Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Griffin and BNP strategy

durruti02 said:
sorry?? arrogent??! you assume far to much i said please read what i have said as i felt you had not and hence got wrong what i was saying

re migrant or refgee, well it is not entirely clear .. i see it as a refugee is someone fleeing a physical danger as opposed to an economic migrant who chooses ( relucantly usually) to migrate to get money or a better life .. of course there are grey areas ..

re housing first i do not understand why you mention 'whites' i certainly have not .. indeed where i am a majority of local people are BME .. this is the community i always have at the back of my mind ..

and again i have not said what you suggest .. i have not said that per se immigrnats get priority over locals ... what i have said is that there is however much evidence that immigrants, with families, in immediate need ( so NOT immigrants without families and not in need) get priority over locals without families and NOT in immediate need. This is well known and there has been much discussion about it over the last 20 years .. links to i have previosly posted

i don't understand your last paragaph at all though. Is it aimed at me?????:confused: .. i entirely agree with you it is a disgrace refugees are treated .. i have JUST posted that i support/have been at 'shut down campsfield' etc and i believe unions and communities should help house refugees, as well as the state, so i have to say that yet again you appear not to have read what i am saying
Click to expand...

You fail to understand that when many people say "British", they are often referring specifically to white British people.

re migrant or refgee, well it is not entirely clear .. i see it as a refugee is someone fleeing a physical danger as opposed to an economic migrant who chooses ( relucantly usually) to migrate to get money or a better life .. of course there are grey areas ..
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty clear what the difference is between all three groups. It's pretty obvious what a migrant worker is, for example.

The wealthy are economic migrants...you might call them "tax exiles" but they take their money out of the country and seek a better life for themselve elsewhere. Oddly enough, no one ever talks about the flight of capital but, instead, scapegoat those people who have nothing.

I'm not sure what you're saying here and it appears to be contradictory.
and again i have not said what you suggest .. i have not said that per se immigrnats get priority over locals ... what i have said is that there is however much evidence that immigrants, with families, in immediate need ( so NOT immigrants without families and not in need) get priority over locals without families and NOT in immediate need. This is well known and there has been much discussion about it over the last 20 years .. links to i have previosly posted
Click to expand...

First, where are these "links" and second, I noticed that you'd added a proviso. You have also stated that you "have not said that per se immigrnats get priority over locals", so what are you saying?
 
nino_savatte said:
Well, he (as well as you) appear to have a problem differentiating between immigrants, refugees and migrant workers.

Knotted is playing silly buggers - as usual.
Click to expand...

i gave an interpretation above .. does yours differ and if so how:)
 
nino_savatte said:
1)You fail to understand that when many people say "British", they are often referring specifically to white British people.

2)I think it is pretty clear what the difference is between all three groups. It's pretty obvious what a migrant worker is, for example.

3)The wealthy are economic migrants...you might call them "tax exiles" but they take their money out of the country and seek a better life for themselve elsewhere. Oddly enough, no one ever talks about the flight of capital but, instead, scapegoat those people who have nothing.

4)I'm not sure what you're saying here and it appears to be contradictory.


5)First, where are these "links" and second, I noticed that you'd added a proviso. You have also stated that you "have not said that per se immigrnats get priority over locals", so what are you saying?
Click to expand...


1) nino i am VERY aware of the use of words .. however i have made it plain to you that MY area is mixed and that when I say locals or british i mean WHOEVER lives in that place at that time. so from now on that is understood??

2) what do you think of my definition?

3) good points. and actually it is something i have pointed out ever since 1979, that the very first thing maggie did was allow the rich to take their money out of the country . i do not think it healthy though so many ordinary people with skills and community links are moving abroad and you were right to start a thread about that

4) no, i have read it again .. it is right .. the crucial issue is that a local couple who need housing will NOT be in AS MUCH NEED as an immigrant family with more kids and in shitty private accomodation. and yes on one leel this is correct on another it is not

and so 5) no, there is no proviso that is it .. the tories changed how claims were weighed in fabour of family over local connection

i'll look for the links again :)
 
two interesting links .. can't fi nd yet what i had before and the govt doesn't put up Housing Acts before 1988!

the first a housing law blog which shows hodges hypocrisy and lies about new immgrants but also confirms what i am saying generally about allocation


http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/category/law/housing-law/

and the second from the authors of the East End book year

"Bangladeshi families were overcrowded, and many felt that the promises made under the official allocation system were not honoured.

