Why do people associate the B.N.P with nazism? Hmm I dont get it

Erm hello can I say 9/11, 3/11....the Iraq war....

People have killed people. It's a damned dog eat dog world.

oh fuck off and die.

i truly mean that.

who was that directed at lol?

oops, yes, should have made that clear.

the thread starter. if anyone wants me dead for what i am, then i've no problem wishing them dead for that.

harsh but fair.

The BNP are affliated with being racists but that's only some of the extreme cases, most of them just want a better deal for the descendents of people who have done honest hard work to get our country where it is today and should be put before anybody that has just waltzed in.

That's basically what they mean

Ok fair enough but you got to admit, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are losers. My friend's little brother was run over and killed by a guy that was in England illegally, with a car under a false name, no license, no registration, no insurance. He drove off afterwards. They caught him and got 2 months and his asylum has been granted.
And that guy can have a great life living off our benefits, free healthcare etc whereas my poor friend has to go through life minus a brother and minus the justice that his life was taken in vain.

If that is what the other half is about then I'm not running up to join

Ok fair enough but you got to admit, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are losers. My friend's little brother was run over and killed by a guy that was in England illegally, with a car under a false name, no license, no registration, no insurance. He drove off afterwards. They caught him and got 2 months and his asylum has been granted.
And that guy can have a great life living off our benefits, free healthcare etc whereas my poor friend has to go through life minus a brother and minus the justice that his life was taken in vain.

If that is what the other half is about then I'm not running up to join

and i suppose he knocked the kid over because he was an asylum seeker?

if the person was a british citizen it would have been morea acceptable?

i think what angers danithestudent most is that the illegal immigrant, who shouldn't have been in britain in the first place got a leniant sentence and had his asylum granted. True, the sentence is a result of leniant law, but granting him asylum was simply ludicrous.

Whats wrong with getting rid of all the parasitic immigrants? Dont you love your country? Do you see how they are decaying it?

You're probably descended from immigrants yourself. Most people who would consider themselves native British are, since we've been invaded so many times. Romans, Saxons, Normans, Vikings... I could go on all day. Like it or lump it, there is immigrant blood flowing through your veins, and those of pretty much everyone else in this green and pleasant land. Which always makes me laugh when fuckwits like you start your moronic rantings- cos you wouldn't be here if it wasn't for immigration. In fact, you might say that immigration made this country what it is today... bet you'll choke when you realise that!

You're probably descended from immigrants yourself. Most people who would consider themselves native British are, since we've been invaded so many times. Romans, Saxons, Normans, Vikings... I could go on all day. Like it or lump it, there is immigrant blood flowing through your veins, and those of pretty much everyone else in this green and pleasant land. Which always makes me laugh when fuckwits like you start your moronic rantings- cos you wouldn't be here if it wasn't for immigration. In fact, you might say that immigration made this country what it is today... bet you'll choke when you realise that!

I think this argument about all Brits being a result of immigration is a bit silly. True. But silly nevertheless.
I never paid much attention to history but even I know that the last time Britain was sucessfully invaded was in 1066, almost a thousand years ago. I also know that up until that time Britain was invaded solely by various western/central european tribes, romans, saxons, jutes, vikings, celts etc.
This means that the majority of white folks in Britain have been here at least 1000 years and some a good deal longer. It also means that irrespective of their date of arrival they are derived of a common western/central european ancestry.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to try and compare this ancient immigation of 1000+ years ago with the new immigration wave that really only started in 1950 and say "we're all immigrants" Strictly speaking it's true but logically it's meaningless.

The majority of white folks in Britain have been here 1000 years!? I don't think they have now- the oldest white person I know is 94! Now that really is silly. One stops being of immigrant stock after a certain amount of time? Hmmm, difficult topic. In addition, even if your suggestion that most of the groups were derived of Western European ancestry were taken to be true, how does that get round the fact that they were immigrants? Being from nearby doesn't change that fact.
It should also be noted that the history you give of immigration is an inaccurate one I'm afraid. For one thing, descendants of the Roman settlers are hardly derived of central or western European ancestry, Italy being in the south of Europe, and one might also consider the fact that the Roman army was comprised of recruits from all over the Empire. It would be short sighted indeed not to realise that this included Africans and Middle Easterners, again not really Europeans.
In addition, yes 1066 was the last invasion but presumably you know there have been many waves of immigration to Britain since then? The most obvious example would be the Irish- for example in 1851 nearly 20% of the Mancunian population was Irish born, which gives you an idea of the scale, and would seem to suggest that immigration was a big feature in society then too. There are also Huguenots (sp?) Dutch Protestants, Jews who came in the Middle Ages and then in subsequent waves in the nineteenth century from Eastern Europe, a fair few black Africans connected with the slave trade... I could go on all day. But I'm sure you get the point.
Like it or not, immigration is part of British history. We are an island of immigrants: those who deny this or try and suggest that its somehow not important make a huge mistake. Any comments one wishes to make about immigration are valueless if this isn't acknowledged.

