The truth about who? Racist Powell's speech derides 'The Negro' and 'Sikhs'. Nowhere in his filth does he mention Muslims such as Anjem Choudry. He just doesn't like folks who don't share his skin colour.

The Rivers of Blood speech was an oratory masterpiece. Powell foretold the future & those who can't see it are blinded by political correctness.

You should do more research on the man - having done so, I dispute that he was the racist bigot some would imply.

Where to?

hel_l. Reinstate the death penalty for treason - try him, convict him & hang him.

The truth about who? Racist Powell's speech derides 'The Negro' and 'Sikhs'. Nowhere in his filth does he mention Muslims such as Anjem Choudry. He just doesn't like folks who don't share his skin colour.

The Rivers of Blood speech was an oratory masterpiece. Powell foretold the future & those who can't see it are blinded by political correctness.

You should do more research on the man - having done so, I dispute that he was the racist bigot some would imply.

I agree with endure here. Enoch and friends didn't moan about foreigners like me - I have white skin, but only those who didn't share his skin colour.

Also, as far as doing research on the racist bigot, I remember him when he was actually making his rants, I didn't like him then, and I don't like him now!

ps His 'rivers of blood' speech only proved that he and Hitler had a lot in common...

The truth about who? Racist Powell's speech derides 'The Negro' and 'Sikhs'. Nowhere in his filth does he mention Muslims such as Anjem Choudry. He just doesn't like folks who don't share his skin colour.

The Rivers of Blood speech was an oratory masterpiece. Powell foretold the future & those who can't see it are blinded by political correctness.

You should do more research on the man - having done so, I dispute that he was the racist bigot some would imply.

The 'Rivers of Blood' speech was a diatribe of racist filth. I don't need to do any research. I was there at the time. I remember the boarding house signs - 'No Blacks or Irish'. I remember the seriously held belief amongst the more stupid sections of the English population that the only reason that blacks could afford to buy cars was because they ate cat food when the reality was that they were putting in 12 hour shifts at the local factories.

The truth about who? Racist Powell's speech derides 'The Negro' and 'Sikhs'. Nowhere in his filth does he mention Muslims such as Anjem Choudry. He just doesn't like folks who don't share his skin colour.

The Rivers of Blood speech was an oratory masterpiece. Powell foretold the future & those who can't see it are blinded by political correctness.

You should do more research on the man - having done so, I dispute that he was the racist bigot some would imply.

I agree with endure here. Enoch and friends didn't moan about foreigners like me - I have white skin, but only those who didn't share his skin colour.

Also, as far as doing research on the racist bigot, I remember him when he was actually making his rants, I didn't like him then, and I don't like him now!

ps His 'rivers of blood' speech only proved that he and Hitler had a lot in common...

Your comments merely confirm that most opinions are based solely on the 'Rivers of Blood' - without knowing little of the man himself.

Perhaps he didn't mention white skinned immigrants, but not without good reason. For reasons apparent at the time, may I suggest that he didn't foresee the current invasion of East European immigrants. However, whilst on the subject, it's worth noting that he (IMO correctly) opposed EEC membership & advised Tories to vote Labour at the 1974 General Election, as Harold Wilson had promised a referendum on EEC membership - Heath lost the election. Unfortunately, the 1975 referendum went the 'wrong way' & we are still stuck in the bloody thing, albeit with a different title.

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one!

"'The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.'"

The 'Rivers of Blood' speech was made in 1968. Thus the "piccaninnies" that Powell was talking about were more than likely the offspring of immigrants from Jamaica or Trinidad. The official language of both Trinidad and Jamaica at the time (and still today) is English so either the "piccaninnies" were too young to speak at all or Powell was using mendacity to further his vile agenda.

"'The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.'"

The 'Rivers of Blood' speech was made in 1968. Thus the "piccaninnies" that Powell was talking about were more than likely the offspring of immigrants from Jamaica or Trinidad. The official language of both Trinidad and Jamaica at the time (and still today) is English so either the "piccaninnies" were too young to speak at all or Powell was using mendacity to further his vile agenda.

