Britain First

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 6 of 21 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Beastie 08 Oct 15 3.29pm
I used to drink in the Portmanteau before home games. It’s a Muslamistani mega-mosque now, so I read.
Alert a moderator to this post

Beastie

08 Oct 15 3.29pm

I used to drink in the Portmanteau before home games.

It’s a Muslamistani mega-mosque now, so I read.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Oct 15 3.52pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 08 Oct 2015 3.23pm Quote npn at 08 Oct 2015 3.19pm Quote Hoof Hearted at 08 Oct 2015 3.16pm Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 1.16pm The origins of the Christmas is banned myth goes back to 1997 when Birmingham City Council's sought to create a campaign that encompassed Christmas, Diwali, the Frankfurt Christmas Market, Children in Need, the outdoor ice rink, New Year's Eve and various other city-wide celebrations. Preferring a single banner campaign, the outcome was 'Winterval', a portmanteau of 'winter' and 'festival'. Despite the front page of the Council's Winterval brochure (which included details of all of the city's events including Christmas) having the word 'Christmas' on its front page three times - the street posters also prominently featured the word 'Christmas' - a local newspaper 'broke' the Christmas is banned story on 8 November 1998. Within days, the story had gone national. As the Guardian reported a few years ago, between the Times and Sunday Times the Winterval myth has been repeated 40 times since 1998, surpassed only by the Daily Mail repeated on 44 separate occasions. Elsewhere, the Sun has repeated it 31 times, the Daily Telegraph 22 and the Express 26. Tellingly, the Guardian has mentioned it just six times (a number of which seek to debunk the myth), the Daily Mirror just four. Possibly more problematic than the mere repetition of the original myth is that, as with our conservative friend, the myth gets exported and mass-produced, endemic amongst a vast array of different - and nameless - councils and authorities all over the country. Equally problematic is the way in which the original myth is also routinely and regularly updated and expanded. So for example, one local newspaper recently claimed that councils had been given a set of "new rules" that enforce the banning of Christmas. Unsurprisingly, the newspaper failed to detail who created 'the rules' as also who might be required to enforce them. A worrying part of this expansion is the inclusion of who is to 'blame' for the banning of Christmas. As the national newspaper articles referred to previously show, at least 15 of them directly claim that Christmas is being banned because it offends 'other faiths' (hence the Christmas cards from the Muslim Council of Britain). A further 10 directly claim it is because Christmas offends 'ethnic minorities'. Again somewhat unsurprisingly, none appear to be substantiated with evidence. I do believe you are the first to use that word on Hol nick. Respect! Hold the respect - the article's a copy'n'paste from the Huffington Post Ah...... I thought nick had widened his repertoire and was showing off. It was, I forgot to include the link.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 08 Oct 15 3.52pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 08 Oct 2015 3.23pm

Quote npn at 08 Oct 2015 3.19pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 08 Oct 2015 3.16pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 1.16pm

The origins of the Christmas is banned myth goes back to 1997 when Birmingham City Council's sought to create a campaign that encompassed Christmas, Diwali, the Frankfurt Christmas Market, Children in Need, the outdoor ice rink, New Year's Eve and various other city-wide celebrations. Preferring a single banner campaign, the outcome was 'Winterval', a portmanteau of 'winter' and 'festival'.
Despite the front page of the Council's Winterval brochure (which included details of all of the city's events including Christmas) having the word 'Christmas' on its front page three times - the street posters also prominently featured the word 'Christmas' - a local newspaper 'broke' the Christmas is banned story on 8 November 1998.
Within days, the story had gone national.
As the Guardian reported a few years ago, between the Times and Sunday Times the Winterval myth has been repeated 40 times since 1998, surpassed only by the Daily Mail repeated on 44 separate occasions. Elsewhere, the Sun has repeated it 31 times, the Daily Telegraph 22 and the Express 26. Tellingly, the Guardian has mentioned it just six times (a number of which seek to debunk the myth), the Daily Mirror just four.
Possibly more problematic than the mere repetition of the original myth is that, as with our conservative friend, the myth gets exported and mass-produced, endemic amongst a vast array of different - and nameless - councils and authorities all over the country.
Equally problematic is the way in which the original myth is also routinely and regularly updated and expanded.
So for example, one local newspaper recently claimed that councils had been given a set of "new rules" that enforce the banning of Christmas. Unsurprisingly, the newspaper failed to detail who created 'the rules' as also who might be required to enforce them.
A worrying part of this expansion is the inclusion of who is to 'blame' for the banning of Christmas. As the national newspaper articles referred to previously show, at least 15 of them directly claim that Christmas is being banned because it offends 'other faiths' (hence the Christmas cards from the Muslim Council of Britain).
A further 10 directly claim it is because Christmas offends 'ethnic minorities'.
Again somewhat unsurprisingly, none appear to be substantiated with evidence.

