[Bluestar]

Originally Posted by roberto

Define "turn on" with reference to his speech please

It means to support immigration when it was for the good of the economy and supporting the wealthy (who were white people) and then realising that white people didn't actually like the fact that black/brown/purple people were in their country and instead finding solace in being a hypocite.

This is his comment 'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'

Yes i know, he was wrong. This is exactly what i'm saying, if he went to India and became so wonderfully integrated in their culture, why did he deny them the right to express their beliefs in public? It's wrong and crap. The fact that he and you can't look past your own values is disgusting and wanting to impose it on everyone else is what is racist. These people don't need to be civilised into western beliefs. People like Enoch couldn't see that. What is the difference between that and what saudi arabia does? Forceful integration only leads to resentment and further isolation.

To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society

It wasn't funny then and it's not funny now

These are your words not his

Oh please, you protest against the propaganda of extreme Islamic clerics but you can't see it when it exists in your own culture?

Because he did not blame coloured people per se

really?

But while to the immigrant entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker

It doesn't require more than basic comprehension, because of the influx of immigrants, the rest of society couldn't obtain beds for childirth, couldn't get places in school for kids, communities changed, their poor plans and prospects obliterated (all from seeing a non-white person ) and even the employers favoured them.

I suggest you make up your mind.

I suggest you don't tell me how to think. I'm not proud enough to assert my views as if they're set in stone. Like i said, if his values and intentions were innocent and I was wrong then he still seems sketchy in what he says.

As a general comment why don't you take what he wrote as it is, rather than putting your anti White spin on it. ?

That's petty, I have no care for what colour of skin a person might be. Anyone who knows me, knows that.

I have been on many forums , but I have never found such concern with skin colour as on this one, I find it appalling

Really? Look to the Rivers of Blood speech, you'll find plenty there.

and yes he did support sending them back. He called for re-emigration. It's in the speech. He was scared that people like me, those born in 1985, would take over England. I'm still at it of course, that's what i devote my spare time to