Even if he did 'spice up the story' as you suggest; the mess we are in now is full justification - what he foresaw has & continues to come to pass. If Powell had had his way - we wouldn't have enemies within like Choudry. Enoch Powell was the best Prime Minister the UK never had. The incumbent blundering oaf isn't fit to lick the soles of Enoch Powell's feet - let alone tie his bootlaces.

"'The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.'"

The 'Rivers of Blood' speech was made in 1968. Thus the "piccaninnies" that Powell was talking about were more than likely the offspring of immigrants from Jamaica or Trinidad. The official language of both Trinidad and Jamaica at the time (and still today) is English so either the "piccaninnies" were too young to speak at all or Powell was using mendacity to further his vile agenda.

Even if he did 'spice up the story' as you suggest; the mess we are in now is full justification - what he foresaw has & continues to come to pass. If Powell had had his way - we wouldn't have enemies within like Choudry. Enoch Powell was the best Prime Minister the UK never had. The incumbent blundering oaf isn't fit to lick the soles of Enoch Powell's feet - let alone tie his bootlaces.

Are you really saying that the end justifies the means? That it's ok for a politician to tell lies in order to garner public support? If Enoch Powell was the best Prime Minister we've never had then we ought to count ourselves lucky. I don't want a liar for my Prime Minister no matter what his politics are. You appear to be be quite happy to accept a man without integrity as long as he accords with your views.

Like I said, I think it's better to agree to differ on this one...

How could anybody use Enoch Powell to back up his argument and still expected to be liste.............

I'll stop myself there, I'm with the tiger.

Very interesting guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

I saw him on the tube once...he was only a little bloke....

RAZZ

Are you really saying that the end justifies the means? That it's ok for a politician to tell lies in order to garner public support? If Enoch Powell was the best Prime Minister we've never had then we ought to count ourselves lucky. I don't want a liar for my Prime Minister no matter what his politics are. You appear to be be quite happy to accept a man without integrity as long as he accords with your views.

In this case? Yes. Had his actions prevented the UK becoming infiltrated with Muslims from the Sub-Continent, then his 'lies' as you put them, though in the example you quote, I'd call it 'massaging the truth', were acceptable. I'm sure that many of the victims of 7/7 would agree.

Clayton.

You are clearly a racist bigot tit.

Please go away.

Clayton.

You are clearly a racist bigot tit.

Agreed, however, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

To mention 7/7 (or 9/11) is to include ALL muslims as terrorists and that's akin to including all Irish people with IRA activity. And all British people with the conquering of a third of the globe! So let's think things through shall we?

Like I said, I think it's better to agree to differ on this one...

You're right, Tigs. It's a waste of time trying to have a sensible conversation with a man who admires one of the BNP's posterboys...

Clayton.

You are clearly a racist bigot tit.

Please go away.

I can't abide racism myself, but a few points (one already having been made by Tiggs):

1. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We learn from listening to the oinions of others. Indeed, contrary opinions that are supported with substance may lead us to change our own views on some issues. And sometimes there are elements of an opposing view that may cause us to modify our own thinking in respect of certain aspects of the argument, if not the fundamental proposition itself.

2. This is one of the topics that can generate a pack mentality. It seems that a pub or bar room can have a character in this regard. If a person who is dominating conversation turns to the issue and makes generalised hateful/racist remarks, it is amazing how often the majority will follow like sheep. If, however, that person is challenged by someone who can diplomatically emphasise the invalidity and arrogance of such remarks, it's a wonder how many of the sheep start flocking towards the other pasture.

3. I think most of us know people who have at least some racist views. I have known many friends over the years who are racist - some because of involvement in various wars. I don't support their racist ideas, but there is more to friendship than disagreement on ideas of race, religion, etc. If you seek in a friend perfect acquiescence with your own views, good luck.

So I would say that if a person comments upon an issue by way of a courteous exchange, then he/she is entitled to be heard. Our opposing views should be offered with similar courtesy. To denigrate a person and tell them to 'go away' because you don't agree with them is probably not the solution I would choose. (It's just a conversation, after all.) Of course, the 'go away' line is appropriate for trolls, where trolling becomes clear...

