threegee

LOL do the math and multiply 30 Euros per day (Merkel money) by at least 40,000. Yes, at least 1.2 Million Euros per day is exactly how much Sicilians love illegal immigrants! The real joke is on the UK though for generously helping to fund the whole charade and provide a further draw-factor to Europe, and ultimately to the UK where the streets really are paved with gold. Whilst you are are in Sicily please do enquire about the unemployment rate; the prospects of a local youngster (without "connections") getting a real job, and where the immigrants (sorry, refugees) are headed. Your denial of ad-hominem attacks might have had some credibility if - within a few short lines - you hadn't gone on to do exactly that on Gatestone. But, but, but - I took you advice and Googled on your keywords anyway, and wow, there are a lot of influential Jewish people involved in Gatestone (Nobel Prizes are mentioned). But (not being anti-Semitic like our very own Labour Party now is) I'm prepared to listen to what they have to say, and it seems like what they say makes a good deal of sense. Although I'm more interested in what people actually DO than what they say. It seems there are substantial numbers of Jewish people leaving the UK now - a country which has given them sanctuary for hundreds of years. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11393427/Were-leaving-Britain-Jews-arent-safe-here-any-more.html Go figure on why that would be, or is that a cue for an ad-hominem attack on the Torygraph?

Because it's off topic, and Tony only has to look at other threads to get his answers. I answered within the context of the heading (see my final paragraph) sorry that this didn't suit you. Why not start your own thread and ask "what would benifit bedlington if we weren't in the eu" or similar? That would indicate that you are genuinely interested, are prepared to engage in genuine discussion, have your own opinions tested, and aren't simply trolling.

Brilliant post Malc! Proof - if any more were needed - that our politicos really only want to hear what suits their own agendas. We been the world's most successful traders for hundreds of years without politicos inserting themselves into the process, or dictating the terms of trade. Trade is simply about providing the right goods and services at the right price. If you do that others will buy, and if their politicos put up barriers then ultimately it will harm them more. Ironic then that OhBarmy - from the nation that kids itself is THE pioneer of free trade - is using veiled threats of tariff barriers to blackmail us to do his bidding. He's certainly the most anti-British US president in my own lifetime and likely long before. There's little chance that whoever replaces him in November will be as hostile. If it's Trump then business will surely come before any politics, and Clinton has more sense than to meddle like OB.

Quotes from significant others aren't "silly" Tony; amongst other things they are an acknowledgement that other people may have lived longer and seen further than yourself. Back on the original subject: Maybe you should take a quiet visit to our war memorial and do a little contemplation? Something you might wish to contemplate on is exactly why the people honoured thereon gave their tomorrow for our today. I'd suggest that they did it to preserve our democracy and our way of life, and as a by-product to liberate the rest of Europe from an expansionist German superstate. Our generation (1950's - 1980's) would have done the same thing had Soviet expansionism gone as far as it might have, had we not had nuclear weapons and been a founding member of NATO. Today the world is different, but not as different as many would have you believe. The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of it's own communist dogma, but Germany is on the rise for a third time. Russia is not a threat to us, yet our leaders want to act like it was; German domination is again threatening the whole of Europe, yet our leaders want to pretend it is our closest ally. Germany (the nation which gets the minutiae incredibly right, but the major things of history so tragically wrong) - is attempting to ... well ... If we cozy up to Germany we will become a hostage to German expansionism - which is the subject of this thread. To learn from history (and to avoid any more names on our war memorial) we need to maintain our independence, and not sell-out to any single world power block. We've done this very successfully thought history, and we can continue to do this. What's more we can set an example of proud independence to other nations, and right now our very good buddies the Dutch are positively willing us to provide the lead to prove their own political elites entirely wrong. Make no mistake, if we vote leave the EU will be forced to reform into what it was originally sold to everyone as: a Common Market. It's the nightmare scenario for the elites, but the start of liberation of the ordinary European citizen! That's the big point of this thread, but there are a dozen or more less important reasons why our town will be better off out. And there are absolutely no sane reasons for us to continue to support this entirely political project dressed up as an economic alliance.