Whites, meanwhile, felt that the system of prioritising housing allocation - once predicated on a waiting list that gave weight to applicants with local and community connections but which now privileged the most "needy" - unduly favoured Bangladeshi families."


http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialexclusion/story/0,,1704158,00.html
 
http://www.communities.gov.uk/embedded_object.asp?id=1150719.

this has a lot of relevent info, from p.46 on particularly page 49 and 55. Non-priority needs is the area that is so disputed .. see 5.48 on page 55

still no reference to what i and others have seen before about the change of weighting of needs .. maybe i am wrong and it is the 77 act that people have got confused about .. i thought it was bundled with the 1980 right to buy act or it was some statutory instrument/amendment later. .. looking at the 1996 act though this appears to do the oppsite of what i am suggestting while the 2002 act appears to do what i am suggestting! :)
 
durruti02 said:
i gave an interpretation above .. does yours differ and if so how:)
Click to expand...

There is a big difference but I noticed that you'd added "economic migrants", which is another ideologically loaded term (often used in blanket fashion, like the term "asylum seeker").

A refugee is not the same as your "economic migrant". Even Phil Collins was an economic migrant at one stage in his life. You'd call him a "tax exile".

So what is your point?
 
durruti02 said:
1) nino i am VERY aware of the use of words .. however i have made it plain to you that MY area is mixed and that when I say locals or british i mean WHOEVER lives in that place at that time. so from now on that is understood??

2) what do you think of my definition?

3) good points. and actually it is something i have pointed out ever since 1979, that the very first thing maggie did was allow the rich to take their money out of the country . i do not think it healthy though so many ordinary people with skills and community links are moving abroad and you were right to start a thread about that

4) no, i have read it again .. it is right .. the crucial issue is that a local couple who need housing will NOT be in AS MUCH NEED as an immigrant family with more kids and in shitty private accomodation. and yes on one leel this is correct on another it is not

and so 5) no, there is no proviso that is it .. the tories changed how claims were weighed in fabour of family over local connection

i'll look for the links again :)
Click to expand...

You keep saying how "mixed" your area is. though, I suspect, that there are many in your area who don't approve of certain types of ethnic groups.
what do you think of my definition?
Click to expand...

It's a fudge.

4) no, i have read it again .. it is right .. the crucial issue is that a local couple who need housing will NOT be in AS MUCH NEED as an immigrant family with more kids and in shitty private accomodation. and yes on one leel this is correct on another it is not
Click to expand...

I see no concrete evidence of this. I worked in the housing departments of three local authorities and I also worked for a few housing associations an, at no time, did I see so-called "migrants" taking priority over those who had been on the waiting list before them. If anything, these people were being put up in shitty B&B's for extended periods of time. Remember that local authorities have a duty under the law to provide accomodation for those who have nowhere to live.
 
I wonder if anyone remembers how the press (and others) reacted to the news that thousands of Ugandan Asians were due to arrive in the country, after having fled from the tyrannical regimke of Idi Amin.

It was a disgrace.
 
nino_savatte said:
I wonder if anyone remembers how the press (and others) reacted to the news that thousands of Ugandan Asians were due to arrive in the country, after having fled from the tyrannical regimke of Idi Amin.

It was a disgrace.
Click to expand...

But what has that got to do with anything? Has anybody been saying it was a good thing?:rolleyes:
And you do know there is a difference between people fleeing brutal dictatorships and people coming for better paid jobs.;)
 
nino_savatte said:
Well, he (as well as you) appear to have a problem differentiating between immigrants, refugees and migrant workers.

Knotted is playing silly buggers - as usual.
Click to expand...

If you are interested in how I use a word then you could ask me. What I said was true about there being no generally agreed on definitions for these words.

Edit to add: I'll correct myself. There is a legal definition of the word 'refugee', but not 'immigrant' or 'migrant'. The latter are used in different ways by different people. Its confusing, yes, but we can get round the confusion by explaining what we mean more carefully if necessary. Its quite reasonable to say some refugees are immigrants - its not the usual use of the term when applied to an individual refugee, but when talking about immigration in general its quite normal.

Anyway this thread is too important to be bogged down in pedantry and sniping.
 
Knotted said:
If you are interested in how I use a word then you could ask me. What I said was true about there being no generally agreed on definitions for these words.