So ends my latest two-bob rant on stating the bleeding obvious.

Not a rant at all Ping, a measured response well put.

Can't argue with that and of course I agree.

In my defence my post was just another example that Beer and posting on forums don't mix.

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.[/size][/font]

And a fine upstanding figure of a man he was

Moss

Where to? He's a British Citizen and was born in London.

Dronning Maud Land would appear quite apt, anyway so were those taken with MI6 collusion and extraordinary rendition.

Moss

The Rivers of Blood speech was an oratory masterpiece. Powell foretold the future & those who can't see it are blinded by political correctness.

You should do more research on the man - having done so, I dispute that he was the racist bigot some would imply.

An oratory masterpiece, hmmm for whom? Political correctness, he left the Tories and ran off and joined the Circus........... sorry Ulster Unionists.

Moss

Perhaps he didn't mention white skinned immigrants,

But the Black Skinned Immigrants, are these the same colonials that fought side by side with White Skinned Colonists against the tide of ever increasing doom 1914-18 & 1939-1945.

Please remind me who were white skinned and who were dark skinned?

A

Link

for those interested.

Moss

Where to? He's a British Citizen and was born in London.

Dronning Maud Land would appear quite apt, anyway so were those taken with MI6 collusion and extraordinary rendition.

I've tried to google 'dronning maud land' but am unable to find any sensible answers. British citizens of whatever colour are subject to British law. If Anjem Choudry has broken the law then he ought to be charged, tried and, if convicted, sentenced. If he hasn't then the Daily Mail ought to leave him alone.

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.[/size][/font]

And a fine upstanding figure of a man he was

Moss

Apart from his trial for fraud, theft, forgery, conspiracy to defraud, causing a false police investigation and wasting police time

Our Clayton seems to have a fairly dubious line in heroes

Where to? He's a British Citizen and was born in London.

Dronning Maud Land would appear quite apt, anyway so were those taken with MI6 collusion and extraordinary rendition.

I've tried to google 'dronning maud land' but am unable to find any sensible answers. British citizens of whatever colour are subject to British law. If Anjem Choudry has broken the law then he ought to be charged, tried and, if convicted, sentenced. If he hasn't then the Daily Mail ought to leave him alone.

Queen Maud Land

the large section of Antarctica between Coats Land and Enderby Land: claimed by Norway in 1939.

I think 'dronning' might mean Queen in Norwegian? anyone confirm? Anyway far enough away and relatively light in population, so a most suitable place for 'our Anjem' me thinks

Under British Law Citizenship can be revoked under extreme circumstances, however if it leaves him stateless, this avenue cannot be pursued.

Was he born in the UK?

Moss

I think he was born in Newcastle.

Where to? He's a British Citizen and was born in London.

Dronning Maud Land would appear quite apt, anyway so were those taken with MI6 collusion and extraordinary rendition.

I've tried to google 'dronning maud land' but am unable to find any sensible answers. British citizens of whatever colour are subject to British law. If Anjem Choudry has broken the law then he ought to be charged, tried and, if convicted, sentenced. If he hasn't then the Daily Mail ought to leave him alone.

Queen Maud Land

the large section of Antarctica between Coats Land and Enderby Land: claimed by Norway in 1939.

I think 'dronning' might mean Queen in Norwegian? anyone confirm? Anyway far enough away and relatively light in population, so a most suitable place for 'our Anjem' me thinks

Under British Law Citizenship can be revoked under extreme circumstances, however if it leaves him stateless, this avenue cannot be pursued.

But what are the extreme circumstances? He was exercising his right to freedom of speech - doing a Voltaire

If Anjem Choudry has broken the law then he ought to be charged, tried and, if convicted, sentenced.

Absolutely.

Moss

Under British Law Citizenship can be revoked under extreme circumstances, however if it leaves him stateless, this avenue cannot be pursued.

But what are the extreme circumstances? He was exercising his right to freedom of speech - doing a Voltaire

I quite agree, I was making a statement, not a proposal, however if he has dual nationality, then there is the option, if considered extreme enough, to revoke his citizenship.

Moss