Oh dear CL, you mean I haven't given you the answers you want, and those answers don't suit your myopic view of the world? You certainly seem to be in the right place for self-delusion there! What do you understand by the word ghetto? I used the word ghettoise. That's the process of proceeding toward ghetto conditions. I suspect you want me to point to an outdated formal definition in order to "surprise" me with the inconsistency. I didn't say we had ghettos - yet; so going there is a diversion. Trevor Philips has recently said "A Nation within a Nation", and he's very right - except it won't stop there. I bet you didn't even look at that Burnley video! Please provide the source of your definition of a "true refugee" Why don't you define it too? Then, any reader of this thread can determine for themselves if my understanding is more in accord with what they consider fair and reasonable than yours. provide ONE example of how British CULTURE (look it up) has been replaced by a group of refugees Did I ever use the word replaced? Has Sharia law been imposed in Britain. A simple yes or a no will suffice. Yes - it is imposed on most "moderate" Muslims. The clearly stated aim is to impose it on all, and I believe them when they say that - only a fool wouldn't believe them! If the answer to question 4 is yes, then please direct me to the relevant sections of the relevant laws Here you are using British and Sharia interchangeably to suit your purpose. And then there was the question of how to recognise a male muslim soley from his appearance. You appear to have missed/avoided it. I'm not interested in what a "male muslim" looks like. I'm only interested in what a medieval belief set that has no place in the modern world is attempting to impose on my country. I'd feel the same about it if it was little green men from Mars. Have you ever considered a career in politics? Your talent for avoiding answering simple questions is second to none. It certainly puts the efforts of Cameron, Farage, Mileband in the shade. I fear that my answers are too straight for you. All you can manage is ad-hominem attacks on sources, quoting words that haven't been used, and syntactic/semantic devices. This is likely how Swedes have been browbeaten by their elites into the total forfeiture of their country. The more I research Sweden the more desperate it looks. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6736/sweden-mass-murderers Idyllic country to hell-hole in one PC generation; you'll find the Sicilians a far harder target!

You can find the full treatment on iPlayer here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b077n59m/newsnight-14042016

Thank you for that, but a stickler for semantic correctness like you shouldn't quote words that were never said. I think the two Burnley ladies filmed above would recognise most definitions of ghetto, and also agree that they now lived in pretty close to one. As the DM article puts it, the definition is closer to a "Nation within a nation". In terminally-PC Sweden they skirt around this and call them "exclusion areas". These "exclusion areas" multiply by the week. Tell us exactly what is "excluded" from them please?

a clarification of what is your understanding of the Word ghetto The word ghetto is yours - I believe I used the word ghettoisation. Anyway, lets not argue that one - I will go with ghetto and bow to a former government Equalities Commission watchdog: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3533041/Warning-UK-Muslim-ghettoes-Nation-nation-developing-says-former-equalities-watchdog.html a clarification as to why we British can't succeed with the present wave of refugees just as we did with the Ugandan Asians or the boat-people Because the Ugandan Asians numbered only 27,200, and they were all genuine refugees. Many of them were already British citizens of high educational standard, spoke good English, and were familiar with the British way of life. They didn't have a belief-set which required the elimination of all other belief-sets either! The current immigration figures are being suppressed by Cameron, and when they are eventually produced they won't tell the truth for several reasons; it's very likely that the real figure is way over double that every single month of the year. I'd guess that including illegals and not counting out ex-pats (who practically all retain British citizenship and will return at some point anyway) that might be the figure for ten quiet days. one (1) example of how any aspect of the British Culture has been replaced by a Group of refugees Have you actually looked at the skyline of one of our major cities lately? http://mosques.muslimsinbritain.org/maps.php#/town/London ...and how about not worrying about the safety of your child, or good old British tolerance? a source of the given definition for "true refugee" The common sense definition: someone who comes for temporary refuge from a natural disaster or political persecution, and who is minded to return from whence they came at the earliest possible moment. It most certainly doesn't include people of a mindset so screwed up that it has messed up their own country to the point of horror, and then come to impose that same lunacy on the people they beg shelter from. It also doesn't include people who take their annual holidays back in the country they "fled" from! a clarification as to whether Sharia law has, or has not, already been imposed in Britain. With any possible answer in the affirmative, a wink in the direction of the appropriate paragraphs would be very much appreciated. There are 85 recognised Islamic courts to operating across the UK, and those are only the ones a blind government wants to know about. Wink -- http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sharia-law-alive-well-uk-6957168 Now lets look at Sweden: From a Swede's perspective... But that was 2012 and I wonder how she feels about it right now?! Here's a more picturesque oldie from back in lowish-immigration, pre-Merkel-madness, 2012. Great place you had there!

No, the Sharia courts will be conducted in English. Islam has always been very "progressive" turning the clock back to the middle ages. Notice that even in France the slogans are in English. And... your time horizon may only be twenty years but theirs is far longer. What exactly don't you understand about what they are telling you very clearly? Oh, I know, it's only a tiny minority of extremists.

