A LOCAL BLOG SUPPORTING THE BRITISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIGENOUS BRITISH PEOPLE AND ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE OF WIGAN AND LEIGH IN OUR FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM, THE TRAITORS IN PARLIAMENT AND FOR OUR BIRTHRIGHT. - "NO FOREIGN PRINCE, PERSON, PRELATE, STATE OR POTENTATE HATH, OR OUGHT TO HAVE, ANY JURISDICTION, POWER, SUPERIORITY, PRE-EMINENCE, OR AUTHORITY, ECCLESIASTICAL OR SPIRITUAL, WITHIN THIS REALM" (ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS 1689)
Condell's angry again (rightly so) Morg. It's a good rant, but it's a shame that he gave the plug for UKIP rather than the BNP. Still, he did have the decency not to attack the BNP and laid into all three main Westminster parties.
Posting a video from a person (Pat Condell) telling people to vote UKIP, really shows a true commitment to free speech from the Wigan group. As a UKIP member myself, I will of course will be voting UKIP next week (well probably I will). But I have to ask myself: "how many UKIP blogs will include a BNP video on their site?".
This makes me proud to be a follower of the Wigan blog.
To be fair to Pat Condell, when he attacks the BNP he may simply be confusing the party with its leadership, the first of which is decent and honest, while the later (ie. the leadership) is beyond any doubt untrustworthy.
From Chris Hill (Lancaster) PS. Then again Mr Condell just might be a two faced git!
I've no problem with Condell supporting UKIP, as thankfully we still just about have the right to support parties other than the big three. It's a great shame however that the nationalist vote is going to be split in this General Election between the BNP, UKIP and the English Democrats. Hopefully, this will not be the case in 2015. By then however, will we still be legally permitted to hold moderate nationalist views? Did not the recent EHRC court case against the BNP rule that it was 'racist' to pursue a policy platform halting and reversing mass immigration?
I had exactly this same argument with Mark Wadsworth over on his own blog - he'd said exactly what you said.
He corrected his post saying what you said - not very graciously, but he did correct it. I wish you had corrected. You know the rule - when you are in a hole: stop digging. But you just went and hired a JCB instead, and dug yourself deeper in.
Can I ask what do you mean when you say: "I'm deleting you until you correct your above comment" are you saying that I shouldn't criticise Condell for being Two faced?
As you wish Chris (see? I read your comment in the moderation stage then deleted it).
I have made plain to you how you can correct this situation if you wish (And it is you that must do the correcting, not me): all you have to do is correct the lie you told. I am now convinced that it was a lie, not a mere mistake. And you already know that, because I have made it quite plain to you. You choose to compound the lie by pretending you don't know what's going on here. Like I said - you find yourself in a hole so you go and hire a JCB. Maybe you're not as clever as your claimed Doctorate (of what, I wonder?) would normally imply.
You're also spamming, Chris, and I wont stand for that either.
Oh - and there has recently been NOTHING constructive about your comments, as you claimed. Disruptive yes, constructive no. Lies are never constructive in ANY context.
You don't even have to apologise for lying - all you need do is correct the lie. You don't even have to admit you were lying - just say you were mistaken (another lie, but one I can tolerate, I suppose), and give the correction.
That is one comment I WILL let through. And no, it's not censorship to refuse to allow people to profit from a lie. You may (or may not, apparently) be clever, but you're not clever enough to bamboozle ME with words. I'm not saying such a thing can't be done - it just can't be done by YOU.
15 comments:
Condell's angry again (rightly so) Morg. It's a good rant, but it's a shame that he gave the plug for UKIP rather than the BNP. Still, he did have the decency not to attack the BNP and laid into all three main Westminster parties.
Morg,
Thanks, for the link to Paxo the creep, interview with Nick Griffin, the only true politician.
Anyone, thinking film star Clegg, is the answer, take a look at his mate, pussy Simon Hughes, begging for the Muslim vote, makes your skin crawl.
You tube
MP:simon hughes his wishes for more muslim mps and muslim pm!
Posting a video from a person (Pat Condell) telling people to vote UKIP, really shows a true commitment to free speech from the Wigan group. As a UKIP member myself, I will of course will be voting UKIP next week (well probably I will). But I have to ask myself: "how many UKIP blogs will include a BNP video on their site?".
This makes me proud to be a follower of the Wigan blog.
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
Dear Durotrigan (23:54 hrs),
To be fair to Pat Condell, when he attacks the BNP he may simply be confusing the party with its leadership, the first of which is decent and honest, while the later (ie. the leadership) is beyond any doubt untrustworthy.
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
PS.
Then again Mr Condell just might be a two faced git!
Dear Dr Chris,
I've no problem with Condell supporting UKIP, as thankfully we still just about have the right to support parties other than the big three. It's a great shame however that the nationalist vote is going to be split in this General Election between the BNP, UKIP and the English Democrats. Hopefully, this will not be the case in 2015. By then however, will we still be legally permitted to hold moderate nationalist views? Did not the recent EHRC court case against the BNP rule that it was 'racist' to pursue a policy platform halting and reversing mass immigration?
Chris
I'm deleting you until you correct your above comment.
You didn't think I would leave an anti-BNP rant up did you?
I don't like doing it, but I viewed that as an out-and-out challenge. Cheeky in the extreme.
Shouldn't piss me off when I'm in pain.
I had exactly this same argument with Mark Wadsworth over on his own blog - he'd said exactly what you said.
He corrected his post saying what you said - not very graciously, but he did correct it. I wish you had corrected. You know the rule - when you are in a hole: stop digging. But you just went and hired a JCB instead, and dug yourself deeper in.
Hi again Morg,
Can I ask what do you mean when you say: "I'm deleting you until you correct your above comment" are you saying that I shouldn't criticise Condell for being Two faced?
lol @ Morg =)
Chris
You can ask ... there is no compulsion on me, or indeed any of us, to answer - or even publish your question.
You're not thick Chris - so stop pretending you don't understand.
As you wish Chris (see? I read your comment in the moderation stage then deleted it).
I have made plain to you how you can correct this situation if you wish (And it is you that must do the correcting, not me): all you have to do is correct the lie you told. I am now convinced that it was a lie, not a mere mistake. And you already know that, because I have made it quite plain to you. You choose to compound the lie by pretending you don't know what's going on here. Like I said - you find yourself in a hole so you go and hire a JCB. Maybe you're not as clever as your claimed Doctorate (of what, I wonder?) would normally imply.
You're also spamming, Chris, and I wont stand for that either.
Oh - and there has recently been NOTHING constructive about your comments, as you claimed. Disruptive yes, constructive no. Lies are never constructive in ANY context.
You don't even have to apologise for lying - all you need do is correct the lie. You don't even have to admit you were lying - just say you were mistaken (another lie, but one I can tolerate, I suppose), and give the correction.
That is one comment I WILL let through. And no, it's not censorship to refuse to allow people to profit from a lie. You may (or may not, apparently) be clever, but you're not clever enough to bamboozle ME with words. I'm not saying such a thing can't be done - it just can't be done by YOU.
Post a Comment