I do believe you are the first to use that word on Hol nick.

Respect!

Hold the respect - the article's a copy'n'paste from the Huffington Post

Ah...... I thought nick had widened his repertoire and was showing off.

It was, I forgot to include the link.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Oct 15 3.54pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 1.35pm I couldn't be bothered to read this Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 1.35pm) Standard...
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 08 Oct 15 3.54pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 1.35pm

I couldn't be bothered to read this

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 1.35pm)

Standard...

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 08 Oct 15 4.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 3.54pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 1.35pm I couldn't be bothered to read this Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 1.35pm) Standard... Correct. No one reads your posts. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 4.48pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

08 Oct 15 4.46pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 3.54pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 1.35pm

I couldn't be bothered to read this

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 1.35pm)

Standard...

Correct.

No one reads your posts.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 4.48pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 08 Oct 15 4.54pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 11.41am Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Oct 2015 11.23am Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 10.42am Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 10.21am Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Oct 2015 4.26am Nothing wrong with moderate peaceful nationalism: It's the heartbeat of a nation. However, violence and its support should always be rejected as a default means of combating views/people you don't agree with. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Oct 2015 4.29am) Violence, or the threat of violence, is sometimes necessary for the greater good, against people who have begun implementing and turning their extreme views into action imo. The SPG v Brixton/South London youth in 1981 springs to mind. As do the assassination of Heydrich and having to front up my cvnt of a neighbour a few years back . There really is no limit to the fatuousness of your 'views' is there. I disagree, when faced with violence, usually the only viable response is to answer in kind. I've never started trouble but I don't believe in shying away from bullys, thugs and intimidation either. It should never be your first choice or solution, but often the only response is to stand firm and make a fist. Of course everyone who says violence is justified only mean it is justified by people whose aims they agree with. To say the 1981 Brixton riots were justified is merely the rewriting of history to glorify a sordid event carried out by yobs egged on by left wing agitators. Come on, why not go on to glorify Broadwater - glorify thugs trying to put a policeman's head on a stick. Re: Brixton '81. You obviously know so little yet are prepared to say so much. You may be blissful in your ignorance but it is bloody annoying for the rest of us. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 08 Oct 15 4.54pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 11.41am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Oct 2015 11.23am

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 10.42am

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 10.21am

Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Oct 2015 4.26am

Nothing wrong with moderate peaceful nationalism: It's the heartbeat of a nation.

However, violence and its support should always be rejected as a default means of combating views/people you don't agree with.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Oct 2015 4.29am)

Violence, or the threat of violence, is sometimes necessary for the greater good, against people who have begun implementing and turning their extreme views into action imo.

The SPG v Brixton/South London youth in 1981 springs to mind. As do the assassination of Heydrich and having to front up my cvnt of a neighbour a few years back .

There really is no limit to the fatuousness of your 'views' is there.

I disagree, when faced with violence, usually the only viable response is to answer in kind. I've never started trouble but I don't believe in shying away from bullys, thugs and intimidation either. It should never be your first choice or solution, but often the only response is to stand firm and make a fist.

Of course everyone who says violence is justified only mean it is justified by people whose aims they agree with. To say the 1981 Brixton riots were justified is merely the rewriting of history to glorify a sordid event carried out by yobs egged on by left wing agitators. Come on, why not go on to glorify Broadwater - glorify thugs trying to put a policeman's head on a stick.