Interesting take on history and no time to address all of it but let's pick up on some of it.
Firstly, a bit of geography. Italy is in fact in western Europe. Yes, it's a long thin place that cools it's boot in the med but it's still a western european county, albeit some of it in the south. You might just as well say that Spain isn't a western european country.
Anyway, be that as it may. The majority roman army garrisoned in various parts of Britain was not made up of middle eastern and african recruits as well you know. The fact that there may have been "the odd one", (maybe even couple hundred) really doesn't make one jot of difference. The majority Roman army in Britain was made up of western/central european recruits and later "home grown" recruits.
Yes, I am aware of Irish immigration to England in the mid 19th century. However, this I'd regard a "inter island movement" (poor choice of words but the best I can summon up at the moment) rather than immigration.
As you know, the Irish are celts who came originally from central europe. They made their way to Britain and settled and were later pushed westward into Ireland (and Wales) by the Saxons, who were a western european germanic tribe.
So, my theory holds true. That the white population of the British Isles are predominantly the ancestors of western/central european tribes from 1066 and before. Irish immigration in 1851 was just a movement of people from one island to another.
Your example of black slavery is nonsense. Only a tiny minority of black slaves were bought to Britain. The vast majority were shipped to the colonies. Really the amount you are talking about is peanuts. My argument is that the majority of white folks in the UK derive from central/western tribes as immigrants (normally invaders) 1000 or more years ago. The fact that there were probably a few thousand slaves in London in 1790 doesn't really alter much.
I maintain that you cannot compare 1000 year old immigration with 1985 immigration. There is obviously a heck of a difference between a person who's family has been here since 1066 on his/her moms side and 300ad on his/her dad's side and a person who settled here in 1974.
Yes, it's true. "We are all immigrants" But that's just complete meaningless twaddle I'm afraid.
Like you, "I could go on all day".......but I won't.

Interesting take? Well I am a history student, hence the ability to provide you with examples.
Italy tends to be regarded as a southern European country in thas its culturally distinctive from the nations perceived as Western Europe. However, thats not actually my major point. I never said that the majority of Roman garrisons were non-European, but, as you admit, some of them were. I really can't see how you can say this doesn't matter a jot: the fact is, it does provide evidence that there have been settlers to Britain who were in no way Western or Northern European. I read recently in a book which I think was called The Seven Ages of Britain that its been hypothesised that actually something around 10% of those who would self-identify as native British actually have significant amounts of Middle Eastern bloodlines. I assume this would be because of the Roman influx but am not certain. Either way, non-European. You should also know that it was quite common in the Roman Army to station recruits away from where they were from, as obviously a soldier from the south of England stationed in the Midlands would be considerably more likely to try and do a runner home then one in Africa. Sensible enough, and explains why Britain did indeed see immigration from the non-European parts of the Empire. Actually, if you want to learn more about this you may be interested in a book by Bernadine Evaristo about an African woman in Roman Britain, I forget the title though.
With regard to not regarding the Irish as immigrants: well I don't mean to sound rude here (I'm trying to explain not insult) but I'm afraid it doesn't really matter whether you regard it as actual immigration. The Irish are of course distinct from the British, and as for it being inter-island migration, that seems irrelevant- Jamaicans who come here are also inter-island migrants, for example. You seem to have the idea here that movement from areas near to Britain is more legitimate than from places further away: if you do you really need to expand on and justify that.
I don't understand how the black slavery example could be described as nonsense: you admitted yourself that it happened after all. Of course it was a tiny amount compared to the slave trade (I never said it was on anything like the same scale) but that in no way alters the fact that it occured. Non-European immigrants to Britain, and after 1066 too! In terms of the principle we're discussing, their very presence alters a huge amount. One cannot pretend that all immigration to Britain has been by European peoples.
Please note, I never claimed there was no difference between those whose ancestors settled here hundreds of years ago and those who came over a generation ago. But one thing they would certainly have in common is that they would both be descended from immigrants. If you want to argue that those of immigrant descent somehow change in their ethnic background after a certain point in time, I'm going to need to see a justification of that.