As predicted our brilliant buddies the Dutch vote against Teutonic expansionism, whilst the undemocratic EU elites ignore this, and intend to carry on provoking Russia and ignoring the electorate. http://players.brightcove.net/2540076170001/NykPWQNal_default/index.html?videoId=4844339376001

What I did miss was your full context when I came back to it after an interruption; the perils of ultra small screen computing. So my eventual reply took you slightly out of context, and I apologise. I'd accept that homosexual gay would likely have started to turn up in the 1950's, but it wasn't anything an average person would have related to until the early 1970's, which was my point. The Paddick-Williams use of Palari though was an eye-opener for many in the early 1960's, though it had been in use for literally hundreds of years amongst "theatricals". I think it's clear though that most people who went along with the RTH humour and easily got to "level two" never really appreciated the historical background, Homosexuality was referred to by the indirect "so" - which implied certitude. But, there was far more than simple double entendre at work in RTH. That wouldn't have got past the Mary Whitehouses of the day - especially at the time it went out on a Sunday. There was a degree of complicity of top BBC management in covering up - totally obvious to many in the know - which only added to the merriment. So, the really rollicking humour didn't actually come from Williams/Paddick/Horne; it came from the fact that ostensibly Reithian BBC management was indirectly taking the proverbial out of the huge crop of censorious listeners - those who couldn't even approach getting a handle on what was actually being broadcast. There was always the wonder of how far this extended up the then long chain of authority, and - from now-available evidence - the answer must surely be: pretty much all the way.

Can I suggest that this has its roots in EU law, which is entirely inappropriate to our own culture. This suggestion is derived from reading a piece by a prominent UK lawyer. He claims that the roots of the present absurdities can be firmly placed in European privacy laws, and that they simply wouldn't have occurred without EU meddling in our long established legal system.

That could depend on how old I am. Though I fear that this is one of those myths of popular culture that becomes true because of repetition and because there are lots of "progressive" people out there who simply wish it were true. In fact it's entirely untrue! I'm an avid consumer of 1950's and 1960's popular culture brought to me by the wonders of "podcasts". I'm particularly enamoured of Round The Horne and Beyond Our Ken, and have listened to (you could say even studied) countless episodes in recent years. Every bit of innuendo imaginable was employed by the brilliant Kenneth Williams, and on the very rare occasions gay was used in those series it was with entirely the traditional meaning. The first use I encountered of gay in connection with homosexuality was the phrase "what a gay day" used by Larry Grayson well after that date. That was surely what popularised the usage in the UK, and that would have been early 1970's.

Isn't it strange that when I just did a Google search on UK celebrity "Elton John" to find the title of his latest album Google says "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe."? Now how could Google consider that something as mundane as an album title could be a sensitive legal matter, or maybe I've got this all wrong? Maybe there's something that Europeans aren't even allowed to speculate about; if so of course we mustn't go there, so I won't, and you shouldn't either. Ah for the "gay" old days, when everyone had a right to know what an record was called; when words meant what words had always meant; when marriage meant what it had meant for countless thousands of years; when a militant homosexual couldn't contrive to force you to write words you found offensive, and when there was never any need to talk around issues.

'The EU makes Britain LESS safe' Defence minister says Brussels rule is PROVOKING Russia

Yet another minister who most certainly doesn't subscribe to Dave's "the government view": She goes on to say pretty much what Nigel Farage was saying about unsustainable pressure on UK services over a year ago, and was extensively mocked over at the time. Courage isn't too much in evidence amongst our senior politicos.

Over 100,000 have already signed, which pretty much guarantees a parliamentary debate. Is this a record in so short a time? A few more signatures won't hurt though. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/116762 Apparently you can't stop the Post Office delivering the thing as the opt-out process takes about six weeks, and registering an opt-out could also block stuff you actually want. Interesting though that the printing was done by a UK subsidiary of the German Post Office, and is a company which itself regularly receives subsidies from the EU. This leaves a casual observer wondering exactly how the £9.2M order was actually placed. Also interesting that the pamphlet - which purports to be the balanced advice of an elected government - was produced entirely behind the backs of several senior cabinet ministers of that self-same elected government. I don't think Desperate Dave has heard the last of this; and maybe needs to fly back to the sunshine for more time to think?

