The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well, any remaining shreds of credibility the BNP had left have now thoroughly been flushed down the toilet. If you watched the documentary about the undercover guy working from inside the British National Party tonight, then you'll know what I mean. Candidates and Councillors of the BNP were exposed as the hate-filled racists they are, inciting racial hatred, conspiring towards criminal damage and making the kind of remarks that even Bernard Manning would cringe at. So in other words, it just confirmed what everyone suspected.
One member running for Councillor spoke of his desire to sit at the top of a hill in town (where all the area's mosques are visible) and let loose with a rocket launcher. The same charming fellow also let slip his fantasy of 'shooting P***s' and how he'd love to get a transit van with a machine gun in the back ("like them helicopters") and gun down Muslims leaving a mosque. Another chap spoke happily of how he squirted dog poo through a local Asian's letterbox. Another cheerfully admitted kicking an Asian in the head during the Bradford race riots, and how he took pleasure in seeing a floored opponent's body go limp when police picked him up. John Tyndall, the man who began the BNP many years ago, was caught on camera suggesting the only things African nations have given the world is black magic, witchcraft, voodoo and AIDS.
As if it wasn't bad enough that leading council members at candidates were caught on camera running their mouths of at the thought of butchering Asians and Muslims, even the party's leader Nick Griffin was exposed as being nothing more than a thug in a suit. Speaking at a rally in Keighley (an area of racial tension), Griffin stated that Islam was a 'vicious wicked faith' and that there was no 'shining knight coming along to slay the Islamic Dragon' and if area members didn't stand up and protect themselves, 'they'll do for your family'. According to Griffin in numerous post-programme interviews, he still stands by his statement, saying he's happy if he's prosecuted and that it just shows the law is an ass.
This from the person who is 'telling the truth'. This is the person thinks Britain is under threat from a rising Islamic threat, and openly admitted on an Newsnight interview that one of the reasons thet Islamic faith has grown over the past hundreds of years is because of rape (thankfully, the interview made him look utterly ridiculous and to see him cough and splutter his frankly pathetic answers was a joy).
If there's anyone left out there who still thinks the BNP are doing the right thing for your country, then for Christ's sake stop kidding yourself. The BNP have been exposed as the racist criminal thugs they are, and hopefully Griffin and his hateful cronies will be subjected to a nice long prison sentence for inciting racial hatred.
The fact that 750,000 people voted for the BNP in June makes me feel genuinely sick.
One member running for Councillor spoke of his desire to sit at the top of a hill in town (where all the area's mosques are visible) and let loose with a rocket launcher. The same charming fellow also let slip his fantasy of 'shooting P***s' and how he'd love to get a transit van with a machine gun in the back ("like them helicopters") and gun down Muslims leaving a mosque. Another chap spoke happily of how he squirted dog poo through a local Asian's letterbox. Another cheerfully admitted kicking an Asian in the head during the Bradford race riots, and how he took pleasure in seeing a floored opponent's body go limp when police picked him up. John Tyndall, the man who began the BNP many years ago, was caught on camera suggesting the only things African nations have given the world is black magic, witchcraft, voodoo and AIDS.
As if it wasn't bad enough that leading council members at candidates were caught on camera running their mouths of at the thought of butchering Asians and Muslims, even the party's leader Nick Griffin was exposed as being nothing more than a thug in a suit. Speaking at a rally in Keighley (an area of racial tension), Griffin stated that Islam was a 'vicious wicked faith' and that there was no 'shining knight coming along to slay the Islamic Dragon' and if area members didn't stand up and protect themselves, 'they'll do for your family'. According to Griffin in numerous post-programme interviews, he still stands by his statement, saying he's happy if he's prosecuted and that it just shows the law is an ass.
This from the person who is 'telling the truth'. This is the person thinks Britain is under threat from a rising Islamic threat, and openly admitted on an Newsnight interview that one of the reasons thet Islamic faith has grown over the past hundreds of years is because of rape (thankfully, the interview made him look utterly ridiculous and to see him cough and splutter his frankly pathetic answers was a joy).
If there's anyone left out there who still thinks the BNP are doing the right thing for your country, then for Christ's sake stop kidding yourself. The BNP have been exposed as the racist criminal thugs they are, and hopefully Griffin and his hateful cronies will be subjected to a nice long prison sentence for inciting racial hatred.
The fact that 750,000 people voted for the BNP in June makes me feel genuinely sick.
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> I've known the Home Office to get figures wrong. In fact you may
> remember they published figures a couple of weeks back claiming that
> terrorist attacks in the last year had dropped - before quickly
> retracting their findings and labelling them inaccurate and wrong.
Firstly: How exactly is that providing the figures that you believe to be right. Lets have them Mary.