Re: Brixton '81. You obviously know so little yet are prepared to say so much. You may be blissful in your ignorance but it is bloody annoying for the rest of us.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 08 Oct 15 4.59pm
Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 4.54pm Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 11.41am Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Oct 2015 11.23am Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 10.42am Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 10.21am Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Oct 2015 4.26am Nothing wrong with moderate peaceful nationalism: It's the heartbeat of a nation. However, violence and its support should always be rejected as a default means of combating views/people you don't agree with. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Oct 2015 4.29am) Violence, or the threat of violence, is sometimes necessary for the greater good, against people who have begun implementing and turning their extreme views into action imo. The SPG v Brixton/South London youth in 1981 springs to mind. As do the assassination of Heydrich and having to front up my cvnt of a neighbour a few years back . There really is no limit to the fatuousness of your 'views' is there. I disagree, when faced with violence, usually the only viable response is to answer in kind. I've never started trouble but I don't believe in shying away from bullys, thugs and intimidation either. It should never be your first choice or solution, but often the only response is to stand firm and make a fist. Of course everyone who says violence is justified only mean it is justified by people whose aims they agree with. To say the 1981 Brixton riots were justified is merely the rewriting of history to glorify a sordid event carried out by yobs egged on by left wing agitators. Come on, why not go on to glorify Broadwater - glorify thugs trying to put a policeman's head on a stick. Re: Brixton '81. You obviously know so little yet are prepared to say so much. You may be blissful in your ignorance but it is bloody annoying for the rest of us. I had family in the area at the time. They told me exactly what went on. They moved away eventually - got fed up with being mugged and the constant racial harassment. You speak for the rest of the HOL posters do you then? By the way, would love to hear your neighbour's side of the story. Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Oct 2015 5.03pm) mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 08 Oct 15 4.59pm

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 4.54pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 11.41am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Oct 2015 11.23am

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 10.42am

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 10.21am

Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Oct 2015 4.26am

Nothing wrong with moderate peaceful nationalism: It's the heartbeat of a nation.

However, violence and its support should always be rejected as a default means of combating views/people you don't agree with.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Oct 2015 4.29am)

Violence, or the threat of violence, is sometimes necessary for the greater good, against people who have begun implementing and turning their extreme views into action imo.

The SPG v Brixton/South London youth in 1981 springs to mind. As do the assassination of Heydrich and having to front up my cvnt of a neighbour a few years back .

There really is no limit to the fatuousness of your 'views' is there.

Re: Brixton '81. You obviously know so little yet are prepared to say so much. You may be blissful in your ignorance but it is bloody annoying for the rest of us.

I had family in the area at the time. They told me exactly what went on. They moved away eventually - got fed up with being mugged and the constant racial harassment. You speak for the rest of the HOL posters do you then? By the way, would love to hear your neighbour's side of the story.

Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Oct 2015 5.03pm)

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 08 Oct 15 5.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 4.59pm Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 4.54pm Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 11.41am Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Oct 2015 11.23am Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 10.42am Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 10.21am Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Oct 2015 4.26am Nothing wrong with moderate peaceful nationalism: It's the heartbeat of a nation. However, violence and its support should always be rejected as a default means of combating views/people you don't agree with. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Oct 2015 4.29am) Violence, or the threat of violence, is sometimes necessary for the greater good, against people who have begun implementing and turning their extreme views into action imo. The SPG v Brixton/South London youth in 1981 springs to mind. As do the assassination of Heydrich and having to front up my cvnt of a neighbour a few years back . There really is no limit to the fatuousness of your 'views' is there. I disagree, when faced with violence, usually the only viable response is to answer in kind. I've never started trouble but I don't believe in shying away from bullys, thugs and intimidation either. It should never be your first choice or solution, but often the only response is to stand firm and make a fist. Of course everyone who says violence is justified only mean it is justified by people whose aims they agree with. To say the 1981 Brixton riots were justified is merely the rewriting of history to glorify a sordid event carried out by yobs egged on by left wing agitators. Come on, why not go on to glorify Broadwater - glorify thugs trying to put a policeman's head on a stick. Re: Brixton '81. You obviously know so little yet are prepared to say so much. You may be blissful in your ignorance but it is bloody annoying for the rest of us. I had family in the area at the time. They told me exactly what went on. They moved away eventually - got fed up with being mugged and the constant racial harassment. You speak for the rest of the HOL posters do you then? By the way, would love to hear your neighbour's side of the story. Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Oct 2015 5.03pm) 1) Do some proper research on the subject. 2) In this instance, if they know their South London history, 'yes'. 3) He disappeared so no chance. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 08 Oct 15 5.12pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 4.59pm

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 4.54pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 11.41am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Oct 2015 11.23am

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 10.42am

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 10.21am

Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Oct 2015 4.26am

Nothing wrong with moderate peaceful nationalism: It's the heartbeat of a nation.

However, violence and its support should always be rejected as a default means of combating views/people you don't agree with.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Oct 2015 4.29am)

Violence, or the threat of violence, is sometimes necessary for the greater good, against people who have begun implementing and turning their extreme views into action imo.

The SPG v Brixton/South London youth in 1981 springs to mind. As do the assassination of Heydrich and having to front up my cvnt of a neighbour a few years back .

There really is no limit to the fatuousness of your 'views' is there.