Can this be the same story the BBC reported on on the Today program this morning? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3506079/Celebrity-barrister-35-admits-buying-party-drugs-killed-teenage-boyfriend-BBC-producer-night-chemsex-orgy-inside-legal-chambers.html#ixzz458PkOTWd Obviously not, as no BBC Producer was involved in the crime the BBC reported extensively on. How about a Panorama expose on the role of the BBC in UK recreational drug distribution? No? Thought not!

Well, we now know the result of Dave's thinking time alone in Lanzarote - his conclusion as to why he's losing all the arguments is that he's not applied enough spin. His solution: to spend another £9.5 million of desperately needed taxpayers money on a leaflet to all households. This is, of course, exactly the same tactic used by Harold Wilson in 1975. If you re-examine that leaflet all the lies and half truths are now very transparent, and we now know that the promoters knew that it was a deception - they've since admitted it was! His justification for this leaflet is that there's a huge demand from the public to know the facts as they are confused. Well Dave, if you genuinely believe this then subject your EU propaganda sheet to a panel of independent economists, constitutional experts, and business people for scrutiny, once it has been signed off by your spin HQ. Let them determine what is fact and what if pure elitist propaganda, and then edit it appropriately. If you are not prepared to do this then there's a very good home for the leaflet we are being forced to pay for - straight in the waste bin! Dave's other tactic is an appeal to younger people - "after all it is their future". Too true, as, like the older generation, they will be stripped of all democratic right to say this isn't working and we've been lied to for virtually the rest of their lives: It's there in black and white: "There will be no second referendum". That last statement is another half-truth of course; following a Leave vote there will be as many referenda as it takes to try to get them to say yes; that's until we get a government of the people this nation can once again trust. Though, once Pied-Piper Cameron leads them through the trapdoor into that mountain called EU Superstate it will be tragic end-of-story.

They'd be going the other way, and trying to avoid the stone-throwing queues blocking Brenner. Don't SEND any more: Germany issues ULTIMATUM to Italy as millions of migrants enter EU

Our brilliant buddies the Dutch have forced a referendum on the EU's ambitions in Ukraine - it's today! They know that Germany's ambitions in the East are a threat to peace, and that Russia won't be compromised any further by German expansionism. Putin is being constantly painted as an aggressor by the EU controlled media, and the clear understandings at the end of WW2 are being stretched to breaking point. So, it's pretty certain that our Dutch friends are going to give a massive thumbs-down to German ambitions. Theoretically the Dutch have right of veto; but hey, this is the post-democratic EU where we little people don't count. So, what do you think is going to happen? Yes, the overwhelming will of the Dutch nation will simply be ignored, and any attempt to canvas public opinion over a wider franchise will be vigorously suppressed by our EU overlords. Our own government will claim that we've had our say on this in our own referendum, blithely ignoring the fact that the issue was never actually raised by our own elites. If we are dumb enough to fall for Quisling Cameron's lies, and do vote "Remain", then it's the start of our own armed forces (and our nuclear capability) being sucked into Juncker's EU army. Once this process is set in motion all the "peace in our time" rhetoric about the EU will be exposed for the deception it has always been. There has been peace in Europe since WW2 because our forbears had the good sense to remove all serious armaments from German control, but not until after they too made the fatal mistake of allowing an always expansionist Germany to surreptitiously rearm in the 1930's. Think of Vote Leave as a vote to keep our nuclear weapons out of the hands of people who have much form on failing to respect other's rights. The Russian people are not our enemy, but it will be very difficult for any of us to argue this when we are absorbed into a super-state which is dead-set on trespassing on the Russian sphere of influence! It's desperately important for mature people to get this message over to younger people who've been blinded by spin, bogus economic arguments, and touchy-feely "let's all hold hands and make the world a better place" fools. We've been there ourselves (me in foolishly believing Edward Heath in 1975), and are duty bound to make the effort to explain the difference between fantasy and hard reality to the current generation.

We've all heard Cameron's laughable scare stories (from a guy who seriously asked us to believe he might recommend a Brexit), but here's some things that should really scare us!

Oh, forgot the important bit! The mozzies are now out in force, and right on cue I've just been bitten! Take plenty of good quality protective, and don't wait until you are bitten. Apply generously well before the sun goes down. Autan works well but can be ridiculously expensive. You are in the malaria zone on the South coast of Sicily, but it's not the anopheles mozzie that's the main danger at the moment. West Nile disease (tigre mozzie) is always a background risk, and Zika is a disaster waiting to happen (the climate is just right for aedes aegypti).