Edit to add: I'll correct myself. There is a legal definition of the word 'refugee', but not 'immigrant' or 'migrant'. The latter are used in different ways by different people. Its confusing, yes, but we can get round the confusion by explaining what we mean more carefully if necessary. Its quite reasonable to say some refugees are immigrants - its not the usual use of the term when applied to an individual refugee, but when talking about immigration in general its quite normal.

Anyway this thread is too important to be bogged down in pedantry and sniping.
Click to expand...

You can't help yourself, can you? If you aren't sniping or making snide remarks, you're being patronising. There is no confusion over the definition of those words, you have made it so because you want to 'win' the argument.

It's pretty shabby.
 
nino_savatte said:
Anyone who advocates tighter controls shares the BNP's pov.
Click to expand...

Only if they advocate tighter controls based on racial discrimination. The BNP are much more than an anti-immigration party. Race is as fundamental to their point-of-view as class is to Marxists.

The last thing the BNP wants to see is a modest and sustainable level of immigration set using 'colour-blind' criteria.
 
dash_two said:
Only if they advocate tighter controls based on racial discrimination. The BNP are much more than an anti-immigration party. Race is as fundamental to their point-of-view as class is to Marxists.

The last thing the BNP wants to see is a modest and sustainable level of immigration set using 'colour-blind' criteria.
Click to expand...

Exactly something certain people seem to want to ignore.
 
back on to BNP Strategy, they seem to be continuing the electoral road (by elections in Newcastle and Brigg) and going in for local activities between elections in a much more systematic way- with locally produced materials
 
dash_two said:
Only if they advocate tighter controls based on racial discrimination. The BNP are much more than an anti-immigration party. Race is as fundamental to their point-of-view as class is to Marxists.

The last thing the BNP wants to see is a modest and sustainable level of immigration set using 'colour-blind' criteria.
Click to expand...

The thing that you and my dear friend, baldwin conveniently overlook is the fact that racial discrimination always becomes part of the thinking with regards to immigration controls. Most w/c class pople who demand such controls often do so out of ignorance and bigotry.You may not like that but it's the truth.
 
tbaldwin said:
Exactly something certain people seem to want to ignore.
Click to expand...

Like you would wilfully ignore the racism that comes with the demands for tighter immigration controls, because in your mad world, you'd shoot anyone who wears glasses.
 
dash_two said:
Only if they advocate tighter controls based on racial discrimination. The BNP are much more than an anti-immigration party. Race is as fundamental to their point-of-view as class is to Marxists.

The last thing the BNP wants to see is a modest and sustainable level of immigration set using 'colour-blind' criteria.
Click to expand...

yes dash 2 .. i thought this was obvious but some people seem not to understand this ..
 
nino_savatte said:
The thing that you and my dear friend, baldwin conveniently overlook is the fact that racial discrimination always becomes part of the thinking with regards to immigration controls. Most w/c class pople who demand such controls often do so out of ignorance and bigotry.You may not like that but it's the truth.
Click to expand...

nino no one overlooks the racial overtones of debate on immigration .. it is precisely of this that we are looking for a progressive way around it all .. to deracialise it ..

and there is no evidence that racial discrimination 'always' becomes part of thinking wth regards to mmigration controls. if there is you must give evidence. I have said to you over and over that in the part of north london i am in it is black afro caribean families sufferring from the policies of neoliberalism and the spivs, who are importing white workers to to do the work that local ( black) kids should be getting, on decent money.

you are right though that that many who demand such controls are bigots. This proves nothing, but adds to my insistence we have a progressive class based stance on how to deal with the FACT that immigration is currently being used for cheap labour policies .. precisely, that if we do not have something usefull and constructive to say that understands the material affect this is having, then sure as hell the BNP will exploit the situation
 
nino_savatte said:
I see no concrete evidence of this. I worked in the housing departments of three local authorities and I also worked for a few housing associations an, at no time, did I see so-called "migrants" taking priority over those who had been on the waiting list before them. If anything, these people were being put up in shitty B&B's for extended periods of time. Remember that local authorities have a duty under the law to provide accomodation for those who have nowhere to live.
Click to expand...

so how then do immigrants get council housing as they so clearly have done?? ..

you give a clue at the end .. a duty to provide .. and i will repeat, that a young couple at their parnets homes will NOT then take priority will they?

anyhow first things first .. as an ex housing officer tell us how then immigrants get council houses/flats ..