Secondly: The figures you're referring to are the White House's figures about terrorist attacks. Not any of the Home Offices; can you explain to me why the Home Office would publish a report on International Terrorism? In other words, you're either lying or you've got your facts wrong.
Thirdly: Gonna answer all the many other questions open to you at the moment?
>
> I've known the Home Office to get figures wrong. In fact you may
> remember they published figures a couple of weeks back claiming that
> terrorist attacks in the last year had dropped - before quickly
> retracting their findings and labelling them inaccurate and wrong.
Firstly: How exactly is that providing the figures that you believe to be right. Lets have them Mary.
Secondly: The figures you're referring to are the White House's figures about terrorist attacks. Not any of the Home Offices; can you explain to me why the Home Office would publish a report on International Terrorism? In other words, you're either lying or you've got your facts wrong.
Thirdly: Gonna answer all the many other questions open to you at the moment?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Anyway Mary, where abouts are these figures for the actual numbers
> of
> immigrant applications? You've said the Home Office figures are
> wrong; lets have the real figures please. Or are you going to run
> squealing again?
>
> I've known the Home Office to get figures wrong. In fact you may
> remember they published figures a couple of weeks back claiming that
> terrorist attacks in the last year had dropped - before quickly
> retracting their findings and labelling them inaccurate and wrong.
Ok - so, the actual figures of immigrant applications that Light asked for?
> Light wrote:
> Anyway Mary, where abouts are these figures for the actual numbers
> of
> immigrant applications? You've said the Home Office figures are
> wrong; lets have the real figures please. Or are you going to run
> squealing again?
>
> I've known the Home Office to get figures wrong. In fact you may
> remember they published figures a couple of weeks back claiming that
> terrorist attacks in the last year had dropped - before quickly
> retracting their findings and labelling them inaccurate and wrong.
Ok - so, the actual figures of immigrant applications that Light asked for?
Light wrote:
> Anyway Mary, where abouts are these figures for the actual numbers of
> immigrant applications? You've said the Home Office figures are
> wrong; lets have the real figures please. Or are you going to run
> squealing again?
I've known the Home Office to get figures wrong. In fact you may remember they published figures a couple of weeks back claiming that terrorist attacks in the last year had dropped - before quickly retracting their findings and labelling them inaccurate and wrong.
> Anyway Mary, where abouts are these figures for the actual numbers of
> immigrant applications? You've said the Home Office figures are
> wrong; lets have the real figures please. Or are you going to run
> squealing again?
I've known the Home Office to get figures wrong. In fact you may remember they published figures a couple of weeks back claiming that terrorist attacks in the last year had dropped - before quickly retracting their findings and labelling them inaccurate and wrong.
Sorry to anyone who took offense to my views, can't be bothered to argue my case any more, and forrest fan you are stupid.
Light wrote:
> Anyway Mary, where abouts are these figures for the actual numbers of
> immigrant applications? You've said the Home Office figures are
> wrong; lets have the real figures please. Or are you going to run
> squealing again?
Yes, this is something I was thinking about - if you won't trust the main body of authority, then fine, but you should have a lot of other sources using similar figures to make your point valid.
If only Mary would find some of these sources for us.
> Anyway Mary, where abouts are these figures for the actual numbers of
> immigrant applications? You've said the Home Office figures are
> wrong; lets have the real figures please. Or are you going to run
> squealing again?
Yes, this is something I was thinking about - if you won't trust the main body of authority, then fine, but you should have a lot of other sources using similar figures to make your point valid.
If only Mary would find some of these sources for us.
Goatboy wrote:
> Everything I was going to write. Only funnier. Especially the image of >Mary having sex with dogs whilst muttering to himself that they're dirty > prostitute dogs who are trying to tempt him.
Anyway Mary, where abouts are these figures for the actual numbers of immigrant applications? You've said the Home Office figures are wrong; lets have the real figures please. Or are you going to run squealing again?
> Everything I was going to write. Only funnier. Especially the image of >Mary having sex with dogs whilst muttering to himself that they're dirty > prostitute dogs who are trying to tempt him.
Anyway Mary, where abouts are these figures for the actual numbers of immigrant applications? You've said the Home Office figures are wrong; lets have the real figures please. Or are you going to run squealing again?
Possibly Slanderous?
We've pointed this out already, but written is Libel.
And only applies with the deliberate intention of causing malicious damage to your personal good name.
Except your name isn't mentioned, your real name. Nobody knows who you are, because nobody cares.
*belms furiously*
Possibly slanderous....you utter, utter tool. Read your own link that defines slander.
Light saying you're a racist isn't slander, it isn't even libel.
And Goatboy saying that he thinks you're a 2nd-rate racist troll with idiot fundamentalist leanings and likes to have sex with dogs in underpasses isn't slander either.
Nor is it libel.