Re: Brixton '81. You obviously know so little yet are prepared to say so much. You may be blissful in your ignorance but it is bloody annoying for the rest of us.

Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Oct 2015 5.03pm)

1) Do some proper research on the subject.

2) In this instance, if they know their South London history, 'yes'.

3) He disappeared so no chance.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Oct 15 5.13pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 4.46pm Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 3.54pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 1.35pm I couldn't be bothered to read this Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 1.35pm) Standard... Correct. No one reads your posts. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 4.48pm) Then how did you know how to respond if no one reads them?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 08 Oct 15 5.13pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 4.46pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 3.54pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 1.35pm

I couldn't be bothered to read this

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 1.35pm)

Standard...

Correct.

No one reads your posts.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 4.48pm)

Then how did you know how to respond if no one reads them?

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 08 Oct 15 5.27pm
Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 5.12pm Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 4.59pm Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 4.54pm Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 11.41am Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Oct 2015 11.23am Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 10.42am Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 10.21am Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Oct 2015 4.26am Nothing wrong with moderate peaceful nationalism: It's the heartbeat of a nation. However, violence and its support should always be rejected as a default means of combating views/people you don't agree with. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Oct 2015 4.29am) Violence, or the threat of violence, is sometimes necessary for the greater good, against people who have begun implementing and turning their extreme views into action imo. The SPG v Brixton/South London youth in 1981 springs to mind. As do the assassination of Heydrich and having to front up my cvnt of a neighbour a few years back . There really is no limit to the fatuousness of your 'views' is there. I disagree, when faced with violence, usually the only viable response is to answer in kind. I've never started trouble but I don't believe in shying away from bullys, thugs and intimidation either. It should never be your first choice or solution, but often the only response is to stand firm and make a fist. Of course everyone who says violence is justified only mean it is justified by people whose aims they agree with. To say the 1981 Brixton riots were justified is merely the rewriting of history to glorify a sordid event carried out by yobs egged on by left wing agitators. Come on, why not go on to glorify Broadwater - glorify thugs trying to put a policeman's head on a stick. Re: Brixton '81. You obviously know so little yet are prepared to say so much. You may be blissful in your ignorance but it is bloody annoying for the rest of us. I had family in the area at the time. They told me exactly what went on. They moved away eventually - got fed up with being mugged and the constant racial harassment. You speak for the rest of the HOL posters do you then? By the way, would love to hear your neighbour's side of the story. Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Oct 2015 5.03pm) 1) Do some proper research on the subject. 2) In this instance, if they know their South London history, 'yes'. 3) He disappeared so no chance. 'Do some proper research'. LOL, I know people who were there! Nothing will shake your belief in left wing fairy tales will it. Perhaps other HOL posters can indicate as to whether the sage of Devon speaks for them. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 08 Oct 15 5.27pm

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 5.12pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 4.59pm

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 4.54pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 11.41am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Oct 2015 11.23am

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 10.42am

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 10.21am

Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Oct 2015 4.26am

Nothing wrong with moderate peaceful nationalism: It's the heartbeat of a nation.

However, violence and its support should always be rejected as a default means of combating views/people you don't agree with.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Oct 2015 4.29am)

Violence, or the threat of violence, is sometimes necessary for the greater good, against people who have begun implementing and turning their extreme views into action imo.

The SPG v Brixton/South London youth in 1981 springs to mind. As do the assassination of Heydrich and having to front up my cvnt of a neighbour a few years back .

There really is no limit to the fatuousness of your 'views' is there.

Re: Brixton '81. You obviously know so little yet are prepared to say so much. You may be blissful in your ignorance but it is bloody annoying for the rest of us.

Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Oct 2015 5.03pm)

1) Do some proper research on the subject.

2) In this instance, if they know their South London history, 'yes'.

3) He disappeared so no chance.

'Do some proper research'. LOL, I know people who were there! Nothing will shake your belief in left wing fairy tales will it.

Perhaps other HOL posters can indicate as to whether the sage of Devon speaks for them.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 08 Oct 15 5.40pm
Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 5.13pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 4.46pm Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 3.54pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 1.35pm I couldn't be bothered to read this Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 1.35pm) Standard... Correct. No one reads your posts. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 4.48pm) Then how did you know how to respond if no one reads them? It was just one word so I gave it the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. If you could restrict your posts to one word in future, I'm sure they would be more popular.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

08 Oct 15 5.40pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 5.13pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 4.46pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 3.54pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 1.35pm

I couldn't be bothered to read this

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 1.35pm)

Standard...

Correct.

No one reads your posts.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 4.48pm)

Then how did you know how to respond if no one reads them?

It was just one word so I gave it the benefit of the doubt on this occasion.

If you could restrict your posts to one word in future, I'm sure they would be more popular.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 08 Oct 15 5.43pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 5.27pm Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 5.12pm Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 4.59pm Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 4.54pm Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 11.41am Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Oct 2015 11.23am Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 10.42am Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 10.21am Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Oct 2015 4.26am Nothing wrong with moderate peaceful nationalism: It's the heartbeat of a nation. However, violence and its support should always be rejected as a default means of combating views/people you don't agree with. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Oct 2015 4.29am) Violence, or the threat of violence, is sometimes necessary for the greater good, against people who have begun implementing and turning their extreme views into action imo. The SPG v Brixton/South London youth in 1981 springs to mind. As do the assassination of Heydrich and having to front up my cvnt of a neighbour a few years back . There really is no limit to the fatuousness of your 'views' is there. I disagree, when faced with violence, usually the only viable response is to answer in kind. I've never started trouble but I don't believe in shying away from bullys, thugs and intimidation either. It should never be your first choice or solution, but often the only response is to stand firm and make a fist. Of course everyone who says violence is justified only mean it is justified by people whose aims they agree with. To say the 1981 Brixton riots were justified is merely the rewriting of history to glorify a sordid event carried out by yobs egged on by left wing agitators. Come on, why not go on to glorify Broadwater - glorify thugs trying to put a policeman's head on a stick. Re: Brixton '81. You obviously know so little yet are prepared to say so much. You may be blissful in your ignorance but it is bloody annoying for the rest of us. I had family in the area at the time. They told me exactly what went on. They moved away eventually - got fed up with being mugged and the constant racial harassment. You speak for the rest of the HOL posters do you then? By the way, would love to hear your neighbour's side of the story. Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Oct 2015 5.03pm) 1) Do some proper research on the subject. 2) In this instance, if they know their South London history, 'yes'. 3) He disappeared so no chance. 'Do some proper research'. LOL, I know people who were there! Nothing will shake your belief in left wing fairy tales will it. Perhaps other HOL posters can indicate as to whether the sage of Devon speaks for them. Lord Scarman was neither lefty nor a fairy to my knowledge. Perhaps you know better? Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 08 Oct 15 5.43pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 5.27pm

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 5.12pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 4.59pm

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 4.54pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 11.41am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Oct 2015 11.23am

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Oct 2015 10.42am

Quote Kermit8 at 08 Oct 2015 10.21am

Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Oct 2015 4.26am

Nothing wrong with moderate peaceful nationalism: It's the heartbeat of a nation.

However, violence and its support should always be rejected as a default means of combating views/people you don't agree with.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Oct 2015 4.29am)

Violence, or the threat of violence, is sometimes necessary for the greater good, against people who have begun implementing and turning their extreme views into action imo.

The SPG v Brixton/South London youth in 1981 springs to mind. As do the assassination of Heydrich and having to front up my cvnt of a neighbour a few years back .

There really is no limit to the fatuousness of your 'views' is there.

Re: Brixton '81. You obviously know so little yet are prepared to say so much. You may be blissful in your ignorance but it is bloody annoying for the rest of us.

Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Oct 2015 5.03pm)

1) Do some proper research on the subject.

2) In this instance, if they know their South London history, 'yes'.

3) He disappeared so no chance.

'Do some proper research'. LOL, I know people who were there! Nothing will shake your belief in left wing fairy tales will it.

Perhaps other HOL posters can indicate as to whether the sage of Devon speaks for them.

Lord Scarman was neither lefty nor a fairy to my knowledge. Perhaps you know better?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Oct 15 5.51pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 5.40pm Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 5.13pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 4.46pm Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 3.54pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 1.35pm I couldn't be bothered to read this Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 1.35pm) Standard... Correct. No one reads your posts. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 4.48pm) Then how did you know how to respond if no one reads them? It was just one word so I gave it the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. If you could restrict your posts to one word in future, I'm sure they would be more popular. And you did it again!
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 08 Oct 15 5.51pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 5.40pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 5.13pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 4.46pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 Oct 2015 3.54pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Oct 2015 1.35pm

I couldn't be bothered to read this

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 1.35pm)

Standard...

Correct.

No one reads your posts.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Oct 2015 4.48pm)

Then how did you know how to respond if no one reads them?

It was just one word so I gave it the benefit of the doubt on this occasion.

If you could restrict your posts to one word in future, I'm sure they would be more popular.

And you did it again!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 6 of 21 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Britain First

Site Map

Sponsors