p.s. no one else has mentionned this but private lets in RTB houses/lats is suspect houses many .. would be interestinig to see figures for Barking re this ..
 
durruti02 said:
so how then do immigrants get council housing as they so clearly have done?? ..

you give a clue at the end .. a duty to provide .. and i will repeat, that a young couple at their parnets homes will NOT then take priority will they?

anyhow first things first .. as an ex housing officer tell us how then immigrants get council houses/flats ..

p.s. no one else has mentionned this but private lets in RTB houses/lats is suspect houses many .. would be interestinig to see figures for Barking re this ..
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some evidence for your continued assertions that "immigrants" are being given priority in social housing. In fact, I asked you to provide some evidence and you have, typically, been rather reluctant.

You obfuscate and you divert.
 
durruti02 said:
nino no one overlooks the racial overtones of debate on immigration .. it is precisely of this that we are looking for a progressive way around it all .. to deracialise it ..

and there is no evidence that racial discrimination 'always' becomes part of thinking wth regards to mmigration controls. if there is you must give evidence. I have said to you over and over that in the part of north london i am in it is black afro caribean families sufferring from the policies of neoliberalism and the spivs, who are importing white workers to to do the work that local ( black) kids should be getting, on decent money.

you are right though that that many who demand such controls are bigots. This proves nothing, but adds to my insistence we have a progressive class based stance on how to deal with the FACT that immigration is currently being used for cheap labour policies .. precisely, that if we do not have something usefull and constructive to say that understands the material affect this is having, then sure as hell the BNP will exploit the situation
Click to expand...

Your attempt to prove yourself correct has you reaching for the shotgun in an effort to hit the bullseye.

no one overlooks the racial overtones of debate on immigration .. it is precisely of this that we are looking for a progressive way around it all .. to deracialise it ..
Click to expand...

Really? I don't believe you. You and your pals talk about immigration in terms of "British people" or "white working class". These are rather veiled expressions; a way of claiming that immigrants are getting preferential treatment. The trouble is, neither you nor your pals are able to differentiate between migrant workers, refugees and immigrants. To you, they are all the same and they are here taking our housing, our shitty low-paid jobs and fucking our women.
 
Any immigration policy other than that of open borders must necessarily involve some form of regulation.

Nino, I am not sure whether you are an open borders advocate or not, but is it your position that anything short of open borders will inevitably lead to racial discrimination?
 
dash_two said:
Any immigration policy other than that of open borders must necessarily involve some form of regulation.

Nino, I am not sure whether you are an open borders advocate or not, but is it your position that anything short of open borders will inevitably lead to racial discrimination?
Click to expand...

My position is anti-statist. I thought that I'd made this clear.
 
Maybe not on this thread. But I can see that anti-statism would be predicted from support for open borders and vice versa.
 
nino_savatte said:
I'd like to see some evidence for your continued assertions that "immigrants" are being given priority in social housing. In fact, I asked you to provide some evidence and you have, typically, been rather reluctant.

You obfuscate and you divert.
Click to expand...

but they obviously do don't they!:rolleyes: As i posted, not you, the mechanism HODGE claims is behind this is though incorrect.

are you suggesting NO immigrants have received social housing in this country in the last 10 years?

to refute hodges/bnp lies it seems fairly obvious we need to be clear in this.

you say you have working in housing .. do us a favour and tell us how it works ..
 
dash_two said:
Any immigration policy other than that of open borders must necessarily involve some form of regulation.
Click to expand...

however the choice is state regulation or workers regulation .. unions/workers should assert that only local peole should be employed

border controls are irrelevant to the power of capital .. look here and look at america where the almost militarised border with mexico has minimal affect on stoppping northward migration
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Larry O'Hara
Royal Mail Pricing Strategy
Replies
0
Views
130
Larry O'Hara
Larry O'Hara
Fingers
BNP: The leaked Griffin memo
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Spanky Longhorn
Spanky Longhorn
G
the bnp ?
2 3
Replies
62
Views
3K
malatesta32
malatesta32
Fingers
Dawn Charlton blow the lid on the BNP
Replies
0
Views
656
Fingers
Fingers
Larry O'Hara
NICK GRIFFIN BOOTED UPSTAIRS IN BNP: THE FACTS BEHIND THE SPIN?
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
DaveCinzano
DaveCinzano
Back
Top Bottom