Unless you'd like to post your full name and address and invite several (non-existent)friends and colleagues to view the page. Then it might be considered libel.
POSSIBLY SLANDEROUS!!!!!
We've pointed this out already, but written is Libel.
And only applies with the deliberate intention of causing malicious damage to your personal good name.
Except your name isn't mentioned, your real name. Nobody knows who you are, because nobody cares.
*belms furiously*
Possibly slanderous....you utter, utter tool. Read your own link that defines slander.
Light saying you're a racist isn't slander, it isn't even libel.
And Goatboy saying that he thinks you're a 2nd-rate racist troll with idiot fundamentalist leanings and likes to have sex with dogs in underpasses isn't slander either.
Nor is it libel.
Unless you'd like to post your full name and address and invite several (non-existent)friends and colleagues to view the page. Then it might be considered libel.
POSSIBLY SLANDEROUS!!!!!
Light wrote:
> Well now Mary and kevstar; lets see if your racist little brains can
> come up with alternate figures. Cos it seems that all you've done is
> attempt to criticise the ones produced. And as you have no
> alternative figures of your own to show...
Light mate, click this link:
[URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slander[/URL]
I take great offence at you calling me racist and I'll report your post.
> Well now Mary and kevstar; lets see if your racist little brains can
> come up with alternate figures. Cos it seems that all you've done is
> attempt to criticise the ones produced. And as you have no
> alternative figures of your own to show...
Light mate, click this link:
[URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slander[/URL]
I take great offence at you calling me racist and I'll report your post.
"with our roads and railways seizing up, our town centres near gridlock, "
lets be fair, its not the immegrants fault that thisis happening. I mean, its the Railway authority and some cases greedy companies making our life hell on the railways. Plus our railway systems are old and need modernising etc. Maybe more trains or something.
Roads, its a little far fetched to see how this happens as we've talked aready, most asylum seekers don't have cars. Second, as our country gets more advanced and more people look for their fortunes in the urban areas of course its going to be gridlock. Look at america. They invented the word GRIDLOCK. Now you mention that we have more purportion of people then america, if thats the case, we've done surprisingly well not to be gridlocked up to this point. Every country suffers from it and its not uncommon.
lets be fair, its not the immegrants fault that thisis happening. I mean, its the Railway authority and some cases greedy companies making our life hell on the railways. Plus our railway systems are old and need modernising etc. Maybe more trains or something.
Roads, its a little far fetched to see how this happens as we've talked aready, most asylum seekers don't have cars. Second, as our country gets more advanced and more people look for their fortunes in the urban areas of course its going to be gridlock. Look at america. They invented the word GRIDLOCK. Now you mention that we have more purportion of people then america, if thats the case, we've done surprisingly well not to be gridlocked up to this point. Every country suffers from it and its not uncommon.
kevstar wrote:
> Do you think I was excluding the IRA?
> Im'e talking about all
> terrorists or getting rid of them whatever thier culture. But does it
> not make sense that the more people that come into our country, then
> the more at risk we become?
Right, so we're to ban absolutely everyone from coming into our country? No tourists, no visitors, just good old Brits eh? Oh, except that a lot of the IRA are actually UK citzens cos they're Northern Irish. Or maybe we should only ban people with those funny foreign sounding names eh?
> >I already answered that question, you clearly can't see in front
> of your nose.
Yes, and I believe your answer was along the lines of "no it won't". A little evidence for your answers please; not everyone on this board believes whatever the Daily Mail says.
> I agreed I might be paranoid but again if you read properly they were
> asking my opinions,
Yes, they were. Can you give me any reason why I'm not allowed to point out just why your opinion is based solely on your own egocentric paranoia, and not actually rooted in any facts at all about immigrants?
>Already have
And those figures are from? Tell me, or provide a link to the website you got them from please.
> Do you think I was excluding the IRA?
> Im'e talking about all
> terrorists or getting rid of them whatever thier culture. But does it
> not make sense that the more people that come into our country, then
> the more at risk we become?
Right, so we're to ban absolutely everyone from coming into our country? No tourists, no visitors, just good old Brits eh? Oh, except that a lot of the IRA are actually UK citzens cos they're Northern Irish. Or maybe we should only ban people with those funny foreign sounding names eh?
> >I already answered that question, you clearly can't see in front
> of your nose.
Yes, and I believe your answer was along the lines of "no it won't". A little evidence for your answers please; not everyone on this board believes whatever the Daily Mail says.
> I agreed I might be paranoid but again if you read properly they were
> asking my opinions,
Yes, they were. Can you give me any reason why I'm not allowed to point out just why your opinion is based solely on your own egocentric paranoia, and not actually rooted in any facts at all about immigrants?
>Already have
And those figures are from? Tell me, or provide a link to the website you got them from please.
Page: