often quite large) families. Because many of them have absolutely no offer-able skills with which to gain employment, they resort to criminal acts. Witness Paris where the authorities had to close the Louvre and other museums for a time because visitors were being targeted by criminal gangs of migrant children. Witness London where quite large numbers of Roma set up encampments in Hyde Park and elsewhere in the Capital, defecated in bushes and engaged in street crime: this group demand(ed) that the British government provide them with housing and other social benefits.

Quite clearly the rules on European migration need to be changed, in my view. Migrants should only be able to move to another EU member nation if they have already been offered work or can demonstrate offer-able skills that would enable to them to obtain work quickly and easily - and those should be employed within (say) three months or be required to leave. The ability for migrants to access to health care and other benefits needs to be equalised throughout the EU. In France, for example, the "Health Certificate" provided by the migrant's home country is only valid for 12 months and only then for basic care; at the end of that time, migrants are required to subscribe to a health insurance policy from one or other of the French providers. Migrants do not enjoy the same social and welfare benefits as French citizens. Similarly Spain where, very recently, certain popular areas are refusing to accept the "Health Certificate" and requiring patients to pay upfront for all health care. We all know the situation in Britain.

Changes, however, necessarily require agreement by all EU's member nations. The more industrialised northern countries are somewhat more open to that possibility as they are most directly affected but the southern agricultural and former Soviet members whose citizens benefit will not agree. And France will veto any such changes in any event.

My advice would be to continue to permit spousal immigration from non-EEA countries - even to the extent of making it easier - but make it much, much harder for other members of their family to emigrate to the UK. If one takes a long term view, there may even be benefits to the nation's overall health by so doing: genetic diseases such as Psoriasis and Cancer of the Colon (Crohns' Disease) are almost unheard of in Asia and as these diseases only affect the offspring of two carriers of the same genetic defect, their incidence would drop, being bred out.

So where does your superior knowledge lay? Do you have any?

Well spotted....

Yours would be the last I would listen to.

For once, John, I do agree with you! And I think I know exactly to whom you refer in your opening paragraph. If I am right, it is the very same person who posted several libellous messages on that forum regarding my client. He and one or two others who posted in similar vein have their cards marked

Contrary to what you may think, I am by no means a UKIP advocate and I certainly do not support its immigration policy, but I have witnessed that party's rise in popularity and if it can come up with a sensible set of costed proposals and modify its stance on immigration and health, it will very likely be a major force to be reckoned with in 2015. We have to remember that its current manifesto was prepared during the last days of the Brown government which, like the Blair government, was handing-out settlement visas to all and sundry: UKIP's then stated immigration policy is, I believe, no more than a knee-jerk reaction to that state of affairs. It is clearly xenophobic and wrong as it stands. But considerably more moderate than Nick Griffin's fascist BNP which would seek the repatriation of all immigrants and their descendants regardless of citizenship.

Err is that Markham there or has someone written that for him? You can sure change your tune in the blink of an eye.

Unlike you, it seems, I don't claim to have any.

Ah so you only listen to those whose views reinforce your own rather than forming an opinion based on a wider spectrum.

On the contrary, I am here to learn. But I have to be a little discerning though, as some folk are inclined to write some BS, for whatever reason that might choose to do that.